Yea, the old trick (armor to alg, inf to lyb). 1 unit for territory limit don’t do much at Africa (is better at Ukrania, of course)
Still I think 8 bid is tempting the luck and 9 almost suicide against competent axis player… too many sneaky plays for axis…
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa. That is a significant difference in playing the Germans. I completely disagree that in a situation in which you are limited to placing one unit per territory, that a placement in Ukraine is better, particularly when you can gain the advantage of G2 tank blitz through Africa.
(edit) - Or turbo India with 1 inf at French Indochina and 1 tank at Kwangtung. Although I haven’t seen this variation much, due probably to its vulnerability to Russian/UK moves (/edit)
As far as 9 bid, that is the TripleA standard bid - restrictions are that enemy capitals cannot be attacked except by strat bombing on first round, and that no more than one unit can be placed per territory. At the time my old record was retired, I had 8-9 wins and 0 losses playing with Allies, against some of the strongest ladder players.
So I think I know what I’m talking about when I say that a 9 bid is really the minimum an Axis player needs against a competent Allied player under those strictures. You could say my opponents were incompetent, but I was I think ranked about 17 out of 320 or whatever the total number is when my account retired, and you don’t get there by playing against retards.
The most abusable 8+ bid strategy (unusable in TripleA) is Baltic transport followed by long range aircraft tech roll for invasion of London. Apart from that, though, the Axis really need a good sized bid just to stand a chance in hell. The Axis can “sneak around” all they want, I will just ram units down their throats until they choke - which I wouldn’t be able to do if they had those extra starting units.
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
@Mazer:
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
If I could only keep ONE change from AA 2nd to AAR, it would be tanks defending at 3.
And yes, the tank blitz of Africa is great. Which is why you need to make sure Egypt falls with 4 or 5 ground units left. I’ll even kill off a fighter if it means Egypt has 5 ground units (or 4) because it stops England from winning, and most likely keeps you with 2 or 3 tanks.
Fighters can fly to Africa. Tanks need a transport. So that’s a double benefit.
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
D***it, Funcioneta, I keep saying that the bid is a function of the ruleset under which the bid is placed.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that Jen’s talking about one of those sites that only lets you preplace half your bid. I’m pretty sure AAMC goes that way.
No, I’m talking full placement bid, but you can only put one unit per territory.
FIDA bids, which are 50/50 with any remainder being cash not units, the bids I’ve been placing and winning are closer to 18 IPC.
And yes, it allows the submarine to SZ 8, but most players who get a naval unit make it a transport in SZ 14, which I feel is much more function able than 2 ground units in North Africa, if you ask me.
Anyway, bid 12 IPC, for me, is:
3 Infantry in Ukraine
2 IPC to Germany
1 IPC to Japan
This allows a round 1 purchase of 14 infantry for Germany and saves the fighter in Ukraine (which is more important then the 3 infantry, btw. 3 Infantry = 9 IPC, 1 Fighter = 10 IPC. So it’s like upping the bid by 1 without actually upping the bid!)
14 units G1… scary :-o
Even with half bid you can try things as 2 inf to ger, 1 ipc to japan, 5 ipcs to ger (that lets you, say ac, 1 armor, 8 inf G1, or 2 figs, 8 inf … pretty huge boost to axis anyway).
Of course, bid system changes the … bid… :-)
for me FIDA means 16 IPC.
Transport in SZ 14
Germany + 8 IPC
Gives me 48 IPC to spend on G1 which is 16 Infantry, full production in Germany and S. Europe. I can still hit Egypt with 3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter, Bomber (maybe a second fighter if Ukraine lives) which is way over kill.
UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.
I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think) and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think) then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened). After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
Different situations call for different measures. There have been times that I hunt the UK navy on Jap1.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think)
I typically see the UK bomber in Africa following a UK retake of Anglo-Egypt. And instead of seeing the UK bomber in Siberia, when I or other Allied players I see send the UK bomber east, it’s usually to China. But, I understand your point, yes. Although I don’t personally see it a lot, it is tactically sound, particularly if the Germans didn’t offer UK a target for the UK bomber (Anglo-Egypt stacked and Baltic sea build), but even then sometimes UK may choose to do it regardless of German move.
and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think)
Not so much. Because with 1 batttleship 4 transport east of Japan, any Allied attack first has to overcome that free hit on the Jap battleship, then hose the transports, and that means any particular Allied attack will probably fail at the cost of 1 or perhaps 2 Jap transports. This applies to both the US1 and the UK2 attack, and after that, Japan has considerable freedom of movement with its fleet. In other words, yes you can land there, but why would you carry out such an attack in the first place?
then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened).
