Britain Strategies

Thread RESURRECTION!

IT LIVES!

This is what happens when no new topics are posted.  But anyways I bet nutbar was being sarcastic.

@nutbar:

DON’T HELP RUSSIA or you will lose the game.

Responses in red below.

@LeonidasBush:

In all of the games I have played . . . the only naval buys I’ve seen from Germany are an aircraft carrier and transports (or a battleship replacing the AC) and those naval forces have always been put in the Mediterranean to help out Africa (which personally I don’t think works well.)  Plus it is better to buy an AC and two DDs on R1, as cruisers cost . . . You either mean buying AC/destroyers UK1 or you mean UK’s turn on Round 1, not “R1”.  As far as Germany going to Africa, I’ve rarely seen it well implemented, which doesn’t mean that it can’t work well.  For the record, my opinion is that it IS risky to build German Med fleet, but I do not say it is “wrong” like I say a Russian R1 attack against West Russia, Norway, and Ukraine is “wrong” in dice games.

One of my favorite moves as the UK is to load up the transport with two infantries from India and do an amphibious assult on French Indochina, as Fleetwood Dan said, walking over the last man and flying in the fighter and bombarding with the cruiser.  It takes a good chunk out of Japan’s income and really makes the attack on China difficult, especially since you can fly your fighter to China, giving the area two fighters and two infantries as a defense.  Your carrier should attack the transport in SZ59, killing it off.  Now for your Australian fleet.  Your sub can either attack the Japanese sub in SZ45, keeping it from hitting Pearl Harbor, or going to the SZ adjacent to New Guinea.  With the transport by Australia you could load up two men and take New Guinea.  . . .  It is often difficult to retake AES on the first turn unless bad dice is involved, so usually the USA will retake it (in my games).  If the Germans survive with only one unit the UK could fly in their bomber and attack with an infantry from Trans-Jordan.

You must be playing Spring 1942 because you’re mentioning cruisers at India.  But the Spring 1942 rules allow subs to submerge, so your attack against the Japanese sub won’t do anything if the Jap player doesn’t want it to.

As far as attacking French Indochina and landing in China, and that it’s “difficult to retake AES (Anglo Egypt Sudan) on the first turn.” elaboration below.

THE SHORT VERSION:

When you hit French Indochina, you’re doing a lot of things that may not end too well for the Allies…  First, you’re giving up Africa to Germany early.  Second, you’re losing units in the Suez Canal area, meaning you give up control of the Suez Canal or forcing Russia to divert forces from the European front.  Third, you’re probably losing that UK fighter on Japan’s opening round.  True, you have a small plus in that you could take out a Jap fighter, and weakening Japan means Japan advances slowly on India.  But on the balance, I would say hitting French Indochina is better for the Axis than the Allies.

THE FINE PRINT VERSION:

If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt and UK doesn’t take it back, Germany can blitz through Africa next turn.  UK loses income very quickly, and Germany gains income.  It takes some time before US can reclaim Africa, and by that time Japan can be working together with Germany to preserve German territory.  Germany with lots of income, particularly in Africa, is a double whammy for the Allies.  The first whammy is that every IPC in GERMAN hands means more German infantry and tanks, especially as Germany can produce up to 16 units a turn.  The second whammy is that every IPC taken away from UK hands means less attacking power.  So German infantry are upgraded to tanks, which are super good for Germany’s defense and offense, while UK tanks are downgraded to infantry.

Second, with UK blowing its load on French Indochina, there is a nasty possibility of Germany locking up control of the Suez Canal on G2 (Germany’s second turn) allowing a J2 (Japan’s second turn) movement through the Suez of a battleship and a carrier.  If that happens, the Axis have up to two battleships, a carrier, and two fighters defending the Mediterranean, which pretty much shuts the Allies out of any early air attacks.  That means that Germany gets to keep its Mediterranean transport, which it can use to dump to Africa or Ukraine/Caucasus.  I want to be clear that this is not a decisive advantage for the Axis, but it is pretty significant, so long as Germany doesn’t overdo it.  Maintaining a battleship support shot plus up to two infantry moving straight from Southern Europe to Ukraine/Caucasus (skipping one or two turns of movement), or being able to run interference in Africa, are bonuses that can be very ugly - particularly, because Germany has its whole airforce that can respond to the Africa and Mediterranean position, and can quickly and easily send ground forces to any number of targets with the maneuverability of the German transport.

