UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

I get where your concern comes from but let me give you a broader perception of all this. To cover your points I’m going to go one by one to help you understand this attack and the benefits and success you can reap from it.

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

I mean, if you’re taking Wake Island J1, then you’re pulling at least one transport away from the standard J1 attack, and that has immediate consequences – you are either only bringing one transport to the Philippines, meaning you are attacking with 1 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 tac against 2 inf, 1 ftr, and you could easily get diced, or you are skipping the attack on Borneo, which means that India will be richer and you will be slower to collect the money island NO, if you can collect it at all. With only 2 transports in Indonesia for the first couple of turns, your attack is slower by one territory every turn – the infantry that took Borneo could have moved on to take, e.g., Java, but if it wasn’t on Borneo yet then it can’t continue on. So you’re not just down 4 IPCs for one turn; you’re down 4 IPCs for each of the first few turns. There’s also a problem where if you leave the Allies any toeholds in the money islands, then your transports need to be defended – if you take every money island, the Allies need carriers to harass you and they don’t have any carriers in the opening, but if you leave one of the islands in Dutch hands then Indian / ANZAC planes can land there after sinking your transports.

Japan begins with 3 transports. 2 of them on the coast of China (SZ 19, SZ 20). These 2 will brings 4 units and attack the Philippine Islands along with the Fighter and Tac Bomber from the carrier next to the Caroline Islands so you’re idea of being diced really doesn’t work here. Am I skipping the attack on Borneo? Yes. Is it going to cost me? No. Do you know that India only has 17 ipcs? And thats with Borneo. As I stated before, you’ll have 4 guys to then send to Celebes, Java, Sumatra and Borneo with your 2 transports and take all 4 of them if you so choose. And assuming that U.K is doing a Middle Earth strategy they won’t be using that small fleet to cross the triangle of Persia, SA, and Egypt. Your transports will be defended by 1 carrier with 2 fighters on it, and 2 battleships. If that’s not enough then maybe you’re infantry can personally swim out to protect the transport. ANZAC only has 1 fighter. Literally one. If they wanna spend that 10 ipcs on another fighter then they can. It wont make a difference.

Normally defending your transports wouldn’t be a big problem, but if you’re sending 2 CV, 2 DD, 1 SS to Hawaii then you’re running pretty low on boats. Your starting cruiser has to go to Singapore to fight the British BB there on J1 and may be lost in that battle or by an Indian counter-attack. So the Japanese southern fleet is something like 1 SS, 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 CV, 1 BB.

1 Aircraft Carrier (1 fighter, 1 Tac Bomber), 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 1 submarine. I suppose that’s a small and insignificant fleet to ANZAC and U.K Pacific.

The British start with 3 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV in the eastern Med + India, which is only very slightly weaker than the Japanese forces you have available – the British could build a couple of subs and get to parity if they’re feeling frisky, or they could just force you to concentrate your fleet in one sea zone, and then you’ll be losing 1-2 Japanese transports every turn as they get picked off by Allied fighters. ANZAC is also potentially a problem – you can’t attack their starting fleet if you are going for Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on J1, so they have a DD, a CA, and 15 IPCs of income turn 1 from Dutch New Guinea that can buy a couple more subs.

Unless the British are invading Tobruk, they’d be absolutely stupid in the head not to do the Taranto Raid. Especially if they plan on focusing their resources into a full force Middle Earth strategy. Yes, build 12 ipcs of sea units that totally won’t not be utterly destroyed at any point in the game. The British only have 2 fighters and 1 Tac Bomber in India. What they plan to do with it is unknown to me. But I’d welcome them attacking my fleet to take out the one air force they can’t even afford to rebuild in 2 turns. And yes you can attack ANZAC’s destroyer and transport with the destroyer you have in SZ 33. Take out the destroyer and transport with no scramble and the cruiser comes after you manage to hit a 1 or 2 and you destroyed the entirety of ANZAC’s navy. Once again, by all means spend 12 ipcs on units that will totally be there to see the dawn of sunrise over the American Flag in Tokyo…

Meanwhile, there is no naval base on Wake, so if you move carriers to Wake on J1, they can reach Caroline Islands on J2, Java on J3, and India on J4, assuming no blockers at all and no need to remain near Wake for even one turn to mop up American resistance. Neither assumption is guaranteed.

There is an airbase. And there’s a specific reason for taking Wake Island. Because that one island is what’s going to decide the life or death of the ENTIRE American Pacific fleet if they move their San Francisco fleet to challenge yours. Frankly any of my starting navy on the coast of Japan would be overkill in a natural J1 attack which would be a waste of valuable resources.

There’s nothing wrong with launching a Pearl Harbor attack if the Middle Earth defense is what worries you the most as Axis; you’re right to point out that Pearl Harbor makes Middle Earth somewhat less attractive. I don’t think Pearl Harbor is as strong as you think it is, either in general or against Middle Earth specifically. Want to try it out on TripleA? I’ll take the Allies with 24 IPCs in standard or no bid in Balanced Mod, and I’ll play my Middle Earth against your Pearl Harbor.

Don’t misunderstand me. All I’m killing is a Transport, Submarine, Cruiser and Destroyer, nothing to wright home about. What is to wright home about is if the American fleet on San Francisco moves down to secure Hawaii from you. And believe me when I say it I’ll put everything on the line to destroy that American fleet. Because once that fleet dies any chance of the Allies winning goes with it. But take it with a grain of salt if you must. Believe me it sounds easy to have 70+ ipcs as America but if you’re really willing to let the Japanese win with 6 victory cities or rebuild your navy from scratch and allow Germany to do Operation Sealion.

I’m enjoying the conversation, and I think you’re raising worthwhile points, but I still disagree with you on the specifics. Here is why:

As I stated before, you’ll have 4 guys to then send to Celebes, Java, Sumatra and Borneo with your 2 transports and take all 4 of them if you so choose.

