@PainState:

In my experience a J1 does not provoke a KJF response from the USA.

USA does not usually commit one side or the other until around USA4 after a J1.

Not saying USA is sitting around doing nothing. Iam saying the focus of the USA can not be determined until around USA4 or so.

So what you’re saying is if America doesnt go KJF, it’s free to respond to a sealion?  And if it can respond earlier than usual, does this affect your UK1 builds?

I understand the value of SZ 91, but after a successful sealion, allied mission changes from establishing a continental beachhead to liberating the isles.  In response to wittman’s post about axis preventing America from liberating UK by stacking in Morocco, i offered gibraltar and quebec as alternatives.

I agree that throughout the whole game, UK definitely needs to keep track at all times of Germany’s invasion potential.  But this question is about balancing costs/benefits.  Previous threads have discussed the value of sealion.  The consensus seems to be that it mires Germany in a gridlock with Russia, but that can be a useful sacrifice if it makes America spend too much time and money to liberate UK, thus giving Japan the game.  But if America can liberate UK in the same turn, then Germany sacrificed its eastern initiative with little to show for it.  So the question isnt how does UK prevent itself from getting conquered at all costs.  The question is what is the absolute minimum UK needs to spend to make sealion not worth it, thus allowing it to project its force out sooner.

Let me phrase this another way.  6 inf, 1 ftr is usually enough to deter sealion on J3 dow.  So why would UK still need to spend the same amount after a J1 dow?

@wittmann:

If no fleet was bought, I would build an IC for Egypt and Ft amd 2 Inf for England.
If a CV, Sub and DD were bought , I would buy Ft  and 6 Inf for England .
If two or three TTs were bought and no DD , I  Would get a Sub, Ft and 4 Inf .
Germany and Italy  can still make an American landing in Morocco impossible . I would not presume America was my rescuer, just yet.

I think 2 inf, 1 fig sounds pretty reasonable because it defends a little without losing much mideast iniative.  But I would argue that if America projects enough force towards the atlantic, that UK buy would work even if Germany bought a cv, sub, and dd.

Why does America need to land in Morocco?  Are you worried about Luftwaffe violating neutrals’ neutrality to strafe troops in gibraltar?  And why can’t they come from Quebec?

I like the sub purchase as a way to force Germany to spend money on a ship if it wants to commit.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Yes you have to buy the infantry. If you don’t then Germany can take out London with lots of units to spare making it far more difficult to liberate. Those extra infantry will be killing tanks and possibly planes if the Germans don’t dice the UK. Also, if you don’t place infantry there, then Germany can take London with a half-hearted transport buy and a strategic bombing raid on G2 leaving them cash to take on Russia at the same time instead of an overwhelming assault on London.

Maybe my math is bad, but that’s not how I see it.  I was presuming America would prepare for a sealion possibility with round 1 purchases that look something like 2 carriers, 2 transports, and maybe a sub, and by staging its SZ 10 carrier and transport (plus whatever ships it would need) over to the GoM (ready to turn back to Pacific if sealion isnt threatened.)

Germany would still need a full commitment with 10 transports bought and even then probably wouldn’t hold it.  With UK losing in 106, doing taranto, only buying one 1 fig/no inf in London, and only able to afford let’s say 8 inf after sbr’s on turn 2, Germany should have all its tanks and a couple other ground troops survive.

But America can still come in with 8 ground troops, 5 fig, 1 tac, and up to 7 bombers if it needs to (depending on if it can force the channel with its ships alone.  (6 of those bombers depend on UK still owning Scotland, but if Germany diverts a transport from the London landing into Scotland, your 7 planes should still be more than enough.)

Yup.  OOB

I suppose this question does presuppose that America used its turn to prepare for the possibility of needing to liberate  London, like buying a couple of transports and a carrier and bringing a couple ships from SanFran to the Mexican Gulf.

Taamvan, you’re correct that holding onto the other VC’s is the tough part, particularly the Philippines.  Hopefully Germany and Italy will have enough mobile units left to thwart China, but I don’t know.  On J3 you should certainly build a second IC on Shanghai or Shantung, building fodder to keep China wary of your airforce, and position those ground troops in Kwangsi, Kiangsi, and Anhwe in order to reclaim any territories that America troops have landed on.  Philippines is a different matter, and it may require IJN defeating the American fleet.  Luckily, the Luftwaffe will be nearby ready to soften it up, preventing America from choosing carrier capital hits if it wants its fighters defending in the Japanese attack.  If Germany is prevented from taking India until G7, it can still land its planes on Shan, which, with an AB, can attack SZ 35 so that Japan can retake Philippines on J8.

