First turn UK industry buy in Egypt - how do you counter it

@simon33, certainly the game works with two UK economies and there are lots of things to enjoy about the way that pans out. I’m not saying the game is broken, just discussing alternatives.

One advantage to the unified UK economy that I noticed in the SiredBlood variant is that the Allied player has much more control over their level of risk with respect to Sea Lion and India Crush. Some people (like you?) complain that the UK has to buy 100% infantry on turn 1 to fend off Sea Lion. Other people complain that India is doomed and that the Allies have to make massive, urgent efforts to contain Japan, like maybe a turn 2 Persia factory that pumps out mechs for India. So if you can slosh your economy around, then you can choose which of those two ignominious fates you suffer.

Want to play aggressively in the Atlantic? Build 10 infantry in London and a factory in Egypt; go crazy. Want to play aggressively in the Pacific? Let London go, drop 2 mech + 2 tank in India on each of UK1 and UK2, declare war, and go for a Yunnan stack. It leads to more variety in terms of the opening positions that you can reach, which I like.

That said, I hear you on getting Canadian fighters to Moscow. If you’re not playing with my Supply Crates for lend-lease, and there’s no Sea Lion attack, then Canada could have little or nothing to do.

@Ichabod No. UK Pacific can mobilize facilities only on territories on the Pacfic side of the map.
Rulebook Pacific 1940.2, page 35:

Mobilize New Units

United Kingdom mobilizes its new combat units purchased by each economy at industrial complexes that fall under that economy. It mobilizes its new facilities purchased by each economy in territories that fall under that economy.

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

Thanks.

Our Japan player elected not to use the J1 attack.  America came into the war on turn 2 though.  That worked out well for Japan overall as he was able to establish himself  better in the money islands before having to deal with America.

Germany elected to keep Russia out of the war the maximum 3 turns (Russia declared on his 4th turn).    He now regrets that and wants to play Germany again when we play our 2nd game and press Russia sooner.

Dido what everyone else said.

You should have the Russian minor in Leningrad and prob Ukraine as well a couple turns after you invade Russia, so there really is no need to spend the IPCs up there for redundancy.

You can buy a second German transport for 7 IPCs (cheaper) and move 2 more units (4 tot) through the Baltic and threaten all Russian territories that boarders the Baltic Sea (or even the White Sea sz 127 if you venture out). Besides threatening multiple territories, transports can be used to reinforce or counter attack as well. A 3rd German transport in the water (with some added fleet) will keep the London in a defensive position in the early/mid game too.

Finally as others pointed out a German IC in Scandinavia will quickly draw the attention of the USA. Norway/Finland is already a target, you really don’t want to magnify it IMO.

Regarding Unstoppable Sealion:

I am not saying with any certainty that this would give the Allies a victory, but my face-to-face playing partner and I have had some discussions on what the Allies can do to counter Sealion. We have come up with two possibilities that we have never been able to try and no one has really talked about, much less tried.

1.) Try to sink the German fleet after it attacks the UK. This is contingent on the US buying bombers in the starting rounds and the UK preserving what ever fleet and aircraft that it can.

Under the new rule, Russia immediately enters the war when London falls. So, if Soviets see Germany build a G2 transport fleet, they can build a small fleet in sea zone 127 or 115 so as to take Norway on R3 when they enter the war. Now, the US can fly it’s bombers to attack the German fleet in sea zone 110 and land in Norway. If some German fleet still survives, the UK can use it’s remaining fleet and planes to clean it up.

Problems: What if Germany goes to sea zone 109? This prevents the US bombers from making it to Norway. Possible Solution: Russian build in sea zone 127 and take Scotland on R3 so the US bombers would have a valid landing place. Problem with that: Germany could use a blocker in sea zone 125 or 126. Possible solution to that potential problem: Could the UK position its fleet in such a way on UK 1 so that on UK 2 it places a blocking ship into sea zone 110 and 111 so the only option on G3 for Germany is to do Sealion from sea zone 110?

If the German fleet is sunk post-Sealion, what happens? How badly does this hurt the Germans? Is not enough pressure placed on Japan if the US spends rounds 1 and 2 buying in the Atlantic?

Those were some of the questions my partner and I had. Personally, I think it would be a huge blow to the Germans to lose their fleet because they wouldn’t be able to transport any remaining troops back from the UK to face off against the Soviet for a time (if ever).

2.) The only spot on the entire map that the US can use one set of transports to shuck troops back and forth is Alaska to the Soviet Far East (sea zone 2- sea zone 3). Now, if Germany does Sealion, Moscow survives past round 10. Right? Well, if the US buys fleet and ground for the Pacific, on US 3 (after London falls), they could move to sea zone 3 and offload into the Soviet Far East. From there, mechanized infantry and tanks can make it to Moscow by round 8 (best case scenario). Well before Russia falls. Can they get enough there to matter? I don’t know, but I’d like to try it out. To me, it beats flying mountains of planes since ground units are cheaper.

A few of the positives for this: By having a fleet in sea zone 3, you threaten Japan. Slow walking troops can go to Korea and or Manchuria. The US only needs to build one fleet to have a real effect and place lots of boots on the ground. It also helps the Russians maintain their income from all of the territories in Asia…. a real bonus in my opinion.

I would love to try these ideas out on my own, but I have a newborn in the family and that precludes me from playing for the foreseeable future. Guys and girls, give this some thought. My partner and I believe there could be some validity to these two ideas.

Keplar galvin is correct.

It goes to the European economy.