Axis and Allies first turns - Germany

@ncscswitch:

You do not expect me to give away ALL of my tricks now do you?

:mrgreen:

Give meh teh trixies!

–

It is obvious . . . you have come to fear Bristle Fendlestick.

Yes, it all seems so clear, and so pitiful, to me now!

–

On the topic of G1 Sealion - MOST of the German fighters are out of range of London (remember they have to land), so you need to get Long Range Aircraft to get your air in range.  However, that ALSO means that you CANNOT be playing Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR - which by the way ARE UNOFFICIAL  :-P even if they are used in the only tournament I know of with Wizards prize support . . . but I digress; LHTR delays tech from going into effect until the end of a country’s turn, so G1 Sea Lion doesn’t work under LHTR).

ANYWAYS - the cost for G1 SeaLion using Out of the Box Rules is pretty considerable.  First, it is assumed that Russia did NOT fly any fighters to London (which they SHOULD have if there was a risk of Sealion).  Second, it assumes that Germany does NOT blow a wad of IPCs on tech.  Third, the more Germany spends on tech rolls, the less units Germany can buy (so I advocate rolling only 6 dice at most, even though that DOES give approx 33.5% chane of failure, hence almost automatic loss in those cases against all but the worst Allied players).  Fourth, even if Germany succeeds, good AA rolls by UK can wipe out the German attack before it even gets started.  Fifth, even if THAT does not happen, Germany’s air is badly depleted.  Sixth, UK can retake on its turn with battleship support shot and E. Canada tank, while US reinforces on its turn with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bom 1 fighter, leaving Germany in poor position (usually) to secure London on G2.  Seventh, Russia will be very strong for at least a few turns, as there won’t be a lot of German units moving to Germany’s east front.

So - that is - it is pretty darn risky to run G1 Sea Lion, and even if Germany DOES make it, the Allies STILL have quite a decent game going on; if UK retakes London on its turn (very possible), it’s pretty much a case of Germany losing 3-6 fighters and possibly bomber for UK’s 30 IPC and London units.  Only if UK cannot retake on its turn is it really a great move for Germany, as UK stays down that 30 IPC, and the US cannot reinforce nearly as well on its turn, so Germany can possibly SECURE London on G2, assuming Germany had the IPC to buy an additional Baltic transport, so it can transport four units into UK on the next turn (hopefully six units with battleship support shot with the Mediterranean fleet).

Basically . . . G1 Sea Lion is not a solid move, IMHO.  It’s riskier than King’s Pawn Gambit, and has much less of a “solid” line of play.

@goldenbearflyer:

After further review, I wouldn’t use my valuable gaming hours trying SeaLion even in a casual game.  I used the frood.net simulator with the following units:

Attacker 2inf 6ftr 1bom (assuming tech rolls to get long-range aircraft, which would debilitate Germany anyway), Defender 2inf 1art 1arm 2ftr 1bom 1AA.  Based on Low Luck, the results of 1,000 battles were 67% of the time Germany loses everything and UK is left with 1ftr.  That’s horrendous.  Entertaining for the Allies, maybe, but seriously stupid! :lol:  Maybe everybody knew this already, but I thought it was interesting to check it out.

I’m still looking for a German strat I like…

Try using 1 inf 1 TANK 6 ftr 1 bom.

A survives 71.3; D survives 25, nobody survives 3.8.  I think I edited it to kill the UK bomber first.  Probably.

Sealion.  Rawr.

(edit) don’t forget, this battle comes AFTER rolling for tech.  And if you don’t make the tech roll, bleah.  Assuming you use 6 dice, you have a 66.5% chance of success.  So if you start off, roll six tech dice for LRA, then have the battle, you will only win - and remember, your German air force will be shot up - is really only like 47% overall.  Then you have to deal with the aftermath.  Of course, you could use 8 dice, but that’s pretty much a disaster because Germany can almost certainly not secure London.  On the other hand, if you use 8 dice, it could be a very sound plan for Germany - IF Germany had an extra Baltic sub. (/edit)

yey time to leave “work” . . . hohoho.

(I ask for work, I really do.  But they don’t want to give me any, they’re like “rawr”.  What can I do?)

@ncscswitch:

OK, you asked…

Here is ONE way to crack the Med early and permanently…

UK1:  Buy an AC
US1:  Buy an AC
US2:  Buy a BB

I’ll let you work out the details from there…

(pat pat) sure u will lolz.

@ncscswitch:

OK, you asked…

Here is ONE way to crack the Med early and permanently…

UK1:  Buy an AC
US1:  Buy an AC
US2:  Buy a BB

I’ll let you work out the details from there…

BTW, with all the IPC you spend on there, supplementing Russia through Norway/Karelia/Archangel or Eastern Europe, and sending in ground units to invade Africa, will take some time.

