German Carrier: When and Where.... [Archive]

tactical

04-18-2004, 05:46 PM

TomJag1,
I am not sure what you mean by saying(pulling BB to Gibraltar), do you mean G1? Hopefully not. If you kill UK BB, then UK can take out BB and sub(if you use it for BB instead of attacking UK Transport or sending it somewhere). Yes, Germany, then could take out any remaining UK fighters on Gibraltar, but it would be difficult to replace BB with an aggressive Russian player.
Also, I think I am probably one of the few who think this way, or mabey one of the many, I can see no logical reason not to take over Egypt on G1. Lets see, closes canal to everyone(on G1),kills a UK fighter that can harass Japan,easy access to Trans-Jordan, easy IP points on the rest of Africa(even if America comes over, you will still have the points for a few turns),etc, etc. Anyone can see where I'm going with this.
If you want a good chance at Operation Sea LIon, you need that AC on G1. Do you take a hit from an aggressive Russian player? Yes. But Germany can bounce back by G3, most likely G4. What some people don't realize is that Operation Sea Lion doesn't have to be G1. I played a Uk player, built IC in Australia, built a fleet around Australia but left UK vulnerable,took Uk G6. Will a great player make that mistake?Probably not, but it forces allies to contend with German Navy(no matter how small)instead of focusing on Japans navy only. I don't know, mabey I'm completely wrong.

04-18-2004, 08:31 PM

I agree with everything Randell said. Tomjag is drawing a long bow to assume that a G1 CV implies no attack on Egypt turn 1.

If I see an India factory UK1, Germany can consider slapping down 5 transports on G2. This means the UK might have to not build or underbuild in India, thereby giving the Japanese a free factory. Killing Egypt on G1 becomes essential in this scenario because it removes many quality units from the defense of India.

Hey Tomjag just out of interest did any of these games involve 9 or more VCs? Because obviously in an 8 VC game you need to think more short term, making the CV a poor option.

[ April 19, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: DY ]

Kami

04-19-2004, 07:33 AM

Alrighty, 1st post, yay! I was just wondering, if Germany does intend to make a Baltic CV, which would be the better move:

1) Have the Italian fleet atk the BB off Gibraltor and take Gibraltor w/ 1 inf. (to prevent UK fighters from atking BB, Trans. and Sub from SZ 8) but not take Egypt.

2) Take Egypt with 1 trans. and BB (to kill the destroyer), while destroying the British BB in the med. with the sub in SZ 8 and some fighters? I'm not sure if the Baltic Fleet would make it to SZ 12 and the med. if Egypt is taken G1?

I'm just curious if there is a way to take both Egypt and get that Baltic Fleet to the SZ 12 w/o getting sunk. If the BB/sub/trans. atk Gibraltor BB,then both fleets can rendevous at SZ 7 then to 12 to block the US in africa.

Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

squirecam

04-19-2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Kami:
Alrighty, 1st post, yay! I was just wondering, if Germany does intend to make a Baltic CV, which would be the better move:

1) Have the Italian fleet atk the BB off Gibraltor and take Gibraltor w/ 1 inf. (to prevent UK fighters from atking BB, Trans. and Sub from SZ 8) but not take Egypt.

2) Take Egypt with 1 trans. and BB (to kill the destroyer), while destroying the British BB in the med. with the sub in SZ 8 and some fighters? I'm not sure if the Baltic Fleet would make it to SZ 12 and the med. if Egypt is taken G1?

I'm just curious if there is a way to take both Egypt and get that Baltic Fleet to the SZ 12 w/o getting sunk. If the BB/sub/trans. atk Gibraltor BB,then both fleets can rendevous at SZ 7 then to 12 to block the US in africa.

Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks.The only way is this:

Take Gibraltar as described. Use man + tank + planes to take Egypt. You must be prepared to lose some planes though.

Squirecam

TomJag2

04-19-2004, 10:39 AM

All our games were to 8 v.p. cities, as we were trying to come up with a tournament format that would end a game in 4 hours.

About attacking the BB if it moves to the sea zone outside Gibraltar: If the British are going to sink the Italian BB, what are they going to use? It takes the RAF out of England. Does that leave them open to a German invasion on Turn 2? If the US reinforces England, is their fleet vulnerable to attack?

I also agree that taking out Egypt on turn 1 is important, though the players who beat my Allies did not bother invading Egypt. Their strategy worked wonderfully for them. My Axis strategy keeps the BB and the transport busy in the eastern Med area and I do go after Africa.

The major point of the post is that a carrier is not in Germany's best interests. If you're playing the long game, then the USSR needs to be taken out. You can't do that when you're building a navy. Now that fighters are almost the same price as transports, Germany can afford to send a bunch of fighters after transports and destroyers. I recommend keeping the Baltic Fleet together until an Allied fleet comes within range and then sending out the fleet with the Luftwaffe to kill it. Killing the Allied fleet 3 times keeps the US and GB from being a factor. If Japan attacks China and then Sinkiang with all their starting Asian mainland ground forces and are supported from the air, Russia's soft underbelly is exposed and they're fighting a 2 front war. The Axis has the great advantage of a multitude of targets at the beginning of the game. This can be a huge advantage if properly used.

I'm not a very good Axis player, yet I've won with the Axis against some excellent A&A guys. It all comes from realizing the possibilities. I learn something from each loss that I can add to my game to make me a better player. You must realize that there's not one 'best' strategy but that strategies must be modified to fit the situation.

04-19-2004, 10:45 AM

The thing is, if you don't build the CV, the UK can go an all air attack vs your Baltic fleet at an expected cost of probably 1.5 fighters.

Even if it costs you 2 fighters, it's probably worth it to remove German fodder from an assualt on your own shipping later.

Oh well, it's early days yet...

squirecam

04-19-2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Frog:
Here is my advice,

G1- buy 1 AC and 3 transports. This adds to two subs, 1 dd, and 1 transport. You now have one hell of a navy. Not only for defense of Germany, but offensively as well. Move your BB and transport from Med against British BB in Med . On NC, 1 tank 1 inf to Norway. Turn 2 buy all land units tanks/if. begin to fight Russia. Combine Navy outside Britain, 1 BB -1 DD-5 transports-1 AC-2 fighters-3 subs. Where you sit, go after Brazil? UK? Move toward U.S? Soviets in Karelia? Take out Any allied navy in the Atlantic? It all depends on how the Allies react.

The Allies will be scared due to the Offensive and defensive capabilities.This is a very interesting suggestion.

I can see a number of advantages, some which you already mentioned:

1 - UK has choices to make, and if they have a complex in India they risk not defending it or losing the UK.

2 - UK1 likely means men or defense navy, allowing G2 to kill the UK fleet or invade UK.

3 - The US (maybe) will build fleet or complex vs research for HB. No point "wasting" money when UK is at risk.

4 - Japan may have easier time on mainland.

However, you will have a very strong USSR. Still, interesting choice.

Squirecam

Juggernaut

04-19-2004, 11:26 AM

The notion that buying a CV somehow detracts Germany's advance on Russia is short on logic. I will attempt to show why.

First, having a solid fleet in the baltic ensures that Norway can be retaken at ease, so you are not losing IPCs you otherwise would be. Over the length of the game, assuming you can't retake Norway without unusual circumstances (I find its hard to defend Norway without a lot of luck or sacrificing enormous troop strength), that will cost you far more than a carrier turn 1.

The following are more minor impacts:

Second, a fleet in the baltic (1) prevents shore bombardment of germany's coast and (2) allows you to freely vacate all of germany and all of eastern europe. Thus the 5 infantry you don't buy the first turn (assumed purchase instead of the approx. cost of carrier) are more than made up by moving all the forces from those two countries in their stead. There is also a value associated with not having to worry about naval invasion on these shores -- its hard to quantify, but I'd rate it probably around 2-5 IPC for force flexibility).

Third, the 5 infantry you don't buy -- it should be recognized their impact on the front (either defensive or offensive) is time lagged by quite a few turns. Certainly not a game-breaker as one has suggested.

Four, a baltic fleet reduces the ability of the UK to focus on western europe, constantly support Russia with planes, or other plans that "hurt" germany. A fleet in the Baltic ensures that the UK allocate some resources to defense. Ultimately, even if one assumes they sacrifice a few troops not going to Russia, Germany will have bought themselves more time to get there.

Fifth, buying a carrier does not change anything in terms of sinking the gibraltar battleship, taking egypt, and throwing the rest of your forces into Russia. Its not an either/or investment.

I think the key point of the carrier is not just the sea zone's strategic value, the ability of Germany to push more troops to the front, its troop flexibility, or the value of the ships it protects (all of which I think are significant). Quite simply, the marginal cost of defending the navy in that sea zone (by virtue of the high fighter and Carrier D's) is far lower than the marginal cost it takes for the UK (or US) to destroy it.

axis_roll

04-19-2004, 12:04 PM

I would kill the Baltic fleet everytime if no units are added to it on G1.

It's worth it to the allied navy to remove it, I agree with DY on this.

Kami

04-19-2004, 12:06 PM

Couldn't one just forgo taking Egypt G1? and take take it later? Is that 1 tank and fighter in Egypt really worth it if germany is going to lose fighters as well? If Germany waited a few turns, it could have a much larger force in Libya to atk, the art could move east, and the trannie in the med. could reinforce on g2 and g3? I've never played a game when egypt wasn't taken but i'm curious how much those 2 extra atk units (figher + tank) will have on japan's offensive vs indian factory?

squirecam

04-19-2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Kami:
Couldn't one just forgo taking Egypt G1? and take take it later? Is that 1 tank and fighter in Egypt really worth it if germany is going to lose fighters as well? If Germany waited a few turns, it could have a much larger force in Libya to atk, the art could move east, and the trannie in the med. could reinforce on g2 and g3? I've never played a game when egypt wasn't taken but i'm curious how much those 2 extra atk units (figher + tank) will have on japan's offensive vs indian factory?Not taking Egypt could lead to the UK fleet entering the Med through the Suez.

