AA Tactical Question

[bmaster]

Hey utz,

it sounds like nothing you did with usa really changed the strategic situation in africa. The thinking behind rushing to build more trannies early and no carrier is based on a short term situation in which you can guard sz 12 without the carrier and you can quickly make a punch through or around egypt with relatively more tanks and air threat. Aside from that, I agree there's not THAT much to be gained by going for the extreme transport optimization. As you describe, there are situations where a balanced fleet is more important to actually using all that power rather than sitting pretty in libya.

Alternately, going for a trannie-heavy approach is more useful when your carrier survived J1. If J skips pearl, in the long run you will have a credible fleet even without the initial carrier build.

[BKBrawler]

Axis has been able to keep Egypt [but will soon have to give it up] and has been able to keep Egypt this long primarily [in my view] because I didn't buy enough offensive units for USA.

You hit the nail on the head. A six transport shuck between Eastern Canada and Algeria is bad news since it means to get to the point where that could even be done you have severely limited the US's offensive ability. This is especially troublesome against an Axis player who heavily stacks Egypt.

To counter this, you want to quickly build-up to a 5 transport shuck out of Eastern Canada (should be established no later than US2) as discussed earlier which will involve mostly infantry builds to start, backed up by significant armor mixed in once the full 5 transport shuck is established. If done correctly. the Axis should be forced out of Egypt within a turn or two from that point.

Once that happens, the US than switches BACK to transport builds so that it can either 1) chain into the Med, taking out Southern Europe, Western Europe, or the Balkans and Ukraine, or 2) shift the shuck north once it hits 8 transports.

Keep in mind that if Germany is allowed to kee their Med fleet beyond round 2, you are just asking for Japan to pull ships through the canal protecting it and allowing the Axis to continue to drop 2 German units in Egypt coupled with whatever Japan can bring in its Indian Ocean shuck.

ALSO: J hit Alaska once to break up the shuck.

This should not be a real issue for a couple of reasons:
1) It diverts Japan troops from Russia, and
2) US should have built enough infantry to start the game that it has 2-4 infantry moving through West Canada to the shuck off East Canada. Japan is rarely likely to make a landing with those troops present, but they also ensure an opportunity for the US to kill a couple of Japan troops for a small break in full transports in the Atlantic. It might mean 2 less US units in Africa, but it also means 4 less Japan units in Asia (2 that missed a transport because the transport was in Alaska, and 2 in Alaska itself).

If USA were to go to SE, J could come thru the canal & wipe me out.

You have to hit Egypt first. Very doable. See above.

If Britain goes first with carrier sub 2 trannys & 2 USA ftrs, they will also be wiped out.

USA cannot afford to just dump 12 units of 8 inf 2 art & 2 tanks into Algeria every round [except when they are replacing their airforce]. They are out of the game.

Live and learn. That is a bonafide fact against a good Axis/Egypt strategy.

[UtzChips]

bmaster,

Well, what happened was, after 3/4 hrs, J has a mountain of inf & India/Egypt and just moves to stack 'em in Persia. A total of about 18 I think, along with 6 tanks & a few artillery. Meanwhile at the same time, G stacks Ukraine with 22 inf & 10 tanks.

Now, keep in mind, I've been tradin' this whole time!

Britain has about 7 inf 3 art & 5 tanks, 3 fighters & a bomber at the time this Axis shift is done, along with the 8 units in England they are about to shuck over.

Russia has 14 inf 2 art in WR, another 10 inf 4 tanks & 2 fighters in Caucausus, along with Britain's 3 fighters and the press is on and USA can't do anything, because even if they take SE, G just takes it back with they have in WE & Berlin & a double punch in WE won't work, because then Britain removes its presence in the Russian front.

USA can't press towards Persia, because they are a territory behind & J can just 'em with 17 inf 6 tanks 6 fighters, a bomber & 2 battleships and let G with his 22 inf 10 tanks & air pick either WR or Caucasus.

[UtzChips]

BkBrawler,

I've tried what you're talkin' about. It doesn't work for me unless Allies kill G fleet by round 3 and J doesn't commit to stackin' Egypt.

Even when you are ready to hit Egypt, Axis just backs out & is poised to stack Persia.

[BKBrawler]

BkBrawler,

I've tried what you're talkin' about. It doesn't work for me unless Allies kill G fleet by round 3 and J doesn't commit to stackin' Egypt.

Even when you are ready to hit Egypt, Axis just backs out & is poised to stack Persia.

