KJF etc.

Taking the India IC has its own problems.

Turn 1

UK Builds IC, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to Moscow
Japan Builds 3 transports

Turn 2

Uk Builds 3 tanks, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to India
Japan lands 6 inf 1 art 1 arm into F Indo

Turn 3

UK Builds 3 tanks, now has 5 inf 6 tank 3 fig 1 bomb 1 aa
Japan attacks with 6 inf 1 art 1 arm 6 fig 1 bomb 2 bb shots. A tricky battle.

Now to be fair, both sides can have more troops. Japan can use infantry from the mainland, and the UK can have allied figs landing in India.

In either case, Japan has to commit a lot of forces to get that IC. And while they’re doing so, that little monster force from Russia walks behind them and chews up manchuria/kwang/findo, and china is back in US hands. Japan maybe can get India, but loses 9 IPCs of mainland in the process with no quick fix. It quickly becomes the US outproducing Japan at 2:1 which means they lose the naval battle soon.

A KJF would take a long ass time actually. Just because Russia falls doesn’t mean Germany can end the game.  By that time the Japanese are just building inf on their island waiting to die from US bb shots. And then what do you have? US now owns Japan and where would we go from there? I suppose Germany would start by pushing out to sea so the US can’t dump factories, then start trying to research destroyer bombardment and shell the UK out? O_o It’d be so weird to see the late stages after the capitals have fallen in a KJF; what’s the next step for US and Germany O_o?!

Back with a vengeance I see Wes…

It seems that KJF is an easy way to take Japan out of action.
I do not thing so.

In my attempt to KJF, there always a resulting struggle with USA that cause a lot of losses and a slow results achieving.
Britain assistance against Japan is appointed to be decreasing with the passing of rounds. German advance in Africa, so decreasing British income, and Russia increased danger, enforce British attention to Europe and to Germany.

Even firts turn all-infantry build is useful for Germany to counter KJF. Slow infantry start to move to URSS from G2 on, while new tanks are built to quickly join the assaulting infantry. I do not thing that spending money in TRN is a wise startegy for Germany. For me it is better to go all land units and assault Russia Head on.

Problem 1 with 2 IC Build for UK:

Operation Sea Lion becomes a very tasty opportunity for Germany.  Just like Russia can turn her fighters back to Europe, so can Germany turn her fighters back on Asia.  Meanwhile, Germany has 6 Fighters, Bomber, 2 Transports, Destroyer, 2 Submarines and a Battleship in Range of London.  You’ve built nothing to stop her attack and have removed all the goodies for your defense. (2 fighters in particular.)

Solution?  Build 5 Infantry, 1 IC.  Put the IC in India.  Russian tanks from Caucasus can easily defend India with your British Infantry.

Problem 2: You are worried about Africa!?!?!

Solution?  American transports and destroyer coupled with British transports and Battleship land 8 units in Africa a round walking across to India in a train if need be.

Also, you can easily set up a nice British fleet in SZ 30 on UK 1 then take E. Indies on UK 2 followed by Borneo maybe.  That’s 8 IPC and Africa is only worth (from UKs start up) 9 IPC.  Those two islands, easily protected with massive British and American fleets almost make up all your losses in Africa and you’d need them anyway to reduce Japan to an island nation again.

But I already mentioned Sea Lion as a problem. Besides, Germany goes before UK, so UK gets the option to build 2 ICs when it’s feasible, not always.

Africa is a valid concern. The Germans could have a fairly big fleet because of the way I leave the Baltic alone, which would easily screw up a small shuck to Africa.

To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself.  I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.

That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.

@Jennifer:

To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself.  I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.

That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.

Yeah I’m starting to think that too … the game with you helped me realize that :lol:

@Jennifer:

To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself.  I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.

That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.

I think the intelligent way to hit the Baltic is to strafe it. Don’t stay there after you take out a couple of units; all you need is to take out a couple of fodder units so that a suicide becomes a bad investment since German aircraft is at risk.

@AJ:

@Jennifer:

To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself.  I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.

That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.

Yeah I’m starting to think that too … the game with you helped me realize that :lol:

LOL, another convert to the “dark” side!

There isn’t much reason not to strafe the Baltic navy at least, thinning out the subs. The odds aren’t in favor of the Germans.

50/50 you’ll lose at least 1 fighter in the first round of combat.
17/83 you’ll lose at least 1 fighter to the transport in the first round of combat.

That’s a potential of 2 fighters for what?

50/50 + 50/50 + 67/33?

