If you can convoy japan and take korea directly… that is always a good thing… but that rarely works out because of naval bases and airbases, usually it is best to attack the money islands (easier and more reliable) from ANZAC you can hit everything you need to. You start with two transports in the pacific, I recommend buying your naval pieces round 1 and maybe getting a transport round 2 (you start with infantry on the mainland so you don’t need to buy that until after 2 or 3 more boats).
UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
-
One of these days I need to go to Mt. Fairweather; perhaps I will have to look you up if logistics works out, GHG.
Your comment about the rapidly dying Italian canopener shows that you haven’t played that many strong opponents. I rarely have issue with my four Italian fast movers running out of lives before I get to the Middle East. Sometimes the luck holds out and they can go all the way to Egypt. The main German stack moves on top of them so there are no opportunities to counter attack with either Russia or UK. The only risky part of the early gameplan is on G5 when German planes must be used to reinforce the forces in Bryansk. That gives the Allies a narrow window where they can launch an attack into Western Europe and not be as easily expelled.
I have found that people make far fewer mistakes when playing TripleA since it is easier to see all of the pieces and also to run many battlecalcs to see if there are any vulnerabilities. Barring any crazy dice rolls, the good League players will always be able to either capture Moscow or push deep into the Middle East. That doesn’t mean that the Axis automatically wins, especially in BM games where the Allies get so many additional objectives. Still, it has been a very long time since I lost as Axis in a no-bid game.
Anyway, back to your original discussion on the Middle Earth plan, I don’t see why you would take Iraq on UK1 instead of waiting until UK2 when you have more forces freed up for the attack. What is the rush to take that territory? Personally I love to strafe Iraq with UK and have a Russian fast mover capture it for the bonuses.
-
I was sincere in my invitation Arthur. It would be an honour to host you or any of the other fine players here for a game or 2. I live only one block away from the highway that leads to Alaska so if anyone is ever going there by land please look me up.
To answer your question;
I like to take out the entire Middle East as quickly as possible because this is my base of operations (barring Sealion) for the rest of the game. I want to take away any possibility of Italy or Germany annexing Iraq whether coming through Syria or Turkey. I don’t save the money for Russia anymore like I used to because the UK has few options from this position to acquire IPC’s and they need the extra 2 that Iraq provides to be an effective cog in the Allied wheel. Taking both Iraq and Persia gives you 37 IPC’s in the second turn which will give me (probably) an IC, a Naval Base, and a Fighter. From there you have the 2 transports to take all of your Middle East units to Africa to start mopping up the stray Italian units south of Cairo. After that it’s only a matter of securing North Africa. I also found that the fast movers from the original Russia setup are invaluable in the defence of the Ukraine and ultimately the route to the Middle East. I’m still on the fence to a certain degree about not giving Iraq to Russia for the N.O. but for now I’m going with this plan. It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t get any N.O.'s for Middle East like other nations do, perhaps that was an oversight. -
Yes UK should get a N.O. of 3 icps for controlling so many Middle East territories from the oil.
To bad I don’t play G40. I would try out this stuff GHG. I do have my 40 game. Maybe I’ll look at that and see if it will work in my game. In my 39 game I can fortify Calcutta to the point of killing at least all of Japan’s ground and half of there planes if they want India.
I take it you bring back most US Pacific fleet to Atlantic side just on turn 1 and go for Rome ? I also want to try this. Nobody has done it in our games.
-
No I pile the America Pacific fleet in Honolulu and shuck 2 dudes there every turn. If you build up the ground forces there and on Sydney then Japan can’t take the 6 Victory Cities they need to win the game. I build up the navy in the Atlantic first to the point where they are dropping units off in Europe and then I turn to building the Pacific fleet. I do try to put a boat on Honolulu every turn or 2 leading up to that so Japan can’t overwhelm them.
-
OK We do the same. Thanks.
-
It’s more a matter of standing up to the Germans instead of running back to Moscow and hiding behind their Mommy’s skirts. You buy a combination of infantry and offensive units (tanks, artillery) and continually counter-attack the Germans where they expose the most tanks. You hit them with everything that can reach and then they are stuck rebuilding for yet another turn, and then another. You’re hanging onto more of your money while they are getting less of it so you can continue to make those kinds of purchases. Next thing you know help has arrived on the Western Front and up from the Middle East. Those 10 tanks of yours will die as soon as they hit the border and you’ll be saying to me “What, are you crazy? You’re not supposed to be able to do that!” Then I hit the next batch of tanks that roll over the border. Try it sometime in one of your games and see how effective it can be as a deterrent against the Germans. Or don’t. It’s your choice if you think there’s no way that Russia can possibly stand up to the Germans. Hitler didn’t either.
