I am thinking about experimenting on a US solo invasion in SE and the general plan I am thinking goes like this:
Now I have a constant flow of 4 inf, 4 arm per round in SEU and I can reinforce my navy by a DD per round if necessary, without needing any UK asistance.
Do you think this is something worth trying, especially if Germany has lost its bmb?
Edit: Corrected WUS with EUS, thnx to Hobbes
I take it that where you write WUS you actually mean EUS.
There are 2 issues with this strat:
If G keeps control of W. Eur and has fighters there (or Japanese ones) then you’ll need 2 fleets, 1 in SZ12, the other on SZ14, otherwise you’ll either be sending transports to their death or risk that your transport chain will be broken.
S. Eur is a dead end. Any invasion can be dealt using forces on Germany/ S. Eur. and usually G can send a force large enough to crush the invasion force prevent further landings. Worse, since the UK can’t land there, it won’t be able to reinforce it like an invasion on W. Eur/E. Eur/Karelia.
Thanx for the quick and thorough reply Hobbes,
I take it that where you write WUS you actually mean EUS.
There are 2 issues with this strat:
- If G keeps control of W. Eur and has fighters there (or Japanese ones) then you’ll need 2 fleets, 1 in SZ12, the other on SZ14, otherwise you’ll either be sending transports to their death or risk that your transport chain will be broken.
True, but if the US have 2 DD, AC+2 fgt, CC, BB in SZ14 and the UK 5 DD, AC+2 fgt in SZ12 (which is doable, plus the R SS) G has to attack SZ12 fleet with no less than 2 SS, 5 ftr and 1 bmb in order to have a chance. As for the SZ14 fleet is simply impossible to kill, G will have to either build SS in SEU or for an air army of something like 5 fgt and 3 bmb.
This means of course that UK has to dedicate both UK1 and UK2 purchases in defence vessels (AC, 2 DD and 3 DD)
I guess that s the only way to do it.
- S. Eur is a dead end. Any invasion can be dealt using forces on Germany/ S. Eur. and usually G can send a force large enough to crush the invasion force prevent further landings. Worse, since the UK can’t land there, it won’t be able to reinforce it like an invasion on W. Eur/E. Eur/Karelia.
Germany can crush any invading army, since either Russia or UK can reinforce the US bridgehead. But are you positive that Germany can prevent further landings?
The US will be able to throw in SEU 4 inf 4 arm/round, plus the ftr, bmb support. How many forces will Germany have to dedicate in SEU to garisson it against this? What will be the impact of a SEU garisson on Barbarossa? The truth is that SEU armor can blitz straight to UKR and threaten Moscow, but isn t it a dangerous game for Germany? And even if SEU is garissoned, US can land in WEU and switch between the two regions, since Germany cannot garisson both, I suppose.
Thanx for the quick and thorough reply Hobbes,
I take it that where you write WUS you actually mean EUS.
There are 2 issues with this strat:
- If G keeps control of W. Eur and has fighters there (or Japanese ones) then you’ll need 2 fleets, 1 in SZ12, the other on SZ14, otherwise you’ll either be sending transports to their death or risk that your transport chain will be broken.
True, but if the US have 2 DD, AC+2 fgt, CC, BB in SZ14 and the UK 5 DD, AC+2 fgt in SZ12 (which is doable, plus the R SS) G has to attack SZ12 fleet with no less than 2 SS, 5 ftr and 1 bmb in order to have a chance. As for the SZ14 fleet is simply impossible to kill, G will have to either build SS in SEU or for an air army of something like 5 fgt and 3 bmb.
This means of course that UK has to dedicate both UK1 and UK2 purchases in defence vessels (AC, 2 DD and 3 DD)
I guess that s the only way to do it.
But if the UK is providing cover for the US fleet, it won’t be able to conduct any landings of its own. Bottom line is that you still need to have 3 Allied fleets, for SZ12/14 and whatever the UK is attacking. Even if the UK fleet is parked on SZ4 offloading units to Karelia/Arc it will still require some protection if the Axis have bombers on the area.
- S. Eur is a dead end. Any invasion can be dealt using forces on Germany/ S. Eur. and usually G can send a force large enough to crush the invasion force prevent further landings. Worse, since the UK can’t land there, it won’t be able to reinforce it like an invasion on W. Eur/E. Eur/Karelia.
Germany can crush any invading army, since either Russia or UK can reinforce the US bridgehead. But are you positive that Germany can prevent further landings?
