Allied Strategy Discussion

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

I do not like KJF strats except when playing against newbies.  They are not effective and rely far too much on very very dicey rolls.  I would rather have monster Japan to monster Germany.  It may be fun, or a novelty, but they really just aren’t effective strategies.

KGF is better in AA42 than in Revised because of Perry Channel closed and CUSA not bordering WCan (both kill Polar Express). Since there is not a valid counter to KGF fanmania, I guess we are forced to 100% boring KGF games. Not that axis really need Polar Express this time: the suck is way much expensive (trannies don’t defend and a error is critical for allies), Germany can kill UK’s fleet round 1 and Germany has reasonable chances of building a (now) cheaper fleet and annoy allied suck enough time to Japan come to eat USSR

I think this game favors axis. Not sure in what degree (probably less than AA50, 1941 scenario did), but a thing is clear: AA42 received zero playtesting, just a copy & paste of AA50 rules and Revised setup/board with minimal changes. A serious playtesting would had revealed allied fleet round1 sinking problem and some other minor quirks. I still wonder why they didn’t gave soviets a dd instead that mostly useless sub

[Veqryn]

Funcioneta is a hater  :-P
if he can’t play as Japan and kill the USA, he doesn’t like it
if he can’t play as the China and kill Japan, he doesn’t like it
and if it looks like there is a remote possibility of the axis winning, he doesn’t like it either

perhaps the ability of germany to choose a risky battle where they can destroy the sz2 fleet is just part of the game and exactly what the game designers wanted and feel is balanced.  after all, it is the exact same battle as in sz2 in AA50, so they obviously have experience with it.  AA50 without NOs looks to be very very similar to AA1942 (and AA50 without NOs is in Allies favor), so I think you really ought to play some serious games with serious strategies before you criticize it so much.  No more beating a newb with some odd KJF or KUSAF strat then coming back and arguing that the game is unbalanced  :|

[Funcioneta]

Man, no need of being so harsh  :-)

@Veqryn:

if he can’t play as Japan and kill the USA, he doesn’t like it

That’s not my point. My point is that if USA ignores Japan or if Japan beats USA in Pacific badly, Japan should be able of exploiting it (USA’s risky move or Japan’s victory) and make USA pay hard. It’s not good that America is so easy of defend

@Veqryn:

if he can’t play as the China and kill Japan, he doesn’t like it

That’s not my point, China should survive J1 and should be able of hold at least 4-5 rounds. In 1941 scenario, best move for Japan is kill all China has and use the remaining forces to kill other allied targets. It’s easy and Japan has resources for both things. China is killed J1: one less theater to fight, and allies have zero options to prevent this because even soviets cannot send nothing to China’s front area. China lost J1 unbalances Asian theater, that unbalances Pacific theater and that unbalances the whole globe about round 5-6 when uncontested jap forces arrive to soviet rear. Call it domino effect

@Veqryn:

and if it looks like there is a remote possibility of the axis winning, he doesn’t like it either

No, that’s not true. I don’t like any side having too much advantage (allies had in Classic, axis has in 1941 scenario). In fact, I think AA42 is better balanced that AA50, 41 scenario, and that is good (it’s possible they tried counter the slight advantage allies had in Revised and went a bit far, but anyway I doubt AA42 had many testing, it’s a mere copy-paste and Larry and playtesters have more important issues with AA40)

@Veqryn:

perhaps the ability of germany to choose a risky battle where they can destroy the sz2 fleet is just part of the game and exactly what the game designers wanted and feel is balanced.  after all, it is the exact same battle as in sz2 in AA50, so they obviously have experience with it

No, it’s not the same battle, axis units and stas are the same, but allies have:

-Revised: bb, sub, tra -> 4 hit points, 7 defense points
-AA42: bb, sub (tra doesn’t defend) -> 3 hit points, 5 defense points