But that’s the iffiest part of the whole plan - too many variables by midgame and it needs playtesting.  Wheatbeer, I’d love to try this out one the TripleA forum (if the timing of my debut didn’t announce this strategy) but I don’t have regular internet access.  I will try it in person against my routine adversary, but only after having tried a few other strategies I’ve concocted, since I know he at least won’t be able to counter this and we’ll have to experiment with house rules afterwards.  In the meantime, I invite anyone else to try it out and let me know how it goes.

Thats sounds legit.  It’s not abusing combined arms; it’s using them effectively.

This is a break or bust strategy; no ecomonic strangulation or attrition of forces.  Yes, a VC KO before Allies become too large is the goal.

But am I underestimating the size of the fleet America can bring to bear in the first few rounds?  By my count, neither America nor Japan can attack each other’s fleet off the coast of Australia on round 4.  Because yes taamvan, the entire fleet will be there save for maybe a blocker or two, assuming America is stacking off of Queensland or Carolines.  I don’t care how threatened SZ 6 is, so long as Japan is safe, because after round 4, any units I produce will not be in play.  And Japan is easy to keep safe.

I like the Argentine tango (1st time I’ve heard of it) for its ability to shuttle ground troops to DEI and south Asia w/o requiring a force at Hawaii to defend the transport corridor.  But I think it gets rolling too late.  It can only bring an extra 2 guys to Sydney for a J6 or 8 guys for a J7 attack.  Let’s let Germany take care of India on G7.  That means that 2nd round of transports - 14 ground troops can be dropped off in either southern Australia or Queensland (Allies can’t defend both) for a J7 attack on Sydney.

I also dont care about threatening China or Russia after round 4.  The stack of ground troops working its way south to get picked up for the 2nd round of transports should be enough to keep China at bay long enough to keep Hong Kong safe (from them at least).  So just keep enough planes defending Manchuria long enough to prevent the Amur stack from beginning its march on Shanghai before round 4.

Taamvan, if I’m going for a Pacific victory, I don’t care how strong Russia is on round 4.  I dont even care if Berlin and Rome both fall on round 5 other than for matters of pride.  Gargantua, that Afghani corridor is an important point in late game.  But how many Allied planes are you imagining will be in Moscow beginning of turn 5 to get to India on 6 before Germany’s attack on 7?  Germany will have 30-35 mobiles plus lots of planes.  India, if it only buys inf and never moved any away towards Mideast or China, on a J3 DOW, can amass quite the stack of 40 something fodder by G7 (ignoring for the moment that can Germany can attack on G6 if India doesnt use about 10 of those to prevent an Italian can opener).  Considering the distribution curve of Germany’s attack, I estimate that UK/Russia would have to get more than a dozen planes into India to make it close to a fair fight.

Cow, I fully appreciate the effectiveness of fodder, even expensive and weak fodder.  But you’re talking about putting in 2 dozen hits to counter a strategy that puts in an extra 4 dozen hits.

All the objections posted are assuming that Allies are aware of the Axis strategy and prepare to counter it by fully committing to one side of the board.  But Axis doesnt have to commit to either strategy until round 4.  They’ll have a slow start if they divert, sure.  But so will the Allies by pursuing a less than optimal course.  E.g. When Allies think Axis is rushing a Pac victory, if UK/Russia are only producing fighters early to get them to India on time, Germany can always turn its stack of mobiles north after securing oilfields.  When they presume a Crussia and America is buying only bombers to land in Moscow, Japan can always decide to turn its stack on China and move onto Burma without much American intervention forcing it to defend its seas.

So America throws in 17 fodder hits before J7 attack and another 6 before G8.  That doesn’t sound like enough considering Russia is already under enough pressure to survive head to head with Germany before Japan whittles its stack by 40.  And neither Germany nor Japan is on much of a deadline if America is spending all its cash on bomber fodder.
Japan doesn’t have to commit until J5.  Until then, it can always swing its stack south against China and then India.  A slow start, sure, but that’s affordable considering America’s slow start.  Point is, I’m not sure America can commit to sending 23 bombers to Moscow lest Japan get too strong.  Because Japan can still take islands during all this.

At any rate, the European victory was just me +musing out loud.  The Pacific strategy was the one that I had thought out.  See any overt flaws in it?