@Vance:
Yeah if I saw the allies do this I would forget about any kind of sea lion and go straight for Russia on G2. Â Even if UK fails to build a single unit to defend London, the USSR would be an even juicier target because they basically miss out on a whole turns worth of ground units. Â So in a sense it does “save” London by offering the Germans an easier meal.
This goes along the lines of:
“I can cure cancer. See, if you drink this gallon of Liquid Draino then you will not die of cancer! Of course, you’ll die of poisoning, but I saved you from dying of cancer!!!”
In other words, it does not help if the cure is worse than the symptoms.
@Vance:
I do think it is possible to sink the German fleet, even without Russia’s help (the key is to have landing spots in Scotland and Eireland that Germany can’t take because getting them both would dilute too much from the attack on London). This airstrike would be a pyrrhic victory though, because without building much of anything on the Pacific side, Japan will soon have Hawaii and then Sydney with a VC win coming rather quickly. Its like a strategy where each of the allies are competing to make themselves the weakest in order to save the others. Passive aggressive I guess.
Again, I think there’s a flaw here. Germany can spend 60 IPC on fleet to stop this attack. A couple ACs to land fighters on and there is no attack by America - yet if America sets it up, they’ve pulled valuable resources from the Pacific.
2 Carriers gives you 3 total, + BB + CA and let’s toss in a destroyer as well - for grins and giggles, and you can easily have 6 aircraft, 3 carriers, battleship, cruiser, destroyer (and submarines that dont count against air attacks) for a total of 16 hits you can absorb. I just don’t see America having the firepower to do this - not without completely abandoning the Pacific and if they are doing that (and it should be pretty self evident by round 2) why isn’t Japan staging an invasion of Alaska/Hawaii with future landings in W. USA?