As previously mentioned in this post, you CAN attack the Jap battleship and 4 transports east of Japan that I advocate with US1 fighter and bomber, and you CAN attack the surviving Jap battleship and 2-3 transports with UK2 destroyer and bomber, but it’s a pretty bad attack. The UK destroyer doesn’t count for much, but you’re trading two Allied fighters and a bomber for 2-3 Jap transports that Japan just builds next round. And the UK sub should not be able to hit the Jap fleet on UK2 barring extraordinary circumstances. (It is likely that UK sub attacked Japanese Solomon sub and possibly survived, but Jap1’s move combined with light Pearl has a good probability of seeing that UK sub sunk, barring a UK Australia transport block or other such move - which granted, you do see, but I think rarely due to its quick weakening of the UK Pacific fleet). In other words, yes - you can THEORETICALLY come up with some nasty Allied attacks, but I think in practice the Japs have sufficient resources and flexibility to counter, barring extraordinary Allied measures (in which case I think Germany would benefit from the diversion of Allied resources against Japan).
After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
If you want to go aggro with a US Pacific fleet, by all means, go ahead. You’ve already killed off a US fighter and bomber and hence reduced your hitting power, while knocking off a few Jap transports that Japan can easily afford to lose - PLUS, remember that after the US1 Pacific build, Japan can see the US coming and can start with its 1 fighter a turn build. With 2 trns 1 fighter 2 infantry (Japanese income on J1 will probably be 32 after it probably takes China), Japan’s on its way both to expansion in Asia and on its way to defense of the Pacific. You can be just as aggressive as you want with US, but if you try to force the issue in the face of Japan’s two battleships and two carriers, you WILL see the awesome power of the Japanese air force and navy; it is hardly “game over” for the Japs.
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]
Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure, but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns. We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
Unfortunately most of my losing games involved some mismanagement of Africa, for either side !
What I think:
Controlling it with not too much investment is the true key. A balance of IPC’s invested vs. IPC income flow between all theaters of action: Africa, Europe, Asia and everywhere…
I think a whole “treatise” may describe the possible complexities here… land, sea, air, ally cooperation…
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure
I’ve played plenty of games, and I’m sure enough for both of us.
but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns.
UK doesn’t have a Pacific fleet without giving up stuff to do it, and can’t unite that UK fleet with the US fleet without giving up even more stuff. In other words, you have this great plan about how US and UK are going to go together and bring justice to the people, hand in hand. Unfortunately, Japan has this plan too, and it involves kicking the Allies in the 'nads.
We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
Jenforces much?
Unless the Jap player sucks balls, it isn’t going to be all that easy. Moving that UK fleet around to join the US fleet is a pain in the ass. Try it in a game, and you’ll see what I mean. And then you want to just drop an IC in Borneo or New Guinea? Fighter overbuild? Suddenly popping a UK factory in India? Just what the hell are Germany and Japan doing all this time? Sitting around staring at the wall? Because if they are, your plan is going to rock their socks.
Planning on your opponents being super retarded is - well, let’s just say that maybe that ain’t such a great plan.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
I have no problems with the goals you put forth. But I get the distinct impression that you expect all this to happen very quickly - unification of the Allied fleet, invasion of Borneo/New Guinea, then UK5ish setup of IC at india. I’m saying it just isn’t going to happen like that. The US eventually muscles over Japan, but it takes a fair amount of time to secure a 4 IPC island, especially if the Jap player knows what he/she is doing.
Uniting the American and British fleets isn’t as hard as NPB suggests. He hates dealing with KJF because he’s not used too it and it makes him think instead of following one of the more established counters to Allied dominance.
First, unification in SZ 30. Switch has shown it is possible to sink the British fleet in SZ 30, but he’s also been too chicken to do it himself. Reason is, it also destroys most of the Japanese fleet and almost the entire Japanese Air Force to do it by the time America counters you may as well have started the game with no Japanese ships at all.
Second, sail UNDER Australia while building up the Americans.
Third, unify at will. Though, I’d recommend using the British submarine as a block against the Japanese fleet which will most likely have put in a 3rd carrier at the least, maybe even some more submarines.
