I submit that you have not thought the IC in Egypt strategy through at all
It is easy to say you will just do this or that, but I don’t think you are looking at the economics, fundamentals of strategy likely played by the Axis, and relative combat power and it’s affect on the game.
It seems like you are already presupposing that the Axis have lost, so you can do anything you want.
For an IC and a single tranny it will cost you $23, without even having any men to put in it, although in your scenario you can likely load the first tranny with the surviving troops already there.
For that cost, Germany can essentially build 8 Inf, thus the relative start up cost already puts you in a big hole. Build your IC and tranny. I’ll slap 8 Inf into SE…now what?
So now you’ll need at least 4 trannies, plus the IC, plus a Capitol ship to protect them. Otherwise, you have no hope of even attacking those 8 Inf.
Of course, I’ll scale my actual placements based upon the actual threat.
You cannot simply state…well I’ll divert the trannies from the N Sea. This does you no good, since then Germany does not need to defend its capitol nearly as well, or even EE as well.
It is always cheaper to defend than attack. This is a basic principle of the game. It is also true that when attacking multiple territories it takes more offensive combat power than if you attacked only the single territory, typically even when the same number of total defensive units is unchanged (depends upon total battle size, but you get the point). This is especially true of the UK where the bulk of her offensive combat power comes from her air force.
It is also true that UK attacks on EE are typically softening attacks, designed to set up the 1-2-3 which brings down EE.
It is also true that UK strategy against EE is typically the hit and retreat from Karelia…in order to soften and preserve the UK air on the retreat.
It is also true that amphibious assaults do not have a retreat.
It is also true that the Russkies typically have the largest combat power, but because of turn order you never want them to go first.
Thus, you fool yourself into believing that drawing German troops to SE is in your favour. It is in your favour ONLY if it doesn’t cost you anything.
Instead, you actually weaken the threat of a 1-2-3 on EE. As time progresses and the total number of units increases, there is a greater demand for more offensive combat power on EE. The effectiveness of the Russian army diminshes as they cannot afford the investment in offensive capability.
Thus, over time the drawing of UK forces away from a ground assault from Karelia actually strengthens the relative strength of the German defence.
Since Germany is bottled, they have no intention of actually attacking Karelia…instead they await the Japs. The Allies can out-number the German 1.5 to 1 or even 2 to 1, but if no single nation has sufficient combat power to launch the first assault…well you won’t be attacking will you.
If the UK trannies are in the Med…then Germany itself is not under threat from the UK, and the US alone is not enough, and EE can be drawn down a little as well. You no longer have the option to directly shuttle to Karelia and setup up for the UK 1-2-3 attack, and your attack is much more perilous because you can’t retreat…meaning you need even more combat power.
So, you will need trannies in both the NSea and the Med, plus the IC, plus the men in the Med, plus a Capitol ship.
What is the cost now? And how many German Infantry is that? Basically, I don’t care how much you send/build there…the cost/benefit will always be in the German favour…unless your income is so high that the game is actually already over…you are just playing it out.
The net effect on WE is none. You have as many trannies as you choose to build, it doesn’t matter whether they come from the Med or NSea.
The net effect on Ukraine is none…since Germany is already bottled and defensive, so at most you are trading Ukraine every turn with an Inf or two, which can easily be done from Karelia.
You might have a spare Capitol ship to send. But if its a lone BB with some trannies, I will indeed sac it with either Ger or Japan. Since it needs at least 2 turns to move…I easily see it coming.
If it’s an AC, now you have to keep more Ftrs aboard. A split fleet normally requires more Ftr defence, since two smaller fleets are more susceptible to a sac, than one large one. Typically, one large one frees all the Ftrs to go to the mainland, since you’ll have 8-9 trannies together.
UK Ftrs pinned on AC defence in the Med are actually less flexible than UK Ftrs free to roam Asia/Europe from Russia.
UK fleets in the RedSea is a dream…unless the game is already over. The RedSea is a Jap pond…anything UK there dies.
The moment I sucker you in to leave Egypt and take that risky attack on SE, is the moment I also take your IC with Japan. You’ll need not only an attack force, but a defence force as well. Japan moves after UK remember.
Speaking of that IC…what a nice target she is for Japan…not only can I easily reach it with massive combat power if I want, but I can also roam Africa, build units directly there…and best of all, I can build my Jap fleet directly in the Med. You can be sure it will be the Japs pushing through the canal, building more fleet there and then hunting in the Atlantic.
I guess, you will need to send even more Allied troops down to Africa then…what’s the effect on combat power in EE of that?
I can think of a million reasons why an Egypt IC is a bad idea for the UK. And I cannot think of a single advantage that can not be gained by simply dropping a load in Africa and marching to Egypt then Asia, or through Karelia then Caucusus.
All of this wasted, so you can ‘threaten’ SE, which is almost certainly in Germany’s favour because of the cost.
Shaking my head.