There is much difference. Also, you can simply skip z2 and autokill z1 trannie while sending baltic subs to z7, menacing UK’s purchases. Those subs cannot be hit because there are not dds at range, so they can escape to Mediterranean sea, south Atlantic or even menace USA’s fleet at z10. Also, Mediterranean UK’s ships are now easier to kill (they are both weaker). Both things mean less boats to UK, more figs and options for Germany, and now that ACs and dds are cheaper, there are some interesting combos for Germany if they try join italian and baltic fleets round 2 or 3. As best, the game could be balanced, at worst, axis advantage, but in no way allied advantage. The changes seem slim, but make great effect

@Veqryn:

AA50 without NOs looks to be very very similar to AA1942 (and AA50 without NOs is in Allies favor), so I think you really ought to play some serious games with serious strategies before you criticize it so much.  No more beating a newb with some odd KJF or KUSAF strat then coming back and arguing that the game is unbalanced  :|

Well, first, I think the only scenario of AA50 that could be balanced is 1942, no NOs. All the others favor axis being the worst 1941, yes to NOs. That’s my perception of balance, based in relative incomes and starting setups. Seems you have other perception, and that’s valid

However, I’m not totally sure what you mean. I have beaten good players with a balanced approach in Revised (also lose, I guess at 50/50 rate). I never try ignore a power by default and if some people name it KJF or KUSAF, I think they are wrong: I try fight the whole map, that’s my strategic approach. In case of so-called KFJ, I buy a fleet with USA to fight for Pacific (sometimes ICs at sin & ind, but that’s more tricky) but I don’t ignore Germany. In case of so-called KUSAF, I exploit a weakeness in USA’s defenses as counter of a try of ignoring Japan, that leads to USA fighting Japan in America instead the natural theater, the Pacific, and some more IPCs for Japan. If I call this Polar Express is only because the tactic uses a suck to Alaska and Wcan (prevented in AA50 by icecap for some reason), but I don’t ignore UK or USSR with Japan, it’s still a global approach and many times Japan has income to fight for Africa also, go figure. Not 100% win strats, but surely at least 50%, the same ratio as old boring KGF and JTDTM

About AA50, I played 1941 scenario as axis with -25 bid (delete 17 IPCs to Japan, 4 to germans and 4 to italians) 3 times and the results were 2 wins, one lose. I have played China mod, 1941, as axis 2 times and won twice. I don’t think my rivals were noobs

Take it easy, if in long run I prove being wrong and the game is balanced, I’ll be very happy  :-)

[themayor]

I have never played allies before, but I have played axis two - three times and won. But I want to try playing the allies and I really could need just a few points in what would be the most efficent way to beat another player (with the same amount of experience that I have).

Would a KJF or KGF be the best way? Getting UK troops up so they could help russia? And go into algerie with US troops in round 3?

But if you are going into algerie, this means giving up the pacific to japan?

[Veqryn]

@themayor:

I have never played allies before, but I have played axis two - three times and won. But I want to try playing the allies and I really could need just a few points in what would be the most efficent way to beat another player (with the same amount of experience that I have).

Would a KJF or KGF be the best way? Getting UK troops up so they could help russia? And go into algerie with US troops in round 3?

But if you are going into algerie, this means giving up the pacific to japan?

You should read what I wrote above and you would already know the answer to all of the questions you just asked.

KGF, UK into Norway and Karelia, owning the Baltic Sea, USA into Algeria, UK might land in Algeria too depending.
Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

Not true

East Indies -> 4
Borneo -> 4
N. Guinea -> 1
N. Zealand -> Australia -> 2
Hawaii -> 1
Philippines -> 3
Alaska -> 2 (rogue assaults, no more Polar Express due stupid frozen Perry channel)

17 IPCs. There are plenty of IPCs in Pacific Ocean. It can be done and it’s not more difficult than doing KGF

Also, the Atlantic suck can be severely damaged G1 and Germany can afford a fleet now with cheaper costs (the suck will be slower even if later is discovered that it’s still possible). The game can seem Revised but it’s not revised because of zero defense trannies are a mayor change both for KGF, KJF or balanced approach

It’s a new game in fact, there is not better strat until now since so few games are being played. It will need some time until we discover all consecuences of copy-pasting Revised map/setup and annyversay rules (deleting tech, that’s another twist)

