Posts made by Dead Rabbits

If we assume a average capture of WR with 6 infantry surviving there and Germany stacks Karelia this battle is 61% to capture Karelia for Russia with the 2 tank build, assumes 2 infantry move from Okrug to Archangel as well, pretty normal. https://aa1942calc.com/#/E0q7VObBHRhUzhT3InP0sA

Note that this battle is not really a option without the tank build. That would only be 18% to capture instead of 61%. So 2 tanks better right?

The average results of this battle will only leave 2 to 4 ground units in Karelia if it succeeds at all, a third of the time it won’t. And it’s easy for Germany to then take it back and wipe out the Russian tanks again which will basically leave Russia with its round 2 build to work with after this.

Meanwhile if Russia builds the artillery instead and does not attack Karelia but puts everything into defending WR, maybe a light trade of Belarus or Ukraine round 2 it will face more German tanks on this attack round 2 but it has enough numbers to hold if UK and/or US help defend WR sending fighters there.

https://aa1942calc.com/#/A5EJBsZsBIWRk6bEB9L3CQ

You can fool around with these numbers but I do think you have more options with the artillery build in the case of below average results of the round one attacks than with the tank build, but you also are giving up the option to attack Karelia before Germany can go.

So it’s really up to you. Do you want to trade aggressively with Germany? If so I think you need to be doing KGF. Or do you want to play more defensively with Russia? Which does give Allies more options I think.

I would say your assessment of the difference is correct.

This has been discussed and tested many many times, and while the current Meta favors the 2 tank build over the artillery, if the WR and Ukraine attacks do not go well the tank buy being one less unit than the artillery buy does make a huge difference in the possibility of defending WR round 2.

If the attacks go very poorly that still may not be enough to hold WR round 2 but it does give Russia more options.

The tanks as you say give Russia more options with average to above average results from these attacks for counter attacking Karelia or Ukraine which Germany will almost always try to stack one of these territories round one. However the attrition Russia takes on average for doing these battles is very high. So these builds are a bit of a bluff that the Axis opponent may call anyways for the purpose of destroying a large number of Russian forces right away so Germany can make more progress after this.

Germany does get to counter attack as well and has more units to do so with.

I just read over your post again and it’s funny how with a different point of view other things stand out.

You said that US fighters to India does not synergize well with US Med Shuck plan. In some ways this is true. The fighters go to India and are not protecting US fleet in sea zone 15 or sea zone 13 on that round. That means 3 starting fighters out of circulation on this round.

However what US can do is round one build of carrier destroyer fighter transport infantry round one for 42 IPC.

UK positions Egypt forces in Trans Jordan round one US fighter from China lands there to support it. US waits in sea zone 11 for its build. Possibly moving starting destroyer and transports to sea zone 10 with 4 ground units moving north to east Canada for additional flexibility if that is safe from German ships in Atlantic.

Then round 2 US moves in to sea zone 13 with 2 destroyers cruiser carrier 2 fighters landing in Morocco. The carrier that went to sea zone 45 round one comes back around south America from there. It will arrive in sea zone 13 on round 4 filling that part of the escort chain at the same time as the Battleship and destroyer from the west coast arrives as well. It should be noted that if the PH carrier did not take this side route to sea zone 45 on round one and makes a bee line for sea zone 13 immediately through the canal it could arrive there on round 3 instead, but because of US needing to buy escorts, transports and ground to fill transports it doesn’t really have the resources to do all of that anyways. Other builds are higher priority and getting fighters to the center higher priority as well instead of having them idle around waiting for that carrier to arrive round 3. The one round detour does not take much away from that in terms of timing.

The US fighters in India have done their job of shoring up defense there vs J3 timing. This may cause Japan to not make the attack because it is unfavorable. Importantly this gives UK one more round to do another build round 4 and shore up its defense there. This may include UK fighters going to West Russia which can transition to India from there and take their place.

US fighters in India can be freed up from India round 3 to go to West Russia, possibly providing air support to attack on Kazakh along the way. Maybe they go to Caucus instead.