In KGF, Germany often completely loses all its territory in Africa late game when the Allies push in; later Japan usually retakes much of Africa if the situation permits.  This isn’t because the Axis want to fuel Japan’s giant income while mostly giving up hope on Germany.  It’s usually because the Allies FORCE the position into that situation because it is more favorable for the Allies than Germany maintaining control of, or even being able to contest control of African IPCs.

Japan’s early game push should use 4-6 transports, using 5th and 6th transports to grab infantry off islands and/or to hit Hawaiian Islands/Alaska/Australia/New Zealand/Africa (AS THE GAME PERMITS).  Later, Japan will probably grab an industrial complex at French Indochina or India if it can be managed, to pump tanks to bolster the infantry that was sent in on earlier rounds.  At that point, 3 or 4 more IPCs to Japan makes little difference.  On the other hand, 3 or 4 more IPCs to Germany makes a big difference; it’s able to pump more or higher quality defensive units, which makes it much tougher to crack, which also means Germany can contest territory in Europe more effectively, further boosting Germany’s potential income.

With Germany units in Africa, Japan doesn’t have to run as many units in to help at Africa.  With less Japanese units diverted to Africa, Japan can send even more at Caucasus/Moscow, which makes the main threat against Moscow that much stronger.

All this might be no problem if the Allies had early gains to offset these disadvantages.  But Japan can use its Japan transport to hit French Indochina on Japan’s first turn, and it still has four infantry plus air to hit China with.  (I assume one infantry is kept back at Manchuria in case of Russian units at Buryatia).  Japan can afford to hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet with sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber, while using its four remaining fighters to support the attacks on French Indochina and China.  From that position, the Japanese transport at French Indochina can pick up two infantry from East Indies on J2 to bolster Japan’s position near India.  So Japan’s position does not suffer too badly.

True, Russia COULD move infantry to Persia on R1 and position tanks in Caucasus (usually a good idea anyways).  But if UK bails out of Africa to go after French Indochina, that forces either for Russia to move units significantly away from the European position, or to give up the Suez, with the aforementioned consequences.

You stated that Africa was difficult to retake from Germany if I understood your post correctly.  I disagree; Germany’s opening allows 2 infantry 2 tanks plus one or two air units attacking infantry/tank/fighter.  Either Germany loses expensive air (unlikely), or it over-commits air against Anglo-Egypt (reducing its ability to hit other targets so also unlikely), or whatever, but in any event probably Germany survives with at MOST three units.  UK’s counter is 3 infantry 1 fighter 1 bomber minimum (2 infantry via India transport, 1 infantry from TransJordan, fighter from India fleet, bomber from UK), plus UK cruiser support shot.  The UK AC can attack the Japanese Kwangtung transport.

–

As a parting note, I recommend UK do one of two things with its UK sub near Australia.  Either UK can move its sub to a position from which the UK sub can hit French Indochina sea zone on UK2 (this prevents an unsupported Japanese transport from floating around).  Or it can move to a position from which it can hit the sea zone east of Japan, especially if the UK carrier, a UK fighter or two, and the UK bomber are in position.  If Japan keeps its fleet west of Japan, it slows its development in Asia a lot.  If Japan leaves its fleet east of Japan, UK can hit with a maximum of carrier, cruiser, three fighters, and a bomber on the next UK turn.  If Russia maintained control of Buryatia, US can hit the sea zone east of Japan on US1 with sub and fighter, softening it up for the UK2 attack.

I agree with the main ideas of Bunnies’ post but one thing to take into account is that they are written according to the strat that the Allies will focus completely on Germany.  However, if the Allies are going after Japan with the US, then the situation quite changes from the Japanese point of view.

