When I play UK, usually I take Iraq on UK2. So, there’s no “Iraqi” oil for Italy on I3. Interesting idea for getting Egypt. Beyond that, I can’t imagine the investment being worth the squeeze.
I think the Russian player would have to be smart enough to know it’s time to start purchasing tanks. UK would be free to purchase an IC in Egypt on UK2 and make purchases for the S. Africa IC.
Buying a major IC (30 IPCs), plus 7 transports (49 IPCs), to move units, means more than a whole turns purchase less for Barbarossa or Sea Lion. Russia would over power Germany in no time.
Lastly, I think these strategies might be fun to play or try, but as far as winning the game, ie…capturing capitals, it’s hard to imagine them working out favorable for the Axis.
@shadowhawk…the plan works because of two elements…one is surprise. Remember it’s not a every game strategy. number two, by the time the allies figure it out, it’s really about positioning and a race for the last victory city. America can outspend Japan, but not by much late game. they must get over to defend both Sydney AND Honolulu. obviously Hawaii is easier…but Sydney is quite a distance.
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.â€
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The german bombers alone would not be enough to change that consideration until the US is right on top of you. The bombers take time to produce and then 2+ turns to fly into attack position.
Shadow is correct; using this as your sole gambit is probably not a great idea. I wasn’t suggesting the reverse (Japan buys ONLY SB–-> Germany) as a great plan either.
Probably better ideas are
“Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near”
awesome quote, the challenge in AxA is that a “surprise” (gambit) plays out over several hours and openly in front of several opponents; you may do something unexpected but the game is more reactionary than based on real surprise. He can see all your dispositions; there is no fog of war. The real clench is therefore to force your opponent to be hyper-conservative in order to defend from every possibility, or to make him make rash but necessary attacks (trading time for risk) that cost him in the long run.
I wouldn’t be playing very conservatively if I see Germany buying a big fleet in the Med. I would know that Egpyt is going down in flames but Russia could mostly fend off the Axis powers for a long time. Russia would purchase relatively high amounts of fast movers so that it can respond to either the Middle East or western front. Meanwhile USA could be spending a higher fraction of the income in the Pacific, knowing that victory in Europe will not be imminent any time soon. This gambit isn’t too scary IMHO.
Not that it matters…but the last part of the gambit is a naval base in the money islands to hit sydney in 2 turns. A 1-2 punch from both Germany and Japan. Those 2 turns it takes to get to Sydney, America can’t reach to defend with any new purchases. Japan can also threaten Hawaii with new purchases requiring America to cover both. In an infinite timelines America outspends japan…in the reality of the game they can be out of position to respond properly. Yes Russia can grow and get aggressive but both Germany and Italy are max defense. They can hold out.
I dont have problems taking India as Japan unless some serious bad dice hit me. If USA isn’t buying units for the pacific, yeah you can fly german bombers to Asia to act as a can opener…. this is usually not necessary because you can just take the island that is above hawaii… it has an airbase to boot with it.
As the U.S. I would counter this move by building a naval base and two factories in Argentina/Chile three turns after you hit the neutrals. At a cost of 39 IPC’s (a little over half a turn of money) I now have the ability to get navy to you a turn sooner and develop a two step shuck to get ground units into Southeast Asia and the money islands. This is why one of my 11 conclusions on the other thread was that the neutral crush would never work as a strategy for the Axis powers.
I’m afraid to say the Pacific Lion may be doomed as a strategy except against players who haven’t seen or thought about this before.
I remember a game where soulblighter suprised me by making a mad rush on Egypt with luftwaffe supporting Italy. On G1 he took South France, G2 he built 3 carriers, G4 the fleet moved to Egypt, G5 they were out into the Indian Ocean, and from there he just pushed me back to Hawaii and then Japan got India and Hawaii. It was well timed and creative.
That sounds like a better plan. You can also get a factory in Greece if you want your Indian Ocean fleet to have a lot of ships / transports. Maybe this is the real “Pacific Lion”.
I remember a game where soulblighter suprised me by making a mad rush on Egypt with luftwaffe supporting Italy. On G1 he took South France, G2 he built 3 carriers, G4 the fleet moved to Egypt, G5 they were out into the Indian Ocean, and from there he just pushed me back to Hawaii and then Japan got India and Hawaii. It was well timed and creative.
Well, there are 3 Top level German plans to start the war.
#1 Go all in on Sea Lion, you are invading.
#2 Set up for a G2 or G3 Russian Invasion, this would include a sea lion fake.
#3 Go all in on the Med. This would include Germany taking the S. France factory or Building one in Greece or Yugo. This usually means a G4 invasion of Russia.
Option #3 does not get much “play” because it is a slow play plan of attack. Most Germany strategies revolve around a quick strike at Russia and knocking them out before G8.
Option #3 is the most optimal plan of attack IF you are going for a Axis victory in the long term, Turn 10-14. Germany sweeps into the middle east, forms a navy to support the invasion of India, collects around 25+ IPC in NO’s in the middle east and Cacuss and crush Moscow from the south.
There is big upside also to option #3. That means Italy gets full support from Germany and usually will get all its NO’s also and be pumping out 25+ IPC a turn themselves. A very strong italy coupled with a crushing Germany economy never leads to bad things for the Axis powers and usually a Turn 8-10 concession speech from Chamberland.
it would be interesting to see how the famous UK Middle Earth plan of attack works out with a strong Italy and a full effort from Germany pushing in the Middle East.
