Another look at the SAF IC

@U-505:

As soon as I’m done with the test game against the Commander, I would be more than happy to test my theories against you.

A KJF test or a SA IC test, or both?

@Lucifer:

@U-505:

As soon as I’m done with the test game against the Commander, I would be more than happy to test my theories against you.

A KJF test or a SA IC test, or both?

I predict a South Africa IC - KJF test.  I don’t see South Africa IC working well in a KGF regardless of tweaks.

Of course, the proposed test is dependent on the German move.  In any proposed test game, neither side should be locked into a line of play.

Remember that the Allies shouldn’t be locked into a South Africa IC and that the OP mentioned no Baltic buys, and German Med fleet moving east.  If you have any objections to that, then you and U-505 should talk it out before the game.

Hey guys.

NewPaintBrush, as usual, makes some astute observations.  The no-Baltic-transport-purchase is critical to this move since cascade dice failure can occur in the Med if you attack the boats and lose the planes.

U-505, I thought you had some good points too.  In particular, the 3inf KEN and 3inf PER can be a nice defensive play if Germany is too large to attack in Anglo.  But I’m left with a couple of questions:

1. If the goal is to protect African money, why not just land the Allies in Algeria R2 with a massive load of Allies and march through Africa?  You engage the Germans early and you maintain a threat to land in WEU.  You even have the option of pulling out the gear in ALG if Germany pulls back.  Plus, transports on the coast can move and attack the Germans directly.  “But,” says you, “then you’ve wasted transports!”  “Sure,” says me, “but you could ‘waste’ two transports and still be ahead of the SAF financially because the transports are more flexible and can return to UK waters.”  Not to mention that 2tra can ship 4 units to Africa per round whereas the SAF can only build 2 units per round.

2. If the SAF really ISN’T about keeping Africa from Germany and it’s about KJF, won’t the SAF always be treatened by a German attack that relieves pressure on Japan?

I’m not saying this setup doesn’t have some merit, I’m just saying it seems to me to be less optimal than a north African gambit or an IIC if you’re serious about KJF (and I’m not ever serious about KJF myself).

Peace

The way I view it, the underlying strategy of a SAF IC is to present the Axis with 2 choices.

• Move to take it out, which requires the diversion of significant assets.

• Ignore it, in which case the UK can funnel troops up through Africa or build Naval units in the IO

I don’t really consider it a KJF or KGF strategy, it’s a bit of both.

What needs to be refined is how the allies respond once the axis has made their choice.

I usually don’t buy any navy with G in sz5. Usually not in the med either.
As for my G1, I usually move BB to Gib, with trans + inf, lands inf in Gib, this way I use one less ftr to kill the
UK med BB. The G sub in sz 8, moves to sz 13 or to sz 1.
This is my standard G1 move with 9 bid, one unit pr. TT. With other premise, I think I would do
something different. I might be tempted to place tank+inf in Ukr.
Then I would move BB+trans to AE. AE is perhaps the most important G1 attack.

And I almost always take all bids to G. Sometimes 1 ipc to Jap, but I prefer G with 9.
If someone told me they gonna do a KJF on me, I still take 8-9 ipc to Germany.
As for a test game, I suggest LL, because of less variation, and no tech.

@Mazer:

1. If the goal is to protect African money, why not just land the Allies in Algeria R2 with a massive load of Allies and march through Africa?  You engage the Germans early and you maintain a threat to land in WEU.  You even have the option of pulling out the gear in ALG if Germany pulls back.  Plus, transports on the coast can move and attack the Germans directly.  “But,” says you, “then you’ve wasted transports!”  “Sure,” says me, “but you could ‘waste’ two transports and still be ahead of the SAF financially because the transports are more flexible and can return to UK waters.”  Not to mention that 2tra can ship 4 units to Africa per round whereas the SAF can only build 2 units per round.

Because in a KJF, you are building Pacific air and navy with America.  Hence, you don’t have a good buildup for the Atlantic and Africa; you have less transports and less ground units moving into Africa.  This means that instead of 3 US tanks hitting Algeria on US2, you may have 0 tanks.  Without early US tanks in Africa, and Anglo-Egypt allowed to stay in German hands past UK1, the only way for the UK to reclaim Africa with any sort of speed is units produced from that South African industrial complex.

2. If the SAF really ISN’T about keeping Africa from Germany and it’s about KJF, won’t the SAF always be treatened by a German attack that relieves pressure on Japan?

My opinion is no.  I believe that after UK1 and the South Africa IC, Germany can afford to play shenanigans in Africa and Southern Europe, given that UK is 15 IPC down and must now split its expenditure between Atlantic transports and its South African industrial complex.  IF the UK builds units at South Africa, then diverting forces to attack South Africa is a mistake for both Germany and Japan because it takes so long for Axis units to get to South Africa (I think three transport distances from Japan that can be shortened to two with some land marching, but still too far, and transport plus march for Germany), meaning those Axis units cannot be used in Europe and/or Asia, as well as allowing the Allies time to reposition for defense.  (Note if the UK doesn’t build at South Africa constantly, then Japan can overwhelm them and claim Africa for good, though, so the UK is forced to build to protect its investment).  India is weakened, allowing Japan to make early gains in south Asia before it has to divert its attention to defense.  The US needs time to advance into the western part of the Pacific where the higher IPC islands are, and needs more time to build up a fleet that can challenge Japan’s two battleships, two carriers, six fighters, bomber, and five transports (which Japan should have).

