Another look at the SAF IC

@Bean:

I kind of feel the opposite way so far in our games, Jen. I watch you dump an IC + 2 inf 2 arm + more in Africa, then I just run away. Way I see it is by committing to an IC so early like that you have less defenses/offense in the Atlantic, which makes me happy - more time against Russia! I’m more of a cheetah that looks for easier targets; it makes no sense to fight a big war diverting 2 units + airforce every round just to contest Africa, not even take it. Just let the UK dump their gear into S. Africa in response to a threat that hasn’t even surfaced yet, then out we go to Persia to meet the Japanese or divert westwards.

That’s exactly what I posted and my sentiments exactly

+1 karma

Yes, and you also lost Africa which is a significant portion of Germany’s income.

Afr belongs to allies, sometimes G have a little part of it, AE, but usually allies will take back all of Afr.

Africa belongs to the Axis.  All they have to do is get average dice with Germany in Egypt on Round 1 and hit it hard.  That means the English do NOT liberate Egypt. (3 Infantry, 3 Armor, 2 Fighters, Bomber vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter in ADS.) Without Egypt liberated, Germany only really has to hold Algeria, so move the fleet over and build up there.  Meanwhile, the three tanks can now blitz all of Africa on Germany 2 except S. Africa.

(Assumes bid of Infantry/Armor to Libya and an Infantry/Armor from S. Europe to Egypt.  Reduce count by 1 fighter if Russia succeeds in killing a fighter in Ukraine.)

a good Japan player will also make a push for Africa if the Germans are pushed from Africa as again this is good money for little work.
the IC in SA may not look like a lot, but it dose make a diffrence as it slows down both Axis at diffrent points in the game.
the more Germany puts to take Africa, the less they have to fight USSR, if they say forget Africa then the UK keeps Africa for a little longer and can use that extra money to go and aid the USSR with more faster.

@Cmdr:

Africa belongs to the Axis.  All they have to do is get average dice with Germany in Egypt on Round 1 and hit it hard.  That means the English do NOT liberate Egypt. (3 Infantry, 3 Armor, 2 Fighters, Bomber vs Infantry, Armor, Fighter in ADS.) Without Egypt liberated, Germany only really has to hold Algeria, so move the fleet over and build up there.  Meanwhile, the three tanks can now blitz all of Africa on Germany 2 except S. Africa.

(Assumes bid of Infantry/Armor to Libya and an Infantry/Armor from S. Europe to Egypt.  Reduce count by 1 fighter if Russia succeeds in killing a fighter in Ukraine.)

Africa is not free for Germany.

They have/are investing units to get africa.  There is also the opportunity cost for those free blitzing tanks you mention.  They COULD be pressuring Russia.  There’s money in the Eastern European theatre too.

Optimally, Africa should be won by either the Axis or the Allies with the least amount of investment.  That is TRULY WINNING Africa.  If Germany needs to pour units into Africa to maintain their gains, their return is greatly minimized.  It’s not so bad that you shouldn’t do that, but it IS sub optimal.

Now IF UK has made such a strong investment of an IC (15) and 2 tanks (10) in two turns and has forgone India to Japan … that’s a lot of investment in Africa.  As an Axis player, I just do not think it’s worth it (unless I could grab the SAF IC, even then… doubtful it’s worth the cost/distraction)

Germany/Japan CAN win the war without Africa.

Oh, I agree the IC in UoSA delays the Axis in Africa, but the Axis’s goal shouldn’t be Africa anyways - it’s just to divert the Allies’ attention there with minimal true investment (and run the hell away when the Allies come knocking!). The Allies have Africa if they want it; there’s just nothing to stop the US from dumping 4 inf 4 arm a round into there and suddenly Germany is scrambling either to try to match that defensively or trying to pull out all of its men. If Japan also tries to reinforce Africa that early on to match 4 inf 4 arm coming in, they will be woefully short on troops pushing against Russia.

Something that CSub was right about all along is what stops the Allies from dumping 16 troops into Algeria on round 2/3 and marching them down?

I agree, axis, however, the cost to Germany is 8 IPC in new material for 11 IPC in land (including Libya/Algeria.)  That’s a net gain of 3 IPC.  Not a bad trade for Germany.  And, to top it off, England’s down 9 IPC once they lose Africa, that’s nearly 33% of their income.  You can easily drive England into the homeless shelters between a STRONG African campaign with Germany and opportunistic strikes with Japan for the rest of their holdings.

Germany’s primary goal is Moscow
Germany’s secondary goal is reduce British income as much as possible, as fast as possible.

Japan’s primary goal is Moscow
Japan’s secondary goal is reduce British income as much as possible, as fast as possible.

Note how NEITHER is to attack or defend against America.

I’d also go so far as to say that one should ignore British units when Russian units are available to be attacked.  The idea is to bleed the Russians as much as possible while conserving your own forces.

Not many games where “decent”  players let axis have Afr. If you don’t take Berlin pretty fast, then
you will lose because of economics.