TomJag2

04-19-2004, 01:06 PM

If you don't build the carrier, Germany can take Russia on Turn 4. If you're building the carrier on turn 1, that's 2 tanks and 2 infantry that are not getting rushed to the front. If England loses a fighter to take out the Baltic fleet, that's 1 less unit that can make it to Russia when it's important. If they lose 2, that's 2 fewer units that will be defending Russia and rolling for 4's.

England will build a factory in India on turn 1. It has no other choice. This means that there will be no immediate invasions of the continent for a few turns. The points poured into India will really slow Britain's naval growth. The US is so far away and grows so slowly that it won't be a factor in Europe. The game should be decided before they can decisively act.

If you're interested in keeping the transport alive, a DD will do the same thing at 4 fewer IPC's. Yes, you can't pop the 2 fighters on it, but with 2 subs present you can take out any air force coming at you. Also, when you decide to burn your fleet, you'll have a better attack unit.

I'm more concerned with defeating Russia than preserving the Baltic fleet. With good planning, Russia can be knocked out before Britain can threaten an invasion of France.

tactical

04-19-2004, 01:32 PM

Tomjag2,
Did you just actually say "England will build a factory in India on turn 1. It has no other choice?" Your kidding me, right? No other choice? Is this an automatic move for England with the people you play with? There are always choices,with the possible exception of round 1, this game is played by each and every situation based on strategic outcomes of land, vlaue, and units.

TrimChris

04-19-2004, 01:35 PM

Maybe TomJag was talking about an 8 VC game. Really hard for UK to not build an IC in India I would think.

squirecam

04-19-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by TrimChris:
Maybe TomJag was talking about an 8 VC game. Really hard for UK to not build an IC in India I would think.Germany buys a AC and 3 transports. The UK cannot build a complex in India or the UK will likely be conquered.

TomJag1

04-19-2004, 03:13 PM

Buying the CV and 3 transports is a thought. It's certainly worth thinking through. I'll assume average die rolls for both sides.

With 4 transports, Germany can bring 4 tanks, 4 inf, 5 ftrs and a bomber.

Britain will have its original 2 inf, tank, arty, 2 ftrs, and a bomber. The US can add 2 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, and 1 ftr.

Britain sees the German build and builds factory in India and 3 tanks??? Giving 4 inf, 5 tanks, 2 arty, 3 ftrs, 1 bomber for a total of 40 defensive points and 15 units.

Germany has 4 inf, 4 tanks, 5 ftrs, and 1 bomber for 35 points spread over 14 units.

AA shoots down 1 ftr, leaving 32 attack points over 13 units against 40 defense points spread over 15 units.

After first round,
Britain: 1 arty
5 tanks
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
29 points, 10 units
Germany: 2 tanks
4 ftrs
1 bmbr
19 points, 7 units

After the second round
Britain:
3 tanks
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
22 points, 7 units
Germany: 1 tank
1 ftr
1 bmbr
10 points, 3 units

After the third round:
Britain:
1 tank
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
16 points, 5 units
Germany:
1 unit and memories of better days

[ April 19, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: TomJag1 ]

squirecam

04-19-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by TomJag1:
Buying the CV and 3 transports is a thought. It's certainly worth thinking through. I'll assume average die rolls for both sides.

With 4 transports, Germany can bring 4 tanks, 4 inf, 5 ftrs and a bomber.

Britain will have its original 2 inf, tank, arty, 2 ftrs, and a bomber. The US can add 2 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, and 1 ftr.

Britain sees the German build and builds factory in India and 3 tanks??? Giving 4 inf, 5 tanks, 2 arty, 3 ftrs, 1 bomber for a total of 40 defensive points and 15 units.

Germany has 4 inf, 4 tanks, 5 ftrs, and 1 bomber for 35 points spread over 14 units.

AA shoots down 1 ftr, leaving 32 attack points over 13 units against 40 defense points spread over 15 units.

After first round,
Britain: 1 arty
5 tanks
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
29 points, 10 units
Germany: 2 tanks
4 ftrs
1 bmbr
19 points, 7 units

After the second round
Britain:
3 tanks
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
22 points, 7 units
Germany: 1 tank
1 ftr
1 bmbr
10 points, 3 units

After the third round:
Britain:
1 tank
3 ftrs
1 bmbr
16 points, 5 units
Germany:
1 unit and memories of better daysYou forgot the med fleet. 2 extra units and bb support.

Using your order of loss:

Assuming your aa hit, 66% of the time German BB hits, removing a UK defender, leaving Germany 15 units and 36 attack and UK 14 at 38. After round 1 (giveing Germany 6 hits and UK 6, its Germany 9 units and 28, and UK 8 units and 25. Germany will average 4.66 hits and UK 4 hits. After round 2 is German 5 at 16 and UK 4 at 13 (or 66% of the time 3 at 12). Germany, on average, wins.

Squirecam

[ April 19, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]

tactical

04-19-2004, 07:04 PM

Hmmm,
I'm beginning to think, I got off topic, but per thread, I honestly believe buy AC G1. G1 buys for me.
1 Ac 16
1 plane 10
1 Art 4
3 men 9
1 left over.
Russia will take land, but this is more than a one turn game. Germany will get the land back, but the important thing is the Navy needs to stay existant for at least a few rounds. By having the Ac on G1, it slows UK down for a few rounds. These few rounds not only allow Germany to take land back, but to take out Russia(at least in my opinion).The key for a faster Japan land takeover, is for UK to concentrate more on Germany. But these are only a few of many startegies, I feel, it's all on how you play, who you play, and how the dice roll.
On a side note, why do I see people saying in posts that when you attack Egypt(G1)you will lose fighters? What are they attacking with? I come with 1 man,1 tank from Libya, 1 man, 1 tank, from Southern Europe, and 1 fighter from Balkins. With that much firepower, how are people losing fighters? 2 1s 3 3s, if your really worried, you could bring 2 fighters(if circumstance permits). Damn, got off topic again, oh well, hope this idea helps somebody out there.

tactical

04-19-2004, 07:06 PM

squirecam,
Wow, how do you even figure out those odds? Never was good at arithmatic or statistics.

Kami

04-19-2004, 10:38 PM

You lose fighters if you don't atk w/ additional land units from S. Eur. w/ the trannie, instead taking Gibraltor to prevent destruction of the BB, sub and trannie in the W. Med. I'm a bit confused as to how to take Egypt and get Baltic Fleet to SZ 12 w/o getting crushed, not really taking UK. I would think that much devotion to taking UK after G1 (maybe 2) would really give too much room for Russia to expand. And I'm a bit confused with all the buys that go along w/ the carrier...why not just pump straight inf. 1st 2 rounds (G1 and G2) then advance on russia w/ tanks as support on G3 and later? Would this "stack" work like A&A Europe? I have limited Revised experience, so just kinda curious how long it usually takes for Russia to fall (to germany in revised it seems, not japan like orginal).

[ April 20, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Kami ]

TomJag2

04-20-2004, 06:05 AM

If you're taking your transport from the Med for Sealion, you're not using it to ferry units from S Europe to Egypt. If you attack Egypt without the additional ground units, you'll take A/C losses and have fewer ground units for the attack on England. Also, there's that silly Brit DD at Egypt, if you want to amphibious assault Egypt. Something has to get rid of that. Therefore, if you're going to do SeaLion and use the Med fleet, you don't want to take Egypt turn 1. Now, suppose we have a normal Russian first turn. I'll assume that the German sub in the Mid Atlantic takes out the British transport off Canada.

Russia takes Ukraine and West Russia. Germany takes Ukraine and Karelia. Russia loses 37 IPC's of units while Russia loses 51. Russia has 29 income and Germany has 40. Germany has built CV and 3 transports. Russia builds 3 tanks and 3 inf. Britain builds a factory in India and 5 infantry. The US ferries over an armor, a fighter, an arty, and 2 inf.

Germany has:
1 BB shot
1 Bmbr
5 ftr (4 if we assume one shot down by AA)
5 tanks
5 inf
Total: 39 offense plus a BB bombard, giving 7 hits
Assume that one hit was from BB, so no reply:
Britain has
7 Inf
2 Arm
2 Arty
3 ftr
1 bmbr
Total: 37 defense for 6 hits

Round 2:
Germany has
1 bmbr
3 ftrs
4 armor
Total: 25 attack
Britain: (takes bmbr as hit)
2 armor
3 ftrs
2 arty
1 inf
Total: 24 defense

Round 3:
Germany:
1 bmbr
2 ftrs
1 arm
Total: 13 offense
Britain:
1 armor
3 fighter
Total: 15 defense

Round 4:
Germany:
1 Bmbr
1 armor
Total: 7 attack
Britain:
2 ftrs
Total: 8 defense

It ends with total annhilation for all involved units. Britain can build 3 infantry in India and plop 7 in Britain. US and Russia can fly in air. Germany will have lost 7 of their starting armor and all of their air. Russia rules Europe. Germany spends a couple of turns ruling the waves. Allies win.