That said, unless you get A LOT of practice, I would NOT recommend KJF tactics for league or tournament games. It is very unforgiving for the allies and you have to really KNOW what you are doing with Russia and England to pull it off. Not to mention, it all kind of hinges on what Germany does and how well it does it.
After all, you are not going to see a lot of KJF if Germany has 40 tanks in Egypt on Round 1. (Using ridiculous numbers on purpose.)
Likewise, if Russia takes out Ukraine and W. Russia without loss and England sees a soft target in W. Europe that can kill off another 2 fighters reducing the German air force in half, then you wouldn’t want to go KJF either.
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
@Cmdr:
Uniting the American and British fleets isn’t as hard as NPB suggests.
We shall see . . . using your own post! :evil:
He hates dealing with KJF because he’s not used too it and it makes him think instead of following one of the more established counters to Allied dominance.
THNK?!! Let’s not be spreadin those four letter words around here, missy! I don’t hold with no such truck. And KJF is fairly well documented and used, particularly on the tournament scene with all them “speshul rulz” with the extra victory thingies and the this and the that and the time limits, oy. Fairly familiar with KJF, thank you very much.
First, unification in SZ 30. Switch has shown it is possible to sink the British fleet in SZ 30, but he’s also been too chicken to do it himself. Reason is, it also destroys most of the Japanese fleet and almost the entire Japanese Air Force to do it by the time America counters you may as well have started the game with no Japanese ships at all.
EXACTLY as I said before. If you unify the UK fleet at SZ 30, west-southwest of Australia, you WILL pay elsewhere. You have not recaptured Anglo-Egypt (regardless of not whether you COULD, it is certain you didn’t if you unified the fleet). You left Japan with its Kwangtung transport. The Jap sub at Solomons lives. The UK gives up small but real gains on UK1 for more power down the line, and that’s what I’m talking about - nothing is free, and the Japs can capitalize on the openings left by UK. Which is NOT to say that KJF and fleet unification doesn’t work. It does. But it is not going to be a walk in the park, especially if Germany and Japan know what they’re about.
Second, sail UNDER Australia while building up the Americans.
EXACTLY as I said before. If you’re going to unify on UK1, then sail east under Australia on UK2, then unite with the US fleet at Solomons on US3, then just what have you gained in terms of early attack? By US3 in a KJF, Solomons should be controlled by the Allies anyways. (disclaimer - I don’t say the UK move is POINTLESS, because it isn’t, and the Allied KJF does gain a good bit on US4+ because of it)
Early Japanese expansion (J2+) is not so much a matter of sheer manpower as it is Japan’s ability to attack different points with intelligent use of transports and air. KJF isn’t really that easy. I have seen some pretty nasty and fairly effective KJF plans, but I’ve never seen one that reinvents the wheel.
Third, unify at will. Though, I’d recommend using the British submarine as a block against the Japanese fleet which will most likely have put in a 3rd carrier at the least, maybe even some more submarines.
Japs shouldn’t respond to a carrier-heavy Allied build with Jap carriers. Jap carriers aren’t effective against ground in Asia, Jap carriers aren’t effective to attack the Allied fleet. What carriers do well is defend, and Japan just doesn’t need a whole lot of that beyond its existing 2 battleships and 2 carriers. Japan itself can be defended by Japanese ground and air, leaving the Japanese navy free to roam the Indian Ocean, and the Borneo / East Indies split can’t be defended anyways (because if the Japs bulk up at one, the Allies can just hit the other). Again, not to say Jap carriers are a BAD idea, but they shouldn’t be necessary that early.
That said, unless you get A LOT of practice, I would NOT recommend KJF tactics for league or tournament games. It is very unforgiving for the allies and you have to really KNOW what you are doing with Russia and England to pull it off. Not to mention, it all kind of hinges on what Germany does and how well it does it.
Yey. That’s wat I said. It is NOT easy, it is NOT fast. Then again, neither is KGF.
After all, you are not going to see a lot of KJF if Germany has 40 tanks in Egypt on Round 1. (Using ridiculous numbers on purpose.) Jenforces!
Likewise, if Russia takes out Ukraine and W. Russia without loss Orly, “and”? Without losses? I guess my armada of 100 flying battleships and transports will support shot Ukr and WRus into oblivion without taking any losses. Jenforces!and England sees a soft target in W. Europe that can kill off another 2 fighters reducing the German air force in half, Ah yes, teh clever plan of arranging for your opponent to be dum. This is clever plan that I much like. Alas, I am not clever enough to figure out how to arrange this.then you wouldn’t want to go KJF either.
