UK Pacific Fleet Unification

[TRakes]

The UK fleet off the coast of India just seems vulnerable and weak.

How do you feel about turn 1 uniting the transport, destroyer, AC and fighter with the transport and sub from Australia?

I was thinking of a pacific-oriented UK game that works with that….

The two obvious choices are a first turn IC in Aus or South Africa. I feel like an Indian IC would be too risky for this game because if you aren’t building 3 infantry or tanks a turn there you will lose it soon as all get out.

A fleet of a fully loaded AC, destroyer, sub, two transports looks pretty good. Buy a South Africa IC and then a battleship down there on UK 2. That is something that Japan will have to contend with. A medium sized US fleet combined with that will be able to remove Japan from the seas. The South Africa IC won’t go to waste either, as it’s a great way to keep Africa British in the early game.

Russia could be under pretty serious threat from Germany, but the pacific fleet in the UK wouldn’t need many more turns of reinforcing. Spend the first 2 or 3 turns buying for the Pacific and then after that play a relatively standard either reinforce russia with Inf or land D-Day UK.

What do you think?

[dezrtfish]

I think with this plan a Australian IC makes more sense.  Your short term goal is killing Jap ships and making money by taking the valuable islands which are much closer to Australia than S.Africa

[squirecam]

@TRakes:

The UK fleet off the coast of India just seems vulnerable and weak.

How do you feel about turn 1 uniting the transport, destroyer, AC and fighter with the transport and sub from Australia?

I was thinking of a pacific-oriented UK game that works with that….

The two obvious choices are a first turn IC in Aus or South Africa. I feel like an Indian IC would be too risky for this game because if you aren’t building 3 infantry or tanks a turn there you will lose it soon as all get out.

A fleet of a fully loaded AC, destroyer, sub, two transports looks pretty good. Buy a South Africa IC and then a battleship down there on UK 2. That is something that Japan will have to contend with. A medium sized US fleet combined with that will be able to remove Japan from the seas. The South Africa IC won’t go to waste either, as it’s a great way to keep Africa British in the early game.

Russia could be under pretty serious threat from Germany, but the pacific fleet in the UK wouldn’t need many more turns of reinforcing. Spend the first 2 or 3 turns buying for the Pacific and then after that play a relatively standard either reinforce russia with Inf or land D-Day UK.

What do you think?

You should not spend any additional money on a UK fleet in the pacific. Not because it wont work, but because you dont need to. Its a waste of $$.

Simply link the UK fleet in the solomons with a US pacific fleet.

Putting an IC in Australia or South Africa is a bad idea, because you dont get value for your IC.

Buy the India IC, and put pressure on Japan from land and sea.

[Aretaku]

The only thing that a UK fleet unification does is make it difficult/impossible for Japan to do Pearl on rd 1.

Either of the two sea-zones in which UK can combine his fleets is open to Japanese attack, and while Japan may lose a few units, the ultimate goal, Moscow, is still attainable, while the British have wasted units, and potentially IPCs, on an empty threat.

I have made the strategy work in the past in conjunction with an Australia IC, but now that I’ve seen it, it’s fairly easy to counter. The biggest issue is if the US goes for an all out Pacific strategy…Japan must work to estabilsh a large Asian mainland force before the home islands are isolated…but of course Germany has much less to worry about with a distracted America and a crippled UK (didn’t use the fleet to counter Egypt, meaning Germany likely owns Africa and won’t be giving it up any time soon).

…and the Brits won’t even sniff those island IPCs.

[TimTheEnchanter]

If the Japanese attack a sz30 combined fleet on J1, they’re likely to lose several planes and run at least some  risk of losing capital ships, just to kill a bunch of boats many of which are usually dead in the first couple turns anyway.  If I’m the allies, I think I’m happy to see japan make that move, while the US pac fleet survives.

[losttribe04]

What if UK did a delayed UK fleet unification and put an IC in Borneo or East Indies?  They would have to wait until SZ 37 was cleared.

PROs:
They would have the secluded island apeal Australia has but have a higher production rate.

CONs:
down fall you waist a few key turns early in the game 1) waiting for Japan to move 2) capture real estate 3) build IC 4) pump out troops. (If all goes well.)

LT

[DarthMaximus]

I really like the UK fleet unification in Sz 30, and depending on the “bait” you want to lay out there you can load up one trn with 1 or 2 inf.

I like both outcomes (J attacks or J doesn’t attack) as well.  If J attacks you’re likely to take out a few plans, potentially weaken the Pearl attack and it could be a good spot for a Pearl counter and/or US Pac strat.

If J passes on the attack, you can then do a massive counter in Egy or land in TJ, Per, Ind, etc. or wherever is safe or you can look to eventually link with the US in the South Pacific.

Germany can be a bit of a pain n Afr, but a Sz 30 fleet with 1-2 extr inf there can at least put a threat of multiple landing spots keeping Germany’s expansion somewhat limited on both G1 and G2 as you land in Alg in rd 1 and 2.

Worst case is Japan slaughters your fleet with relatively no losses and then Germany blitzes Afr, but again that still leaves potential dice jobs in China and Pearl at the very least.  Plus the US can simply continue with a KGF since their support will clearly be needed in Afr.  I don’t see much difference in that compared to the UK sub missing in Sol and then losing the DD to the Trn in Sz 59 and fleeing with the AC.  Both “bad scenerios” for the Allies would require good J dice in most of their battles and while it will happen from time to time it won’t happen in the majority of games.

[squirecam]

@DarthMaximus:

I really like the UK fleet unification in Sz 30, and depending on the “bait” you want to lay out there you can load up one trn with 1 or 2 inf.

I think unifying is fine. I dont agree with the loaded transport. You are begging Japan to atack. And what if they get 2 hits, you lose a transport and they retreat. Then you’ve lost 2 inf for nothing.

[Guest]

Japan cannot bring maximum force to the attack and still be able to retreat.  1 of their FIGs is at maximum range and requires an AC to be alive in SZ30 to land on.

Retreat means losing a FIG guaranteed.

[Jennifer]

I like the SZ 30 unification if Egypt is too well defended to reclaim by England (realistically that is).  It is tempting for Japan to go sink them (and yes, I’d recommend putting 2 Infantry from India out there, maybe even 3 just to really tempt Japan).  If Japan goes to sink SZ 30, they are not hitting SZ 52, they don’t have the firepower in my opinion to do so realistically.  By realistically I mean without severe and crippling losses to the Japanese air force and navy.

If they ignore SZ 30, you can always continue sailing around S. Africa into the Atlantic, so no real loss there.

Anyway, hitting E. Indies on UK 2 is possible from this position, but if Japan went heavy on Hawaii, you’ll just lose everything in the water around E. Indies on Japan 2 and Japan may even have the fire-power to liberate E. Indies.  So I don’t see a benefit to hitting E. Indies on UK 2.

However, from SZ 30 you could decide, instead of going to the Atlantic, trying to meet up with the American flotilla creating a very costly navy to attack.  Not to mention, America could allow you too take the islands and bring her fleet alone behind to protect your ships and manpower.  This covers your losses in Africa and America stays ahead of Japan financially because Japan’s still losing territories.

Just a thought I had at the last minute, didn’t really think it through all the way.

[a44bigdog]

Currently I think the two best options for the UK Pacific fleet is to either consolidate in sea zone 30 or hit absolutely every target they can.

[TRakes]

So I was just thinking about this side of the map on turn one.

My somewhat predictable best friend and nemesis is likely to load 6 men on Buryatia on Russia 1. He loves ICs in India and Sianking.

Would it be worth it to forego attacking Pearl Harbour to load send a heavy attack into Buryatia (with 6 inf stationed there) and China?

I can’t remember my exact figures but it was something like this.

Into Buryatia

1 Infantry 1 Tank (on the transport)
2 Infantry from Manchuria
1 Fighter from Japan
1 Fighter from Manchuria
1 Fighter from Carolina Islands AC
Bomber from Japan

Into China

3 Inf from Kwangtung
1 Inf from FIC (I think leaving one behind is the best solution in case there’s a tank blitz or anything. I’d be okay trading FIC for one turn to make sure that I’m in a good position for J2 and J3)
Fighter from FIC
2 Fighter from AC in East Indies

I’m assuming that my transport outside of Kwangtung is dead. If it isn’t, then all the happier for me.

Running this into Frood (wow how fun was it when I found out about this!) it looks like what should happen (…never what seems to actually happen though with real dice haha) is that I’d end up like this.

In the seas (after I buy 2 transports, 3 inf and a tank)

SZ 60
1 BB
3 Transports
1 Destroyer
1 Sub
1 AC

SZ59 (if destoyer there where my transport should be… otherwise, either in 36 or 60… honestly not sure which is better. what do you think? double bombardments sound pretty sweet. And consolidation is always the way, isn’t it?)
1 BB
1 AC

Land

FIC
1 Inf

Kwangtung
A whole mess of fighters… hopefully 6 Fighters

China
2 Inf

Buryatia
0-1 Infantry, 1 Tank depending on dice.

I feel like that puts mainland asia in a pretty strong position. The bad news…

Pearl Harbour is still sitting there, waiting to be united. This is just asking the US player to go heavy Pacific. But I have a potential fleet of ass kicking proportions, right? I just don’t think they’d win a naval battle any time soon. 2 AC, 2 BB, 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer, 3 Transports is a lot of dice and a lot of lives. And obviously if I saw them coming towards me I would send out 4 fighters onto the 2 AC. It’d be carnage.

The other big bad is that there’s still a UK fleet outside of India (or wherever they fled to) and I’m very far away from threatening Australia/Africa.

Is it worth it to speed up mainland asia and also to destroy the 6 russian infantry on the first turn? It just is pretty frustrating if he sends his russian fighters east. The six men with the two fighters can really cause some ruckus.