SeaLion would be nice, if it only worked. It's too high a gamble and ties up too many assets that are needed elsewhere. When you come up with new strategies, it's important not to get tunnel vision and forget about what else is going on. It's an easy trap to fall into.

tactical

04-20-2004, 06:35 AM

Sealion,
As a German player, Sealion should not be forced. Keep your BB,sub(if it survived),and tranny in Med, keep some planes on Western Europe. Have Ac built on G1. You now have a solid defense against Uk Navy and Us Navy, bear in mind, this is only for mabey 1 to 3 turns. But in those 1 to 3 turns Germany will start pushing Russian forces back to Moscow, in addition, an Ac in the Baltic allows a much better Norway defense(you can hold onto it longer, or trade it back and forth with allied forces, thus preventing anyones planes from landing on it). In addition, 4-6 men and 2 to 4 planes +AA gun make Western Europe very unappealing for Normandy invasion. If Allies bring many forces(just shuffle over a few more guys, mabey a tank, it all depends on whats arrayed against you). I used to think that Japan had to take USA and Uk(and some of Russia) attention away from Germany, now(with the games I played)it's Germany who needs to take Russia's attention(obviously) but also the majority of Uk and USA. I really feel that Japan needs that head start onto the mainland. Again, the whole purpose of the Ac in the Baltic is not to perform operation Sealion(unless you feel you have a good, not average, but good chance of taking UK), but TO HAVE THE THREAT OF OPERATION SEALION. Thereby making UK buy more ships, troops, etc. Anything that slows them down in India, Australia, or South Africa, in terms of an IC purchase.

TomJag2

04-20-2004, 06:35 AM

I guess another way to look at it is that it's a gamble to spend 40 IPC's for the opportunity to trade 105 IPC's worth of starting units for 87.

If the Brit fleet moves to Canada and picks up the tank on T1, they have the counterattack for turn 2 if they get unlucky.

The US could build a carrier, transport, and sub on T1. If they bring up the DD, they have a decent little fleet because there's no more German air force. They can send the 2 ftrs (West Coast and Hawaii) to defend England. To get the BB shot on England, the US fleet was ignored, so the DD from there can be added to it. A CV, 2 DD's, 1 sub, 1 Transport, and 1 ftr sounds like a decent fleet, especially if the British BB and transport is added to it. The Russian sub can go with them to soak up a hit or be used to channel German ships.

squirecam

04-20-2004, 07:43 AM

Attacking UK is a risk.

But the point is that there are many moves from G2 that open up.

Also, the US should be building fleet and men and not HB, and the UK is not building transports but protecting the home island.

Squirecam

TomJag2

04-20-2004, 08:40 AM

And Russia takes over Ukraine, Karelia, West Russia, Belorussia, Balkans, and Eastern Europe.

Then, because of the transports that have to go back to the Baltic to ferry troops, the Russo-German static line lies between Karelia and the Balkans.

US going for HB is a losing deal. Just build the units and start swinging.

TomJag2

04-20-2004, 08:58 AM

Randell makes a good case for the CV in the Baltic. It's the threat of Sealion that can worry the Allies, not its actual execution. However, there are better strategies available for an Axis win and taking 3 armor away from Germany's first turn can be critical to their ability to knock out Russia early.

Basing the Luftwaffe in France until you're ready to base out of Karelia is usually enough of a threat to keep the Allies from making amphib assaults.

I haven't tried it, but what happens if Germany builds 8 armor T1 and transports the armor/inf from North Africa to Europe. Germany then has 16 armor and 5 fighters to play with on T2, with normal combat results. Build 8 armor on T2 and by T4 there's 24 armor, 5 ftrs, and 1 bmbr to hit Russia. Now, I'm not necessarily saying this is the ultimate plan. It's just a possiblilty and I haven't studied it. Personally, I'd build a few infantry to send to France and to garrison/soak off along the Russo-German border. I'd also prefer attacking Egypt and killing that fighter before it can become a nuisance. I prefer a massive assault on Russia to an attack on Britain because all the IPC'S are spent on units I can used to take territory. If Russia falls on T4, who cares if Britain takes Norway?

04-20-2004, 09:08 AM

Yeah, the BB and 5th transport make the UK2 Sealion look a little more solid.

I hit Egypt with 2 inf 2 arm 1 fgt 1 Bmb

04-20-2004, 10:48 AM

I'm currently playing in 4 PBEM games and don't want to take on another until I've finished 2 of them, but when I do, I'd like to see TJ capture Russia by G4. I'm sorry, I just can't see it happening. Maybe you'll take up the challenge to prove that it's as easy as you say.

EDIT: I'm not saying I'll win, but I'm pretty sure Moscow will still be "red" on G4.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: DY ]

axis_roll

04-20-2004, 10:51 AM

Sounds like Tom is applying the ground unit mentality from the old edition into the new edition.

I can't say that he is not right for sure.

I am just saying that there are so many more spaces in this game, which leads to a longer game, which can lead to longer term strategies instead of the old 'rush and pinch russia' from days of old.

squirecam

04-20-2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by TomJag2:
US going for HB is a losing deal. Just build the units and start swinging.HB can win nearly every game for the allies. HB make Germany broke by turns 4-5.

1 HB turn 1
3 HB turn 2
5-6 HB turn 3

LRA turn 4 and Germany is broke. If you havent beaten USSR by turn 4, your done. And even with your strategy I dont think you can beat USSR by turn 4 without luck or bad play.

The german fleet is a strategy to force USA away from HB. So that by turns 6-7 Germany will still be alive.

Squirecam

tactical

04-20-2004, 02:43 PM

I used to think Germany had to take Russia out in the few first turns, then concentrate on UK and US. In the revised edition, it's not going to happen unless you get very lucky on dice,or play a very inexperienced Russian player. Although, the whole keep buying tanks and a few infantry has a cool spin on it(I wouldn't do it until I see it in action though).
TomJag2 brings up a point that if Germany buys an AC on G1 then Russia will take Ukraine,West Russia,Belorussia,Balkans and Eastern Europe,and keep Karelia S.S.R. Mabey not all on R1(I am assuming he means not all on turn1 since there is no way to take over Balkins on R1). And for the most part, he is ABSOLUTELY correct. I used to fear playing an aggressive Russian player, now I welcome it. After G1, with the exception of mabey another transport or sub, I buy 2 to 3 tanks, possibly 1 art and the rest infantry each turn. In addition, even though an aggressive Russian player becomes almost equal to Germany in income, it will only last 3 rounds,most. Germanys counter attack comming out of (Germany)will obliterate(barring bad rolling)Russians forces. You have to remember, land is worth 2 to 3 points. So when you kill a few Russian tanks(15 Ipc's) it is worth more than the land(bear in mind,strategic placement of defending and attacking units should take priority over when to take land or take out units). On G1 if I can't easily retake a territory(again, depends which one), I will pull back my art and tanks,and men to Eastern Europe or Balkans,give up the land, preserve the unit.(obviously leave a few men behind as fodder so there is no blitzing) BY HAVING THE AC IN THE BALTIC ON G1 YOU ARE ABLE TO VACATE ALL UNITS FROM GERMAY ON G1(not including the ones you set down at the end of your turn. As Germany, you will not have a significant counter attack until G3,but even though you will be near equal with Russia on Ipc level,you will take out more troops than they will take out of yours. Russia will fall into the same trap that many German players do on their first few turns. And thats to try to attack with everything at once in hopes of a quick victory, thereby, spreading your armies too thin and setting yourself up to a huge counterattack. I have seen this done many times, so it is not theory.
In addition, by throwing everything at Germany, it helps Japan creep up on the east coast. Yes, I know you could argue, what if UK does this, or USA does HB's,etc,etc,etc. There could be a million What if's, I'm just saying what I know. If your Germany and you play an aggressive Russian player, think about my advice, again, it's only advice, I am prone to errors. Give it a shot though, see how it works, you might be suprised.
P.S. In case your wondering how Germany offsets lost points in land value to keep buying for the 1st 2 rounds, 1)Africa and again, when Russia attacks with everything at once(or even a little)<if they take over 3 or more territories on R1>something is exposed. Trade off 1 or 2 lands with minimal effort if possible. 3)Japan will help a little bit, can pull Russia down 8 points per turn, technically.

Juggernaut

04-20-2004, 05:56 PM

I agree.

Even with the CV purchase turn 1, Germany can take back whatever an aggressive Russian player takes, on odds, on turn 1, turn 2 and most likely turn 3.

Drax Kramer

04-21-2004, 05:22 AM

What is German Baltic fleet suppose to accomplish if British player adopts "Germany the first" strategy?

For this purpose British player is going to need ground troops (for invasion of Europe, but also can be used to defend the UK from Sea Lion), aircraft (for defense of Russia, support of invasion and defense of the fleet or UK) and ships (to ferry the troops, protect the transports and prevent the invasion).

What else (beside IC in India) British player must give up when he sees German Baltic Fleet? I haven't got the game yet, so be patient with me since I don't see any substantial German advantage in this scenario.

Drax

tactical

04-21-2004, 06:36 AM

It's good for the Axis when UK concentrates solely on Germany, it allows Japan a faster head start into the mainland, and it gives Japan the ability to go toe to toe with USA at Sea. Since you haven't seen the new map yet, it is 2 turns for the USA to Western Europe. More than enough time to reinforce, so there is no Normandy invasion. In the new game Germany has 2 subs,1 destroyer,and 1 trany in the Baltic. If you add an Ac, that allows for 2 subs,1destroyer,1 trany,1AC, and 2 planes. If you do not drop AC on G1, any smart UK player would obliterate the naval units there. What does this allow you to do? You no longer have to worry about a Germany or Eastern Europe Invasion, therefore you can move troops from these locations against Russia. In addition, it forces UK to spend some money on naval units(oviously)instead of complete air power(or any combination).

Drax Kramer

04-21-2004, 09:50 AM

I know the outlook of the map and the initial setup by monitoring this site.

Now, I realise having a fleet defending Germany or Eastern Europe is nice thing to have, how does this fleet prevent British invasion of Norway or Western Europe?

I'd say British are going to build a carrier (necessary to protect an invasion fleet from the air) and four transports (to carry the maximal unit load).

Now, how does German fleet interfere with British build-up plan? Does German player who built a carrier expect to be attacked or he plans to sortie against British at some point of the game?