Frankly, if your opponents are exposing German tank stacks to counterattack with no or light casualty bufferage, your opponents aren’t that good.
Marsh
-
No I pile the America Pacific fleet in Honolulu and shuck 2 dudes there every turn. If you build up the ground forces there and on Sydney then Japan can’t take the 6 Victory Cities they need to win the game. I build up the navy in the Atlantic first to the point where they are dropping units off in Europe and then I turn to building the Pacific fleet. I do try to put a boat on Honolulu every turn or 2 leading up to that so Japan can’t overwhelm them.
Truism.
However, doing only this does allow Japan a free hand to keep pushing the Middle East or Africa once India falls, as they know your plan is simply to prevent a Pacific victory and so they only have to devote enough resources to hold the money islands and keep your US fleet at bay.
Marsh
-
At some point the Germans are going to have to use their tanks to attack or there’s no sense in having them. Yes a good player will protect them as much as they can but I hit that territory with everything I can spare and still leave a defensive wall. Infantry, mechs, tanks, artillery, and all 4 Russian aircraft concentrated in 1 or 2 territories. It takes some thought to decide where and when to attack and there are many things to consider, running away and hiding is not a viable option if you want to have success against Germany. You only have to hold them back for a few turns and then they are having to fight the war on other fronts.
I’m ok with Japan thinking this and I hope they do put only just enough to keep the US fleet at bay. The US is only planning on doing the same in the Pacific until their floating bridge is operational in the Atlantic and then they will turn their attention to the Japanese. Basically what I’m doing is betting that I can take out Europe before Japan can take 6 Victory Cities. Middle Earth makes it very difficult to get a quick victory in Calcutta (not to mention making it hard for them to keep it) and piling infantry on Honolulu and Sydney makes it almost impossible for them to get 6 before Europe falls. That’s the whole point of sending as many units into the Middle East as possible, there is no easy way to get rid of them. You also have to be flexible enough to be able to put Americans where you need them in a pinch in case Japan does attack Australia or Honolulu. With the sizeable American income that is pretty easy to accomplish.
-
GHG, I love to play UK, it is by far my favorite power to play too. I like the challenge of playing a power that is all over the map, and has many strengths and weaknesses. I like to gather/build my resources, and make a difference. The Mid East is a great place to focus your energy on because as you said you can interconnect Egypt, S Afr, Persia/Iraq, India and S Russia rather easily. You can get ftrs to Calcutta or Moscow when the time comes, and an Expeditionary force up through Caucasus to keep the axis away from the oil NOs.
With that said, I agree with the others and I don’t see your aggressive Russian strat working in most the FTF games I play in (saw your Russian U-tube video). First off I generally don’t sacrifice the one Russian inf pickets at every territory on the front unless we are talking about one of my minor ICs, and they can somehow reinforce it (maybe through the Baltic Sea). I want the Germans to blitz through and expose their tanks to counter attack (which they won’t do). I do like to buy some air and art w/Russia as you do for attacks of opportunity, but you really rarely get to do a major hit and run unless certain conditions are met. Say the Germans try a 2-3 prong attack at the front leaving themselves too thin and exposed? Maybe they have no navy in the Baltic to amphib/reinforce, and/or no Italian can openers leaving them w/o air cover at the front then yea you start liking your chops as Russia. This BTW was the perfect storm displayed in your Russian video that allowed you to counter attack the two German held territories and squash the German advance the turn after Barbarossa started (plus you got pretty friendly Russian dice lol).
Most games I see the Italians open up doors for the Germans who then super stack E Poland, and drive one territory at a time towards Moscow taking the lands as the Russians evacuate. Why I buy some Russian air and art is so if the Germans split their forces or splinter off to take the oil territories I might be able to do a hit and run, or trade my former minor ICs keeping them from building there for a turn or two. Of course a strong UK presence in the Mid East can save the day, so I do like that part of your plan.
In your overall allied strat you have the US playing mostly defense in the Pac, and making landings on the Euro side. Have you ever had the Japanese by-pass India and punch into Persia? Our Japanese seem to wander over to the Mid East/Africa if left unchecked lol.
-
I agree with everything you said about the Russian strategy Bill. The video that I did was only a demonstration to show viewers what they should look for even if that example was a bit exaggerated. I have seen some players do that as Germany thinking that putting that many tanks there would prevent the Russians from attacking that territory. I didn’t think I would take that many of them off but I would still attack against those odds to get as many tanks as I could off of them. You can take a lot of momentum away from Germany if you can get that many units off in a few counter-attacks. As I keep telling people here, you only need to hold them off for a few turns until the Allies get Russia some help. My whole strategy keys on Europe. You take Italy first and then you go after Germany. I try to put Americans in Europe by the 5th turn and that takes German money away the Eastern Front.