If the UK takes Indochina or at least kills the fighter then Japan will have several problems at the same time:

• Indochina
• China
• Buryatia (the Russian 6 infantry)
• SZ52 (US fleet)
• UK fleet (usually dispersed but it can still be dangerous on UK2)

It is a big challenge for Japan to figure out what should be attacked and not. I’ve seen this strat (KFJ) quite a bit when playing online and one slight mistake and the Allies can get the upper hand on the Pacific/Asia. However, it does mean that the UK will have to stop the Germans on Africa and on Europe, as Bunnies mentioned.

I don’t have a lot of experience with KJF (Kill Japan First) on either side of the table.  When playing Allies, I tend to go KGF (Kill Germany First) unless Japan loses some major mix of ships and/or air very early, in which case the game becomes more a mopping up operation than a strategic exercise.  Conversely, I have never seen a KJF well implemented against me; the few times I’ve seen KJF attempted against me, the Allied player tends to do one or more things that I consider horrible mistakes, like buying India and Sinkiang ICs but attempting to build an Atlantic fleet with the US, or other such silliness.

Still, I do know some things that the Allies should do, and some things the Allies should avoid, because I know how I’ve stopped players that tried to KJF against me, and I know how I got the ball rolling when I did KJF.

The key points in order are to stop Germany in Africa, to chase the Japanese navy out of the Pacific (almost certainly the Japanese navy should not be able to be straightforwardly destroyed), to keep Japan out of Asia, and finally to take Japan’s income from its islands and contain most of Japan’s forces to Tokyo.  These should be done roughly in order.
RUSSIAN KJF OPTIONS ON R1 (R1 = Russia’s 1st turn; G3 = Germany’s 3rd turn, and so on)

Caucasus naval/air build:

On Russia’s turn, it may choose to purchase a sub and/or a fighter for Caucasus, to threaten German shipping to Anglo-Egypt.  Pro - If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt, Russia can destroy the German Mediterranean navy BEFORE Germany’s second turn comes around, which makes a big difference.  Con - buying a single sub means the attack risks Russian air, and the battle is still far from a sure thing.  Buying more means Russia is spending far less on ground units that it will need to fight off a very aggressive Germany.  If Russia does this buy, it needs to hit Ukraine and West Russia to prevent Germany from trying to smash Caucasus.

Germany has some counters to this.  It can keep its fleet safe by keeping it at Southern Europe and either buying a carrier, or doing certain moves that will discourage attack (such as hitting Caucasus and killing Russia’s fighters if that option is available).  Or Germany can attack Gibraltar.  Or Germany can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air, as well as hurting Russia’s ability to trade territory on R2.

On the other hand, if Germany spends IPCs on navy, that is less that Germany can spend on ground units; if Germany overcommits to navy, the Allies could switch to KGF.

Persia infantry

Russia can send two infantry from Kazakh to Persia on R1’s noncombat (instead of sending them to Caucasus), depending on noncombat purchases and how other battles went.  This means less ground units at Caucasus, and a R1 naval/air purchase requires Caucasus to be well protected against possible German attack, but in some cases the two CAN be combined.

Ideally, there should be tanks and/or fighters at Caucasus too.  This allows Russia to threaten movement to Trans-Jordan and India on R2 with infantry and tanks/air.

This weakens Russia’s possibilities for a R2 attack against Ukraine, so Russia needs to be particularly wary.

Buryatia infantry

Russia can choose to stack six infantry on Buryatia instead of moving them back towards Moscow.  This is a defining KJF move.  The other options given so far - Persia infantry and Caucasus naval/air buy can be used against Germany in any event, but keeping Russian infantry at Buryatia hurts the Russian front against Germany - Russia has six less infantry to help against Germany without Germany firing a shot - and doesn’t do too much to hinder Japan without additional Allied support.  In fact, if UK doesn’t land its India fleet fighter on Buryatia, Japan may very well choose to hit Buryatia.

