Overbuilding Transports with UK

@newpaintbrush:

@Cmdr:

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.

Lol, they are from the same place that you get 30 fighters from, Jen.

You mean the 30 infantry which is only 90 IPC?

@Cmdr:

@newpaintbrush:

@Cmdr:

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.

Lol, they are from the same place that you get 30 fighters from, Jen.

You mean the 30 infantry which is only 90 IPC?

ONE of us comes up with imaginary forces, anyways . . .

lol crack pipe

@Cmdr:

I understand that transports can pull units off Norway, Karelia and E. Europe too.

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.  Sure.  You might have one round, but honestly, if you do, the game’s over anyway and the transports are just icing on the cake, icing you probably built the round or two before you used them specifically for the one time strike.

Otherwise, all you are doing is dropping your stack by 4 units a round and not reinforcing it with anything.  A losing proposition.

The third paragraph answers your 2nd one - you have reserves stacked in Karelia / Norway. And how is “dropping your stack” a losing proposition?

That stack’s primary purpose is to attack Germany. So if, God forbid, you actually USE those units to attack Germany, they are fulfilling their purpose.

What is wasteful is having a big pile of units collecting dust up in Karelia when they could be opening a 2nd front in Western Europe. Yes you may take losses on the counter, but Germany can’t afford to trade units 1:1 with all three allies, because Germany will run out of hardware a  lot faster than the Allies combined will.

You seem to think that having a stack is an end in itself. Not so. The point of Allied units is to kill German units and take German territory, or, failing that, intimidating Germany into playing defence. Once Germany’s game is primarily defensive, the Allies have won.

The stack’s purpose is to prevent Germany from killing your armor and fighters and to stop their forward momentum.

As soon as you start depleting your stack, it’s ability to do any of the above ceases to exist.

Your tanks and fighters are only in existence to attack Germany.

Jenn, it’s not as if you are taking 4 units off your stack only to drown them in the sea.

They are reducing Germany’s forward forces by
a) killing German units in WEU (or Ger)
b) drawing German units back to retake / defend WEU

So while the allied stack gets smaller, so does the German stack, hopefully faster, but the real benefit is that you are now fighting on Germany’s doorstep rather than in Karelia.

No, they arn’t drowning at sea, they are bleeding to death on W. Europe inflicting minimal if any extra casualties and thus making it so Germany NEEDS less in their forward stacks to push England back.

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

So the stack is only reduced when there is an opportunity to make a gain in terms of units and territories. Until then, the extra transports simply force Germany to maintain larger defences in order to deny the allies that opportunity.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think…

@Ender:

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

Thank you for finally realizing it.  No attack England makes even with extra transports is going to win for England.  England will always lose.  The only difference is that America may be able to take the ground just long enough to collect for it.  Odds are, even that will fail since you’d have to score average to above average in BOTH attacks to succeed.  Odds are more likely that one or both attacks will fall short leaving the Germans in a superior position then otherwise because now BOTH American and British forces are depleted on BOTH sides of the continent.  Germany, meanwhile, is concentrated.

Is there a time I could see extra transports in the Atlantic for England?

Sure.  America has W. Europe, England has E. Europe territories, Germany is down to Berlin and Rome.  Now you have the money and the time to want to take units from Karelia and England and your stack in E. Europe to attack Berlin all at once.  Then again, by this point, all the extra transports are doing is speeding up the result, not changing it.  And thus, it’s still wasted money, the only difference is you can afford it because there’s nothing your opponent can do anyway.

@Cmdr:

@Ender:

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

Thank you for finally realizing it.  No attack England makes even with extra transports is going to win for England.  England will always lose.  The only difference is that America may be able to take the ground just long enough to collect for it.  Odds are, even that will fail since you’d have to score average to above average in BOTH attacks to succeed.

Jenn, did you know that generally, all blanket statements are incorrect?  :-D (little logic joke there, folks)

“England will always lose.”

I would say that rather depends on how heavily fortified WEU is, wouldn’t you agree?

Your response of course is that Germany will always put enough stuff there to make England lose (and the US) if it attacks.

True enough. Usually, a good German player will do that.

Here’s the thing though, and I will put this part in bold:

Germany will have to keep MORE stuff in WEU to make sure that England will “always lose”

The effect of this is that the UK, by its increased threat, has deprived Germany of front-line units for the Russian front, without any risk at all.

Now, if Germany is played by a BAD player, who does not optimize their force distribution, and keeps a massive stack in WEU, bigger than is needed, then I suppose the extra TRNs are wasted.

But then they are wasted by virtue of the fact that your opponent is a very silly person who stacks units where they aren’t really needed, and therefore are under-committing to the attack on Russia anyway. In that case I guess you don’t need the TRNs to keep German units away from Russia, because your opponent is obligingly doing it for you anyway.

So if your opponent is sloppy and wastes more units in defence than they would need to, then yes the transports are a waste. But that’s only because your opponent is already making the move that you want to force them to make anyway.

If Poll have any significance: 16 out of 20 players who woted here build extra transports with UK. 80%!!!

