Another look at the SAF IC

i dissagree gamer, nix placing the ic in saf is what beat us, even though it did eventually fall, japan was way to slow in getting to russia which is what nix and randmacts intended

This might be a bit crazy, but I’ll throw it out there anyways……
How about landing those UK ftrs in french west africa?

what is germany going to do… take 2 tanks and a bomber on them?

You could put three UK ftrs there (from the sz 35 a/c).

If the US lands in Algeria… the German africa korps will have lots to do besides take such a risky battle.

On the surface, I agree this is a good way to stop Germany from quickly over running Africa.  Further, i agree that Japan’s getting India no matter what anyway, unless you seriously invest in it’s defense and/or force Japan to turn it’s attention elsewhere (or if you have Colonial Garrison, which means Japan cannot possibly take India if you don’t want them too.)

I don’t think you need to strafe the SZ 5 fleet, though.  You might be happier just landing in W. Russia and hitting the Med fleet on UK 2.

Also, people seem overly paranoid about the SZ 59 transport.  It lives, so what?  If it lives for 8 rounds that means Japan has gained 1 IPC a round.  If it lives for 16 rounds, that means Japan has gained 0.5 IPC a round.

What’s more important is that England saved 2 transports, submarine, destroyer, carrier and fighter.  58 IPC.  To get the same return on investment for England you would have to have England survive a game for 116 rounds!

@U-505:

NPB,

I did take the bid into account. I even assumed a 1 arm bid to Lib possibly giving Germany 3 armor in Egypt on G1.

Yes, I thought you did take the bid into account.  There was no explicit mention, though, and you know how I like explicit details.  Secksy.

That’s why I suggested landing India units into Kenya giving the UK 3 inf, 1 fig there. Even if Germany did attack Kenya with 3 arm, 1 bmb the average result is the bomber being the only surviving unit and that means the IC is safe from German attack since the the closest German units afterward would be the inf or art surviving from the G1 Egypt attack which wouldn’t reach the IC until G4, giving the UK 2 full turns of building for defense.

Mm.  I know.  I wouldn’t debate that Kenya’s pretty secure.

I also took into account the fact that the UK can lose 2 aircraft in an attack on the Baltic fleet. The Baltic fleet strafe isn’t neccesary. If the prospect of losing the 2 fighters in the first round puts you off then you don’t have to do it because sinking the Med fleet on UK2 is by far the bigger priority.

Mm.  Again, I thought you PROBABLY had something like what you just wrote in mind, but I like those explicit details.  Secksy.

The reason I don’t worry about the Japanese is because I envision this as a KJF strategy. With the IO fleet(1 CV, 1 DD, 1 or 2 fig, 1 TP) as a blocking force in sz33 it would take the Japanese until J3 at the earliest to mount even a token attack on the IC. It would also require at least 1 BB, 1 CV, 2+fig, 2 TP and maybe even the bomber to do it and even then they are likely to take a decent amount of casualties(they would have to lose aircraft to preserve the TP’s) with the remnant not getting back to the Pacific until J5. Against a KJF, I don’t think Japan is capable of diverting half of their capital ships for 5 turns to capture the IC without giving the US an immediate opening to advance into the Pacific.

Well, it IS a KJF strategy.  I don’t really think a South African industrial complex can successfully apply to a KGF.

But Japan doesn’t HAVE to attack the South African industrial complex, and Japan CAN send at least one battleship west on J1.  What I’m thinking is that 2/3 of the time the UK attack on the Jap sub at Solomons fails, leaving the Japs with 1 sub 1 destr 5 fighters 1 bomber going against Pearl, anticipating 2 loaded carriers and the Japanese battleship from east of Japan at Solomons.  Meanwhile, Japan takes China with mass infantry plus 1 fighter, the Japanese transport at Japan can take Burytia preventing the UK bomber from attacking unescorted transports east of Japan and landing in Burytia, and the Japanese transport at Kwangtung can offload infantry from Phillipines into French Indochina.  (Unless you want to stipulate that Russia keeps 3+ infantry at Burytia; what do you propose as the Russian move on USSR1 anyways?)  Plus if I read the original post correctly, India was abandoned, allowing Japan to capture with 1 infantry.

