PART ONE:
Since the Germany thread is stalled until I hear from ncsswitch (until I hear whether he has a plan for controlling the Mediterranean with the Allies by G4 or G5), I am starting the UK thread. (Note that ncsswitch didn’t say that the Allies WOULD control the Mediterranean by G4 or G5, I just think that he might have a Really Clever Plan for doing so).
Key territories -
The sea zone northwest of London is safe from German fighters based at Western Europe, but is vulnerable to German fighters attacking from Norway.
The sea zone southwest of London is safe from German fighters based at Norway, but is vulnerable to German fighters attacking from Western Europe.
Anglo-Egypt is the key to Africa. If UK can prevent Germany from having one or two tanks in control of Anglo-Egypt by the end of UK1, Germany’s offensive in Africa can be severely diminished.
India is a territory worth 3 IPC. UK can potentially use this territory as a location for an industrial complex, which can either produce three ground units a turn (to wall the Japanese off), or to produce air or navy (to REALLY wall the Japanese off). Air and/or naval control of the waters around India is important, otherwise the UK makes essentially an Allied island in the midst of Axis-controlled territory.
E. Canada is a territory worth 3 IPC. If UK has an income of 33 IPC or more, it may be worth the IPC to build an industrial complex in E. Canada so UK can ferry 11 infantry into Germany. This is rare, though, and should only be done if UK can be certain of expanding yet further, or if UK already has a good stock of tanks, artillery, and/or air power. (often this can be the case, as UK can buy a few tanks in place of infantry each turn to use up more IPCs) The reason for this is that infantry are not good on attack by themselves, so UK should either get more income (so it can make some artillery or tanks), or UK should already have those artillery, tanks, and/or fighters, so it can use those infantry to best effect.
Norway is a territory worth 3 IPC. Again, if UK has a high income, it may be worth the IPC to build an industrial complex in Norway so UK can produce 11 infantry a turn. Similar as previously written.
–
Since the UK is so wide-spread, the key for UK is really controlling regions, rather than specific territories.
An example, if UK can control Norway, UK will have a much easier time of controlling the sea zone northwest of London, which in turn means that the Allies can spend more on transports that will pressure the Axis, rather than carriers, which simply serve to defend the Allied transport fleets from aggression. Of course, more transports means that UK has a better threat against Norway . . .
–
Also, the UK does not work well alone. This is true for all the Axis and Allied powers, but especially so for UK.
An example, if UK has an industrial complex in India, Japan can focus its power on India, and take control of it (after which Japan will have an industrial complex that is well suited to producing infantry for transport to Africa, or for moving quickly towards the Caucasus). However, if the US has produced a large Pacific navy, and is supporting Russia from Ssinkiang, Russia can afford to divert forces from Ssinkiang to India to help in India’s defense, and Japan will have to deal with the US navy, so will not be able to concentrate all its air and transports on India. (This is KJF)
Or, if the UK is attempting to help contain Germany, it would have to build air and navy to destroy Germany’s fleet, while also building ground units to move into Europe, all while Germany took away UK’s IPCs by taking control of Africa and threatened takeover of London. However, if the US has produced an Atlantic navy with transports, there will be a good number of US infantry moving into London (largely eliminating the takeover threat to London), and the UK can focus less on building defensive carriers, and focus more on building transports, infantry, tanks, and possibly fighters.
PART TWO:
Depending on what Germany did, the Atlantic may be more or less open to Allied control. One thing to watch for is an unreinforced German navy in the Baltic. If Germany built nothing for the Baltic, the UK may be able to destroy most of the Baltic fleet with an air attack. (But note that this detracts from the forces available to retake Anglo-Egypt).
(to be continued, because I forgot how many fighters UK starts with. I believe it’s four; one on the UK carrier in the Indian Ocean, two on the United Kingdom, and one on Anglo-Egypt. Is there another UK fighter on India itself?)
I’m rusty. :cry:
Nope, there’s 4 UK starts with. Two at home, one in the desert, and one on the AC off India.
Realistically, England starts with 3 Fighters. You have to assume you’ll lose Egypt and the fighter there to the Germans. It’s also safe to assume that Norway will be empty or very close to empty. (That’s the problem with debating the round 1 of a nation after Russia, you have nothing in concrete!)
If you go KJF, you have to have an IC in India. Not to mention it’s strategic location near the front, close to high value targets like FIC, Borneo, Philippines and East Indies is the fact you get a free AA Gun to go with it!
If you go KGF, I highly recommend a full scale invasion of Algeria followed up by American reinforcements, followed the next round with a taking of Libya with more forces moved from England to Algeira. This gives England 2 more IPC to offset losses.
A fleet idea I’ve seen work a few times is to hit the British transport with your carrier and destroyer, amphibiously attack Borneo with 2 inf from India, amphibiously attack New guinea with 2 inf from Australia, send a fighter and submarine to the solomons to kill the enemy sub and land the fighter in SZ 52.
This, in effect, destroyes Japan’s ability to fight for a few rounds. Followed up with ICs in India on UK2 and ICs in Sinkiang US1 and China US2 and pressure from Russia with light forces (just enough to keep Sink from falling long enough for America to have a stack there) and you can effectively neutralize Japan in 4 rounds.
A fleet idea I’ve seen work a few times is to hit the British [Japanese?] transport with your carrier and destroyer, amphibiously attack Borneo with 2 inf from India, amphibiously attack New guinea with 2 inf from Australia, send a fighter and submarine to the solomons to kill the enemy sub and land the fighter in SZ 52.
This, in effect, destroyes Japan’s ability to fight for a few rounds. Followed up with ICs in India on UK2 and ICs in Sinkiang US1 and China US2 and pressure from Russia with light forces (just enough to keep Sink from falling long enough for America to have a stack there) and you can effectively neutralize Japan in 4 rounds.