That’s assuming you take no casualties in the Philippines, lose no transports before J3, and take no casualties killing off any reinforcements delivered by India / ANZAC. You can take the Philippines plus the 4 money islands with 2 transports and 4 ground units, but you’re spreading yourself thin and it’s not guaranteed.

ANZAC only has 1 fighter. Literally one.

I count 3 – in addition to the fighter in Queensland there are 2 in New Zealand that can land on Java as early as A1. All 3 fighters are close enough to the action to interfere with Japanese takeover of the money islands.

Your transports will be defended by 1 carrier with 2 fighters on it, and 2 battleships.

Sorry, I thought you were sending one of the BBs east to Pearl Harbor. Sounds like both BBs are going south. So what’s attacking Pearl Harbor? Just 1 SS, 2 DD, 2 ftr, and 2 tac? Against that force, I would probably not scramble the Hawaiian fighters, and then counter-attack the Hawaiian sea zone on US1 with something like 1 DD, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 tac. That should handily win control of the sea zone against 1 SS, 2 DD, allowing me to reinforce Hawaii with the transport on non-combat. So now Hawaii has 4 inf, 4 ftr defending it against a maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 tac, which seems fine to me. If I lose Hawaii at all, it will be very expensive for Japan, and I can retake it immediately. I hear you that you are baiting the main US fleet into Hawaii and that you could sink that fleet if it moves there on US1, but all I have to do is not take the bait, and I should be fine. You’re forcing the US to invest some significant spending in the Pacific on US1 and US2, which could make a Sea Lion attack more threatening. I suppose if I saw a Pearl Harbor on J1 I would adjust the UK1 buy – instead of 1 transport, 1 artillery for South Africa and 2 inf, 1 fighter for London I might do something like 6 inf for London and 2 mech for South Africa, save $1.

And yes you can attack ANZAC’s destroyer and transport with the destroyer you have in SZ 33. Take out the destroyer and transport with no scramble and the cruiser comes after you manage to hit a 1 or 2 and you destroyed the entirety of ANZAC’s navy.

Sure, you can attack 1 DD vs. 1 DD, 1 trans and you might get lucky, or you might not. If you’re sending 2 DDs to Pearl Harbor and 1 DD to Australia, that leaves you with only 1 DD to escort your southern fleet, which, again, will make it tricky to cover multiple sea zones to protect your transports. With 2 BB, your main southern fleet will be safe enough, but the flanks are vulnerable, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the ANZAC cruiser, other than that you expect to both win a 50-50 battle with the destroyers and then also sink the cruiser with like 20% odds when Australia counter-attacks your DD with 1 CA, 1 ftr. So, yeah, 10% of the time you’ll get quite lucky and sink the ANZAC navy. So? That’s dice, not strategy.

Frankly any of my starting navy on the coast of Japan would be overkill in a natural J1 attack which would be a waste of valuable resources.

This is maybe your most interesting point – Japan does start with slightly more navy than it really needs to conquer and occupy the south Pacific, so there’s an interesting question of how to put that navy to gainful employment right away. I’m not sure I like your answer of attacking Pearl and stacking Wake, but I like that you’re asking the question.

What is to write home about is if the American fleet on San Francisco moves down to secure Hawaii from you.

Well, yeah, so, don’t do that. Don’t fall for the trap. You can secure Hawaii without moving the remaining US capital ships there immediately. It’s a good trap, but it’s still just a trap. It’s easy enough for the Allies to avoid.

Unless the British are invading Tobruk, they’d be absolutely stupid in the head not to do the Taranto Raid.

I can do the Taranto raid and still wind up with significant naval assets to send east, if I’ve got a bid. One of my favorite bids is 2 subs for the Mediterranean, which means the carrier doesn’t have to go west to do Taranto.

If I’ve got no bid, that means we’re playing Balanced Mod, which means you have some explaining to do about how you’re going to handle the Chinese guerrillas with zero reinforcements on J1 and at most 3 transports of reinforcements on J2.

Overall, don’t get me wrong; I think your plan of attack is interesting and worth experimenting with. Pearl Harbor plus Sea Lion as you’ve outlined it sounds like a very creative way of shaking things up against Middle Earth, and if you catch the Allied player off guard or if they fall for your traps or if they roll poorly, then you could have quite a nice game as the Axis. My personal preference as the Axis is to play with a more traditional India Crush that focuses on shutting down Indian income as quickly as possible and taking India J4 or J5, with Germany going east to take Leningrad and Ukraine by G5. The idea is that if the US focuses on the Atlantic, then Japan can expand from India to take some combination of Persia, South Africa, Australia, and/or Hawaii, forcing the US to pivot back to the Pacific. Conversely, if the US focuses on the Pacific, then Germany will wind up at the very least being able to push Russia out of the Caucauses and take the southern money. When Germany gets rich like that, they can threaten London while holding the line near Moscow, forcing the US to pivot back to the Atlantic. Either way, the US supply chain gets messed up and slows them down.

Do you want to try out a game? Might be enlightening for both of us.

@Argothair I appreciate your thoughts here.

I’ve been considering an old fashion strategy. Antique really. What about rolling us tanks Either through Asia Or n Africa or both to supply middle eArth. This seems to provide the most efficient shuck possible with the smallest number of transports needed. 6 or 8 tanks into Eurasia/Africa as early as t4?

It prevents the swallowing up of Siberia by the Japanese. It gets Tanks into s Russia by t8 or 9 and provides waves. I’m thinking about presenting this as USA for dumbies. transports are the poison we have to drink.

@Argothair I just reread this and I must say you are right on the money. And your critiques have come to pass. I’m definitely revisiting this.