Then round 4 they can land on carrier in sea zone 15 and fighters from that carrier go to the carrier now arriving in sea zone 13.

It’s an option and how the transition lines up and actually does work together.

Those fighters may be needed in India or Russia still in which case US builds more fighters round 3 to land on the carrier reaching sea zone 13 round 4 instead. Depending on the board state and what the Allied needs are.

The focus here is to get US support to the center as quickly as possible and then once there to have the flexibility to shift them to where they are most needed afterwards in response to what Axis has done.

The key to all of this is getting units to where they can most help when they are needed. US and UK can do a form of fighter swapping between West Russia and India so that they are always present in the numbers required on Germanys turn, then transitioned to India as required on Japans turn.

UK fighters to India from WR and US fighters from India to WR. Somewhat doubling their defense capabilities by using the turn order against Axis in this way. While also making attacks of opportunity while transitioning.

You make a good and simple point about the starting aircraft that Axis starts with and therefore what that requires on Allies part to get enough escorts to secure transports against them, in either ocean.

So the more cost effective way for Allies to do that is to pick one rather than needing escorts for both.

Allies want to get in the fight as quickly as possible. So splitting resources slows that process as well.

Although the US begins the game rich compared to other powers, it almost always loses its income in China to Japan in the first 2 rounds. So replacing that by taking other territory quickly can balance that and US maintains this IPC advantage. Ships are expensive. Transports needed as well, expensive, and these resources are not able to directly interact with ground forces themselves (much) which is needed to take territory and gain income.

Logistics to Europe or Africa for US are much faster than Logistics to Asia. On top of that Japan has a much stronger fleet to contend with than Germany. So naturally the path of least resistance and quickest pay off/economic gain is in Europe. It requires much more investment and time to overcome Japans advantage in the Pacific.

Trying to do both at once makes the progress of each slower than it already was.

Despite these inherent problems and inefficiencies, I still find it intriguing and I want to continue to explore ways to try to optimize this, while accepting that it will never be as fast or as focused as choosing one ocean would be.

Or you could skip PH attack dead zone sea zone 45 and have a stronger position to attempt J3 India attack, enough force in position to cause Allies continued withdrawal from Asia and secure income Japan desperately needs. Sustained sea battles with US does take Japan away from doing that somewhat and then leads to more expensive ship builds to try to stay ahead of US navy.

Usually if they do that they build more ships to counter your counter with.

Now Japan is trading expensive ships with US and they don’t have them in position to keep taking territory in Asia as a result of that.

India survives longer to be a thorn in Japans side. With that 2 bomber set up UK might start adding subs or other things to attack Japans weakened and out of position fleet with. Sometimes attacking PH round one leads to KJF strategy. Which based on the UK and Russia set up you described they are already somewhat set up for.

A good thing if you do the PH attack is that positioning your fleet in sea zone 60 does allow you to protect your transport build from UK and be in position to counter US counter if they do go after your surving aircraft from there as well. Just be aware that this might lead to US building more ships to counter your counter.

Yes as far as reading your opponent goes I think that is a good assessment that if their positioning with UK and Russia so far looks good to you they are also likely to do some good things with US as well and they have a plan that will synergize well together.

Where I somewhat disagree with you is about doing the PH attack simply because you don’t have any other juicy targets available to you.

I think you need to have a plan that works well together also and not have the opponent make that decision for you.

That said I don’t think the PH attack is bad. When opponents do this against me I wish they wouldn’t as I do have plans for using those ships if they don’t.

At the same time if they do it I also know that their J3 timing on India will be a bit weaker than it could be and that allows me more freedom in other locations.

There is a thread here started recently that perhaps you have seen where I am looking for other ideas of things to do after the opponent does the PH attack and I am still seeking more ideas about that. So this does go over at least some of the reasons why doing the PH is good.

As far as the decision I think its close. I see many good players make the attack but there also many good players who don’t.

Personally I rarely do that attack as I prefer to save that fighter and even the cruiser and some are useful units I would prefer to keep. It makes it so I do not really need to invest in ships with Japan at all in the early rounds or some games at all, especially when opponents are doing KGF strategy.

