UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

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

@squirecam Land in Syria and take Persia? Easier said than done! After a Taranto raid, Italy has only one transport remaining – if you land on turn 1, you get 2 units into Syria, which can often be immediately counter-attacked and killed from Egypt/Trans-Jordan. Even if they survive, there’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to conquer Persia.

Waiting until turn 2 to move into Syria doesn’t necessarily help – with only 10 IPCs, Italy can only build one extra transport, so now you’re landing with 4 ground units in Syria on turn 2. You can pick up the 3 infantry in Iraq on turn 3, and maybe land an infantry and a tank in Syria again on turn 3 so the tank can blitz to Persia on turn 4, which means you attack Persia on Italy’s turn 4 with 4 + 3 + 1 = 8 ground units plus maybe a couple of planes.

For its part, Britain can activate Persia on turn 1 with a loaded transport, meaning there will be 2 + 2 = 4 British units there on UK1. On UK2, Britain builds a Persian factory. On UK3, Britain builds 3 infantry in Persia, plus the 1 infantry from West India can arrive by foot. On UK4 (UK goes before Italy), you build 3 more infantry; 2 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 3 = 11 units defending Persia, not counting a couple of planes that can easily be stationed there as needed. So something like 11 inf, 2 fighters, even without any loaded transports coming up from South Africa or mech. inf. coming from East India.

Even with Italy going all-out against Syria/Iraq/Persia, and even with little/no reinforcements beyond just building the Persian factory and building infantry there, Italy is heavily outnumbered in attacking Persia. Much, much later in the game, after Italy has already taken Egypt, then the main Italian army can walk over toward Persia and cause real problems there – but that means the Persian factory has successfully produced for 7-8 turns, so it’s done its job for the Allies. The game will likely be decided elsewhere before the Italians can make to Tehran.

I dont agree with this. I’m going to use both Germany and Italy in taking the med and mideast. If there is no factory in Egypt then fine I’ll take the money but if there is a factory in persia then that is the combined target of both countries.

Why should I wait for you to build up infantry in Persia when I can use german and italian transports to take your factory and start building there. Or. You can have Japan come and take it too.

The target should be the UK factory. Wherever it goes.

@squirecam

Granted while a single factory may not mean much harm to the Axis as a whole being that it pumps out only 3 units a turn, I would only enact a full on operation in Africa by the Germans and Italians if said strategy of Middle Earth is being put into play to which we’re talking the UK is building on the IC’s of Persia and South Africa, doing a full on shuck of troops from down south to up North in Egypt and India and so on and so forth to which the Middle Earth strategy consists of, sending transports and a majority of units to put down a single IC in Persia may feel a bit inadequate to do.

Granted, why I really have come to love Grasshopper’s tournament rules being that the UK is split into 2 completely different playable nations which stops the so said 'overpowered Middle Earth strategy"

And when GHG called for people to counter this strategy, everybody said “Yeah, just do Sealion” which, I think we can all agree was the first thing that came to people’s minds, not exactly a well thought out strategy to stopping Middle Earth.

Hence why you guys along with myself have come forward to finding a genuine well thought out counter to Middle Earth, and granted I can say that this strategy works.

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

So they’ll bring in the destroyer, cruiser, carrier, tactical bomber, and fighter from Malta, as well as the bomber from the UK, and I believe 2 fighters from the UK in total to bring down if they BOTH land on the surviving carrier, but that’s probably not a good idea though because the moment the carrier dies the 2 planes die having used all their movement to get down there.

So you’ve got 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 carrier, 3 fighteres, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber against what would be a cruiser, battleship and 3 fighters.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

@luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@squirecam

Granted while a single factory may not mean much harm to the Axis as a whole being that it pumps out only 3 units a turn, I would only enact a full on operation in Africa by the Germans and Italians if said strategy of Middle Earth is being put into play to which we’re talking the UK is building on the IC’s of Persia and South Africa, doing a full on shuck of troops from down south to up North in Egypt and India and so on and so forth to which the Middle Earth strategy consists of, sending transports and a majority of units to put down a single IC in Persia may feel a bit inadequate to do.

Granted, why I really have come to love Grasshopper’s tournament rules being that the UK is split into 2 completely different playable nations which stops the so said 'overpowered Middle Earth strategy"

Eliminating Anzac from the game is too great a change for me.

@squirecam

I wasn’t super comfortable with it. And granted with the terms of the pacific I still think anzac should exist i just like the aspect that the 2 sides of the UK are played by different players

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

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

@pinch1 Mostly agree with this, but what the heck is Dunkirk in the context of Global 1940? The only British units in mainland Europe at setup are in Paris, and will be killed G1 before they can be evacuated by sea.

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

@pinch1 Mostly agree with this, but what the heck is Dunkirk in the context of Global 1940? The only British units in mainland Europe at setup are in Paris, and will be killed G1 before they can be evacuated by sea.

Buy 9 infantry turn 1 with UK. Its Dunkirk, effectively. You telling me nobody has made that parallel?