However, if you are not very used to Revised, I suggest you give at least a try with Pacific fleet

[Veqryn]

@Funcioneta:

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

Not true

East Indies -> 4
Borneo -> 4
N. Guinea -> 1
N. Zealand -> Australia -> 2
Hawaii -> 1
Philippines -> 3
Alaska -> 2 (rogue assaults, no more Polar Express due stupid frozen Perry channel)

17 IPCs. There are plenty of IPCs in Pacific Ocean. It can be done and it’s not more difficult than doing KGF

Also, the Atlantic suck can be severely damaged G1 and Germany can afford a fleet now with cheaper costs (the suck will be slower even if later is discovered that it’s still possible). The game can seem Revised but it’s not revised because of zero defense trannies are a mayor change both for KGF, KJF or balanced approach

It’s a new game in fact, there is not better strat until now since so few games are being played. It will need some time until we discover all consecuences of copy-pasting Revised map/setup and annyversay rules (deleting tech, that’s another twist)

However, if you are not very used to Revised, I suggest you give at least a try with Pacific fleet

how many of those actually get taken in a usual game though?
Japan doesn’t take Hawaii, Alaska or Australia and New Zealand because every spare ipc they can afford is heading for Moscow (even if you build a US fleet, Japan should still send every ipc its not spending on ships to moscow)
Japan starts with the others, and of them, I can’t see the USA taking more than just East Indies or Borneo.  USA does not have the time or income to take the others, and absolutely rarely ever gets both East Indies And Borneo.

That means there is approximately 4 to 8 ipcs in the Pacific.

As opposed to the Atlantic campaign:
Norway - 3  usually to UK
Karelia - 2 to Russia (by USA going atlantic, you free up the UK to help Russia)
Eastern Europe - 3  usually to UK
Germany - 10  take it and watch them concede
France - 6  UK won’t ever get this one alone against a germany who leaves even a minimal defense of inf and fighters
Italy - 6  for USA
Balkans - 3 for USA
Africa - 4 to 10 depending.  If USA doesn’t go Atlantic, than you can kiss Africa goodbye, meaning UK will be down about 8 and Germany up 8

Yes, I will agree with Func on this point, you should try the Pacific strategy at least once.  Just don’t expect to win.  Some points are, don’t build too many transports or ground troops, you need all your 42 ipcs going into Subs, Carriers, and Fighters.  I wouldn’t build more than 1 extra transport, though the one you start with is enough, until After you get extremely lucky and defeat Japan’s Navy in a highly unlikely battle.  Be very wary of her 2 Battleships and 2 Carriers.  Make sure that UK moves her fleet to the SZ touching Egypt and hope that Japan follows her there to crush them.  That will buy you 3 turns while that BB makes its way back to join up with Japan’s main fleet.  I would not go Pacific unless Japan makes a stupid move and brings her first BB to Hawaii, because that is the only opportunity you will have in the game to destroy that BB.  If Japan doesn’t do that, you are going to have an uphill battle.

PS: fleets are not really cheaper under the new rules.  Subs used to be a 8 ipc unit that was 2/2/2/8 and could be taken as a casualty from air hits.  Now it is a 6 ipc unit that is 2/1/2/6 and can’t be taken as a casualty.  That is pretty much equal in my mind.  Transports used to cost 8, but were a 0/1/2/8 unit, now they cost 7 and are a 0/0/2/7 unit, and I would much much rather pay that extra 1 ipc to have the first version, although the second version makes better gameplay.  Revised had a 3/3/2/12 unit, and so does this version, except that it loses its anti submarine capabilities and gains a shore shot, so that is about equal.  And now there is a 2/2/2/8 unit with the anti sub capabilities, which is pretty the same pricing strategy as the rest.  Carriers lost a defensive point and now cost 2 less ipcs, which is about equal again.  The only thing that ACTUALLY got cheaper was the Battleship, which is still horribly expensive and will almost never be bought. 
Larry has a way of doing prices for navy, and it is 2 ipcs per point.  So a unit with 2 attack and 1 defense has 3 points total, so 3 x 2 = 6.  A cruiser is 6 x 2 = 12, a destroyer is 4 x 2 = 8.

