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:
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.
@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?
In many games, Jap place IC in Fic because it’s convenient. Fic’s a good place for IC, with or without IC in SA.
What should Jap do with IC in SA? I wouldn’t do any moves I normally wouldn’t do. Maybe India could be contested later in the game.
In a very long game, 14 rnds or more, Jap would have problems with conquering Afr, which often is a good strat,
if Jap cannot take Moscow, and if not US still stucks to AE-Persia…and I would rather move my US fleet to northern Europe if Afr is secured.
Maybe UK can secure Afr alone with IC in SA? I would really like that if I play allies.
I agree, Japan normally ends up with Industrials in both FIC and India anyway. The Industrial in S. Africa is at least relatively secure from the enemy for a number of rounds and if it does fall, eventually, it serves no real benefit to the axis. However, just keeping Germany from getting Africa can save the allies a net of hundreds of IPC over the life of the game (I get that by combining the income lost to germany resulting in less units purchased, the increase income to England resulting in more units purchased, the less defenders/attackers hitting the allies and the increase attacker/defenders resisting German aggression.)
It could also possibly psychologically prevent the Japanese from moving to Africa early on, because they know if they do that then inf will pop up and prevent it from making Africa a windfall. And if they don’t move towards Africa, then simply don’t build anything and save your money.
I think you may have missed my point earlier. If Great Britan pulls back from India to support Africa, then you are giving the Japanese player another 3 IPCs each turn 'cause he will take India with little to no resistence. Instead of swaping with Japan by fighting back-and-forth (India-FIC), you will be swapping back-and-forth (India-Persia) at best. The accumulation of 3 IPCs every turn coupled with their total domination of the IO will easily pay for an IC in FIC and you will likely face two Japanese ICs on mainland Asia instead of only one. Their eventual momentum in Asia from this could give them better chances to partake of some Africa. Am I missing something in all this?
Am I missing something in all this?
You missed the fact that India belongs to Jap from J1-J2, or J3 latest. Unless you want to move Russian units to India.
Afr is worth 11 ipc, India is worth 3 ipc :roll:
About Jap IC on the mainland, I sometimes had 4!! Usually I see 2 IC, 3 IC is not very unusual, but not very common either.
2 Jap IC is the strat I see in most games. Fic is the TT where most Jap players place the first IC.
Sometimes Manch, and India also. Kwang is not often used for IC.
Exactly my reasoning. India is just impossible to defend reliably beyond UK1 or 2. Why not just use those defenders to try to hold at least the southern half of Africa and force Germany to split their forces fighting there?
Exactly my reasoning. India is just impossible to defend reliably beyond UK1 or 2. Why not just use those defenders to try to hold at least the southern half of Africa and force Germany to split their forces fighting there?
Well then you give Japan a cheap India and if Germany ignore africa (since the allies have invested so much in it: non-combated units, purchased an IC) Russia could be in trouble as a strong quick Axis push is possible.
I think if Russia does well R1, that helps make the SAF IC more desirable.
i don’t think it makes USSR in trouble, ya from Japan, but not as much from Germany as they also arn’t geting the IPC’s from Affrica (or atleast not as many) meaning they have less ground troops for Europe to buy each turn. also it gives the UK more ground troops to ship to USSR to hold out, or push into Norway that much sooner and hold it.
this also allows the US to not go for affrica and accually fight for it so they can start shiping men to UK/affrica to make there big Europe push OR allows them to put more pressure on Japan earlier.
if Germany sees this and says “it’s a waist of my resources” then it frees up Japan but also frees up UK and US, well both USSR and Germany both suffer about the same (Germany less troops each turn/ USSR gets hit by Japan sooner/harder).
if Germany sees the factory and shots for it, then less troops to fight USSR, and the UK can hold the German advance for long enough for US to get there. so again good for the Allies (only not AS good as if Germany dosn’t go for it).
i think this factory is a good stratagy for the UK as it adds much to the Allies, and only hurts Germany with the posibility of hurting Japan.
Just b/c UK may pull out of Ind on Rd 1, does not necessarily mean they give it to Japan.
UK can counter Ind with 1 inf + bom for 2-3 turns, assuming Japan is only going in with max of 2 inf, which is probably a safe assumption in this case since the have to take China in rd 1 and the UK still has a solid IO presence. The UK can also shuttle troops from Ken back to Per or Ind since they should have their AC, dd, and trn (or trns) around.
If Japan does sink them that helps the US in their Pac build up.
Outside of the Safr IC, I find pulling out of Ind and the continued threat by UK troops in Per a pretty good deterent against Japan for quite a few turns which is why I don’t like to counter Egy all that often.
Trying to hold India is usually a losing propositon. Better to pull the forces out and redploy to Africa.
