UK often has a tough choice to make in round 1 regarding, where to perform an attack using the India transporter, cruiser and CV+fig.
As I see it, there are 3 options:
Retake Egypt
Attack French Indo China
Attack Borneo
Egypt:
3 inf can be used to retake Egypt along with a fig and a cruiser shot.
Against 2 arm+inf 47% winning with at least 1 inf
20% only fig survives
5% everybody dies
28% 1+ G arm left
Against 2 arm 83% winning with at least 1 inf
9% only fig survives
3% everybody dies
5% 1+ G arm left
Same battle without the cruiser shot:
Against 2 arm+inf 33% winning with at least 1 inf
19% only fig survives
6% everybody dies
42% 1+ G arm left
Against 2 arm 71% winning with at least 1 inf
14% only fig survives
4% everybody dies
11% 1+ G arm left
Against 1 armor the odds are 99% with the cruiser, 98% without the cruiser and if you are using the fig elsewhere,
3 inf against 1 arm has: 82% chance of winning with at least 1 inf
3 % everybody dies, and
15% 1 G arm left.
If the fig is left out of the Egypt battle it can instead try to take out the G battleship with assistance from a bomber from London (18% both air, 45% bomb, 21% all dead, 17% bb survives). If successful this would end Germanys Africa campaign on UK1.
Attack FIC:
3 inf, fig, cruiser shot vs. 2 inf, fig
45% winning with at least 1 inf
18% only fig survives
9% everybody dies
16% J fig left
12% J fig + inf left
Without the cruiser shot, the odds are of course worse, but this also means that you can do something else with your transport and cruiser:
27% winning with at least 1 inf
20% only fig survives
11% everybody dies
22% J fig left
21% J fig + inf left
Attack Borneo
with 2 inf + cruiser
86% winning with at least 1 inf
3% everybody dies
11% J wins
Without cruiser
67% winning with at least 1 inf
5% everybody dies
28% J wins
The Borneo attack has much better odds than the FIC attack, however taking Borneo does not hold back Japan even a single round. J1 retakes Borneo J2 can hit India. But 4 IPCs is quite tempting
FIC is also on the way to Moscow for Japan, however, taking out some of the valuable Japan units placed on the Ãsian mainland can be a huge victory. But only if Japan also is contested elsewhere (Bury+US pacific campaign), so that it is forced to take on risky battles.
The Eqypt attack only holds a direct value of 2IPC. However it effectively hinders Germany in picking up Africa early, which in IPCs is probably 2-4 IPCs the next two rounds (depending on the number of German units there), unless Allies does something else to regain Africa (SA IC etc.)
Nice post. I particularly prefer posts that give percentages and tactical results of actions.
A few minor adjustments/comments.
1. Typical listed results for Anglo-Egypt assume occupation by 2 German tanks, assuming a G1 attack with 2 infantry 2 tank plus air, but as UK has high percentages on the counterattack, I consider Germany to typically attack Anglo-Egypt on G1 with 2 inf 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter or 3 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter, preserving a tank from the UK1 counter. The percentages for Germany’s attack on Anglo-Egypt drop by only a few points when substituting an artillery for a tank at Anglo-Egypt. On the other hand, an extra German tank in Europe boosts Germany’s percentages and threat range quite a lot.
Likely the OP wanted to consider a “worst case” scenario for UK at Anglo-Egypt.
2. There are atypical possibilities not listed. For example, Germans may fail to capture Anglo-Egypt, allowing UK to use the India region units to sink the German battleship. Or the Germans may consolidate at Libya. Or UK may use the India units to fortify an Indian IC.
Likely the OP did not include these much less commonly seen variations. (Or at least, I haven’t commonly seen either.)
3. More than most early resource allocation decisions, UK’s India region units in particular require a broad outlook as well as a finer understanding.
If the fig is left out of the Egypt battle it can instead try to take out the G battleship with assistance from a bomber from London (18% both air, 45% bomb, 21% all dead, 17% bb survives). If successful this would end Germanys Africa campaign on UK1.
I demur; if UK hits the German battleship, it is taking a huge risk. First, there is a considerable chance that UK cripples its air for zero gain. Second, using air against the German battleship means fewer units against Germans in Anglo-Egypt; if Germany is left free to blitz through Africa on G2, the German campaign is far from over. Third, even in the event the German battleship is destroyed, the Russians will need to use a fighter to clean up the German transport, which will detract from Russia’s ability to trade in Europe. (Alternatively if the German transport lives, Germany can drop to Anglo-Egypt again on G2, keeping the Africa campaign alive.)
Consider the alternative in a KGF plan; a US2 drop to Algeria followed by a potential US3 drop to the southwest African coast. Germany makes early gains, but cannot sustain it. Besides, a UK2 or US2 attack on the German Mediterranean fleet gives much more favorable odds on the German battleship (2 UK fighters and UK bomber, and 2 US fighters and US bomber. Specifically UK1 carrier goes southeast of Africa and 2 UK fighters end in West Russia (or thereabouts), and UK bomber to somewhere in Russia, followed by UK2 attack on the Anglo-Egypt sea zone with fighters landing on UK carrier. For US, UK1 carrier build followed by US1 landing 2 fighters on UK built carrier and bomber movement to UK/Archangel, then UK2 carrier movement to Algeria sea zone, then US2 attack on German fleet).