@crockett36 I reread your turn by turn modification of my version of middle earth

@Argothair
I like where you’re coming from. But I’ll counterfute what you’ve said to give you a better idea of the J1 attack.

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

That’s assuming you take no casualties in the Philippines, lose no transports before J3, and take no casualties killing off any reinforcements delivered by India / ANZAC. You can take the Philippines plus the 4 money islands with 2 transports and 4 ground units, but you’re spreading yourself thin and it’s not guaranteed.

True. With the U.S rolling 2 at 2 and 1 at 4 you’re granted to lose at least one unit which would obviously be an infantry but that’s not to say the fighter’s always going to hit. I’m not sure what you’re referring to by losing no transports on J3. By the time J3 rolls around you should have built atleast 3-5 more transports to shuck units as well as place factories in their respective areas such as Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Malaya. Depends on what ANZAC does with their small fleet. As the ANZAC player I would personally make it my mission to keep the fleet I have out of Japanese hands which means I won’t be trying to race for the money islands. Even if I did take Java or Celebes as ANZAC, it would last for like 1 turn? It’s not worth over 20 ipcs worth of naval units only to get an infantry unit worth of territory once.

I count 3 – in addition to the fighter in Queensland there are 2 in New Zealand that can land on Java as early as A1. All 3 fighters are close enough to the action to interfere with Japanese takeover of the money islands.

Yeah that’s totally my bad. I forgot about the setup in which they also have a fighter on New Zealand that’s my mistake sorry. And as I said, with a fleet like Japan’s, ANZAC shouldn’t be throwing their fighters at that fleet at any cost due to just how many little IPC’s they posses. And unlike Italy, they genuinely aren’t capable of possessing more without NO money (that is there’s not a J1 attack, allowing them to jump on Java and Celebes).

Sorry, I thought you were sending one of the BBs east to Pearl Harbor. Sounds like both BBs are going south. So what’s attacking Pearl Harbor? Just 1 SS, 2 DD, 2 ftr, and 2 tac? Against that force, I would probably not scramble the Hawaiian fighters, and then counter-attack the Hawaiian sea zone on US1 with something like 1 DD, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 tac. That should handily win control of the sea zone against 1 SS, 2 DD, allowing me to reinforce Hawaii with the transport on non-combat. So now Hawaii has 4 inf, 4 ftr defending it against a maximum attack of 1 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 tac, which seems fine to me. If I lose Hawaii at all, it will be very expensive for Japan, and I can retake it immediately. I hear you that you are baiting the main US fleet into Hawaii and that you could sink that fleet if it moves there on US1, but all I have to do is not take the bait, and I should be fine. You’re forcing the US to invest some significant spending in the Pacific on US1 and US2, which could make a Sea Lion attack more threatening. I suppose if I saw a Pearl Harbor on J1 I would adjust the UK1 buy – instead of 1 transport, 1 artillery for South Africa and 2 inf, 1 fighter for London I might do something like 6 inf for London and 2 mech for South Africa, save $1.

It’s alright I should’ve clarified that both the battleships would be going up against the submarine and destroyer in the Philippines. What’s attack Pearl is exactly what you stated being the submarine and 2 destroyers with the 2 fighters and tactical bombers going to Pearl. Your carrier strike group will be going to Wake Island to land the fighters. I wouldn’t scramble the fighters either for purposes of landing them on AC’s and also because the fight still tips in the 90’s for Japan even with the scramble. That’s the idea. It doesn’t matter what you have left after the raid of Pearl Harbor whether you have 1, 2 to all of your ships still there. It’s supposed to pull the Americans in to want to strike at the vulnerable 2 aircraft carriers that cannot escape even if they move 2 since there is no naval base as you stated on Wake Island. I think you’re misunderstanding the Pearl Harbor attack the idea is not to land and get boots on the ground in Hawaii. Frankly you’d be right about not moving your fleet there. As the U.K player myself, unless I saw even the slightest chance of Germany attempting Sea Lion I would see no need to purchase ground units on the main island. The U.K is subjected to requirement of spending their IPC’s efficiently and in the right area where the game will be played because if they put all their units in the wrong area then you’ve lost.

Sure, you can attack 1 DD vs. 1 DD, 1 trans and you might get lucky, or you might not. If you’re sending 2 DDs to Pearl Harbor and 1 DD to Australia, that leaves you with only 1 DD to escort your southern fleet, which, again, will make it tricky to cover multiple sea zones to protect your transports. With 2 BB, your main southern fleet will be safe enough, but the flanks are vulnerable, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about the ANZAC cruiser, other than that you expect to both win a 50-50 battle with the destroyers and then also sink the cruiser with like 20% odds when Australia counter-attacks your DD with 1 CA, 1 ftr. So, yeah, 10% of the time you’ll get quite lucky and sink the ANZAC navy. So? That’s dice, not strategy.

1 DD vs 1 DD is exactly what Germany does against the Canadian fleet. It’s 50/50 fighting you might hit you might not. Are you losing anything in return? Yes a destroyer. Anything else? Nope only a good attempt at winning the game for yourself. If having trouble guarding your transports is your concern then keep em together. If you’re going to split them off then make sure they can all reunite back to the same sea zone where your fleet is after you’ve attacked any islands you desired to attack. Simple as that. By all means I’m not saying that it’s a winning fight if your destroyer manages to survive against the 50/50 gamble to fight the cruiser. What I’m saying is that the destroyer will more then likely die but at the cost of taking down a 12 ipc unit (or 10 if they hit a fighter, which i’m totally okay with as well). Dice not strategy? You’re absolutely right. It is dice. But it’s the little part in dice that forms the ominous and pretty unstoppable strategy that is the J1 attack. And frankly for how much you’ve been admiring the ANZAC fleet makes it awefully bold of you laugh it off as if it’s not anything to worry about.