The US will be able to throw in SEU 4 inf 4 arm/round, plus the ftr, bmb support. How many forces will Germany have to dedicate in SEU to garisson it against this? What will be the impact of a SEU garisson on Barbarossa? The truth is that SEU armor can blitz straight to UKR and threaten Moscow, but isn t it a dangerous game for Germany? And even if SEU is garissoned, US can land in WEU and switch between the two regions, since Germany cannot garisson both, I suppose.
Germany can let the US have S.Eur for free and focus on defending W. Eur from a combined UK/US assault then crush S. Eur with a force that makes it impossible to retake it. That way it doesn’t lose troops defending it while the US has either to choose between using those 4 inf, 4 arm there to take it (and be destroyed) or just use minimum force to take it or send those units to Egypt. Either way softens/delays the US punch since most players will consider it a waste to land 32 IPCs of units to be destroyed right afterwards by a counterattack. If the US doesn’t attack with the 4 inf, 4 arm, or just uses part of those units then the unused units will be sent through Africa and have no impact on the game for a few rounds. Plus Japan will have time to prepare itself to deal with them and prevent them from moving into Asia.
Regarding Russia, if Germany is facing both the UK/US how longer can you keep the pressure on the Russians by keeping all your armour occupying Ukraine or Karelia? Conquering Russia while facing a KGF strategy is quite a feat if you can achieve it but usually the Germans will have to back down at some point, and it is better if they choose that moment than it being forced upon it by the Allies. In any case, as long as Germany keeps control of E. Eur and retakes Kar/Belo/Ukr then it won’t have much to worry about regarding the Russians and any Russian units sent to those locations are units that are not fighting the Japanese.
With a few minor modifications to the aforesaid scenario, the US can create a flow of 4 inf 4 arm to WEU (the first landing taking place in US3, a feeble 5inf-2art-1arm landing but still an 8-unit landing), using ECN as boarding location and rotating the 8 TTs.
This way there will be no need for a second UK fleet in the area, since the US can solo defend in SZ13 (maybe UK will have to add a DD, untill more US vessels arrive). And the UK will be able to perform its own landings.
Even more, the US can switch the flow in US4 from SZ9->SZ12 to SZ9->SZ7 for greater fleet defence and to prepare for a SZ9->SZ5 flow switch in US5 with UK as bridge.
So, the modified scenario is a US3 solo landing SZ13 that G4 counters, a US4 landing SZ7 that G5 counters, a US5 SZ9->SZ5 flow switch (hopefully UK5 will be able to fill the gap and perform a landing after 4 rounds of building and under the protection of a conglomerated anglosaxon SZ5 fleet) and by US6 the US are able to land heavily either in WEU (and distract G) or in KAR (and be reinforced by R).
Plus this way the US can land 2-4 units in Africa (depending on the size of WEU garisson) on US3 and mess things up a bit.
What do you think?
What do you think?
I think? :-D
1. What is the UK player doing during all of this?
2. What will Germany and Japan’s counters be?
Anyways, ya see, this is why I say W. Europe bombers are secksy. Requires Allies to form two defensive fleets; one for each of their Canada/London and London/Europe transport groups.
Allies CAN still run E.Canada-Algeria, but that’s got its own drawbacks.
BTW, check my title. I’m a DESTROYER. (hums Conan theme)
It is an old idea od Caspian Sub of organizing the transport from US to Europe using two sets of 4 transports via EC.
But the major difference is you do not land in WEU but you go through UK and Norway. The difference is that while Germany can deal with isolated landings in WEU or SEU, or prevent them to occur altogether, the Norwegian way reinforces the push in each round with the new units, while you preserve almost all of the original ones so that when you enter neighbourhood of Germany – EE in this case, you have such a mighty force there, Germany cannot think of wiping out. Moreover it may allow Russia to reinforce it too, or a sweet 1-2-3 on Berlin.
You have two fleets operating, one mighty combined UK/US SZ5-SZ6, the other one SZ2 to ship the units from EC to UK.
Ideally you have 8 or more UK units in Norway when starting the push, you reinforce them with 8 US, next round you go with those 8 UK plus new 8 to Karelia, you reinforce with 8 US plus 8 new, thus you will enter the EE with about 20 UK units, 24 US reinforcements and anthing russia can spare and you would be able to hit Germany itself with all that brutal force.
It usually does not go that ideal, you might need to drop some units to africa, from time to time you might trade WEU in case it pays off, but nothing should destract you from this basic scheme, i would say. And there is another thing it takes four rounds from the units produced at EUS to get to Europe so it requires some good planning and patience really.