It’s hard to do much with Buryatia infantry alone, so Russia should move a fighter or two to Kazakh or points further east to threaten Manchuria for R2.

Russia may also choose to move a tank east in noncombat to help threaten R2 attacks against Japanese targets,.  The loss of the tank makes a big difference in Russia’s first attacks against Germany, but can make life a lot more interesting for the Japanese.

Other moves

Russian infantry to Sinkiang, a Russian attack against Norway to try to help preserve the UK battleship against a G1 attack of sub/Norway fighter/Berlin bomber, Russian air to India, Russian air to Anglo-Egypt.  I don’t recommend air to Anglo-Egypt; if someone else does, perhaps they would comment.

KJF (Kill Japan First) cont.

“The key points in order are to stop Germany in Africa, to chase the Japanese navy out of the Pacific (almost certainly the Japanese navy should not be able to be straightforwardly destroyed), to keep Japan out of Asia, and finally to take Japan’s income from its islands and contain most of Japan’s forces to Tokyo.  These should be done roughly in order.”

The Russian air/navy buy potentially slows Germany in Africa by discouraging them from landing on Anglo-Egypt on G1; depending on Germany’s move, UK may or may not be freed up to move against Japan on UK1.

The Buryatia stack is a major threat to Japan because it is an Allied landing zone for air, which contributes to chasing around the Jap navy.  If the UK carrier in the Indian Ocean survives until UK2, UK can potentially hit the Japanese navy with carrier/cruiser/3 fighter/bomber.  US can soften up the Jap navy with Hawaiian islands sub and Hawaiian islands fighter.  If the Japanese hit the Hawaiian Islands fleet and did not destroy the US fighter, that’s up to two US fighters and a US sub that can hit the sea zone east of Japan.

The rest of the moves I detailed go to the point of pushing Japan out of Asia, but the Allies CANNOT do much until they lock out the Japanese fleet.  Until then, Japan will likely have transports that it will be able to use to hit any number of targets at will; the Allies cannot send enough units to fortify every territory against Japanese amphibious attack.

==

Germany responds however it responds; the things to watch for are 1) a German tank in Anglo-Egypt allowing a G2 blitz that cuts UK income and boosts German income quickly, 2) a possible German attempt to hold Ukraine, or attack Caucasus or West Russia; any of those can really slash Russia’s income and boost Germany’s income early.

==

UK responds in turn however it responds.  The things to watch for are UK fighter to Buryatia (making attacking that a very expensive proposition for Japan), potential UK assault on Borneo (too high value for Japan to let go easily), UK India carrier movement (if UK moves its London fighters and bombers east, along with the UK sub at Australia, it can be a huge threat), and the UK Australia transport (usually doesn’t do much, but with a stack of air and navy in the area, it can use Australia and New Zealand infantry that don’t normally get used.  Also, potential attack against French Indochina if the Allies really want to try KJF, although French Indochina is quite risky.

At this point, the Allies want to stop the Japs from building transports in the sea zone east of Japan, and they also want to stop the Japs from landing units at French Indochina.  The first is helped by a stack of Russian infantry on Buryatia combined with UK and US air/naval threats as previously described, but is really conditional on Japan’s moves - if Japan destroys the UK carrier, the major UK threat is removed.  The second can be accomplished by Russian fighters on India, or UK air / UK sub.  The UK sub cannot threaten both the sea zone east of Japan and the sea zone at French Indochina, so the Allies will have to decide.

==

Japan responds however it responds.

Typically I build 3 transports 1 destroyer.  I take it for granted that the Kwangtung transport is destroyed.

I usually hit the US Hawaiian islands fleet with sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber.  The fighter can land on Wake, so no navy has to be committed.  I use the southwestern battleship and carrier to hunt UK naval targets, and typically keep the northeastern battleship and carrier east of Japan.  This leaves five fighters free; four if French Indochina was taken.  Of those, the two fighters from the southwest fleet can’t hit Buryatia, they can only hit China and other targets in the southwest.  (This is why I recommended against leaving a UK fighter on China; Japan can ALWAYS take China at little cost.