I do not debate that the UK and US CAN dominate the Atlantic and Mediterranean early.  However, I do not believe that it is possible for the Allies to dominate the Mediterranean AND send heavy ground reinforcements to Africa and/or Europe early.

@froodster:

@General_D.Fox:

@polywog:

Yeah, agreed - hopefully his new gig’s in a similar line of work.

Back to sealion. I think a G1 sealion is a nice parlor trick, but be careful not to lose to many of those fighters - you may regret it later. However, I’ve been the allies in a game with a 3 transport buy for the baltic on G1. It definitely makes the UK player start the game pretty defensively.

What happened to Dan? Did he get a new job or what?  Is he still around?

Aww, it’s so nice to be remembered - yes, I got a job! But it does not affect me being around here. I’ve just been laying low. Still checking in, but not feeling as motivated to post my responses. Come to think of it, I have been totally absent from the strategy threads. It’s those general/political threads that were just getting me down.

So I’m going to read this thread a bit more and maybe post some thoughts. Bet you all can’t wait! 8-)

Yes, I approve of Satchel.

@goldenbearflyer:

@newpaintbrush:

@ncscswitch:

OK, you asked…

Here is ONE way to crack the Med early and permanently…

UK1:  Buy an AC
US1:  Buy an AC
US2:  Buy a BB

I’ll let you work out the details from there…

BTW, with all the IPC you spend on there, supplementing Russia through Norway/Karelia/Archangel or Eastern Europe, and sending in ground units to invade Africa, will take some time.

I do not debate that the UK and US CAN dominate the Atlantic and Mediterranean early. However, I do not believe that it is possible for the Allies to dominate the Mediterranean AND send heavy ground reinforcements to Africa and/or Europe early.

I concur, but if Germany has 4-5ftr in WEur and a sizable naval presence (which I do in my current game) ncscswitch is correct; the build order has to start with big ships for protection, doesn’t it?  Because if you try to build trannies first and start moving ground troops, the Germans will simply sink the trannies.  And slowing down the trannie shuttles plays into the German strategy, even if the Kriegsmarine ultimately gets blown out of the water.

The build order starts with big ships if you’re going KJF.  Japan probably blew up the carrier at Hawaii, and it is almost unthinkable to conduct a naval battle without fighters.  So you need to build the carrier(s).  And since you have to contend with Japan’s gigantic fleet, which should almost certainly consist of 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5 transports, 6 fighters, 1 bomber - at the very LEAST, you MUST have ships for KJF.  (remember, Japan hasn’t even really done anything to defend itself with that listed navy/air force - it’s just building what it ALWAYS should build, IMHO at least)

But I do not believe that big ships are always necessary for KGF.

My thought is - if I build big ships in the Atlantic, I can dominate the German navy.  But I do not care about the German navy.  What I want is to protect Moscow, and that usually means destroying the German army.

Germany can retreat from battleships and carriers.  If Germany retreats, the Allies must either stand off (in which case that big navy does nothing), or press inwards, in which case the Allied navy is vulnerable to Germany navy AND air.  So if I move in with a few ships, the German Luftwaffe blows them up.  If I move in with a LOT of ships, the German navy and Luftwaffe blows them up.

On the other hand, if the Allies build transports, the Allies can stay at the fringes of German territory, transporting troops in.  If the German navy gets in range, the German navy risks getting blown up by the ALLIES combined navy/air.

To give an example - let us say that I have the UK battleship, the US destroyer from the Atlantic, the US destroyer from Panama, 4 UK transports, and 3 US transports.  That is a considerable fleet, yes?  Now, for various reasons, we can assume that the Germans can only attack with 5 fighters 1 bomber.  This does NOT assume that the Germans lost a fighter with a R1 Ukraine attack.  It is simply likely that not all of Germany’s air will be in place to attack the Allied fleet at one time (since Germany may want to threaten other sea zones, and/or trade territory with Russia).  Without going into details, I can say it’s a pretty safe bet that if Germany decides to do that attack, Germany will probably lose big time.  The Allies get a free hit on their battleship, then they trade 8 IPC transports for 10 IPC fighters.  After the attack, the Allies will probably be able to rebuild their fleet EXTREMELY fast, because really, there’s not much else for the Allies to spend IPCs on (usually no threat to London or Washington, unless Germany or Japan spent IPCs to make it so, and that has its own set of drawbacks for the Axis).

The primary zones to offload are the sea zone west of Algeria, and the sea zone northwest of Norway, and the sea zone adjacent to Archangel.  Those are the Big Ones.