Short version - with a South African IC and a KJF, the Axis have time to attack in Europe and Asia.  The IPCs the Allies save by retaining control of Africa are offset by the cost of defending South Africa and the inability of the Allies to support Russia with ground units.  Hence I do not find that a South African IC is necessarily a superior play (although I do not strictly state it is a poor play either)

I’m not saying this setup doesn’t have some merit, I’m just saying it seems to me to be less optimal than a north African gambit or an IIC if you’re serious about KJF (and I’m not ever serious about KJF myself).

Peace

The first thing you have to do in a serious KJF is to introduce Coca-Cola.  After that comes Westernization and the degradation of Japan’s youth culture and work ethic, then come the hos and the rap videos.

Regrettably, Japan has retaliated by attacking the West’s youth culture with “Pokemon” and “Hello Kitty”, diverting young American minds from industrious study and work to vapid consumerism that not incidentally boosts Japan’s economy.

KJF is so difficult . . .

NPB - Solid post.

For your comments on section 1, however, I’m really assessing the value of the SAF in a KGF game; your points are well-suited to a KJF game.

But I must admit, I can’t see this working too well in a KJF.  KJF has a couple of common counters, such as R2 Baltic builds, R2 Med builds, etc., that I think would work fine here.

One strong option may be to just ignore it.  So R1 UK spends $15 on the SAF.  R2 they spend $10 on 2tnk.  How long will it take for them to recoup that investment?  As a German, I might be content to hold Anglo and let the UK spend resources in Africa.

I’m not saying it is always a bad idea, I’m just thinking it’s a B strategy.  Like taking on the Spider Climb in Ninja Warrior without using the sticky-spray.  Sure you CAN do it, but is that really the best idea?  Is the SAF something Olivia Munn would do?  Probably not.

Peace

Lastly, part of the assumed setup for this strikes me as problematic.  I believe there is almost no situation where the Germans shouldn’t build 1tra or more in the Baltic R1.  Even in a game where Russia implodes R1, you still want that 1tra to keep the UK off your back for a bit.

Peace

One G trans in sz5 means the Baltic fleet will be sunk UK2 instead of UK1  :roll:

I have problem to understand why SA IC will help allies in KJF, but then KJF has never been a threat to me, I have lost more
games than I won (1vs1) still I have not lost to KJF, I’ve hardly faced this strat. Lately I have been skipping pearl, but
my hopes for US building in sz 55 vanishes more for each game I play….    :-(

A IC in SA in a KGF, that is different, although I don’t think it’s a good strat to buy IC in TT’s worth less than 3 ipc (Caspian sub),
I won’t discard this strat until it has been tried and have failed.

@Lucifer:

One G trans in sz5 means the Baltic fleet will be sunk UK2 instead of UK1  :roll:

A IC in SA in a KGF, that is different, although I don’t think it’s a good strat to buy IC in TT’s worth less than 3 ipc (Caspian sub),

Yeah, those Caspian Sub guys are pretty darn smart.  Don’t they write something about a Baltic buy R1?

Peace

@Mazer:

@Lucifer:

One G trans in sz5 means the Baltic fleet will be sunk UK2 instead of UK1  :roll:

A IC in SA in a KGF, that is different, although I don’t think it’s a good strat to buy IC in TT’s worth less than 3 ipc (Caspian sub),

Yeah, those Caspian Sub guys are pretty darn smart.  Don’t they write something about a Baltic bid R1?

Peace

Lol!   :wink:

Although, I do disagree about the IC for 2 ipc ter.  I can think of a few examples where this is not the case.  the one I like to use most is a Japan IC on Sin (or Novo/Kaz).

As for the Safr IC, I’m typically not an IC guy for UK early on regardless of KGF or KJF.  I just don’t think it is needed.  But for the sake of this thread, I think it could work but it is probalby not the most efficient.

I’d be more willing to wait a turn or two, sink the German fleets, and drop a UK IC on Egy, assuming the US has been building up the Pac.
At least here you have troops in the center of the board with the option of dropping more ship directly to the Med or into the Red Sea.
I think the UK could probably put an IC there safely by Rd 4, again this assumes the US has gained Japan’s attention.

I think you could probably even wait until UK 2 before putting the IC on Safr, b/c in this case any German armor will probably split for max ipc gain on G2 and you can probably pick one off with the US and still defend Safr from the other.  In this case you can merge the fleet in Sz 30 with 2 inf from Aus and can threaten so many targets that Germany has to be very careful about where to move and reinforce.  But again in this type of scenerio I’d probably wait and see about putting an IC on Egy instead, while I build early air and trns + ground troops in rds 1-3.

