You’ve made two assumption errors here.
1). Why would you put a better defensive piece out of a key battle as a blocker. I would take a US tpt into sz12 with ground units to take algeria with 2 more ground units into an already weakened German Africa.
I didn’t, someone said use the Submarine to block, I believe it was Switch, but I don’t remember for sure. Anyway, the Transport would be needed to defend England with troops assuming England did not attack SZ 7 and spent all it’s money on navy. That would mean that the only defenders in England would be 2 infantry, artillery, armor, bomber. America would need to bring 2 infantry, artillery, armor, fighter, bomber just to make sure there was no Sea Lion success story. That negates using a transport to block in SZ 12.
I already said I would buy an inf, DD and AC and hit SZ7
so no Transport in SZ7 unless you bought a tpt on G1 (and an A/C to protect that tpt)
UK would have defending:
UK: 3 inf, art, tank, 2 ftr
10 units, pretty good.
Even IF Germany were to go for London, German airforce is greatly diminished, UK could easily take it back and the allied fleet now rules the atlantic.
Also, I do not agree that 2 ground troops in Algeria weakens Germany at all. I can easily block England from attack SZ 13, and retake Algeria and take Egypt with convenience if I want too. However, it does weaken the allies because now they have no units in Africa.
Didn’t germany already NOT attack AES? wasn’t that part of this grand master plan?
Doesn’t UK original AES units + 2 more US units > German units in Libya?
Oh that’s right JENFORZES!
2). Unless both subs hit, UK could lose a ftr to maximize their defensive capability in sz8 (we ARE listing max defenses, right?)
this gives 3 subs, 5 ftrs, 2 bmrs on
3 tpts, sub, 2 DD, A/C, BB, 2 FTR
I see 40% win for Germany.
Losing a fighter makes little sense. Losing the bomber maybe, but you’ll want the fighter for defense in SZ 8, I would assume.
maybe I should’ve said bomber instead (depends on if Germany did buy a transport to still threaten London) . Two american ftrs can land on a SZ8 carrier.
But you didn’t comment on the only 40% win I find. Sounds like a losing battle to me
I STILL say I would trade my entire allied navy in this example for the German airforce and no Germans in Africa.
But that is not the trade you are suggesting. You are asking to trade the entire Allied Navy + most of the allied ground forces (and all but 1 infantry in Africa) without doing any serious damage to Germany in return. Okay, you take out 5 fighters leaving Germany with 2 bombers, transport, battleship. That’s plenty.
Top it off with Germany being able to rebuild fighters cheaper then you can buy carriers and battleships and I fail to see how this trade is in your favor? And that’s assuming Germany bothers. With no real navy to worry about (and two bombers can can reach out and touch any unprotected transports you build, forcing you to build warships first) why shouldn’t Germany and Japan go 100% armor dash for Moscow? Even unbalanced trades where they lose more than the Russians will eventually let them take Moscow and probably before you can get the American transport train up.
What about the ‘opportunity cost’ of not attacking any Russia ground units with German air support? ESPECIALLY if you’ve added a bomber G1 (and tpt and a/c?), your ground unit count might be a bit down.
As the allies, I would ensure I gave Germany PLENTY of targets, especially Russia ground units. EVEN JENFORZES have a limit … (in theory)