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).

@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.

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.

With software? Are you sofware? Wait a moment, you are Smith agent from Matrix  :mrgreen:

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…

whoa ho ho - touche’

You would honestly be saving 1-2 turns by producing fleet out of India rather than SA. Good counter point Jen.

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.