Drax

elbowmaster

04-21-2004, 10:05 AM

the funky new rule of being able to magically have your fighters put on a carrier that was just built/placed...not the buy a carrier and fighter to place together, but the absorbsion of fighters from you mainland IC. seems to be an incentive for germany to built that t1 carrier...the past version didnt allow absorbed aircraft...

i guess it will go both ways, as now UK can build a carrier on t1 and it automatically can put 2 of the UK fighters on it, seems like a free move...

still doesnt quite sit right with me, but hey, just a different strat...anyone else think that rule is strange?

-cheers

-elbowmaster

Drax Kramer

04-21-2004, 10:53 AM

The rule is funny, represents nothing and introduces silly concepts like British carrier absorbing Soviet fighters on British turn. Like it wasn't silly enough for Americans to land their fighters on British carriers.

The whole idea of carrier aircraft taking off two sea zones away to attack enemy carriers whose aircraft are incapable of striking back is weird. Imagine if Nagumo knew it was possible to leave carriers off shore Tokyo and sink US carriers at Midway.

Drax

04-21-2004, 11:22 AM

I like the absorption rule.

GrafZeppelin

04-24-2004, 07:29 PM

I like the absorption rule, too. Only the allies could build AC before because they could land allied planes on it (e.g. UK1 CV with US planes landing on it). Kind of hard for Axis to replicate. Absorption incentivizes G1 carrier and is fairer between the 2 sides..... (besides, CV is a lot more fun than 5-6 men)

04-24-2004, 11:04 PM

I agree. Egypt is a must kill G1 for me.

AxisRoll

04-25-2004, 09:36 AM

I agree. and now I think the A/C 2 Transports I T is the opening German Buy. More pressure on UK. And not allowing the Allied Chain to start. I still havent met up with BB and Transport in 7. Thinking it is more important to take Anglo Eygpt

ChurchillAA

04-25-2004, 04:05 PM

I also like the G1 AC buy in the Baltic, although I don't agree with adding a multiple-trn buy. G needs to stabilize the eastern front early, and that requires lots of inf. I think that the infantry push mechanic is still alive and kicking, and the absolute key for both sides, especially on the crucial eastern front.

I also think that G should try to unite its Baltic and Med fleets, early, probably in SZ 7. If it can do this early enough -- and it can be done on G2 -- this creates some serious dead zones and will make it very hard for UK & US to get the shuck-shuck going, either to Africa or Norway.

Taking Gib on G1, and taking out the UK BB in SZ 13 with the Atlantic sub and the Med BB & trn sets this up. Then on G2, Germany has the following in SZ 7: 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 DD, 3 sub, 2 trn. That's a heck of a fleet. And if G keeps the Luftwaffe in WEu or North Africa, it can strike at the prime shuck-shuck SZ (SZ 12) with 1 BB, 1 AC, 5-6 ftr, 1 bmr, 1 dd, 3 sub, 2 trn. UK/US needs a BIG fleet to hold that back. Plus, it's still threatening a 2-trn "Sealion" on G2 and thereafter.

Yes, this has the obvious disadvantage of making the Egy attack more costly. But it seems to me that G's basic problem hasn't changed from the old A&A -- it needs to do something to stop the shuck-shuck from allowing all 3 Allies to bring overwhelming force to bear. The new map layout makes it much harder for UK/US to directly reinforce R, and a strategy that holds back the shuck-shuck for even a turn or two could be decisive.

Now, UK/US will eventually build a big enough fleet to overcome the threat of the combined G fleet. But the G fleet then has 2 excellent options:

(1) Retreat into the Baltic, which as several prior posts note, (a) threatens UK, (b) prevents amphibious attacks against Ger (and EEu), and (c) helps hold Nor.

(2) Retreat through the Med and into the Indian Ocean. This could allow G to capture some territories that aren't easy for the Allies to recapture (Mad, Aus, NZ), and eventually link up with the J fleet to provide added protection against an eventual US naval attack in the Pacific.

On a related topic, are people buying Ind ICs in 10+ VC games? It seems to me that this would just be handing an IC to J.

Drax Kramer

04-26-2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by ChurchillAA:

But the G fleet then has 2 excellent options:

(1) Retreat into the Baltic, which as several prior posts note, (a) threatens UK, (b) prevents amphibious attacks against Ger (and EEu), and (c) helps hold Nor.

How does the German fleet threaten UK if Allies fill UK with troops and places necessary to invade Europe?

Why should Allies plan to invade through Baltic when they can either invade Western Europe or Norway?

Every German land unit that counterattacks Norway through Baltic is one less fighting on Eastern front or defending Western Europe. How does it help Germany to win the game?

[quote](2) Retreat through the Med and into the Indian Ocean.How does it help Germany conquering Soviet Union?

Drax

04-26-2004, 09:05 AM

So you think 1 inf 1 tank 1 ftr and 1 bmb will actually hold the land in Egypt on G1? I don't. Plus there's that pesky DD in sz15 to worry about.

Zombie

04-26-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
How does it help Germany conquering Soviet Union?By giving them more time to do it.

Drax Kramer

04-27-2004, 02:06 AM

How does the German fleet in Baltic (a lost turn for Germany as far as fighting Soviets is concerned) buy Germany at least two turns of time?

What kind of purchases are denied to British and Americans with the buildup of Baltic fleet? What units Britain would have to purchase that wouldn't have been purchased in the absence of German fleet?

Drax

[ April 28, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Drazen Kramaric ]

pagan

04-27-2004, 03:16 AM

I have since changed my policy on GER1. Game-Time have got me thinking toward another way. Its actaully a more traditional way.

GER1 = DD+TN in Mediteranean

I will only go over the basics of this:

1. no more navy ever need be bought
2. africa can be done - force usa away from europe
3. caucasus is always a good target.
4. removes need for defense of S.Europe by ground forces.
5. defending fleet by spaces AWAY from atlantic where time allotment of USa+Uk fleet in chasing makes it a poor choice.
6. Japan navy option

tactical

04-27-2004, 07:15 AM

Pagan,
Don't you mean in the baltic? If you don't add anything to your fleet, then UK will crush it(2fgtr,1bmbr), on UK1

04-27-2004, 07:50 AM

Since he's talking about S.Eu and Caucasus, i'd say he mean's what he said -- the Med, not the Baltic.

tactical

04-27-2004, 08:23 AM

Then he can kiss his baltic fleet(or at least some of it),goodbye. Mabey, Pagan feels that it is an even trade? I'm probably missing something. But until someone can show me how to save the baltic fleet without putting any naval unit there(doesn't necesarrily have to be an Ac),then I'll stick to my arguement that you need to put something there G1.

04-27-2004, 08:36 AM

I've though a lot about the DD over the CV, but the DD only saves your fleet for 2 turns max and then you need to add more. Even with the CV i seem to have to add a few subs over Germany's next few turns.

Maybe it's best to give up the fleet, hope to get marginally lucky and kill 2 UK Ftrs and focus entirely on Russia and North Africa.

tactical

04-27-2004, 09:13 AM

I've tossed the idea around, but I still feel that AC and 1tran are a good investment. You have a manageable fleet that uk wont touch until UK2 but most likely UK3(even then, would take a lot of damge if you combined fleets). I am not so sure about adding any more to the fleet(in terms of purchasing),although I did read one post that after the AC buy, you should buy 1 sub every round thereafter. In addition, you can always join your fleets at sz 7 at G3. I have played this scenario out a few times, it has some merrit.
Resoning is this, forces UK to forego any IC,focus on defense(at least of UK),hurts US helping out in Africa. By making India concentrate on defense, helps Japan chip away at Russia and UK, build an IC in India and harass the hell out of Caucasus(or just take it over if possible).
I said in another post, Japan had to take heat away from Germany, but after many games, I feel it is the other way around(at least, concerning UK)As bad as this is, Germany has to take the brunt of UK and Russia(depends on what America does),until Japan can get a strong foothold on mainland, then help Germany take out Russia.
As Germany, when you buy an AC or AC,trany G1, you will open up a world of hurt from Russia for 3 rounds(in that time, Africa will help maintain what you have lost,IPC wise.). Again, every plan can be countered. US heavy bombers will desrtoy every idea I just wrote.

ChurchillAA

04-27-2004, 01:01 PM

In response to Drax's questions:

The principal goal of the G1 CV purchase strategy is to hold back the UK/US shuck-shuck for a turn or two. Thus it's contribution to what I agree is the overall German goal -- Moscow -- is to gain a little more time. It also has the advantage of preserving the relatively high-value Baltic fleet, which is otherwise lost as early as UK1.

I expect that by round 4, UK/US combined will have a big enough fleet that even the combined G Baltic and Med fleets won't be able to hold them back. The question, then, is what to do with this G fleet? I guess there are really 4 options:

(1) Lose it, either in a failed attack on the combined UK/US fleet (it will do some damage, of course) or by leaving it vulnerable to a UK/US attack. This seems wasteful.

(2) Sortie into the Atlantic. I don't see how this would be strategically valuable. Remember, by this point in the game, it's too weak to attack the combined US/UK fleet.

(3) Withdraw into the Baltic. The G fleet may still be tactically vulnerable to a UK/US attack here, but it is a strategically unfavorable battle for the Allies because they'd have to move their navy out of position to attack, disrupting the shuck. A G fleet in the Baltic also makes it unnecessary for G to garrison Ger and EEu. In the absence of such a fleet, G needs to keep increasingly large garrisons to prevent a UK (or even a 1-2 UK then US) attack into Ger or EEu. By reducing the need for such garrisons, the Baltic fleet frees up more units to move to the Russian front.

