Hypothetical German 1 Move

@Kaine:

Can england use its transports to move out of the hostile zone, pick up troops, and then move back in to the hostile zone (and then conduct an amphibious assault as normal if the subs are defeated) or must the transports, if they retreat, end up in a friendly sea zone?

Yes, this is legal, as long as the sea zone in which the transports are loading units is friendly.

@Kaine:

Further (and related) are there ANY restrictions on movement caused by starting in a hostile zone rather than a friendly?

The movement must be done in the Combat Movement phase.  It must follow all of the rules for Combat Movement, except that it need not end in combat.

I think the fall of 1 capitol for one full game turn (ie if it falls on USA’s turn, it must go all the way back to USA’s turn before it is a full turn) without liberation should do it.  In the case where two capitols fall (say Germany falls to England and Russia falls to Japan right after) then the game is back on keel and you keep going until one side surrenders, a capitol is liberated or another capitol is captured.

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

sure, I’d play ya IRL.  But I’m in NYC and you’re around Chicago, I think, yes?

OH wellz, what can ya do?

Without reinforcement, WEU falls to the Allies on Turn 2, and barring a re-direction of those massed ARM that HAD been going to Moscow being turned around and heading for Paris instead, the Allis will KEEP WEU for the remainder of the game.

Sink the British DD, then land an infantry and artillery in Anglo-Egypt as well as bringing up the units in Libya. If Russia sends a fighter to Anglo-Egypt on his first turn, then I would suggest sending the bomber from Germany.

edit: or fighter from Balkans or Ukraine.

Subs in germany is a terrible idea because US/Brit’s bombers will decimate them. Subs do not fire back at air units!