UK opening strategy
Sorry for the poll, it wouldn’t let me post with out it for some reason.
I have been thinking of a UK opening strategy, and will be trying it this friday. I was wondering if anybody has ever used this strategy, or if you think it would work in the long hall. The focus is keeping Africa, freeing up Us from the dark continent, and then helping Russia from Japan with mimimal support
Opening buy would be an IC, Tranny, Inf, and Art. Placing two inf on the Australian Tranny, and moving the Tranny and Sub two spaces toward South Africa, combining the the fighter, AC, and tranny from India. Use the Destroyer to take out the Jap Tranny. Place the IC in south Africa.
Next turn would be to land the Inf in South Africa, Plus buy two tanks, and the fight on the AC for support. Do you think this would be enough to keep Africa with out US support, and would it be enough to move thru Africa to help Russia keep Japan off their back side?
Off course other moves and buys would be made, focusing on what your doing in London, and the Atlantic, but I wanted to see if this part of the startegy would work.
Yup, and it’s a pretty good strategy too, btw.
There’s a lot of nay-sayers out there that say that the S. African industrial complex will fall to Japan or that you’ll lose too many units in Africa to make England viable. Those people either do not know how to play a non-traditional game or have not tried it. The Complex has never fallen on my watch and once you own Africa, you don’t need to use the complex anymore.
I’d say that America may want to go through North Africa while England focuses on reinforcements to Russia however. (Dropping units into Russia from SZ 4 and running units through Egypt and up to Caucasus with America.)
Guest last edited by
I am going to agree with one of Jen’s recomendations here (mark your calendars!)… if you try this, you ARE going to want USA support in North Africa, at least a few units early.
If you do not have Allied landings in Algeria early (like Turn 1, Turn 2 at the latest), then Germany will have already gained substantial income in Africa as they advance through several sub-sahara territories. UK will be trading Rhodesia and Germany will have everything north of there.
With US support via landings in Algeria, Germany is never going to be able to get enough force south of Egypt to make any real income in Africa (the cost of units expended will be greater than the revenue gained).
HOWEVER… If Japan makes an early move toward Africa in a major way, that entire equation can change…
I’m wondering if the Ic shoudl even be a buy, since US still needs to be involved in Africa. So my idea is the same but no IC buy, and the fight takes out the Jap sub south of Pearl Harbor, then lands on the US AC to help defend from pearl harbor parts 2. The UK fleet can then move around the S.Africa tip and join the US/UK fleet in the atlantic.
Think this would be better?
Just thinking out loud here, but the lack of destroyer means the japanese could take out the linked fleet in sz30, including the infs, with relatively minor losses (~2 fig instead of ~4). But this still limits the resources available to go after Pearl, China and the sz59 destroyer, so japan has some interesting decisions. Can someone who is better than me at sketching these scenarios out tell me…What else could japan hit if she went after the sz30 fleet without the DD?
I have played that senario out in my mind, They would be able to attack China, but not pearl harbor, if the attacked the Uk fleet. I was thinking all of those units area throw away any way.
Thoughts are the UK can move some units into africa and combine there fleet, or the US doesn’t get wiped at pearl harbor and combines their fleet.
The Jap Tran needs to be killed, buy the Uk Destroyer, if this becomes a decoy, the US will be stronger that much quicker. In the past the unit on Australia, don’t do anything or get killed, and the Indian AC doesn’t really have much use. I’m looking at them being useful for something, in both senario’s.
Japan has one choice between US fleet in Pearl Harbor, with an added UK fighter, or attack the UK fleet south of India with the Battleship, AC, and 2 figthers. Japan should lose 2 fighters and/or the ac which could cost them more than if they attack Pearl Harbor.
In my game seeing who is going to play Japan, he will still attack Pearl Harbor and leave that fleet alone. He always goes with the better odds, and has yet to lose in our group.
Actually if the fig is in pearl, that fleet can be sunk with an “average” of only about 1 casualty if the BB takes the first hit. But with no real fodder there is certainly significant downside risk for japan if the dice start to go bad.
Yeah, if the ftr goes to Pearl, and assuming the UK ftr did sink the Sol sub (only 50% chance), Japan can counter (if they wish to attack sz 30, pearl, and chi) with a DD, 2 trn buy and…
Attack sz 30 with 1 ac, 3 ftrs, 1 bb
Attack Pearl with trn, dd, ftr, bom, bb
Attack Chi with 7 inf (or whatever Asia inf you have), 2 ftrs
Depending on the Japan players risk level or what they deem important they could only go 1 ac, 2 ftrs, bb to sz 30 freeing up more units for Pearl.
Japan can ignore the Sz 59 dd since it isn’t really any threat and would be much easier to sink on J2. With 2 extra IPC (if they got any portion of the bid) Japan can consider buying an AC and 2 trns instead.
And if the UK ftr misses the Sol Sub, Japan probably won’t need the Trn for Pearl.
Japan will be slightly slowed and take some hit but they should be fine from round 2 on.
Now, if the Allies are going full blown KJF that might be a different story. Where is the UK bomber? What did Russia do in Bury? Etc.
In this case you might see Japan just ignore Sz 30 altogether.