I haven’t had anyone bypass Calcutta yet in favour of Persia. Between India, Africa, and the Middle East there are a large number of UK planes, ground units, and a few boats so it would take a sizeable force to make a serious challenge to Persia. That means that they are taking at least half of their fleet out of position and I would go on offence with US Pacific and ANZAC. You have to be flexible in this game and be willing to take what your opponent gives you, especially when they make a mistake like taking their fleet out of the Pacific. The floating bridge in the Atlantic can wait a turn while you buy warships in San Francisco. I would think that it would be more likely that they would attack Honolulu but I try to dissuade that by putting a boat on Hawaii every turn or 2. If nothing else the US fleet is at least as strong as half of the Japanese navy which gives you the option of attacking if the other half sails away.
-
seems like your german opponents are buying a lot of tanks. I am personally against buying tanks as germany. The main reason they buy the tanks is to use them to drive home the main assault on moscow. that is the only time you actualy need those heavyhitters. you can always force the ussr stack to retreat by using can-opener tactics. As my german build, I might buy 8 art on g1, then 20 mech on G2, and 10 mech on G3. I also send 2 italian tanks, 1 italian mech, 4 italian infs from bulgaria and 3-5 italian planes. Those italians can take the terr, so that germany can land luftwaffe there, or the italian planes can reinforce the german army. There just isn’t enough russians on the map to do a counterattack when the german stacks everything in one terr. and that terr will move slowly towards rostow.
-
Your build numbers are off slightly, Kreuzfeld, but still that doesn’t take away from your main message for strategy. I often do something very similar, but try mixing in about 1/3rd tanks and 2/3rds mechs for your fast movers. You will find that the defense rating is so similar for that combination that you won’t see a practical difference, and the offense is significantly better. It also allows you to blitz two thirds of your stack if an opening arises.
For your plan if properly executed, there should be no major opportunity for Russian counterattack until R6 or R7.
-
It’s a real shame that Italy has to sacrifice Rome just to help Germany try to get to Moscow. If you move that many units to the Eastern Front I will take Rome by the 6th turn (at the latest). Germany will be forced to split their income defending their southern borders.
-
GHG, that amount of Italian support can be obtained with 1 turn of spending to get a mech and a tank on I1. He already has those infantry and planes. Often the fighter planes can remain in Rome and fly over to Rostov or the Caucasus if needed to overcome strong resistance on critical canopening moves. Perhaps he will need to add in a couple of fighter planes for additional purchases, but I would hardly call that a big waste for Italy since they defend just slightly worse than the equivalent cost of infantry.
I rarely see Italy fall before round 8. If the Allies move their ships to SZ92, usually moving a few German fighters down to Rome is sufficient to prevent an invasion. It isn’t a big waste of German resources since they still can hop over to the Russia theater any time that they are needed. A few German mechs also can sway the odds considerably. It takes a bit longer to get redeployed from Rome back elsewhere, but having the Allied fleet in the Med also reduces threats to many other territories so it isn’t that scary.
Perhaps a highly determined attack will capture it for a round before German fast movers + planes get control back for the Axis. Losing a little bit of income isn’t too big of a deal. Add in the fact that the Allied fleet is way out of position for a couple of rounds and I am very willing to risk an amphibious assault in the Med. The larger concern is having a large number of Allied subs raiding the sea zones in the Med. That is far cheaper to accomplish.
-
I regularly take Italy out of the game first. Honestly, it’s not that difficult to achieve. I’ve always had to wait until the 8th turn so I could get enough UK units and boats in place for the assault with US. If you take away the Italian planes I won’t have to wait for the UK. Your German planes can’t be in 2 places at once. Neither can the Italian planes. So are you landing them in Russia so I can’t counter-attack or are you landing them in Rome so I can’t sack it? If you send your German fast movers down there they are not driving toward Moscow. The US is hitting Italy with 8 ground units and 4 planes every turn. Every turn. The UK is not far behind with landing forces in Italy and fast movers in Russia.
This is why I created this post. To see if someone could help me figure out a way to break this strategy that I haven’t already thought of. Europe will fall every game if the US, UK, and Russia concentrates their attack on it. The only question is can Japan take 6 cities before it does. I feel that is where the solution will come from-the Pacific.