This is maybe your most interesting point – Japan does start with slightly more navy than it really needs to conquer and occupy the south Pacific, so there’s an interesting question of how to put that navy to gainful employment right away. I’m not sure I like your answer of attacking Pearl and stacking Wake, but I like that you’re asking the question.

If you could identify the PACIFIC fleet that will be challenging Japan’s as earliest as turn 3 then I’ll agree with your remarks on this part of your counter-claim. Otherwise, send your boats wherever you want.

Well, yeah, so, don’t do that. Don’t fall for the trap. You can secure Hawaii without moving the remaining US capital ships there immediately. It’s a good trap, but it’s still just a trap. It’s easy enough for the Allies to avoid.

It’s incredibly easy to not pull the lever after you’ve seen what it activates, if that wasn’t obvious enough. This isn’t some half-arse trap that the Americans will just see through instantly. Because frankly if you knew that there were no other surface warships in the sea of Japan that would come down to attack you in the Hawaiian islands then absolutely I’d be on full throttle towards what is over 60 ipcs worth of units that I’ll be able to destroy without taking many losses. But as I said, unless the Americans have a cautious and slow moving player, or if he/she has been subjected to this trap before then yeah they won’t fall for it and won’t even consider the temptation of trying to destroy the fleet. Otherwise, you’re practically looking for the Fruit Loop in the Lucky Charms which represents the 4 planes you’ll be sending from Japan.

I can do the Taranto raid and still wind up with significant naval assets to send east, if I’ve got a bid. One of my favorite bids is 2 subs for the Mediterranean, which means the carrier doesn’t have to go west to do Taranto.

If I’ve got no bid, that means we’re playing Balanced Mod, which means you have some explaining to do about how you’re going to handle the Chinese guerrillas with zero reinforcements on J1 and at most 3 transports of reinforcements on J2.

Overall, don’t get me wrong; I think your plan of attack is interesting and worth experimenting with. Pearl Harbor plus Sea Lion as you’ve outlined it sounds like a very creative way of shaking things up against Middle Earth, and if you catch the Allied player off guard or if they fall for your traps or if they roll poorly, then you could have quite a nice game as the Axis. My personal preference as the Axis is to play with a more traditional India Crush that focuses on shutting down Indian income as quickly as possible and taking India J4 or J5, with Germany going east to take Leningrad and Ukraine by G5. The idea is that if the US focuses on the Atlantic, then Japan can expand from India to take some combination of Persia, South Africa, Australia, and/or Hawaii, forcing the US to pivot back to the Pacific. Conversely, if the US focuses on the Pacific, then Germany will wind up at the very least being able to push Russia out of the Caucauses and take the southern money. When Germany gets rich like that, they can threaten London while holding the line near Moscow, forcing the US to pivot back to the Atlantic. Either way, the US supply chain gets messed up and slows them down.

Unlikely if Germany is smart and sends a plane to Southern Italy for the 3 plane scramble. In that case unless the axis get diced, everything is going to the bottom of the Med. Another part of the Japanese philosophy is to continue moving forward. It would be incredibly inefficient for Japan to shuck units from the island to the mainland which is why you’ll be building a minor complex J1 and place it on Shanghai. You’ll also be placing on J2 on Hong Kong as well and one on Malaya when you inevitably take it. So there’s you’re reinforcements. Absolutely no offense to the way you play the Axis, but that’s how everybody played it originally before the J1 attack was drafted which led to everybody believing that the game tipped in the favor of the Allied Powers in winning. Believe me unless America and the U.K are playing patty cake with each other while Germany and Japan do the absolute usual then this won’t work out for them. As for your Calcutta Crush, that works. Only Calcutta won’t win you the game. Honolulu or Sydney will. Unless Germany has some sort of magical trick up their sleeves, there’s no deciding and going back on which strategy you want to do. That’s why for the first 3 turns that Germany is not at war that’s the time they have to decide if they’re going Sealion, Afrika Korps, or Barbarossa. And frankly as long as the U.S keeps Hawaii out of Japan’s reach then they can feel free to just spend all of their money in the Atlantic. hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is essential. You might not get the Americans to pull that lever and fall for the trap but what you will do is you’ll be putting Pearl Harbor in you palm to control for however long you keep your fleet there in Wake Island. And you can keep your fleet there until you absolutely need it back home on the forefront of Asia or you can continue to keep there as the Americans keep their fleet in San Francisco.

I’m really likeing this debate. I can tell you’re a more adept player at Global 40 which isn’t easy to come by. If you have any counter arguments, I welcome them all good sir. :)

@Argothair That was very well said. " they can’t do all of that at once in the first 7 turns, so you’ll wind up with some active fronts where the Allies are making gains, and you exploit those for all they’re worth and let the others go at the appropriate time. At least, that’s my philosophy."

… For me this is exactly the right attitude to win games. You probe and probe and see what turns up for short term gain and long term end game.

The logistics of this game are very interesting. Once Japan takes India, they are at a bit of a loss of what to do and how to do it. In a way, they are out of position. Assuming the Allies have prepped Hawaii and Australia well enough to hold out for a long time. If Japan goes for either, it removes any pressure from Russia and the ME. It’s a very interesting dilemma If the US has prepped well enough, they can spend 18 IPC’s messing with Germany indirectly, while UK messes with Italy directly or supports USSR directly via the ME. Again these are just novice musing; I’ve only played 4 test games of this behemoth so I could be way way off base.

I’m so impatient to learn this game enough to start competitng online. Another month and I think I’ll be ready to put my toe in. (I’ve got a lot on my plate this month).

