Uk R1 Egyptian counterattack

I don’t much like playing Revised with tech… basically it means the game revolves around whether you get the techs early on.  Like say if you tech for rockets with UK and get them on Round 1 then Axis is pretty much screwed, but if UK techs for several rounds and doesn’t get them then they fall way behind.  Not to mention the fact that heavy bombers are very unbalanced, particuarly if USA gets them.

The game plays out beautifully w/o tech–why screw it up by making game outcomes exclusively determined by luck?

yeah i agree your plan has some built in flexibility.  carrier + tran build in sz 61 is perfectly safe once you’ve taken out the UK ships.

On the other hand, the UK factory is basically gonna be in great shape given that carrier build and no IC’s.  Correct response of US hitting the atlantic hard and India holding up japan for a long time should make for a pretty easy allies win.  I really don’t think spending $16 on a carrier and getting only 1 transport to support additional land operations on R1 before the US has played its hand is a serious option as japan.  You may not enjoy protecting an IC in kwangtung but it’s far easier than protecting that one transport you built.

17 replys! i really started a good thread here…  :-D …

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

If you are playing a KJF (or playing 50/50 correctly), losing India should not be a concern.

I would agree an IC in an all out KGF is a bad idea.

But the russians can support India sufficiently in most cases.

I disagree.  Russia will not fall at all if Japan is at the gates of Moscow because Germany will be at the gates of Berlin.

Actually, the BEST game I ever had was when England went balls to the walls against Japan by landing in Archangelsk, through Russia and into Novosibirsk while Russia pushed into Europe and America worked on Africa and landing in S. Europe (as defined as W. Europe, S. Europe, Balkans and Ukraine.)

This maximized Russia’s income because England liberated land while Russia conquered land and it conserved Russian armies by not forcing Russia to trade with Japan.  This allowed me to get 30 Armor with Russia, and if Russia is strong enough to have 30 armor to throw back and forth across the board with impunity (or very near) then it’s game over for the Axis.

Granted.  But at least it isn’t BMB, FIG, 2 SS vs SS, Trn, BB. :)

In reality, did UK had naval industries in the north? If the answer is yes, it must be allowed. If no, it shouldn’t be allowed.