NPB,
I did take the bid into account. I even assumed a 1 arm bid to Lib possibly giving Germany 3 armor in Egypt on G1.
Yes, I thought you did take the bid into account. There was no explicit mention, though, and you know how I like explicit details. Secksy.
That’s why I suggested landing India units into Kenya giving the UK 3 inf, 1 fig there. Even if Germany did attack Kenya with 3 arm, 1 bmb the average result is the bomber being the only surviving unit and that means the IC is safe from German attack since the the closest German units afterward would be the inf or art surviving from the G1 Egypt attack which wouldn’t reach the IC until G4, giving the UK 2 full turns of building for defense.
Mm. I know. I wouldn’t debate that Kenya’s pretty secure.
I also took into account the fact that the UK can lose 2 aircraft in an attack on the Baltic fleet. The Baltic fleet strafe isn’t neccesary. If the prospect of losing the 2 fighters in the first round puts you off then you don’t have to do it because sinking the Med fleet on UK2 is by far the bigger priority.
Mm. Again, I thought you PROBABLY had something like what you just wrote in mind, but I like those explicit details. Secksy.
The reason I don’t worry about the Japanese is because I envision this as a KJF strategy. With the IO fleet(1 CV, 1 DD, 1 or 2 fig, 1 TP) as a blocking force in sz33 it would take the Japanese until J3 at the earliest to mount even a token attack on the IC. It would also require at least 1 BB, 1 CV, 2+fig, 2 TP and maybe even the bomber to do it and even then they are likely to take a decent amount of casualties(they would have to lose aircraft to preserve the TP’s) with the remnant not getting back to the Pacific until J5. Against a KJF, I don’t think Japan is capable of diverting half of their capital ships for 5 turns to capture the IC without giving the US an immediate opening to advance into the Pacific.
Well, it IS a KJF strategy. I don’t really think a South African industrial complex can successfully apply to a KGF.
But Japan doesn’t HAVE to attack the South African industrial complex, and Japan CAN send at least one battleship west on J1. What I’m thinking is that 2/3 of the time the UK attack on the Jap sub at Solomons fails, leaving the Japs with 1 sub 1 destr 5 fighters 1 bomber going against Pearl, anticipating 2 loaded carriers and the Japanese battleship from east of Japan at Solomons. Meanwhile, Japan takes China with mass infantry plus 1 fighter, the Japanese transport at Japan can take Burytia preventing the UK bomber from attacking unescorted transports east of Japan and landing in Burytia, and the Japanese transport at Kwangtung can offload infantry from Phillipines into French Indochina. (Unless you want to stipulate that Russia keeps 3+ infantry at Burytia; what do you propose as the Russian move on USSR1 anyways?) Plus if I read the original post correctly, India was abandoned, allowing Japan to capture with 1 infantry.
So at the end of J1, I think Japan controls China and India, Japan controls two loaded carriers and 1 battleship at the Solomons that the US won’t attack. There’s two infantry on French Indochina, and a battleship and a transport in the waters around French Indochina. UK must recapture India on UK2 with infantry from Persia plus assorted air or see a Japanese industrial complex plus fighters on India on J2. I hope I’m not assuming too much by that.
Also, I will say that Japan gets 3 transports and 1 tank on J1. Again, I think that reasonable.
US1 sees a Pacific buy. US can’t make any real progress yet.
UK2, I don’t see the board position changing much unless there’s a major naval buy at South Africa.
Japan recaptures India on J2 with infantry from French Indochina plus air, and moves its Solomon fleet to East Indies, Borneo, or New Guinea depending on the US1 buy. Japan has five transports, so there should be 10 more ground units in Asia now - mostly pulled off islands. Also, Japan has seen the US1 Pacific buy, so Japan starts to purchase fighters and infantry.
Now what happens on US2? Depending on the positioning of the Japanese fleet, the US isn’t in position to do much. If the US bought a lot of transports in the Pacific on US1, then the Japs should probably have positioned their fleet at Borneo or New Guinea, either of which prevent early US landings, but also threaten the waters around India. If the US didn’t buy a lot of transports (probably US bought carriers and fighters and/or subs), then Japan can take up a more active position at East Indies that lets the Japs threaten Anglo-Egypt through India on J3.
Again, I don’t see the board position changing much on UK3 without a naval purchase at South Africa.
So on J3, I think the probable situation is that the Allies control Africa, Japan has a pretty good grip on a deal of Asia and India, German infantry is marching into Ukraine (remember, if the Germans didn’t buy anything to reinforce Baltic as stated in the original post, probably the Germans should have purchased 10 inf 2 tanks). US is just beginning to progress in the Pacific. However, I predict that the Germans should be able to take the Caucasus, and Japan will be able to reinforce through Persia. The US will be trying to break into the Pacific, and they will succeed, but possibly too late for Russia, considering the lack of reinforcements.
Also, buiding a UK CV was just a noted possibility in case the UK wanted to land units into Europe after the Baltic fleet was nullified. Other options are to land units into Algeria with just their starting Atlantic fleet covered by the US DD, 2 TP or even use the UK to strictly build aircraft for use as a defensive measure for the IC or Russia. Everything is situational depending on the board layout so the CV build isn’t neccesarily the best option at all.
Mm hm. I really think a carrier’s just too slow for the Allies. Gives the Axis more time to push on Russia. Always dangerous.
As far as India goes, Japan usually has control of India by J2 anyway, so I don’t see it as bad to give it to them early for the prospect of adding UK units to help challenge Africa.
I agree that it puts Russia in a spot having to defend without any early help from the other Allies
I think it’s quite some time before Russia gets help from the Allies. US has a fleet in the Pacific (doesn’t help). UK has units in South Africa (doesn’t help). UK and US aid into Europe is minimal, and the German infantry stack can counter. The German Med fleet does NOT necessarily go down as early as UK2, especially if Germany just captures Trans-Jordan from Anglo-Egypt, in which case you have 5-6 German ground units in Trans-Jordan (3 from surviving G1, and 2 more from Balkans), which means that Germany can reinforce its Med fleet as late as G3 or even G4, allowing Germany more time to press into Russia.
, but in a KJF, Germany makes around $50 with uncontested control of Africa so I see it as a good thing to fight for the African IPC’s because it helps keep the UK income up and I’d rather Russia have to face Germany making only half or less of the income from Africa and forcing them to divert units to holding those IPC’s rather than just allowing them to control Africa for next to nothing.
When fighting for those African IPCs, you spend 15 IPC for an industrial complex and put more industrial production certificates into producing units where they cannot be of any help to Russia. I don’t say it is the WRONG move to put a South African industrial complex down in a KJF game. However, I do not see that a South African industrial complex is necessarily a superior move.
