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.

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.

@syntaxerror111:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I move the two subs down to sea zone 7, the rest of the med navy and other sub attack the battle ship (with figs). My opponent attacked the remaing baltic with his air force. He leaves the subs alone because he can only attack it with  his navy, which would put it in range of mine + all my planes in round 2. He has to choose what his air force attacks because it’s to risky to split them up. Sure this tactic delays me in Africa but it helps secure the Med and with a round 1 purchase of all men + 1 art, I can afford the delay. The us bomber has a crack at the subs but at the least I’ll keep one. Two or three subs, BB + tran is a good thing to have in the Med in round 2.

If I were your opponent in this situation I would have attacked the two lone subs with air on UK1 and the rest of the baltic fleet on UK2. You would most likely lose the Baltic fleet and both subs- if one sub survives the US Bmb gets a shot at as well.

@Zhukov44:

Fine with me. Those boats are expendable. If I get to keep the destroyer and Trans for another round, that’s just a bonus. I can get more infantry to a front, I can block, I can use to attack, uk has to make sure they build enough land forces to resist an invasion, which limits their options, like if they build boats or an Indian IC and drop their troops in Norway or Africa and leave their capitol insufficiently guarded. GER goes before uk anyway so they can build an AC round 2 if they really want to protect the fleet, but that’s something I’d never do anyway. Germany CANNOT afford any delays against Russia.

Trying to save those subs is a gamble, I’ll give you that, but the benefits of them surviving outweigh any negative I’ve encountered.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

NO nation should EVER build 2 IC’s in turn 1.

@jsp4563:

My personal preference is for the UK to buy 1AC, 1DD placed in sz6 along with the fighters, the BB & Tp from sz2, and the russian sub. Land the Canadian tank in UK.  Follow that up with US reinforcements (2inf, 1art, 1tnk, 1fgt, 1bmb).  If Germany has his BB & TP in sz13 move the US DD to sz12. In order for germany to carry out “Operation Sea Lion” he has to destroy the sz6 fleet.  To fight through that fleet he will have to divert air units he was going to use during the landing and will probably loose some of the transports.  If he does still attack UK he will be opposed by the combined UK/US ground & air forces.  Doubtful he will prevail.

It’s not just a question of preventing Sea Lion, it’s a question of preventing Sea Lion while maintaining a good position, yes?

Given those moves, the Germans can then attack using Baltic navy and air to wipe out the UK fleet without losing most of its air force in the process.  If the Germans can neutralize the Allies in the Atlantic until they take Moscow, Sea Lion is not so important.  And if the Germans keep most of their air while killing the Allied Atlantic fleet early, the Germans can build even more fighters to threaten the Atlantic.  The Allies have to build new escorts and new transports, which all takes time.  Plus, if the Germans kill a couple of UK fighters, that is going to make a difference in the Indian and Norway fronts.

I assume that the Germans built navy (transports or carrier) and that the UK did not attack, as 1) a carrier build supposes fighters, 2) the battle outcome is not favorable for the UK if Germany builds 3 transports.  Even 2 transports, maybe, 3) this thread is about Sea Lion anyways.

Transport, 2 sub, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 27, count 11.  Or perhaps more, depending on what Germany built; perhaps it built no carrier, but built two-three transports.  I think 5 German transports is a very BAD move, but given those moves you listed, it could actually turn out quite well for Germany given the naval battle.  Even this assumes that the Germans lost a fighter by the end of the turn, which is by NO MEANS CERTAIN without very risky play by Russia or lucky play by Russia.  The attack force is much more powerful with

3-4 transport, 2 sub, destroyer, 6 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 29, count 13-14

vs

1 transport, 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 2 fighters, defense 21, count 8.

The German Mediterranean fleet retreats to support shot against Caucasus and/or Africa, and the US DD can only unite with a new UK build.

@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.

I think the general consensus is you can pretty easilly cripple the Royal Navy (kill the Gibraltar BB and the Egyptian DST), but killing the whole fleet, while POSSIBLE, does not yield positive net results for Germany.  UK can too quickly rebuild (a single AC and they get a defense of 11 with their starting FIGs, and it only costs 16 IPC’s) and the US can too easilly sweep in since the risk from Germany AF is basically nil.