UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

So my results so far with the German Atlantic fleet are inconclusive with a test game I am currently running. I’m playing out the land bridge scenario with Middle earth and about 5-6 turns in. If I could use a single word to describe the game it would be stalemate.

UK Middle earth is feverishly reinforcing India from the Japanese who are making small gains in their push to take India.
Japan has a strong position with minimal investment of America in the pacific Japan has had an easy time securing their holdings in the south pacific and creating a steady supply of troops to the mainland. Having slowly conquered China and built a wall of infantry on the Chinese/Russian border Japan is poised to push into Russia’s back door from multiple directions and claim the first major swing in IPCs that would likely swing the balance in favor of the Axis. Their fleet is easily twice the size of the combined American & ANZAC fleet conglomerated on Hawaii. Japan has the luxury of options at this point and is dictating the pace of the game on the pacific side.

USA has advanced their floating bridge fleet to Gibraltar. A last minute airbase purchase from UK allowed their north African planes to land protecting their fleet from the looming German navy based in the English channel which is on par plus a few subs and destroyers. A battle in the Gibraltar sea zone could tip either way, its a 50/50 gamble. Neither side has an advantage. An attack would surely cripple the landing force, transports would survive but planes would be forced to land Italy has a token naval and air force protecting the sea zone around Rome which the Americans cannot penetrate without a naval escort. Their transports would be doomed to perish. and the landing force would have a narrow margin of success. The choice is Germany’s at this point an attack will cost their navy but buy them time, perhaps 3-4 turns of security in Europe as USA rebuilds their escort.

UK is tied up in India and cannot help elsewhere without losing ground in India. India requires full support to withstand further Japanese gains into their territory. Russia is holding. Neither force is large enough offensively to overcome the other defensively at a margin that would provide much assurance. Still looking like they have to retreat back to the capital which is bombed to the max. Their factory in Ukraine is about to fall and with only a single factory remaining and Japan about to provoke war form a second front it is unlikely Russia will be pushing back unless Germany has to retire their planes from the front. Which they might depending on what happens in the west.

America has one choice for a successful landing to make an impact, which is Italy. An assault North is unwinnable without the coverage of a defensive air force scramble. First they have to push through a blocker destroyer but also they have to split the fleet to ensure Italy does not block a second turn. An impact has to be made now and capturing Rome even for just a single turn could offset the balance. Enough defense must be left to cover the second wave of transports from an air assault of a potential. The lone destroyer must be used as a blocker to prevent the German navy from accompanying the air assault.

Long story short, can the Axis hold off the american beachhead? It’s 50/50 and will make or break the game. Both sides need to weight the risk reward at this point as the margins for error are extremely narrow.

Based on this play test yet unfinished the game remains balanced on a pin head. Which is what I hoped for. I think the strategy is sound. Will keep you posted of the final resolution.

@Argothair So, I support the French navy with the aircraft carrier and two fighters, maybe two cruisers. That stays where it is–in the Med. It invites an attack by the Italian navy. Meanwhile the Indian Ocean fleet approaches from the East. Into the Med t3. My forces in almost abandon Egypt to capture Iran and Persia and the Horn. Two transports are dropping soldiers where needed with bombardments. The Indian air force comes to Syria.

Purchases. 3 destroyers off England, 109, mech in S Af. Second turn, factory in Persia and more destroyers in 109.

I will try to do a t1, t2 video for the Allies tomorrow, but it might have to wait until Sunday or January. I’m a UPS guy.

@randyshervandyke That is profoundly weird and possibly the most effective/exciting new strategy to hit the meta-game since Dark Skies, and I am really looking forward to your video. Happy Holidays and good luck with the overtime!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtziXSzJR6o&t=240s

give it a try and let me know what you think.

@randyshervandyke said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtziXSzJR6o&t=240s

give it a try and let me know what you think.

Interesting idea! If I saw that as Italy I would totally hit that force and also hit Southern France if it wasn’t already German owned. And make sure to buy a fighter. It’s a 53% attack but only if the fighters are kept for last even though they have nowhere to land. Even if the battle goes against you, you can retreat back to SZ95 and have the scramble to defend your fleet.

I’d think you’d need a bid unit to make this move work. Or am I missing something somewhere?

@GeneralHandGrenade said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

I’d be tempted to smash them with the Germans …

Recommended for that : )

Really? Why pass the opportunity to hit it with Italy? Leaving for Germany means you’ll lose Luftwaffe doing so. The Italian navy isn’t much good if it can’t secure the med. Also, how would you protect transports if you’re leaving so many ships afloat? The only thing they can do from SZ97 is help with taking out Greece. They can still do so if the scramble can defend the transports.

