Uk R1 Egyptian counterattack

@ponef In regards to what? This thread kind of wound up diverting itself in like 3 different directions:

Whether UK should retake Egypt B1 Vs. send the FTR from the India Carrier over to the US Pearl Harbor Fleet. Whether Japan should attack the Pearl Harbor Fleet, the UK India Fleet, or both on J1. Whether UK should attack Borneo B1 or not.

The answer to basically all of these boiled down to some combination of “it depends on how the dice went G1” and “are you playing under WBC Rules or not”. Seeing as WBC no longer runs tournaments for Revised (or any A&A, for that matter), we’re left to assume all games being played will be OOB rules (or at least LHTR), in which case Egypt suddenly becomes much less of a priority in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I got to try the strategy out at the 2018 WBC in one of my games. It worked well for me, as Japan was routinely baited into attacking the USN, losing the TT and the DD in the process. This allowed me to wipe out the remaining IJN Fleet A1 (Bomber from East USA + FTR from West USA + Navy from US West Coast + FTR from Hawaii). This crippled the IJN and let me rapidly come to dominate the Pacific.

17 replys! i really started a good thread here…  :-D …

@AxisOfEvil:

So whens the poll?  I guess it should be phrased like this, if you were playing a 1v1 game, and had the allies, would you choose to start the game with 1 less russian fighter, or 1 less UK bomber.

My vote, ditch the bomber

Poll is up already.

Question is, what is more valuable in the first eight rounds of the game.  A single Russian fighter or a single British bomber (and I chose a piece for Germany, Japan and America too.)

The caveat is you have to take into consideration not only what the piece can do, but also replacement cost, opportunity cost for losing it, function of the piece, what your allies can do to minimize the loss of the piece, etc.

It’s not as simple as 1 nation vs 1 nation.

NO nation should EVER build 2 IC’s in turn 1.

@jsp4563:

My personal preference is for the UK to buy 1AC, 1DD placed in sz6 along with the fighters, the BB & Tp from sz2, and the russian sub. Land the Canadian tank in UK.  Follow that up with US reinforcements (2inf, 1art, 1tnk, 1fgt, 1bmb).  If Germany has his BB & TP in sz13 move the US DD to sz12. In order for germany to carry out “Operation Sea Lion” he has to destroy the sz6 fleet.  To fight through that fleet he will have to divert air units he was going to use during the landing and will probably loose some of the transports.  If he does still attack UK he will be opposed by the combined UK/US ground & air forces.  Doubtful he will prevail.

It’s not just a question of preventing Sea Lion, it’s a question of preventing Sea Lion while maintaining a good position, yes?

Given those moves, the Germans can then attack using Baltic navy and air to wipe out the UK fleet without losing most of its air force in the process.  If the Germans can neutralize the Allies in the Atlantic until they take Moscow, Sea Lion is not so important.  And if the Germans keep most of their air while killing the Allied Atlantic fleet early, the Germans can build even more fighters to threaten the Atlantic.  The Allies have to build new escorts and new transports, which all takes time.  Plus, if the Germans kill a couple of UK fighters, that is going to make a difference in the Indian and Norway fronts.

I assume that the Germans built navy (transports or carrier) and that the UK did not attack, as 1) a carrier build supposes fighters, 2) the battle outcome is not favorable for the UK if Germany builds 3 transports.  Even 2 transports, maybe, 3) this thread is about Sea Lion anyways.

Transport, 2 sub, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 27, count 11.  Or perhaps more, depending on what Germany built; perhaps it built no carrier, but built two-three transports.  I think 5 German transports is a very BAD move, but given those moves you listed, it could actually turn out quite well for Germany given the naval battle.  Even this assumes that the Germans lost a fighter by the end of the turn, which is by NO MEANS CERTAIN without very risky play by Russia or lucky play by Russia.  The attack force is much more powerful with

3-4 transport, 2 sub, destroyer, 6 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 29, count 13-14

vs

1 transport, 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 2 fighters, defense 21, count 8.

The German Mediterranean fleet retreats to support shot against Caucasus and/or Africa, and the US DD can only unite with a new UK build.

whoa ho ho - touche’

You would honestly be saving 1-2 turns by producing fleet out of India rather than SA. Good counter point Jen.

Yes….  And im hunted by the sad fact that i have lost 5 games in a row…  Somehow i see my credability disipate when discussing strategy  :(    :cry:

I dont know who vote for the 8 inf buy, but I think it is not good at all to only buy that. You get no conter-offensive power with those infantry.

I prefer buying one figher in the first round, and 2 inf and 2 art.

I usually send one of my fighter to the East, to help defend india in the first round(s) and to give an offensive power to the grunts i’ve moved to the japanese front. Sooner of later, after the us and Uk are strong enough against Japan, my fighter come back against germany. Having 3 figthers give you the opportunity to trade country with germany without letting him the chance of destroying to much troops.

You can stack a better army behing your line.