Should Germany take Egypt first turn?

I’d like to test you out on your hypothesis, IL.  I think crippling Russia and hitting Egypt is better than scattering about sinking ships.

That all UK ships is great when it works. When it doesn’t, it hurts Germany very bad. Ie. Whatever retreats from SZ2 if that fails is now exposed in Norway.

I just don’t like it.  You don’t need all the British ships, you really only need SZ 12 to protect the Italian Fleet.  Anything else is cake.  Meanwhile, if you can get all 3 National Objectives in Round 1, you’re talking a serious boost in money!

I also feel going for Karelia rd 1 is about as big a stretch as all the UK navy. Yes the rewards are great but failure can leave Germany in a bad spot. As far as Egypt goes my feelings are mixed. While it is nice to Kill the UK tank and plane there, I am thinking leaving them can suck the UK into building an Indian IC for Japan to acquire.

If you do not bring the bomber, Germany has a 91% chance to win in Karelia.

If you lock in that the Artillery unit dies last, you still have an 88% chance to win in Karelia. (As defined as you take the land, not that you have a strong surviving army at the end.)

For that 3rd NO, that’s pretty significant, IMHO.

I look at the net exchange in value. If i sink the UK BB, AP, CA, and DD, plus the DD off the Baltic. I can gain more net IPC in this exchange, then go after a tank, artillery and a few men and fighter to take 2 IPC Egypt.

Id rather beef up both Italy and Germany, then to not try to sink the UK fleet ( with great odds) and possible failure attacking Egypt. The greater risk is attacking Egypt on G1 and not attacking the UK fleet. If i fail in Egypt i still missed my chance to kill the uk fleets. If i kill the uk fleets, i still have a stronger position against Egypt on turn G2 no matter what he does. So i think its safer play to avoid an iffy attack on G1.

Id tend to think my transport should not also be wasted attacking Egypt and failing, only to have my transport wiped out by the surviving UK fighter. Under my plan i land either in Lybia or invade black sea, while i have the Italian reinforce or attack which would give me two separate attacks with no intervening UK turn. To me its batter to have the Italians try first because they have transports that can be protected so i have to not lose my Libya German forces in the exchange.

Okay, IL, you take the axis, and I’ll take the allies.  Then we’ll switch just to see which is stronger. :)

You can actually do this. Look at my strategy map and perform the same moves as indicated for the German player.

IN some cases i offer choices, so take the one you think i would take. It should be clear after G1. count up the eliminated units. I prefer you use my play fast strategy, so buy the tanks and not the carrier.

Then reverse and employ your idea. If you have more eliminated allied units, let me know and ill adapt to your strategy.

It will only take one turn to see.

That’s the funny thing about the differences between 41’ and 42’. My policy was always to not attack Egypt in either of the two scenarios because it was a waste of ground units when you can just load up Libya and the push the UK out with the threat of a superior attack on turn 2 without having to risk sending units into a 50/50 battle on turn 1 and your opponent rolling a yahtzee on defense.

But then I took a hard look at 41’ and realized that you HAVE to attack Egypt with Germany. And you can’t half a** it either. You have to bring the German bomber because the UK fighter MUST be detroyed even at the expense of the German bomber. The reason for this is because of the 3 bomber purchase by the UK that I’ve seen somebody else advocate.

If anything in Egypt survives, the UK can move those units to Trans-Jordan and build the 3 bombers on their turn. That gives them 4 bombers and a fighter to hit the Italian fleet on UK2 and provides them with a place to land in Trans-Jordan that Germany can’t get to on G2 to stop it.

Even if all you get is a cleared result from the German Egypt attack, on Italy’s turn they can take Egypt with their 2 Libyan inf and hit the 2 UK inf in Trans-Jordan with 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 CA, 1 BB which is fairly good odds to take both and remove the landing places for the UK bombers.

Note: this also requires that the Japanese sink the UK DD/TP in sz35, so send 2 fighters to that attack and make absolutely sure that those units are sunk. The last thing you need is to send 1 fighter there and trade the DD for the fighter and have the TP survive to land 2 more units into Trans-Jordan.

In the 42’ scenario they can’t do it because the UK doesn’t have the income to build the third bomber and the German DD in sz13 can also provide an added measure of protection.

So to answer the question: You don’t have to in 42’, but you must in 41’ and bring the bomber to make sure it’s done right.

505,

We agree that Egypt has to be attacked, if only to knock down the stack.  Where we disagree is the use of the bomber.