Now - assuming that the Germans have a Baltic fleet and a Mediterranean fleet - (if the Germans look like they’re going for a combined fleet, the Allies should build fighters and defend London)

WHAT if the Allies offload in the sea zone west of Algeria?  If the German battleship/transport are near Anglo-Egypt or Caucasus (the latter, if the battleship were used for support shot vs Ukraine or Caucasus), then the German battleship and transport will NOT be in range, so the Germans must attack with air only, very likely leading to the already described.

WHAT if the German battleship/transport are at S. Europe?  Then the Germans can potentially destroy a considerably larger Allied fleet, but if the Germans do NOT retreat, the German battleship will be lost next turn to Allied air.  If the Germans DO retreat, the UK will keep its battleship.

And of course, if the Germans do NOT attack the Allied fleet, the Allies can keep dumping units into Algeria.

WHAT if a German fleet is in the Baltic?  If so, the Allies can transport to the sea zone north of Archangel; if the Baltic fleet moves to block at the sea zone northwest of Norway, the Allied navy and air can attack the German navy.  (Because of the overwhelming numerical advantage, and the ability of UK to build a carrier in that sea zone, any German air counter on the following turn may very well not work).  If the Baltic fleet runs to W. Europe, the Allies can keep transporting units into Archangel.

–

Of course, the key is controlling the northeast, so the Allies can continue funnelling infantry into Archangel.  That really stops the Axis.

The simplest Allied plan is to unite early in the sea zone west of Algeria, dump enough infantry and units to secure Africa (unless Japan really goes nuts trying to grab Africa, but that is pretty expensive for Japan considering the number of transports needed, and the units that are pulled away from the march to Moscow).  It is expensive for the Germans to try to stop those transports.

The Allies can follow up with a move to the Baltic; during the turns in which they are moving the Allied fleet from Africa to Norway, the Allies can get extra transports for naval insurance, extra fighters for air insurance, etc.  It is more than just “expensive” for Germany to try to stop the Baltic navy.

Basically - start with transports to force the issue of Africa early, and to keep up a steady threat.  You don’t need more ships than what you start with, just to operate on the fringe of Germany.

To my thinking, starting with capital ships for the Allies in the Atlantic is like winding up for a haymaker.  If and when it hits, Germany’s in trouble.  But if it doesn’t land in time, the Allies will be in trouble instead.

I prefer to start with transports.  You start out with jabs, and you build up for the knockout (i.e. massive numbers of infantry and transports all over the place)

PART THREE:

I just finished the first half of part four, and realized I hadn’t written part three.  Oh well.

PART FOUR:

The Allies will usually want to KGF (Kill Germany First), or KJF (Kill Japan First).  Almost all games effectively end up one way or another.  Again, Germany’s first move should be dependent on what Russia did.

If Russia attacked West Russia and Belorussia, and moved a tank and fighters east (especially east of Moscow), and piled infantry at Burytia, and very likely piled a few additional infantry at Ssinkiang, the Allies are clearly going KJF.

If Russia attacked West Russia and Ukraine, and fortified Caucasus (also moving fighters into Caucasus), and moved most of its infantry west, the Allies are very likely going KGF.

To respond to an upcoming KGF, Germany will want fighters, both to deal with the inevitable Atlantic fleet, and to help trade territory with Russia.

To respond to an upcoming KJF, Germany will want to build a lot of ground units to battle it out against Russia.  Midgame transports in the Mediterranean can provide an added boost against Ukraine/Caucasus.

–

At this point, I must make some assumptions.  I must assume that the Axis have a bid, and that that bid has been placed in Libya and/or Algeria.  My reasons are this:

The waters off Anglo-Egypt hold a UK destroyer, and Anglo-Egypt itself is held by infantry, tank, and  fighter.  If Anglo-Egypt is left alone, UK can use the Anglo-Egypt forces for a very strong India.  If Anglo-Egypt is controlled by the UK at the start of its turn, UK can send its Indian fleet into the Mediterranean early.  Therefore, I think it vital for Germany to destroy the Anglo-Egypt forces and capture Anglo-Egypt if possible.  If Germany attacks the UK destroyer with only the German battleship and transport (the transport being used to offload units to Anglo-Egypt), there is a small but very real chance that the Germans will NOT win the battle, and the German player will have to choose between losing the loaded transport (leading to either a probably reduced German airforce as there is less fodder for Anglo-Egypt), or the quick collapse of the Mediterranean (with no German naval defense against fighters from the Caucasus).

Now, IF there is no German bid in Africa, the Germans are almost forced to move the Mediterranean fleet east, to take control of Anglo-Egypt without losing any of its valuable tanks.  Still, UK can recapture Anglo-Egypt on its turn, which leads to subsequent problems for the Germans, particularly in a KGF.

