OK Jen, so you sent all your fighters into Karelia and took it strong. I take it that UK has all their navy still in tact and still has Egypt? You didn’t mention any other battles so I have to assume this.
First, let me say that something has to be wrong with your logic. I don’t see how Germany still has 5 fighters since they start with 5 and on average 1 fighter will be shot down (not 0). 1 fighter being shot down will result in 1.5-2 hits less by the Germans assuming the battle goes for 3-4 rounds. Maybe then only 5 arm and 4 fighters remaining would be more accurate given the rest of your assumptions.
To make things simple let’s assume Germany ends up with 6 arm and 4 fighters. The fighters have to land elsewhere, which leaves 6 armor in Karelia. Since Germany used all the fighters in the battle for Karelia, UK can apparently counter-attack with 1 BB, 2 transports with 2 inf and 1 arm, and 2-3 fighters (however they see fit) and a bomber. Let’s assume that with whatever force UK decides to attack with, the UK ends up retreating the remaining airforce left after 1-2 German armor remains. Russia may then attack on R2 with 3 armor and whatever inf were not left in Karelia at the end on R1. Jen, you never told me how many inf you assumed Russia left in Karelia so I don’t know what I’m dealing with in terms of a Russian counter-attack.
Anyway, long story short, if Germany atttacks Karelia on G1, they will have unprotected armor in Karelia. The Allies should try to whittle this down. This will make the German assault to Moscow come to a screeching halt even if Germany survives the UK and Russian counter-attack with a couple armor left. Germany cannot realistically count on taking Moscow without the armor they start with.
People who seem to be against this strategy are apparently just writing that Germany can take Karelia on G1 and thus the game is over. I think people need to think a little more long-term here or at least state why it’s apparently over for Russia if Germany takes Karelia with 6 armor on G1.