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
UK1, you have a few choices.
Commit to KGF, in which case you can transpose to KJF on UK2+, but at greatly reduced efficiency, since whatever you built is in UK, you don’t have a secure IC in Asia, and your entire Pacific fleet is probably destroyed because you dispersed it to hunt various Japanese/German targets.
Make a noncommittal move, in which case you’re not going to do well initially for KGF or KJF.
Or commit to KJF, from where you can transpose to KGF on UK2+, but at supremely reduced efficiency if you put an IC up somewhere else on the board and unified the Pacific fleet.
That is to say, although you CAN change your mind about pursuing KGF or KJF, switching IS going to hurt you.
So . . . WAT does a discriminating JENFORCES commander do?
It’s teh JENFORCES TIME MACHINE, foo!
Peer ahead through the mists of time and SEE wat Japan will do.
THEN!
DEATH FROM THE SKY with FLYING RUSSIAN BATTLESHIPS AND TRANSPORTS!
Also, steal Hitler’s lollypops as a child, traumatizing him to becoming . . . WILLY WONKA!
WILL THE OOMPA-LOOMPAS DREAM OF THE FOURTH REICH FLOURISH?
Tanks are STRONG! I got 40 tanks in Anglo-Egypt! One time, I built a tank out of an Everlasting Gobstopper and a bar of chocolate!
@Cmdr:
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
By stomped, do you mean didn’t take AE on G1, took it weakly, or was wiped out UK1?
To answer General_D.Fox’s original questions: One of the first times I’d ever sent the Med fleet west on G1, I forgot to unload the inf into Gib. That fleet went down in a hurry, and the US proceeded to suicide itself into SEu while the UK did the same into WEu. I’m usually pretty good about defending (or at least being able to retake) WEu/SEu in the early and middle game, but that time they were under immense pressure from very early on. So if you get kicked out of Africa that early, yes, I think it can mean curtains. Don’t get me wrong, I took AE on G1 like a good little Germany, but the loss of the Med fleet was just too much for my African campaign.
I really don’t have enough games under my belt to give a good answer on how long Germany should look to be in Africa. It used to be the UK and then US would land in Alg round 1, and then the US would send troops through Africa for maybe a few more rounds. In that case I’d say Germany just wants to shuttle troops over there until AE falls, and then they turn around and defend the heart of Africa until they’re dead or victorious. Free run of the place for 2-4 rounds and then you’re on defense.
But now, especially with the UnBaltic policy paper, everybody and their grandmother knows the benefits of bringing out the Baltic fleet. This means no UK1/US1 landings in Alg. In fact, it might mean the UK never lands. The US will be likely be landing on US2-5. I guess the same principle applies, though: Gain as much ground as you can and then defend it. If the US is really late getting to Africa, then at some point it might not be worth sending more troops over. Africa is only cool because tanks can get down there and go “wheeee!” as they blitz through unoccupied territory. If you have most/all of Africa and the US is marching over in force, fighting them ain’t gonna help. Usually the US is gonna be pretty efficient about getting over there, though, and you’re gonna want every Med fleet landing you can get. If you have 2trns in the Med, then you’ll probably only want to land in Africa 2-3 times (4-6 units) and then look at other targets.
My favorite Africa-defense tactic is to bring over the G or J airforces. The US slogs through Alg and Lib and is just ready to smack AE when all of the sudden 5 or more German ftrs land there. Nuts, says America. This is even funnier when the US forces must then retreat from Lib for fear of being demolished by 5ftr plus whatever was already mustered in AE. This can wreak havoc on Germany’s ability to trade territory for that turn, but places like Ukr will still be in reach. And if it means turning a US move of Lib > AE into Lib > Alg, I mean, come on, how can you pass that up!
This works in a similar way if the J airforce is just passing through on its way to reinforce the G stack and doesn’t want to get hit by AA fire (why does TripleA default to always-on AA anyway?). It might not send the Allies fleeing to Alg, but J ftrs might be able to hang around for a bit longer, too.
Also, the Axis are blessed with three battleships. If they happen to be around Africa (and they all tend to make their way there at some point), put them to good use.
I’ve played plenty of games, and I’m sure enough for both of us.
:-)
Jenforces much?
Not much. Two new build US CV, one BB, one DD, two tranny, one of them build. One CV from UK, two trannys too. All UK forces are in the area. US can build additional FIG for the UK carrier, perhaps the two UK fighter can fly down via Canada.
