If England’s making a stretch and does both battles, they can win them both. Dunno if they can survive it financially, but they can. 2 Transports, Battleship, 2 Fighters to SZ 7, Bomber Destroyer to SZ 13.
Yes, but that’s what the paper wants England to do - to stretch itself thin and give itself the possibility of bad dice happening to them.
1 bom 1 dest vs 1 btl 1 tp
According to frood, attacker survives 23% of the time. Hmm….defender survives with 1 unit or more 59% of the time. Is that a great battle?
2 fig 2 tp 1 btl vs 3 sub 1 tp 1 dest
Attacker survives 75% of the time, with the most common result being both tps and 1 fig lost.
So the average dice shows that the UK isn’t going to do well. Usually what will happen is the med tp is killed, but the bb survives and both dest/bom are dead. And what usually happens in SZ7 is both tps and 1 fig are killed.
IMO, that is amazing for zero naval IPCs spent. You cashed in 2 tps 1 fig 1 bom of useful equipment (well and 1 dest, but I don’t count that since it’s not something UK really misses) for a navy you didn’t even care about or spend a dime into. You didn’t even use or risk a fig. UK has to rebuild its entire transport chain and has a measly fig for an airforce. Is that a recommended battle? You say Uk can win, which is true, but that’s pretty much a useless statement. It would be like saying well, I could send 4 inf 1 arm on R1 to W. Russia, and it could win.
Not to mention, UK is absolutely forced to buy a carrier on UK1 and probably…another fig to replace the one it expects to lose! We’re not talking about insignificant changes to the UK plan.
Better to prove that it is a recommended route to go.
For someone who would prefer to avoid attacking the Baltic fleet, you seem strangely anxious to take 2 battles which have lower odds and wind up with you losing more.