Agressive and pretty unorthodox R1 Strategy: Saving Egypt.

First of all, you didn’t explain all of the first round purchases for Germany, just the CV and DD.  I think if I was playing in this league:

Russia: I would hammer West Russia leaving 1 INF on Karelia to prevent the blitz, 8 INF 1 ARM 1 FTR (might leave 1 more INF) on Caucasus, and the rest of the front on West Russia.  I’d consolidate the 6 INF on the Eastern Front in Buryatia.  I’d pull the 4 from Novosibirsk and Evenki back to Russia.  The 2 on Kazakh would be part of the stack on Caucasus. The Russian FTR would land on Egypt.  For the most part, Russia would thereafter engage in the typical land war with Germany.  If the German player bought that much naval force on G1, that is going to make life a bit easier on Russia for the early game.

UK: Due to the UK+6, I would build the IC on India.  As for the rest of my build, I would probably go for a second BOM, a CV in SZ 2, or a few land units to begin shoring up UK, just in case things go awry.  It would depend on how things went on G1 and the final placement of their air units.  The 2 FTR and 1 BOM on UK attack the Baltic fleet.  With 2 FTR 1 BOM against 2 DD 1 CV, UK has a 76% to win and keep at least the BOM, which I would land in Caucasus (or West Russia if the FTR’s survived).  If the SZ 2 fleet is still afloat, I would drop it down to SZ 12 to attack Algeria and to block in the German BB and TT in the Med.  Now, UK is under no immediate threat of a German landing on UK.  The Egypt ARM would move east to Persia.  The Indian TT would grab the 2 INF from Trans-Jordan and bring them back to India.  The 2 Persian INF would walk into India leaving a total of 7 INF there.  I’d pull the rest of the Indian fleet down to SZ 38 to merge with the Australian fleet.  Normally, I would go to SZ 30 for the merger, but in this case, I would go to SZ 38 to bait the Japanese into attacking the UK fleet.  In order to have the odds to succeed, they would need to commit a 3rd or 4th FTR (FIC and/or SZ 50).  Japan would no longer pose a serious threat of taking India on J1 and may greatly reduce their threat at Pearl Harbor.  If they ignore the fleet and instead attack India to capture the IC, they are going to suffer significant losses, even if they bring in every possible unit (4 INF 4 FTR 1 BOM).  They would not get the bombardment with the BB, as the ships are engaging in combat against the transport.  They are likely to lose 3 INF 2 FTR (29 IPC’s worth of units) compared to UK’s 21 (forgetting the AA), leaving Japan with only 1 (maybe 2) infantry for the capture.  FIC and Kwangtung would likely both be bare, except for possibly any air units landing after the India battle.  Likely the Japanese player would want to defend their fleet, so their 2 FTR’s would land on their Indian Carrier.  Their BOM may well be stranded alone in FIC or perhaps with 1 extra FTR if Japan got lucky in the India fight.  Those air units are tempting targets for a US assault from China as they do not have cannon fodder to chump block for them on defense.  Granted, Japan does have the TT in SZ 60 that they COULD ferry 2 units to Kwangtung or FIC, but the transport would then be a sitting duck for the American FTR on China.  Assuming Japan succeeded in capturing India, Russia can liberate it with their 2 FTR and the ARM from Caucasus.  If the rolls are horrendous for the Russians attempting to liberate India on R2, UK should have little difficulty wiping out the Japanese fleet off of India and recapturing India on UK2.  With 1 CC, 1 CV, 1 SS, 2 FTR (possibly up to 4), and (likely) 1 BOM against the Japanese 1 CV, 1 BB, and 2 (or less) FTR UK has a 63% chance of success and likely keeping 2 units.  If UK has more FTR’s and/or Japan has less, my odds are that much better.  As for the land battle.  If UK needs to recapture India, they can bring in 2 INF from Australia and the ARM from Persia.  If Japan has 2 INF left on India, UK has an 81% chance to recapture using those 3 units alone.  Thereafter, Japan would be in no position to make another attempt on India for some time.  IF Russia succeeded in the liberation, things are even better for UK.  The ARM on Persia can head eastward and hit FIC along with the 2 INF being transported up from Australia.  This would depend on what air units Japan landed there at the end of J1 (and/or any transported units from Japan) as well as any other naval units Japan might have in range that might threaten the TT if left floating alone for a round.  Thereafter, I would pump out 3 units every turn in India and the rest at UK, building a couple naval units and then ground units to drop down to SZ12 and thereafter my transports would return to UK for more land units and drop them back off in Algeria on the same turn.  If Japan appeared to be threatening a strike upon India again, UK could temporarily suspend Atlantic builds and build more costly units to shore up the Indian defense.  However, it will not take long before the US/UK units from Algeria will make their way over to Caucasus or India