What I prefer to do is dead zone sea zone 45 instead as I already talked about somewhat.

Saving that fighter that would surely be lost in the attack makes my J3 timing on India stronger as well as Japans overall set up. I don’t have the risk of PH going too well and losing other high value assets such as the carrier as possibly more aircraft as well. Sometimes the battle does not go well and you get more hit backs.

Sometimes your aircraft landing after the battle are vulnerable to counter attack as US wants to trade ships with Japan and will sacrifice their Battleship to kill those aircraft even if you have a counter set up to get the Battleship if they do.

The reason I think this is a good time to add one destroyer is because Germany will know that their window of opportunity to attack with the sub fodder will be closing quickly. So they may choose to attack at even less favorable odds instead of allowing Allies with that extra destroyer to split off and take out those subs the next turn, or if destroyer already in range why not do that now and have the replacement destroyer take its place?

Germanys options with those subs are very limited if US fleet is in sea zone 8.

Either way you are likely reducing Germanys odds to successfully airstrike the fleet.

I am guessing the counterpoint to this is that the Allied player WANTs Germany to attack their fleet to kill aircraft and if they build an additional escorts maybe Germany won’t do that.

To me this would be fine if they don’t. Its still likely wasted IPC for the sub buy that does not end up doing anything then.

The extra escort puts Allies ahead in the number count (which is close if they have 50% odds) should Germany decide to answer with additional air buy or the extra destroyer after dealing with the German subs can split off to help support another fleet in another sea zone.

Based on the Allied players comment they were already conceding some tempo by not bringing transports forward.

Then final comments of concern about not being able to land in Finland after losing their fleet.

Ships are expensive and take time to rebuild securely and so landings are now further being delayed at a pivotal point of the game. Pressure is off Germany in the meantime. They have a window now to focus ground forces east again.

Allied player says they had follow up, however based on what I see they only have follow up to sea zone 13 not sea zone 3 which their transports are in position to move to but now cannot do so safely.

To me this is following a decision tree too rigidly. The 50% attack offer rather than adjusting that pattern to the board state.

I can sort of understand the reasoning in a general sense that Allies would really like to reduce Germanys air power because of the cascade effects that has on Germanys ability to trade territory efficiently with fewer aircraft and that losing any aircraft makes it less likely that Germany will attempt an airstrike on Naval escorts after the first airstrip because they have fewer to trade with the 2nd time they might have the opportunity to do so.

The more Germany does this vs Allied fleets the more it helps Russia in terms of tempo. There is the 1st round where Germany did not have any air support for their trades of territory because they used it vs Navy, and Germany does want to use all its air when it does attack navy to try to reduce the hit backs.

Then the 2nd Round Germany has fewer aircraft to help them trade territory efficiently because of the aircraft they lost.

In a KGF scenario it is difficult for them to buy more air because they are already being outnumbered on the ground. In a defensive position Germany typically wants to maximize its ground buys every round to keep its numbers up because they are losing many to trades.

However this situation was not a general one. Germany had subs available and those subs are somewhat useless if not used for attacks when the opportunity presents itself. It is signaling that it WILL do an airstrike because of the subs. At least one attempt until the subs are gone. If Germany had aircraft only then they might not attempt the naval attack at all.

So presenting fair odds when you already know that Germany is likely to do it seems a bit brazen to me. That seems like a time to add escorts and see if Germany will take worse odds on a naval attack than 50%

Attacking Pearl is not terrible. In my experience about half of the Axis players attack Pearl Harbor. Maybe more than half of them. However some top level players do not do this attack. I for one prefer to not do it for many reasons I wont completely cover here. You have already mentioned many of them. The risk of having to expose a Japanese carrier in that sea zone is the main thing I don’t want to happen.

I want all of my initial attacks with Japan to be as efficient as possible. I am trying to prevent Japan losing any ground units to hit backs. So while only attacking the 2 groups of US infantry may not seem like high value compared to other targets, doing so with decisive attacks that are somewhat overkill is what I want to do.

Often there are UK ships in range somewhere around here to consider attacking as well. I prioritize killing UK ships with Japan over US ships because of the turn order.