-
The critical turn for Germany is G5 since they need to have enough protection to move to Bryansk. If I didn’t lose many planes in the opening couple of rounds and Russia hasn’t spent a vast majority of their money on defense, there might be a chance to assault Moscow on G6 or G7. With your Middle Earth strategy bringing a bunch of planes to Moscow early on, I likely would instead move my infantry to Rostov and fast movers to Volgorad. A few fast movers go to the Caucasus for that bonus I should have around 30 fast movers at that point so it is highly unlikely that you would have enough forces to counterattack either of those big stacks. None of these moves that I stated require much luck and the only way to slow down this time table is to put a big stack of Russian infantry as a sacrificial roadblock in the path of the Italian canopeners.
If there is a crisis in Rome, Italy can build an airbase in Bryansk on I5 and the German planes can fly back to S. Italy on G6. Usually I don’t need to spend the PUs on this one-turn gambit, but it is an option if necessary. Likewise the airbase could free up the planes to return to W. Germany if absolutely necessary. Otherwise the planes can be used on G6 for some minor skirmishes and then land in Ukraine and Novgorod, positioning them for further use the next term.
If the Allies are spending a majority of their money in the Europe side of the board, I am looking for an economic victory. Once the economy of the Axis reaches that of the Allies, it is going to be a win for the bad guys in almost every match. Germany is going to try to hold Volgograd, Novgogrod, and the Caucasus, while exchanging units with Russia and UK. I will build 9 land units a turn to support that sector, leaving 40-50 PUs a round to protect W. Europe. Eventually the US will get a foothold in W. France but it takes a long time to have enough forces to withstand a potential German counterattack. Meanwhile Japan should have conquered all of China, forced India to retreat to their capitol, held onto the money islands, and hopefully landed infantry in NG. My next target would likely be Siberia since that can quickly become an 18 PU swing of production.
Nothing I stated is difficult or unlikely. It takes careful execution, but does not rely on any crazy dice rolls. This is certainly not guaranteed victory for the Axis, but neither will I be crushed during the first eight rounds. Sure I see a bunch of novice players get their butts whipped by Russia invading Germany, but that kind of event rarely happens at the upper half of League play.
-
Let’s hope we do get a chance to play someday Arthur so I can prove to you that Europe falls every time if you concentrate all of your attacks there. You shift units from one side to the other and it doesn’t matter because you are getting it simultaneously from 3 sides. 117 IPC’s to start the game with for the Allies vs. 40 IPC’s for the axis. Yes that will adjust slightly over the first few turns but it’s only a matter of time before they’re toast. I’ve already tried the kinds of things that you’re proposing, it isn’t enough. If all you had to do was take Moscow and that was the end of it then what you’re saying would work. However, before you get there you are at war in France or Italy or both and then it’s too late. You keep suggesting I couldn’t do what I want to anything but novice players but I would suggest that you couldn’t do what you’re planning to me as an Allied player.
Again I say this. Put the pieces down on the board and try my strategy and see if Europe survives long enough to get 6 VC’s in the Pacific.
-
GHG,
I’ve had the “pleasure” of a demonstration with ABH on triplea. His G1 dice went so well that he even deleted a bunch of German subs off the board to make it look more “typical.” Sad to say he beat me with a sizeable bid.
I think I’m much better at playing the Allies now since I played him. I do prefer to play the Axis countries so maybe I wasn’t as good of a allies opponent as you would be. I hope I’ll get another chance to play with ABH as playing the same people can at times get very repetitive. You can get comfortable with strategies that might fail when you play someone completely different. I played enough with some of the “better skilled” regulars on triplea to where I could recognize his caliber. There are only a few I’ve seen who play that well.
I know you’ve said that you won’t play electronically. But if you change your mind, you could still go on triplea “incognito” with a different screen name. But please do at least try a game with ABH on triplea after you’ve learned the game mechanics.
You might want to try to learn the game mechanics of triplea anyways because its another way to actually test out your strategies with unsuspecting people.
Just saying,
Ichabod
-
Thanks for the advice, Ichabod.
I wouldn’t need to change my identity because I have no desire to hide my identity. Whether I win or lose is not a consideration in my decision of what form I play the game in. I play the game for fun. While I like to win, I don’t mind losing either because that’s how we learn to be better players. Fear of failure has nothing to do with my decision not to play electronically. If my reasons didn’t exist I would welcome the opportunity to play good competition and become a better player.
-
GHG,
You sound like a good sport. Some folks take this too seriously when it’s really for great fun! Global 40 is an awesome strategy game.
Hope to see you on tripea someday!
Ichabod
Suggested Topics
