@shadowhawk I never though about that , that is really smart. I will make sure to do that.
UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
-
It seems like everyone says that even though none of them have tried it. Go figure.
-
This hardly fought game between Me1945 and I was pretty much Middle Earth:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39992.480
The concept of support between Middle East, Moscow and India was definitely exploited.
-
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega. Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference. I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.
-
So, thank you for sharing the game, Omega1759 – but I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t attack Iraq until turn 3, and you didn’t build a naval base in Persia.
These are really the two points I’m arguing with GHG about: the UK1 attack on Iraq, and the UK2 naval base in Persia. The rest of the strategy mostly seems reasonable – the middle east is obviously an important region of the board, and trying to reinforce it by building units in South Africa is obviously a reasonable choice. I just don’t see how the specific tactics of UK1 attack on Iraq or the UK2 naval base in Persia add any value to the overall strategic plan of strengthening the middle east.
GHG, in a dice game like Axis & Allies, even the craziest strategies can work once in a while, and slightly sub-optimal strategies can work as much as 40% of the time. I think your version of Middle Earth is slightly but clearly sub-optimal: you’re telling us to do two important things (attack Iraq round 1 + build a naval base in Persia) that are clearly worse than Britain’s available alternatives. I’ve written about two full pages spelling out why I think the alternatives are clearly worse, and your only real response has been to say “try it” or “come to British Columbia.” Instead of responding to the specific arguments people are making against your strategy, you’re just repeating the contents of your original post, and telling people to trust you. I don’t think you’ve earned our trust! Part of the problem is that trying your tactics once won’t prove anything. I could play your strategy out exactly as you suggest, and it could win, because your strategy isn’t shit, it’s just slightly sub-optimal. I could play your strategy 5 times and win 3 of my games, depending on how the dice go and how strong my opponents are. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t have won 4 out of 5 games if I’d used a better strategy. The only experimental way to determine the effectiveness of a strategy is to play at least 5 full games using strategy A and 5 full games using strategy B, for a total of over 100 hours of gaming.
So, you don’t have to defend the theory behind your tactics if you don’t want to – but don’t be offended if people aren’t willing to invest 100+ hours into trying out tactics that you’re not even willing to put 1 hour into debating on paper.
-
Argothair, I have been defending my strategy for over a year now in this thread and in live games. By now I’m tired of people telling me that my strategy is, as you call it “suboptimal”. Forgive me if I don’t want to keep answering the same questions over and over again.
I’ve already answered your question regarding Iraq this past week after you asked me about it. Just for you I’ll answer the question about the naval base for the umpteenth time;
The point of having the naval base is for being a) Being able to separate your 2 complexes from each other while being able to utilize them each turn. The Axis are more powerful in the game and if they really put their mind to it they can invade the Middle East from both sides and eventually wear down the UK and take it. If you put both of them there (Iraq or Egypt and Persia) you will lose both of them instead of just one of them.
And b) To give the UK greater mobility. Honestly, if you don’t try it you will not see the beauty of how mobile your forces will be. The UK Pacific and UK Europe will work together as one big force more so than they ever did before. You add an extra transport every so often and they project their power that much further. If you’re not too busy saving Calcutta or Russia then you’re taking down Rome in a one-two punch with the Americans. One takes Northern Italy and the other takes Rome on the same turn so that Germany can’t liberate them.Obviously on a video I can only put down the first few turns of this strategy because you will have to improvise every game like you always do. There is no exact blueprint for how you set up Middle Earth or how you use it for the rest of the game. The Axis will dictate the direction of play like they do almost every game. Some games I will take Ethiopia before I take Iraq, sometimes not be able to drop the complex on Persia until the 3rd or 4th turn, sometimes wait until the 4th or 5th turn to drop the naval base. It depends on the circumstances of each game and what the Axis gives you. I can tell you for certain though that the strategy works better with the naval base that not with it. I have tried it both ways and I know how much better it is. The longer the game goes the more it will come in handy. It helps if you can put an airbase there later in the game but that’s only if you have too much money to spend.
Think about it this way, your starting point is the middle of the map (hence the name of the strategy), the further you can move from that point in one move the wider the circumference you can draw on the map as your control zone. It’s not just about being able to create a transport shuck although that’s how I originally set it up the first time. When I realized how much better it was than not having the naval base I never looked back.