The Germans should be dead, dead, dead by UK3 no matter what at the absolute latest, and UK2 is possible depending on if a fighter survives UK1's hit on German baltic fleet (as is often likely since the fleet is often broken up):

UK1: land surviving UK fighter in Belo, UK bomber in Cau. Take Indian ocean carrier and fighter to off Rhodesia.
UK2: hit the Med fleet with 2 fighters and a bomber. You will almost always get the transport, often the battleship too without losing the bomber.

If you want to play it a touch safer:

UK1: move surviving air as described above. Make sure you build at least 1 fighter (preferably 2, and even 3).
UK2: have the new fighter (or 2) go to belo, the fighter in belo go to Cau, and the UK carrier and fighter off Rhodesia go off South Africa on the Indian Ocean side.
UK3: Attack German Med fleet with 3-6 fighters and bomber.

Note: If Japan is too aggressive and moves some ships off of Egypt, UK may have an opportunity to hit them, wiping out half their fleet (4-6 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 transport (you didn't foolishly throw away that transport in the Pacific, did you?) against battleship, carrier, 2 fighters, transport almost always the max Japan will have here = 60% UK win with 4 fighters, 85% with 5, and 95% with 6). US switches to Pac naval builds and proceeds with a KJF against a Japan with only one ball

Second: if the Axis withdraw from Egypt when you are ready to hit it, congratulations, the US has accomplished its frist objective. So where to go from here? Futily chase the Japanese to Persia where they are likely entrenched or able to slam the US stack hard if it moves in Trans-Jordan? Possibly! If Russia is well stack in Cau, a possible US-Russia double tap may wipe the stack out.

Alternatively, US now needs to consider its transport options:

1) Shuck into the Med threatening the German's underbelly with hits on WE, SE, Balkans and Ukraine? Good move. It also allows the US to emergency shuck to Cau f the pressure is on. Do this for enough turns, especially with SE, and watch the German stacks whittle in trades with the US and UK it can't keep up with. OR

2) shift the shuck north and bring the transports alongside the Brits and right into the face of the Germans, with possible landings in WE, EE, and Berlin, easily the three most important territories for the Germans. Their pressure on Russia may evaporate in the face of such focused possible landings, and at the very least the Allies should be able to take and hold Karelia, and trade Belo from there. Allied tanks in Kareia have the added benefit of being able to move to Cau or Moscow if the pressure is on.

Get proactive as the Allies, Utz! Let that grimy Axis player worry about what the Allies are going to do next instead of the other way around!

GL!!

[bmaster]

hey utz,

so yeah, if the axis keep egypt and the rest of africa long enough, they don't really need to hold it forever. they just need decent income for a while and then to shock&awe russia. You may have already lost at that point if your plan was to threaten egypt hard but it just took too long AND failed to attack and weaken a J stack that was basically biding its time to eat russia.

Separately, in general, i'd say that the allies are unlikely to beat germany by some decisive blow or dropoff into europe. Threatening it is useful in alot of ways, and certainly it can be the route to victory once germany goes too heavy against russia, but that's leaving the axis in the driving seat as to when it happens. Instead, you need to either control the med (as you do now) and shuttle troops into more useful places like cauc, or fleet up to the north, where you shuttle troops via londin into karelia, while threatening the game-ending double punch on berlin each turn.

In the mean time, trading SE and WE with a troop or two is advantageous. Germany has to contest, and if they screw up contesting SE it can be a big pain for them. There's just no way around it -- If you spend the entire usa game slowly taking africa, and then arrive late to the party to save russia, you should probably lose.

[BKBrawler]

And if you really want to have fun freaking out any Japan move to the Africa, consider assembling your entire UK fleet in the bottom of the Indian T1. That means the carrier, destroyer, submarine, fighter, and two transports filled with units from Australia and India.

The fleet will not be attacked by Japan. If they do attack, UK wins nearly 80% of the time. Half the Japan fleet wiped means... you guessed it...a KJF!

If they don't attack, like they shouldn't, the UK fleet can:
1) be in position to wipe the German Med fleet UK2 using the fighter, bomber, and surviving fighter put in Belo
2) snipe the German tanks who blitz to Rhodesia using 5 infantry, a fighter and bomber
3) Hit Egypt itself if left with less than 5 units
4) Keep Japan very far away from 34 (off Egypt) by staying off Rhodesia or South Africa. Japan will probably not be able to come near Africa for a full 4 turns since the UK fleet and purchased air now in position are heavy favorites to smash it if it does.

If the US is not in position to seriously threaten Egypt by this point, you are doing something wrong

[UtzChips]

Ok,

1st: I cannot bring myself to hit G's fleet in Med with 2 ftr & bomber. Last time I did that, it was my bomber v. battleship with 1 hit on it, bomber missed & battleship shot it down.