@Mazer:

NPB - Solid post.

For your comments on section 1, however, I’m really assessing the value of the SAF in a KGF game; your points are well-suited to a KJF game.

But I must admit, I can’t see this working too well in a KJF.  KJF has a couple of common counters, such as R2 Baltic builds, R2 Med builds, etc., that I think would work fine here.

Hence the very reason I say that the allies should wait until UK 4 to commit to KJF.  If Germany goes heavy navy, then the allies can just stick around, sink it and laugh as Russia walks unopposed into Berlin.  If Germany goes heavy army to blitz Russia, the allies can stick around and shuck some troops into Moscow to defend it and then contain Germany.

In the more realistic sense, if Germany goes heavy Africa to counter the allies, Russia’ safe and KJF can be made.  To make it safer, England can put an IC in S. Africa and use that to keep Germany out, but still trying to be in.

Meanwhile, japan has some pretty nice opening moves they can make to stop KJF.  Normally these never come into play, most players move Japan as fast as possible into Asia and the Middle East to get up to the 50+ IPC mark.  Trying to stop KJF from Round 1 slows that process down from 4 rounds to about 12 to 16 rounds since you lose your fleet and have to actually WALK to where you are going.

I’ve noticed in KJF test games that, as America, all I have to do to keep Japan completely tied up navally is to put a carrier, 2 fighters and a transport in SZ 55/54 or have a fleet in SZ 20.  Doesn’t even have to be a big fleet, just a battleship, destroyer, carrier and 2 transports is enough.  Of course, the axis player always claims he’s not tailoring his strategy to oppose KJF, he’s playing “normally” but there’s no way they can possibly play “normally” in a KJF test game. :P

Same with Germany.  Can they try and counter by mass building in SZ 5?  Sure.  But the allies don’t have to take the initiative, they have to stop the Axis, that means defend.  It’s always easier to defend then attack.  IC in S. Africa helps you defend Africa.  If all it does is keep the Axis from getting Kenya and S. Africa, it’s worth it after 5 turns, eh?  If it allows you to build the IO fleet a little and prevent the Japanese fleet from coming into SZ 35/34, that could mean the difference between trading Egypt or trading Persia.

@Mazer:

Yeah, those Caspian Sub guys are pretty darn smart.  Don’t they write something about a Baltic buy R1?

Peace

Yes, but the G Baltic strat is one of the suggestions which I think the C-sub guys are not completely “up to date”.
The issue here is that AC G1 or G2 may keep the Baltic fleet alive longer in ads than LL.
I know most ppl here use ads, but even if LL or ads can make a big difference in some cases, it only boils down
to bigger variation. UK or UK/US has to kill the G navy asap, with ads this makes it more risky for allies. G can’t rely on the
Baltic fleet for more than a few rnds.

Result:

England was stomped majorly in this game.  Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang.  And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay.  Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)

@Cmdr:

Result:

England was stomped majorly in this game.  Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang.  And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay.  Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)

All this happened because of the SA IC? It’s teh new killer strat then

replying to some posts from earlier in the thread

UK fighters in WRU cant hit the german BB and TRN in z15, where it should be German round 2, reinforcing EGY or taking TRJ.

When I hit EGy, I hit with 3 ARM 2 INF 1 FTR 1 BOM, and that means there are 2-3 ARM and 1 BOM hitting KEN… you dont even need to clear it out, its fun watching a player having to decide whether to choose an INF or BOM has as a casualty.

and if UK is dropping the FTR in z33, then the UK fleet is vulnerable.
If UK leaves the 59 TRN alone… good for Japan, Russia is gonna be in trouble, and IND might fall first turn.
If UK kills the TRN with the DD, then that leaves the rest of the IO UK fleet consisting of an AC 2 TRN and 1 SS.
if UK wants to drop troops in KEN, they either sacrifice one of those TRN, or they leave 1 AC 1 TRN vulnerable to JAPANS 2 FTR, while the other TRN and SS flee the pacific.

@Lucifer:

@Cmdr:

Result:

England was stomped majorly in this game.  Germany was kept to a smoldering fire and Japan never made it past Sinkiang.  And Africa remained free for the allies the entire time. (I used the Americans to keep Japan busy and let the Russians keep their armies at bay.  Defending is 300% easier then attacking!)

All this happened because of the SA IC? It’s teh new killer strat then

No.  All this happened in part because of the SA IC.  It also happened because of dice, decisions and tactics.

combine saf is with UK attack on z14 round 1.

It seems to me this strategy, of placing an IC in South Africa and then pulling the British forces from South Asia to bolster Africa, would be answered by a Japanese IC in FIC (French Indo-China).  Now the Japanese have an easier time there which may even accommodate more Japanese opportunities into Africa.  If so, by countering the Germans, you encourage the Japanese.  Does this sound plausible?