@pinch1 That’s the first time I’ve heard it called that, but, sure, OK.

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

@pinch1 That’s the first time I’ve heard it called that, but, sure, OK.

YES!

@pinch1

It sure has.

Hence why I’m not too fond of it.

I’m not going to argue the merits at which Sealion is effective in the OOB rules for victory conditions. Maybe it’ll get the win in the Grasshopper tournament rules with the London token but still. To me if the UK feel so entitled as to remove the majority of their fighters from London fine by me.

And yes, 1 fighter can make the difference of keeping or losing London

All the same i still think Afrika Korps gets the job done more than Sealion does but for all in tense and purposes if the British are gonna do anything to divert this then I’ll use Sealion as a 2nd option. The Germans are weighted to win Sealion. Even still the standard UK buy is 6 infantry and a fighter on London because why the hell not

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

@pinch1

And yes, 1 fighter can make the difference of keeping or losing London

You’re missing the point. Similar to our debate over Moscow. I never said anything about not losing London. I fully expect London to fall if Germany goes through with Sealion. What I mean is a single fighter that maybe kills 2-3 units over the course of the battle isn’t swaying the curve too much in the grand scheme of things. The German losses and investment is still collectively too great to overcome regardless. This is the general consensus of the many who have played out these games.

London falls, boo hoo, allies cry, and then America arrives WITH the USSR instead of just alone. Germany falls, boo hoo, Axis cry. That is the way most of those games end up.

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

All the same i still think Afrika Korps gets the job done more than Sealion does but for all in tense and purposes if the British are gonna do anything to divert this then I’ll use Sealion as a 2nd option. The Germans are weighted to win Sealion. Even still the standard UK buy is 6 infantry and a fighter on London because why the hell not

I agree with this statement in and of itself.

Wither it’s 6 infantry and a fighter or 9, its roughly 30 IPCs dumped on England. Whatever you don’t purchase turn 1 you will turn 2 to cause maximum damage after you see 10 transports drop G2. Tomato Tomahto.

@pinch1 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

This does depend on whether the USA has gone for a pacific build on its first turn and then what happens USA 2.

Not saying USA cant liberate it. But it’s easier or harder depending on what was built where.

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

@pinch1 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

This does depend on whether the USA has gone for a pacific build on its first turn and then what happens USA 2.

Not saying USA cant liberate it. But it’s easier or harder depending on what was built where.

Sure. This whole discussion has been about countering GHG’s Middle Earth strat which works in conjunction with USA Floating Bridge. Operating on the assumption USA is dedicated to Europe from the get-go.

@pinch1 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

@pinch1 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

This does depend on whether the USA has gone for a pacific build on its first turn and then what happens USA 2.

Not saying USA cant liberate it. But it’s easier or harder depending on what was built where.

Sure. This whole discussion has been about countering GHG’s Middle Earth strat which works in conjunction with USA Floating Bridge. Operating on the assumption USA is dedicated to Europe from the get-go.

And if this is the case, then Japan should win the game by turn 6. Japan can make the USA pay for going all out in Europe. Or at least force USA to stop building everything in the Atlantic.

@squirecam

Pretty much. I dont think it gets simpler than that. Either Axis power has the ability to make the US pay consequentially for choosing one side of the board over the other.

I stated earlier that having assumed Japan takes Calcutta as well as the other cities of course, all that’s left is taking Honolulu or Sydney to which the Americans by GHG’s standard will have been building mostly everything in the Atlantic. yes I know he says to also shuck units back and forward into Hawaii but that’s what the Pearl Harbor attack is for.

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

@squirecam

Pretty much. I dont think it gets simpler than that. Either Axis power has the ability to make the US pay consequentially for choosing one side of the board over the other.

I stated earlier that having assumed Japan takes Calcutta as well as the other cities of course, all that’s left is taking Honolulu or Sydney to which the Americans by GHG’s standard will have been building mostly everything in the Atlantic. yes I know he says to also shuck units back and forward into Hawaii but that’s what the Pearl Harbor attack is for.

You don’t even need to attack. Just build for a J2 attack and stack everything in Carolines that can reach. USA cant stack Hawaii because they will get destroyed. If USA doesnt build in the Pacific they get destroyed J2 or J3.

Just eliminate this whole floating bridge stuff right from the get go.

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

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

@squirecam

Pretty much. I dont think it gets simpler than that. Either Axis power has the ability to make the US pay consequentially for choosing one side of the board over the other.

I stated earlier that having assumed Japan takes Calcutta as well as the other cities of course, all that’s left is taking Honolulu or Sydney to which the Americans by GHG’s standard will have been building mostly everything in the Atlantic. yes I know he says to also shuck units back and forward into Hawaii but that’s what the Pearl Harbor attack is for.

You don’t even need to attack. Just build for a J2 attack and stack everything in Carolines that can reach. USA cant stack Hawaii because they will get destroyed. If USA doesnt build in the Pacific they get destroyed J2 or J3.

Just eliminate this whole floating bridge stuff right from the get go.

SOLVED!