G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

Myself it really depends on what Germany does, though my standard moves are, Dest from SZ35 to SZ59, Sub from SZ40 to SZ45, The Subs a 50/50, some people like to take the carrier to the tran as well but, I prefer the Dest Alone. If Africa is going good, Namely if I can retake EGY, then the tran in SZ40 takes two inf from AUS and invades New Guinea (Something nice to try) If I cannot retake EGY I like to use the Tran to pick up 2 INF from AUS and then move to SZ30, then on UK2 drop them anywhere along the Africa coast (Even Persia if it needs them). If Germany takes EGY and you “can” retake it, then do it bringing 2 inf from IND, 1 INF from TRJ and the Fighter from SZ35 (You can also bring your Bomber but I usually don’t). Otherwise I like to stack 2 inf in TRJ and the 3 Indian Inf and A-A gun to Persia. The AC stays with the Tran wherever it decides to go. If Germany is stupid and doesn’t take EGY, then smile :lol: happily and move the INF from TRJ into it, stack 4 + A-A gun in Persia, move the FIG to EGY and move the Tran and AC to SZ33 (Out of reach of the IJN).
The SAF INF always moves up, regardless of what you do.

@macphearsome:

wrong forum; meant to post this in revised

We played our weekly saturday axis and allies game today and it had some interesting results.  It was a game with a lot of experimental moves, some of which worked much better than others.

I know that people on this forum do not exactly agree about the G1 AC purchase, but I tried it out for fun.  My friends tried to persuade me to buy 1AC & 1BB but I declined.  My japanese ally tried placing an IC in borneo and threatening the indian ocean etc (Australia, India, Africa), but the US and UK forces managed to distract him from doing anything effective with it.  Not a strategy that we will repeat.

However, I have to say that I was impressed by the usefulness of the G1 AC purchase.   An aircraft carrier on its own isn’t fantastic, but the fact that you can place two fighters on the AC helps a lot.  I bombed Britain on the first turn with my bomber, just to slow Britain down a bit more, then focussed on Russia as much as possible.  However, I had also wasted money on a bomber on G1 (1AC, 1 Bom, 3 inf) so Russia made some very fast progress on the Eastern front.

Next game, I will not buy a bomber on G1, but I will buy an AC and maybe a transport.  I love it.  The fighters are excellent defenders, and they can also threaten the UK if they try to invade norway or karelia / archangel.

i personally like this move but many players on the forum will disagree.
against an expert player you can buy Baltic AC but u need to know how to play with that navy

and kudos for you
just keep trying new solutions and enjoying the game
thats whats game all about

cheers

With software? Are you sofware? Wait a moment, you are Smith agent from Matrix  :mrgreen:

@ncscswitch:

If Germany is building INF THAT heavilly, then you have lost the offensive against Russia and are trading much closer to the vest as Germany.  That means Russia poses a greater threat, and that Germany has to fight harder just to stay in the 30’s for income.

You cannot BOTH build all INF AND trade at the Archangel/WR/Caucuses frontier turn after turn as Germany.  Sorry, it just does NOT happen  unless MASSIVE dice fracks come into play early in the game (or unless the Allies are playing poorly).

What games are you playing?

I hardly see G trade Arch, except rnd 1, never WRU, and when G starts trading cauc thats bad for allies.

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.)

@Jennifer:

We’re talking Sea Lion in Round 2 now?

England has 1 Bomber, 5 Fighters, 2 Infantry, 2 Armor, 1 Artillery and 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 2 Infantry, 1 Armor and 1 Artillery from America vs what, 6 infantry, 6 tanks, 6 fighters, and a bomber you said? (I know you did, I copy pasted it.) . . .

So the question is, do you want to loose your entire Airforce and not take the land, or do you want to allow England to hit you with 5 fighters and a bomber next round?

Er, who are you talking to?  I wrote that G2 SeaLion WON’T work.  “No, a G1 buy of 5 transports does not guarantee taking of London.”  Even later, I mentioned “That’s an offensive punch of 46 against an AA gun and a defensive punch of 54.”, I hope you don’t think I would think those were good odds!

The only SeaLion I advocate is a 1-2 tech dice for Long Range Aircraft with OOB (and possibly FAQs), to allow Germany the 16-30% chance to attack on G1 with 1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, and bomber, against London’s existing forces, as well as leaving Germany the IPCs to buy transports to secure London on G2 or G3; and even then I only advocate it if Russia did not fly its fighters in, and if OOB/FAQ rules are being used (because, of course, LHTR delays tech from going into effect, so you couldn’t get all those fighters to hit London).

The response I’m looking for is how to counter that threat other than flying Russian fighters to London, and ncsswitch has responded with a proposal of a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic, and a Russian attack on the Ukraine, combined with a sub move to block the German attack.  I think that is too risky because it commits three Russian tanks and Russia must win the Ukraine battle to kill that German fighter, and because both Russian fighters will probably die attacking the Baltic, in which case Germany could opt not to go G1 Sea Lion at all, but build mass ground units (POSSIBLY eight tanks, although I normally think of that as insanely reckless for Germany), and try to smash Russia instead.  But that’s not to say that I think ncsswitch’s proposal is bad, because preventing a G1 Sea Lion with 2 tech dice is pretty difficult anyways; if Russian fighters just fly to London (which was what I proposed), Germany is quite strong with the Belorussian and Ukraine forces intact.  Maybe if USSR did a hit and run on Ukraine, and hit West Russia . . .

“As for the detriment to Russia in that scenario… (Russia attacks the Baltic fleet with 2 fighters)
With the Baltic Fleet toast, UK starts landing in Karelia/EE/Germany via the baltic in UK2 with 6 divisions plus air and BB shot.  That immediate reingforcement of Russia is a heck of a boos,t and mor ethan counters the lost FIGs.”

First, if Russia was attacking the Baltic fleet - and all combat moves are made “simultaneously”, so I would also see the commitment in the Ukraine, and see that Russia was going to try to prevent G1 Sealion - I would probably kill the transport before the destroyer, because I just wouldn’t need the transport; I’d be planning a quick attack against Moscow at that point.  Second, in such a case, I do not see it as clear that Russia will kill the Baltic fleet, even if both Russian fighters die.  Third, even if the Baltic fleet was cleared, and UK built AC, transport, and 2 infantry, that fleet could not threaten E. Europe or Germany that early - there are just too many ground units being built in Germany and being pushed through E. Europe.  (If UK didn’t build an AC on UK1, and tried moving units into Karelia or E. Europe on UK2, Germany just uses W. Europe fighters and the bomber at Libya to clear, which is why I assume UK WILL build an AC, and not two transports, three infantry, and a tank.)  Fourth, if UK does stay in the Baltic, the US push on Africa and the Mediterranean will be postponed, and every turn that Africa is delayed is costly to the Allies.  Fifth - do you normally attack the Baltic fleet with Russian fighters on Russ1; if you do, how does that go?

–

I actually think the UK unification is the second best scenario for Germany, because it allows 6 transports, 2 subs, destroyer, 4-5 fighters, and bomber to attack a combined fleet of 2 transports, sub, aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, and battleship.  In such a case, I wouldn’t try invading London at all.  Let me clear, though, and state that I am firmly against 5 G1 transports; you can’t count on UK to unite that fleet, and even if it does, USSR’s push is just too strong.

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.