@Afrikakorps:

Russian attack force Finkand R2 will be:

1 tactical
2 fighters
3 tanks
1 artillery
11 infantry

Yes Germany can counter reinforcing Finland with airforce, but my experience is Germany luftwaffe is active around the med in G2.

The other option is a R3 attack of finland, building 3 art in R1. Then its
16 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 4 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tactical

Actually R3 is wiser I think, do you agree?

I am short on time and will come back to this more in-depth later. By the way I am not trying to be a DB, I simply love playing devil’s advocate.

You state in your original strategy that it will most likely be a GDOW on Russia T2. You have just stated that you plan to eliminate Italy first. How do you intend to do this while still blocking a potential Sea Lion, while also building fast movers in South Africa to dominate Africa, and while also defending Scandinavia with fighters?

You have just shown that Britain is spread way too thin. Also, Axis can simply bomb the harbour of Gibraltar and you are now unable to operate deep in the Med like you stated above for another turn. So it is more likely that the US Pacific fleet will not be a threat until at least T3/T4 by which time you have either been Sea Lioned, Egypt has fallen, or Scandinavia has been slaughtered and Russia is wide open. In the event that You were Sea Lioned, Scandinavia is lost as well no question and, therefore, so is Russia. In the event that Egypt has fallen, Italy is now able to breath while Germany kills Scandinavia because Britain is now hurting for cash. In the event that Scandinavia falls before any of the above Russia is essentially lost, and the Axis can now meet the US landing head on.

All the while Japan has not even been scratched.

You just cannot choke Germany fast enough for this strategy to work.

@Afrikakorps:

Actually it is KGF, so USA, UK and USSR will play extremely aggressive against Germany focusing to take Scandinavia as soon as possible.

In the pacific the Allies make sure they don’t lose by giving Japan headaches annoying and counter-attacking everywhere it does not expand to. Yes I will lose some places but it will not be enough for Japan to win the game on time.

Scandinavia is balancing point between Germany and Russia. As soon Russia gets it (because massive USA bombers + UK aid and combine this with Iraq and Africa profits they well be able take on Germany.

Main point is not to see Russia as the big victim but as the big potential that can get USA like incomes without even taking German countries (besides Scandinavia). Of all places, Scandinavia is most difficult to defend for Germany, especially whem USA bombers take out the baltic fleet.

Every action has a reaction. In your plan you have not mentioned Italy. The reaction, or consequence, of a massive allied effort in Scandinavia, which is a long shot in my opinion, is a more powerful than usual Italy who will take the Med+Africa+ME virtually unopposed since Britain has sunk its production into the European theatre. America having produced bombers exclusively will not be able to pressure Italy nor will Britain. Once Italy has taken the ME, eliminating the extra income you claim will equal the Russian odds with Germany, it will be making a lot of money, money which does not need to be spent on naval units since US built only bombers, and the Southern flank is now extremely vulnerable. Do you leave your units in Scandinavia? Or do you pull back to Moscow? If you pull back to Moscow, then your plan was a waste because you are no further ahead and very exposed with no one coming to your aide any time soon. If Britain looses ME/Africa, it is not capable of conducting relevant warfare and the US bombers can only do so much without land units.

As the old saying goes never put all your eggs in one basket. I’m not saying that individual powers should not go all in against a select opponent, I’m simply saying that each power needs to be checked by an opposing power. Italy, contrary to popular belief, is a power. Especially if you let it become one.

I have to agree with what was written above as well. By investing so much Russian income into fighters, you’re really giving Russia away to Germany. Careful, you’re on a slippery slope. Especially if you say your opponent builds up first as Germany since you will have no infantry stack big enough to prevail over the German onslaught.

Except your factory will be bombed out preventing those builds and the Russians planes won’t make a difference, Calcutta falls like a sack of bricks. The fact that you’re declaring war on Japan as the British also plays right into Japan’s hands since now they can wait the full term before going to war with USA. That means that all efforts can go against Calcutta with little negative impact.

@Afrikakorps:

@MEANWHILE:

How can Russia land in China while neutral?