IF there is a bid in Africa, though, the Germans have two good choices.  Either the Germans can use the Mediterranean fleet to bolster Anglo-Egypt as usual, or the Germans can send the Mediterranean fleet west to take Gibraltar (even though Gibraltar isn’t worth IPCs, it’s useful as a fighter base).  Now, if the Germans take Anglo-Egypt, they can attack with six ground units (2 from Libya, 2 from the bid placement, and 2 more from the Mediterranean transport), plus 1-2 fighters (from Ukraine-Balkans) plus 1 bomber (from German); this will leave the Germans with a strong hold on Anglo-Egypt that UK will find difficult to counterattack (even with 3 inf 1 fighter 1 bomber; inf from Trans-Jordan and India, fighter from Indian carrier, and bomber from London; the fighter and bomber land together south of Anglo-Egypt, making them collectively a bit risky for Germany to destroy).  Germany will also have the option of taking Anglo-Egypt with the 2 units from Libya, 2 from the bid, plus 1-2 German fighters and the German bomber, while sending the Mediterranean navy west to take Gibraltar (threatening to unite with the Baltic fleet off Western Europe on G2).  Note that sending the Mediterranean navy west to take Gibraltar also has the effect of very probably preserving the German Atlantic sub, and freeing German fighters to attack other targets than the UK battleship off Gibraltar.

If the Russian player wants to attack Ukraine, a single German infantry additional infantry at Ukraine will not necessarily deter that plan.  Russia could try attacking with two of its available tanks plus sundry, and get lucky; in that case, the Ukraine-placed German infantry would have been of little use.  TWO German infantry at Ukraine could be sufficient deterrent, but then Germany will not have the options with the Mediterranean described above.

–

That said –

If Russia has tanks in Ukraine, those tanks must almost certainly be destroyed.  However, Germany must be wary of the probable Russian counter from Russia and Caucasus.  What this means is that Germany probably cannot afford to commit tanks to the Ukraine battle, because any committed German tanks would be destroyed.  This seems to indicate that air is required, but there are a great number of German targets on the first turn, in a typical non-bid game.  (Usually, since the Germans almost must use their battleship/transport against Anglo-Egypt, the German sub in the Atlantic is stranded, so the Atlantic sub is typically used as cannon fodder, accompanied by 3-4 German fighters, to sink the UK battleship off Gibraltar.  1 of the remaining fighters is often used as a safety for the German battleship/transport vs UK destroyer battle, the remaining German fighter and bomber are often used against Anglo-Egypt.)

So if Russia did attack the Ukraine, Germany may be best served either with transports in the Baltic (to force the UK to play defensively), pure tanks (combined with strategic bombing, to try to take Moscow very early), fighter/infantry, or fighter/infantry/tanks (for defense of the Atlantic while trading territory with Russia, using Eastern Europe as Russia uses West Russia).  Germany should probably beef up quite a bit at Eastern Europe, threatening to take the northern route early (forcing the bulk of the Russian forces to retreat from Ukraine, which can then be taken in turn from Eastern Europe).

If the German fighter survived a R1 attack on Ukraine, a G1 Sea Lion (with Out Of The Box rules) is also an option.

–

If Russia does NOT attack Ukraine, Germany should check other indicators to see what the Allies will do.  Russia’s attacking West Russia and Belorussia really doesn’t mean much; it’s the Allied noncombat movement that will be key.  If Russia moved 2-4 infantry into Ssinkiang, and/or fortified Soviet Far East or Yakut (the latter with up 9-10 infantry), those are good signs of a a KJF, particularly if Russia moved units towards India.  If Russia moved units towards India, Germany may be well advised to try a couple of tech rolls for Rockets; it can be anticipated that the Allies may attempt to build an industrial complex in India, and the combined IPC damage is pretty considerable when India, Caucasus, London, and Moscow are all in range.  (Note:  This assumes that FAQ rules for Rocket tech and industrial bombing are in place.  If those FAQs are NOT being used, and ONLY out of the box rules are used, German has the option of going V2s on London, which is basically building antiaircraft guns and going for Rocket tech, which will allow the Germans to completely shut down the UK and USSR economies quite quickly, so long as Germany can simply hold on to Germany and Eastern Europe).

It is very possible that Russia will not have really committed any units to Japan, so Germany should be wary of overambitious purchases that seek to exploit a KJF.

@ncscswitch:

I was asked how to control the Med NLT T5.

I replied.

Thank you ncsswitch.  I am sure I couldn’t figure out how a 42 IPC nation and a 30 IPC nation could together produce enough navy to beat out a 40 IPC nation that also has the distraction of a 24 IPC nation on its doorstep.

:roll:

heh heh.

No, seriously, then.  Do I understand that you concur with the idea that the Allies cannot control the Mediterranean early except at the expense of an extremely powerful Germany and Japan on the doorsteps of Moscow?

That is - that the Allies should not try to control the Mediterranean early unless they want to give the Axis a good and honest shot to win the game?

What is it that you DO recommend as the Allied strategy?