Whatever you do don’t try it though. Don’t believe me because I don’t play Triplea and I can’t possibly know what I’m talking about. Keep doing what you’re doing and keep laughing at us hacks who play on a table top. We’re not worthy…
-
@Arthur:
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega. Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference. I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.Â
It definitely isn’t 30 is not even enough. I would say 45 is more reasonable to even things out.
-
@Arthur:
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega.� Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference.� I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.�
It definitely isn’t 30 is not even enough. I would say 45 is more reasonable to even things out.
Besides playoff games, there aren’t that many G40 games with bids 30+ that I’m aware of. That makes it a pretty small sample size. Perhaps 30 is about right. It seems that 20-25 isn’t enough statistically though.
My only real problem with a G40 game with a bid is the SBR rules. Perhaps I get too agitated about it, but they aren’t right in G40.2 to my way of thinking at least.
-
Tried it out and it seems to be every bit as effective as it’s made to be. My thoughts to beating it are about not caring about the Middle East. When I win with the axis it’s because you push for economic advantage and then maintain.
You can make Japan an IPC monster without taking India. Just keep them at 0 dollars by bombing the crap out of them. While China and rake Russia’s back door.
Taking the Middle East for Axis is like a win more strategy that puts the nail in the coffin. You can drop Russia to Nothing by turtling them in Moscow and clean up their IPCs. You should be able to get Germany and Japan roughly 70+ without winning the game. In the process Italy should be around 20. So that’s like 160 IPC. You’re left with USA 70+, ANZAC 10, UK 35-40. So it’ll be 160 to 120. You’ve already won if yo can maintain your gains. Just play the long game at that point. So you don’t take Calcutta in 7 turns. You’ll get there. Shift your focus away from winning all out to winning by attrition.
-
Interesting Pinch1. What did the UK do in this area before you tried the strategy? I put down a Persia factory UK2 and attack Iraq UK2, and just build ground units normally.
-
A mix of stuff. It’s essentially a way for UK to get a lot of stuff exactly where it’s needed. The axis players start gunning for India or Moscow because once you get to that point it’s essentially over for the allies. So middle earth is aimed at taking away that crush victory. Which works IF the axis plans are to go all in for the knockout punch between turns 7-9.
What I like to do with the axis when I see a knockout is inprobable is divert attention to securing economic edge whist turtling the enemy. It’s easy for Germany to turtle Russia. You’re essentially gunning for Moscow turn 7 at the soonest. Infantry/Artillery from West Germany can be at Moscow on 7th turn. Maybe some tanks and mech too but mostly with your starting units and troops bought from turns 1-3 that puts Russia in the back foot. At that point you force a battle to the gates of Moscow and Eussia is forced to turtle. Then you envelope take their territories and bomb their factory to oblivion. Once you’re close enough you use bombers and escorts. If he decides to intercept yo’ll lose planes but you can replace he can’t. Do the same to India too with Japan.
Now a good chunk of your monies in Germany can go toward your navy. If he’s spending all his money in middle earth he has a measly 2 fighters in GB. Park a couple carriers and destroyers and a sub or 2 in the convoy SZ of GB and Scotland to remove a combined 8 IPCs from UK. For a pretty cheap investment you can have 3 German carriers loaded with fighters. It’ll be impossible for the US to establish a beach head without UK support from GB. Germany can just amass it’s navy and combined Luftwaffe to destroy the land bridge as soon as it moves into position.
Get Japan rolling with 5-6 carriers too and the US has to split it’s purchases to keep The Japs honest.
In the end UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs after convoy raids which will limit their impact on the board at middle earth. America will never land without UK intervention in the Europe theatre. Germany with otherwise always have enough to kill that land bridge. And it’s completely worth it. Busy the time US rebuilds their war ships to restore the bridge. Germany has rebuilt the Luftwaffe and some ships again. If UK ignores the German navy just convoy them. This works even better if you survive the German battleship in the opening round.
-
I’m confused as to why you’re saying artillery bought in W Germany can reach Moscow turn 7. Why wouldn’t you build it in Berlin? You aren’t playing 1st edition are you? Many people try to get Moscow turn 6 in 2nd edition.
-
Yes I meant Berlin. Point I’m making is that the units that can make it to Moscow are typically the units bought in the first 3 turns because it takes 5 moves to reach Moscow from the nearest factory in Berlin. So if you want to hit Moscow ASAP that means you have to have the bulk of your infantry in place. Meaning a round 2 purchase can assault Moscow On the 7th round and so on and so forth. If you rush in with early purchases in infantry and artillery G1/2 then you can probably seal the deal in Russia and from R3/4 be dedicating more money to the western front. Which can be a lot of money on navies to contend with a landing force. America will have to go full Europe and Japan will ravage the pacific.
