Need help defending as UK until USSR joins

@simon33, certainly the game works with two UK economies and there are lots of things to enjoy about the way that pans out. I’m not saying the game is broken, just discussing alternatives.

One advantage to the unified UK economy that I noticed in the SiredBlood variant is that the Allied player has much more control over their level of risk with respect to Sea Lion and India Crush. Some people (like you?) complain that the UK has to buy 100% infantry on turn 1 to fend off Sea Lion. Other people complain that India is doomed and that the Allies have to make massive, urgent efforts to contain Japan, like maybe a turn 2 Persia factory that pumps out mechs for India. So if you can slosh your economy around, then you can choose which of those two ignominious fates you suffer.

Want to play aggressively in the Atlantic? Build 10 infantry in London and a factory in Egypt; go crazy. Want to play aggressively in the Pacific? Let London go, drop 2 mech + 2 tank in India on each of UK1 and UK2, declare war, and go for a Yunnan stack. It leads to more variety in terms of the opening positions that you can reach, which I like.

That said, I hear you on getting Canadian fighters to Moscow. If you’re not playing with my Supply Crates for lend-lease, and there’s no Sea Lion attack, then Canada could have little or nothing to do.

The Malvinas War was a pyrrhic win.    The political objectives were met, at the cost of losing several multimillion dollar modern warships with many more very nearly destroyed.  The land battles were fought without the full benefit of combined arms, which then required WW2 style tactics that caused WW2 like causalities, and several of the land battles were fought solely to meet timing objectives about British progress in the UN/public sphere.

The British ships were shown to be virtually helpless in the face of even unguided bombs dropped from 2d-3d generation export fighters that cost 1/100th as much as a warship.  There was no more practical air defense from ships than in WW2.  If the Argentines had access to better fuses and a few more sea skimming missiles, the outcome would have been the loss of a dozen or more warships and a forced UK withdrawal.

The Falklands may have been the last war fought by UK forces but primarily to foster an Imperial English agenda without regard to the costs of that to the Union or anyone else.  That English agenda has, 30 years later, made the UK a dying concept where Scotland is more attached to the EU than England, which is about to leave England as a rump country…

Canada would have been unlikely to have any assets other than air refueling that would have been any less vulnerable than UK assets.  Canada has its own agendas, having contributed more overseas ‘peacekeeping’ troops and aid supplies to Afghanistan and other conflict areas in the 00s than any other relatively small nation.  Canada has always been inviting to refugees and the oppressed.  However, like Germany and France, it had little motive to be drawn into a US/England alliance of chaos so it has continued to quietly advance that agenda in wise correspondence to its actual strength and motives to do so.

I admire your patriotism but from the point of view of an objective observer, there is no Crown left to defend.  England has long ago charged off on its own course to enhance its own prestige and resolve at the expense of its junior partners (the former empire) and to the benefit of its senior one (the US).  That’s what the “Special Relationship” is all about.

And Canada may stand alone in its sentimentality about that, few of the other former British Empire/UK have any faith that England will ever do or act any different(ly).  England has always seen itself as a leader but having pompously acted that way since WW2, there is precious little left to lead.

Yes I’m buying it. I like having 2 of them because the Germans have to think twice about attacking 4 capital ships with a number of other ships thrown into the mix. You can wipe out the whole Luftwaffe if they get greedy and try to take out both navies at once. My goal before I sail across the Atlantic is to buy a fleet big enough that it dissuades the Germans from even attempting to take it out. It seems to work just fine.

I think, the problem is Canada.
When I play the Allies, the problem I usually get is, that I fail on Logistic.
I can allways ONLY focus on weapons OR personals and trannys on one turn.
But we know from history that Canada was a vital manufactorer of weapons and armour for the allies.
Maybe a HR will fix this problem by:

When the U.S. is at war Canada contributes some portions to the allies as for the us in the Atlantic one DD and a bmbr for the uk.
And for pacific US one DD.
Each round!
For the pacific, Australia must be allied controlled.
As for the atl. .Canada must be allied controll for the DD.
UK must be allied controlled for the bmbr.