[bbrett3]

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

You can’t only look at what the Allies are losing, you also gotta look at what Japan is gaining.  Or you may have the subject of a certain Blue Oyster Cult song knocking on your back door… (GO! GO! GODZILLA! :mrgreen:)

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

how many of those actually get taken in a usual game though?
Japan doesn’t take Hawaii, Alaska or Australia and New Zealand because every spare ipc they can afford is heading for Moscow (even if you build a US fleet, Japan should still send every ipc its not spending on ships to moscow)

In Revised, if I used JTDTM you are pretty sure I’ll take at haw, nzel and aus. They are not difficult of take (usually round 3-4 as much) and aus is a good base against mad as well. All IPCs not collected by allies and collected by axis

About prize of fleets. I should had been more clear: fighting fleets are cheaper, escort fleets are more expensive (as you say, because of no combat trannies). Fleets fighting at Pacific ocean don’t need more than one or 2 trannies. Suck fleets need more escort boats now

About Africa, buy a IC for SAF and you will keep it, in AA42 there are no nasty african bids. UK can still hit Norway

I guess you should try both ignore Japan and balanced strats and use the one you feel is better

[Dago]

Pretty solid Veqryn. Something to consider though on slowing down the Japanese surge –

This is no way a KJF strategy because nearly all funds will be for the eastern US. 1-2 cruisers (depending on how well your subs did) for the pacific should be sufficient.

Keep the US pacific fleet in tact and eventually combine it with the SZ20 destroyer, UK SZ35 carrier/fighter (US Hawaii fighter lands on carrier later), and the SZ40 sub as strictly a defensive move. Strategic bomb Southern Europe with US bomber Rd2 and land it in the Caucasus.

For this strategy to be effective you have to capture a coastal Japanese island (preferably the Philippine Islands). First UK move, assault Borneo with 2 men. This disrupts a complex being built in French Indo-China because it puts Caucasus US bombers in range. But depending on where the Japanese build a complex later, the same strategy of taking the coastal island applies just move the bomber respectively after Japanese bombing run… Cruiser takes out the transport, and the carrier retreats to south africa.

Take the UK carrier through the bottom SZs staying out of range of being attacked by Japanese air power and combine with the US fleet as early as New Guinea (or the backside of Australia depending on where the Japanese fleet/bomber is). The UK carrier and sub will shadow all US assaults providing much needed defense. With the threat of US bombers hitting the Japanese fleet it creates a stalemate in the south pacific/indian oceans. If the Japanese attacks your fleet you’re going to lose but possibly be left with an open shot at Japanese transports. But if the US attacks the Japanese with everything you’re going to win.

As soon as you know you can’t hold off the Japanese off in Sinkiang or with your fleet anymore, get reserve vessels from the Mediterranean and take initiative.

Pros:
Nostalgia (it’s a good enough reason for me)
The starting allied forces get involved in the war quicker.
IPCs… It’s a nice bonus.
Effective at manipulating where the Japanese can use assaults in the indian ocean.

Cons:
US has to build an Atlantic fleet to compensate.
UK is low on Persian/Indian infantry. (Japanese battleships assaulting the coast theyre dead men walking anyway)

Everything else has worked for me. Although I stress the importance of the Russians going after Norway rd1 because getting that German fighter out of the game is pretty big.

[Veqryn]

Here is what has to happen for me to decide to try a Pacific USA strategy (don’t call it KJF because Japan will never die):

Russia has to do pretty well on the Eastern Front during their turn and during Germany’s turn.
UK has to do really well in Africa, since they will not be getting your support there.
UK has to move their Indian fleet West.
Japan has to lose at least 1 boat and 1 fighter during their turn
Japan has to move their East Indies fleet 2 moves West.  This usually means they crush the British fleet off of the Sinai Peninsula and horn of africa, but it really does not matter where, so long as it is 2 moves West.
Japan has to move their Battleship or Carrier to Hawaii, along with their Cruiser too (though if they move all 3 plus the sub, they might be too powerful to destroy if you don’t roll well, which would cancel this strat).
Japan has to not purchase any navy first turn.

