G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

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

@TRakes:

What if the Russian player lends a fighter to the UK fleet on Rus1?

That makes the odds a lot stronger for UK.

Sure, makes the odds stronger for UK , but means that russian ftr is gone from the Russo-German front for AT LEAST two turns (R1+R2), possibly forever, without providing a single offensive diceroll (it cannot participate in any battle during R1, and also reach BEN).

It results in making trading more costly for the Ruskies, during R1+R2. Russia needs to expose 1 arm/turn , to get the same offensive power to trade land with the Germs. That is a cost of 5 ipc/turn, since that ARM will surely be killed. Furthermore, it might make it possible for Russia to only attack 1 area (WRU) during R1, instead of normal 2 (+BEL or +UKR).

The return is that Japan might loose extra naval units/ftrs, but the combined cost of exposing ARMs, plus the weakened attack power on R1, just doesn’t seem to be worth it. After all, even a combined SZ30 UK fleet, is something of a sideshow. The Russian-German border is the main theater of war.

That’s my portion of the test.  Can I keep England and America out and leave it just me vs Russia?

Also, I put the bid to Japan, instead of Germany to balance not taking out Egypt, which I think is what he said was a death knell for the Axis.

@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.

@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.)

@Thorak:

Assume I have loaded 2 UK inf on a US transport and then in the US turn I moved the transport to the seazone next to Ukraine. Can the inf on the transport participate on an attack on Ukraine in the following UK turn together with other UK units? Does it make any difference if Ukraine is empty and the units can take it alone?

The infantry can participate in an attack on Ukraine.

You do not have to unload both infantry during combat, although you may if you wish.

It makes no difference as to whether or not you unload infantry if Ukraine is empty or not.

@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.

G1 Sea Lion is one of the major reasons why Larry Harris Tournament Rules are used rather than the box rules.