Subject: Fw: Axis and Allies (Europe) Attack England? Michael Sandy wrote in message <20000518133849203014@pm3-01-14.cvo.du.teleport.com>... I have found a number of discussion boards for Axis and Allies, and I think the impact of Germany preparing to attack England is not adequately addressed in them. There are a couple of variants for the German build up vs England: +1 Danish transport, hold 4 IPCs, build 4 transports 1 DD, and, +1 Danish transport, +1 Finnish Artillery, build 2 DDs 2 transports. In either case, if the British attack the German fleet in the Baltic with their starting airforce, they will come out behind in terms of IPC cost. 2 fighters and a bomber have an attack power of 10, vs a total defense of either 9 or 10. Both sides will lose an average of one or two units on the first round, and this reduces the British attacking firepower more than the German's defending firepower. If the British stand pat, and manage to get the American transport to England, they will have 8 or 9 ground troops, 3 fighters, and 2 bombers before builds. That is 30 or 32 defense points vs a potential 4 Inf, 4 Art, 6 fighter, 1 bomber, two shore bombardment rolls for an initial attack of 46 attack points, killing an average 7.6 units. So the British _must_ use either starting IPCs or build points to counter the German threat. For starting IPCs, they could start with an extra fighter in Britain or a Sub in the North Sea. The British may be able to avoid the threat of invasion simply by slipping their sub into the Danish Strait. However, a number of people are so depressed about Germany's chances that they propose doing away with the initial Allied bonus, or having the Allies build first. I think they are mistaken. The problem for England, if he builds lots of infantry and ships American and Canadian troops to England is that Germany will just sink those transports, take all of England's convoy zones, and launch both turn 1 and turn 2 invasions of Leningrad. In general, Russian starting units will get to the front before all of Germany's starting units get to the front. There really is no conventional turn 1 build that will give Germany a turn 2 advantage. Yes, he can counterattack into Baltic States or Eastern Poland more strongly if he builds more tanks, but he will have four tanks which can only hit Baltic States or Eastern Poland _anyway_, regardless of his builds. If Germany takes Leningrad on turn 1 by amphibious attack that means 8 fewer Russian infantry and no Russian fighter in it on turn 2, versus a German stack reinforced by 8 infantry and artillery. A Germany solidly in control of Leningrad is a difficult problem for USSR. He can attack Russia, Karelia, push towards Archangel or just distract attention from a German push into Stalingrad or Caucasus. Between Archangel and the Caucasus alone, that is 8 Russian IPCs, with Leningrad, Ukraine and Karelia in easy German control. The US can produce a lot, but it can't simultaneously clear the convoy zones, build an amphibious attack army, send planes to Russia, and maintain a sufficient concentration of force so that the Germans don't sink his fleet faster than he can build it. There are a number of disadvantages to this German strategy. By building a fleet he is borrowing from his turn 3 and turn 4 attacks into order to strengthen his turn 2 attack. Germany will run through his reserves much faster, and that means fewer units to guard Western Europe. If England slips a sub into the Danish Strait, then he can build a fleet of subs on turn 1 to economicly attack the Baltic on turn 2. The net effect will be to speed the whole war up by a year or so, with the Germans getting a lot more progress against Russia on turn 2, but with the British getting a solid hit in turn that may leave it a few subs to liberate convoy centers as well. _Invading_ England is not a strategy, but _threatening_ to invade England can force the Allies to make build choices which are not in their long term interests. By taking Vyborg on turn 1, Germany reinforces his attack threat on Leningrad and Karelia. His new fleet puts Leningrad within 1 movement of his own factory, e*nabling him to rapidly reinforce Leningrad with Infantry. By forcing the Allies to spend a turn reinforcing England, they leave their ships in vulnerable positions with respect to the German air force and subs. They also pass up liberating British Convoy Centers. If the entire starting Allied fleet is sunk, along with no British turn 1 fleet, then Britain will probably get only 9 IPCs two turns in a row. During WWII, a lot of Britain's merchant losses came because her warfleet was distracted by being needed to stop an invasion, or because of British commitments in the Med versus Italy. By threatening an invasion, Britain has to rely on the US to guard her convoys, which means waiting an extra turn to get the production from them. Michael Sandy