Actually, I especially like this open if I plan to:
A) shove 8-12 American units through North Africa
B) put down major fleet units in the Pacific for America (coupled with a SZ 30 unification for England later to supplement with ships built in SZ 27/28 with the S. African Complex)
It does have some benefits to it other moves don’t:
1) People actually think Japan can take out the complex in S. Africa. I’ve NEVER seen it. Not ever. Though, that could be for a number of reasons: Japan is facing KJF. Japan wastes a lot of time and money building complexes and transports and gear specifically FOR the complex and ends up losing the German Capitol before getting it. Or the British are strong enough to keep Japan out while American forces storm through North Africa and into the Middle East forcing Japan out of their planned attack.
2) It’s the cheapest, most effective means to get units into Africa without distracting the allies with landings in Algeria (where their forces can be easily bottled up with no threat to Egypt from the South and Germany in control of the territories below the Sahara.) It’s also the cheapest, most secure means of fleshing out the IO/Pacific fleet once you get Germany bottled up.
3) With Americans streaming through North Africa and British/Russians massing in Northwest Asia, Germany’s gotta worry about defending EVERYTHING against attack or allow the Allies to take it lightly and turn them into trade zones. A scenario that costs Germany more then America, Russia and England (because the allies can divide the cost between them, Germany cannot.)
4) If the Americans go through the Pacific instead, they can easily reinforce Africa with a complex in Brazil and the SZ 10 fleet. Generally the fleet is safe from attack here and that results in about 5 units a round into Africa (3 USA, 2 UK) vs Germany who can only put two in. And with American fleets in the Pacific, Japan’s in NO POSITION to send her battleships and carriers down to Madagascar to take out a 2 IPC Complex in S. Africa.
I think I will stay with the orginal plan. Thnx for the info.
Complexity last edited by
Jennifer, assuming you go KJF and build a SA complex, how would you deal with a German player adding transports in the Baltic (or in the Med and then stationing in SZ 12) and threatening an invasion of the UK and/or US? How much does this slow down the UK Atlantic navy? I’ve never tried this strategy, but that would be my biggest concern. The US wouldn’t be landing units in Africa if you shoved all American units into the Pacific right off the bat, and a Japanese player that bought all transports on R1 could slow down your Solomon unification if you didn’t bring the Atlantic units too.
Because my KJF is almost only USA vs Japan I still have quite a lot of firepower with England to stop the Germans from getting either fleet out.
Remember, without Africa, Germany is NOT going to have an advantage in offense against a combined Russia and England. Furthermore, if they are building transports, they may actually lose the defensive advantage resulting in loss of land and thus loss of income.
It is, although, a large trade off. However, here’s how I see it going down:
UK 1: Algeria and Egypt taken.
UK 1: 5 Infantry built in England, 1 Industrial Complex in S. Africa
UK 2: Build in S. Africa (infantry) and build more fleet/ground units in England (Fleet from SZ 12 moves back to SZ 2 with the rest of the fleet.)
Note: Now’s a good time to get some aircraft as well. Since you cannot transport 8 ground units anyway, no use in building 8. Use the extra cash to outfit yourself with another bomber and or a couple more fighters as well. It’ll be a good 4 or 5 rounds before the other two transports make it to you anyway (giving you 5 total) and that’s assuming they are not chased down and killed by Japan.
Meanwhile, America focuses on a POSSIBLE IC in Brazil, if Germany builds more transports for SZ 14, or just the Pacific where you will quickly, and efficiently, over whelm the Japanese.
Note, none of that is a solomon unification. Even more so, all transports with Japan really doesn’t phase me either. USA 1 is 2 carriers and a fighter (total naval forces: 4 fighters, bomber, 2 carriers, destroyer, battleship, transport) from then on it’s a mix of transports and submarines with a possible 2nd and 3rd battleship added to the mix.
Japan, on the other hand, has to build ground units to push into Asia. This will reduce their money available for naval purchases. Also, the defender advantage is not as pronounced in naval conflicts because the attacker can mass much more firepower then the defender. (Unlike in ground combat when the defender can have a lot of cheap infantry, every loss at sea is very expensive and the attacker can chose when to leave. Many a battle has been won not by sinking the enemy, but inflicting enough damage that they can never recover in time. Battleships help with this significantly, as do Submarines.)
a44bigdog last edited by
I would recommend consolidating ALL UK Pacific/Indian naval units in SZ30 and I would also leave the 2 infantry behind in Australia. In my opinion doing otherwise invites a Japanese sinking of SZ30. The loaded transport would be worth a strafe at the minimum. Also by leaving the 2 infantry in Australia it forces Japan to bring more units to an area they can do very little from.
I’m thinking it’s just good policy to unify in SZ 30 and bring ONE infantry from India (none from Australia.)
If the position is warranted, you can pick up the 3 infantry on Australia and hit E. Indies with 4 infantry and a fighter. And if Japan gets twitchy, you can still entice them into make a bad trade in SZ 30.
ankmcfly last edited by
So, are you all saying that you are master baitors? Sorry, that pun has been hanging out there too long, someone had to do it.
Does it count to masterbate someone else?
Someone has to fight cancer!
I have a question, is it masturbation that reduces cancer, or is it just ejaculation? Because if it’s just ejaculation, then we should legalize prostitution so that women can sell medical services to men at risk of getting cancer!
I think the article said that the increased risk of STDs countered the cancer fighting benefits.