The main goal is for Japan to finish round one with zero casualties or as close to that as possible.

The other set up I did not mention is 1 infantry 2 fighters in Kwangtung. Many reasons for this as well such as being able to land in Ukraine or West Russia if German can take them round 2 or even Caucus sometimes and then have the fighters land to help them hold that position. If you can safely place a carrier in sea zone 48 (instead of sea zone 60 to protect vs bomber in India) then the fighters in Kwangtung can still reach sea zone 45 from there because of the carriers position.

This is up to you and your goals with Germany round 2. But it is a good place to be. It also denies US or Russia from a quick 2 IPC boost from trading Kwangtung.

You might want these fighters to be in Manchuria for the potential counter attack if Russia does use its fighters to attack Buryatia. This is up to you. Killing those Russian fighters if they did do this I think is well worth it. But you need to consider if anything else might be able to reinforce Yakut with those fighters as well? Is there still an infantry in Okrug that could?

Pearl Harbor attack does help somewhat if you think the opponent is going to do KGF. Its fewer escorts that US gets to start with. I will sometimes do that attack for this purpose. It does stop the sea zone 45 move pre-emptively as well. There are just so many things that can go wrong with this attack.

If you do it I recommend 1 sub 1 cruiser 2 fighters 1 bomber attack. Sometimes referred to as Pearl light as you are not bringing the carrier into the battle as well. When you do this take the first hit on the fighter that does not have enough fuel so that your carrier does not have to catch it. This is part of the long list of things I don’t like about doing the attack. Automatically losing a fighter.

As far as building factories round one with Japan? I never do that. Japan has enough build capacity and expensive things it wants to build in the first few rounds that it does not need another factory until round 3. I prefer that first factory to be India. I go for j3 timing attack on India. I think most if not all players know this attack pretty well by now. But if you don’t I could explain that in further detail.

As far as building a factory with Japan I prefer to build it in East Indies. If there are no UK ships in Indian ocean to threaten it you can even build it round one and still go for India round 3 but you will be 2 attackers short of what you could have if you dont build it. Having it built does give you follow up attack options and many other options to use production there for taking Australia and Africa after you take India though. It is nice to have. I just dont really recommend it round one until you see what the Allies are actually up to.

HI. I was not able to download the image you linked here as I don’t have an application to open it?

My apologies as it does bring me to triple A but I have never learned how to use the interface there to figure out how I might be able to open your link there. A simple screen shot would be more user friendly I think for people to see what you are looking at.

Anyhow this is Japan turn one and I think you covered the main things to be mindful of such as the UK bomber being in Kazakh and the 5 infantry in range of Buryatia with 2 Russian fighters in range of Buryatia as well. I am assuming these are in Archangel? Although they could be in other locations in range than that, this would be a more typical location for them as they were likely used on attacks round one.

I do have one question is what did UK build round one?

If Japan built a bomber in India you do need to be careful about UK air strike on sea zone 60 or 82 where Japan will be placing bought transports. The set up you describe does make me think you need to be wary of that.

One other thing I wonder about is if UK attacked sea zone 61? If so was this successful? Does Japan have 2 transports at the start of its turn or one? I am guessing that UK did attack sea zone 61 because your option 3 talks about building 3 transports and 3 infantry round one. If Japan had 2 transports already then it would only need to build 2 to max out production from Tokyo and be able to transport all 8 units built there each turn.

Are there any UK transports or ships in range for Japan to attack? If so I like to do that as long as it does not leave Japans navy out of position.

With that out of the way I will say that I dont like attacking Pearl Harbor round one as Japan. There are risks involved with that as you described and it also causes some of Japans units to be out of position for round 2.

You mention that Japan does not have many juicy targets for round one besides PH. Well I hear you on that but Japan can make many attacks on the mainland that can be very effective by using all its air support on those round one which limits hit back potential by shortening those battles.

What I like to do round one with Japan is buy 3 transports 1 infantry 1 tank.