All available at Solomons at turn three.
Unless the Jap player sucks balls, it isn’t going to be all that easy.
I know. If it would be easy, much more KJF would be seen. KJF results in long play, and as allied player you need carefully planned movement.
Moving that UK fleet around to join the US fleet is a pain in the a**. Try it in a game, and you’ll see what I mean.
I have done it before. Ok, my enemy perhaps was not the best player (same to me), but it has work.
And then you want to just drop an IC in Borneo or New Guinea? Fighter overbuild?
Let’s see the numbers: US has 42 IPC in the first round to spend, 40 in the second, 38 in the third. First turn purchase: 2 CV, one FIG. Second turn: one or two tranny, two additional FIG, some INF. Third turn could be additional FIG, follow the fleet via Hawai. If the japanese attack those FIGs, the japanese navy would be out of position to protect or reattack Borneo/New Guinea. Could build some more tranny and infantry to etablish a supply line, but then there is the need of additional protection too. I tend to a FIG overbuild and get to Borneo with that two trannys only. Perhaps the UK can bring in some INF from australia to solomon to have a (lightly) protected landing place for US fighters.
Suddenly popping a UK factory in India?
Must be a misunderstanding. Perhaps I not make my point clear. Sorry for that, but english isn’t my first language. :-|
I doesn’t mean to build an UK factory that early on. I would only buy after I drive japanese back from southeast asia with the US forces. But perhaps at this point there is no need for an additional factory there. I think I have to see the board after six, seven turns to decide that. No strategy survives the first contact with enemy forces intact …
Just what the hell are Germany and Japan doing all this time? Sitting around staring at the wall? Because if they are, your plan is going to rock their socks.
I know that Germany can be a monster very fast. But without need of invest UK money in the asia theatre before turn seven/eight both the UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany back some time. With the landing UK and US forces in africa first turn should germany not have much money there, or not for long.
And with an additional US factory on Borneo the japanese need to invest in navy to protect their tranny fleet which means that there are lesser ground units in asia.
I have no problems with the goals you put forth. But I get the distinct impression that you expect all this to happen very quickly - unification of the Allied fleet, invasion of Borneo/New Guinea, then UK5ish setup of IC at india. I’m saying it just isn’t going to happen like that. The US eventually muscles over Japan, but it takes a fair amount of time to secure a 4 IPC island, especially if the Jap player knows what he/she is doing.
I know that a KJF game will last. And I doesn’t mean to build an UK IC in India on turn five. Three turns later seems to be very early. Ok for that? ;-)
OK, back to Africa ! Let’s discuss when each of these choices are better:
-German bid: tnk/art in Algeria/Libya, or tnk/inf, or tra with Med fleet, or “half” (tnk Algeria, arty Japan) or elsewhere that may still have indirect effect on Africa (sub sz8, tra Japan) ? or just troops in Russia ?
-G1: fleet west (inf to Gibraltar) or east ? how much air support to land and fleet ? when it can be meaningful to NOT attack Egypt ?
I really don’t have enough games under my belt to give a good answer on how long Germany should look to be in Africa. It used to be the UK and then US would land in Alg round 1, and then the US would send troops through Africa for maybe a few more rounds. In that case I’d say Germany just wants to shuttle troops over there until AE falls, and then they turn around and defend the heart of Africa until they’re dead or victorious. Free run of the place for 2-4 rounds and then you’re on defense.
I’ll give you a good answer. The answer is - Germany should be there as long as the going is good. Wow, very cryptic. Just what does this mean?
Okay, you have to remember that when you’re dropping stuff into Anglo-Egypt, you’re bleeding out Europe, in a few different ways. First, when you use your battleship/transport to move to Africa, that’s a load that COULD have been dropped, say, in Ukraine, Balkans, or Caucasus, with accompanying battleship support shot.
Second, you ideally want to drop early tanks in Africa because of the tank blitz ability. But bleeding tanks out of Europe gets pretty expensive pretty fast, especially if Anglo-Egypt kills the two tanks you can bring to Anglo-Egypt on G1. What are you going to do - drop in a tank a turn piecemeal over the next two turns? Ew. Maybe it’s your best choice, but it’s still ugly.
Third, the less you have in Europe, the less you have in Europe.
Keeping all this in mind, here’s what you’re looking at.