USA: My purchases and overall direction would depend greatly upon what Japan brought in to Pearl Harbor on J1.  If Japan kept back the SZ 50 CV to aid in the takedown of the UK fleet, the attack on Pearl Harbor would be weak.  If the Japanese attack both the UK fleet and India, they would need the BOM to attack India AND the SZ 50 CV pulled back to provide a landing space for the 3rd FTR engaging the UK fleet.  Therefore the J1 Pearl Harbor attack would be extremely weak, though it should still certainly succeed.   US would easily counter on US1.  With one half of the Japanese fleet sunk at Pearl Harbor during US1 and the other half about to be sunk (or already sunk) in the Indian Ocean, Japan would be in a world of hurt and I would go KJF and have several options in how to pursue that course.  Assuming the Japanese player goes for a strong Pearl Harbor on J1, Japan would be forgoing the assault on the UK Indian Fleet or India - both are good scenarios for UK.  However, if the Japanese pursue the strong Pearl Harbor assault, that portion of the Japanese navy poses no threat to India until J4 at the earliest.  Therefore, as the US, I am drawn between the Pacific and the Atlantic options.  If Japan didn’t bring in everything possible and/or they had less than stellar results, I may go full-bore KJF.  If the Japanese brought in maximum possible force into Pearl Harbor, I would probably turn tail with my TT and BB and head for the Atlantic.  If the UK SZ 2 fleet was destroyed, I would drop the US SZ 10 CC down to SZ 12 to block in the German Med fleet and hold back my transports in SZ 10.  The DD would pull up to SZ10, merging with my 2 TT and my builds.  If the UK SZ 2 fleet survived and made the move down to SZ 12, I would bring over the CC and 2 TT along with 4 ground units from EUS.  I would buy 1 CV, 2 TT, 3 INF, 1 ARM.  Thereafter, I would primarily focus on doing the quick ferry ride from Algeria back to Eastern Canada, picking up as many land units as I can carry, and returning back to Algeria each turn.  UK could do the same by returning to SZ7 to pick up fresh troops and heading back to Algeria all in the same turn.  This would protect the joint US/UK fleet from splitting up and being vulnerable to attack by German and/or Japanese air power in Europe.  This would keep the African IPC’s pouring into the Allied coffers, as well as maintain significant threat to Western Europe and Southern Europe (once the German Med fleet is eliminated).  Germany would need to hold back more units from the front line, further easing the burden on Russia.  US and UK can keep this up and march their tanks and men across northern Africa into the middle east and up to Caucasus or Asia.  With the German naval build on G1, that is one more turn for US and UK to get boots on the ground and over to the front.  At the drop of a hat, the UK, followed by the US, could switch up the plan and invade Western or Southern Europe when they are ready.

Edit: I guess I didn’t address part of the Japanese strategy that you mentioned.  If Japan totally ignores both navies and simply builds the two IC’s and makes the tank rush for Moscow, UK would certainly deter the progress with the IC on India.  As the USA, I would probably shore up the defense of Buryatia’s 6 Russian INF with a couple US FTR’s (China & Hawaii) and build bombers ASAP to land in Buryatia and strategic bomb the Japanese IC’s.  Granted, the most I could do would be 12 IPC’s of damage between the 2 mainland IC’s.  However, that coupled with the UK builds in India should quickly slow the Japanese tank rush to a crawl at best.  I will need to crunch the numbers later for specific battle stats to run out the likely progress.

Anyhow, it’s getting late and I think I have written enough for you to get the gist of most of my plan to counter that scenario.  If I miswrote something, I’ll correct my post later.  In my play group, we play straight OOB rules without a bid.  If I had a UK+6, this is what I think I would pursue.  Please tell me what you guys think of this allied strategy.

@Uncrustable:

@Hobbes:

@Uncrustable:

The one thing i generally dont know when to do is build ICs in India and/or FIC .?
And what is the best way to move air from japan to germany? Carriers in the indian ocean ? Or FIC -> Egypt -> Europe. Most of my games Germany is not yet prepared to hold Ukraine on G3 so japan cant land its fighters there.