-
@Pinch1 That’s either an exaggeration or a very risky gambit.
True, after round 2 your slow movers built in Berlin won’t reach Moscow in time to attack it round 7, but the game doesn’t end when you attack Moscow; you’ve got to hold it, push into Persia and Egypt, and so on. You also usually want some mechs and tanks in Berlin on turn 3, some fighters to head east on turn 4 or 5, and some units built in Leningrad and Kiev on turns 5 and 6. If you pay for all of that, there’s almost nothing left over for a navy. If you skip all of that then you can pretty easily get blocked out of Moscow by British fighters, or at least you can be forced to wager the game on a battle with 50% odds or less…and if you lose that battle then you lose the game because you have no reinforcements on the eastern front, so Russia promptly recovers and stabilizes.
There’s something to be said for building army early and naval/air in the mid game with Germany, but I think you’re taking that idea way too far.
-
@Argothair give it a try. You might be surprised.
-
@Pinch1 Meh. It takes 10 seconds for you to tell me to give it a try; it takes 10 hours for me to test your ideas in one game of Global, and even then, if I get crushed, you could call it a fluke. I’ve never met you and I have no reason to trust your judgment. If you really want other people to give it a try, why not respond in detail to my concerns? If you don’t care very much, then that’s fine; we can agree to disagree – it’s just a game.
-
@Pinch1 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
Now a good chunk of your monies in Germany can go toward your navy. If he’s spending all his money in middle earth he has a measly 2 fighters in GB. Park a couple carriers and destroyers and a sub or 2 in the convoy SZ of GB and Scotland to remove a combined 8 IPCs from UK. For a pretty cheap investment you can have 3 German carriers loaded with fighters. It’ll be impossible for the US to establish a beach head without UK support from GB. Germany can just amass it’s navy and combined Luftwaffe to destroy the land bridge as soon as it moves into position.
Get Japan rolling with 5-6 carriers too and the US has to split it’s purchases to keep The Japs honest.
In the end UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs after convoy raids which will limit their impact on the board at middle earth. America will never land without UK intervention in the Europe theatre. Germany with otherwise always have enough to kill that land bridge. And it’s completely worth it. Busy the time US rebuilds their war ships to restore the bridge. Germany has rebuilt the Luftwaffe and some ships again. If UK ignores the German navy just convoy them. This works even better if you survive the German battleship in the opening round.
This is simply just not true. It might hold some merits if you play G40 2nd without bid AND play on triple a. If you have three loaded German carriers in 109 on G4 or G5? there is a whole lot of other stuff you dont have. If your planes are in 109 they are not on the eastern front. And America loves to fight German navy.If USA sees a placement of 3 German carriers buy 8 subs (48 IPC) and 2 bombers for a total of 72. Next round buy more bombers (3 or 4) and put all 8 subs in 91, 103,104,107, 108,117,118 and 123. (one in each) All subs can reach 109 on next round combined with bombers
-
@oysteilo I think if America buys so many subs They pretty much playing right into German hands. I’ve done the mass sub buy before and it sounds good on paper and just never pans out. For 2 more IPCs you counter with a destroyer. A single destroyer nullifies your sub abilities. A full turn of subs and bombers? No ground troops? You just lost a turn. That’s the whole point. Make the USA dump all its monies into navies. Now eventually the USA with several turns of full buys in navies will overpower the German navy. But they have to significantly outpace the German navy because what you do when the USA is too powerful is pull back, but by that time Russia is pushed back to Moscow, Japan has secured India. The Axis have found economic advantage you the allies are yet to build boots on the ground.
Once you see those subs drop and move up you can build a few destroyers and start picking off subs with air support. What America needs is protection for its transports because one or two landings isn’t going to win the allies the game. It has to be a sustained allied beachhead to make way into Germany. A whole turn of subs aren’t going to protect your transports when they make their first landing. Pull your entire airforce back and deal with the American beachhead. Let Russia take their territory back piecemeal it’s going great to take 3 or 4 turns to push back into German territory.
It’s not unbeatable but this is in response to the UK moving all support to the middle of the board and not supporting the US beachhead. The strategy works when USA pretty much ignores Japan and goes all in to invade Germany. Thing is the USA has to do two things.