What you think??

@Young:

@edfactor:

When Japan grabs the money islands, malaya, hong kong, FIC and the philippines its income nearly doubles, with a little push in China - Japan can outporoduce the US.  Japan only starts hurting when Japan plans poorly and doesn’t make a massive land grab on its first turn of war with the allies.

To be honest, I’m not sold on the idea that Japan can do all that plus hurt China. That doubled income may not last very long.

Depends on the Chinese player, mainly moving their stacks from air attack range.

However, if the Japanese player is consistent in striking Yunnan, denying China materials, it can be done. Trust me.

The real problem comes if Britain decides to do a can opener with tanks and mechanized infantry.

I can see the math and I understand what you’re saying, I just never see the Germans come out with enough to chew through the stack of 14 infantry in their first round attacks, and my counter-attack is usually very devistating. Germany only has a very small window to pull of a sealion, if they can’t do it on the third turn, its not going to happen. Again, since this will take 3 turns to develop, there are too many variables to consider, what the Germans buy, what units they move to where, the effects of strategic warfare (bombings and subs), what the Russians are doing, but im confident that that stack of forces would be enough to hold London in the event of a G3 sealion, somewhat  :-D

They are at war, with Japan, per the original post.

@larrymarx:

@kcdzim:

I’d prefer a solution were russia is required abide the cease fire regardless of war in europe , but allow Japan to break it whenever they please (which still doesn’t cause war with the other axis powers).  Russia just has to make sure it will be costly for Japan, which is precisely what they did with the far east forces.

How about doing this but also allowing Russia to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact if Japan chooses to attack early?

The game already favors the allies.  Allowing Russia to preemptively strike isn’t helpful for balance on the Europe side.  However, barring russia from attacking japan first, under any circumstance, probably means Japan won’t bother with russia at all with no need to garrison and will focus on china first, while positioning for the J3 assault which matches far more closely the way AAP40 plays (where russia isn’t available to attack, and won’t attack Japan).

the 18 infantry already is pretty good about giving Japan pause on J1.  J2, it becomes more feasable, but even then Russia can back away and just leave the shorelines open, giving up minimal value.  I just don’t buy that Russia needs more freedom to attack.  While Stalin was of the mind of striking when either axis was vulnerable, the player is NOT the Stalin, and some safeguards like restricted declarations have to be in place so that the game can be balanced.  Otherwise it’s not 1940, it’s 1942.

In my perfect world:

A) Russia cannot attack or enter ORIGINAL UK or US territories ever.  Russia just shouldn’t be in India.  or the UK.  They can take Persia, they can take neutrals, and they can conquer ORIGINAL axis territories to their hearts content.  And even though it’s unlikely, they can help in France.  Frankly, if Russia is in position to take a european french territory, the game is either over, or has gone pearshaped, but this way they can get a token Syria.

B)UK & US units cannot enter ORIGINAL Russian territories ever.  If they do, they are removed (thus cannot defend), a marker takes their place, and Russia has the option to purchase that equiv unit during their purchase phase at half price rounded up (this is lend lease/pilot internment).

C) Russia can attack & control any neutral it pleases at start of game.  No neutral is friendly to Russia - they will all be combat moves, and they will always defend, even if Pro Ally.  Unless strict neutrals are changed to affect regions (unlikely), same rules as OOB for strict neutrals.

D) Russia cannot attack Japan until Berlin falls or Japan declares war on them.  They cannot enter China until at war with Japan (historically, they were still aiding china after the Cease fire in '39, but stopped after the Pact in 41.  However, since the Tigers weren’t in China until 41 (essentially taking over for the russian air group), the single fighter can be abstracted to be considered the Russian air group at the beginning of the game

E) OOB political rules for Italy/Germany.