Water placement around UK

A typical situation for this would be Japan trying to bombard the west coast, you have to bring the troops via trn, but you dont want to send more than one inf a turn, assuming you want to do this for multiple turns, you have to load the trn (e.g. with troops from hawai) in the NCM of the turn before you start your attack…

BTW, I missed it before in your last uber post, Bunnies, thanks for the props on the excitement on KJF, and recognizing I have some experience to draw on when I talk.

If Germany forsakes taking Africa because of the complex in S. Africa,then the complex has paid for itself.  If Germany bleeds out trying to keep a foothold on Africa then the complex pays for itself in reduced German presence.

However, the interesting thing really isn’t Germany, it’s what that complex can do to Japan. wink

Australian IC is a great idea
and personally i favor it
i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

so Australia IC can be put in round 1

even in round 2 if its a surprise

but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

i would say anyone go for it

and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

thats my view upon this…

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

@Dr.:

@ncscswitch:

The thing is, you can pretty much take out the US with a lesser landing than that…
Japan lands in Alaska and WCan from SZ63
Japan lands in Mexico from Hawaii
Germany lands in Panama, Cuba, and ECan.
USA (the 48 states) has not been TOUCHED , but they are effectiely out of it, at least for many, many turns (unless the UK can get the German ships, or Russia can kick Japan out of Asia in the same turn)

How are you going to pull of a landing like that? Germany shouldn’t have a chance of landing t three different territories

It’s assumed that Japan has 5 inf 5 tank in W. Canada, while Germany lands 4 inf 4 tank or so with a Baltic transport buy on G1 followed by move to W. Europe followed by transport to E. Canada.  Following turn allows landing in Panama and Cuba as US is on defense.

HOW COULD U MISS DAT?  LOLZ!

(I’m kidding . . . anyone could miss that.  Hell, I still don’t get it, really.)

@Thorak:

Assume I have loaded 2 UK inf on a US transport and then in the US turn I moved the transport to the seazone next to Ukraine. Can the inf on the transport participate on an attack on Ukraine in the following UK turn together with other UK units? Does it make any difference if Ukraine is empty and the units can take it alone?

The infantry can participate in an attack on Ukraine.

You do not have to unload both infantry during combat, although you may if you wish.

It makes no difference as to whether or not you unload infantry if Ukraine is empty or not.

Yes….  And im hunted by the sad fact that i have lost 5 games in a row…  Somehow i see my credability disipate when discussing strategy  :(    :cry:

@trihero:

It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It’s dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it’s also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.

Actually, this was the move that inspired Caspian Sub, and you’ve pretty much quoted their rules paper without crediting it.Â

Great shame upon you!!!

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/