@Ender:
@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?
UK would have to be smoking something . . .
@Ender:
@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?
UK would have to be smoking something . . .
Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.
@Cmdr:
Ender:
I was replying to NBP’s comments about sinking England on G2.
Hey, YOU’RE the one that said you were going to “sink England”, Jen.
I’m the one that said Germany would have to pay in blood.
@Cmdr:
@Ender:
@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?
UK would have to be smoking something . . .
Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.
So now your position is that the Allies would at LEAST have to make a mistake to lose the UK fleet as early as G2, yes?
So - if I understand correctly - then you now concur that the Germans will NOT be blowing up the UK fleet on G2.
–
Anyways, I’m a bit interested to see how you reconcile a G1 carrier with your proposed G1 all-infantry buy in another thread. What DO you advocate as the G1 builds, and under what circumstances, Jen?
@Cmdr:
@Ender:
@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?
UK would have to be smoking something . . .
Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.
Jenn, the only thing that blocks a sub is a destroyer. The Russian sub is useless to block the sz5 subs from hitting sz3.
Germany’s role in a KGF is to engage and destroy as many Russians as possible before major Allied forces show up in Norway/ France/ Italy. Then you kill as many of the interlopers as possible to keep the US and Britain from strengthening the center of the game board and easing Russia’s burden.
Because of this, I would never leave a territory vacant on the front with Russia. Germany should as a general rule be uber-aggressive. You cannot allow the Allies (especially Russia) to stack. A stacking war favors the Allies, with the rare exception of economic supremacy for the Axis. You must thin the Russian forces. Pulling back and playing defensively (as a philosophy) leads to a slow German death.
This was probably covered 619 posts ago, but just weighing in after a long absence.
Hi 88 millimeter. I think this is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Personally I think Germany’s role is to delay the Allies as long as possible. That means barley trading territories, sneaking units into Africa to stall the Allies, massing infantry and perhaps carriers, etc. Give Japan some time to set up, you know?
Your strategy is a viable alternative, but its drawback is that you are wearing Germany thin to wear Russia down, thus making it easier for the other Allies to jump in earlier. While pulling back and playing defensively leads to a slow German death, playing offensively towards the Russians makes the German death quicker. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I mean sure there’s probably a correct objective answer but none of us are clever enough to calculate which way of playing actually is for sure and provably superior. All I can say is that it’s either a stacking war or a race to see who burns out first, and I can’t say that one is better than the other.
Just curious though how would Germany play offensively anyhow? Put more infantry into each territory when trading? Constantly harrass and push early with the existing navy? It just seems like doing any of those just invites the other Allies to come in faster, due to less defenses elsewhere.
Yea, Gamer, I mistyped. I meant to say Transport, Destroyer.
And I’ve always said that it would cost Germany to sink the British fleet. Never said otherwise. However, I then, and now, and probably will until LHTR gives England a destroyer in home waters, support the idea of sink it if you can cause it’s cheaper for you, Germany, to recover then for England!
After a full day of discussion…
My point was specifically in response to Dan’s counter about the UK liberating Archangel, and the destruction of the UK Fleet in SZ FOUR, not SZ3.
@ncscswitch:
After a full day of discussion…
My point was specifically in response to Dan’s counter about the UK liberating Archangel, and the destruction of the UK Fleet in SZ FOUR, not SZ3.
Roger that, and I think I responded - To kill the UK fleet in Z4 you need to commit a lot of air, of which the first two hits will be absorbed by sub + BB. A third hit will kill a TRN.
Germany needs its air for other things I think, but I agree, the UK fleet is vulnerable in Z4 on G2, it might take some damage, but it would also take out some fighters.
I’m starting to think that these discussions are pointless. This game can change so much in a single turn, and it’s usually impossible to foresee everything that will happen even two turns (not rounds) into the future. I can spend over an hour just analyzing what to do with a single move, and still be unsure as to what will happen next. You can’t predict either the dice or how your opponent will respond.