I would then purchase as America either: 1 Carrier 3 Subs 1 Fighter, or 2 Carriers 1 Sub 1 Destroyer, or 1 BB 1 Carrier 1 Destroyer, or something like this
Then, I would attack Japan’s BB/Carrier plus Cruiser plus sub if it is there with your 2 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 BB, 1 Sub (assuming you submerged it)
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub at Hawaii, you have a 94-98% chance of winning depending on if you have the sub still.
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub, you have only a 56% chance of winning assuming you have the sub.  I would still attack.  If it goes well, then you do Pac strat, if you fail, you place purchase in Atl.
If Japan has 2 Fighter, 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 CC, 1 Sub, you are screwed and only have a 20% chance of winning, so I would not take it.

If you lose any more than your Submarine and a fighter, I would go ahead and abandon this strategy and place your purchase in the Atlantic, unless you destroyed a BB and Carrier in the process.
If you you only the Submarine, I would place your purchase in the Pacific and say a prayer.
If you lose the sub and a fighter, well, its up to you.

Basically, Japan has 4 capital ships as well as 6 fighter, 1 bomber, 2 other navy units, and a very good position.  The only way you will succeed in your Pacific strategy is to kill 1 of the Capital ships, kill the 2 other navy units (sub and cruiser), have one of her fighters die somewhere, and have 2 of her capital ships far out of position so that they can not be used for several turns.  By killing the BB at Hawaii, and by having her other BB and carrier tied up near Egypt (can get back to Japan by end of J3), this will give you approximately 2 more turns to catch up in Navy to Japan.

You will be making 38 a round, Japan will be making about the same after 2 rounds.
Japan has 3 capital ships to your 1 capital ship + whatever you just bought
Japan has 2x more fighters than you. (this is huge, you will never overcome this part)
And it is Japan’s turn… (meaning they are about to buy more, and have the initiative)

It is still an uphill battle, but your objective is mostly just to make Japan play stupidly and make her forget about her western front.  The best you can do is to Take Borneo, East Indies, and sink the Japanese fleet with 1 surviving unit on your side, all by turn 7 or so.  Most likely, you will take just 1 Island and will lose your entire fleet, but will be successful in distracting Japan and making her Western assault go very poorly.

[Veqryn]

So off of the Japan strategy stuff for a bit….

Here is something rather nice for the 1942 game:
because of the changed rules for transports and subs, the German Med fleet just got a lot weaker.

If Germany either abandons africa, or they do not roll well during their attack on Egypt (meaning they don’t take it, or they take it with only 1 unit left), and Germany did not buy any more Med navy units…
Then the UK could try to sink the BB with just a fighter and bomber, and if they succeed the UK should purchase an Egypt IC at the first available opportunity.

The bomber from england plus the fighter from india (plus your fighter from egypt if alive, but most likely not) would have a 60% chance of killing the BB AND transport with just the bomber left, and a 20% chance of killing just the BB and losing both planes thereby leaving the transport alive, and lastly, a 20% chance of doing nothing at all since the BB repairs.  Could be worth it.

[Flintlock]

@Veqryn:

If Germany either abandons africa, or they do not roll well during their attack on Egypt (meaning they don’t take it, or they take it with only 1 unit left), and Germany did not buy any more Med navy units….
Then the UK could try to sink the BB with just a fighter and bomber, and if they succeed the UK should purchase an Egypt IC at the first available opportunity.

The bomber from england plus the fighter from india (plus your fighter from egypt if alive, but most likely not) would have a 60% chance of killing the BB AND transport with just the bomber left, and a 20% chance of killing just the BB and losing both planes thereby leaving the transport alive, and lastly, a 20% chance of doing nothing at all since the BB repairs.  Could be worth it.

