Overbuilding Transports with UK

Berlin’s not a threat because America cannot land a full 8 transports of equipment in Berlin without telegraphing the move and thus, proffering to the Germans time to compensate.

It’s a paper tiger for THIS MOVE.  England isn’t necessarily a paper tiger, it might be, it might not.  But the extra transports are still a waste.  They don’t effect more then a +1 or +2 infantry stack in W. Europe to prevent the landing or no extra units to allow the allies to suicide both forces on the shores.  Meanwhile, Germany will have Caucasus and can work on stacking there and at home until the allies have no chance, even with 100 transports, to take the land while Japan takes out Russia - which is how the game usually goes anyway.

USA TRN fleet in SZ7.

Now you have a risk to:
Western
Germany
Eastern
Karelia

Pick what to defend.  Because one of the others is being ripped to shit.  :evil:

Just show her already, ncsswitch.

:-o

Jen is 0 and 3 against me…, and has point blank stated in another thread that i am a superior gamer to her.  How much more proof does she need?  :evil:

But I do have her on the list for my League game after next (next is a re-match with SubDude).

Pre-negotiated bid of 7 IPC (because anything over 7 and I am the Axis, and the point is to test Allied TRN threats.

So, minor advantage to Jen… KGF known in advance.  :roll:

Actually, it’s more like 2 and 0 because the dice were so fracked after Russia 1 in the very first game you didn’t even want to play, so we restarted.  Let’s not misrepresent ourselves here.

And secondly, you have 8 US Transports in SZ 7?  Great.  I have Germany, E. Europe and W. Europe defended.  There’s no threat to Southern, so I don’t have to defend it.

@Cmdr:

You have to defend all of that anyway, Switch.  Defending against 4 more British guys is not going to adjust your stacks as Germany at all.  It will only decrease your odds of survival by 1 or 2% in most cases.

I’m sorry, did you just say that you would defend Germany the same whether UK had 4 or 6 Transports in range?

That’s pure BS. From my experience with the dice sim, adding even just one Inf can make a significant difference to your chance of survival in a battle of this size. Further, while the first wave of a 1-2 punch is often suicidal, the 2nd wave is much more profitable.

I love how you just make up numbers, like 1 or 2%.

If the enemy is attacking with 4 extra units, you pretty much need to add 3 units in defence at least, esp. if you are facing potential 1-2 attacks. If you have three or four territories facing that additional threat, that’s 9-12 Inf you have to keep back from the press on Russia.

Sim results…

Sample Battle:
Berlin with 10 INF (build units after sending the rest to the Russian Front), plus 3 FIG, 1 BOM (remaining Luftwaffe based in Berlin to fly to the front and back each turn), and AA gun.

Option 1:
4 INF, 2 ART, 2 ARM, 2 FIG, 1 BB (UK w/ typical income and 4 TRN)
9.3% UK win.

Option 2:
With 6 TRN available and 3 INF, 1 ART added from Norway (a pretty typical force, with any ARM in Norway racing ahead to Russian territory).
Now 7 INF, 3 ART, 2 ARM, 2 FIG, 1 BB…
65.9% win

And that option threatens every German territory along the Baltic… Western, Berlin, Eastern, as well as Karelia if Germany holds it.

And that is a single-nation landing.

30 INF, 9 FIGs, 3 BOM, 3 AA to achieve a 1 in 3 chance of defender victory in Western, Berlin or Eastern.

Now add a USA follow up, and a Russian one too while you are at it…
:wink:

Wow, and I thought you were smarter then to leave just 10 infantry, 3 fighters and a bomber in Germany, Switch.  Just about ANY Allied 1, 2 punch is going to beat that!

Let’s use some realistic numbers?

30 Infantry, 3 Armor, 2 Fighters in W. Europe
25 Infantry, 5 Armor, 4 Fighters in Germany
25 Infantry, 10 Armor in E. Europe

Now, you can hit W. Europe with 8 American Transports and 6 British Transports, you have 2 British Fighters, 1 British Bomber, you have 3 American Fighters, 1 American Bomber.  1 Battleship each.

Germany and E. Europe can only be hit by 6 British Transports and 4 American Transports.  W. Europe, Germany and E. Europe all have AA Guns.

Does 4 extra infantry with England successfully change the outcome?  Let’s see!

England attacks with either 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 1 Bomber or 8 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 1 Bomber against W. Europe

Using Dan’s simulator, England has the following chance with 6 transports: 0% leaving 23 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters in W. Europe
Using Dan’s simulator, England has the following chance with 4 transports: 0% leaving 25 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters in W. Europe.

Doesn’t look like the extra 4 infantry are doing anything at all at this point.

Let’s see what happens with half that Infantry stack in W. Europe - pretending the attack hits on round 5 instead of round 10.

Using Dan’s simulator, England has the following chance with 6 transports: 1% leaving 6 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters in W. Europe
Using Dan’s simulator, England has the following chance with 4 transports: 0% leaving 9 infantry, 3 armor, 2 fighters in W. Europe.