G is going to have at least their battleship still floating approx. 15.8% of the time. J comes thru the canal & we know how G gets another tranny rollin' from there.

This is the problem with no USA presence in the Pacific. J gets to do as she pleases with her navy.

I have sunk G's Med fleet on Britain's T2, but I had 3 fighters.

Also, if Britain chooses to counter in Egypt on T1, they lose the bomber & a fighter, possibly, if it tries to help defend the bomber, G unloads in Egypt & J comes runnin' to the rescue to firm it up.

The more one thinks about it, the more one begins to think it may be far more important for Russia's T1 to turn out very well than one first puts weight on.

If Russia doesn't leave at least 3 inf in Bury, put 3/4 in Sink & the Brits have 4 in India, there is no pressure whatsoever on Japan, when all the British navy does is send a destroyer to hit the tranny & a sub to kill J's sub 1/3 of the time.

It's like saying: "There ya go J, Asia is all yours."

Now, on the flipside of the coin. I am currently playing a multi pbe 12 VC game, where Russia put 4 inf & 1 tank in Sink, stacked Bury and we were able to take Kwang & Manchuria with a token inf for 1 round.

In fact, J offered it to us, choosin' instead to stack FIC. He just took it back the next round.

And now........well now, he has the FATTEST stack of G units in Karelia that I have EVER seen in a game.

[BKBrawler]

Ok,

1st: I cannot bring myself to hit G's fleet in Med with 2 ftr & bomber. Last time I did that, it was my bomber v. battleship with 1 hit on it, bomber missed & battleship shot it down.

G is going to have at least their battleship still floating approx. 15.8% of the time. J comes thru the canal & we know how G gets another tranny rollin' from there.

First, you should have withdrawn the bomber instead of going after the battleship. Its not worth it, though the IPC matchup may be telling you otherwise. That UK bomber is irreplaceable, and a German battleship without a transport is next to worthless.

Second, you have your odds wrong. The UK wins that battle 85% of that time, but AT LEAST GETS THE TRANSPORT more often- something like 95%+. That is a battle you have to do. If those aren't good enough odds, then you will be paralyzed by the percentages in this game.

Third, if you don't want to go 2 figs and a bomber, go 3-6 fis and a bomber UK2. Its right there in my post along with the 2 fig/1 bomber variation.

This is the problem with no USA presence in the Pacific. J gets to do as she pleases with her navy.

That's how it is when Allies go KGF. If Pearl is hit, they have little choice- any $ spent not giving the US transports units to fill in the Atlantic will allow Germany to do as he please with his army. That's the trade-off. Pick an evil and get after it- divided efforts are a losing effort.

Also, if Britain chooses to counter in Egypt on T1, they lose the bomber & a fighter, possibly, if it tries to help defend the bomber, G unloads in Egypt & J comes runnin' to the rescue to firm it up.

The Egypt counter is tricky. Is it 3 or less units? Gotta do it. That's a 90% success rate for the Allies. It goes so far to handicapping Germany's assault on Russia and troop count. The bomber may be gone, but the fighter can almost always survive by landing on the UK carrier off Rhodesia. Plus the UK can still attack 4 or 5 fighters against the German Med fleet on UK3. That means Germany should have, at most, 4 units in Egypt/Africa. By that time, the US should already have double that and be waiting for its turn to hit it. No Japan is going to get there in time to save that.

The more one thinks about it, the more one begins to think it may be far more important for Russia's T1 to turn out very well than one first puts weight on.

That is an excellent realization. R1 is 50% of the game, I'm fairly convinced.

[bmaster]

And if you really want to have fun freaking out any Japan move to the Africa, consider assembling your entire UK fleet in the bottom of the Indian T1. That means the carrier, destroyer, submarine, fighter, and two transports filled with units from Australia and India.

The fleet will not be attacked by Japan. If they do attack, UK wins nearly 80% of the time. Half the Japan fleet wiped means... you guessed it...a KJF!

You sure about that, bk? I respect the opening, particularly if Uk brings absolutely everything, as you say. However, J can still hit you with 4 fighters 1 carrier 1 bb and have a >70% shot at you with on average surviving with their capital ships if they choose normal loss order, or close to 80% if they opt for the inconvenience of saving a fighter to land in a carrier moved to east indies.

Generally speaking, if my opponent does that stack with anything less than all the uk units, I will hit it because it's too rich a target to ignore. If they do it with all the uk units... it's still probably worth hitting since J can retreat after a round with losses caused. It's also a pain in bpem because uk with units on trannies will lose them last, which makes the odds worse for UK via order of loss change.

