Good Value for UK scramble T1

@MarshmallowofWar that is correct.

@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…

Sometimes I find the units on the transports more valueable to eliminate than the transport itself.

In a RARE occassion, someone might opt to NOT scramble against such an attack, and let the infantry be destroyed instead!  :evil:

Its a pretty straight forward setup:

Attacker declares ALL combat moves and then you request defender to decide on Scrambles/Intercepts.  This indicates you have concluded all your combat moves for the turn.

At this point, the Attacker has passed the point of no return and is stuck with all the decisions just made.

You’ll get a lot of mileage out of requiring the attacker to request scramble decisions with the understanding it indicates they have concluded all their combat moves.

In the case where there are no scrambles, just require the attacker to announce something along the lines of, “That ends my combat move phase.”

Generally it is VERY important when playing in person to make sure you announce the transition of the phases and don’t muddle up combat and non-combat moves.  Not saying people all cheat, but it sucks when you lose track of unit movement and end up double moving something that impacts the game dramatically (like moving a bomber to Hawaii in your combat move phase and then non-combat moving it in the same round to one of the smaller islands and now being in striking distance of unprotected Japanese TT which should have been safe but now are not).

Generally I send 2 ss to SZ 111, 2 to SZ 106, and 1 to SZ 91. Killing the cruiser is nice because it gives Italy a bit more freedom, yet killing the trans & sub in SZ 106 is more important IMHO because it slows a canadian reinforcement army and gives your subs more freedom as UK will only have 1 dd. SZ 111 is necessary because you don’t really want to trade airforce for a bb and dd, especially since UK will likely scramble because you have no way of soaking up hits, while they have 1 free hit.

well, italy runnign wild is EASILY made up by the fact that germany made 70+ ipcs worth of transports that will hardly do anything to help him vs russia besides threatening Novgorod.
With US entering the war soon, italy will be beaten, you would just need to conserve your afircan forces and try to slow down or contain italian advances.  You dont need to hold egypt, you just need to prevent him from getting too much more.  Usually of germany tries to sealion, Japan does not bother you on J2 to prvent US from entering earlier.  The extra money you wil collect from controling your stuff in the pacific can be used to make stuff than can reinforce persia.  Eventually when germany is going full bore on russia, you can just leave a strong garrison on uk and start wearing italy down and investing your money into africa/persia from the europe side.

@Gargantua:

So there is a DEFINITE seperation between invading a Friendly Neutral, and a friendly/allied territory.

That is what we’re currently trying to determine.

@kcdzim:

A) if the US controls finland (or has fighters there), it’s no longer neutral.  It MUST be at war to be in Finland, no other way around it.
B) if any axis power declares war on Russia on the Europe side of the map, Russia is no longer neutral (it’s at war with someone, so it’s a friendly power to the Allies).
C) Declaring War occurs at the beginning of the move phase, and scrambling occurs at the end (at which point Russia is at war with at least one Axis power).

So in your example, as Russia is not neutral, and the US is not neutral, US planes in Finland can scramble to the seazone against an attack on Russia.

Correct, except that TheDefinitiveS said “UK”, not “US”, but that is a minor point.  Either way, the scrambling power is at war.

@kcdzim:

Neutral non player powers are different, in that they never automatically flip to a side, they just change to “friendly neutrals”.

Not exactly true.  When attacked, they join the opposite side from the attacker.

@kcdzim:

And even “friendly neutrals” require a non combat move into them to take control, even after they’re forces have been activated by a failed enemy attack.

After being attacked, they are no longer neutral, but friendly to the opposite side from their attacker.  However, the territory and forces are uncontrolled, as you say.  The question at hand is the timing of this status change.

@kcdzim:

And a friendly neutral is not the same as a player power not yet at war - they have completely different diplomatic rules.  For example, if Russia is not at war on the Europe map, Britain CANNOT noncombat move through their spaces.  It is NOT the same as a friendly neutral, for lack of a better term it’s a Neutral Power, completely different than a Friendly Neutral or a Strict Neutral.

Correct.

Great summation Daedelus