G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

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

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.)

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

Australian IC is a great idea
and personally i favor it
i can say its my standard move, altough i must say UK play depends( a lot or not ) upon the G1 move

so Australia IC can be put in round 1

even in round 2 if its a surprise

but i agree with Emperor Mollari without USA going forcefully in Pacific, UK forces down there are doomed

and altough this strategy is great, if Australian IC falls to the Japanese, it leads Allies to almost certain defeat, since UK spent a lot of IPC on their fleet here and (partially) egnored European theatre, so overall

i would say anyone go for it

and dont be dissapointed if it fails, even a few times, find a way to improve the strategy, it can be done, but it requires a good coordination, USSR and USA are (very) important here altought it doesnt seem that way on the first look

thats my view upon this…

@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.

@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.

But is it even possible to hold off a British / U.S. invasion in Europe while attacking Africa, all the while getting bombed? I would think not, unless one had lucky rolls. And if Russia was smart they would take advantage of the situation and pick apart any scattered German positions. In this situation, I think Japan has to do its part flawlessly, whatever that may be. Annoying U.S., trying to help roll up Russia, taking NZ Australia and India?

Sounds like a tough decision to make.