But if you switch the attack to Ukraine/Finland you don’t loose any fighters and you preserve one of the tanks you would have lost in E. Europe by counter attack, Switch.
So really, what’s the difference in scenario? You loose Archangelsk and Karelia on G1. You get strafed in Moscow on G1. But that’s about it. Meanwhile, you’ve cost the germans 33% of their fighters making it even riskier for them to put together a carrier and fighter cover for the baltic fleet. (Riskier in that now if they’re attacked by a significant British fleet, even with the loss of all british forces, they’d loose another 3rd of their air force.)
I could see, with that Russian move, a Germany with only 2 fighters and a bomber for cover. The bomber most likely in Africa. Americans piling into Africa, because they can, and now a Germany desperately depleted of air cover, financial income and looking at a wall of Russian infantry supported by a couple fighter squadrons and a british navy being rebuilt/reassembled.
Of course, one might suggest that you only send the fighter to Kwangtung on UK1, move the DD, TRN and AC down the cape of Africa to make a stronger british fleet.
Unless I’m missing something. But I don’t think so. Also, you’re going on the assumption now that there is a Russian fighter lost. With the change, you no longer need to pull the Russian fighter from Moscow, which means you have plenty of fuel to land in safe zones.
3 Inf, 1 Fighter from Karelia to Finland/Norway
1 Armor from Archangelsk to Finland/Norway
2 Armor, 1 Fighter from Russia to Ukraine
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus to Ukraine
2 Infantry from Archangelsk to West. Russia (* 1 Infantry to be used as blitz blocker in Karelia during NCM)
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery from Russia to West Russia
(West Russia is a strafe. Objective kill 2 German infantry, retreat to Russia.)