(4) Withdraw into the Med. This may be a better option than the Baltic. A big G Med fleet on G4-G5-G6 can help hold back the UK/US reconquest of Africa -- probably just by a turn, but that's another turn of higher G income from Africa and another turn of holding back those UK/US troops from reaching Russia. Also, the G Med fleet can support a G ground offensive toward Rus on the southern route -- both contributing the BB hit to attacks on Ukr and Cau, and moving inf more rapidly to the front. This is a small contribution, however, and after holding back the UK/US Africa forces for a turn, this fleet will ultimately be trapped in the Med unless it gets out through Suez ASAP, before Egy falls. Thus my suggestion that it might sortie into the Indian Ocean, taking a few ground forces to conquer targets of opportunity (Mad, Aus, NZ) that are not easy for the Allies to recapture and will give G a little extra income. Finally, combining with the J fleet will help deter any US or combined US/UK naval campaign in the Pacific.

None of these later-turn moves are intended to be the primary justification for the AC build. The main goal is to delay the shuck by a turn. My point is just that buying the Baltic AC on G1, then combining this fleet with the Med fleet in SZ 7 on G2, may be the best way to accomplish this shuck-delay mission. The rest of my suggestions -- Baltic, Med, Indian Ocean, rendevezous with J fleet -- are just gravy.

Let's face it, G starts out with a pretty strong fleet, but it's never going to seriously challenge for naval supremacy. 1 BB, 1 DD, 2 sub, 2 trn -- that's 76 IPCs worth of units. Sure, I'd love to trade them in for 25 inf in EEu, but then the game would be totally imbalanced. One of the key lessons that I drew from Don Rae's essays was the importance of preserving your high-value opening units. As a practical matter, the G fleet is irreplaceable, and unless reinforced somehow, it will be defeated in detail, early, and probably not even inflict significant losses on the Allies in return. The G1 CV purchase in the Baltic preserves it for a relatively small additional investment -- just 16 IPCs.

squirecam

04-27-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by ChurchillAA:
In response to Drax's questions:

The principal goal of the G1 CV purchase strategy is to hold back the UK/US shuck-shuck for a turn or two. Thus it's contribution to what I agree is the overall German goal -- Moscow -- is to gain a little more time. It also has the advantage of preserving the relatively high-value Baltic fleet, which is otherwise lost as early as UK1.

I expect that by round 4, UK/US combined will have a big enough fleet that even the combined G Baltic and Med fleets won't be able to hold them back. The question, then, is what to do with this G fleet? I guess there are really 4 options:

By purchasing an AC and 3 tranports on G1, you can delay a shuck-shuck for much longer:

1 - UK should not build Navy and may not buy India IC, helping Japan

2 - USA must move Eastern US fleet to UK sea zone, where it can be easily killed if not merged with UK fleet

3 - UK/USA fleet of BB, DD and 3-4 transports is no match for Germany fleet.

4 - If US has purchased no additional fleet, consider G2 sea lion, which UK cannot take back. Also consider air attack on fleet if odds allow.

It will take more turns for UK/USA to build naval units (and not HB) to deal with German fleet, and they must hurry, for at 42 IPC, Germany can add a sub to the fleet each turn and still out purchase USSR. The German fleet should be able to hold out past turn 4 at least, which is better than a simple AC buy.

soonerborn

04-27-2004, 01:36 PM

Sacrificing G fleet to take down allied fleet wouldnt be a waste as it stops the shuck 1 to 2 rounds depending on number of transports taken out. Yes its sucks to lose that fleet but if its not going to do anything else but retreat and pick off 3 or 4 ipc over 5 or 6 rounds then its much better to take as many allied transports and hopefully some some DDs or better.

Squirecam:
Germ wont be making 42 a round after Russia takes West Rus, Ukr and Belo and UK abandons India fac and retakes Egypt. Germ buying a sub a round = less inf & arm on Europe = more agressive buying and attacks by Russia and an earlier allied landing on WE.

B1 buy 3 tanks 5 inf, move atl fleet to east can. inf in west can to east can.

US1 buy AC 1 arm 1 inf 2 trans. move pac fleet to atl. 2 inf in central us to east us.

on turn 2 B and US combine fleets at sz 12 with a total of 1BB 1 Car 2 fight 2 DD 6 transports fully loaded.

or they can combine in sz 8 with a car adn trany build by B

Germ will not be able to match this fleet from this point on, ever, as any G buy will be instantly countered and put into play by B.

The only think buying a sub a round will do to hurt the allies is delay any attack on G fleet which will be trapped in the Baltic. The Car build already makes this uneconomical decision for the allies until a overwhelming fleet is slowly built over many rounds from saving ipc leftover from the shuck.

[ April 27, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: soonerborn ]

Anzio

04-27-2004, 02:11 PM

soonerborn that's got to be the longest signature ever!
:eek:

-Steve

soonerborn

04-27-2004, 02:18 PM

and worthy of a true patriot (and brewer) ;)

ChurchillAA

04-27-2004, 04:54 PM

Soonerborn:

QUOTE: "on turn 2 B and US combine fleets at sz 12 with a total of 1BB 1 Car 2 fight 2 DD 6 transports fully loaded."

Well, on G2 I would have 1BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 DD, 3 sub, 2 trn in SZ 7. Plus, most or all of the Luftwaffe would be in range. So you'd face a G3 counterattack of:

1 BB, 1 AC, 1 bmr, say 5 ftr, 1 DD, 3 sub, 2 trn (14 units, 33 pips/5-6 hits expected value) vs.

1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 2 DD, 6 trn (12 units, 27 pips/4-5 hits expected value).

A quick turn-by-turn evaluation, using just the expected value, suggests that the G fleet would survive w/ 1 BB, 1 AC, 1 bmr, 2 ftr. Not bad. 5 runs on the "wargamers" simulator gives an 85% chance of G victory (the simulator only does 100 runs, but this is the average of 5 simulations or 500 runs).

This is why I think that the G1 AC purchase, and combining the G fleet in SZ 7 on G2, is a valuable strategy. It makes SZ 12 a "dead zone" and thereby holds back the UK/US shuck to Africa for at least another turn. You can't afford to lose the entire UK and US fleet in the Atlantic on G3.

Drax Kramer

04-28-2004, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by ChurchillAA:

The principal goal of the G1 CV purchase strategy is to hold back the UK/US shuck-shuck for a turn or two. Thus it's contribution to what I agree is the overall German goal -- Moscow -- is to gain a little more time. It also has the advantage of preserving the relatively high-value Baltic fleet, which is otherwise lost as early as UK1.Building of fleet automatically delays German offensive in Russia by at least a turn. Therefore Allied invasion of Europe must be delayed at least two turns for fleet to has a positive effect.

(1) Lose it, either in a failed attack on the combined UK/US fleet (it will do some damage, of course) or by leaving it vulnerable to a UK/US attack. This seems wasteful.A suicide sortie may be useful if additional turn can be gained (since Allies are likely to lose transports first) necessary to finish the game. Otherwise, it is a vaste of IPCs.

(2) Sortie into the Atlantic. I don't see how this would be strategically valuable. Remember, by this point in the game, it's too weak to attack the combined US/UK fleet.Perhaps, it may lure Allies into the attack and gain a turn. However, basing a strategy on enemy's mistakes is not good idea.

(3) Withdraw into the Baltic. The G fleet may still be tactically vulnerable to a UK/US attack here, but it is a strategically unfavorable battle for the Allies because they'd have to move their navy out of position to attack, disrupting the shuck. A G fleet in the Baltic also makes it unnecessary for G to garrison Ger and EEu. In the absence of such a fleet, G needs to keep increasingly large garrisons to prevent a UK (or even a 1-2 UK then US) attack into Ger or EEu. By reducing the need for such garrisons, the Baltic fleet frees up more units to move to the Russian front.Withdraw from where? It is already in Baltic, right? Anyway, since Germany is going to build its land units primarily in Germany, Germany will be garrisoned against the raids. Troops built in Germany has to reach Eastern front and on their way serve as garrison in Eastern Europe. Anyway, I don't see that Baltic fleet has that big influence since Allies can still land in Western Europe or Norway.

None of these later-turn moves are intended to be the primary justification for the AC build. The main goal is to delay the shuck by a turn. My point is just that buying the Baltic AC on G1, then combining this fleet with the Med fleet in SZ 7 on G2, may be the best way to accomplish this shuck-delay mission.It may delay the shuck, but at what cost? Unless you threaten with offensive use of the fleet, Allies may ignore you and proceed with their invasion plans. May primary question is how do Allies change their purchases with German fleet sitting in Baltic or the Mediterranean. Neither place will prevent invasion of Norway and direct western involvement in Russia nor invasion of Western Europe and loss of a victory city. In anything but 8 VC game Axis MUST conquer at least one of the following territories: UK, WUS, EUS and I am not convinced that sinking 16 IPCs into the carrier helps Germany towards that goal.

Drax

soonerborn

04-28-2004, 08:26 AM

Churchill- Thats why I gave the alternate move and combine in sz 8 on turn 2 with a B2 build of a Car and tranny (or even a Car and DD or save 3 ipc from B1 and build a second car and land us plane on it or build 2 subs with it.) point is by turn 2 allies can easily mass a fleet that will cost germ planes to do any heavy damage to it.

Allies probably get 6 or 7 hits with a small build and 8 with a heavy build. Germ cannot hope to do more than take out the fodder in 1 round. If Germ presses the attack then they lose air from here on out. I like it. Using the Ger air on the fleet so early makes it easier for the Russians.

Question. What are you taking out the Brit DD with in the med?

Moving to sz 8 or sz 12 depends upon what G does with the med fleet on G1. By combining the G fleet on G2 at sz 7 means that G didnt take egypt on G1. I think this is a big mistake.

but then again what do I know. I cant seem to win with the allies so maybe I am wrong.

squirecam

04-28-2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by soonerborn:

Squirecam:
Germ wont be making 42 a round after Russia takes West Rus, Ukr and Belo and UK abandons India fac and retakes Egypt. Germ buying a sub a round = less inf & arm on Europe = more agressive buying and attacks by Russia and an earlier allied landing on WE.