@Stough

Then let me introduce you to the Floating Bridge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkjC0E42d0

Japanese Philosophy should always be to continue moving forward. After they’ve taken India they are that much closer to winning the game for the Axis. And if you’re going to say “prepared” then you need to be more specific of what the Americans have purchased in the Pacific Ocean because it is way too open to interpretation when they possess 70+ IPC’s when at war. I’m not sure why everybody and their mom’s cat’s stepsister assumes that automatically when Japan starts going for ANZAC or the U.S that they are taking all pressure off the USSR. Its a little something known as 2 military campaigns in 1 war. That would be like saying Germany is taking all pressure of the Soviets when they move some troops down to Africa to support Italy :/ . Because Unless you play with the token system all Japan needs are 6 victory cities. Say what you want about the taking of ANZAC but as far as I’m concerned if they aren’t building ground units to protect themselves every turn then they are going to fall to the Japanese. Tell me otherwise.

@Luftwaffles41
Watching now.

@Stough
Nice, let me know how good you think the strategy is when you’re done.

@Luftwaffles41

Quick question, (I’m about half way through the video)

Why not , in the Atlantic on turn 1 (assuming a J-1), send your 1st US transport straight to Gibraltar with 2 guys and the cruiser? Then bring the surviving UK Atlantic fleet with 2 more guys, their destroyer and combine your cruiser in sz 91 and either combine with your two guys in Gib or drop off in Morrocco.

Even if there is a German sub there, he’ll dive for the Americans turn or face a long odds/high gain battle. No German planes or Italian panes can reach those ships. The US locks Gibraltar and the front door to the Med is now closed to the Italians/Germans.

Why the hurry for Brazil? It can wait till turn 2. Since it would seem the strategic gain of securing Gibraltar is pretty huge. Meanwhile, if US/UK somehow lose those naval assets it’s not an enormous loss.

@Stough I like your thinking of this whole thing but as GHG said in his video, you have to go slow, don’t rush it. If you as America try to rush to cross the Atlantic you’ll be getting nowhere. And frankly it’s not like there is anything stopping the Italians from attempting to capture Gibraltar, even though they would likely shuck units to greece or Africa. Another thing about this is Afrika Korps. If Germany goes Afrika Korp then they will more often then not destroy the British navy and its entirety and come out with warships left to spare. Whats an infantry and artillery to Germany when they’ll be attack with 3 infantry 2 artillery and 1 tank? Believe its easy to say that you’re losing nothing as the Americans with 70+ IPCs. The Americans should be taking absolutely no risk of losing their boats for one reason. Time. The Americans might have money but what they don’t have is time. Wait to take Brazil by A2 if you so choose, if you rush it the Germans will destroy your fleet. They also may not be able to reach with fighters but they will with bombers. And if im doing afrika korps then rest assured im going to build the aircraft carrier and keep my battleship alive. And with a German navy the U.Ks priorities won’t be in the Atlantic. Why bother building a navy only to have it be destroyed? Besides Gibraltar should not be the priority of the U.K anyway since it will more then likely go to germany or Italy. But thats just my opinion

@Luftwaffles41

Ok. I finished it.

First of all. Mega mega props to General Handgrenade. The customized pieces and customized map, the very thoughtful series of videos. And, lets not forget, the endearing Canadian accent… that guy is amazing. Truly amazing.

As to his strategy. I would say, in general, that is exactly what the US needs to do in the Pacific and Atlantic. This to me, would be the traditional way of winning for the Allies. The US is the anaconda portion of the US Civil War Strategy, with Russia and UK being the primary field Armies. The US secures the oceans and then starts squeezing Germany- which is the best of the two opponents to focus on. The Russians are DC/Army of the Potomac; UK is the West/ Army of Grant (the Tennessee?).

A quick look at the opposite strategy, KJF, what does that release for ultimate victory? Not a lot. Maybe a bunch of planes from UKA/ANZAC. Some Chinese good will?

I would modify the buys a little; drop the Battle Ships and add destroyers in the Atlantic and a fighter in the Pac. And lets be honest, the US will need four relay teams (shucks), one way or the other. But his basic idea is correct, build enough navy to protect the transports no matter what and build the waves bigger and bigger until Germany finally cracks.

In the Pac, I like the idea of 2 infantry and 1 fighter every turn and fly those fighters down to Australia. Once the Japanese finish up with India and turn towards Hawaii/ANZAC, things need to be ready to hold them off. I could be way wrong about this, but here goes.

In ANZAC- In a J1DOW, where Japan goes for India, more than likely, the Japanese will be hard pressed to hit them with more than one big wave of 10-12 guys and a crap ton of planes; probably 16-18. ANZAC starts with 3 planes and 5 land units, and will meeting Japan at turn 6 at the earliest. So the challenge is how to have 35-40 units available to defend? So, 3 turns of infantry purchases puts you at 14-15 land units and the rest has to be made up with air units. +3 fighter purchases in rounds 4-6 puts you at 15 land/ 6 air- which means your still short 14 planes. Unless, you can add US Infantry or US planes.

So add or be ready to add , what the US has in the Pac at the beginning plus a fighter every turn and now, turn 6-7, you are only short 6 planes. One big air purchase and ANZAC can be saved long enough for the US to crank out the Navy it needs to block Japan.

Better yet, that Air Force of 14 planes can be sent to either Hawaii or ANZAC depending on which is more threatened. And of course, it will be obvious what Japan is planning on doing so you can bump up the purchases when needed.

If one wants to get fancy, you can add an airbase in Western Australia and extend the plane shift to/from India.

So, again, General Handgrenade has this right. The forces on both oceans need to be big enough to flex to a crisis in either ocean. Tp protect ANZAC/Hawaii in the Pac and to pressure/defeat Germany in Europe.