Well, as I said, we’re talking about a 1% swing in the numbers.  In all cases, 4 transports or 6 transports, round 5 or round 10, there is almost NO EFFECT AT ALL by adding 2 more transports to England’s landing forces.

Oh yea, you will notice I’m using realistic numbers.  Not 9 fighters, 6 transports and a bomber for England which is darn near impossible by round 5 and very improbably by round 10.  Also only using Germany’s starting airforce for defense, maybe +1 fighter if Russia killed one.  No really off the wall scenarios.  Also, no one in their right mind is going to leave 10 infantry, 3 fighters, 1 bomber in Germany.  Even against 4 transports, 2 fighters and a bomber followed by an american attack of 4 transports, 3 fighters and a bomber that’s a lost cause, thus, it is a very artfully portrayed, but yet still, strawman argument.

No, you are using unrealistic numbers for Germany.

Exactly how did you come up with 5-8 turns of pure INF builds and still maintain a single bit of pressure on Russia?

Your starting INF are insufficient to allow for any pressure on Moscow and still have 80 INF in 3 territories.

Who are you playing again that you are able to obtain those numbers?  :roll:
Because I KNOW you cannot obtain them against ME…

I’m using first hand experience.  That’s really realistic numbers.  No, you don’t have 40 infantry in Caucasus.  So what?  Russia’s moved into Karelia and in Moscow defending.  You don’t NEED moscow if you can’t defend Berlin.

In a current game of mine, it is round 16.  England did just what is being discussed here, and I am doing exactly what is discussed as a counter.  Turtled Germany with massive pressure on Russia.  Russia is earning 12 IPC a round, Japan owns Caucasus with a very nice stack and Novosibirsk with another nice stack. (Novo cause it’s easier for me to stack.  Germany owns India and Australia and New Zealand, so Japan’s ICs are in Kwangtung, Manchuria and FIC.)

With just a mere 10 infantry a round purchase with Germany, I’ve been able to amass well over 100 infantry on the board.  England and America are hopelessly divided.  America decided to take the annoying route and strafe Ukriane/Balkans every round.  Easily liberated by Japan and Germany.  Meanwhile, America is bottled up in Africa.  Sure, they have 12 transports they can use at once to land in W. Europe along with England’s 6 transports.  And sure, they’d probably win, but they’d only have a unit or two left because NOT EVEN A MORON IS GOING TO LET YOU LAND EVEN WITH 18 TRANSPORTS, LET ALONE 14 TRANSPORTS!  And my defensive numbers only increased by 2 infantry per 2 extra transports added to compensate.

Allies spent 16 IPC to force me to spend 6 IPC.  Course, I like to have stacks in the 20’s by Germany 5 or 6 in W. Europe and E. Europe anyway, so it really was not much to increase that to 25 in each.  No biggie.

As I said, the English can feel free to waste all the money they want on extra useless units against me as Germany.  I welcome it!  That’s less I have to worry about since that’s less units they CAN physically build AND CAN afford to build!

@Cmdr:

Let’s use some realistic numbers?

30 Infantry, 3 Armor, 2 Fighters in W. Europe
25 Infantry, 5 Armor, 4 Fighters in Germany
25 Infantry, 10 Armor in E. Europe

One word: lol.

It’s simple principles, Jennifer.

The more the UK can land with, the more that Germany needs to defend with.
The more that Germany needs to defend with, the less gets sent to the Russian front.
The less that gets sent to the Russian front, the more territory Russia can keep out of Axis hands.

As you say yourself, not even a moron is going to let you land, no matter how many transports you have. But to keep you from landing, they have to beef up their defenses. That means more units are tied up in defense rather than in gaining and holding ground on the Russian front.

There are more ways to take enemy units out of commission than simply killing them. Just earlier you were gloating how this big fleet in the North allows Germany to avoid having to defend Southern, so in that case you DO see the benefit of freeing up defensive units. You really do have an amazingly selective logic processor.

I prefer to have that bigger fleet in the north, because it just pulls those units from Southern and splits them between defending Ger, WEU, EE and maybe Kar. The tradeoff is that I get to keep the allied force all in one nice fleet in the Channel or Baltic, and all the allied ground units in one big stack in Nor, then Kar, then EE, and finally Ger.

Not sure how much simpler I can make it, but somehow I already know you’ll find some amazing leap of logic to avoid seeing what I’m saying. You can lead a horse to water…

Basically, you can’t overbuild on transports (well, maybe). Think of it this way: Every transport you build effectively gives two of your ground units wings, giving them attack range similar to Fighters. So if you have 6 TRNs, its as if in addition to 4 Ftrs or whatever, you have 12 “Light Fighters” that can hit the enemy anywhere.

Or think of it this way: A nuclear warhead isn’t much use without some way to deliver it to the enemy. And even if you never use it, its mere presence can still exert a huge influence on the enemy’s activities.

