The case for a single UK economy

@Leatherneckinlv:

That makes sense…I think 1st edition it was a split…My income tracker I use had UK Pac at 16 and UK Euro at 29

Yea I don’t remember. I know UKP needs all the dough they can get :)

If the Germans have a fleet, they can attack up north from SZ 112 (threatening Karelia, Novo, Arch, Nemestia), there has to be a specific LZ for the fighters to cross which you can threaten or deny as long as you have attacked them on G2 or G1.    Fighters crossing the med have a slow time of it.    Maybe some help can come in the form of making it more inconvenient for the UK fighters to get into Russia in the first place?

I also dislike blowing the Russian NO by having allies hanging out in Russia before its abs necessary, but that could be pretty early in the game.

“Sea Lion”  if the USSR has a fleet and Novogrod, they can keep this threat alive for a long time.  No matter what I want to do with UK, I usually end up buying 6+1 and bringing as many Canadians across as I can.  If I lose any significant ## of fighters, UK has to continue to worry that Germany can bring wave after wave of attackers, which keeps me conservative.  This is why the Gibraltar air base or crossing to Russia early would be difficult;  I don’t have enough fighters to protect UK and project threat.  Once they cross to Russia, they cant cross back…

“Get Cairo”  That sounds awesome but with a UK bid of 10, its not going to happen.  If Germany and Italy build/rebuild navy and try to control the Med, that’s a subtle win for the Allies.  Navy is resource intensive and takes away the armor punch described by the other posters.  Without an added commit, I just don’t see how the Axis can take Egypt at all, there are just too many UK pieces around there.  Germany can fly or bring ships down there but its a 1 way trip, into a dead end trap, and its away from the critical path (Russia)

“Tan Skies”  you are on the right track;  if UK has 6+ fighters it is kicking butt, if not, it feels cornered and powerless.  The key for the axis is to do the strongest opener that doesn’t invite any scrambles, then the UK navy is dead and Germany has most of its air left.  The UK also doesn’t need to lose any (many) fighters during its opener, other stuff can take the casualties.  Its especially good if the airforce from Taranto lives to fight another day (by avoiding the Italian counterstrike, we hope 1 sb 1 French inf 1 tac 1 fighter on Syria?)

@ColonelCarter:

Yes to both. All Pacific territories (minus British Columbia plus W. India) under British control are considered controlled by UK Pacific, even if their capital (India) is enemy-controlled. Same if London is enemy-controlled, India doesn’t get that extra income.

OP noted as First Edition - It’s probably best not to confuse him further by bringing in 2nd Edition map changes in a question that is more broad.

London does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Pacific territories.
Calcutta does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Europe territories.

Money is NEVER transferred between BUT they may share the cost of tech research rolls.

Ty soulfein! ;)

To be clear, you only have to start the battle with all aircraft having a possible landing location, correct?

@Gargantua:

My heart always feels like it Jen.

As Japan I like it when Russia invades.  I strip Manchuria/Korea because if they invade I get extra money and if they dont invade I dont have to go back.  The downside is, I eventually have to invade Russia.

I would much rather crush India like an over-ripe grape early in the game, knock out the Australians and worry about fleet for a few rounds, once I feel secure against America (assuming they sent anything towards Europe so I have a chance to feel secure - in alpha 2 -) then I can dump 50 IPC a round into China/Russia.

So far, in Alpha 3, it seems I don’t have to worry too much about America, they are hobbled pretty well with the loss of an NO in the Pacific.  Could be better, but at least now my opponents are investing in the Atlantic, at least a little.

I see not even you are willing to look into the quagmire of that thread, to extract an answer.

You also need to understand completely, that the FAQ changes like underwear, one minute it’s this way, the next minute it’s alpha this, beta that.

The latest inclination is that an UNPROVOKED attack on the U.K. / DEI brings the U.S>A. into the war.  Mantlefan is right.

Before I believe it was just a declaration of war that would suffice.

@Krieghund:

No, they can’t, unless they’re already at war.  Powers not at war may not move units into territories or onto ships belonging to other powers.

or into neutrals.