So at the end of J1, I think Japan controls China and India, Japan controls two loaded carriers and 1 battleship at the Solomons that the US won’t attack.  There’s two infantry on French Indochina, and a battleship and a transport in the waters around French Indochina.  UK must recapture India on UK2 with infantry from Persia plus assorted air or see a Japanese industrial complex plus fighters on India on J2.  I hope I’m not assuming too much by that.

Also, I will say that Japan gets 3 transports and 1 tank on J1.  Again, I think that reasonable.

US1 sees a Pacific buy.  US can’t make any real progress yet.

UK2, I don’t see the board position changing much unless there’s a major naval buy at South Africa.

Japan recaptures India on J2 with infantry from French Indochina plus air, and moves its Solomon fleet to East Indies, Borneo, or New Guinea depending on the US1 buy.  Japan has five transports, so there should be 10 more ground units in Asia now - mostly pulled off islands.  Also, Japan has seen the US1 Pacific buy, so Japan starts to purchase fighters and infantry.

Now what happens on US2?  Depending on the positioning of the Japanese fleet, the US isn’t in position to do much.  If the US bought a lot of transports in the Pacific on US1, then the Japs should probably have positioned their fleet at Borneo or New Guinea, either of which prevent early US landings, but also threaten the waters around India.  If the US didn’t buy a lot of transports (probably US bought carriers and fighters and/or subs), then Japan can take up a more active position at East Indies that lets the Japs threaten Anglo-Egypt through India on J3.

Again, I don’t see the board position changing much on UK3 without a naval purchase at South Africa.

So on J3, I think the probable situation is that the Allies control Africa, Japan has a pretty good grip on a deal of Asia and India, German infantry is marching into Ukraine (remember, if the Germans didn’t buy anything to reinforce Baltic as stated in the original post, probably the Germans should have purchased 10 inf 2 tanks).  US is just beginning to progress in the Pacific.  However, I predict that the Germans should be able to take the Caucasus, and Japan will be able to reinforce through Persia.  The US will be trying to break into the Pacific, and they will succeed, but possibly too late for Russia, considering the lack of reinforcements.

Also, buiding a UK CV was just a noted possibility in case the UK wanted to land units into Europe after the Baltic fleet was nullified. Other options are to land units into Algeria with just their starting Atlantic fleet covered by the US DD, 2 TP or even use the UK to strictly build aircraft for use as a defensive measure for the IC or Russia. Everything is situational depending on the board layout so the CV build isn’t neccesarily the best option at all.

Mm hm.  I really think a carrier’s just too slow for the Allies.  Gives the Axis more time to push on Russia.  Always dangerous.

As far as India goes, Japan usually has control of India by J2 anyway, so I don’t see it as bad to give it to them early for the prospect of adding UK units to help challenge Africa.

I agree that it puts Russia in a spot having to defend without any early help from the other Allies

I think it’s quite some time before Russia gets help from the Allies.  US has a fleet in the Pacific (doesn’t help).  UK has units in South Africa (doesn’t help).  UK and US aid into Europe is minimal, and the German infantry stack can counter.  The German Med fleet does NOT necessarily go down as early as UK2, especially if Germany just captures Trans-Jordan from Anglo-Egypt, in which case you have 5-6 German ground units in Trans-Jordan (3 from surviving G1, and 2 more from Balkans), which means that Germany can reinforce its Med fleet as late as G3 or even G4, allowing Germany more time to press into Russia.

, but in a KJF, Germany makes around $50 with uncontested control of Africa so I see it as a good thing to fight for the African IPC’s because it helps keep the UK income up and I’d rather Russia have to face Germany making only half or less of the income from Africa and forcing them to divert units to holding those IPC’s rather than just allowing them to control Africa for next to nothing.