The Borneo attack has much better odds than the FIC attack, however taking Borneo does not hold back Japan even a single round. J1 retakes Borneo J2 can hit India. But 4 IPCs is quite tempting
I agree that Borneo is typically nothing more than a temporary inconvenience to Japan. But Borneo is a huge chunk of income; UK success there almost certainly means a Japanese counter meaning the Japanese will have 2 less units on the Asian mainland early on, plus the Japanese air will be out of position for a little while. Alternatively if the Japanese do NOT counter, UK has a serious income boost for a little while. Given these facts, and the fact that the allocated forces for the Borneo attack does not include air, the Borneo attack CAN be useful in certain rare situations.
For example, suppose Germany takes West Russia and Caucasus on G1, and that the Japanese plan to land four fighters on Caucasus on J1 to prevent a R2 recapture. Since Germany may well have not hit Anglo-Egypt in this example, UK may use its cruiser and infantry to put a bit of pressure on Japan at Borneo, at a time at which Japan needs to focus on extremely quick mobilization in the Asia/India region to support Germany. In the meantime, UK can use its air for other purposes, such as an attempt to recapture Caucasus to prevent Japan from landing fighters.
The Eqypt attack only holds a direct value of 2IPC. However it effectively hinders Germany in picking up Africa early, which in IPCs is probably 2-4 IPCs the next two rounds (depending on the number of German units there), unless Allies does something else to regain Africa (SA IC etc.)
A South Africa industrial complex is awful. If the Allies are going KGF, UK needs a fleet ASAP; pumping money into Africa slashes UK’s ability to project power in the Atlantic. If the Allies are going KJF, a South Africa industrial complex is too far away from the Pacific and India (even if UK doesn’t put an IC on India, India is valuable simply because Japan gets a chunk of income there) and does not produce enough to make a real difference to anything but holding Africa. The only time I would consider a South Africa IC is if each power were being rated based on individual income rather than overall Allied or Axis victory, and if I considered the teamwork of all players involved to be garbage. If Germany and Japan had good teamwork, a South African IC would be a drag on the Allies; if the Allies had good teamwork, a South African IC isn’t needed.
It’s more than a difference of 2-4 IPC. A German tank starting G2 on Anglo-Egypt is almost the entire German campaign in Africa.
First, a G2 blitz through Africa (say to French West Africa) slashes UK income early while boosting German income. Second, German control of Anglo-Egypt on G2 allows the Germans to grab control of Trans-Jordan on G2 thereby gaining control of the Suez Canal. If Trans-Jordan is not countered by UK2, Japan can sail a battleship and carrier into the Mediterranean making the Axis Mediterranean fleet so difficult to sink that the Allies should work around it instead of pouring resources into an effort to sink it.
Third, a G2 blitz cannot be countered. A US1 fleet movement to Algeria or Brazil can be destroyed by G2 sub attack, leaving US forces either slogging through north Africa or stranded on Brazil. So if G2 sees a German tank blitz to French West Africa, G3 sees the German tank retreat to safety before the Allies can do anything about it, at which point the German tank can still be used together with German air to contest and control Africa.
Contrast with a G3 blitz to French West Africa. A US2 landing at Algeria allows a US3 counter to the G3 blitz, reclaiming the territory and killing the German tank, tipping the balance of power in Africa significantly towards the Allies.
All in all, a single German tank on Anglo-Egypt at the beginning of G2 is a huge threat to UK and control of Africa.
One more thing -
If UK has to counter Germany at Anglo-Egypt on UK1, UK often does best not to use all available forces. UK’s forces in the area are very limited. Every infantry that UK preserves can be stacked at Persia to contest German control of Trans-Jordan (and hence the Suez Canal) and Japanese control of India.
Thanks for the responce Bunnies - yes I did not cover every option, just the more frequent ones and an art instead of arm slightly changes odds.
Just to clarify I mean the cost of not retaking Egypt is 2-4 IPC per round (depending if it is 2 or 1 arm).
And in contrast to hitting Borneo or FIC the IPC deficit is permanent so it is both a gain for Germany and a loss for UK.
So individually Egypt is much more valuable than the other battles, and in many cases also less risky. So unless you are planning some sort of KJF, an Egypt attack is more feasible IMO.
Regarding hitting the G battleship UK1, I have never tried it, but I often end in the situation with just winning with one unit in Egypt.
The odds for a Egypt counter + taking out bb are actually quite good. And if succesfull, this effectively kills Germanys hope of significant income from a campaign in Africa. And UK often ends up loosing one fig to this BB anyway on UK2, if this is when you prefer targeting the G med fleet.
This move I find comparable (but less risky) to the greedy G1 opening with both hitting sz2 and the US cruiser +2 Transporters or the Japan version taking out both sz52 and the bb+transp on the western US shore.
High risk, high reward!
Why use the carrier for worthless battles? Take out the Japan transport with it, and take out FIC (if you build and India complex, but hope that the Russians sent a tank, fighter and two inf to back it up…I know, I know…it will take two turns for inf to get there) with the fighter, two inf, and Cruiser. Odds still are against you, but at least eliminate the two inf there if you can for any retalitory. The goal with the carrier is hopefully you can sack a Japan fighter or get lucky with a BB with some rolls…plus this can leave other Japan trans vulnerable, so ensure your American and Brit bombers get positioned in Alaska/Hawaii and Caucus respectively on the first turn so you can possibly hit those trans. If you can keep Japan troops off Asia, you’ve done your job.
