@shadowhawk I never though about that , that is really smart. I will make sure to do that.
UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
-
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
-
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.
You should register online and try to prove this. I started on this forum like you, posting strategies and playing once in a while IRL. The software makes for better play very quickly.
-
Playing face-to-face certainly is a very different experience than playing on-line. There is so much more fun and adrenaline when playing on a board. Still, playing through TripleA allows more time to study all of the possible moves and calculate all of the battle outcomes. I completely understand your desire to only do live games.
I have played many games where the UK essentially does your Middle Earth plan. In the no-bid games, I have never lost as Axis. Japan starts to get out of control and the Allies have to start slowing down their expansion into Western Europe to push back on Japan. Once Japan conquers India and starts earning 80 PUs a round, it is tough for the US to get them back down if there already was a big gap in the Pacific naval race. Yes, India is a pain to destroy, but they will eventually collapse once China is totally knocked out of the game and the Allies haven’t invested heavily in Pacific fleets.
In games with a bid, I usually beat weaker opponents using a Middle Earth-esque plan, and lose to stronger opponents. I often have a huge stack of bombers as Germany, able to project power into many different zones. With perfect play the Allies can overcome the threats, but any mistake could cost them the match.
-
@Arthur:
It also allows you to blitz two thirds of your stack if an opening arises.
With the italian canopener from hell, you will blitz 100 % of your stack :D
The terr has to be empty, so all you have to do is to take it with Italy.
I prefer to have my heavy hitters in the luftwaffe and the art from the first round, instead of buying tanks.
-
Kreuzfeld, you miss that there is little downside to mixing in some tanks along with some mechs. Here are two scenarios:
Option 1: 24 mechs (24 offense and 48 defense, 24 HPs, 96 PUs)
Option 2: 12 mechs and 8 tanks (36 offense and 48 defense, 20 HPs, 96 PUs)You usually have these units mixed in with a bunch of extra infantry cannon-fodder units anyway so the four extra HPs rarely makes much of a difference when doing battle calculations. Meanwhile you kill an extra 2 units a round on offense. You will find that Germany will have a couple extra units left after a major battle like the siege of Moscow or a push down into the heart of the Middle East.
Furthermore you can now blitz 16 units which can give you some options when Italian planes take out a crucial blocking unit, opening out an avenue to attack a juicy stack of Allied forces. That blitz ability tips the scales in otherwise close decision. Maybe you will end up with 25% tanks vs mechs, or maybe the number ends up at 60% if you don’t value defense as highly for your particular game situation. Regardless consider building more tanks.
-
Hey GHG! Why not save your UK infantry money on UK1 and place them on UK2 if Germany is preparing for Sealion? There is no risk of invasion on G2 and that way you have the option to spend that money on something else if it doesn’t look like a Sealion attack is coming.
-
@Deiganator:
Hey GHG! Why not save your UK infantry money on UK1 and place them on UK2 if Germany is preparing for Sealion? There is no risk of invasion on G2 and that way you have the option to spend that money on something else if it doesn’t look like a Sealion attack is coming.
Because you will hit the 10 unit maximum that a major factory can mobilise in London. Indeed, even if you save 0IPC you will still hit this limit.
-
Simon is correct. You only have 2 turns to get enough units on London before Germany has an opportunity to invade with around 10 loaded transports and a number of planes. If you don’t place anything on the first turn then you will only place 10 in total. You’ve just handed them your capital.
-
Thanks… forgot about that :lol:
-
All right, I’m a little late to this party, because it took me a long time before I was able to block off a solid hour to watch GHG’s videos. But General Hand Grenade’s Middle Earth strategy is such a crazy mix of good advice and bad advice that I just have to put my two cents in.
SUMMARIZING GHG’s VIDEO:
- On turn 1, buy 6 inf, 1 ftr for London. Do a full Taranto attack, send your Med transport to Iraq, and support the attack on Iraq with the Indian air force. Activate Persia on noncombat. Leave a couple of units in Alexandria and Sudan to tempt the Italians into attacking you there. Land the planes from Iraq in Jordan. Move the entire Indian Ocean fleet west, and if any Atlantic transports survived, start sailing them southeast toward South Africa to join your Indian Ocean fleet.
- On turn 2, assuming you’re not in trouble from Sea Lion, buy a factory and a naval base for Persia, and a fighter in South Africa. Kill any remaining Italian boats in the Med as your top priority, and maybe attack one group of Italians near Ethiopia.
