@eqqman
Your reaction to my statement insisting what “smart people do” is justifiable, and I apologize for making such a judgment. Yes… I agree that scripted strategies are claustrophobic and narrow minded when surveying the game board. However, it is my opinion that building 6 infantry and 1 fighter on London UK1 is a strong preventative measure to bridging the gap that allows for a possible Sealion attack. What I should have said was… in most circumstances, I think these units are the responsible units to build UK1. I made a mistake generalizing intelligence based on chosen strategies, and I sincerely apologize.
I won’t however, apologize by being annoyed by my opponent (friend). We play each other all the time and we know each others tendencies well, he thought I wouldn’t have the stones to change my plans or even attempt Sealion. Even when I stopped buying land units, he didn’t give me much defence, and trust me when I say that he didn’t want me taking London. He just thought I wouldn’t do it because I wanted to try an Italian strategy I’ve been working on, so he knowingly bummed it by building a factory turn one. My reaction of course was to go for sealion, but I wanted to also try a different Russian offensive… therefore, I was annoyed. That stuff is between us anyway, and has nothing to do with strategies or how to play… we have been playing together for 14 years and I’m sure it annoyed him when Japan was making $72 in the last round because It was the first time I used Cow’s J1 on him.
All that said, personally, and in my own opinion, I don’t think it is a good idea to poke Germany into a Sealion attack if I’m the allies. The economic swing is to great and to soon if London falls. Better for the allies to prolong a Capital getting captured, and the best chance for that is to engage attrition in Russia… IMO.