That said, if you spared my sz 59 trannie, I might as J take the more cautious route

A potentially more cautious uk opening would leave the dd and sub as screens to block the rest of the uk fleet. Very pricey in terms of opportunity costs, but i guess it could net you a nice shot on egypt on UK2.

[BKBrawler]

You sure about that, bk? I respect the opening, particularly if Uk brings absolutely everything, as you say. However, J can still hit you with 4 fighters 1 carrier 1 bb and have a >70% shot at you with on average surviving with their capital ships if they choose normal loss order, or close to 80% if they opt for the inconvenience of saving a fighter to land in a carrier moved to east indies.

My example is for the units in the East Indies only. If you're bringing an additional 2 fighters to the fight, Japan's odds go up from a roughly 80% UK win to an 80% Japan win chance. But if you're bringing 4 fighters, you can only hit China and Pearl by doing Pearl light, which will probably cost Japan the sub and destroyer but possibly more and maybe even fail to get the carrier, and can only hit China with 2 fighters and 6 infantry, which if it gets hit 2-3 times (as likely, though 3-4 losses wouldn't be truly crazy) could get countered by Russians in Sink. In any case, a Japan down a sub, destroyer, a couple of fighters maybe more, with half its fleet and planes out of position and possibly about to get countered in China seems a solid scenario for the US to go KJF and have a good chance.

[bmaster]

Yeah, if u hit uk with everything you probably skip pearl entirely. Which is nice, you've saved the usa fleet. But with two j trannies out there I don't see any long term concerns for j from a kjf attempt. The land is totally secure and the ocean is in no imminent danger so long as no single round vs uk goes all that badly.

[BKBrawler]

Yeah, if u hit uk with everything you probably skip pearl entirely. Which is nice, you've saved the usa fleet. But with two j trannies out there I don't see any long term concerns for j from a kjf attempt. The land is totally secure and the ocean is in no imminent danger so long as no single round vs uk goes all that badly.

Hmmm, I'd be a bit wary of a US KJF that starts with the Pearl fleet in tact and probably includes Japan down at least a fighter, maybe 2, and even 3 if the UK sub hits to open, and in relatively small unit number fleet battles there can be huge variations along these lines. That would be pretty disastrous for Japan. I would say that's akin to Russia only sending 2 tanks to Ukraine and failing. In other words, pretty close to game. Can Japan afford that risk? Might be a matter of individual play style but I would not feel comfortable making that attack J1. I'd be more inclined to hit Pearl, rally at FIC, dare the US to try a KJF minus the Pearl fleet to start, and get ready to hit any UK fleet that sticks around with a Japan Pearl fleet move to New Guinea T2.

A US1 build of 2 carriers and transport followed by second buy of another carrier and 2 fighters and a third build with 2 fighters to catch up to the fleet seems pretty unassailable (4 carriers, 8 fighters, bb, 2 dds, sub, 3 transports). I'm not sure how Japan keeps the US off the big islands beyond T3 or 4 and drop down an IC if it loses a couple of fighters attacking UK. But you've certainly got me reconsidering bringing the infantry from India- seems that makes too tempting a target for aggressive Japans, and just like it can backfire, it can also pan out and be big win for the Axis. Maybe only bring the Aussie troops to the assembled UK fleet, keeping India a bulwark in case a KJF comes into play and possible IC UK2. But lots to play with so who knows? Haven't played this scenario but think it would be fun to play. Maybe we get a game if league play clears up a bit and see what happens.

Cheers!

[aagamer_kc03]

I prefer an USA A/C regardless of germany being low on ftrs....although taking egy w/only 1 armor may change my mind

The reason I like the USA AC is because it makes it easier to move through southern sz and still hold 12 easily enough....even with a heavy presence of jpn air

I've taken to buying 6 inf, ac, trn rd 1 if I am going to brazil...it's a bit inf heavy but makes rd 2 (and so on) much easier to keep the shuck going

I'm no expert though and struggle specifically with USA in certain scenerios I also know I don't go for the kill quick enough and allow players to get back in so reading this thread was very educational!

Only thing I may have done different than utz is not try to replace both usa ftrs in the same round.

[bmaster]

Yeah I think we're in basic agreement here bk. If j is a cautious player, its a safe move but an aggressive j could make you pay. J's one bonus is the option to retreat and uk's tough choices in losing units if ur trannies are full. Separately if u are leaving sz 59 alive and assuming j is not aggressive than you don't dare stack bury. So you're setting up a possible fleet kjf but with limited land pressure. Still, like I said, I respect the move