IC on FIC is less efficient than getting 4 transports for J to maximize usage of Japan’s starting IC and using 2 of those transports to bring units from Japan to FIC. 2 transports cost 14 IPC, carry 4 units, 1 IC costs 15 builds only 3.
India on the other hand should have a Japanese IC as quickly as possible, but without risking it to fall to an early Allied (Soviet) attack from Caucasus.
Air, depends on the situation. If you keep a carrier on SZ60 and another off Egypt you can move newly build fighters to Europe in 2 rounds. Bombers can be sent through Egypt or India (and if you build an IC on India then any J bombers built there can hit SZ5 on the next round), fighters India can reach Balkans or E. Europe  - really depends on the situation.

Yeah i agree. Thanks for all your help Hobbes ;)

Something else I remembered. Sometimes an IC on FIC is a good option if the Allies go KJF.
If the UK has built 1 IC on India on UK1 then Japan needs to focus everything on conquering it and it is a quicker way to place units on FIC than shipping them from Japan. However, there’s a risk that the Allies may conquer FIC instead and then its former IC will be used against Japan.
If the US go with a Pacific strat an IC on FIC may also be a good option since it allows to add additional ships/ground units for Japan away from the main battle.

@Hobbes:

If I’m assuming it correctly, the point is that if the fleet is trapped then there’s no need to destroy it since Allied control of Suez implies Allied control of Africa and zero possibility of German landings.
However the best use of the Med fleet, imho, is to help contesting Ukraine and Caucasus, so it doesn’t really matter if Africa is blocked to German landings - plus the Allies will also have to keep sending units through Africa (waste of units), otherwise the Germans will eventually start contesting it again.

Yes.  But also I (examined paw carefully) because often the Suez does NOT close with a German Med fleet - or at least, it closes after Germany’s already thoroughly milked the hell out of the Mediterranean fleet.

German Med Carrier Strategy (Bunnies’ abbreviated version)

First off, if you even try this, Germany has retarded progress in Europe.  Buying early navy means less early infantry and tanks.  A Mediterranean carrier has zero effect on UK’s progression in northern Europe.  If anything, UK’s progression is only even easier.  It’s my opinion that the absolute best thing that can happen to the Axis is the Allies trying to sink the Axis Med fleet.  It’s like when your four year old cousin starts to try to beat you up with a foam noodle.  It just ain’t happening, and meanwhile you’re taking all his candy.

When you build a Med carrier, you don’t f*ing just throw one down and say “look at me, i’m a master of med carriers!” (which is what some players I’ve seen do.)  You look for favorable conditions first.  Ideally Germany can claim Karelia without Russia being able to pose a real strafe (i.e. attack then retreat).  This gives the Germans position to grab Archangel and maintain Norway income on G2, plus restricts Russia’s income so it has less to press Germany with.  Ideally Russia doesn’t have a whole god-awful chunk of units ready to move into Ukraine either, because counterplay there can more than compensate Russia for the loss of Karelia.

If the Allies pre-emptively set up to screw with a Med carrier buy, you just do something else.  Russia sent all its Caucasus and Kazakh units to Persia on R1?  Fine, don’t buy a Med carrier, just punch Russia in the nuts with tanks.

Even given favorable conditions for a Med carrier, it isn’t enough to just buy the thing.  You have to follow through with Germany and Japan, or it just becomes an expensive disaster for Germany.

So you’re looking at one of two situations, either Germany hit Anglo-Egypt or it didn’t, which really changes the game up, but we will ignore that for now and pretend UK doesn’t whack either Japan’s East Indies fleet or an isolated German battleship at Anglo-Egypt.  So you’re looking at a G2 in which Germany is really grabbing the hell out of the Suez, which allows a J2 move of battleship/carrier into the Mediterranean.  There’s a few counterplays by the Allies, but the Japs have their own book of counter-counters, which includes Jap fighters, which really basically says “f. u. counterplay”.  Anyways, the Axis almost certainly control the Suez long enough that the Axis can reinforce the German fleet with Japs if they so choose.  After that happens, the Allies have a hell of a time trying to beat down that Mediterranean fleet.

Early, the Germans must push into southern Africa, with multiple tanks backed with the German bomber (probably starts with G2 inf/tank drop to Anglo-Egypt).  UK loses income fast, and Germany gains it fast.

If Germany has dominated Africa and there’s no Allied reinforcements en route to Africa, then I’d say sure head to Ukr/Cauc with the German Med fleet.  But with a small to moderate number of US units dropped in, I would drop to Trans-Jordan and/or Anglo-Egypt instead.