B1 buy 3 tanks 5 inf, move atl fleet to east can. inf in west can to east can.

US1 buy AC 1 arm 1 inf 2 trans. move pac fleet to atl. 2 inf in central us to east us.

on turn 2 B and US combine fleets at sz 12 with a total of 1BB 1 Car 2 fight 2 DD 6 transports fully loaded.

or they can combine in sz 8 with a car adn trany build by B

Germ will not be able to match this fleet from this point on, ever, as any G buy will be instantly countered and put into play by B.

The only think buying a sub a round will do to hurt the allies is delay any attack on G fleet which will be trapped in the Baltic. The Car build already makes this uneconomical decision for the allies until a overwhelming fleet is slowly built over many rounds from saving ipc leftover from the shuck.If USSR takes (or better said attempts to take) those 3 countries R1, they are forced to use up their tanks in doing so. Also, Germany can take back its IPC losses G1 with the pieces on the board already.

Sure R1 they bought 8 men, and G1 you didnt, but you have enough forces for a defensive posture until G3 (when your g2 forces arrive (and can be shuttled from France/Germany to Karelia as well)

I LOVE the US/UK building fleets. This is EXACTLY what I want. Every USA AC fleet purchase is in place of a HB purchase which is the real problem.

Think of Germany as a "Russia +". In general, If USSR can buy 8 men, so can Germany, and keep the status quo (actually, Germany is ahead due to starting G pieces being more of tanks and planes and artillery and R pieces being mostly men). In fact, Germany could place 16 IPC worth of sea units and still remain "equal" with USSR.

On round G4 (when you have reasserted yourself against USSR, you could even buy 8 men and a another carrier. With 2 more planes, your fleet is greater than the USA fleet.

The UK/USA fleets will either have to buy actual naval strength units (not transports) to sink you, which buys you 3 rounds (1 round to buy units, r2 to sink your fleet and buy transports, r3 to buy units for transports.)

In a no tech game, Germany can build a fleet to last indefinately. The CANT have 8 tanks per turn against USSR by doing so, but then again they dont need to.

This strategy only goes south after USA HB have bombed Germany to o. This strategy requires time and patience, and the USA HB make it a 4-5 round game or your finished.

squirecam

04-28-2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by soonerborn:

Squirecam:
B1 buy 3 tanks 5 inf, move atl fleet to east can. inf in west can to east can.

US1 buy AC 1 arm 1 inf 2 trans. move pac fleet to atl. 2 inf in central us to east us.

Here are some other things to think about.

Are you saying you have left the US fleet by the UK, but not combined it with the UK fleet? If so, G2 sinks US fleet.

If you DONT move the US fleet to UK and bring the units, G2 can be sea lion vs UK.

If you DO bring fleet together at sea zone 8 (BB, DD, 3-4 transports), G attacks it NOW. You dont wait for the USA AC + planes.

Germany has (depending on what is in range) 2-3 subs, 4-5 transports, BB, DD, 4-6 planes and Bomber. Even if its just the air force, the UK/USA fleet is dead. Kinda reminds me of G1 in 2nd ed. Since your fleet still exists, you can replace the air.

Once your fleet is dead, you cant replace it.

Also, since there is NO India IC, NO IC in China, Japan will have free reign in East. Germany then must just delay USA UK until T4, when Japan will be knocking on USSR back door.

[ April 28, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]

Zombie

04-28-2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
Building of fleet automatically delays German offensive in Russia by at least a turn. Therefore Allied invasion of Europe must be delayed at least two turns for fleet to has a positive effect.Building a carrier on G1 costs you 16 of your initial 40 IPCs. That's 40% of your G1 IPCs. Therefore, it only slows you by 40% of a turn. If it can slow down the Allies by at least that much, then it's a good move. Since it clearly slows them down by at least 1 or 2 turns, it's a great move.

Not to mention the added flexibility for you and the diminishes flexibility for the Allied fleet.

Zombie

04-28-2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Drazen Kramaric:
It may delay the shuck, but at what cost? Unless you threaten with offensive use of the fleet, Allies may ignore you and proceed with their invasion plans. May primary question is how do Allies change their purchases with German fleet sitting in Baltic or the Mediterranean.The carrier build keeps your fleet alive. That fleet threatens Allied transports, so they have to buy a fleet of their own to protect them. They'll be spending a lot more than 16 IPCs total to counter your small investment. All the money they're spending on naval defense can't be used for transports and men. Also, the transports they do have can't be used until there's sufficient naval power to protect them, otherwise you'll just sink them with your fleet after a single use. This means that you won't be seeing a single UK or US land unit in Europe until quite later in the game.

ChurchillAA

04-28-2004, 10:58 AM

Drax:

In response to your question re withdrawal of the G fleet into the Baltic ("It is already in Baltic, right?"): No, the G fleet is not in the Baltic after G1. My suggestion is to combine the G Baltic and Med fleets in the English Channel (SZ 7) on G2. At that point, the G fleet is 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 DD, 3 sub, 2 trn.

Having this fleet in SZ 7 is what allows it to disrupt/delay the early Allied shuck. It makes dead zones of a number of the places where UK/US can either use their fleet to attack, or group their fleet in preparation for attack. A G fleet in the Baltic can only reach SZs 3, 7 and 8. From SZ 7, it can reach SZs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 18. Granted, some of these can be blocked -- for example, UK/US could accumulate a fleet in SZ 1 and keep it safe from attack by using 1 trn (or 1 sub) to block in SZ 6.

It is this posting that delays the shuck until UK3/US3. By then, assuming that UK/US have been focusing on fleet builds, I think that the Allies are strong enough to move into SZ 12 in force and make any G counterattack too costly. Note that this means that if the G fleet is heading for the Med, it needs to do it on G3.

On the other hand, if UK/US have done other builds -- an Ind or Aus factory, or US going after heavies -- then the shuck is delayed until UK4/US4. As another, relatively minor added bonus, there remains a G2 Sealion threat that forces UK to build more inf or arm that it otherwise would on UK1, and also probably forces an early US reinforcement of UK (say with ftrs and bmr). The G2 Sealion would pack a significant punch -- 2 inf, 2 arm, 5-6 ftr, 1 bmr, plus a BB hit. I'm not saying that it will be launched, but it forces UK and US to react with otherwise non-optimal purchases on round 1.

I also don't agree that a G1 AC purchase necessarily delays the G offensive against R by a turn. As some of the above posts note, I'm only talking about 1 AC purchase, 16 IPCs. I originally advocated (and still advocate) a heavy ground purchase with the balance of the G1 IPCs -- say 8 inf, which matches the R1 purchase. G will also have the benefit of a somewhat higher additional income in the early rounds, as it holds Africa a bit longer, so it will make up some of the 5 inf foregone on G1 on G3-6.

soonerborn

04-28-2004, 11:57 AM

If USSR takes (or better said attempts to take) those 3 countries R1, they are forced to use up their tanks in doing so. Also, Germany can take back its IPC losses G1 with the pieces on the board already.

Sure R1 they bought 8 men, and G1 you didnt, but you have enough forces for a defensive posture until G3 (when your g2 forces arrive (and can be shuttled from France/Germany to Karelia as well)

I LOVE the US/UK building fleets. This is EXACTLY what I want. Every USA AC fleet purchase is in place of a HB purchase which is the real problem.

Think of Germany as a "Russia +". In general, If USSR can buy 8 men, so can Germany, and keep the status quo (actually, Germany is ahead due to starting G pieces being more of tanks and planes and artillery and R pieces being mostly men). In fact, Germany could place 16 IPC worth of sea units and still remain "equal" with USSR.

On round G4 (when you have reasserted yourself against USSR, you could even buy 8 men and a another carrier. With 2 more planes, your fleet is greater than the USA fleet.I didnt say Russia was going to take them all on turn 1. What I was getting at was that with the sub a round buy germ is going to be short on men on WE or the Russian Front.

Secondly when we play in our group there is no tech so the HB is right out anyways. I think its ridiculous (for gaming aspects) for any fool to be able to just by HBs with the US and reduce G income to 0.

The UK/USA fleets will either have to buy actual naval strength units (not transports) to sink you, which buys you 3 rounds (1 round to buy units, r2 to sink your fleet and buy transports, r3 to buy units for transports.)They dont have to sink you, just build enough to make you pay for attacking them.

In a no tech game, Germany can build a fleet to last indefinately. The CANT have 8 tanks per turn against USSR by doing so, but then again they dont need to.In our no tech games when B, U & R team up on Germ, it is hard pressed to hold them off and needs all the ground units it can buy.

Here are some other things to think about.

Are you saying you have left the US fleet by the UK, but not combined it with the UK fleet? If so, G2 sinks US fleet.Nope I said wait and combine them on 2 at sz 8

If you DONT move the US fleet to UK and bring the units, G2 can be sea lion vs UK.Against 4 tanks 1 art 7 inf & 3 planes? (4 if Russia moves one there) Please

Germany has (depending on what is in range) 2-3 subs, 4-5 transports, BB, DD, 4-6 planes and Bomber. Even if its just the air force, the UK/USA fleet is dead. Kinda reminds me of G1 in 2nd ed. Since your fleet still exists, you can replace the air.

Once your fleet is dead, you cant replace it.

Also, since there is NO India IC, NO IC in China, Japan will have free reign in East. Germany then must just delay USA UK until T4, when Japan will be knocking on USSR back door.There is simply no way Germ can out build UK and US fleet wise and keep Russians at bay. I am not saying its a bad idea to build a G car on G1 just that building additional fleet pieces after that is. The 2 pros of building that Car is the small cost compared with power it adds to the fleet making the allies spend much more on their fleets delaying the shuck and then delaying it one more turn by wiping out the transports with it. The 2nd is with so much money being invested in the Atl it will give Japan a free reign of asia. I think it is smart all the way around to buy that first Car but I think your kidding yourself if you think Germ is ever going to outbuild and smash a properly built allied fleet

Zombie

04-28-2004, 12:06 PM

Something just occured to me. I was wrong in saying that the German invasion into russia is only delayed by 40% of a turn. With the carrier purchase, Germany has 24 IPCs left to spend on ground troops. Russia has the same amount to match. Therefore, the invasion into Russia is indeed delayed by a full turn. The 8 inf (or whatever) bought on each side cancel each other out, making the front advance neither towards Berlin nor towards Moscow.