They declared war on Japan in R1 by moving in 1 tank and 1 mech. infantry from Volgograd to Sikang.

Got it. In that case, Japan simply builds transports, moves back to the coast, and takes French IndoChina T1. T2, still ignoring Yunnan, Japan loads all transports and sends fleet+loaded transports to coast of FIC, taking units from Japan proper or the coast. The airforce also lands on FIC. For T2 Japan builds airbase+naval yard on FIC. T3, still ignoring Yunnan, Japan swings to Calcutta and the whole Yunnan gambit was an utter failure, even if the British used blockers since Japan will be there the turn after or after with the bombers it built T3 and the 10 factory on Calcutta will be bombed to the ground with no money to build.

In sum, your gambit can simply be ignored.

How can Russia land in China while neutral?

@Afrikakorps:

China gets enough time to remain annoying for Japan by playing cat and mouse in the North

I don’t understand your obsession with keeping China alive “a few extra turns.” What will this accomplish? How can China alone put any sort of pressure on Japan that Japan cannot handle even if it is occupied with Russia/India. If Japan is operating effectively in Indo-China, then chances are the silk road is closed and China has no offensive punch whatsoever. Effectively if one wished, they could win the game by ignoring China completely and letting them survive the length of the game. As long as there is infantry on the coast and the swinging Japanese airforce, as well as the coastal bombards, China is pond scum. Prolonging China has no bearing on keeping Japan at bay. One can make nearly the same amount of extra income by taking Russia’s Eastern territories as one can by taking out China.

As for the bombers, I have one thing to say to this: Bombers cannot take territory. Even if the USA has enough bombers to eliminate any stack on the board, it is all for not if the axis can double or triple team Russia. Once the two front war for Germany is gone the game is virtually over, since the USA has now invested everything into bombers and has nothing coming behind and it is now too late to start building.

@larrymarx:

2. Britain takes both Iraq and Persia in the first round. They are pulling units from the Pacific, meaning that they have more of an advantage in Europe. They must take advantage of that and get control of Africa and the Middle East. The plan is to eventually divert units so that India doesn’t fall. Moscow is in a lot of trouble so the western Allies must keep pressuring Europe. A strong Britain combined with the American fleet attempt to divert German resources away from Moscow to make up for the extra income they aren’t getting from Africa and the Middle East.

Why are they pulling units from the Pacific? It is possible that Britain Europe takes Iraq T2 with the Inf from Persia, plus the inf dropped by the tranny off of the coast of Egypt T1 and a plane or tank. This is the better course of action. Why would you pull from the Pacific theatre?

@larrymarx:

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.

This is one which I find highly debatable. In my opinion, the ME is much more valuable and practical in British hands. It is a waste of time for Russia to go down there. The juice is not worth the squeeze me thinks. You may gain the units from Persia, but will loose some taking Iraq. Plus your units are now out of position in the event of a Nazi invasion. Giving the extra income to Russia only deprives Britain.

I think the bigger question is when should Sea Lion be aborted?

Should one abort all plans for Sea Lion if, say, Italy is diced hard in the Med and lost the majority of its transports/fleet?

Probably, because one would assume that the main goal of Sea Lion is to stop the Brits in Africa so that Italy can rapid expand. In this case, Germany is better off going after Russia. The argument can be made that one is, at the very least, gaining the British IPCs, but in reality one has gained nothing since one will not even be able to re-build the airforce and, thus, leaving one to struggle on the eastern front and unable to repel the coming American wave.

If the Germans take too long to assemble the units required for a sure thing Sea Lion, it should also be aborted. As mentioned above, by this time, the US, in theory, will be too potent.

What if Germany lost an abnormal amount of planes during T1 or T2?

Sea Lion should most definitely be aborted.

As a UK player, one should also note all of the above because these are all tells as to Germany’s capabilities. If, for example, Germany lost a lot of aircraft in T1, one should conclude that there is a Sea Lion reprieve and can focus on Africa.

In sum, if one is playing as the Axis and is wielding a weak, transport-less/fleet-less Italy, then what would be the point of Sea Lion?