Why 1 less UK infantry in Egypt??

@YUMYAM

By the way how did the US bonuses go? Did you get the correct amount? Or did the US 20 IPCs per theater?

@marshmallowofwar @crockett36 et alii

In the Pacific and in general-- BB is the way to go, IMO.

Personally, I prefer CV SUB FIG over either BB or CA/DD in bulk. Having 2-3 BB is intimidating (psychological), has soak (adsorbs hits), has bombardment–and the BBs are the last stuff to survive in a pyrrhic battle where both sides took great losses.

Numbers have an advantage, and so having 2 units might be better than 1 because they are more flexible.

However, the reason the CA (Cruiser) is so weak is that it can’t defend (either itself, or the fleet) against the subshot. Whether this is psychological or odds-driven, all your CA must be given up before your last DD is. Moreover, the DD is required to cover each fleet, and block other squares–so it has a much higher utility value.

I’ve tried to design a “Cruiser Crush” KGF/ATL and it wont work. You need ##s… the small advantage of novelty and bombardments isn’t worth it. With 5-6 CA in SZ 91, you’re going to get creamed, and you’ll have to lose your higher units first!

To broaden the conversation, the cruiser isn’t overpriced…its correctly priced. There are two rules that nerf it out 1) 1 bombard per amphibious unit drop 2) any interference (scramble, killing defenseless unit or sub, prebattle) blocks all shots.

I think all the rules work flavorfully, though imperfectly with one another. So to make the cruiser better, something has to give which is why people try to repurpose or reprice the cruiser.

Summation: Go big, Go BB instead.

@Afrikakorps Mostly agree with Taamvan here – you’ve described an interesting gambit, but it sounds like your opponent fell for your trap by passively consolidating his Italian fleet and leaving it idle.

As other commenters have pointed out, the Axis can completely counter this strategy by using the Germans to clear away blockers, taking Egypt or Gibraltar pretty early and with potentially disastrous results for the British.

Even without German reinforcements, the Italian player can still actively consolidate their fleet by bringing it together in a different sea zone each turn, killing one British unit at a time. Italy-1, you kill a destroyer. Italy-2, you kill a cruiser. Take casualties on your air units or battleships, save your money on Italy’s first turn, and by turn 2 you can build an Italian carrier + sub, or carrier + fighter, or whatever else you need for naval parity. By passing up the opportunity to kill the Italian fleet on UK1, you may lose the opportunity to ever kill off that fleet, and if you follow through with plans to move the entire RAF to the Med, spend part of the UK economy in South Africa / Persia, etc., then Germany will have a free hand in the north Atlantic, and Moscow will be more vulnerable when the Germans are ready to attack it. Basically any time you concentrate the mobile British forces, you need to achieve decisive results within a couple of turns, because events will continue to develop elsewhere on the board, so if you’re merely stalemating the Italians in the Med while losing ground in the Atlantic and Moscow (and perhaps India as well), then you’re not making the right kind of forward progress on the globe as a whole.

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

Thanks for answering my questions.  Cant wait for the game this weekend.

Thank you Teslas for your annalysis.  I had not done the math either.  Our group has used the house rule for a couple of games and it has not deminished the need for tanks nor have we found it to be an overwhelming advantage to the axis.  The UK player has made good use of the rule as has the US players.  I have no mathmatival data to counter your information and numbers do not lie but our rolling sucks…excuse me; inhales vigorously.  I can’t hit a one or a two to save my life some games.  Mechs by themselves do not eliminate the need for Germany to build infintry and I do not feel (I recognize it is just a feeling and an opinion) that they will not eliminate the need for tanks.  Time will tell I guess as we try this rule out.

In your Global 1940 Alpha 2 games, how long does is usually take the Allies to liberate London after a Sea Lion?

How to say…. I do believe it takes more vision and experience  to win woth the axis but if both players have it the allies must somehow steal the iniative to tip the scales in their favor.

doesnt it take until roind two for Anzac to get their bonus anyway? The transport starts off in an unfortunate position.
(I am away from my board so i may be wrong)