So, knowing that, and then to read Jenn’s posts where she spells out exactly what will happen over the course of 3-4 game rounds with dead certainty, how this country will have these islands, this country will have 20+ infantry in all of its territories, it just seems a little silly. Maybe others are doing it too but after reading Jenn’s essays I have to go to the grocery store to restock my salt cellar…
It’s just endless. I’m for testing things where the dice hit the cardboard. Its seems like all of these threads its just the same nonsense - no one is learning anything from anyone, and everyone is dead certain that they’re right.
Well, those who are the most certain of themselves and the least likely to change their opinions are the ones who post the most. I wouldn’t say it’s pointless though, I’m sure it gets some observers thinking at least.
I always learn something reading the threads.
And this also has been useful, for me.
Ender:
Why does Germany need to kill the SZ 4 British fleet??? It can, I guess. But wouldnt it be more effective to move Carrier, 2 Fighters, 2 Submarines, Transport and Destroyer to SZ 3 and cut it off forcing it to attack you?
Having the UK attack the German Fleet in SZ3 allows the UK to use both their fleet AND their air force, increasing the punch of their attack by nearly double.
Attacking the UK fleet in SZ4 does increase their defensive punch compared to making them go on the offensive, but also allows Germany to deal with only the Naval units instead of both the Royal Navy and the RAF at the same time as would occur in SZ3.
@ncscswitch:
Having the UK attack the German Fleet in SZ3 allows the UK to use both their fleet AND their air force, increasing the punch of their attack by nearly double.
Attacking the UK fleet in SZ4 does increase their defensive punch compared to making them go on the offensive, but also allows Germany to deal with only the Naval units instead of both the Royal Navy and the RAF at the same time as would occur in SZ3.
Nice analysis, Switch. I personally think that the best use of the Baltic fleet in the case that Britain goes to sz4 is to use one of your subs to block that fleet from loading troops from UK the following turn. Why get your whole Baltic fleet killed? It’s useful for protecting your back door until you build up your infantry screen. Bottom line, don’t waste your fleet for no good reason.
Yes, but your fleet also has a very good chance of doing serious damage to the British while you get the defense advantage. Sure, he can hit you with a few transports, carrier, couple fighters, battleship and bomber. So?
15 Attack Punch
You have Carrier, 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer and 2 Fighters
19 Defense Punch
He’ll have 9 hits before being completely destroyed, you’ll have 7 hits before being completely destroyed. Doesn’t sound like it’s too massively in England’s favor to do the attack.
Mutual destruction is UK advantage though… UK will rebuild fleet, Germany really can;t afford to.
So, instead of staging in SZ3, do the AF attack on SZ4 instead, lose some FIGs, buy some FIGs.
Then when UK tries to re-build their first fleet, you still have the Baltic Fleet intact to use for the SECOND attack on the UK fleet.
Actually Switch, the best move is a combination of the 2. A German fleet move to sz3 should be accompanied by an air only strafe on sz4 to reduce the amount of TP fodder available to the UK. In that case, the German fleet is still defensively strong and the UK is staring at most likely losing an offensive unit on the first round of attack against it. Plus, since the BB is actually the priority kill for Germany, it would be advantageous for Germany to preserve the subs and sacrifice surface navy and aircraft. If the UK still insists on attacking the sz3 fleet it forces the UK to push the battle to conclusion and risk the BB to the German subs because a retreat results in the BB being isolated from any UK naval builds to cover it.
Very true U-505.
Though the Baltic Fleet move to SZ3 would be contingent on the results of combat in SZ4 though in my opinion. If Germany gets hosed on dice in SZ4, then the fleet stays in the Baltic.
@ncscswitch:
Very true U-505.
Though the Baltic Fleet move to SZ3 would be contingent on the results of combat in SZ4 though in my opinion. If Germany gets hosed on dice in SZ4, then the fleet stays in the Baltic.
Makes sense to me. Also, U-505’s strategy is probably more effective if Germany purchased the Graf Zeppelin on G1. There’s nothing like staring at 2 subs, a transport, a destroyer, carrier and two fighters in sz3 with no transport fodder to cover UK’s BB and planes!! :-o
You definitely need the AC in a move to SZ3. Otherwise UK can destroy you with just their AF. If they have a BB to absorb damage, you could lose the Baltic Fleet potentially w/o loss to UK.