Suppose US drops from East Canada to Algeria with a transport.  Every turn, US can move the transport back and forth; every turn a transport load gets unloaded to Algeria.  But from there, US can only proceed to Libya then Anglo-Egypt.  It is very easy to predict and counter the US line of advance, and anywhere along the line, Germany can cut the US reinforcement line with its transports and air, plus any units already in Africa.

The alternative is for US to drop to southwest Africa, but that takes a transport out of action for two turns (one turn there, one turn back).  Only on the NEXT turn can it pick up and drop to Africa again.  Which is really very impractical if the Allies can at all avoid it.

Normally, US can race through Africa, but steady two transports worth of Axis reinforcement into Africa REALLY screws the normal progression.  Suddenly, US has to go much slower, or it gets completely wiped out at almost no cost to Germany.  Imagine like this - Germany has 2 tanks and 2 infantry on Anglo-Egypt.  It moves one tank to French West Africa, one to Italian East Africa via Belgian Congo, and the infantry to Italian East Africa.  Then Germany drops four ground to Trans-Jordan.  Whatever comes to Anglo-Egypt on the Allies turn can be hit by eight Germans on the ground plus German air.  That’s quite nasty.  Even after the Germans lose casualties, there will probably still be enough German survivors to deter a sizable Allied attack on Anglo-Egypt.

Eventually, though, if the Allies are determined to drop loads and loads into Africa, they do push the Germans out.  But then, the Germans just march into Persia where they meet up with Japanese reinforcements.  Then the fat stack of Allies in Africa is cut off from the Russians, on the wrong side of a combined German-Japanese force.  Further, the Ger/Japan combined force at Persia allows Germany to set up for a serious threat to Caucasus.  If Germany pushes to Ukraine, Russia can strafe, but a combined Ger/Jap ground force at Persia lets Jap take all the cheap casualties - or Germany, whichever is worse for Russia.

So in this setup, if the Allies insist on dropping to Africa, it’s not easy for them.  But then again, NOT dropping to Africa is still not easy.

–

I’m not saying “med carierz ownz j00”; there’s plenty of Allied counterplay.  But I would say attempting to kill the Med fleet with air should not work until it’s far too late.

Lads and Lasses,

First time on the the site, but I’ve loved what I’ve seen so far! There is a lot of great strategic advice, especially at the beginning of the game.

I was wondering if anyone had an picture of the game with all of the pieces placed prior to the first turn.  It would be great to be able to see the board and pieces in place, so I can envision the moves and see what the opposing players might try.  Maybe it’s because I’m a noob, but  I haven’t been able to memorize the board at the start yet.

Any help would be much appreciated!  Thanks in advance!

@Advosan:

Which makes the AES Gambit (all rights reserved by B.P.Wrath:)) safer for Russia.

Oo no.  I am not that baby daddy.

I would be surprised if Germany had Africa and then wasted those IPC’s on subs. Seems counterproductive.

Honestly Granada I would have to show you in a game. Not to sound cocky but I am very good and don’t make mistakes. For this strategy to work you have know when you are able to move your infantry stacks out of Germany/southern Germany/Eastern Europe/ and sometime karelia if you are here. You are correct in that germany won’t have much attack power. I almost always build 10 inf 2 tanks R1. Gives Germany some options on R2. Even possibly sending a tank to africa if your fleet was not destroyed. The thing is Germany doesn’t need attack power so much as Stacking power. 6 tanks =30 while as 10 infantry=30 is a huge difference. The more units you can stack in a Certain area the better. I am not a big fan of trying to take an hold western Europe. I Usually give this up very early on in the game and send almost everything at Russia. Germany’s tanks are vital in holding back both russia and US and UK. Try keeping Germany tankss in Eastern Europe. This both protects against a combined stack in western europe from the allies, and also is realy scary to russia and can hit many fronts on your eastern theatre.

@Fleetwood:

The Allied fleets must stay together……
but has anyone found Africa harder to control as the Allies in Spring 42 compared to Revised?

Not really harder, just different.  you can’t totally look to revised as a basis for what you can do here, because of the changes. 
Its not necessarily a must to keep the allied fleets together.  it all depends on how you build them and where the opposition is.

I personally like for germany to waste fighters on a vulnerable american fleet at SZ12.  when there is a stronger back up on SZ10. that means those fighters are not bothering Russia…. but like i said it depends on the positions