Abandoning London

[Clyde85]

If we accept that London will fall, why bother trying to defend it with anymore then a token force? Wouldnt all those units lost in the inevitable fall of London be better spent on other fronts?

This is a statment made by me in another thread (that I sorta hijacked, sorry Grasshopper!) which has really got me thinking. I mean, I know that losing London causes all sorts of problems, the loss of the UK economy, another victory city in axis hands, just to name a few. But from what I’ve read on the forums, barring a German mistake or bad dice, London falls 100% of the time. So if this is the case is it really worth defending? I dont mean to leave it completely open, but maybe only spending half of the UKs economy on infantry for the defense of London and spending the rest in theaters. I would like to explore the ways in which spending the UKs income in other theaters outside of London might benifit them.

I think the obvious one is keeping the Euro-Axis forces from breaking into the middle east and sub-saharian Africa. This would be espically crippling to the Italians, and if a Taranto raid is carried out, the influx of British forcers to the region early in the game would keep them bottled up in Europe and keep them econmically weak.

[Noll]

The problem is that if Germany takes London with ease, they will ALSO have strong forces against Russia.

[Clyde85]

@Noll:

The problem is that if Germany takes London with ease, they will ALSO have strong forces against Russia.

This is true, not going all out for the defense of London would mean less casualties for the Germans. This is a doubled edge sword though, as while it would mean more forces would survive, they are horribly out of position to intervine on the eastern front. Should the Germans pull too many forces out of London they will be making it eaiser for the US to liberate turning sealion into a few turn annoyance for the Allies instead of a devistating loss.

[special forces]

NEVER give up!

@ reasons:

1. you might fight well and survive (it happens more then you might think)

2. like you said, giving it away is no / less casualties for the enemy. If they take your capitol, at least make them bleed and get weaker.

I understand your argument about focussing on hitting Italy and sacrificng London for that, but, UK forces will quickly run dry there (and you may weaken India because it will need to help out extra), so unless you have USA to finish the job (or to at least consolidate the advantage), it feels like a wasted effort.

[Clyde85]

@special:

NEVER give up!

I can appericate the sentiment! :-D However it all seems like a bit of a waste if the end result is the (roughly)30IPC UK income going to Germany anyway. I really wouldnt try to have UK India get involved as its better for them to focus on their own theater. If the Italian fleet gets destroyed(or severly mauled) by Taranto raid on UK1 I dont think their meger economy will ever really recover to threaten Egypt.

@special:

so unless you have USA to finish the job (or to at least consolidate the advantage), it feels like a wasted effort.

I think you may have just stated the linchpin of the whole strategy. You would need to use the US’s (somewhat) early entry into the war(caused by the fall of London) to reinforce yourself in the western Med, Gibraltar, blockading Italy and keeping them out of North Africa. You can achieve 2 of these 3 things by the end of round 3 (really by the end of the US’s first combat moves).

[special forces]

@Clyde85:

@special:

NEVER give up!

I can appericate the sentiment! :-D However it all seems like a bit of a waste if the end result is the (roughly)30IPC UK income going to Germany anyway. I really wouldnt try to have UK India get involved as its better for them to focus on their own theater. If the Italian fleet gets destroyed(or severly mauled) by Taranto raid on UK1 I dont think their meger economy will ever really recover to threaten Egypt.

@special:

so unless you have USA to finish the job (or to at least consolidate the advantage), it feels like a wasted effort.

I think you may have just stated the linchpin of the whole strategy. You would need to use the US’s (somewhat) early entry into the war(caused by the fall of London) to reinforce yourself in the western Med, Gibraltar, blockading Italy and keeping them out of North Africa. You can achieve 2 of these 3 things by the end of round 3 (really by the end of the US’s first combat moves).

Well, if the effort can really limp Italy… aaargh, i just can’t do it! :D

Another thing about USA’s help against Italy that bugs me is… shouldn’t they be helping out UK instead of finishing the Italians?

One thing i’d consider, once it seems hopeless, is to evacuate the air force at the last moment (for as much that moment can be guessed). It’s something i once did with Moscow after barely surviving an attack, knowing the next attack is gonna kill all the rest without trouble. But that is kind of an exception…

[Clyde85]

@special:

Another thing about USA’s help against Italy that bugs me is… shouldn’t they be helping out UK instead of finishing the Italians?

You are right, the US’s main focuse in this scenario should be to liberate London and as fast as possible. However, that said, I think sending a token ground force (maybe 2 transports worth of units, any combo) with the initial fleet and a few air units to back up the Brits in the Med. at this point is a good idea. If nothing else it settles the issue of whether the Italians can wear down the Brits and forces the Italians(and by extension the Germans) to stay bottled up in Europe. Once the US does liberate london, then the UK can use its position in N. Africa to launch a number stinging attack on the Euro-Axis under belly. This would also allow the African positions to start sending reinforcments to India.