First, thanks to all of you for those for the earlier compliments.
Also, I learned a lot about Revised from Switch in some games we played early in my Revised career.

Second, on to the UK transports, 4 transports is certainly enough for the UK, I think Jen’s earlier point about 6 not really effecting an assualt on Berlin (or even WE) is accurate for the most part.

Assuming UK has 4 trns (and you eventually want to upgrade to 6), it is not very likely that UK will spend 16 to immediately bump it up to 6 with only being able to buy 3-4 more inf.  I think you’re more likely to see 1 trn and 6-7 inf one turn and the same for the next turn, so it is not like Germany must immediately prepare for a 12 unit UK attack vs. 8.  Also 2 additional attacking inf only means one more inf in defense, so you only move 9 to EE instead of 10.  Not a big deal to me, plus Germany should have 5 ftrs (possibly some J ftrs floating around as well). 
I typically “over defend” Berlin anyway b/c I never want give someone a dice rollers shot, and I assume others do the same, so the added defense for 6 trns is probably already built into Berlin’s defense where only 1-2 more inf (or maybe just 1 more armor) may be required for you to feel safe, instead of saying “shoot he’s got 6 trns now I have to keep 6 extra inf behind now”.

Regardless of the number of UK trns, Germany must always worry about a 1-2 to WE (possibly EE or SE as well), so either their defenses will hold or they won’t.  I can’t see a Germany player leaving stacks of inf to be attacked if they don’t have the ability to counter (or strafe) the survivors, that is just bad play.  More likely Germany will vacate WE, pulling its 10-14 inf from WE to Ger or SE, and stack more inf in EE with its arm, while placing 10 inf on Ger and 2 more on SE.  Germany has just deadzoned WE and should be able to keep up pressure on Russia.  The 2 extra trns probably didn’t do too much to effect this.

Now with 4 trns, you can still get 8 to Nor in one turn, then 16 (8+8)to Kar then next, then 24 (8+8+8) to EE.  With 6 trns, you’re likely to get 8 to Nor, then 12 (8 + 3 due to buying more trns) to Kar, then 19 to EE ( 8 + 3 + 8 ).

Now was the added threat to WE/Ger worth the loss of about 5 inf?

I perfer the Nor/Kar route over WE, so I’d rather have the inf.  NOW once I boost UK up to maybe 30 IPC, sure add the 5th tran or the 6th or the IC on Nor if you earn about 33, so you can get a super stack in Kar, but now threaten the direct landing in Berlin to peel the precious units off EE.

One other little caveat would be I will over buy trns if Germany does build some navy or air early.  I’d rather have a bit of an inf shortfall in rds 1-3 if it means naval security with extra fodder later in the game.

So my main criteria for extra trns are UK’s overall income and Germany’s early naval/air presence.

My extra UK TRNs usually come from the Pacific, so they don’t result in fewer Inf being built anyway.

Yes, those can be very handy.
For some reason I was under the impression people weren’t counting those.  My bad.

I certainly wouldn’t wait for them to get to sz 6 so I have only 4 trns but they are a nice “free” addition mid-game to bump you up to 6 or more if you go that route.

I counted the Transport from SZ 35 and the Transport from SZ 40 with the Transport from SZ 1 and Transport from SZ 2 in my total of 4 transports.  That’s why I say England needs to build no transports and any building of transports is a waste of resources.

Though, I think DM made my arguments a bit more eloquent then I did.

Fact remains, Germany’s going to be ready for a 1-2 punch in W. Europe.  Thus, if England attacks with 1.5 unit strength (due to 1.5 transport strength) the Germans will be more then able to throw off the attack.  America may now have a chance to win the territory, but still, the win will be short lived as Germany will reclaim the land.

What does that do?  It leaves England with 8 units it can use since they used all their other units up.  At the very least it limits them to drawing down their stack in Norway/Karelia to continually throw the lives of British soldiers on the beaches of Normandy with the only noticable effect of reducing the German stack there by 1 or 2 infantry.  How long can England keep that up?  Eventually England will run out of “extra” units to throw at the beaches of Normandy (remember they cannot retreat once they attack, so you cannot strafe there) and Germany will roll over the “extra” units not yet used as they advance on Russia.

Also, if you are building more transports in England, odds are, you are NOT fighting for Africa against Germany and Japan which means your income is already going to be down.  At the VERY least, you are down India, Australia, Madagascar, Persia, Trans-Jordan and New Zealand. 9 IPC out of 30.  You are also PROBABLY down Egypt, IEA, FEQ, Congo and Kenya (maybe even S. Africa and FWA.)

So the odds of filling 6 transports is pretty slim.  The odds of filling 4 transports is pretty slim too.

My main criteria is if I’m going to KJF then I need more transports to make up for the two I am not bringing home.  If I am going KGF, then I don’t need any extra, I’ll just put an IC in W. Europe which is infinitely more effective then 1 or 2 extra transports since extra transports, by definition, have nothing to transport!