UK Strategy -"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.

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

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).

That’s what I would do. It saves me from spending 16 ipc’s worth of units on the U.K if I can get those 4 units on Canada over to the British Isles.

2. Folks do NOT scramble their UK fighters

I mean, I would scramble under 2 circumstances. 1, the Germans screwed up and didn’t take enough in to either Sea zone to win the battle with a landslide, or 2, I don’t see any sign of Sealion happening from the German player whatsoever with their movement and purchases.

3. The UK doesn’t send diddly do to SZ 91/Gib on turn 1?

I mean, if you want to do that you can. It’ll get destroyed on Germany’s second turn (G2). Along with the boats will go your 2 ground units on Gibraltar so you know if that’s what you wanna do go for it.

4. The UK fighters stay in UK and do NOT Taranto?

You can afford to send the bomber to Taranto, but like I stated, if there is ANY sign whatsoever of the Germans even trying to attempt Sealion than I would hold 1 fighter back from Taranto.

@Luftwaffles41

RE the SZ 109 guys- ahhhh; because the Germans will drop there shiny new Navy in SZ 112.

Why not Taranto that new German Navy in sz 112 as well? The odds are too hatefully long?

Also, what if the G-1 buy is 1AC, 1 sub, 1 tran? Does that change the UK response much?

(Sorry; I have so many questions)

Nah dude, you’re good. I appreciate the opportunity to help you understand. If you wanna “Hamburg” Germany’s fleet are you going to build fighters in the U,K to do it? You’d probably need a lot more then 3 to deal any sort of damage since this time you’re not going to be attacking it with any surface warships. No, it doesn’t change their attitude, they probably will only think of that build as an odd, out of place, and totally not a cover up to Sealion build. The Germans have 5 submarines to start. 5. They don’t need more than that. Plus, if you’re gonna make the U.K player piss himself about a potential Sealion attack then go all in to faking one out to get him to place all his money in the British Isles.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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.

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

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.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

The most you can bring in is 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 strategic bomber to the Taranto Raid.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

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

I apologize for my remarks, I generally don’t try to be so critical of opinion to win a debate, but I’ll slip up sometimes so sorry about my attitude about that. I think to keep things logistical let’s keep it down to Middle Earth, Afrika Korps and the J1 attack to stay on point of the debate. Sound good?

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

Assuming we’re still debating over J1 vs Middle Earth, I’ll do the rounds. I’m going to automatically leave China out of this due to their restrictions as a World Power. I’m going to assume that all of this should be that each Pacific ally dedicates 100% of their respective resources against the Japanese player. If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about. And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific so you’ll have to fill me in on that part if I’m misunderstanding something. And is it to no surprise that the Allied money combined turn out to be more than Japans?

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

I think you’ve also neglected to mention that ANZAC won’t be getting units to Java or Celebes until as early as turn 2. The fact that they have picked up 12 IPC’s already makes up for the loss of their NO for not being at war so that’s really not something that needs to be factored in. I’m sure the Chinese could reopen the Burma road with 6 infantry and the fighter at the cost of leaving their Northern Flank completely exposed to the Japanese, not that it matters anyway with the IC’s that will be going on Hong Kong and Shangai. Once again, assuming they are prioritizing on Middle Earth, they won’t be using that transport to take Java and Sumatra unless they want to be delayed in securing the ME by 1 turn in which the Germans will already be at the gateway to the Med by then. Once again, if I could combine that money together to purchase accordingly to defeat the Japanese then we wouldn’t be discussing the J1 attack’s effectiveness.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

Now this is where this get’s interesting. if I had to be honest, I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Allies can make attempts to disrupt what the Japanese are doing in the Pacific with precise purchasing of units. But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war. Because frankly you could come up with any strategy you want about dealing with Japan in the Pacific, as long as Japan has you at the pointed end of the stick there really isn’t much any of you can do. Hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is necessary. To put America against the wall like that is something that they can’t just laugh off like they usually do, this time Japan is full front taking it to them instead of the U.S 6 turns later arriving in Tokyo. And if we’re going to look at this from a broader perspective, the idea of the turn order is for the Axis to do their thing and win, and for the allies to come back and turn things around. Aside from retaking the Road, the allies really are unable to stop the Japanese in their tracks on J1, which is why it’s such a powerful opening move. So the Allied powers in the Pacific are subjected to only taking at most 2 IPC’s away from Japan and completely unable to do anything about the rest. And as I stated from the very beginning, the Pearl harbor attack really doesn’t take away from the J1 attack and it’s effectiveness, it only adds to it.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

