British counterattack in EGY on UK1

[AxisOfEvil]

However, Italian East africa can be hit by the japanese. I like french Equatorail Africa if i bring the bomber.

[Corbeau Blanc]

I was about to mention same thing Adlertag said. I normally end up landing 2 fighters and 1 bomber in lybia as the Germans.

If i get my 8 bid, 2 med transports, i take TJ and AE  G1.

But let’s say TJ is not taken, it’s still the best place to land if you moved some Russian infantry in Persia R1. Granted, you need to plan ahead but by G2, UK fighter and bomber could have 2-3 russian infantry backing them since R2 get to move Persia to TJ before G2.

[Funcioneta]

Armor is best. You can send them in R3 and then back to caucasus in R4 (unless germans have so many troops they can toast Israel anyway)

[Romulus]

R3 maybe is too late, it should be sent in R2 to cover the bomber and the fighter in TJ.

Borrowing the Word of Emperor Mollari:
Russian Tanks, UK fighter and UK bomber all in the same territories (or package) how efficient of the Allies…

I mean Germany will throw at TJ all the available units at hand!

[Corbeau Blanc]

Well, UK2 did retake AE in this case. German AE units are dead.

What German units can they send to TJ outside of bringing in some more with transport(s)?I say transport with (s) since I don’t see Germans able to retake TJ without additonal transports in Med.

2 ground unit with 2 fighters and 1 bomber will not punch easily trough 2-3 infantry, 1 tank, UK fighter and bomber. Certainly not without heavy losses and at any rate, it’s easy for Russia to figure out what is needed to stop a retake of TJ. They play first, send 1 more tank and even one fighter R2 from caucasus at worst case, Red fighter will still be in range to swap Ukraine.

[Funcioneta]

@Romulus:

R3 maybe is too late, it should be sent in R2 to cover the bomber and the fighter in TJ.

Borrowing the Word of Emperor Mollari:
Russian Tanks, UK fighter and UK bomber all in the same territories (or package) how efficient of the Allies…

I mean Germany will throw at TJ all the available units at hand!

Yea, it’s R2, my mistake. But in a KGF, you can have 1 fig, 1 bomb, 1 per inf for uk and about 3 armors for soviets. That’s 6 units, so, or germans have at least 2 trannies in Med Sea, or they need tons of planes, and this means uk inf and sov armors traded for germans figs. As Germany, I’d think two times before launching that attack with only 1 trannie

[Romulus]

@Corbeau:

Well, UK2 did retake AE in this case. German AE units are dead.

What German units can they send to TJ outside of bringing in some more with transport(s)?I say transport with (s) since I don’t see Germans able to retake TJ without additonal transports in Med.

2 ground unit with 2 fighters and 1 bomber will not punch easily trough 2-3 infantry, 1 tank, UK fighter and bomber. Certainly not without heavy losses and at any rate, it’s easy for Russia to figure out what is needed to stop a retake of TJ. They play first, send 1 more tank and even one fighter R2 from caucasus at worst case, Red fighter will still be in range to swap Ukraine.

From where come from the 2-3 inf? If there are 2-3 inf there I will not attack for sure! :)
By the way if there are 2-3 inf there why sending in Russian tanks?

We are considering sending in russian tanks instead of Infantry. I have only said that if there are only “premium” units in TJ it is a good opportunity for Germany.

[Corbeau Blanc]

From my very first comment.

I always reffered to 2-3 infantry R1 to persia and R2 to TJ. Weither or not you send extra tanks R2 is your choice. But i guess we understand each other.

[Jennifer]

Honestly, I’d only counter attack Egypt if Germany took a pounding or did not have a bid in Africa.  The risk to the bomber is too great for England, in my humble opinion.

However, if I did the attack, I too would select Italian East Africa for a landing zone.  It allows you to pose a threat to the Japanese fleet (not a credible one, but a threat); to counter attack in India or attack FIC; or to move quickly to assist in attacking the Germans if they unify their fleet in SZ 7.

Though, to be honest with you, if Germany has 2 fighters and a bomber in range of IEA, I wouldn’t even bother.  In my opinion, the British bomber is the most valuable unit on the game board followed with each of the Russian fighters. (The Russian fighters would be most important if Russia only started the game with one.)

[captainjack]

@Adlertag:

@Crazy:

I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

[Jennifer]

@captainjack:

@Adlertag:

@Crazy:

I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)

[captainjack]

@Cmdr:

@captainjack:

@Adlertag:

@Crazy:

I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)

I agree with that, Jen.  I meant as long as Germany’s bomber(s) stay in Germany.  If Germany had a fighter only in Libya, I don’t think they would chance it, do you?

[Jennifer]

@captainjack:

@Cmdr:

@captainjack:

@Adlertag:

@Crazy:

I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)

I agree with that, Jen.  I meant as long as Germany’s bomber(s) stay in Germany.  If Germany had a fighter only in Libya, I don’t think they would chance it, do you?

Sure, if Germany only had the one fighter in range, I’d drop the fighter and bomber in IEA.  Maybe even if Germany had two fighters - maybe.

[Romulus]

@Corbeau:

From my very first comment.

I always reffered to 2-3 infantry R1 to persia and R2 to TJ. Weither or not you send extra tanks R2 is your choice. But i guess we understand each other.

Agreed!

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

Blasphemy!

Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

Blasphemy!

Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

No, because there are two of them but only one British bomber.  That means the British bomber is more important because each of the Russian fighters has importance.

The second is one Russian fighter, and third most important is the third Russian fighter.

[Funcioneta]

UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.

[allies_fly]

@Funcioneta:

UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.

To me, your post PROVES how important that piece is.  In what way?

The russian fighters are so important, they get REPLACED if lost.  The UK bomber, however, is not replaced… it’s EXPENDABLE.

[losttribe04]

Jen I am not trying to pick a fight I just want to understand your point of view.

Why is the UK BMR more important then the one in the US or (more so in my opinion) Japan?

Japan is also an island nation that could benifit from this long range unit.  Also Japan has a lower starting income then the UK making it harder to replace if the player chose to do so.

LT

[Romulus]

I use “intensively” the UK Bomber and I do not feel “lost” when it is downed. I agree with allies_fly, it is an expendable units. Losing even a wing of one Russia fighter is a much grater dramatic situation!

Moreover in many games I bought up to 2 bombers (for a total of three) with UK. In a game after having destroyed the German fleet with them I used the bombers for SBR the Germany, and luckily they were never shot down, but if they were I have not given up, for sure. Usually I do not attack baltic fleet in UK1, if it stay at home, and prefer to add some bomber to the RAF, for attacking in UK3 or UK4. I think that RAF is, complexively, the more inportant force for UK.

I think that other single UK units are more important than the bomber. The BB for example. The Indian AC. (The Indian AAG.  :-D)

Nonetheless, I do not commit bomber in battle, like AE counter, were it can only land in dangerous places. One thing is to consider expendable a unit another thing is to leave it exposed to attack, poorly defended and without obtaining nothing in exchange.