You are thinking about the Fighter being used in UK 2, but that can be satisfied with the Italian attack afterwards.  I’m more concerned with the Fighter, Bomber, Cruiser, Destroyer attack on UK 1!

That’s why I send the bomber to the more certain battle in SZ 12 to kill those ships instead. (2 Submarines, Bomber vs Cruiser, Destroyer.)  Now it is Fighter, Bomber vs 2 Cruisers, Battleship if he attacks, which he won’t.

Round 2 is a different animal.  One would hope Germany got Egypt on Round 1 so Italy can take Jordan on Round 2 and get the National Objective, but if Germany failed, Italy should have taken Egypt on Round 1.  Sure, England could have the bombers to sink the Italian fleet, but wow, that’s gunna be costly for England at about the same time they need to start dealing with protecting transports from German fighters and bombers!

@U-505:

But then I took a hard look at 41’ and realized that you HAVE to attack Egypt with Germany. And you can’t half a** it either. You have to bring the German bomber because the UK fighter MUST be detroyed even at the expense of the German bomber. The reason for this is because of the 3 bomber purchase by the UK that I’ve seen somebody else advocate.
……
So to answer the question: You don’t have to in 42’, but you must in 41’ and bring the bomber to make sure it’s done right.

So losing Anglo-Egypt round 1 dooms the axis?

No it does not.  But it makes life really hard on the Axis.

I think what U-505 is saying is that losing the Italian Fleet before even getting a chance to use it once dooms the Axis. (Notice I am not saying I agree or disagree, only that I think that is what he was saying.)

ok what exactly do you bring on turn 1 to kill Egypt and what are the % of success?

actually also measure the % of success of the planes attacking the Italian fleet, but give the Italians 1 extra destroyer, because if they see 3 bombers, they will build something right?

Then compare the difference in value considering what is gained and lost vs. the allocation of the resources to other attacks besides Egypt on G1

Then you have an accurate value. right?

40% to kill the Egyptian Fighter
30% to take Egypt

Germany: 2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor
England: 2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter

(My experience is that Egypt actually goes much better, but that’s what the sim calls it at.)

NOTE:  SZ 12 should be utterly destroyed by 2 Submarines, Bomber so no England attack on SZ 14 in round 1.

By round 2, Italy should have taken Egypt and maybe Jordan as well…kinda depends what’s where.

And whatever bombers do survive seazone 14 are now in a position for the Japanese to mop up leaving England with for all intents and purposes its first round buy gone.

And possibly Italy +5 for having Jordan, Egypt and France (and/or Gibraltar, as if it mattered a lick.)

40% to kill the Egyptian Fighter
30% to take Egypt

you mean the % of failure is 60% to kill the fighter and 70% to fail at Egypt?

Thats a horrible opening move. If you fail you not only lose Egypt but still lost the Italian fleet.

What is wrong with landing and taking Jordan on G1 with either Italy or Germany, and the other stocks up in Libya
ON G2 Germany takes Egypt ( before UKs turn) and UK with 3 bombers cant land?

you still kill a few units, making Egypt weaker , then hit it again before the bombers are in play?

Actually, IL, it’s only Egypt that would fail, NOT a loss of the Italian fleet.

You still need something that can hit SZ 14.  Right now England only has 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber.  That’s not enough to take 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers.

well G1 must contain really good attacks and not marginal ones. What is wrong with Jordan on G1 and Egypt on G2?

it gets the same thing and does not risk failure.

The problem with Jordan on G1 is that Italy cannot take Egypt on round 1.  It just does not have the firepower.

I guess if you bring the bomber from Germany to Egypt your odds are significantly better, it would be:

2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Bomber

vs

2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter

It gives you a 75% chance to clear it with your bomber surviving.

Problem is, your odds dropped significantly in SZ 12, which I think is the more important of the two battles!  (No one is attacking SZ 14 with 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, I don’t care how crazy you are!)

SZ 12 with the bomber is 88% chance to win and do so with probably one submarine and the bomber

Without the bomber it drops too 30% with odds of only killing the destroyer, not the cruiser.

Fighter, Bomber, Cruiser vs 2 Cruisers and a Battleship is worth the risk to me.  At the least, you should get one or two of his cruisers before going down in flames.

I’d even consider Destroyer, Cruiser, Bomber to SZ 14 just for a shot at killing his fleet, as small a shot as it is.

But for many players, that means England would bring the Cruiser up with the Battleship and have 2 shore bombardments of France each round isntead of them attacking SZ 14. (I’m a risk taker, sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.)