I did this w/the UK, and the next game it was done to me.  It was extremely effective, in both cases, slowing down Germany.  Unfortunately for the allies, in both cases, atrocious roles later in the game did them in.

Still, if you can take out the Med fleet in conjunction with an Egypt IC that would be beastly.

[Veqryn]

just thought i’d add this:

i played a game today against a guy who really kicked my ass
it was mostly luck, as he won a couple 95% plus battles between germany and russia, but he DID have an interesting purchase/play:

Buy a Submarine as Russia and place it in the Med
(and leave your 2 fighters in the caucasus)

what can you do with that you ask?
well, unless Germany keeps her fleet in SZ14 AND buys a destroyer, THEN

you can destroy the german MED fleet.

yes, this does mean russia is out 2 infantry…. but you have just made short work of the med, so the UK and USA can support you a lot sooner in europe rather than wasting their time kicking germany out of africa
it also means that if he decides to leave his fleet in sz14, then you have control over the suez, which means you can sail the UK fleet right through into the med,
while if he does take egypt, you get to take it back during uk turn 1, and germany will never threaten africa again.

in my game i kind of thought, well he just wasted 6 ipcs, I’m going to take my african guys and drop them off in Ukraine instead.
this might have worked, except as i said before, the UK just sailed into the med.  This left japan with not enough targets and too many fighters, essentially wasting their turn 1.  Russia did have some trouble dealing with the extra 2 units per turn, that would have otherwise been sent to africa each turn, but if she can hold out for 3 turns then the UK should have been able to drop off some goodies to keep germany busy and counteract that.

[Zhukov44]

@Veqryn:

just thought i’d add this:

i played a game today against a guy who really kicked my a**
it was mostly luck, as he won a couple 95% plus battles between germany and russia, but he DID have an interesting purchase/play:

Buy a Submarine as Russia and place it in the Med
(and leave your 2 fighters in the caucasus)

it also means that if he decides to leave his fleet in sz14, then you have control over the suez, which means you can sail the UK fleet right through into the med,
while if he does take egypt, you get to take it back during uk turn 1, and germany will never threaten africa again.

in my game i kind of thought, well he just wasted 6 ipcs, I’m going to take my african guys and drop them off in Ukraine instead….

Yes, I’ve also came across that, perhaps against the same oppo (M-S).  It’s a neat move.  However, I’m not convinced it’s a stronger move than waiting until UK2 for a more secure attack by air.  It’s definitely a good move for Allies if they can clip the fleet without losing a Russian fighter, but more than 50% it should cost em a fighter (unless Russia buys a 3rd fig R1).  So….that means the Ruskies are potentially down 16 ipcs worth of units plus they didn’t use their figs for trading on R2.

Bottom line is that given a lesser (or no) bid and the weak Med fleet, Germany should have a hard time of it in Africa.  This gives Allies a long-term economic advantage if they can hold on to Russia.  Of course, Japan can contest Africa, but diverting resources there always involves a trade-off.

[Veqryn]

I think you overstated it when you said 50% chance of losing a fighter… so i did the numbers:

1st round
Attack rolls for 2 fighters and 1 submarine
42% or 5/12 for 2 or three hits
42% or 5/12 for 1 hit
17% or 2/12 for zero hits

Defense rolls for BB:
67% or 8/12 for 1 hit (lose submarine)
33% or 4/12 for zero hits

So you have a 42% chance of sinking BB first round, and a 58% chance of going to the second round.  Of those going to the second round, 29% have no hits on the BB while 71% have 1 hit on the BB; and 67% you have lost a submarine

2nd round with submarine without hits on BB: 2/21 = 10% chance
Same as first round

2nd round with submarine with hit on BB: 5/21 = 24% chance
83% or 10/12 for 1 or more hits attacking
67% or 4/6 for 1 hit defending

2nd round without submarine without hits on BB: 4/21 = 19% chance
25% chance for 2 hits attacking
50% chance for 1 hit attacking
25% chance for no hits attacking
67% chance for 1 hit defending

2nd round without submarine with hit on BB: 10/21 = 48% chance
75% chance for 1 or more hits attacking
25% chance for no hits attacking
67% chance for 1 hit defending

Play these numbers out a bit and you have 32% that you will lose 1 or more fighters.
Success rate for this btl is 90%, with average of 1.7-1.8 units left.