When fighting for those African IPCs, you spend 15 IPC for an industrial complex and put more industrial production certificates into producing units where they cannot be of any help to Russia.  I don’t say it is the WRONG move to put a South African industrial complex down in a KJF game.  However, I do not see that a South African industrial complex is necessarily a superior move.

@axis_roll:

This might be a bit crazy, but I’ll throw it out there anyways……
How about landing those UK ftrs in french west africa?

what is germany going to do… take 2 tanks and a bomber on them?

You could put three UK ftrs there (from the sz 35 a/c).

If the US lands in Algeria… the German africa korps will have lots to do besides take such a risky battle.

Hell yeah I would do that.  I trade tanks for fighters?  Where do I sign up?

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

This might be a bit crazy, but I’ll throw it out there anyways……
How about landing those UK ftrs in french west africa?

what is germany going to do… take 2 tanks and a bomber on them?

You could put three UK ftrs there (from the sz 35 a/c).

If the US lands in Algeria… the German africa korps will have lots to do besides take such a risky battle.

Hell yeah I would do that.  I trade tanks for fighters?  Where do I sign up?

I know, it’s a bit crazy.

If there were only 2 tanks, it might be worth it for UK

personally I might attack AES trying to get Germany to zero ground units, then land in FWA :)

I did say it was a bit crazy, but if you give germany multiple targets, they often times can not hit them all.

@U-505:

The only issue that I would have is that the best chance for the SAF IC’s survival(I think) is to position the UK aircraft and navy to threaten the Med fleet on UK2. Having the UK aircraft in FWA gives the Med fleet safe havens in sz14 and sz16.

As opposed to those UK ftrs landing…. where?
SZ14 is safe regardless of where they land. 
Think Germany would go to sz16?

Then they’re not adding to Africa… wasn’t that you’re goal?

I think the original idea of W. Russia is superior to landing them in Africa, IMHO.

They help defend the Russians and then can attack almost any place Germany puts ships on UK 2.  If no attack available, they can always land on the British Carrier in the IO and add threat to Japan.

Well, if Germany DOES buy an AC in SZ 14, that probably means they’ve just bought an AC in both Germany 1 (SZ 5) and Germany 2 (SZ 14) and now have 4 out of 5 fighters defending fleets, not defending land against Russians.

That almost sounds ideal for the Allies.  (Ideal would really be just the sinking of both German fleets by UK 2, but let’s not have wet dreams, eh?)

@U-505:

@Cmdr:

Well, if Germany DOES buy an AC in SZ 14, that probably means they’ve just bought an AC in both Germany 1 (SZ 5) and Germany 2 (SZ 14) and now have 4 out of 5 fighters defending fleets, not defending land against Russians.

That almost sounds ideal for the Allies.  (Ideal would really be just the sinking of both German fleets by UK 2, but let’s not have wet dreams, eh?)

I’m not sure if I would try this strat if Germany builds a Baltic CV on G1 but I suppose it could work.

If Germany built 2 CV’s though, the fact that Germany has 4 of it’s fighters not defending the land is not nearly as significant as that they would have just purchased 32 IPC’s in navy in the first 2 turns. Seems Germany would be kind of lean in ground units in that case.

Hence the statement, that it almost sounds ideal for the allies.

Germany’s out 32 IPC from it’s collection of 82 IPC (I’m assuming Ukraine was liberated, Karelia and Egypt were taken on Germany 1.)

That leaves a mere 50 IPC for ground units instead of 66 IPC.  Add to that the fact that 67-80% of your fighters are now sitting on the water instead of as anchors in W. Europe, Germany and E. Europe against invasion (if Ukraine was lost, it’s 80% if not, then 67%) and that’s a rather large chunk of the German forces not present.

