G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

@Kreuzfeld:

CVs are good. However, the reason DDs are bad, isn’t that it is a “bad” combatship if you plan on attacking. It is just that the TTs really are good combatships in the game. You will  usually have enough heavy ships surviving the first turn. Those ships combined with TTs will be enough to stop the luftwaffe. The TTs really are great combatships in this game. (seriously)

I understand that TTs are the best ship economy-wise, but I believe that a CV may be an extremely cost-efficient buy for the first turn only (because you have the two FTRs in UK that can land on the carrier no problem).  Later in the game the CV would become extremely cost-inefficient, of course (you’re paying 16 for a 1 HP 3 DEF when you could be spending that same 16 IPC for 2 HP of 1 DEF that can also transport units).

@Kreuzfeld:

I usually land in africa until my pacific fleet makes it to the atlantic. then I split and send uk into norway and start landing in the americans in europe the round after that.

Do you advocate sending the Indian Fleet south?  What do you do about the TT in SZ59?  When I used to play Revised/42/42SE I always remember going out of my way to eliminate it (as forcing Japan to buy more TTs is a good way to buy the allies precious time).

That’s kind of the point though.  I don’t do a Russian build of 8 infantry on Round 1 for that exact reason, having the extra tanks helps throughout the entire game in keeping Germany boxed in a little.

And if I am not hitting Ukraine, and sometimes I don’t, it’s because I am hitting Belorussia and W. Russia or just stacking W. Russia like a mad woman (expect 9 infantry, 2 artillery, 4 armor, AA Gun in W. Russia with Russia having lost 2 infantry in the attack) with 3 armor in Moscow to back them up. (This of course results in Caucasus being taken by Germany on G1, but that’s a minor nuisance in the game I think.)

That means Germany has to be able to repel 9 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 7 Armor, 2 Fighters in Karelia and I just don’t see them being able to do so.  I’m assuming 9 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 6 Armor (with none lost taking Karelia and two units transported from W. Europe to Karelia).

I have Russia surviving that attack with a 93% chance (6 Armor, 2 Fighters left.)  Now sure, Germany will have 8 Armor and their fighters to attack that, but do you really want to trade 8 Armor and some fighters against 6 armor, aa gun if England’s dumping troops into Norway (which you have to leave abandoned) or worse, invaded W. Europe with Americans ready to land next round again?

For the record, that assumes neither Ukraine nor Belorussia were taking on Russia 1 meeting Switch’s points 2 and 3 I am also assuming the Battleship off Gibraltar died with the loss of one German submarine (safe assumption) and that Egypt fell on Germany 1 leaving 1 armor behind (taking Infantry/Armor from S. Europe for the assault.)  That meets all 4 of Switch’s points.

I am also assuming England landed and liberated Egypt on UK 1 and that England sunk the SZ 5 fleet with 2 fighters, bomber (since the original poster mentioned he was moving a ship to SZ 3 to block England from softening Germany) surviving with 1 Fighter, Bomber at least and that Norway was invaded iwth 2 Infantry, 2 Armor. (England’s buy would probably be Aircraft Carrier, Submarine, 2 Infantry if SZ 5 was not attacked, 2 artillery in place of the submarine if it was attacked and cleared.)

@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.

Try a stalling tactic on G2 instead…

This is assuming a few things

On turn 2 move the Baltic fleet into SZ 7…

What is the UK/US going to do on Turn 2? probably reinforce Algeria again instead of taking Norway…
Or on the other hand the UK can trade fleet for fleet to move you out of the way (but they still didn’t grab Norway and you just hurt there fleet considerably… (i’m happy)

Assuming they leave you alone (most cases)

Depending on the non-coms in turn 2 for the allies, on turn 3 you may even be able to leave 1 German SS in SZ 7 and move the rest back to SZ 5 or something and that will stop the UK from getting Norway Again!!! (meaning them russians will have to fight a 3 front war) it’s a win-win situation for the Germans.

@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.)

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.

My opponent did do quite some havoc and his AF never dropped below 10 once he reached this at UK4…
But, like Jetfan4hire already posted: Probably that won’t work against an axis player who knows what he is doing…

G was crippled heavily short after with only 3 territories remaining - value 22 IPC’s
I know, I messed up really bad that game :-)
So, G didn’t have the force to strike back at the figs…
And that’s the reason why things worked out for my opponent…

I have to disagree with abandoning India so Quickly.  In order for japan to be sucessful it needs focus on attacking and holding the mainland. (which includes taking control of  China, the Russian controlled  part of Asia, and India,  as fast as it can.) If Japan buys 1 or 2  IC’s  on its first turn, The main land is going to be extremely bare when its Uk’s 2nd turn. So my advice is not build an IC on India but take the transport from india, and pick up the guy from South Africa, and move the persian guy into India. ( If the Japan decides to attack your Fleet so  be it,  You will leave the Jap fleet very weak and it will be easier for the U.S fleet to handle. )

Don’t worry about Africa, the U.S. should always be ones who control Africa. The U.S can land 5 peices on Africa the first turn.( 2 men 1 artillary, 1 tank, and a plane.) Eventually you will have to pull out of  India and thats when  the small uk force can A. move into the Caucus’s or B. Help the U.S control Africa.