- Starting on turn 3, buy 3 ground units (including some mechs) in South Africa, shuck them to Persia, and use any remaining money to buy a mix of units in Persia (including some fighters). Repeat this pattern for the next several turns, stockpiling a mobile force in Persia that can reinforce Egypt, the Caucasus, or India as needed.
- Russia is supposed to aggressively counter-attack Germany in order to fight Germany to a standstill all on its own. Meanwhile, the Americans are supposed to simultaneously contain Japan and wreck Italy by sending first submarines (for convoy damage) and then infantry from New York through Gibraltar to Rome.
THE GOOD:
-
As other commenters have pointed out, an early factory in Persia is really useful. It slows down your Atlantic game somewhat, but it eventually pays for itself by securing Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Persia, and West India. The mere fact that you have a factory in Persia can shut down some Axis strategies even when you don’t build much there.
-
A full attack on Taranto is a standard play, but it’s standard for a reason: it’s a strong opening move.
-
GHG correctly identifies the fact that attacking Ethiopia on turn 1 is optional. Many non-Middle-Earth players radically overestimate how important it is to hold Alexandria or attack Ethiopia on turn 1 – it’s nice to collect your NO on turn 2, but it’s not essential and you shouldn’t be designing your entire opening around picking up an extra 5 IPC for UK Europe.
-
Preserving your Indian Ocean fleet and keeping it close to the coast of Africa can give you some extra mobility while denying Japan the chance to pick off British boats for cheap. The West Indian Ocean is too far away for Japan to bother sending significant forces there in most types of games.
THE BAD:
-
Trying to claim both Persia and Iraq on turn 1 is a good way to set yourself up for senseless casualties. At most you can bring 3 land units and 2 planes to attack 3 defending Iraqis. This weakens your position in Egypt and has a 45% chance of killing off your mech infantry without providing you with any important benefits. It’s better to save Iraq for turn 2 or even turn 3 – there’s no rush to take Iraq. It’s pro-Axis neutral; it can’t go anywhere. As long as you get there before the Axis do, you’re fine. By pulling your entire air force away from India, you remove your ability to counter-attack weak Japanese positions in Burma, Shan, Hong Kong, or Yunnan after a J1 or J2 attack.
-
Landing planes in Jordan doesn’t guarantee the ability to eliminate the Italian fleet on UK2, because Jordan is 3 spaces away from SZ 97. By the end of G2, the Axis can easily sink your UK Med carrier, conquer Yugoslavia, and conquer Greece. That leaves you without a valid spot to land fighters or tac bombers if you try to launch from Jordan and hit SZ 97. Italy has no particular need to reinforce north Africa on I1 if you pull Egyptian troops east to attack Iraq. They can just stack up in Alexandria, build a second transport in SZ 97, and get ready to hit Egypt hard on I2.
-
Italy is under no obligation to attack the bait you leave out in Sudan. Instead, they can combine all 4 of their east African units in Kenya, where they deprive you of your NO and are hard to kill on turn 2. You will need to send both planes from Jordan, plus both transports from the Persian Gulf. That will put you seriously out of position – your planes will have to land in Sudan, where they’re not in range of India or SZ 97, and your boats will be stuck in SZ 72, where they will lose a full turn of deliveries to Persia.
THE UGLY:
-
The expensive naval base you build on Persia only gets used when you send ships from Persia to South Africa. You don’t need to buy that naval base to move from South Africa to Egypt, or from Persia to Egypt, or from Egypt to India, or from Persia to India. It’s really doing very little to enhance your strategic mobility, especially since you’re already building at least one mech inf. per turn, every turn. Instead of paying $15 to set up a shuck from South Africa to Persia, you can run your shuck from South Africa to Egypt and back, and pay $7 for one extra transport. That extra transport can shuck your 2 slow units from Egypt/Jordan to Persia every turn, and your fast units can reach India all by themselves from Jordan, without any further naval assistance. You start off with a reservoir of infantry in Egypt, so this won’t even slow your strategy down. This analysis should be obvious. You already start with 2 naval bases on the east coast of Africa, plus a naval base in Gibraltar and a naval base in India. How could it possibly be an optimal strategy to purchase yet another naval base? Naval mobility is not Britain’s bottleneck on this map.