With an order of loss of Submarine, Submarine, Transport, Destroyer you have the following odds:

Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
  11.34% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bom. no units. : 0 IPCs
  29.26% 2: 1 Fig, 1 Bom. 1 Fig. : 10 IPCs
  26.55% 1: 1 Bom. 2 Fig. : 20 IPCs
  32.85% 0: no units. 2 Fig, 1 Bom. : 35 IPCs
Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
  0.31% 4: 1 Tra, 2 Sub, 1 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
  2.13% 3: 1 Tra, 1 Sub, 1 Des. 1 Sub. : 8 IPCs
  7.57% 2: 1 Tra, 1 Des. 2 Sub. : 16 IPCs
  13.2% 1: 1 Des. 1 Tra, 2 Sub. : 24 IPCs
  76.79% 0: no units. 1 Tra, 2 Sub, 1 Des. : 36 IPCs

Please notice you have almost a 60% chance to get cleaned out of RAF to get that 75% chance to sink the German fleet, a fleet that’s mostly impotent and just waiting for you to bring out a battleship and some fodder to sink it with less loss.

It allows you to board much earlier. If you have to dance around building a carrier/destroyer just to deal with all that naval fodder, that’s going to set you back a turn or 2, which isn’t good. Weren’t you of the opinion anyways that UK airforce isn’t very useful, since they can’t immediately defend territories? I don’t mind giving up a fighter or two at all, if it means no more threat of luftwaffe strafing.

Please notice you have almost a 60% chance to get cleaned out of RAF

That’s somewhat misleading, since you don’t count the bomber as part of the RAF. I would be disturbed if I lost 2 fighters + 1 bomber, but I do kind of like 66% chance of winning with 1 bomber or more.

If I gave up 2 fighters to clean out the Baltic, then I could land on Norway or Karelia on UK2 without breaking a sweat. The baltic can prevent a crucial landing for a turn.

just waiting for you to bring out a battleship and some fodder to sink it with less loss.

How much less loss, versus the amount of time needed to accrue fodder? Fodder still costs money. Naval units aren’t cheap, you’d probably overbuild 2 tran which is 16 IPCs worth, not a whole lot less than 20 IPCs, but it also took you longer to assemble this fodder and it also required more care in where you deployed your navy so it doesn’t get stung by a massive aistrike with naval fodder.

Also, you never addressed my point - strafing. With strafing, you can limit your losses for the most part. Yes in the 1/12 times you will lose 2 pieces of airforce in one defensive roll, but 1/12 is fairly small (roughly two of these chances equals 1 AA roll). I would point out that there is a 1/6 chance that the UK will strike 3 times, which means it is twice as likely for the UK’s strafe to be more damaging than it is for the Germans’ defense to be more damaging.

I love fighters.  If the allies don’t have a 3:2 lead in fighters over the axis, I don’t think you have enough fighters!

And no, I wasn’t counting the bomber.  But if you do, you still have a 33% chance to clear out all British aircraft.

Meanwhile, you don’t have to build any navy with England.  Just focus on Africa for 3 turns and bring the AC, DD, TRN, TRN, SS from the Pacific/Indian oceans to the Atlantic.

Have to back Jen up on this one…

UK FIGs are more valuable to UK long term than the Baltic fleet is to Germany.  Losing FIGs to kill the Baltic Fleet is a waste of Allied air power.

I used to pull Indian fleet back to Atlantic, while relying on USA fleet for coverage of the UK Home Fleet, ferrying units to Africa in first turns.
Problems arise. Russia is alone against German. USA is alone against Japan in the Pacific. UK fleet cruising the Africa is doing nothing of useful for more than 4 turns.
Last times I played England, I used my Indian Fleet against the Japanese, and slowly built up the English Home Fleet.
My objective is to estabilish US shuck to Algeria from the first turn, supported by British, and by 3rd turn swith UK landings to Norway.
Elimination of Baltic Fleet may be executed on 2nd or 3rd turn.

For the strafing argument I agree with Jen, those British fighters are precious for British.

Russia is not alone against Germany and Japan if you are forcing Germany to dedicate forces to Africa and garrisoning S. Europe and W. Europe.  This allows Russia to stack Sinkiang and Caucasus while trading Ukraine and probably W. Russia or Belorussia.  Remember, this is only a short term solution.  Those naval units from the Pacific will get to the Atlantic in very rapid order!

However, if you are not comfortable with this arrangement, you can always invade Borneo and New Guinea on UK 1 (1.414 odds to win in both battles, not bad odds and it’s +5 income from islands which slows Japan down significantly.)

I, personally, just don’t recommend it anymore.  That’s two transports you’re going to lose that you could be sailing for England, thus saving you 16 IPC.