However, since the Allied fleet is delayed by 2 turns easily, this still remains a great move for Germany.

halfadimecn

04-28-2004, 02:51 PM

The one thing I have not seen on any of these threads is the advantage to the Axis (both Germany and Japan). Everyone talks about UKs and USs fleet builds to counter the German fleet. If the US and UK build fleets to counter the Germans then the UKs territories in Asia and the Pacific are lost due to a lack of reinforcements. The US will be unable to compete in the Pacific against Japan and Japan will have a free reign in Asia. Also, if the US completely concentrates on the German fleet, Japan can attack Alaska, and Hawaii easily with an eye towards Western. As I discovered in one of my games, that buffer of Central US means that if Japan takes Western, it will not give it up due to the slowed counter attack from Eastern.

Remember that there are 2 Axis powers and if all resources are dedicated to counter 1 of them the other has free reign to do as it pleases.

cn

Zombie

04-28-2004, 03:32 PM

It is my firm belief that the best course of action for the Allies is always to go all out against one Axis power and completely forget about the other one. Concentration of forces is the way to success for the Allies.

With that said, if the Allies had the intention of spending some of their effort against Japan and some of it against Germany, and the carrier build forces them to go all out against Germany, then the carrier build has effectively kept the Allies from making a big mistake, and in so doing, helped them!

squirecam

04-28-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by soonerborn:
If you DONT move the US fleet to UK and bring the units, G2 can be sea lion vs UK.Against 4 tanks 1 art 7 inf & 3 planes? (4 if Russia moves one there) Please

Please what? If you take a look at the units, you would see that 4 tanks (12) 1 art (2) 7 inf (14) and 3 planes (9) is 15 units and 37 Defense.

Germany can bring (with AC + 3 trans build) 5 men 5 tanks, 5 Planes (assuming 1 loss on R1) and a Bomber, plus BB shot.

Thats 16 Units and 43 attack strength. So what I said stands. If the USA ignores UK and doesnt place units there, G2 sealion is a good option.

If it DOES join in sea zone 8, and USA bought a carrier, attack that fleet now.

squirecam

04-28-2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by soonerborn:
I think it is smart all the way around to buy that first Car but I think your kidding yourself if you think Germ is ever going to outbuild and smash a properly built allied fleetFirst, you can do so if played properly.

Second, you dont need to. A german fleet just needs to placed strategically so that the allies use far more resources to take it out than they can afford to lose (in time or in transports), or to protect what you need protected (Norway, WE or Africa.

Juggernaut

04-28-2004, 05:38 PM

I think combining the fleets is a bad idea. Just leave the carrier to defend the baltic, the battleship/tran to swarm africa.

Second, I don't think the carrier purchase delays anything. Germany wipes the floor with russia turn 1 and again the next turn. Just because a few infantry don't make it to the front doesn't delay anything (lets forget for now that these men are more than made up for by emptying out germany and e. europe).

This notion that because G builds 8 infantry and R builds 8 means a "delay" doesn't make sense. Germany starts with massively superior forces -- the 8 infantry is a tiny % change in the grand scheme of things.

Third, I'm interested to know how germany loses all its money by turn 4 due to HB. Doesn't it take time to turns to move plans and isn't there some die rolling involved?

Along the same lines, it seems people on this board aren't inherently adverse to allowing sea lion or strategies of that nature -- they just don't like weapons developments period. I like the idea you can gamble if you are behind, and pay dearly if you get too foolish with it. In my opinion, the notion that a bit of luck in an already luck-filled game is unbalancing, is a tad hard to swallow.

tactical

04-28-2004, 06:02 PM

Juggernaut,
Who are you playing against(Russia)that you can take them out on G1 and G2? Mabey I'm missing something but it amazes me that I see people saying that they can take out an experienced russian player G2.
Show me the moves, prove to me I'm wrong, I have never seen Moscow taken on G2 (I have played this game quite a few times now). If this is true, I've been playing Germany all wrong. The only remote, and this would be remote way of doing this is to throw every single unit at Russia G1, thereby losing almost all of Germanys forces(planes included),not taking Africa,no defense for Norway,no fleet,and after uk and usa's turn,possibly no germany(eventually). But again, mabey I'm missing something.

Marik

04-28-2004, 07:15 PM

I gotta second Randell's post. What is your Russian opponent doing? Building straight infantry and stacking them in Moscow? There is no way you should be able to make a meaningful attack against Russia on G1 against a good Russian player.

Heck, when I play Russia, Germany can rarely mount any real attack before G3 and is in serious danger of outrunning their reinforcements if they get too cocky after that.

Does your Russian opponent refuse to buy artillery or something? Does he not attack W. Russia? :confused:

[ April 28, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Marik ]

Drax Kramer

04-29-2004, 02:33 AM

Allies are going to buy some sort of non-transport naval unit anyway, if for no other reason than to protect themselves from German aircraft.

In MB version, this was often a British carrier that hosted two US fighters.

Now, if Germany spend 16 IPCs on carrier and British respond in kind, where's the advantage for Germany?

Drax

Zombie

04-29-2004, 02:44 AM

If one UK carrier is what it takes to defend against the Luftwaffe, then surely it must take a lot more than that to defend against both the Luftwaffe and the German navy combined!

soonerborn

04-29-2004, 07:20 AM

Please what? If you take a look at the units, you would see that 4 tanks (12) 1 art (2) 7 inf (14) and 3 planes (9) is 15 units and 37 Defense.

Germany can bring (with AC + 3 trans build) 5 men 5 tanks, 5 Planes (assuming 1 loss on R1) and a Bomber, plus BB shot.

Thats 16 Units and 43 attack strength. So what I said stands. If the USA ignores UK and doesnt place units there, G2 sealion is a good option.

If it DOES join in sea zone 8, and USA bought a carrier, attack that fleet now. Squirecam- You keep coming back like a broke cousin.

So now its a Car and 3 tranny build and not the 2 tranny build you stated earlier? Ok, With the extra tranny you would have even odds of winning but then I would probably change a few things to push them in my favor like either sacrificing 1 US tranny to offload 2 Inf and adding a Russian Fight and a us bomber to take a hit as a last resort just in case.

Germ attacks with 6 Fighters, 1 bomber, 5 tanks and 5 inf + BB bombard. (best case scenario)

Brits defend with 9 inf, 4 tanks, 4 fighters, 1 art and 2 bombers

I dont think your going to take that. Someone else can figure the odds out, my head hurts.

04-29-2004, 07:47 AM

I have to concur that "no tech" games suck. I am playing one by email at the moment, where I have risked aircraft against a "1" 3 times now and my opponent has hit the "1" every single time.

Ftr v Trn (2/7)
Bmb v Trn (3/13)
Bmb v AA SBR (1/6)

That's 1/91 folks! And now I can't do anything to try and swing the balance other than make a series of attacks with the odds against me and hope to get lucky.

Now back to the German navy...

My opponent built 13 inf on G1. IMHO this purchase forced me to play a KGF strategy, which is probably bad for the axis (I have only played 1 game of KJF but that seemed better for the Axis).

The thing is a G1 CV (without any Trn) can make the Allies feel the pressure is off Russia and they may take the bait and build IC India and IC Sinkiang and CV WUSA. This is actually probably a good thing for the Axis.

So to those who advocate buying > 16 IPCs worth of navy on G1 because it gives Japan a free reign in Asia, I'd say this is exactly what you don't want. You want Allied energies wasted on Japan, letting the Germans solidify there position and hopefully push on Moscow at some point.

So in answer to Drax, I'd say the major benefit of a G1 CV (even better -- build a DD and then run to SZ7 leaving a blocking sub in SZ6 on G2 IMO) is that it allows the Allies to make the mistake of going KJF.

Now I know that relying on your opponent to make mistakes is not a great strategy, but buying 40 IPCs worth of ground units G1 leaves them no room to make an error (if they still go KJF then I'd say a blind monkey could beat them).

Just my 2 cents worth.

Juggernaut

04-29-2004, 09:11 AM

My point was, whatever Russia takes turn 1, Germany takes right back. The same can be said g2 and most likely g3. I don't think Germany's advance on Russia is delayed or stalled. I think most scenarios play out that Moscow falls turn 5-7.

soonerborn

04-29-2004, 09:42 AM

DY -
I dont see how tech will change any of those odds except the bomber vs tranny (and then only slightly). A much worse game is when US starts buying bombers and rolling for HB. Its nullifies every strategy and advantage gained from good play. 1 in 6 odds on getting HB sucks. In fact HB suck period. No tech SBR over a few turns at the right time can be used to great effect while preventing some clown from using an undefeatable strategy that a 3 yr old can carry out.

I guess it would be fair to say that HB is the main reason I dont like tech but I am open to any discussion you would like to start to convince me why I am wrong. (note: I still have my gloves on)lol

04-29-2004, 11:19 AM

Dude, you missed the point of my post on tech. The point is that after suffering set-backs due to bad rolling in the field, sometimes the best odds for someone to come back are by rolling tech.

Losing those aircraft compounds, since you have to throw more units like artillery onto the front lines to recapture territory, or forego attacking altogether, where you otherwise would have (with air support). This costs you income in the form of units traded and in terms of territory not captured.