Hmm, I like the aggressiveness of that plan, because if UK tries to run away in the Indian Ocean and South Pacific, she’ll probably lose those units anyway, so why not try to slow down Japan? I never thought of sending the SZ35 ftr over to SZ52, thus adding protection to Pearl. I had to double-check the map, but voila, it can be done.
Very interesting…Â I have always like KJF better anyway (but that’s primarily based on playing the original A&A version), and this is great to see more discussion about it. :-)
You can add to that that the Bomber from E. USA can hit SZ 60, a little known fact in the AAR community.
So you have a japan that’s primed to be crippled. Though, if you go full KJF, I highly recommend forgoing the Borneo invasion and getting an IC in India.
You can add to that that the Bomber from E. USA can hit SZ 60, a little known fact in the AAR community.
So you have a japan that’s primed to be crippled.  Though, if you go full KJF, I highly recommend forgoing the Borneo invasion and getting an IC in India.
Another little known one is that SZ61 is not as safe as Japan may believe.
If Russia has staged 6 inf in buryatia and Japan opts to leave manchuria to Russia (or Russia is set up to hit it on R2), a UK bomber from as far away as caucasus, Moscow or even crazy spots like Trans-jordan or Italian East Africa.
You could even get a little goofy and land the UK ftrs from London in West canada to follow up that US1 attack(ftr, bmr) on SZ60
Good point, Axis_Roll. Never even looked into that. (SZ 61 for me is a fleet staging area of desperation, if I have to put my fleet there, I’m only dragging my feet in hopes that Germany can pull something out.)
You can add to that that the Bomber from E. USA can hit SZ 60, a little known fact in the AAR community.
I have a map out and can’t figure how US bom lands after hitting SZ60. Could you tell me the route?
It can land in Bury. E Can-W Can-sz63-sz62-sz60-Bury.
It can land in Bury. E Can-W Can-sz63-sz62-sz60-Bury.
Wow, I totally missed the small connection between WCan and SZ63 at the top of the map. That almost seems unfair to bypass Alaska! 8-) Thanks, U-505. Off topic, your moniker implies you like playing Germany. With NA I saw a guy take U-Boat Interdiction and buy subs, taking away something like 16IPCs per turn from the Allies. Have you tried that?
Don’t feel bad, most people miss that connection because they are used to classic where Alaska miraculously grows to the top of the board!
Thankfully, they did away with the W. Canada linkage to the Hudson bay. hehe. THough, if it were me, I woulda split SZ 1 into the Hudson and the NW Atlantic and kept the linkage.
First time I played Revised I was Germany, but game went too long (at a convention). I couldn’t finish it, but I was losing. My partner playing Japan had more fun due to KGF. I am hoping to try out Allies KJF when I get the chance. Details like US bom to SZ60 could be handy.
However, Jennifer, you are totally into calculated risks and trying to kill more stuff than you lose in any given battle. I assume US bom to SZ60 only happens if J1 does NOT wipe out SZ52, but how often does that happen?
US Bomber to SZ 60 happens whenever Japan leaves transports unprotected in SZ 60 and I own Buryatia. :)
Otherwise, my bomber lands in Algeria so i can sink the German med fleet.
If you go KJF, you have to have an IC in India
I would only advise this if you make the atack 3 inf, india to French indo china + 1 fig SZ35 to French indo china, and manages to kill atleast the 2 inf´s there, if you fail put the IC in Australia or Southafrica or it will be lost on J1.
@Nix:
If you go KJF, you have to have an IC in India
I would only advise this if you make the atack 3 inf, india to French indo china + 1 fig SZ35 to French indo china, and manages to kill atleast the 2 inf´s there, if you fail put the IC in Australia or Southafrica or it will be lost on J1.
Agreed, but you make your decision whether to buy IC before combat, so let’s say you buy IC and kiil nothing in FIC, where do you put your IC?
Australia or Southafrica depending on what you want to do;
Australia=KJF, US needs to put up shop in Sinkiang and/or build pacific fleet, Ukmoves AC,Trn, Aussies ub+trn to SZ30 (best if this was thought out on R1 so a rusian fig could land on carrier) builds a BB UK2 in australia, and unite fleet if neccesary.
Southafrica=KGF, uses this to stop German advancement in Africa (and might hinder japaneese from conquering it later on)
It can land in Bury. E Can-W Can-sz63-sz62-sz60-Bury.
Wow, I totally missed the small connection between WCan and SZ63 at the top of the map.Â
Yeah - I missed this once too. Unfortunately, my opponent showed it to me with 8 INF, 8 ARM in western Canada. Remember to keep a few good defending US units in west US. It’s a pretty embarrassing way to lose.
I <3 these threads. Seriously.
Ive never quite been able to get a KJF to work properly.
It can land in Bury. E Can-W Can-sz63-sz62-sz60-Bury.
Wow, I totally missed the small connection between WCan and SZ63 at the top of the map. That almost seems unfair to bypass Alaska! 8-) Thanks, U-505. Off topic, your moniker implies you like playing Germany. With NA I saw a guy take U-Boat Interdiction and buy subs, taking away something like 16IPCs per turn from the Allies. Have you tried that?
I have yet to play with NA’s. Nobody here really uses them and some are more powerful than others so it can unbalance the game.
And yes, I do prefer to play Germany, or Japan. Each for different reasons.
As far as UK goes, I think it’s wasteful to go KJF simply because you can’t focus all of UK’s income to Asia. Unless England is exclusively used to build aircraft to support KJF once it has been fortified enough to prevent a German invasion.
Well, I think NAs might be having a renessaince. I’m seeing more and more players pulling out NAs just to add some flavor to the game.