-
America is not going to be able to quickly shut Italy down cold while also quickly building a large enough Pacific fleet to keep Japan totally engaged near the money islands. Japan starts with a big advantage in the form of its surplus air force. Japan can build a carrier and have it be automatically loaded; the US has to load its own carriers. Japan also has a bigger starting fleet and the ability to make kamikaze attacks. So, if you split the US income in half so you can take down Italy, then Japan will have enough spare boats in the opening to sail about a third of its fleet over to the west Indian Ocean, sink the British fleet, and occupy the Persian factory. The naval base you build actually makes this easier for Japan, since it helps them return home in a hurry if America pivots to a 100% KJF strategy. Normally it’s not worth it to sail that far west just to harass Britain, but if Britain is staking 80%+ of its strategy and economy on being able to ship reinforcements north from South Africa, then even just moving a carrier group in range of that shipping traffic shuts down the British shuck-shuck and cripples the British momentum. If Japan can also sink 3 transports and capture a factory and naval base, then it’s totally worth it to go all the way west to persia.
-
If Russia is able to stalemate Germany all on its own, with no support from the western Allies beyond a couple British fighters in Moscow and some American pressure on Rome, then Russia would be able to do that using any British strategy. Like, I’m not going to sit here and argue with GHG about whether Moscow will fall by turn 7 or not against a group of Allies using the pure Middle Earth strategy (spoiler alert: I think it will probably fall) because that’s a complicated and controversial question that depends on tactics, strategy, dice, and circumstances. But if Moscow does hold, then that has almost nothing to do with Britain. If Moscow can hold using Middle Earth, then Moscow can hold if Britain uses a totally conventional strategy like attacking France and Norway. The credit here, if any, would go entirely to Russia. Britain’s not doing anything special to help Russia with Middle Earth. Middle Earth has some modestly helpful effect on Moscow by weakening the Italian ability to build extra can openers. That’s about it. So if you think Russia will hold under those circumstances, why worry about the Middle East at all? Clearly Germany has its hands full and then some trying to stalemate Russia. Better to have Britain and America and Russia all attack Germany all-out so they can overwhelm the weak little German pushover state and quickly end the game.
-
Another way of framing this point about “Why worry about the Middle East?” is to point out that the Axis don’t reach the Middle East from Eurasia until around turn 7 anyway. The Axis typically don’t attack Russia on turn 1. On turns 2 and 3 they’re fighting their way through the Ukraine. On turns 4 and 5 they’re fighting their way towards Moscow. Only on turns 6 and 7 do they have a chance to pivot south past Stalingrad, through the Caucasus, and maybe into northwest Persia. If you’re worried about Iraq or Egypt, now we’re talking about a turn 8 or 9 Axis capture. Why invest your whole economy starting on turn 1 to prepare for a turn 8 attack that might never come? If Russia can hold off the Nazis singlehandedly, then the Middle East is never going to come into play at all. If Russia can’t hold off the Nazis singlehandedly, then you as the Western Allies need to be doing something to generate counterplay in Rome, France, Norway, or Western Germany. Efficiently shipping troops from South Africa to Persia does not generate counterplay.
MY ALTERNATIVE:
I like to build 2 inf, 1 fighter for London on UK1, activate Persia by pulling 1 unit from Egypt, and use my Indian transport to either take Ethiopia with Indian troops, or occupy Sumatra (if I’m facing a conservative Japanese player). I use the remaining money to buy a transport and an artillery for South Africa. I leave 1 infantry behind in South Africa to fill up the transport, and now that transport can hit Kenya, Sudan, Egypt, or Iraq on turn 2, as needed. Depending on what Italy does, I have the option of buying a factory in Persia or Egypt on UK2, or neither. You don’t always need a second factory in the colonies. A full Taranto raid with a follow-up attack on the remaining Italian ships is often enough to permanently eliminate the Italian navy, which means that even shucking 1 inf, 1 art from South Africa to Egypt each turn will be more than enough to hold Egypt and start pushing Italy back toward Tunis. Starting on turn 2, I build at least one sub every turn to either sink newly built Italian boats or start convoying the Italians down to zero income. GHG gets it right that the primary goal has to be gaining ironclad control of the Mediterranean Sea – it just turns out that you get there by building your first three subs in the region, not by buying your sixth naval base.
Buying only 2 inf, 1 ftr for London while doing a full Taranto does leave London vulnerable to a Sea Lion, but not that vulnerable. You can build 10 infantry in London on UK2. That leaves you with over 25 units defending London. By buying a transport + artillery in Africa instead of a factory, I ensure that Britain can keep fighting for a few turns in Africa even if London gets temporarily shut down. If you can keep Italy stalemated near Alexandria, kill off 40+ IPCs’ worth of the German tank corps, and force Germany to invest 70+ IPCs in naval units, then it’s perfectly fine to let Germany take London for a couple of turns. Russia will be a monster, America can liberate London, and Germany won’t make a profit on the transaction.
Suggested Topics