While this is a great move, its also a huge a gamble, and I am not one to gamble with Russia.  If russia screws this one up (and that is easy since there is a low number of units involved), you are really dead.  If the UK screws up, its not the end of the world…

[Zhukov44]

Yes…my bad…32% is right.  Didn’t take account of the sub’s 1st strike ability and that the bb might miss.

Worth it?  Maybe.  If Allies are going to gamble then they might even consider attacking right away on UK1 with a fig plus a bomber.  R1 sub buy + R2 attack is less risky, though it would be utterly devastating  if you catch the 10% and fail.

What makes hitting the German fleet before G2 extra tempting is that the presence of German subs makes it very tough to reinforce Africa early on.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

A friend tried this on me but he used two subs. I thought he was done for and I might have been able to beat him if I bought just land forces but I went with an AC in the Baltic in a bid for defense and to try and get back into Africa. I even botched the RD1 attack on the atlantic UK navy and he kept his BB. Still I did get back into Africa by about round 4. OUr game wound up being epic, over 15 rounds but eventually Japan was taken out because he always throws everthing he can at Japan (and somehow it usually works for him). I even had India as Japan, and Caucus as Germany but not on the same round. It was a crazy game.

[Veqryn]

Well, the Med fleet is weaker because the transport can’t defend.  But the allies are also weaker because unlike revised they can not land round 1 in algeria (under normal conditions) with anything more than a suicide fleet.

So we have a UK1 option of attacking with a fighter and bomber, 80% chance kill BB or better, 40% chance no attackers left.
A Russia 2 option, of attacking with a sub and two fighters, 90% chance kill BB or better, 32% chance 1 fighter dies, (4% all die, 6% lose)
And we have a UK2 “safe” option, which can take many many forms, but does mean that Germany will probably have 1 tank, 1 art, 2 inf in an Egypt with no allied units until they hit either persia or kenya.  I hate having german units in africa and having chasing them around for 4 turns.  Buying bombers as the UK means not buying fleet and transport and units…
And lastly, we have a USA/UK3 option, which usually involves landing a big force round 2 in africa and then killing the german fleet round 3 and landing more in africa (second landing in africa can get turned into a landing in italy round 4).

For the UK2 option, you could buy a bomber or more, which would give you at least 2 bombers plus a fighter to hit the german med fleet with.
The only other issue here would be that in order for this to line up, you need to have either egypt or transjordan as belonging to you at the beginning of UK2, which means that you have to take back egypt on UK1 from the germans.  This is normally done anyway, so this isn’t an issue.

What do you guys who like to do the UK2 option like to buy on UK1?
I am guessing: 1 bomber, 2 Destroyers, save 2 ipcs.  Or 1 bomber, 1 Carrier, save 4 ipcs.
It kind of sucks because the germans will have 2 submarines, 1 bomber, and at least 2 fighters within range of your new fleet.  by buying a bomber as the UK, your fleet is weak as heck and can be taken out, even if you have the USA cruiser join it.  I guess you could buy 1 bomber, save 18 ipcs, and send your lone transport on a suicide mission to algeria/norway, or have him sit off washington dc.

[Zhukov44]

Good analysis.  One more factor in the UK2 attack is you could fly some figs to W. Russia and/or Moscow and/or F. West Africa…this is common in Revised.  So you don’t necessarily have to buy a bomber UK1 tho bombers are quite useful anyway.  Along with that, maybe send a Russian army into Persia R1 so you can hold Jordan G2 and then reinforce with the India garrison UK2.  But this assumes a successful Egypt counter on UK1 which doesn’t always happen.

Re. the R2 option, if 2 figs 1 sub is too risky one might buy a fig or bomber R1 to bolster the attack…but then the trade-off is whether Russia will be too weak on the ground to withstand a tank rush.