On the Atlantic side, things are trickier. Unless the Southern France opening is an option, one really does have to make enough transports for four relay teams. Which means the US will be dropping 6-8 guys each turn on Europe. That’s a drain on Germany but not a war winner. A weakened Italy can match almost half of that every turn- which gives Germany a breather from knocking back the invasion every 3 turns. So Germany is spending 18-24 IPC to keep the US at bay, that still leaves a lot for making mischief in the East.

This is why its so important for UK to be stacked and ready in the ME. They’ll have to, clear out Italy, back stop India when that Army falls back, and support Russia from the South. Meanwhile, they’ll need to be ready to be the coups de gras in Europe. Meaning, at some point the US landing force has to be defended from a successful counter attack. A second landing of UK troops/planes from UK could do the trick at the right moment. Too early, and they get crushed along with the US landing force. But the UK is going to be hard pressed to have those units/transports available and ready when the time comes;

Plus if they go all in on Normandy /whatever the Japanese flood gates are opened from India and/or Russia loses its support. So their support of the US in Western Europe really needs to be a one time thing- just enough to allow US landing forces to survive and be reinforced by a second US landing force so they can build that snowball. Then Germany is on the back foot.

Another note: Norway looks like a juicy target for the US, but I’m not a big fan of invading it. It throws off the rhythm of the relay team (Shuck) and even if taken in force, it’s 4 turns away from liberating St Pete. Southern France, Normandy, Belgium seem like the best targets, unless you can land a death kill on Italy. Germany/Italy will have to keep 3-4 counter attack armies ready if they want to hold both counties and keep the US at bay.

SO once again, a lot of noise from me without much experience to back it up. Currently I’m finishing up Test Play #4. The Axis win again, but this time I retook India, chased the Japanese Navy back to FIC and gave the Germans some hard knocks on their end.

@Stough Youre right on the money. Thats exactly why if you remember GHG saying that you shouldn’t risk losing any of your boats not even one boat because it’ll set the americans back 2 turns to build the transport and the cruiser in the Atl Ocean. There’s just 2 things that will completely disregard this amazing strategy. The first thing is Afrika Korps as I mentioned. He made an Afrika Korps video but it wasn’t really complete and it didn’t show the actual reason for doing afrika korps. In Afrika Korps the Germans mobilize a navy and transports to shuck 6 or 8 guys down to Gibraltar as early as G2 and with taking it and Morocco they move into the Med on G3 thus taking 6 more guys from Southern France into Africa at the same time. With the German naval presence in the Med Sea that allows for Italy to rebuild any lost lost warships from the Taranto Raid and also build lots of transports. With that Germany and Italy are making campaigns into Africa and the ME challenging the British to spend more resources fighting for Middle Earth all while the Germans are using the IC on S. France to build a navy to size the American fleet. Ive not play tested Afrika Korps vs Middle Earth but I feel that its a safe assumption that the British can’t handle the combined joint German/Italian invasion of ME and Africa without the immediate assistance of the U.S. right? Think about it. In GHGs video he states that it takes 6 full turns to set up the Floating Bridge yet it only takes German 3 turns to get a formidable navy AND a decent sized army in Africa. Who do you think would come out on top? Afrika Korps or Middle Earth?

@Luftwaffles41
Yep. That is a counter I would like to check out. I’m still due to play test 2 more scenarios of Germany NOT trying to build a big navy before I start mixing and matching.

To answer your questions though, Afrika Corps will come out on top in the short term, UK in the long term. But I think that’s a win for the Axis. And a BIG win for fun game play for all parties concerned.

Also, a good German Navy up north can do that devastating convoy soak in SZ 109, so they HAVE to be dealt with. 2 subs and a carrier with 2 planes and a cruiser; damn! Thats probably going to be 8-10 IPC gone from the UK every turn until it’s taken care of.

I was wondering though. If the US’ goal is to have say, 4 AC fully loaded, with a cruiser and 2 destroyers and 16 transports(plus adding the French destroyer and maybe the odd UK cruiser and destroyer) , fully loaded in four groups; it should take them a little over four turns. 375 IPC’s - 61 (ish)='s 313; divided by 72 ='s 4.3 turns ( assuming they are super negligent in the Pac).

IDK, GHG is probably correct in the timing. Turn six and then the hordes come.

Anyhow, I DO think it’s in Germany’s best interest to buy a navy in turn one , make sure they take Southern France, and then buy a mini Navy for the Med in turn 2. Then shut the door in Gibraltar, if possible, and shoot for Cairo with the Italians. The extra muscle should be able to help Italy turn the corner at Alexandria and then threaten sub saharan Africa. THAT will pull the UK down from Persia and seriously jack up their plans. As well as getting Italy into the game in a real sense. If the UK loses sub Saharan Africa it’s lights out for them. Combined with North Africa, it’s 40% of their economy; they can’t do nothing; they have to counter it. The threat of an Axis thrust to Sub Saharan Africa pulls everyone down south and screws up all of the Allies time tables.

Another thing. Russia is built to go backwards, so Germany can afford to lose time going for them. Russia on the attack is fairly easy to parry early in the game. Or, just wedge an Army into St Petersburg while doing all the zany Mediterranean stuff.

All that said, I’m still confused about what happens with the remaining UK Navy after G1 and what folks do with it. Also confused if Scambling is ever the right thing to do early in the game. And how to set up the G1 battle in SZ 11 so you can withdraw your German Battleship into SZ 112 to chill with your newly purchased German AC and other boats- what the heck happens to the wounded UK Battleship? So many questions.

@Luftwaffles41

ANZAC shouldn’t be throwing their fighters at that fleet at any cost due to just how many little IPC’s they possess

I think this is the core of where you and I differ on strategy. You seem to think that because some of the starting Allied forces are militarily weak relative to Japan, they need to conserve their forces, which means that Japan will have a free hand to expand in the opening. I think that because Japan is economically weak compared to the Allies, the Allies need to interfere with Japan’s expansion at every turn – most of those attempts at interference will be defeated, but some will not, and it’s the places where you do successfully interfere as the Allies that you get a bridgehead or a chokepoint and apply even more pressure. Japan is stronger than ANZAC and stronger than China and stronger than India and stronger than the starting US Pacific Fleet and stronger then the Siberian stack, so if you try to fight with Japan then you can expect to take heavy losses, but if you apply intelligent pressure with all five of those forces at once – not reckless, but not cowardly, either – then you can often force Japan to take casualties that they can’t afford to replace, or force them to slow down the pace of their expansion, or force them to leave something important undefended. By themselves, the 3 ANZAC fighters are worthless. As part of a coordinated Allied Pacific squeeze, they’re a valuable (yet expendable) member of the team.

With the U.S rolling 2 at 2 and 1 at 4 you’re granted to lose at least one unit

It sounds like you’re playing on low luck, which does affect the strategy here. I’m used to playing with full dice. With low luck, the Allies do have to retreat a bit more in the opening because there’s less chance that Japan will get diced and take unusual casualties.

As the U.K player myself, unless I saw even the slightest chance of Germany attempting Sea Lion I would see no need to purchase ground units on the main island.

You won’t necessarily see any signs of a Sea Lion on G1. Even a completely land-based build, like 9 inf, 1 art, is still useful for walking to the Russian front lines and holding Poland after a Sea Lion. If you buy literally nothing for London turn 1, then I can buy 9+ transports on turn 2 and take London turn 3 with 99%+ odds, and most likely I will have almost all of my tanks and fighters remaining. That scenario doesn’t end well for the Allies, especially with a Pearl Harbor attack! I guess you did specify “no ground units,” so maybe you intend to buy fighters for London, but that can still leave you vulnerable to Sea Lion, depending on how the sea battles go on G1.

Unlikely if Germany is smart and sends a plane to Southern Italy for the 3 plane scramble. In that case unless the axis get diced, everything is going to the bottom of the Med.

My point is that some of the boats aren’t even going to stay in the Med. If you bid a sub for SZ 91 and another sub or SZ 98, then you can attack SZ 96 with 1 sub + 1 fighter (from Gibraltar), and SZ 97 with 1 sub, 1 DD, 3 ftr (from London and Malta), 1 tac, 1 bmr. Even against a full scramble with German support, the British still have 76% odds to win the main battle. Take 2 fighters as some of your casualties, land the remaining planes on Malta, and your CA and CV can leave the Med altogether on UK1 and meet up with the South African / Indian fleets in SZ 76.

I wouldn’t come that light into Taranto in every game, but I think it’s a worthwhile gambit in case of a Pearl Harbor attack.

@Stough

I suppose it depends on the player, Afrika Korps is one of those strategies you perfect flawlessly or you just totally butcher it. Honestly, convoying would be a good idea but your navy is more important down in the Med Sea with the British presence there. GHG is absolutely correct on the timing of America setting up by turn 6, only it’s too late for them. I’ve tried to build a navy from scratch in the Med, it doesn’t work out. Believe me you need to divert too many IPC’s down in the med if ur gonna try and build up a navy from scratch with Southern France. Regardless with Afrika Korps both Germany and Italy will be able to start campaigns in the ME and Sub-Saharan Africa leaving the British to defend it with everything theyve got. Not to mention if Germany gets a formidable navy into the Med Sea then it will force the British to likely take resources away from India or else the ME will collapse. There’s just no way to stop a joint Italian/German attack. It’s not possible, unless you’re very very lucky with the dice rolls.

To cover your confusion I’ll go over each naval attack on G1 that Germany should be doing. 2 submarines (one from SZ 108, one from SZ 103), the Battleship as well going in along with both Strategic Bombers on Germany, 1 fighter and 1 tac bomber that will move into SZ 110.

2 subs (one from 124, another from 118), plus 3 tactical bombers and 3 fighters moving into SZ 111.k

And finally 1 submarine attacking the destroyer and transport in 106.

It’s imperative that the Germans go heavier in the fight in 110 to ward off the scramble of 3 planes from the British.

Frankly, it’s a pretty good question to be asking for why the Allies aren’t scrambling and I’ll tell you why. Because Germany will be building 2 transports and an aircraft carrier on G1.
If literally any player playing the U.K has played more then like 2 games then they’ll know what this build means. It means that Sealion has now been put on the table. And as the British, seeing that Sealion is now a great possibility I’m going to hold on to every single fighter I have. You can’t afford to lose fighters if there could be a Sealion happening not under any circumstances. If you lose any then you’ll lose London, believe me it makes the world a difference to have 1 fighter in the defense of Operation Sealion.

As for the rest of the British Navy 110 and 111 are pretty much toast. And as for the Sub vs Destroyer well you can say whatever you want about that battle, it’s a 50/50 fight you might do it you might not. So all the British will have left is 1 cruiser to likely use in the Taranto Raid, a destroyer and transport that will more then likely go to Canada to shuck units that is the Submarine died. 110 should be a massacre leaving you with likely a damaged battleship. You might get lucky though with the rolls and save a sub or have it undamaged (subs won’t really be necessary in Afrika Korps but they’re good to have). With that you have 1 more space of movement to move your damaged battleship to 112 where it’ll be repaired on G2 and have the protection of your carrier and cruiser, as well as fighters to be scrambled into the seazone if the British make an attempt at it. As I stated, both U.K battleships will likely perish in these attacks.

Hope that clears your confusion, if you want the rest of the strategy I can list it for you.