- Create a sustainable beachhead
- Protect its transports from German counterattack.
It is absolutely worth it for the German player to sacrifice everything to blow that escort out of the water. That puts the USA back like 3 turns. The idea is to protect mainland Europe or at least narrow the American options for attack routes.
The most cost effective route for America to go is to establish a continuous beachhead is in the English Channel, with air cover and additional naval support from GB. Alternate routes will cost more. More $ = more time, which is exactly what the Axis want. Anywhere else with continuous chain of invading ground troops will net you an additional set of 3-4 transports and a longer chain. If Italy is your route the following logistical problems present themselves.
- Transport chain is stretched and exposed
- You cannot ignore a large German fleet presence and will therefore have to divide your fleet to protect transports at both Gibraltar and the Italian coast.
- You’ll need to spend 30 IPCs a turn just to pump out Ground troops leaving 40 for everything else
Also remember Japan was just left to its own devices. By all means build a round of subs and bombers. That’s a whole turn of no more ground troops landing in europe. Happy day. So the thing is you have to contend with the Germany navy because if you go around it. It’ll go through your back door. If you contend with it you’ve got no support because UK is dumping all it’s resources in the Middle East. By now Japan is rocking half a dozen loaded carriers in the direction of the enemy of it’s choosing toting a 90+ IPC economy. It’s unstoppable at that point. If you haven’t made breakthrough into land in Europe by now you’re in rough shape.
I believe that this strategy is sound and relatively inexpensive way of keeping America off the land. I don’t think they can make the appropriate impact without UK assitance soon enough to stem the tide.
If Middle earth is the strategy that it’s amped up to be this is the counter. You put your money where the UK isn’t. The Atlantic and force the USA to build a stronger bridge. GHG has 3 carriers and 2 battleships to escort his troops. The rest is transports and troops. That’s enough when the German player has a merger naval presence. Not enough when the German navy is on par and the Luftwaffe is in waiting. Instead of spending your excess in ground troops to defend the land throw it into ships. That force the USA to spend more on ships that can’t take land. You’re essentially buying time for Japan.
See the problem with buying land troops in Europe is you have to defend like 10 possible beachheads. You’ll need to spread out like 50 infantry and spend 3 -4 turns making this impenetrable wall in France only to have the allies make landing in Italy or Norway, establish a base and then bomb the crap out of Germany.
If you put that money into the navy you don’t need ground forces in Europe in eccess. You protect your key zones only because the yanks might land without a fuss but they’ll be out of position and vulnerable. That escort force has to be large enough to absolutely withstand a German assault, not on par. It has to be twice as large. America doesn’t want to be chasing a navy around the board. America want to land marines. They can’t do that safely with a sizeable German navy on the board.This is easily countered by UK investing it’s money in altantic to support, but then we’re back to the issue of Japan taking India too easily again. Around and around we go on this roller coaster.
TLDR: It’s not an absolute deadbreak strategy but if Middle Earth shifts favour into the allies hands I says this puts it back to par. May the better player win.
-
@bakaman Love the idea of nerfing the Axis. I have suggested a negative bid on my youtube channel: crockett36
-
General,
Hey, I’ve been playing around in the Middle East lately as well. I no longer do Tobruk or Taranto. I’ll post a vid soon. I find the big choice to be made is India or Egypt. With one of the current metas putting Japan in India turn 3 or 4, I drain India significantly and stymie the Italians. Then double back East as America attempts to grab their attention.
Interestingly I love how certain battles happen during different rounds. Turns one and two and three your planes could be protecting London or Egypt. Those same planes might make it to India to defend it. turn 3, 4 or 5. Potentially those very same planes might make their way to Russia during turn 5 or 6 to defend the motherland.
-
@randyshervandyke What do you do with the savings from skipping taranto? Build a turn 1 UK Atlantic fleet? I’m very curious what your first two turns of purchasing look like for the uk. It sounds like a clever and promising idea, but I wonder how easy it is to get enough compensation from an early Atlantic attack to justify letting Italy keep its navy. If Japan is hitting India turn 4 and you ate marching the indian army west to reinforce Egypt then you are basically just letting Japan have India for cheap, right? I’m interested to hear more about how that affects the US / UK ability to crush Japan from both sides in turns 6 through 8. There’s an interesting hammer and anvil idea there, but a Japan who takes India early and on the cheap can be very powerful, especially if America has to devote some attention to containing a still-kicking Italy! :-)
Suggested Topics
