G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

@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.

@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.

Makes sense, CB, but I’d still leave at least two infantry in W. Europe on G1 or G2.  That way England MIGHT get one with their battleship, but would still need to risk 7 IPCs to get the other one (or more.)  I’d probably leave the AA Gun there too, just to encourage England to avoid bringing Fighters, but I might not depending on how well I’m doing.

Also, do note that my comment above about British destroyers to out-think the German fleets that later pull their fighters back can be out thought by Germany just by producing a submarine in SZ 5 each round.

I’d say the submarine is a good investment when, and if, England gets 5 destroyers and their starting Battleship.  Anything less than that and you may not recover your investment on the submarine. (5 Destroyers = 15 Punch, 1 Battleship = 4 Punch, that’s 19 punch or roughly 3 hits.  3 hits = 9 IPC in infantry, a submarine costs 8.  Therefore, the submarine is cheaper than the lost infantry.)

If you are playing a KJF (or playing 50/50 correctly), losing India should not be a concern.

I would agree an IC in an all out KGF is a bad idea.

But the russians can support India sufficiently in most cases.

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

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…

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.

To Rasmus

Yes that was a nice game Rasmus, just to bad i lost all my fighters in the attack, but it was fun. Kept England away from germany a couple of turns. Always looking forward to our next game. :-)