If you hit Egypt with the right level of force, and don’t get fracked by the dice, then there’s nothing the allies can do to stop Germany from getting Africa for at least two rounds, maybe 3.  That’s critical when trying to keep Russia alive.

I’d also go so far as to say that one should ignore British units when Russian units are available to be attacked.  The idea is to bleed the Russians as much as possible while conserving your own forces.

Well…I think the exact opposite because you want to maximize Germany’s defense. Germany’s biggest threat is from a massive UK buildup, and the more you crop their forces, the more prominent the split attacker’s disadvantage becomes. I pretty much want you to attack the Russian units I send to the front lines with the British; they are simply a big vanguard for the real threat, since I cannot build up the Russian forces necessary to attack the German capital in full scale anyways.

The biggest threat to the axis I can imagine is fortress Moscow so tight you cannot break into it.  To prevent that, the best Idea I can think of is to pummel Russia with Japan and Germany, and if that means making a choice between 4 Russian infantry in Ukraine to kill at minimal cost, or 4 British infantry in Belorussia to kill, then kill the Russians. (Flip territories if you want, just because I want to point out that it’s not territory, it’s targets.)

Bleeding England is okay.  But Russia is your primary target.  Besides, England should be bleeding pretty well without it’s empire supporting it.

Well, if fortress Moscow is so tough, then the easiest and most logical way about thinking about it is that Russian inf aren’t the only inf that count on defense there, so it doesn’t make any difference which inf you kill - since both can defend Moscow. The difference is the Russian inf don’t have enough support to crack Berlin, but the UK’s buildup can. You can kill all the Russian inf you want but have a zillion Americans/British there, which still means Fortress Moscow.

Yes, but odds are, the lion’s portion of the defending infantry in Moscow are Russian just like most of the planes are either American or English.

Right?

So if you can dwindle the Russian stacks before they turtle, you’re ahead more then if you dwindle England’s or America’s stacks, since they are not represented in as much force as Russia anyway.

no offence Jen but that is broken logic IMO. Bean is right, a US infantry deffends just as well as a USSR infantry in moscow. the only diffrence would be if Russian winter is in effect, then it’s only a 1 turn thing that the Germans know is comming and can wait a turn.

but i aggree with the idea to break the USSR’s infantry above the US/UK’s.
the reason for this IMO is that not all the Allies move at one time, so whe the USSR starts to pull back to Moscow they will be leaving US/UK units exposed for a turn before they can move back, giving Germany the opertunity to strike at them.
if the Allies make the call to move together, then they have to start on the UK’s turn after Germany moved, this would be the only way to make that call, and then a lot can happen between when the UK starts to pull back and the USSR moves back. in other words a full Allied pull back has to be planed a full turn in advance and also rellies on Japan doing nothing to counter it, and they should know whats going on when they see a large amount of UK forces in USSR pull back to Moscow.

:-o
Wow, the twist and turns a topic can take!
As for which to killl if given a choice, kills Ruskies! Every time.
And they call me crazy  :?

@Pervavita:

no offence Jen but that is broken logic IMO. Bean is right, a US infantry deffends just as well as a USSR infantry in moscow. the only diffrence would be if Russian winter is in effect, then it’s only a 1 turn thing that the Germans know is comming and can wait a turn.

You two misunderstand me then.  A US Infantry defends just as well as a Russian infantry, but a US Infantry cannot attack with Russian tanks.  That’s the difference and why I think you should target Russia over England or America (assuming you have to chose.)

I guess it’s not fortress Moscow that you really fear, but it’s more like…strafe-happy Moscow with 50 inf 10 arm and art/figs from Russia? I interpreted fortress Moscow as an impenetrable defense while the Allies gather more money than the Axis (Europe + Africa > all of Asia), but maybe you’re really fearing Russian strafes of Cauc/Novo with inf + its arm and stuff. Maybe I interpreted wrong.

In response to that, I usually designate 20-30 inf as pushers that go hardcore and help push Germany back to the capital. I don’t care if they die, in fact I’d rather they die so that the UK can accumulate one solid strike force. Which is not to say that I’m throwing them away in bad trades, but I’m hardly bothered if Germany targets them over UK inf because they are too far to help Moscow anyhow, and the Allies could use a little help moving in to E. Europe.

When you need to crack the German capital, you’d prefer to have a massive UK strikeforce with little Russian inf left rather than lots of Russian inf in E. Europe with little little UK inf left. And the other 10-20 inf + all builds from there on out is to defend against Japan with massive strafing power. Maybe I didn’t understand your case.

Yea, it’s more of limiting the three allies in what they can do to me.  By stripping Russia of infantry whenever possible, they cannot build up stacks like they could otherwise.  Meanwhile, England and America have the problem of getting their units into stacks to begin with since they have to transport them.

England and America have the problem of getting their units into stacks to begin with since they have to transport them.

Yup yup gotta agree, the Allies are stronger but harder to use. It’s easier to jilt the Allied game with a gambit than it is to jilt the Axis game because of all the damn transport logistics.  :roll: