THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
What’s big, gray, weighs forty thousand pounds, and sits in the middle of a room where nobody’s talking about it? That’s right, a Panzer IV tank, or maybe three African bush elephants, take your pick.
Let’s talk about the Panzer first.
WHEN GERMANY ATTACKS
The fastest way for G to advance against USSR is typically the Ukr / W Rus / Cauc line. If the Allies cannot get a good attack against an Axis Ukraine stack, then the Allies are pressured at both West Russia and Caucasus. Whichever the Allies don’t defend, the Axis can hit and very possibly hold; then the Allies retreat to Moscow.
Exactly when and how this plays out is more complicated than I lay out here, with various strategic variations.
But what it comes to is, whatever pressure the Allies exert against Japan is pressure not exerted against Germany.
If a player thinks that UK1 to sz37 defines the game, then the simple fact is they haven’t played against competent Axis that press appropriately, nor have they likely played against Axis that even counterpressure appropriately.
Yes, lucksacking UK1 to sz37 off a blind buy can be very tough and fast, and set the tone for an Allied win on strength of the position. But that’s where we get back to the elephants.
OPPORTUNITY COST
Characteristic of meta discussion “explanations” is explanations that are, well, bad!
A fighter can be used to attack sea or land, therefore it is good.
Yes, thank you, we are familiar with the basic properties of units, the real question is why is a fighter purchased and not, say, two infantry and an artillery?
I understand a desire to simplify discussion, but current meta discussion goes so far in that direction that it’s typically not discussion at all.
I think it’s something like, UK1 to sz37 wins a bit more than 60% of the time, about half of that expecting to lose 1-2 fighters. Where defender “wins”, I think they get wiped like 69% or something, but an additional 10% to retain only a fighter or battleship. Something like that.
At any rate, aggregate that’s risky, it should be seen.
Consider alternatives like UK1 to sz61 (J destroyer/transport) with 3 sub buy at India. (I’m not saying to do this, just giving an example). If the J destroyer is destroyed (94.8% at least, with fighter/cruiser is it?), then J has no counter to the US1 build. As to UK development, parking the UK carrier south of Persia, if G air is not in range, leaves J with risking fighters, committing J btl and/or carrier to where UK has a big counter, and if J doesn’t hit then the UK carrier gives UK fighters on India range to hit sz61 (Yunnan sea zone) along with the subs.
The real question is not whether UK1 sz37 has any good points or is worth the risk, because “good” and “risk” are relative terms that really require comparison. Instead, it’s a question of what the risks really are, how the development plays out, compared to other lines.
Personally I think UK1 to sz37 in 1942 Online, currently with no bid, currently without ability to use allied carriers or transports, is needlessly risky compared to other lines. I think it’s a potentially useful line to play against players that aren’t familiar with fighting it, I think when it gets lucky it can be quite strong, but on balance I think it not worth pursuing against competent opponents, considering what I consider to be lines with less risk.
I think even UK1 3 subs at India is not great; currently I’m trying to figure out a way to defend Moscow as long as possible while not giving up too much in Pacific pseudotimings. No surprise there I’m sure, nor will be my comment that I don’t want the Moscow stack to be cut off from reinforcing India.
At any rate, I think this thread sums up some thoughts I have on UK1 to sz37, cheers.
