UK

Thank you for the quick response.

That is what i thought but not having huge experience under the belt i just wanted to double check here.
Have a good day.

I think people worry too much about activating the “UK original territories” NO. In the vast majority of games, you’ll collect the NO on your first turn, because Italy hasn’t gone yet. Likewise, in the vast majority of games, you’ll collect the NO on your fourth turn no matter what you do, because by then your South African troops can walk up to Kenya / Somaliland and knock out whatever Italians remain. So we’re really only talking about two turns’ worth of the NO, i.e., 10 IPCs.

How much do you want to pay to guarantee those 10 IPCs? Do you really want to use both transports on UK1 in east Africa, neglecting Persia and Iraq and Sumatra and Tobruk? Do you want to send one transport to east Africa on both UK1 and UK2, which means you’re short on troops for Egypt in your north African campaign? It just seems short-sighted to me. If you skip Sumatra, that could be the margin of victory for holding India. If you skip Persia, that could be the margin of victory for holding the Middle East. Meanwhile, what are you going to do with 10 extra IPCs in the Atlantic on turns 2, 3, or 4? Buy 1 extra fighter or 1 extra transport? Will that really help you break into Norway or France ahead of schedule? Typically, the Germans have enough airpower in Western Germany all through the opening to lock you out of key territories even if you spend 100% of UK income on an Atlantic fleet.

I often build a South African transport on UK1, and I don’t mind using that transport on UK2 to ferry South African troops up to East Africa to kill Italians there, because it’s sort of “on their way.” They’re headed north anyway, and if I build the extra transport, then I’m not hurting as badly for naval logistics, so it’s easier to spare the transport for a turn. Using two out of two transports on turn 1 in East Africa just seems like overkill to me.

Ditto using a bid for an early South African transport just to strengthen the attack on Ethiopia – it’s overkill. If you’ve got $7 to spare in your bid and want to spend it on the UK, then I’d much rather have an extra sub for Taranto, an extra transport for India (to claim Java), two infantry for London to help protect against Sea Lion and allow a UK1 purchase of an Egyptian factory, an extra tank in Egypt to add punch to an attack in Tobruk or Iraq, or even an extra destroyer for the British Home Fleet in the hopes of bringing down some Luftwaffe.

@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

The fighter+sub bid in the Med is interesting

No one else does as of yet. Although I have seen people do the same attack but with 2 fighters from London. Which is highly dangerous. One game I was playing axis and was disappointed to have 2 hits.

In addition to forces above I’ll send the strategic bomber from England and fighters if their still around from the scramble for your fleet.  If you send the fighters from England you have to commit your carrier. Lose those fighters 1st if you feel you might retreat.  This gives you two additional fighters and a bomber.

FAQ (Bottom of page 2, top of 3) is pretty clear on this http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAEurope1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf

Ty soulfein! ;)

If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?

-  The UK can now launch an air attack on SZ113 with 1 or 2 fighters (depending on if a destroyer was also built in SZ113) and kill the entire transport fleet along with any hopes of a G2 operation Sealion.
-  Depending on any surviving UK naval unit it can also launch an additional attack on either the damaged (?) battleship or the lonely cruiser with the remaining fighter in the UK and 1 or more destroyers.
-  Finally the main attack on the Italian fleet can still go ahead as planned … and depending on G2 builds, the air units used can fly back to the UK the following round to assist against a possible G3 Sealion.

… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

It is correct except UK can still attack 1 BB, 1 CV and my 2 Fighters with 4 planes. The CV build stops that. It is necessary. MY APs are placed with the CV and protected.

odds are like less than 10% for him to win.

3/3/3/4 vs. 4/2-2/4/4/0/0

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.