Like at the moment my best best to get back into the game before all is completely lost is to stage for a 40%-60% battle in my opponent's favour and hope to get lucky. Now I dont see why I could just invest 15 IPCs and get a 42% change of heavy bombers as an alternative strategy to get back into the game (basically I'm risking 15 IPCs as opposed to probably 100+ IPCs worth of units).

[ April 29, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: DY ]

Zombie

04-29-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by DY:
The thing is a G1 CV (without any Trn) can make the Allies feel the pressure is off Russia and they may take the bait and build IC India and IC Sinkiang and CV WUSA. This is actually probably a good thing for the Axis.

So to those who advocate buying > 16 IPCs worth of navy on G1 because it gives Japan a free reign in Asia, I'd say this is exactly what you don't want. You want Allied energies wasted on Japan, letting the Germans solidify there position and hopefully push on Moscow at some point.Agreed. This is exactly what i said as well!

soonerborn

04-29-2004, 12:09 PM

DY
So what you are saying is that because of these 3 low probability hits all coming through for your opponent, you are now forced into an inferior position by causing you to lose valued units to retaking territories, which will eventually cause you to lose the game. All because of 3 dice rolls. That could be one way to look at. Another way would be that after losing 1 plane to a low probability hit you poorly chose to continue risking valued assets, and now you are seeing the results of those poor choices with no HB to bail you out. (see previous HBs suck post)

squirecam

04-29-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by soonerborn:
So now its a Car and 3 tranny build and not the 2 tranny build you stated earlier? Actually, its always been a AC +3 trans build. Look back from the beginning of our discussion at pg 5.

And I would expect US reinforcements.

Having the transports gives you options.

If USA reinforces UK, kill off the fleet.

If UK prefers fleet + men, then Japan takes advantage of no IC in India.

If UK/USA keeps the fleet "up north", then take Africa.

Go where they arent and look for opportunities. Play smart.

[ April 29, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: squirecam ]

CommC

04-29-2004, 08:42 PM

I just don't think buying a German carrier is a good idea at any time. Germany's focus should be crushing Russia as soon as possible, with a side goal of delaying the US/UK seaborn invasion as long as possible.

To delay or defend against the allied amphibious assault, I think it makes more sense to use fighters and bombers, which can also be used against land targets, and can also be protected from counter-attack with infantry etc on the same territory.

Any German naval force would be subject to Allied sea and air attack, whereas the same IPCs could be invested in fighters/bombers which can be protected. Any Allied naval force must come within range of the fighters and bombers when it amphibious assaults into Europe.

Further, one can also make the case that the Germans should never spend a dime on anything but tanks and infantry, whilst carefully using their starting airpower to concentrate combat force on the target territory or allied amphibious assault force. Most of the games won by the Axis feature a rapid strike by Germany into Russia before the US/UK can build up. Any naval purchase only plays into the Allies hand by taking resources away from the critical thrust into Russia. A more cost-effective defense of fortress Europe is to simply build infantry. With this strategy, I would also ignore Africa, except to take what is possible with the starting units in Africa.

CommC

04-29-2004, 10:06 PM

Zombie,
Yes, the inf/arty combo is better on offense, but the inf/armor combo is better on defense. When the two values are combined, the inf/arty combo does have a slight edge.

But all of this is beside my point, that Germany should only buy ground units. Whether they are arty or armor doesn't matter as much as that they build ground units instead of air or naval (which are a lot less cost effective, calculating cost vs hit chance vs hits it can take.

Zombie

04-29-2004, 10:21 PM

IPC for IPC, the art+inf beats tank+inf even on defense. Try to simulate a few combats, you'll see.

04-29-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by soonerborn:
DY
So what you are saying is that because of these 3 low probability hits all coming through for your opponent, you are now forced into an inferior position by causing you to lose valued units to retaking territories, which will eventually cause you to lose the game. All because of 3 dice rolls. That could be one way to look at. Another way would be that after losing 1 plane to a low probability hit you poorly chose to continue risking valued assets, and now you are seeing the results of those poor choices with no HB to bail you out. (see previous HBs suck post)So you are telling me that making attacks which are 5/6, 5/7 and 10/13 costing my opponent IPCs with no loss to myself is a poor strategy on my part?

Dude, get a new sig, anything over two lines is very obnoxious.

soonerborn

04-30-2004, 06:11 AM

Squirecam -

I looked back and your right. I must have miss read your post or got what someone else was talking about confused with your post. Sorry. But I still dont think you can take B with 5 trans on G2.

DY -

When looking at carrying out an attack of this sort you have to not only look at the potential ipc damage but also which country is attacking and which country is being attacked. Russian pieces are worth more than Japan and German pieces which in turn are worth more than US and Brit pieces (in general). Do I think its dumb to send a lone German bomber after a Us tranny no but to keep doing it after losing aircraft yes.

Dude I like my sig and I think I am going to leave it there for just alittle while longer.

pdubarry

04-30-2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by CommC:
Zombie,
Yes, the inf/arty combo is better on offense, but the inf/armor combo is better on defense. When the two values are combined, the inf/arty combo does have a slight edge.

But all of this is beside my point, that Germany should only buy ground units. Whether they are arty or armor doesn't matter as much as that they build ground units instead of air or naval (which are a lot less cost effective, calculating cost vs hit chance vs hits it can take.

pdubarry

04-30-2004, 08:10 AM

And I post that to say this:

Infantry and artillery may be a little better in the long run, but tanks are faster. Germany requires speed to take Moscow. And their strategy should be all about taking Moscow...

CommC

04-30-2004, 09:03 AM

Zombie,
Both the calculations I have done and the simulations I have run suggest the inf/armor combo is slightly better than the inf/arty combo on defense. This was using the 3 or less to hit on defense tank.

Could you give me a little more detail on your simulations that suggest the inf/arty combo is better than the inf/tank combo on defense?

In my tests, I used 8 inf and 8 arty defending compared to 7 inf, 7 tanks (same ipc cost for both sets). I used the sim engine that only makes 100 rolls, so the results may be somewhat suspect.

04-30-2004, 09:26 AM

soonerborn, for the record it was a pair of Soviet ftrs vs a German trn alone in the Med, a British bmb stationed in Russia against a poorly placed Japanese trn in SZ60 and a US bomber against a German IC.

Still stupid attacks?

Also the odds were actually 4/19*3/13*1/6 = 6/741
I incorrectly assumed I went 1 ftr vs 1 trn when in fact I had 2 ftr.

This is less than 1%. Like I said, the loss of airpower early (turn 2) has a lasting impact on your ground forces for the rest of the game.

Tech allows you to get back into the game. Now admittedly HB needs a fix such as max IPC damage per turn, not per bomber, or fighter escorts/intercepts, but aside from that, tech itself is not an inherrently bad thing.

[ April 30, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: DY ]

Zombie

04-30-2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by CommC:
Further, one can also make the case that the Germans should never spend a dime on anything but tanks and infantryThis short sentence alone proves to me that you don't know much about the math of this game, when it can (and was) so easily proven that inf + art beats inf + tank both on offense and defense.

It serves to discrdit the rest of your post, which is a shame, because you had a few original points in there.

soonerborn

04-30-2004, 09:55 AM

DY-

lol. Nope. I think the the last 2 are good tries and is usually the type of thing I would go for but I do not like the idea of chancing any Russian fighters. Is it stupid -no, just more risky than using a brit or us plane. I dont like using German or Russian planes to attack anything by themselves generally, I will risk Japanese more later in the game after securing large income and I will almost always risk a Brit or US plane unless I am extremely low on them.

I was for some reason under the impression that all three planes were from the same country, my mistake. Since your playing allies I would be willing to bet that those 3 planes didnt cost you the game, the russian one probably more so than the others. I have played several no tech games as allies and have tried several strats with the same result. I usually wind up looking very good the first 4 - 5 rounds and then things go down hill rapidly. I am not insinuating that I am a better player than anyone else but I am confident that I can play well. If you have any ideas on how to win with allies in a no tech game I would love to hear them. I had this started on another thread "Allied Help".

---Just read the edit you posted
Yes certainly losing that much air power would hurt in that early of a game but thats why one should be hesitant to use that many high value pieces in risky situations that early.

Again I made an incorrect assumption that my earlier remarks were based on - again my mistake.

[ April 30, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: soonerborn ]

04-30-2004, 10:53 AM

I guess I don't consider a 3/13 chance of losing a bomber to be a risky attack. Actually my game isn't quite over yet, but things are looking pretty grim for the Allies.

If anyone is keen in a Mapview PBEM game 2v2 with no NAs (I'd prefer to play with tech, but will play no tech) my friend and I are keen for a game.
Please PM me and I should respond within 12 hours with the details.

soonerborn

04-30-2004, 11:07 AM

DY-
A bomber taking in a tranny isnt risky in and of itself but when placed on a board with lots of other pieces it becomes a factor of not just the bomber and transport but also the power that bomber projects across its range and the ability of a country to offset the loss of that power thru other means. You take a gun and put a bullet in it point it at the ground and its not very risky to pull the trigger for a 100$ reward but point it at your computer or car and I think you will agree that the risk has just gone up significantly, and wouldnt be worth the 100$.

Zombie

04-30-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by CommC:
Zombie,
Both the calculations I have done and the simulations I have run suggest the inf/armor combo is slightly better than the inf/arty combo on defense. This was using the 3 or less to hit on defense tank.

Could you give me a little more detail on your simulations that suggest the inf/arty combo is better than the inf/tank combo on defense?

In my tests, I used 8 inf and 8 arty defending compared to 7 inf, 7 tanks (same ipc cost for both sets). I used the sim engine that only makes 100 rolls, so the results may be somewhat suspect.I don't have a simulator to use and i was talking based on the results posted by others. Try running the simulation more than one time, and try running it with equal inf on both sides and the rest in equal IPC art or tanks. Maybe i'm just wrong though.

DY, i totally agree with you. All of those battles were worth fighting.