The priorities are China, Buryatia, and French Indochina in that order.  The US fighter can be very nasty early on if Japan lets it live.  Buryatia is nice to hit, as is French Indochina, but Allied units in those territories really only threaten Japan’s coastal territories, and Japan can afford to lose its entire coast so long as it didn’t purchase an industrial complex on J1.  After all, Japan can take everything back on its next turn, and having killed most of the opposition in the area, Japan’s future progress will be unchecked unless the Allies are sending a steady stream of reinforcements - which has its own problems as it means Germany has less opposition.

Of course, Japan shouldn’t just let the Allies walk all over its Asian territories on the coast, but even the “worst case” scenario usually isn’t too bad for Japan.  Japan can easily get six ground to French Indochina on J2 (three transport loads), followed by eight ground plus air to India on J3 (one of the transports can pick up from East Indies), which can typically kill any defending forces even if UK built an IC there early.  Only if Russia is draining power to India in a major way is it possible for the Allies to really do anything at all useful in the India region.

==

All strategies that I’ve ever developed for KJF involve the eventual loss of Moscow.  I think it’s almost inevitable.

Oh - the loss of Moscow does NOT mean the Allies have lost, of course.  Moscow is lost in a lot of KGF games in which the Allies end up winning.

Some thoughts on KJF……

I played mostly KJF for my first dozen games or so as Allies, mostly on TripleA live against opponents of varying skill.  I never got to play KJF much on GTO since nobody ever wanted to let me Allies without a silly Axis bid for them.

In general I found that while I did fine against less skilled players, for the most part I couldn’t win with this strategy against experts.  This may be because my strats were too crude.  But anyway I switched to aggressive KGF tactics and found them just as (or almost as) much fun to play, with a much higher rate of success.

Anyway, here are some of my working hypotheses from that time.

-In conjunction with WR/UKR R1, I would use a sub buy + r2 med fleet assault with Russia, sometimes in combo with an air buy (nowadays I would strongly advise against the latter…but at the time I was uncomfortable with the 10% chance that the R2 attack will fail).  The reasoning is that Allies need to gamble early to secure Africa.  If Germany is allowed to blitz Africa, then they’ll have so much cash for tanks that Allies don’t have a chance in hell.  But if Germany’s income is limited to around 40-45 or so, then alot of Axis players won’t be making heavy tank buys (as they ought to against a KJF strategy).  This gives Russia valuable time.

-I have a hard time justifying a FIC attack over an Egy counter if Germany hits Egy.  If Germany has 1-2 tanks on Egy, those tanks need to go…simple as that.  Plus FIC is super duper ueber risky…  What I would do is hit Egy and then go ahead and buy the India factory anyway, and just leave the 2 inf + aa.  My hope was that the Axis player might be tempted to spread himself too thin (i was typically stacking Bury too).  There’s also a 33% of an aa hit if Japs bring 2 figs to ind, and 50% if they bring 3.  In other cases where I was feeling less risky, I’d simply withdraw the 2 inf + aa to Per, and then move them back in on UK2 (if r counters with 2 inf 2 arm, then on average they should take ind back with 1 inf 2 arm, so after uk2 there should be something like 4 inf 4 arm fig aa defending India).

Note that I’ll have bought 2 tanks with Russia and place them in Cauc.  Also, I usually moved the 2 inf in kaz (or at least 1) to per.  So if japan takes India, I would liberate india with the inf/tanks r2, and then build 3 more units with uk on uk2.

I suppose Japan could try to counter these tactics and seize India if they have the foresight to move everything towards India (btw nobody ever did), but in that case I would fight for India aggressively with Russia, and hope Japan being distracted allowed for a big USA success in the naval war, as well as hope that Japan takes big aa losses in the battles for India.   If Japan doesn’t hit China…then maybe a double factory USA1 to really put the heat on (this never happened either).