Well, that’s a good question. Frankly it’s how you would wanna play it. The core of the apple where we’re disagreeing is that you believe that it’s the Allies’ mission to stay on the offense and take it to the Japanese on the forefront of war as they continue to expand and conquer. And what I think is that it’s too risky for them to do something like that and that it’s essential for them to hunker down and defend for as long as possible. Let’s take a look at the way to win the game. Japan needs 6 victory cities in the Pacific to be victorious over the Allies. they’ll get 4 easily, Tokyo, Shangai, Hong Kong and Manila. If the British aren’t building defenses in Calcutta then Japan will more often then not take that out in a reasonable amount of time. That leaves 2 left: Honolulu and Sydney. If you’ve only focused on an outer-perimeter strategy for ANZAC and the U.K then there is absolutely nothing from stopping the Japanese to land in Western Australia and slowly move East to take it. But that’s how I’d play the Allies.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

1. As I said, I’m genuinely sorry for getting all fussy over Sealion. It has nothing to do with the Pacific and therefore has no place for either of us to try and get on top of the other with it. 2) Did I say that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack? I’ll need to check back on the thread for that cause I really don’t remember saying that anywhere but I’ll check back. If I did say it then I didn’t mean to, obviously ground units are everything when going after London. For the sake of the debate I’m not gonna continue ranting over Sealion so let’s just set it aside.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

Ahhhhhhhh okay that’s completely my bad. I honestly forgot that the Tactical Bomber begins on the carrier so you could just move it to Malta when the attack is finished right sorry that’s my bad so you would be able to take both fighters from London then. I know I’m being hypocritical here but you do realize those fighters can’t make it back to London if there is a Sealion right? (unless you’re planning on building fighters on London, then it doesn’t matter).

@Luftwaffles41

OK, we’re not so far apart on Sea Lion. Let’s let that one drop for now; no hard feelings at all. It’s a fun debate.

If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about.

Yeah that’s kind of what I’m getting at. You can combine the Allied forces into something like a single economy by using all of them to simultaneously harass Japan. If you leave all that money in the home capitals because you’re afraid of losing the game, then each of them fights separately – Japan can bring its full force against one capital at a time, and defeat them one at a time, until Japan runs out of time or momentum. But if you send some of that money to be a nuisance to Japan, then Japan has to cope with that.

And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific

Just a rough estimate, yeah. How much America or Russia sends Japan’s way in the opening will vary a lot from game to game, but even in a game where you’re not going hard against Japan, it might average about 30 IPCs worth of total American + Soviet material per turn. You might also be able to send a bit Japan’s way from a factory in Persia, but that’s speculative and happens later in the game.

But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war.

Well, yeah, you can’t go after Tokyo or anything bananas like that. When I say “harassment,” I mean a campaign that is at most one step more aggressive than a fighting retreat. You’re going to be giving up territory every turn; but don’t give it up completely undefended. It’s worth losing an Allied infantry or a fighter or a destroyer or a transport from time to time if that means that Japan has to keep its southern fleet bunched together or that Japan is a turn or two late in finishing its conquest of southeast Asia. Don’t throw your whole air force away on a fool’s errand, and don’t insist on picking fights that you are guaranteed to lose badly, but do take risks and clash on the borders and retreat grudgingly and make them pay for the ground they take.

And, yeah, you might lose Calcutta and Western Australia as a result. Yeah, you have to pay attention to the defense of Sydney – build some infantry in Sydney from time to time; build a minor factory in Queensland as soon as you can manage, and then use that factory to build 1 or 2 infantry per turn while you build a boat or a plane. Even just getting 4-5 builds into Australia instead of 2-3 builds means that Sydney will be much safer. If you like the Floating Bridge idea to reinforce Hawaii (and I do), you can use those same American transports and infantry to reinforce Australia later in the game, once the sea lanes west of Hawaii are firmly under American control. It’s not that I don’t play defense; it’s that I don’t devote 100% of my resources to defense just because Japan is large and scary.

