Italian Africa?

@the-spaceman Seems like a good start. A few thoughts to throw into the mix:

I would say UK’s naval priorities should be first the Baltic fleet, then any stray transports, then any stray subs. The subs don’t do any convoy damage or anything like that, so they’re really just targets of opportunity; it’s not like you can safely leave British transports unattended anyway because of the German bomber, so the subs aren’t doing that much more harm. The Baltic fleet is top priority because it allows Germans to cheaply conquer Norway/Finland/Karelia, and because it’s too expensive for Germany to sanely replace.

The Australian transport can flee across Argentina to the Atlantic, but I would leave the destroyer behind to block a J2 attack on Australia – I think it does more good slowing down Japan and keeping some of the UK income than it does to get a destroyer added to your Atlantic fleet, like, 3 turns later. For similar reasons, I usually won’t move the starting US Pacific fleet to the Atlantic. If the Allies took unusually heavy naval losses, then maybe it’s worthwhile, but the Pacific fleet is earning you nothing the whole time it’s in transit through the Panama Canal. Having a few starting boats in the Pacific – even just CV, ftr, DD, tran – means that if you ever do need to upgrade the Pacific fleet into a formidable force because Japan is grabbing Alaska and Hawaii or whatever, then you can do so with one turn of purchases. If you can’t quickly reinforce the US Pacific fleet to the point where it can drive away the Japanese navy, then you might be forced to buy 10 infantry for the Western US instead or something similarly expensive and wasteful.

It doesn’t always make sense to build a huge Atlantic fleet at all as the Allies – sometimes you can sink the Italian fleet using primarily air power and subs, and/or build a pair of factories in Egypt, South Africa, India, or Australia. Some games you won’t have enough good safe factory sites, and some games you’ll need a big fleet because, e.g., Germany is heavy on air power (so you need protection for your transports) but short on infantry (so invading France is really attractive). On the other hand, if Germany trades its entire air force to wipe out your boats on G1, builds a factory in France on G1, and then drops 6 infantry there on G2, maybe just let the Atlantic navy go for several turns and rely on factories instead, or have the British build factories and let the Americans reinforce with a fleet into Morocco after they build up.

@Argothair:

Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.

You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.

I am glad I was able to clarify the Italian National Objectives.  The $5 NO is very big for ‘little brother’ as that’s a 50% increase from their base income of 10 IPCs.

@Argothair:

Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16).  That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.

I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.

Along the lines of your summary below:
strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio”

If the allies do not move units into Algeria (or are not set up to do so), then the Axis do not need more than 2 turns of transports (Germany round 1, Italy round 1, Germany round 2, Italy round 2… maybe, maybe not)

@Argothair:

I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.

I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat.

A safe Axis retreat is not as difficult as you may deem.  If the odds are against you holding, play safe, fall back either into Africa further or into Trans-Jordan on the way to pressuring Russia thru Persia.  At the very least, you will now force Russian units to kill your African units.  Not a good thing for the allies (or Russia).

@Argothair:

It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything.  There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.

I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.

Hence it is very hard to accurately tally these costs/value of these units.  When we think of the Med fleet, we look at how much damage it will do when it is destroyed.  Will it cost the allies 3 planes?  Perhaps a couple of destroyers and a plane?  As the Axis, we want to make it as costly as possible, sometimes even moving a Japanese carrier into SZ15/SZ16 to help protect that fleet.

@Argothair:

What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa?  A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.

Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.

True.  You are describing the main issue that the allies are forced to overcome.  How to help the Russians as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Bringing the fight to the short lines of supply in western Europe might tie up some units, but are short term gains that the Germans can usually absorb moreso that the allies.  If Japan flies some planes (2-4 fighters) to Europe by round 3 and 4, this greatly helps German fend off the usual KGF allies strategy employed.

@Argothair:

My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early.  It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.

That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.

There are many variables at play, so strategic discussions on a grander scale often overlook some of the details you are bringing into the discussion.

WWII (and this game) was won based on mobility and reusability of resources.  So tanks and planes are better than artillery and infantry.  But you need some infantry to take the hits, so you can’t just buy all tanks and planes.  So fighting Africa with tanks, fighters and transports are the most efficient way (for both sides).  Why was Africa lost for Germany?  Lack of resources, mainly due to no control of the Med.  The European axis lost many, many men by NOT falling back via a safe retreat.  Don’t make that mistake.

@Argothair:

Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)

You’re welcome.  I love talking strategy

I totally agree that the Axis need to nurture Italy early. I think the way to a solid win for the allies is to knock out Italy in Rnd 2. If the Germans can secure the Italian NO’s that’s a start.

And if the Suez is Axis, and India is carelessly open then yes. Definitely give it to Italy. Then it’s 3 IPCs for Italy - and 5 for Japan. A good split of booty.

I also like that Italians help to support the Germans againts the Russians that way.
But I suspect that Russia would survive longer if counterattacking with tanks
instead of building up infantries.

I’d throw 8 IPC into the water if it meant I kept both Italian NOs (10 IPC a round.)  I was just wondering if you played against a destroyer build. (Or even a carrier build since you have a fighter that can land on it, and Italy could really use the fighter starting in the med so it can attack both theaters of operations.)

CmdrJennifer, I modified the build which was from the start 2 bombers and 1 carrier, in order to have some fodder units instead. It is true of course that Italy has three builds before US3 and can build more than 1CV+1DD which US alone can beat with my proposed US1 build. My idea then was to use the UK navy to finish the attack, probably on the turn after US strikes, UK4. You then send in air and fodder units, 3-4 DDs or subs, and spare your CV and CAs in sz12 to minimize losses to the UK invasion fleet. (A Russian blocking attack against TRJ is then needed to hinder Japanese deployment into the Med., and if Italy survives with a CV don’t forget that figs can be flown onto it before UK moves!)

This is a simplification, of course, because you might try to hide ships in sz15/sz16 as Italy and so forth. I haven’t played this myself that much yet, when I tried it Italy has acquiesced in losing their fleet but for one game where I built two bombers US1 and didn’t have enough fodder units.

UK doing the killing alone I think is a bad idea. They need to be invading and sending the fleet into battle first does too much harm to it. In the example above of a double US/UK strike at the Italian fleet, you can survive with the core of your Royal Navy if you play well. In this scenario you can’t invade FRA/NWE for a turn or two for a long-term benefit of destroying plenty of Axis IPCs.

Transports are better.  If don’t have the naval strength to land in sz12, then you need to build it.  Once you start landing in SZ12, you are

That’s alot for Germany to worry about, and it requires alot of resources to protect Italy and France.

By contrast, Axis can totally ignore a Brazil factory and a transport or 2 going to Congo.  By not contesting North Africa and/or threatening Germany’s rear end, this Brazil strat helps Germany put more income into destroying Russia.

And I guess I need not say a word, just read the above post. Little do I post but it seems like I’m obliged.

If Italy can take Africa for IPCs and keep its fleet intact for 4-5 turns Italy can start doing good.  One game Germany launched an unsucssesful invasion of UK.  Then Italy came out of nowhere and took the UK with one tank left and the US fleet was 3 sz away.  Game ending move.  Italy has potential.