Send 3 infantry from Manchuria to Buryatia. Yes Russia can attack these back if it uses its 2 fighters with very good odds to capture it. https://aa1942calc.com/#/XSqIoFf021FzY1RayZwYJg

However if it does so then its fighters must land in Yakut and will be out of position to defend its borders from Germany round 2 if it does. You also could position Japanese aircraft to be in range of Yakut from Manchuria and look to trade Japanese air for the Russian fighters which are very precious. That said its not an ideal position for Japans aircraft at the end of round one as I would prefer them to be somewhere else. That is a decision you will need to weigh if you think Russia is going to do this attack or not. A lot of that depends on your position with Germany. Can Russia really afford to not have its fighters available for trades in Europe and for defense of key territory like West Russia? Under most circumstances I would say no they cannot. Again it would e helpful to actually see the map here. If Germany has no strong forward position vs Russia then maybe they can afford to do this. I will say Russia doing this is unusual.

Japan attacks Anhwei with 4 ground units and 1 fighter 1 bomber. Attacks Yunnan with 4 ground units and 1 fighter using its transport. Leave the tank in Tokyo. Use Battleship from sea zone 37 to bombard.

Japan attacks Burma with 1 infantry from Thaland. Sending fighters from carrier in sea zone 37 if UK left an infantry there.

Position sub to be in range of sea zone 45 in case US fleet from Pearl tries to move in there. Position the rest of your fleet to be in range of sea zone 45 to dead zone it. Much of this position depends on if UK has a bomber in India or not.

If not then leaving 1 battleship 1 destroyer in sea zone 60 should be enough to protect your 3 transport build in sea zone 60. The UK fighter in Szechwan cannot reach there even if Russia takes Buryatia. US could send 2 fighters at this but its only 13% chance of success. The Battleship will heal itself and then one bomber vs battleship is 6% chance of success. If a 2nd UK bomber can reach that is very different though!! So this matters a lot.

If UK does have a bomber in India then you want to bring the carrier from sea zone 50 to sea zone 60 and land 2 fighters on it. Note the fighters in sea zone 60 can still reach sea zone 45 to help dead zone US fleet if it moves there.

The battleship and carrier with 2 fighters in sea zone 61 to protect the one transport that landed units to Yunnan. You can have the cruiser here as well if you want extra defense.

If you dont need the carrier in sea zone 60 or the cruiser in sea zone 61 then I prefer having the carrier and cruiser in sea zone 48. Its just more versatile. But again the UK bomber in India means you may not want ships to be here.

I get what you are saying as far as unit count for G4 or G5 timing.

However the bomber can help break Russian lines on G3 sometimes before the reinforcements from the East arrive.

Also can cause Allies to build more escorts or fewer transports and delay landings a round which means fewer units used for trades so more can move east.

There is a gap in follow up reinforcements that occurs as a result of this as you point out, but this is the trade off for higher speed.

The bomber threatens sea zones 3 and 13 that could otherwise be safe moves for Allies without it. It also helps threaten Egypt or Trans Jordan attack without needing to have fighters in range of those territories which puts them out of position in other areas if they are.

Although I think you already understand this, it should be said that what I like about these set ups are their versitilty to make attacks on Germany or Japan from these positions depending on the opportunity presented by Axis set ups and where they are needed most.

It’s good to have options.

The part I am struggling with and trying to find an alternative to is when Japan is removing the US options to add to this by attacking Pearl Harbor.

Which may be the correct thing for Japan to do here although I consider the Pearl Harbor attack to not be ideal, because it does disrupt the US part of the chain.

Well it’s kind of funny that your posts on this subject do address many of the set ups by Russia and UK to potentially disrupt Japan.

The Russian fighter in Archangel to assist with round 2 Buryatta capture which provides a landing zone for UK fighter in Szechwan and bomber in Kazakh to have an opportunity to airstrip Japans round 1 transport build that may not be adequately protected from this threat if Japan is not mindful of it as Japan positions its fleet for the purpose of other goals in a more typical Meta open.

Your point about Allied powers working together is well taken and with this in mind it is the US plan to synergize with these moves IF the Pearl Harbor fleet is left intact to be able to do so by sending fighters to India and also maintaining a US fleet presence in the Pacific in round one that at least has to concern Japan somewhat and make them play a bit more cautiously and slower than they might do otherwise without that threat.

