Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Getting to D-Day Michael Sandy ... While staying up last night with a cranky 2-year old, I thought a bit about the mid-game and end-game of A&AE. My previous posts have mostly covered the initial IPC bonus and the first couple of years. D-Day is the invasion of France, and hopefully for the Allies, the decisive blow against Germany that will win the war for the Allies even if Russia is on the ropes. What can Germany do to defend Western Europe? If he puts no units in France and Belgium, then England can cheaply take them from Germany. If Germany puts one infantry there, the Brits still take it and the IPC value of the territories will justify any infantry lost. If Germany puts a _lot_ of Infantry in France or Belgium then they can be worn down by shore bombardment dinks, 4 DD + 1 INF each turn. To my mind, the best way to defend Western Europe is to sink the transports. To do that you need fighters and/or bombers within reach of all Allied landing sites. Then, to protect the fighters and bombers, you stack a bunch of Infantry with them. The airforce protects the territory and the Infantry protects the airforce. I would also seriously consider moving the Northern Italy AA unit to help protect your Western Europe air base. One of the Allied options is to do a turn 2 or turn 3 invasion of Africa followed by shipping those troops to the Bay of Biscay to attack France. Why the Bay of Biscay? Because if the Allies take out the German airforce there and take France, German fighters in Germany or Norway will be unable to attack the transport fleet. Only fighters adjacent to France could attack the Bay of Biscay. However, the Germans have a simple counter. If the Allies have an invasion fleet in the Southern Atlantic which they can't hit or don't intend to hit, they should move their airforce from France to either Vichy or Belgium. Vichy would cover the Mediterranean lines of threat, while Belgium would make it harder for the Allies to rendevous in the Celtic Sea. The Germans should be alert to amphibious threats against their air force. If their airforce is positioned forward, for use against British fleet builds, they need a lot of Infantry under them. Otherwise, they should move their fighters inland so they cover the sea zones off the beaches instead. If the Germans lose their airforce then the Allies can park a US transport fleet off Western Europe, load with British troops one turn, and offload on the next British turn. Normally the Allies don't want loaded transports next to Europe on Germany's turn, but once the German airforce has been suppressed it is fairly safe. I'm pretty sure that the British can not load troops onto US transports the same turn that British troops from those same transports did an amphibious attack, but the Allies could alternate between using US troops and British troops to invade, conserving their transports. Every other turn the continent would be hit by a full transport load of both US and British troops, using exclusively US built transports. Casualties from German attacks would come off the fighters on the Allied Carrier in the sea zone. If the US has 3 transports in the English Channel or North Sea, then 3 more transports will be needed to ship new US troops to England every other turn to supply the invasion transports. The question is whether the Western Allies can start to apply effective pressure before two turns of Germany Infantry and Artillery builds followed by two turns of tanks get to Moscow on turn 6. Those two turns of Infantry production match closely with 4 turns of Russian output. If the Germans have been careful with their troops they will have experienced about even or better losses against the Russians. The Germans have to decide on their turn 5 builds whether to build tanks or defenses against the West. Alternately, they could build lots of subs and send the airforce against Russia, using subs to reduce the Allied transports instead of the airforce. By this time, there will probably be German armies in Leningrad and Stalingrad, with the Russians hunkered down in Moscow, threatening to strafe the Germans if they combine in Belorussia. Unless the Allies took Norway early, it will probably be impossible to reinforce Russia at this point. I believe that Belorussia is where the biggest and most critical land battles are likely to be fought. I also believe that without two turns or more of German Infantry (+Artillery) production dedicated to the Russian front the Germans will not be able to stand up to Russian strafing attacks, especially if the Russians received at least three Lend Lease planes by the end of turn 2. One of the advantages for the Allies of a Norway campaign is that it is easy for Allied planes to hit Norway or Finland as part of an amphibious attack and land in Karelia or Archangel (if flown off of a Carrier in the North Sea), thus having the least amount of down time for Allied planes. Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: A&A Europe rules question Michael Sandy wrote in message <1ebfx2f.1rmojp1c036eaN%mehawk@teleport.com>... Bret Smith wrote: > > > Maybe I should pose things in the form of a question: > > Like: > > > > 1) Germany: Do you use the Battleship against Malta or Gibraltar, > > and under what circumstances? > > > > 2) Russia: if you can retake both Baltic States and Eastern Poland > > you may be able to hold Ukraine in force. Is it worth it? > > > > 3) Germany: Does attacking Vyborg just weaken your hard to reinforce > > Scandinavian forces? Is it a good idea to pull back to Finland on > > turn 2? > > > > 4) England: Build two fighters to reinforce Russia, attack Norway > > or build 3 subs to retake your convoy zones? > > > > 5) America: Norway or Africa by turn 3? > > > > 6) Is it better to attack three British fleets at 2:1 odds, even if > > you'll never be given a superior odds attack again, or 4+ Allied fleets > > at 1.5 : 1 or worse odds? > > > > 7) What do you think of using the Norway fighter against the Russian > > transport and moving the Denmark Strait sub to the Barents Sea in order > > to deny the Russians their convoy zone for as long as possible? > > > > Or is it better to use a fighter against the Russian transport on turn > > 2 when you are otherwise limited in your targets anyway? > > > > Michael Sandy > > A quick explanation as to my answers... they are all my opinions only... > based entirely upon my playings. > > 1) Gibraltar, in all circumstances. The Atlantic is too important. What if Germany took extra Artillery against Russia and the Allies responded by strongly reinforcing the Middle East? If Germany can't reliably take out the Maltese fighter then the British East Med fleet could sink the Germans in the Maltese Sea and possibly gain the advantage in Africa. If England takes a sub for 8 bonus IPCs in Gibraltar, what do you hit Gibraltar with? > 2) Usually never. The amount of defensive power lost in taking all three > is devastating to your end game. What if Germany launched a strafe attack on Ukraine and lost several units, and also only took Baltic States and East Poland with a few units? My first game as Germany, Ukraine rolled four out of five hits and I had worse luck in Eastern Poland. What I'm thinking is that if _only_ one Russian stack can be hit in force, and the Russians can get more defensive firepower into Ukraine that the Germans can get offensive firepower, does it hurt Russia to have her Infantry concentrated in the south? Also, I have been considering a new German strategy where he only strafes the Russian border territories until new German infantry get to the front. The 3 Belgium, 4 Eastern France and 1 Danish Infantry, plus the German turn 1 Infantry build can make a powerful push. > 3) Yes. The offense gained by units in Vyborg, doesn't offset the probable > loss of the IPCs. What I was thinking of was a German Finnish artillery as bonus, and shipping two Infantry from Germany on turn 1 to Vyborg. A force of 4 or 5 INF + 1 Art would be hard to dislodge, (unless Leningrad received a lot of Artillery). The Germans would thus reinforce Scandinavia and kill a Russian INF at good odds. When Germany finally got the force to take Leningrad and hold it, then Germany could take Karelia as well, opening a blitz path to Archangel. Russia couldn't maintain a killer stack both in Belorussia _and_ in Russia in order to strafe the smaller Karelia stack. > 4) Depends on Germany's move. Do they save some money? Well, they are > probably planning on building ships next turn. Then it is a good idea to > pay heed to the Atlantic. Otherwise, I would say no. The theory is that it is better for England to free her convoy zones on her turn than to have American ships free them a turn later, especially if Germany just retakes them before the British get to use them. British submarines are the fastest way to retake the convoy zones, especially since they can't be hit by German air units. One of the problems the Allies face is that if they split their surface fleet going after convoy zones they will be defeated in detail. Submarines are cheap 'details', and if the Germans concentrate their subs against the British subs they leave the remaining Allied surface fleet unmolested, and free to concentrate on the German subs in turn. One Destroyer and 3 planes versus 2+ subs is a great opportunity for Britain. Their maximum losses are 1 DD, but more than one sub can be hit by planes. Also, even if the Germans attack a British sub with overwhelming force, they still might miss and have to watch it submerge. > 5) Never Africa. Delays D-day. I think 'Never Africa' assumes that Germany believes as you do that the German Battleship has to