Extra transports are useful. They scare germany. Sie kommen! By Sea naturally! (With the extra transports)
Extra transports are cool. They can go to the bottom of the sea without reducing UK landing capabilities.
Extra transports shoot more. (They are extra so they make extra fire). UK extra transports are famous for shooting down unwary Luftwaffe pilot.
Extra transports are efficient. They get the infantry from the back of the army and throw them to the German on the front line.
Extra transports are funny painted. They raise the morale of the UK player looking as a big fleet.
Extra transports are the UK player best friend!
Extra transport rocks!
Long live to the Extra transports!

Actually, England will always lose because Germany has enough there to stop 4 American Transports, 4 British Transports and assorted air and naval support they may or may not have from winning.

Germany will only have to leave more defensive power in W. Europe to stop America from taking it.  However, why would you want to do that???  It’s West Europe, not Berlin or South Europe, so no real lose to Germany if it falls to America, especially considering the force that wins will be very minimal at best.

Meanwhile, you have almost assuredly destroyed enemy fighters and decimated both countries’ armies that attacked you, for a portion of your own army.  Oh sure, you’re size will be much smaller, but then again, BOTH of their sizes will be as well!

So, assuming a normal game, you have the following:

W. Europe defends with 20 infantry, 7 armor, 1 fighter, AA Gun

England attacks with 12 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters, Bomber, Battleship

Germany wins with 10 Infantry, 7 Armor, Fighter, AA Gun remaining

America attacks this with 8 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 5 Armor, 3 Fighters, Bomber, Battleship using all 8 of their transports from the 4 by 4 system they had

America wins with 1 armor, 2 fighters and a bomber.

Germany, has now pulled apart the transport system, it will take TWO turns to get that system up again plus England has depleted it’s Karelian stack to weaken the Germans enough to allow America the chance (67% chance) to win in W. Europe.  Germany’s out no land because 1 armor is not going to protect W. Europe for squat against a determined German, however, now there’s nothing left to attack it but British forces.  Germany should be in more then good enough position to defend against 6 transports of British guys, especially now that England has no air force left.

So what has the extra transports gotten the allies?

Germany down 105 IPC in Ground and Air Forces
England down 89 IPC in Ground and Air Forces
America down 66 IPC in Ground and Air Forces (not counting the tank that lives to defend another day)

And, America is completely out of the game for two full game turns while they set up the transport system again.

105 IPC for 155 IPC and a stronger strategic position on the board all because I didn’t waste my resources on extra transports and didn’t set myself up to win at all costs over a piece of land I could allow the allies to take for a solitary turn and reclaim before I needed to collect my taxes that year?  Sounds like an awesome deal to me!

BTW, I’ll normally have half my armor in W. Europe and half in Germany.  Reason being is I don’t want to put my armor into harms way anyway, but they make great defensive pieces.  Also, I might need some of my armor to attack Russia if they get too bold.  So you can see why a normal game for me, at least, is with 7 armor in W. Europe.  Most of my fighters will be with the infantry stacks in E. Europe or Berlin.  They can hit anything I could possibly need to from there, including SZ 4 (which is why I like fighters in E. Europe) so it’s not that I need the tanks for defensive punch in E. Europe.  Though, 1 or 2 may be present.)

Stacks of 20 infantry are common even in my opponents.  Especially at the point of the game where England would even HAVE 12 ground units available to transport without resulting in a complete obliteration of the entire English army in both W. Europe and the Karelian stack.  And we have to a lot enough time for America to get 8 transports and get at least 16 units somewhere (most likely closer to 30ish units) to attack W. Europe with.  Sooner if they for go hitting Africa, later if they have to clear Africa since that will deplete their forces.

I’m actually looking at games around round 7 which is when the allies are most likely set up with their transports and ground units and fighters/bombers.  Before then they are set up weakly or not at all.

Not so unrealistic.

Buy turn 7 I have purchased roughly 91 infantry with Germany.  Even factoring in for trading, that’s plenty left to have 20 Infantry in E. Europe, 20 in Berlin and 20 in W. Europe.

Yo Bean - what say we challenge Bonzo and Poke here to a team game. They think they’re the shiznit, I say they’re not.

BTW, that’s 7 rounds of 13 infantry, 39 IPC an amount attainable even in games where Germany is starting to lose.  Unless for some unknown circumstance like 100% allied accuracy every round comes into play, but we need to leave those numbers out of our theoretical discussions since the exceptions do not prove the rule.

I’m betting on Ender/Bean.

Now me, I knoes I’m the shiznit.  Not 'cos I’m “good” or anythin, just 'cos I say so.

(signed)

the shiznit
NPB

@Cmdr:

BTW, that’s 7 rounds of 13 infantry, 39 IPC an amount attainable even in games where Germany is starting to lose.  Unless for some unknown circumstance like 100% allied accuracy every round comes into play, but we need to leave those numbers out of our theoretical discussions since the exceptions do not prove the rule.

So, all inf buys.  That means that 1) Baltic fleet dead, 2) Allies have Africa, 3) Germany didn’t push on Russia on G1 heavily because it didn’t have 2 built tanks in Berlin to counter early Russian push.

I think 39 IPC a bit optimistic for a sustained income over the course of 7 rounds considering that Germany buys nothing but infantry.