-I rarely used the Sink factory.  I’m not sure if this was good strategy or not.  My reasoning was Sink is expensive, vulnerable, easy to bomb, and spending there distracts from the USA air/naval offensive.  Further, unlike India, allies can’t liberate Sink for you.  I’d rather spend that money on air power that forces Japan to buy defensive naval units and which can also strafe Japan land units and act as can openers for Russian or UK tanks.

-I used primarily air power with USA.  The key is getting a mainland base close to Japan’s naval production to really frustrate them and force them to spend the majority of their income on naval production or lose their navy and transports.

-I’m on the fence on whether it’s a good idea for Russia to stack Bury with just the 6 inf (ie without the brit fig, which presumably is attacking Egy).  The problem is a smart Japan player might decide that the sub buy + Bury stack=weak as hell Russia and just skip Pearl and go all out for Bry, leading to a quick conquest of Russia.  On the other hand, those 6 inf can be very dynamic and it’s always fun to have the extra options the bry stack provides.

To reiterate, I simply experimented with these tactics.  I don’t recommend them against dangerous opponents.  But I would wholeheartedly recommend them for a F2F game or for something fun and different.

@Bunnies:

Caucasus naval/air build:

On Russia’s turn, it may choose to purchase a sub and/or a fighter for Caucasus, to threaten German shipping to Anglo-Egypt.  Pro - If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt, Russia can destroy the German Mediterranean navy BEFORE Germany’s second turn comes around, which makes a big difference.  Con - buying a single sub means the attack risks Russian air, and the battle is still far from a sure thing.  Buying more means Russia is spending far less on ground units that it will need to fight off a very aggressive Germany.  If Russia does this buy, it needs to hit Ukraine and West Russia to prevent Germany from trying to smash Caucasus.

Germany has some counters to this.  It can keep its fleet safe by keeping it at Southern Europe and either buying a carrier, or doing certain moves that will discourage attack (such as hitting Caucasus and killing Russia’s fighters if that option is available).  Or Germany can attack Gibraltar.  Or Germany can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air, as well as hurting Russia’s ability to trade territory on R2.

On the other hand, if Germany spends IPCs on navy, that is less that Germany can spend on ground units; if Germany overcommits to navy, the Allies could switch to KGF.

I can’t see how any of these options are good compared to simply taking Egypt (and then hoping to get the 10% miracle result in sz15, or to at least kill a Russian fighter).  It seems to me that allowing those UK units in Egy to survive is too much of a sacrifice.  It allows UK to slip the indian fleet into the med…very useful for a KGF.  Moreover, any German spending in the Med seems ultimately counter-productive since Allies have more disposable income for air power then Germany has for navy.

IMO Germany should take Egy, and concentrate on exploiting how Russia will be weaker on R2 given the sub buy and the upcoming R2 attack on sz15.

@Zhukov44:

I can’t see how any of these options are good compared to simply taking Egypt (and then hoping to get the 10% miracle result in sz15, or to at least kill a Russian fighter).

I did mention Germany could ignore a Russian naval/air buy as an option.  “Germany has some counters . . . can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air”.  That is to say, Germany could just hit Anglo Egypt anyways, then allow Russia to hit its German battleship with Russian navy/air on R2, and hope to drag a Russian fighter down.  Probably the confusion arose because I was not quite specific.

As far as Germany building a carrier at Med and fortifying Libya, allowing the UK fleet to move into the Mediterranean, and allowing additional UK units to survive in Africa, it’s the choice that Germany makes when it decides to build a German carrier in the Med - it loses additional irreplaceable German air early, and forgoes the short term strategy of “early ground trading in Europe while fending off the Allied fleet in the Atlantic” for a longer term strategy that concentrates on late game German infantry/tank blocks in Europe, fueled by African IPCs.  Which is not to say that the “short term strategy” is short sighted; it’s just that the gains are more clear and immediate there than with the German Africa game.