@Luftwaffles41
Great answer. Thank you so much.
More mini questions.
Assuming a 1AC/2 tran buy in G1-

1. So most folks send the surviving tran/destroyer from SZ 109 to Canada? (assuming no German subs are there).
2. Folks do NOT scramble their UK fighters
3. The UK doesn’t send diddly do to SZ 91/Gib on turn 1?
4. The UK fighters stay in UK and do NOT Taranto?

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

I think this is the core of where you and I differ on strategy. You seem to think that because some of the starting Allied forces are militarily weak relative to Japan, they need to conserve their forces, which means that Japan will have a free hand to expand in the opening. I think that because Japan is economically weak compared to the Allies, the Allies need to interfere with Japan’s expansion at every turn – most of those attempts at interference will be defeated, but some will not, and it’s the places where you do successfully interfere as the Allies that you get a bridgehead or a chokepoint and apply even more pressure. Japan is stronger than ANZAC and stronger than China and stronger than India and stronger than the starting US Pacific Fleet and stronger then the Siberian stack, so if you try to fight with Japan then you can expect to take heavy losses, but if you apply intelligent pressure with all five of those forces at once – not reckless, but not cowardly, either – then you can often force Japan to take casualties that they can’t afford to replace, or force them to slow down the pace of their expansion, or force them to leave something important undefended. By themselves, the 3 ANZAC fighters are worthless. As part of a coordinated Allied Pacific squeeze, they’re a valuable (yet expendable) member of the team.

You’re absolutely right. With the starting income of ANZAC and U.K Pacific, your going to take casualties that you can’t make up for as either nation. And unfortunately that’s just the way it has to be. Japan is going to kick ass in the Pacific whether ANZAC or Britain like it or hate it. Now whether America decides to do something about that is unknown. Frankly, your ‘attempts’ to disrupt what the Japanese are doing militarily will fail. And when they fail you won’t be able to provide of the resources needed to try again. If ANZAC forwards all 3 of their fighters to try and take out say a Japanese carrier and they lose all 3 of them all at the cost of killing a fighter and damaging the carrier is that efficient? No, absolutely not. Because you won’t be able to rebuild 3 fighters to do that again. The same goes for the U.K Pacific. They have 2 fighters and a tactical bomber at their disposal. Do you plan on prioritizing on your airforce to attempt air raids on Japan’s fleet over ground units? These are things that will cost the U.K their entire economy, Calcutta, and the game if they attempt to make these pointless jabs at the Japanese. I’m not sure what the Russians plan on doing with their 18 infantry but if rolling 6 at 1 is what you’re after then go for it. ANZAC nor Britain have the time and expendable resources to concentrate on a Pacific fleet that can stand up to the Japanese, especially after they’re going to have at least 4 carriers as early as J2.

You won’t necessarily see any signs of a Sea Lion on G1. Even a completely land-based build, like 9 inf, 1 art, is still useful for walking to the Russian front lines and holding Poland after a Sea Lion. If you buy literally nothing for London turn 1, then I can buy 9+ transports on turn 2 and take London turn 3 with 99%+ odds, and most likely I will have almost all of my tanks and fighters remaining. That scenario doesn’t end well for the Allies, especially with a Pearl Harbor attack! I guess you did specify “no ground units,” so maybe you intend to buy fighters for London, but that can still leave you vulnerable to Sea Lion, depending on how the sea battles go on G1.

Build your 9+ transports with what to defend them? A single individual Cruiser. You best believe I’d kamikaze my RAF into that fight to take off 70 IPC’s that was just built for absolutely nothing. And if I’m being real with you here, the U.K needs to make the decision on where to spend the majority of their money. They can’t afford to spend half and half some in the ME and some on the mainland, if they try that they will lose Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa too fast. I think you’re missing the idea of Sealion. Operation Sealion is something that the Germans need to be all in committed to doing after they’ve built those transports, no turning back. Because you’re going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany (20 ground units to be exact) towards London. If Germany plans to do Sealion, they need to purchase accordingly to be successful in doing it with their first round purchases. Have I hammered that nail enough? Good because there’s more.

My point is that some of the boats aren’t even going to stay in the Med. If you bid a sub for SZ 91 and another sub or SZ 98, then you can attack SZ 96 with 1 sub + 1 fighter (from Gibraltar), and SZ 97 with 1 sub, 1 DD, 3 ftr (from London and Malta), 1 tac, 1 bmr. Even against a full scramble with German support, the British still have 76% odds to win the main battle. Take 2 fighters as some of your casualties, land the remaining planes on Malta, and your CA and CV can leave the Med altogether on UK1 and meet up with the South African / Indian fleets in SZ 76.

I wouldn’t come that light into Taranto in every game, but I think it’s a worthwhile gambit in case of a Pearl Harbor attack.

Well if you bid 2 subs in you’re obviously going to win out in the Taranto raid with their surprise strike. If anything with no bids, the British should have at least 1 bomber and maybe a fighter remaining after the raid if there was a 3 plane scramble, sometimes not even that if the dice go in Axis favor, and to mention it, obviously if they role poorly then you’l have planes and boats leftover. The most you can bring in is 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 strategic bomber to the Taranto Raid. (Can you bring in the Gibraltar fighter? Yes. Does it have a space to land? No. You can’t say it’ll land on the carrier, each plane MUST have a way to land in order for it to be brought into the battle.) So the idea of you’re Taranto Raid doesn’t really work since you can’t bring in the listed amount of fighters you gave, so taking 2 would leave you with 1 tac bomber on the carrier. And to be honest with Germany and Italy rolling 4 at 4 you’re going to take more then 2 casualties. (I’m just calculating average, not luck in any way shape or form).

To top it all off, I think you’re right. Any U.K player should go hard and go fast into the boats in Taranto if there is a Pearl Harbor attack and the Americans might fall for the trap. It’s all about compensation for loss of boats.