Agreed, uniting against Germany is important, but getting your Indian and Australian fleet to the Atlantic Ocean is going to take a lot of turns isn’t it? I think instead of wasting time by transferring your UK Fleets they are better used against the Japs.
But then again, that’s just my opinion and none of you have to agree with me…
Think of your existing units as assets that you can invest in (i.e. reinforce with more units) or expend (i.e. kill off to get some gain).
Look at India/Australia. How are you going to reinforce that area?
The only practical answers are flying fighters or bombers built in London in (quickest), or dropping ground units at Algeria from London (fairly slow but maybe has a chance if combined with US reinforcements) or sailing around the world (frickin SLOW), or building an IC. Now what happens if you build an IC? You have to defend it, don’t you? How do you propose to defend South Africa AND India? The answer is that you just can’t do it unless the U.S. is helping you in the Pacific. Either way, you’re talking about time and IPCs.
Now look at the Atlantic. How are you going to reinforce that area?
A UK/US fleet is relatively easy to defend, doesn’t require IPCs to be spent on ICs, and transports allow you to QUICKLY drop off cost-efficient infantry at any number of different locations in Africa/Europe (i.e. Algeria, or Norway/Karelia/Archangel or Eastern Europe). But you still have to purchase the transport escorts and the transports themselves, and all this requires time and IPCs.
Remember the example of the tanks I gave before. If you build up strongly against Germany, Germany will find it difficult to stop you. If you build up strongly against Japan, Japan will find it difficult to stop you. But if you SPLIT your forces between Germany and Japan, you allow BOTH to ignore you - Germany can ignore you because you won’t have the transport infrastructure to drop infantry into Africa and/or Europe at will (you need to build an escort fleet too), and Japan can ignore you because it takes time and valuable naval units to reach the higher-IPC islands in the west Pacific/eastern Indian. Of course while both Germany and Japan are not focusing on DEFENSE, they are focusing on OFFENSE, and that means a crack of Russia, which is a big problem.
I can see that placing some units in Africa early requires minimal Allied expenditure, and establishing a Eastern Canada-London-Europe connection also requires minimal Allied expenditure, but I certainly don’t see that happening while the Allies SIMULTANEOUSLY penetrate Japan’s islands in the Pacific to the point that the Phillipines and/or East Indies are seriously pressured.
It would be nice if you could use the Indian and African UK units for some sort of low-investment high-return strategy that would bear fruit immediately against Japan, but it’s probably better to just blow up the whole damn UK fleet and concentrate on Germany if you ARE doing KGF. There’s a few different ways to do this - attacking an island or French Indochina UK1, going after the Kwangtung transport and using naval survivors to threaten Japan’s fleet, retaking Africa, attacking Japan’s Solomon sub to lessen the fodder at Pearl Harbor, using the Australian transport to cut off the Japanese consolidation to force a weaker Japan attack J1 or a weaker J2 counterthreat after US1; usually most of these involving UK bomber to Persia or China or Yakut UK1 or to Anglo-Egypt UK1 to assist in retake and further threat against Japan. Those are just a few options of course; you could always do UK1 air build.
But maybe by “using against the Japs” you meant to expend the UK fleet? I’m finding it pretty hard to keep track of what plan you’re discussing; first you’re suggesting a KJF with US support that’s pretty normal excepting leaving six unsupported infantry in Burytia (better to fly UK fighter in to support at LEAST) but then you’re talking about unifying against Germany which suggests a KGF. OMG!