I count 9 hits. The Luftwaffe can’t be expected to do that in one round.

Besides, even if you are planning to take it out with the Luftwaffe, you should at least strafe it with the Italian navy and repair the hit on the battleship. You can’t tell me the Italian sub is as important as a German plane.

@GeneralHandGrenade yeah,my point is not to rescue the navy, but make it more costly for the axis powers. Replacing an air force is exactly what I want Germany spending its money on. I m literally saving Russian soldiers. The Italian navy would then own the Med.

The Italian navy is my choice for sacrificial lamb. But there goes the Med if you get unlucky and/when the Indian fleet moves in. I’ve also considered an air base in Egypt.

If you don’t hit SZ93 as Italy, you’re likely to be giving up 8IPCs. 5IPCs from the control the med objective and 3IPCs from convoy disruption on Southern France. Not game changing but also not great.

After watching the YouTube video, I think this variation is a very interesting series of traps for an unwary Axis player. The Axis can’t profitably attack Egypt on I1; you’re setting them up to trade the Italian fleet and the Italian expeditionary force for the expendable ANZAC infantry, and you can immediately and safely retake Egypt on UK2, so that’s all fine. Likewise, the Axis can’t profitably attack SZ 93 (Southern France) on I1 and/or G2. The Germans can’t afford to spend that much of their air power attacking Mediterranean boats that aren’t an immediate threat to any vital German interests, and the Italians are simply outclassed; if the Italians attack the combined UK / French fleet then, as Randy says, you essentially achieve the objectives of Taranto, but with the Allies rolling defensive 4’s instead of the Axis rolling defensive 4’s.

Instead, Italy should either (a) go for the New Roman Empire objective (one transport to Gibraltar, one transport to Greece), or (b) send both transports to Syria with the idea of getting into Iraq and making it unsafe for the British to build an early factory in Persia, or © send one transport to Jordan and one transport to Alexandria, stacking Alexandria from Tobruk, with the idea of setting up for a strong I2 attack on Egypt, or (d) use both transports to pick up the land units from Tobruk and bring it north to the Balkans so that you will have a huge can-opening force available to pressure Russia. Any of these plans will likely work out moderately well for Italy and Italy is not going to be under any special pressure from the Allies compared to the pressure Italy would feel from a modestly successful Taranto raid. Italy’s not going to run away with the game, but they get to keep their air force, they get to keep a big part of their fleet, and they’ll remain relevant and dangerous well into the middlegame. In exchange, the Allies save the French Med fleet, save a couple of British fighters, and pick up a couple of bucks in the Middle East / East Africa a couple of turns earlier than they otherwise might. This seems like a basically neutral exchange – I don’t see that either the Axis or the Allies come out noticeably ahead in the European theater. It’s sort of like trading a bishop for a knight…they each have advantages and disadvantages, and you can make that trade if you feel like it; there’s nothing wrong with that trade.

The problem is that you’re severely weakening your Pacific theater as Britain to make this neutral exchange happen: you don’t pick up Java, you are no longer threatening to pick off Japanese transports in the money islands, you are no longer seriously threatening to hold Yunnan, and unless those planes in British Somaliland turn around immediately and head back east toward India on UK2 and UK3, you are allowing Japan to take India on J4 without forcing Japan to commit 100% of its resources. Japan could easily wind up sitting in India, the money islands, and central China at the end of J4 while still having a substantial air force.

As a result, I’m really skeptical that Randy’s overall strategy is actually stronger than orthodox play. The stuff you’re giving up in the Pacific just seems more important to me than the ambiguous gains you’re making in the Med and the Middle East. I should note that I still don’t understand what the point of building three destroyers near Britain on UK1 is or what it is that Randy hopes to achieve in the Atlantic; I could potentially be convinced that this strategy is worth playing if those extra destroyers turn out to accomplish something impressive. Otherwise, this looks like a fun gambit that would be worth trying once to shake things up and play mind games with your opponents, but it doesn’t appear to be strong enough for me to want to use it as my new go-to opening.

I’m still very grateful to Randy for sharing and carefully describing this interesting new opening. Even if I don’t think it’s literally the best option available, I still think it’s well-considered, creative, forceful, and conceptually elegant. I may be able to apply some of the concepts described (retreat from India and Egypt and set up for counter-attacks) in some of my games even if I don’t wind up following Randy’s exact script.