However my question was about how the US can still present this threat as the 3rd link of the Allied chain of positioning if Japan does the attack on Pearl Harbor, thus breaking the US portion of that chain?

Maybe that is not even possible without high investment on US part in the Pacific after the Pearl attack when US still wants the majority of its round one build to be in sea zone 11 to begin its plan to pressure Germany via Med shuck. There are finite resources available and not enough to threaten in both theaters right away on Round one if the Pearl Harbor carrier has been eliminated.

But at least you seem to understand the gist of my question and the desire to be threatening both Axis powers with all 3 Allied powers from the beginning with some synergy and cooperation between them.

Or let’s say Russia wants to attack the Ukraine stack on Round 2. They are looking at 16% chance to capture. 21% with sacrificing fighters.

But if Germany does not drop the extra infantry and AA gun via Med transport then its odds are 43%

I will let you think about if there is a better course of action here.

8 infantry build round one with Russia? 4 infantry 3 Artillery? UK does not drop fleet and sends fighters? US sends its fighters to West Russia?

These things could reduce Germanys odds on West Russia enough perhaps that Germany does not attack, but I do not think they can be reduced enough for Russia to capture Karelia without giving too strong of odds on West Russia.

The 3 tank build is a contingency against Russia Karelia stack somewhat.

I have seen players stack Karelia and Belarus thus blocking the tanks in Ukraine from counter attack, but 7 tanks from Poland and Berlin makes such a move risky as well, although Germany will lose higher TUV in this battle due to not much infantry shield. Usually 2 infantry from Finland and one from Baltic is all that is available for that counter, and maybe this is the way for Russia.

But such a move then opens up G2 Caucus stack with Japans fighters landing on.

If Germany had AA gun die first in Karelia instead and Russia does 1 round strafe that is one more German infantry that can attack and odds to capture WR are now 87%

Let’s say Russia does not strafe Karelia and just tries to hold WR. That’s 91% for Germany to capture WR. So the strafe does help. The reason Germany has AA gun in Karelia is to prevent strafe attack with its fighter support. I note you did not suggest risking Russian fighters vs the AA gun.

Germany reinforces Ukraine with 3 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks from Poland Romania and Berlin. (The 3 tank buy). 2 infantry from Finland and 2 built in Finland plus fighters that survived attack on WR landing there or Ukraine vs whatever Russia built in Caucus.

Then there is the small possibility that German transport survived and can reinforce Ukraine as well with 2 units, either from Italy or Libya.

Now with that out of the way and acknowledging that UK might have 2 transports available on Round 2 some of the time we can talk about the Karelia mini stack.

Let’s assume Russia had average results in WR and they moved 2 infantry to Archangel. Let’s also assume that Germany did 2 tank 4 infantry build round one as this is Meta or what I most commonly see Allies do. Also let’s assume that the reason Germany can stack Ukraine is because Russia elected to retreat from Ukraine saving some tanks and that they did not just fail to clear it. Let’s say they saved 2 tanks instead of 1 or 3.

Russia is certainly able to attack Karelia if they want to and with favorable odds to do so, or to attempt a strafe there. The strafe is risky of course, too little and they may just lose TUV in the exchange, too much and the strafe may fail and they end up capturing it.

The question however is can Russia attack the mini stack in Karelia AND hold West Russia?

Well the Ukraine stack is 8 infantry 1 AA gun 5 tanks 4 fighters + anything else that may have survived the initial strafe attack on Ukraine. At a minimum the Ukraine fighter is there, the tank might be too which brings that number up to 6 tanks.

There are 4 tanks in Poland and 3 (or more) tanks built in Berlin as well. 1 infantry in Belarus.