@U-505:

NPB,

I don’t think Germany can get into Ukraine all that fast, though. By G3 at best, and even then it seems a bit fast. I’ll go along with that just for the sake of a “what if” scenario. If the German fleet had landed in T-J on G2, it should be sunk on UK2 with the IO fleet moving from sz33 to sz34 to pick up any surviving fighters and the Kenya fighter to fill an empty spot on the CV.

G1 10 infantry 2 tanks buy.  G2 10 infantry into Eastern Europe.  G3 10 infantry plus German Med transport infantry into Ukraine.  Also by G3, Japanese fighters can land in Ukraine.  Realistically, Germany shouldn’t be able to take and hold Ukraine until G4, but I don’t see it NOT happening.

(edit) - That is, I think it’s feasible that Germany may be able to take and hold Ukraine on G3.  However, I think it very likely that Germany will be able to take and hold Ukraine on G4.

Right, I forgot about the UK carrier being able to pick up UK fighters.  Thanks for that correction.

Still, there are any number of ways for Germany to prevent the loss of the Med fleet, easiest being to stay in Southern Europe’s sea zone.

You also have 4 fig on CV’s in the Solomans and 1 fig on Wake after the sz52 attack. That leaves 1 bmb, 1 fig, 1 BB, 2 TP maximum against 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, 2 fig in sz34.

Damn, lad, would you reference islands instead of sea zones?  It sure would make life a lot easier for a certain crotchety poster that can’t remember sea zone names . . .

I don’t know where sz 34 is offhand, but I imagine you’re talking about either the sea zone east of Kenya or the sea zone east of Anglo-Egypt.  If that’s the case, keep in mind that I’m not thinking about attacking there that early.  What I’m concerned with is the Japanese threat to the waters off India.  (On J2, you can bring all sorts of Japanese air there; 5 fighters 1 bomber 1 battleship 1 transport at least, even if Japan did take Burytia).

I doubt that you would attack that fleet

Well, I attack ANYTHING on the slightest provocation.  Got to keep up that berzerker reputation.  But probably I wouldn’t attack . . . yeah . . . See above.

on J2 because it’s not that certain of a battle and if it goes wrong, you can’t retreat because the BB would be subject to counterattack by what’s left over and with bomber support from the mainland before you could reinforce it. Even if the UK loses both fighters in sz14, I won’t have to leave sz33 with the UK fleet then. The Japanese BB/2 TP in sz36 have no real defensive support so I don’t think that Japan would be interested in advancing within range of the sz33 fleet+air any more than the UK fleet would be to move closer to Japan so it becomes a standoff. But the UK can afford to be patient. Eventually, that BB/TP fleet will have to move back toward the growing US fleet and with the Med fleet sunk the UK can immediately begin building to bolster the fleet and prepare to start walking units north from the IC or landing units directly into Persia from Kenya to be used to beef up the Caucasus defenses or help fight off the Japanese coming out of India.

And that is not even taking up half of the UK’s income or considering the sz12 units. I’d have to see what kind of opening Germany would be allowing the UK up north before I would be able to say for certain where I’d be allocating the remaining income or those extra forces.

I haven’t changed my mind about what I wrote earlier.  Doesn’t mean I’m right, just mean I haven’t changed my mind.   :lol:

An IC in SAF is an interesting idea. I usually have more important investments with UK than IC. I sometimes
buy IC in Norway if UK gets nearly 40 ipc during severeal rnds.
I have still not met a real KJF. Maybe someone actually tried a KJF but it didn’t seem like KJF, only some US pac
movements which probably have helped allies stop an axis fleet merge in med.
My first 1vs1 victory in the lobby was actually against a player who is (still) generally better than me, he build some stuff in sz 55  :lol:
What you are saying now is that SAF IC will help allies in KJF. Ok, go ahead, beat me with it.

KJF usually takes a while to build up.  If you distract America, then you might be okay.  Though, KJF itself seems to grow out of a distraction into a full force assault.