@Argothair

That’s the nuts and bolts I think both of us have been trying to get at here. So to finally get down to business for what the allies should be doing.

I don’t mean to project the fact that I’m paranoid as ANZAC or India. The idea is that these little slow downs, I have an idea of what you’re talking about. It would be just like Russia taking Manchuria only to hold it for 1 turn for the Japanese to spend resources to take it back, am I right? And honestly I do think of that as a distraction and annoyance to Japan, but you’re going to run out of those infantry. You always will. And there’s nothing left to hold Japan back then after that.

Basically, I’ve not stood by for a moment without considering all your thoughts and ideas to lead to a potential win of the Allied Powers in the Pacific. But my point being is that that you’re sort of getting at the idea that there’s an in between when it comes to both these nation’s low income. And I would argue that there really isn’t an in between. If you plan on trying to intercept the Japanese and their moves in the money islands with say the 1 transport from India then that’s fine. You might lose that transport and along with it Borneo Celebes and Java but if you truly believe that slowing down the Japanese will lead to the effective victory then I’m all for doing it.

To get into detail, the reason why I say there’s no in between is because if say the U.K sends frequent air raids towards the Japanese fleet or puts minor defenses in curtain areas to get them to divert small resources to taking it, then you need to be willing to keep that chain of frequent air raids going. But here lays the problem. Air raids won’t win you the game against Japan. Neither will meager small defenses in curtain key strategic areas. (I know you didn’t say that I’m just pointing it out as a notice).

That’s why I’m whole heartedly committed to the defense of Sydney and Calcutta for when the Japanese do arrive. In other words, I’d rather be safe then sorry. Because If I’ve lost too many of my IPC’s where I can’t afford to continue these air raids and small defenses then I’m standing here without a defensive perimeter as ANZAC and the U.K. And swapping between Offense and Defense each turn doesn’t work in this scenario. You cannot build say 3 infantry turn 1, then maybe 1 fighter and a tank the next, and so on and so forth. Because then you’re not committed to one strategy or the other.

That’s why I play the Allies the way I do

Yeah, I mean that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with committing 100% to defense, if that’s your style – as long as someone counterattacks at some point. If you prefer to just stack max D in Calcutta and Sydney while waiting patiently for the Americans (or whoever) to come to the rescue, then as long as they do come to the rescue before it’s too late.

I’m not waffling between offense and defense; I’m committing to a strategy of harassment. My purchase might vary from turn to turn, but the aim is always the same: invest just enough in defense of the Allied capitals to keep the odds that Japan can take and hold a 6th victory city below 10%, and send all remaining resources to interfere with the Japanese battle plan.

There’s a saying in war that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. But that doesn’t happen automatically; the enemy has to actively go and screw around with what you’re doing. Can Japan adapt to losing a transport here, an infantry there? Yes, almost always, but it takes expert-level play. If you just play passive defense, then even an amateur opponent can pick an opening strategy off the forums, copy it exactly, and get to a solid middlegame. If you actively interfere with the Axis openings, then the Axis player has to understand what’s gone wrong, how bad it is on each front, and how and when to fix it. You give your opponent a lot more opportunities to make mistakes that way, and then when they do make a mistake, you pounce on them.

@Argothair

I hear where you’re coming from. And the way you play is perfectly fine. Just know that you’re bound to run out of resources eventually with the J1 attack. See, the one thing that’s always kept me on edge is that for countries such as Germany, they dont have to worry about the Allies interfering with their peace with the Soviet Union and America. But with Japan bringing all the Allies into the war, they’re still able to get away with their opening move without the Allies being able to intercept any of what happens on J1. If you know a way to to defeat the J1 attack on turn 1 then I’d really like to hear it. And this goes the same for the Pearl Harbor trap that Japan can set for America. If it’s as simple as no falling for it then Japan should have no difficulty and watching for their opponents moves. Japan has the time that they need to conquer the Pacific Allies before the Americans come across the water if they even do. And with a Pearl Harbor attack that’s going to delay the Americans from even going to Pearl Harbor for another 2-3 turns just with 2 aircraft carriers and an island worth no IPC’s. ANZAC and the U.K won’t defeat Japan, But America will. It’s up to the U.S player to want to make that happen.