So you suggested Russia attack Karelia with 5 infantry 2 artillery 1 tank. 2 of those infantry can come from Archangel. So Russia is leaving 3 infantry in West Russia 4 more can move in from Caucus 1 from Russia that’s 8. 2 AA guns 4 tanks from Russia and 2 from Caucus that were saved in the Ukraine strafe round one and 2 fighters. + anything that might survive if the Karelia strafe is successful and they retreat to West Russia. Let’s assume 1 round strafe as defender has 95% to survive that. 2 rounds only 50% this kills 9 IPC on average while Russia loses 4 IPC on average. So 4 infantry 2 artillery 1 tank retreat to WR.

That’s 12 infantry 2 artillery 2 AA guns 5 tanks 2 fighters.

This leaves Germany 80% odds to capture WR if Germany built a Bomber round one. 93% if it’s willing to sacrifice aircraft for that attack. Average profit of 21 IPC.

This is against nearly ideal conditions for Russia.

If German attack on sea zone 10 is successful then UK will not have a Destroyer to attack any surviving subs in sea zone 7 (if any) and this may prevent UK from building a transport in sea zone 7 round one as it has no destroyer to deal with the sub and Germany may now have 4 attackers in range of sea zone 7.

So I think the sea zone 10 attack makes sense in conjunction with G1 Ukraine stack. We just know that it will fail half of the time. It is well worth the risk I think though as it could prevent UK from having 2 transports on Round 2 in a couple different ways.

What to do with the German battleship and transport is more the decision my mind is not set about.

Saving the 8 IPC that would be spent on the destroyer for sea zone 15 is great of course and killing the cruiser in sea zone 13 plus a destroyer on hit back when they attack may all be better overall than trying to keep that Med transport alive in round 2, which is not garunteed by any means.

I could get behind letting that go.

I have had a few games where the battleship transport and destroyer survive in the Med, and that is very nice to keep shipments coming to Ukraine and Caucus. Honestly though the chance of that is pretty slim unless opponent gets scared or does some other silly thing like attack sea zone 37 or something.

Now as I said maybe the German med transport is a lost cause. Even with a Destroyer block in sea zone 15 UK can still send fighter and bomber vs the Battleship in sea zone 16.

This is a 60% chance one of these aircraft survives and 81% of mutual destruction. However the transport does have a 39% to survive this attack. Which then means Germany gets to use the transport possibly on Round 2 still or Russia has to use one of its fighters to finish the transport off.

UK could block sea zone 15 with its destroyer in 17 or with its India carrier if it brings it to sea zone 17 as the canal is open and/or the cruiser in sea zone 13 as well.

However Germany can have ground units in Romania the transport could pick up and drop to Caucus if Germany is going for Caucus stack round 2 or Germany could air strike those ships with its fighters in Ukraine and then bring ground units to Ukraine on non combat move from either Italy or Libya.

So there are a lot of decisions to be made here on both sides and I am undecided about what is most optimal.

If UK fails to kill the Battleship in sea zone 16 or is too risk averse to try to do so with the sub optimal attack being offered, well a 2nd transport drop on round two very useful. Maybe the German battleship has attacks of opportunity on sea zone 15 backed up by its fighters (possibly a bomber if Germany built one) vs any UK ships that decided to block or that remain after attacking the German destroyer built in sea zone 15.

The 2nd UK transport round one happens because Germany fails to kill transport in sea zone 10 and there are not enough German attackers on sea zone 7 to cause UK to need to build an additional escort. As Germanys fighters are in Ukraine.

Germany could have 2 fighters in Finland after round 1 sea zone 7 attack, and it could build a Bomber, but 3 attacker not enough vs 4 or 5 UK defenders in sea zone 7 to force UK to build additional destroyer.

Germany could do sea zone 13 attack on cruiser to force UK to build additional escort. But then it can’t defend med transport that wants to drop 2 ground units to Ukraine.

Maybe the med transport is a lost cause anyways. Germany building a destroyer in sea zone 15 to make killing the Battleship in sea zone 16 more difficult may not be worth it. These are decisions to be made.

My thinking on this may be off, I just don’t like allowing Allies an easy kill on the German battleship round one. Which Allies will have if the UK destroyer in sea zone 17 is available for 3 attackers on it in sea zone 16 or 3 US attackers on it in sea zone 13 if Germany does not use transport to land in Gibraltar to prevent the fighter in East US from reaching.