How do you feel? The numbers for the attacks seem to be pretty solid. I just don’t know how dangerous the pearl fleet can be. Honestly it isn’t that many boats.

[Jennifer]

@a44bigdog:

Currently I think the two best options for the UK Pacific fleet is to either consolidate in sea zone 30 or hit absolutely every target they can.

So that would be:

Destroyer from SZ 35 to SZ 59 vs the Defending Transport
Submarine from SZ 40 to SZ 45 vs the Defending Submarine
2 Infantry from Australia to New Guinea vs the Defending Infantry (Transport from SZ 40 to SZ 47)
2 Infantry from India to Borneo; Fighter from SZ 35 to Borneo (Carrier, Transport to SZ 48)

?

I can say, when England pulls it off, it’s a deadly first strike.  But how often do those attacks play out in England’s favor?

[dezrtfish]

I saw a guy in a game move the entire indian fleet AC,DD,Ftr,Trn to the Kwang Transport.  He lost it all on J1, but in doing so forced the Japs to unite most of their fleet in Kwang and the Aus fleet ended up joining the Pearl fleet anong with the San Deigo Fleet.  I don’t know if it’s worth the sacrifice and I don’t think I’d do it, but the guy had balls anyway…

[Jennifer]

Well, that’s a decent defensive force, assuming the transport in SZ 59 misses it’s defense roll and England has the entire fleet left over.

11 Defensive punch?  Could be two hits on the first round of combat.

However, if I was gunna go this route, I think I’d leave the British transport in SZ 36 to stop the Battleship, Carrier from SZ 37 from joining the battle.  That way (with 10 defensive punch) I’d have a good shot of killing some Japanese naval material before going down. (Otherwise, the English fleet might have to over come two free hits on Japanese battleships before doing damage and you may not have a round 2 if Japan attacks in full strength.)

[squirecam]

@TRakes:

Is it worth it to speed up mainland asia and also to destroy the 6 russian infantry on the first turn? It just is pretty frustrating if he sends his russian fighters east. The six men with the two fighters can really cause some ruckus.

How do you feel? The numbers for the attacks seem to be pretty solid. I just don’t know how dangerous the pearl fleet can be. Honestly it isn’t that many boats.

There’s a pretty good Triple A player, Allweneedislove, that used to leave PH alone. He could get away with it.

Generally, I say leaving PH alone is a bad idea. You are leaving USA a free loaded carrier. That plus a BB + 1st round navy buy is death to Japan in most circumstances. Not to mention you left the UK fleet live. Merge those, and Japan is not taking out the allies. Period.

[a44bigdog]

That is about the optimum spread there Jen. The Fighter can go elsewhere but I would rather insure Borneo and load the carrier.

As has been stated elsewhere if the fleet consolidates and is sunk at is strongest it doesn’t bother me much from either side. If England liberates Egypt what naval elements it can place there are easily destroyed by Japan. So I think if the fleet dose not consolidate it should hit as many targets as possible and spread itself out. It gives Japan many targets to have to hit and islands to reclaim. As far as how often it works, it works often enough for me to stand by my analysis in my mind. All together or everywhere.

Besides if it does work right England can draw 34 IPCs and maybe buy a second bomber  :-D

[Perry]

hmm…I never really decided when the sz30 unification is a good move (if ever). Interesting discussion.

I had to run some frood battle calculations on this:

With consolidation, UK will have (max):

2 trn
1 ss
1 cv
1 ftr
1 dd

the japs have the option of attacking with:

1 bb
1 cv
2-4 ftrs

…however, if they go with 4 ftrs, the CV in SZ50/MIC, can’t participate as a landing platform for the EPO attack

Win % chances:
attacking with 2 ftrs: 15%
attacking with 3 ftrs: 43%
attacking with 4 ftrs: 73% (survival of two units, on the “most probable” result

…this is with standard OOLs. Odds increase with a few % if you choose to loose a CV before your ftrs , as japan.

Anyhow, the unification stands a decent chance to hand japan some rather bad losses.
And also, with 4 ftrs attacking, japan can only attack EPO with:

1 SS
1 DD
1 BB
1 trn
1 bmb

Win %-age with that attack setup is :
30% chance of cleared without losses
35% chance of cw 1 loss
23% chance of cw 2 losses
11% chance of cw 3+ losses
1% chance of mutual elim. or defender win with 1 unit

…either way the US is set up for a counter on US1. The odds of a succesful counter with:

1 BB
1 trn
2 ftr
1 bmb

…the above jap fleet containing BB, DD, SS , is a whopping 96,3% (with 3 units surviving as most probable result).

Hmmm… all of a sudden the whole UK unification move seems much more attractive in my book!

Then again , we are talking about a number of naval engagements. And naval battles are much more volatile in result, than the land battles. Very much depend on first combatround rolls.

[TRakes]

What if the Russian player lends a fighter to the UK fleet on Rus1?

That makes the odds a lot stronger for UK.

[Perry]

@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.