New Strategy for Allied Win

Fun strategy to think about, but the main problem is that egypt falls 100% on gerant0 or 11. That is game over… Even if uk had 50 units there and russia had 20 it still wouldnt be enough. Germany will have at least 60 ground and 30 planes.

One thing that really strikes me with this strategy is the idea of sacrificing Moscow. In our games, we kind of expect Moscow to fall but only with a strong, dedicated German push and a massive defense with Russia holding it as long as possible so the Western Allies can put the hurt on Germany from the west. Sometimes Russia will go more offensively and actually attack the German armies pushing into Russia. Sometimes if Germany doesn’t have quite enough in the east, due perhaps to building more defense against the west, then it works for Russia. They either wipe out a German army or leave it weak enough that it no longer presents a real offensive threat.
However, I never thought of Russia making no defensive buys and basically giving up on defending Moscow in order to make offensive moves elsewhere to hurt one or more of the Axis.
Using strategic bombers from Russia to pound German industry is really interesting. Especially if the UK and US can add to it. Germany could end up spending a lot of money to repair factories instead of buying units.

One thing I am curious about. I see a lot of references to something called “TMG”. I must have missed this in earlier posts. What does “TMG” stand for?

@pokemaniac:

Fun gambit strategy that would possibly work against an axis player that always goes G4/J4 and won’t be able to adapt effectively, but against a good axis player who will recognize that Germany can throw a lot of its resources against the UK I just don’t see it ever working.

Exactly why the allies have such a difficult time!
They can conjure a counter for every axis strategy but then the axis are flexible enough to move into the allied weak spots that inevitably came with their strategy. And the magic word is: aircraft. German air (for example), are able to quickly change position. Turn x they can threaten to take Egypt and/or Gibralar, turn x+1 they are already in place for an attack on London if they so desire. RAF can defend Egypt turn x, but cannot be in place for defending London turn x+1.

This basically means that the allies have to be cautious during the first ~7 turns so that the axis can always play out what they had planned.
That’s why exotic strategies, however fun they may be, usually have such a short life. There’s too much both sides can do to each other and after a short but volatile game the axis usualy win simply because they start with a better central position.

I just wonder how this one would play out, as it definately qualifies as ‘exotic’.
I seriously think it cannot be dismissed or declared a universal panacea either, before it has been tried. Still always fun to discuss it, just to gather as much ideas as possible before trying it out.

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

The gambit isn’t necessarily for the allies to win by taking Tokyo (just part of it), but rather to take Japan out of the picture by round 9-10 and own the Pac side (somehow wipe out the Imperial Navy and Air Force?). This will allow the US to switch gears to the Euro side by say round 8-9 (ready to make a difference by round 11-12).

It might even be possible for the allies to own the Pacific side w/o actually taking Tokyo (we know that Japan can easily make their capital a fortress). If the allies can overload Japan in Asia (kick them off the continent), and gain control of the islands they will take away most of Japans income. Add to that heavy SBR/convoy and the Japanese will be dropped to 0 income, even if they do still hold their capital. The thing is that the Japanese would have to had to made a deadly mistake and lost both the their navy, and most of their air force. This is where I take exception, say Japan doesn’t play into your hands, and decides to play defense, and basically runs the navy to safety, while stacking its capital with Inf and half the air force. That navy, and the other half of the Imperial Air force, along with say 8 loaded transports floating towards Africa/Mid East could cause some havoc.

While all this is happening on the Pac side, the Russians have given up the center (Moscow) so they can participate in the destruction of Japan (maybe even doing some SBR runs on Germany as well). So now the race is on, and the allies need to make sure that while this is happening Euro axis can’t get a VC win in Europe by round 10-11. Round 12 or so is when the US would be in full force looking to make a difference or start def/grabbing VCs.

The thought is to take Tokyo (or at least neuter Japan and the Pac side), while not losing the game to an 8 VC win on the Euro map. Once Japan is out of the picture, and if the Euro axis don’t have the 8 VCs (or can’t keep them for an entire round), the allies will over power the Euro axis soon after. Once the allies have the Pac side in the bag, and can 100% focus on Europe map……at some point the axis would just surrender.

I’m not convinced it will work, but it could win you a game or two until the axis figure out ways to counter it. Like any risky strat, it could also cause you to look the fool if the axis players adjust well on the fly LOL

What if Germany helps Italy get Egypt early? A common G1 buy is 2 bombers 1 sub, with the intent of flying the most of the Luftwaffe onto Italians that advance to Tobruk. They will then blast Egypt G3 if the British don’t retreat (losing several planes, but still worth it) for an easy walk in by the Italians I3. G4 the remaining Luftwaffe (that landed in Greece) can now make attacks on the USSR. Italy with Egypt in hand and no American or British naval spending to counter will surely be a monster.

@knp7765:

One thing I am curious about. I see a lot of references to something called “TMG”. I must have missed this in earlier posts. What does “TMG” stand for?

" THE MAHATMA GAMBIT " This was the nick name MeinHerr gave to this tactic taken from one of his earlier threads.

The gist is that the UK Pac positions naval units while not at war w/Japan. It either places surface war ship(s) as future blockers, or into a sz where Japan has empty transports (the units are on land). Then the Anz DOW on Japan and now the Japanese are at war w/both powers. The UK ships now act as blockers to the Japanese fleet, and any sz that the UK moved a surface warship to is now hostel and the Japanese can’t load their transports. Of course the US would most likely be held out till it can DOW on its own (end of US3). This tactic has been around for a while, and I’m sure you have seen it knp.

There was some other stuff about getting the Brit BB to the Sea of Japan, referencing the BB working as a mission of peace hence " THE MAHATMA GAMBIT ". UK BB moves to Kwantung UK1, then UK2 moves to Sea of Japan to possibly stop the Japanese from loading transports there on J3. I assured him that if that BB moves to Kwangtung UK1 (giving Japan a second look at it) it won’t be going anywhere UK2 because there is noway the Japanese don’t attack J2 especially if they can also sink other UK/Anz ships and transports (of course the US would now be at war).

You can read more about it here (if you want).

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34893.0

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.