go to Gibraltar. A corallary question, then: If the British place a sub in Gibraltar, and it survives, should the British attack Gibraltar with their airforce in order to sink the battleship? What if there is also a German sub stacked with the German battleship in Gibraltar? If the German battleship is in the Eastern Med on turn two, I think the Allies should consider having the British hit the German sub in the Central Atlantic and shipping two US transports (2 Inf, 2 Art) to Africa. It does not conspiciously delay D-Day, because the Allies won't have a large enough navy to stack next to France yet anyway. What delays D-Day most, in my opinion, is when the German airforce gets a second opportunity to hit Allied ships. > 6) Take the British at those odds. > > 7) Very feasible. That is one sub and one fighter less against the British fleets, but knocking out Russian production, and keeping it out, is more important, I agree. I sort of weigh the value of production differently. 4 Production for the Russians is worth 5 Production for the British is worth 6 Production for the Americans, roughly. > Bret Thank you for responding! Michael Sandy Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) German air force Michael Sandy ... Is it worth trying to position the German air force to cover the Atlantic? If the Germans get a second chance to sink Allied naval units at an advantage, but it seems relatively easy for the Allies to keep their ships out of reach of the German air force until they have such a large fleet that Germany can not oppose it. In order to cover all the sea zones around England, Germany needs fighters in Norway and either Belgium or France. This means that the Allies can choose to expose their ships to the smaller air group. If you are going to have to put your fleet in range of the German air force, it is better to put them within range of the Norway planes, because then the German fighters in France have nothing to do. German fighters in Norway can always attack Karelia or Leningrad. I figure that if a fighter kills an Infantry per turn, it will pay for itself in four turns. If a fighter is idle, it effectively _costs_ me an Infantry per turn. By setting up to cover the Atlantic, Germany may waste precious fighter time if the Americans keep out of range. Of course, this will keep the southern three British convoy zones out of British hands for a while. If the Americans stay out of range of the German air force, all the Germans can do is concentrate their subs and use them up taking out the now stronger fleet. This will make it much easier for England to retake her convoy zones. Which brings up another point: Should the Germans hit either the American fleet or the Davis strait fleet at the expense of moving through the southern British convoy zones? Two subs versus a DD and a transport is not good odds. Also, the Germans will engage the British fleets around the British Isles at worse odds if they stretch themselves too thin, and if they fail, all their subs are committed, it will be fairly easy for the Allies to clear the convoy zones if any warships survive. I like having the German Battleship in Gibraltar in order to attack any Allied Destroyer group that had the temerity to attack one of my subs. If it isn't going to be practical for the US to even attack one of the German subs, they may as well stay off the East Coast and build a really large fleet. And if the US isn't going to sail its fleet into harms way on turn 1, why bother stationing the German air force to attack it? At some point, Germany will want to pull its air force back in order to destroy or weaken the Allied fleet if it lands troops in France. The Germans may be better off positioning its air force for use in the Med or against Russia, rather than trying to cover every convoy zone they can. A German bomber in France can attack the British fleet in the Eastern Med if it lands in Crete, and even a few planes can make a big difference in Africa. Covering the British Isles slows Britain from building a surface fleet, but for pure naval combat, 3 subs are better than 2 DDs anyway. If the Brits build 3 subs on turn 1 they don't risk their fleet getting obliterated in detail. Later on, when the Allies are getting ready to invade Europe, it is nice for Germany to be able to build a bunch of subs without worrying about a US DD and a bunch of planes cheaply sinking a bunch of them, so keeping the British Isles cleared of Allied DDs makes it easier for Germany to build subs. However, that involves such a major commitment of the German air force that I am not sure that it is worth it. If the Germans actually _do_ get to attack an Allied fleet at an advantage, then it is worth it, but is making the Western Allies keep their distance for a turn really worth weakening the attack on Russia by all those fighters? Michael Sandy