At end of G1 you see German battleship, carrier, 2 fighter, while UK1 threat is 2 fighters 1 bomber and surviving UK Med fleet (this is why Germany loses air early; it wants to destroy the UK carrier and destroyer in the Mediterranean).  On G2, if UK left fighters on its fleet, Germany uses its six ground on Libya to take Anglo-Egypt and uses its air and navy to crush the UK fleet, after which Japanese fighters can land on the German carrier to reinforce, preventing US from making a followup attack to destroy the German navy.  If UK didn’t leave fighters on its fleet, Germany whacks Anglo Egypt with six ground plus air, kills the UK fleet, and lands in TransJordan or Ukraine with its German Med transport (German navy/air kills the UK Med fleet; the German transport follows the German Med fleet around like a good doggy and dumps wherever it can to help out).

Moreover, any German spending in the Med seems ultimately counter-productive since Allies have more disposable income for air power then Germany has for navy.

IMO Germany should take Egy, and concentrate on exploiting how Russia will be weaker on R2 given the sub buy and the upcoming R2 attack on sz15.

Both Axis and Allies have to spend their income wisely.  Neither UK nor US want to lose air without seeing some significant gain, as that air is very useful to trade territory against Germany, and to help protect the Allied fleet.  Also, UK and US will need to spend the first few rounds getting set up, whether it’s the traditional naval and fighter buys for UK/US for a KGF plan, or some industrial complex/navy mix for a variation of KJF.  As far as cracking a German battleship/carrier combination in the Mediterranean, it quickly becomes impossible.  Once the Axis control the Suez canal, if the Allies are going KGF, Japan can easily afford to send a battleship and carrier through, for a defensive fleet of 2 battleship 2 carrier 4 fighter.  Add to that the fact that after UK hits, Japan can reinforce with fighters, and after US hits, Germany can reinforce with fighters, and for all practical purposes the Axis Mediterranean fleet is more trouble to kill than it’s worth.  I find it’s usually better for the Allies to put a defensive fleet west of Algeria to help contest Africa, then shift that fleet off to Europe as needed, rather than trying to take on the Mediterranean fleet head on.

As far as Germany exploiting an R1 naval/air buy, that’s fine, but that’s just running the German game along the more commonly seen Europe-Atlantic play instead of the African play line.  If you’re saying Europe-Atlantic is superior to Mediterranean carrier/African play line, I’d appreciate any details you would provide.

I always approach Britain as a supplemental force when playing them. Early on I like to build 1-2 additional bombers and strategically bomb Germany every turn to slow their push on Russia and weaken them overall. Then I try to mount enough of an amphibious assault group so that I can either take, or significantly weaken the territory the US is going to hit later that turn. This works well as the British and US go before Germany goes again.

As far as the India IC goes; I am tempted to build one there every time I play the Brits, but I hold off. In our group, I have never seen that IC last very long, it just ends up being a free IC for Japan.

I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.

By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.

I agree with you on the India IC - it’s too vulnerable, and while it may be used as a part of a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy, I don’t think I’ve seen many KJF enthusiasts on this forum.

@Herr:

I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.

By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.

Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
However a US shuck to Europe requires twice the amount of transporters as the UK.

I am quite convinced that the most feasible UK strategy is establishing an atlantic navy and hit Europe with 8 units per round. The acquisition of early round UK air (figs and bombers) can however be used to slow Japan, so that a UK navy is established later in the game (maybe round 3-4) under the protection of an already established US navy, maybe even at a time when Germany has less airforce and no subs as to earlier in the game.

But the UK bomber always has better things to do than bombing, already from the first turn (attacking in the Med or Africa or some place in the Atlantic).

@jiman79:

Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.

You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.

As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.

The bombers aren’t my end all be all strategy by any means, and I wont buy more than one or MAYBE two. (game dictating) However, at least in our games, it usually takes a few turns before UK and the US are able to mount an effective offense in the West. I use them to hit Germany in the mean time. Then, once we are ready, they  become great support to our amphibious assault and further operations.

@Herr:

@jiman79:

Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.

You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.

As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.

I totally agree in all you said.
The standard opening for UK is to buy AC+2dstr and place them in a safe position according to the G air and navy positioning. Retake Egypt and kill the baltic dstr+trnsp.
Besides fom this I think the best location for an allied bomber (UK or US) is in caucasus.