1. Germany has to choose between dumping units into Anglo-Egypt and Libya.
If Germany dumps to Anglo-Egypt/Trans-Jordan, Germany can take more territory faster, particularly as UK can counterattack into Africa with its Indian forces. However, if Germany commits its forces to the east Med, the Allies can easily dump loads of stuff into Algeria. Fighters based at Western Europe may not be enough to destroy any incoming Allies.
If Germany dumps to Libya, Germany can’t rip through Africa that quickly. However, the German fleet is in place to counterattack any Allied dump to Algeria, attacking navy with its Med fleet plus W. Europe fighters (note this is usually NOT a good idea, as if the Med fleet wins, it gets blown up by Allied air/navy, and if the Med fleet retreats, it gets blown by Allied air/navy), or attacking landed units at Algeria with units dropped to Libya last turn plus W. Europe fighters.
There’s something to be said for both sides, but if I had a unified German fleet in the Med, I would seriously think about dumping to Libya.
2. Allies have easy time of dumping to Algeria.
There are two Atlantic routes that are easy and convenient. One is US troops produced at Eastern US march to Eastern Canada. From there, they ride a transport to Algeria or the UK. If they go to the UK, they can offload to Europe with another transport.
But to get to Europe, US troops need TWO transports per transport load. To get to Algeria, the US only needs ONE. And to get to points in eastern Europe, the Allies often have to bypass the Baltic fleet. So really - considering that the Allies have to build protective navy plus additional transports, the quick easy path to power is through Algeria.
3. Tanks are STRONG.
One US build you see sometimes is US1 3 transport 3 tanks 1 infantry, noncombat moves Central US infantry to Eastern US. This means on US2, there’s probably 2 inf 1 art 1 tank in Libya, 3 inf 3 tanks in Algeria (plus assorted UK forces in both), allowing US to hit Anglo-Egypt on US3 with assorted ground fodder plus four tanks and some air. From there, US tanks can blitz right through Anglo-Egypt, reclaiming it quickly. So if you see that sort of US build, take precautions and build accordingly. Remember, the MORE you put in Anglo-Egypt, the LESS you have in Europe - but the LESS you put in Anglo-Egypt, the MORE IPCs the Allies have and the LESS you have.
In other words - look at the situation and figure out your best move. Your best move will be different as the board position is different.
But now, especially with the UnBaltic policy paper, everybody and their grandmother knows the benefits of bringing out the Baltic fleet.
Hoboes! Beware teh Caspian Sub. They are filled with yummy-looking cookies. But maybe they only LOOK yummy. You have been warned. Santa is watching.
This means no UK1/US1 landings in Alg. In fact, it might mean the UK never lands. The US will be likely be landing on US2-5. I guess the same principle applies, though: Gain as much ground as you can and then defend it. If the US is really late getting to Africa, then at some point it might not be worth sending more troops over. Africa is only cool because tanks can get down there and go “wheeee!” as they blitz through unoccupied territory. If you have most/all of Africa and the US is marching over in force, fighting them ain’t gonna help. Usually the US is gonna be pretty efficient about getting over there, though, and you’re gonna want every Med fleet landing you can get. If you have 2trns in the Med, then you’ll probably only want to land in Africa 2-3 times (4-6 units) and then look at other targets.
My favorite Africa-defense tactic is to bring over the G or J airforces. The US slogs through Alg and Lib and is just ready to smack AE when all of the sudden 5 or more German ftrs land there. Nuts, says America.
This is even funnier when the US forces must then retreat from Lib for fear of being demolished by 5ftr plus whatever was already mustered in AE. This can wreak havoc on Germany’s ability to trade territory for that turn, but places like Ukr will still be in reach. And if it means turning a US move of Lib > AE into Lib > Alg, I mean, come on, how can you pass that up!
Retreat? Naw, US and UK forces should probably just sit there. There should be a whole mass of UK/US units, far too much for Germany to really attack without losing some air.
This works in a similar way if the J airforce is just passing through on its way to reinforce the G stack and doesn’t want to get hit by AA fire (why does TripleA default to always-on AA anyway?). It might not send the Allies fleeing to Alg, but J ftrs might be able to hang around for a bit longer, too.
Also, the Axis are blessed with three battleships. If they happen to be around Africa (and they all tend to make their way there at some point), put them to good use.
And that’s my opinion on the matter.
I just want to thank the people on this page for getting back on topic. Not that the other stuff wasn’t entertaining b/w Jen and her OMG itz D jenforcez crew vs everyone else, but I it kinda got off topic there. Anyway, kudos to the rest of you. It helps immensely. And thanks for the tips. Kudos!
