Best way to sneak up on UK

Sweet!  Thanks guys so much.

@theace47:

[…]
Now to what I was wondering was what is the best way to keep Japan off of Russia’s back and how much is the right amount of british involvement in Asia.  The way I stall Japan usually is by spending about 10 ipcs on navy and airforce to make the Japanese build a navy or have me knocking on their back door.  I also build an IC in India for the British and crank out 3 tanks a turn.
[…]

The bristish player alone has several options to stall the japanese, but it depends from the overall situation before the british move: Have the russians fortified Buryatia with 6 INF? Has Germany attack EGY such heavy that a counterattack is suicidal? Has Germany set pressure by building many trannys, so that the british have to fortify the UK and have no money left for asia?

If EGY can be counterattacked, then maybe two INF from IND with the FIG there goes to EGY, perhaps assisted by the british BMR. In that situation a IC in India is not commendable.
If EGY can not counterattacked, than you have several options with the asian forces:

(1) First turn overall attack: attack SZ 59 tranny with DD; attack Borneo with two INF from India, supported by FIG (FIG can be landed on CV); attack New Guinea with two INF from Australia; attack SZ 45 with sub. Intention here is to give the japanese to much targets for the first turn attack and get some IPC for the first turns.

(2) Gather all british navy in SZ 30, including FIG, including several INF from India or Australia; options are a second turn attack of East Indies with four INF or moving to SZ 28 and unload troops in africa. The fleet can continue to atlantic theatre or stay in the area, combined with IC in SA, which produce INF/ARM for the first turns followed by naval units and counterattack the Japanese Imperial Navy.

(3) attack SZ 45 with sub and FIG and land FIG at US CV in SZ 52; attack SZ 59 with DD and CV; move australian tranny to SZ 42 and into the atlantic; use the indian tranny to bring two INF to africa via SZ 33

(4) British IC in India and US IC in Sianking. Both must be support by russian troops for some turns. You will not hold these ICs for long, but maby buys time for crushing Germany.

(5) Attack SZ 45 with sub. Attack SZ 59 with FIG only and land the FIG at BUR (only if the russian have stock INF there). Bring the BMR to NOV or EVK. If you can afford, bring the two FIG to WCA. Intention is to counterattack after Pearl Harbour and bring pressure to SZ 60/61, so that the japanese player need protection for his newly build trannys (Note also that both the FIG from hawai and the BMR from EUS can attack SZ 60 if there is a landing place in BUR).

The next options I have seen or use in games, but I would not recommend these against an experienced player:

(6) Attack FIC with INF from India and FIG, land FIG in CHI. Use navy to attack japanese tranny and sub and give the japanese many targets for the first turn. Perhaps the two FIGs survive the japanese attack.

(7) Build IC in Australia and save money, move all fleet to SZ 30, build FIG/BB there and meet with US fleet as SZ 45. The US player also must buy navy at pacific, game will be a KJF. Perhaps you can get some of the japanese island with the british to get more IPC. Problem here is that UK spend many IPC in pacific (and none in the first two rounds in europe), and Germany becomes a monster. Russia is under heavy pressure, and africa may be a problem too.

You also have the option to go pacific with US to stall the japanese, and handle Germany with UK/Russia only, but these is a complete different approach. You may buy two CV and one FIG or CV/BB, followed by heavy sub and/or trannys and FIG overbuild and start island hopping (have in mind that a rightly placed CV can bring 4 FIG to an attack). One milestone here could an american IC on East Indies, pushing the japanese back to homeland and switch to KGF.

Hope that helps …

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

I disagree.  Russia will not fall at all if Japan is at the gates of Moscow because Germany will be at the gates of Berlin.

Actually, the BEST game I ever had was when England went balls to the walls against Japan by landing in Archangelsk, through Russia and into Novosibirsk while Russia pushed into Europe and America worked on Africa and landing in S. Europe (as defined as W. Europe, S. Europe, Balkans and Ukraine.)

This maximized Russia’s income because England liberated land while Russia conquered land and it conserved Russian armies by not forcing Russia to trade with Japan.  This allowed me to get 30 Armor with Russia, and if Russia is strong enough to have 30 armor to throw back and forth across the board with impunity (or very near) then it’s game over for the Axis.

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

With no Bids G1 I buy a carrier, tranny, and 5 guys.  Carrier and tranny go in the Baltic. Land 2 existing fighters on carrier NCM after they make their attacks. Forces UK to buy land forces because I can use the carrier to bring an extra 2 fighters towards a UK main land attack plus 2 extra land pieces via G1 tranny purchase. If not 2 trannies helps to pound northern Russia or retake Norway.  I invite the UK to attack my navy with a carrier/2 fighters sitting in the water or take Norway. Germ fleet is big enough to destroy UK fleet if they move closer to attack Norway before turn 3 with no additional Germ Naval purchases. I use MED fleet/Bomber/Fighter to attack Egypt killing UK Destroyer in process to start into Africa. If you dont take egypt UK can bring India Fleet into MED UK1. Thats bad news.  Kill UK BB SZ13 using SZ8 Germ sub as fodder and 3 fighters. 5 guys get placed for G2 transport movements, 4 in Berlin 5th in Southern Europe. To address the original question I think the channel dash is a real bad Idea. It allows the UK to destroy German Navy turn 1 and link up its India-MED navy. If US and UK have free passage to Berlin with their Navies its over soon for Germany.

good way to delay japan is to play tradeoff with them in Ind (Uk), Yak (Rus), Sin (Us) with whatever inf is available. In the end he will beat you at tradeoffs, but its better than going to an arms race between Russia (getting somewhat pressure by Ger) and Japan. That will definately delay him/her.

G1 Sea Lion is one of the major reasons why Larry Harris Tournament Rules are used rather than the box rules.