One additional thing from what Argothair said is that you can go for the Med objective AND the Roman Empire objective if the Brits use this gambit. Hitting the fleet doesn’t prevent the amphibious assaults. I’d be thinking of that but it does likely cost you a transport to take Gibraltar.

I still think this needs a bid unit to make sense. Not building infantry in London doesn’t seem smart but I’m not focusing on the UK buy part - it doesn’t seem central.

This is actually part of a larger plan. As I’ve emphasized above. Save London by bringing the US fleet into the Atlantic. Secure the Atlantic by building a British navy that is backed by the Americans. Thus insisting early on that Germany build an Atlantic wall. Save Moscow by preserving air power and positioning it to be in Russia t5, possibly including a fleet of American bombers that can either act as fodder or better blitz a column of straggling armour or mechs.

Note there is a play like progression. The axis attempt for London is normally t3. check. They do that by dominating the Atlantic. check. They turn toward Moscow. t5 or 6. check.

This stuff in the Med takes place because of initial set up. My hope is for parity. I am trying to scratch my way back to even and to not needing a bid by saving English units, making the Axis pay the higher price, stay wealthy and play for good position t5.

I think Italy will not be able to keep up with the production from South Africa and India and Persia. Having secured North Africa by t3 or 4, that material then turns East. The ground forces to fight the Japanese. The air to support the Russians.

These strategies are obviously a Germany first model. I do think, given the tip toward the Axis inherent in the game, the Americans have to go 100% the first four round in one theatre or the other.

If Moscow is defended, the planes there then become what I call super tanks. They will, can and must engage small forces or important enemy armies to slow the Japanese advance.

@randyshervandyke
I read this all with growing confidence…!
Good job, guys, something new to refresh communities’ activity!

Hi Randy,

I believe that there is a larger plan here, and when you have more time, I look forward to hearing your explanation of how it’s supposed to work. I know you’re working at UPS during the holiday season, and looking after your family, and that’s fine and I don’t mean to pressure you to spend more time on A&A than you want to, but when you’re able to film it or type it up, I think your full plan will be very interesting and worthy of more discussion.

For now, I will just point out that if the USA and UK both evacuate the Pacific and go 100% in the Atlantic for the first four turns, then Japan will win quite easily. You’re calling for the starting US Pacific fleet to move into the Atlantic to prevent a Sea Lion – but, taken literally, that means that Japan can build a couple of loaded transports on J3, divert one carrier group, and have 99%+ odds to take Hawaii on J4. If Japan also takes India on J4, the game ends after ANZAC’s 4th turn – Japan wins with Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Honolulu, and Calcutta.

Taken less literally, and assuming that the USA leaves enough material behind to secure Honolulu against casual attacks, you still have to worry about losing Sydney (and thus the game) on J5 or J6. Given that you’re proposing to move 6 units out of India on UK1 (infantry, artillery, transport, cruiser, fighter, tac) and then continue moving units out of India as they’re built to overpower Italy in North Africa, Japan can take and hold India with its starting units plus two turns of builds – everything built on J3 and later can be devoted 100% to taking Sydney. That means the J3 build can reach the Caroline Islands on J4 and Sydney by J5. If you wait until J6, many of the Japanese aircraft that survived the attack on India can also reach Sydney using airbases and/or carriers. Meanwhile, US forces built off San Francisco on US5 can make it to Honolulu on US6 and Queensland on US7 – far too late to stop a J6 attack on Sydney.

I do give you a lot of credit for looking for a way that the Allies can reliably win G40 without a bid, and I think you’re making great progress, but unless you can also explain how to stop Japan in the Pacific, then the strategy isn’t really a Global strategy.

My estimate is 2 ground units in Hawaii and four planes t1. I keep the transports in the Pac if possible and sneak some ground units out there when possible even if I lose the transport. So say I get 2 or 4 more out there. If Anzac only builds for defense for four or five turns it can’t defend against a Japanese assault?

Just men, three per turn will make the J player wait for the air from the Indian campaign. t5 Aus has 16 guys, 1 art, 3 planes. Give up Hawaii and send four fighters and two troops south and you’ve got a good fight.

If Japan has nothing else to do, it will eventually get Sydney. Taking WA and then landing its huge air force on it, well ANZAC can’t fight that. It should also be able to get Hawaii although its fleet may be out of position for that.