@Argothair You have a point stating the combined allies have twice the amount of cash in the pacific, so making negative trades isn’t that a big deal. But you should non the less pick your fights well because Japan has a lot of capital ships that can take a free hit. Your tactic can be compared to “death by a thousand needles”.

My group has been experimenting with a KJF and KGF etc. This is what we have concluded:

1. You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.

2. UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).

3. Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet

4. Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

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

1. You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.

Actually, yes you can. Because no matter how much ass Japan kicks in the Pacific they can’t win the game without taking Sydney of Honolulu. I seriously doubt Japan will spend its’ resources to try and attempt a takeover of Africa, too far away.

So let me introduce you to the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan sends 2 destroyers, 1 submarine, 2 fighters, and 2 tactical bombers against the Hawaiian fleet. Scramble or no scramble the odds are in the 90s for Japan to win. Japan has a big enough navy to where they can afford to use some for the Americans without disrupting what they’re doing in a J1 attack

2. UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).

How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.

3. Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet

With the 3 plane scramble in Taranto you might lose a little more then just your destroyer and cruiser. Frankly as the U.K, it’s not a huge deal to let that fleet go, it really isn’t. But it is for the Italians.

4. Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

You’d be giving yourself a difficult choice to make. You’re basically saying “Choose to stop Italy or choose to stop Japan”. One or the other. And before I go on about this, both of these surface warships imo wouldn’t seem like good purchases from the U.K. Spending the Majority of your Pacific Economy and over 60% of your Europe economy on 2 surface warships that might not even live to see another day by the Japanese isn’t very cost effective. Because as Japan, I’m going to have 2 battleships and an aircraft carrier left down in Southern Pacific so that already outbeats any navy you try and forge together.

@Luftwaffles41 that’s what i say, Japan can and will take Sydney (and in lesser chance Hawai) if US does absolutely nothing in pacific. I’ve seen it before.

I know the J1 attack on pearl and it’s not that bad, it depends on what your goal with japan is (kill the US presence there or go for money islands?)

“How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.”

I don’t know that, but germany starts with a transport that can reach Gibraltar and when they buy two transports and carrier then I will certainly buy the DD in Sz110.

We don’t do the taranto raid but only attack the italians around malta. After that attack you can gather the brittish remainders around gibraltar (if UK buys and Airbase on gibgralter they can hold of the germans/italians. There is a post here about this topic.

Thanks about your feedback about the building of an UK carrier and BB.

Personally, I see no reason for Germany to just send their transport down there all willy nilly, that’s a huge waste of what could be used against Barborossa. The destroyer in 110 doesn’t really work because of German Air Supremacy which will destroy it and then have their navy move down to gibraltar in the non combat movement phase. So if you don’t plan to do the Taranto Raid then are you doing Tobruk? Or do you just not feel attacking the Italians?

@Luftwaffles41 they sometimes do it for the italian NO but it’s not necessary that’s true.
Yes sometimes tobruk or sometimes ethiopia, or sometimes just moving into Iran.
We are looking for ways to make the UK fleet (carrier) survive but still pose a threat to italians.

The german buy of carrier and transports or DD/Sub is a very volatile buy bc it gives you options.
That’s why the UK needs to buy volatile units as well like fighters/bombers turn 1 with the US buying in atlantic on US1 to counter the sealion.

That’s very true, but at the same time the U.K doesn’t have a lot to work with. They need to be very specific and choose the right places to focus their 28 IPC’s because if they do it in the wrong area, then the other could prove to be fatally consequential. I understand why you would want to keep the U.K’s carrier in the Med Sea but assuming you’re not attacking SZ 97 or SZ95, that will allow the Italians to consolidate their navy and build on it to which after that you’ll likely never get another chance to take a shot at that navy.

Regardless, the Med is complicated for both Italy and the U.K. It’s a game of chess but you spun around in a circle 10 times before you started. You could say what you want about the G1 German build, personally I dont see much use in building a DD and Sub just because I won’t be needing them right away in a natural Afrika Korps strategy. Frankly, that’s the idea. When Japan does the Pearl Harbor attacking they’re setting up a trap for the United States. And if they fall for the trap then that permits Germany to do Sealion. And even if they get 90% of the Allied money against them regardless Japan will win on the other side of the board.