@Jennifer:
No, the attack on the Suez would be:
Fighter from Ukraine, Infantry, Artillery vs 1 Infantry in Trans-Jordan
Fighter from Balkans, Bomber from Germany, Infantry, Armor from Libya vs Inf, Arm, Fig
This leaves you 3 fighters and a submarine for the BB in Sea Zone 13 still.
(I’m assuming the fighter in Ukraine is alive because you put 2 infantry there to make it even harder for Russia to take it. If it’s dead you can do it the same without the fighter in T-J and maybe have your bid in Libya instead.)
“As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine? You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)”
tee heez, it’s like you jacked your own thread. I lol’d.
I think fighter/infantry/artillery against infantry at TransJordan is OK for G1, but inf tank fighter bomber vs inf armor fighter is risky, as is sub 3 fighter vs battleship. UK can counter from India to retake Anglo-Egypt next turn to slow Germany’s progress in Africa, and Germany can’t do much with one unit at TransJordan, or even two, that early - although in that scenario, there are two extra infantry in the Ukraine allowing extra pressure on the Caucasus, so it might work out, although I think that the likely Allied landing in Africa on the first two rounds will put a crimp in Germany’s plans and that dual landing at Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt will therefore be minimally rewarding to Germany. The REAL concern, though, is German fighters - the last two attacks risk bad rolls and early loss of hard-to-replace German air, which is something that I generally try to avoid.