tambo had started a thread on Aggressive UK Pacific Strategies and I had suggested trying my strategy that is up on Youtube. I don’t want to highjack his thread so I’m starting this one to lay out my “Middle Earth” strategy.
The first 3 turns are in my video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4vpY_DGQJY
You can substitute moves around (like taking artillery to Iraq instead of a tank, moving the tank to Anglo Egypt Sudan along with 1 infantry from Egypt to stall the Italian forces on Ethiopia). What is really important is to take Persia and Iraq on UK1. The reason for this is so that you can place your IC on Persia on UK2. You need to get it there as soon as possible because you only have a limited amount of time before Japan assaults Calcutta and/or Germany assaults Moscow.
Once you’ve started your 3 transport shuck as detailed in the video, don’t waver from your plan or your strategy will fail. The whole point of this strategy is to put as many units smack dab in the middle of the board so the axis will never be able to take them out. Hence the name “Middle Earth.” Your unit purchases should look like this;
Turn A- 30 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Turn B- 31 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 1 infantry, 2 artillery
Alternate between A and B every second turn. Stay the course on these purchases and don’t be tempted to build a navy instead.
simon asked me why not just build an IC on Iraq instead of a Naval Base on Persia. The answer is that if you put the IC there, you will be further from India and your Middle Earth force will not be as mobile and able react anywhere. Shucking troops from SA means you can land them on Egypt, Iraq, Persia, and Eastern Persia in one move. You would need to purchase fast movers which are more expensive to move them around like that from an IC in Iraq. Putting the Naval Base on Persia also means you can move your troops to Egypt from Persia, Iraq, or Eastern Persia. Think of it as an inverted triangle where your forces can all move around the triangle in one move. One other benefit is that it is almost impossible for the Axis to take over SA, whereas if they bust into the Middle East they will get 2 IC’s. By bringing one of the transports down from the Atlantic you will not have to purchase any. He also asked why I didn’t stop in Brazil and activate them with the Atlantic transport. You need to start your 3 transport shuck as soon as possible so you can’t stop to smell the roses. Also, you don’t want to be taking any of your units from London and inviting Sealion. The US can use those extra 3 infantry in their assault on Europe.
You will be getting more money than what I showed in your buys. Here are some ways you can spend it;
1. Place units on London
2. Upscale purchases like fighter instead of mech or tank instead of artillery
3. Purchase the odd transport in Persia and move it to Sea Zone 81
4. An airbase on Egypt wouldn’t hurt but not a priority
What you don’t want to spend your money on;
1. Paying down damage on facilities in London unless Germany is building for a Sealion attack
2. Purchasing a bunch of boats and sailing them to the Pacific or the Money Islands. Stay away from Sea Zone 39. If Japan comes after your boats lead him away to the South Atlantic and then send in the Americans and ANZAC against their depleted navy.
3. Don’t be tempted to attack Turkey!!! This is a barrier that keeps the Axis away from Middle Earth.
As far as the UK Pacific goes, don’t purchase anything except infantry. Everything else will be coming from Middle Earth. Once Calcutta gets bombed don’t pay down the damage until you save up enough money to pay down and purchase units. Japan will just keep bombing if you keep paying down the damage. Make sure you spend all of the money before they attack Calcutta though, you don’t want to hand them all that money.
As far as Russia goes, purchase mechs and tanks and move them to Northwest Persia. Don’t cross the border into Russia until the last minute so that Russia can continue to collect their N.O. If they are not collecting it then go ahead and move units in. I don’t care what anyone says, if Germany can take Russia in 5 or 6 turns, then you’re playing Russia wrong. Despite what popular opinion says, turtling as Russia and waiting for the assault on Moscow is the wrong thing to do. Buy yourself a tactical bomber on turn 1 and learn how to counter-attack like a boss and you’ll hold on for much longer than 5 or 6 turns. This is an example of what I mean;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq17jkmkuHc
As far as Africa goes, don’t worry about losing Egypt early in the game. I actually prefer it if Italy takes them out because then I can get rid of them faster by using transports to counter-attack instead of chasing them across north Africa. After you clear out the Axis forces from Africa, build a garrison of units in Egypt and a garrison in Libya along with some air power. Keep your warships in SZ 81 in case you need to go into the Med to take out any Italian or German boats. Slowly build up transports in SZ 81. When the US makes it to Europe (hopefully the Med), you will be able to gang up on Italy. Let the Americans soften up the Germans first if you haven’t built up enough in Calcutta and Africa.You don’t have to rush through the game like the Axis does. Have just enough units in Egypt and Libya so that you will be able to transport them to Rome/Greece from Egypt and a second wave from Libya. The US can take Northern Italy and UK can take Rome or if Italy has built up send them both to Rome. They will have their boats in the same SZ so it’s unlikely that the Germans/Italians can eliminate them. Build up on Europe side as the Americans first so you can make up for the lack of UK in the Atlantic. Don’t worry about Japan, just keeping shucking 2 infantry to Honolulu so they can’t capture it. Of course you might have to change that strategy if Japan does go after the US. If they do then they will never get Calcutta with the Middle Earth troops building up there. Japan has to commit every resource to get Calcutta and even then they might fail if you send almost everything from Middle Earth there. Here is the American “Floating Bridge” strategy that works well with Middle Earth;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkjC0E42d0&t=1198s
I’ve been perfecting this strategy for quite a while now. At this point the Axis can’t beat me no matter what they do. I never use a bid either. If you can beat this strategy then by all means tell me how so I can start winning games as the Axis again. Don’t just speculate either, play it out and try to beat it. Play it on the tabletop or on Triple A. Make sure you stick to the plan though so you can give it an honest test. The only thing I haven’t tried is using Sealion against it. Obviously that would mean you couldn’t start building there on the third turn, but at the same time you would be turning Russia into a superpower. Go get Berlin, Comrade, don’t hold back.
One thing is for sure, with that many tan units in the Middle East you will take away all hope of them attacking the strict neutrals. If they do, blow them a kiss from across the table and thank them profusely for paving the road to Berlin for you. Pick up the free infantry in the Middle East and Africa and make them pay for kicking the hornet’s nest in Middle Earth.
tambo had started a thread on Aggressive UK Pacific Strategies and I had suggested trying my strategy that is up on Youtube. I don’t want to highjack his
Once you’ve started your 3 transport shuck as detailed in the video, don’t waver from your plan or your strategy will fail. The whole point of this strategy is to put as many units smack dab in the middle of the board so the axis will never be able to take them out. Hence the name “Middle Earth.” Your unit purchases should look like this;
Turn A- 30 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 2 infantry, 1 artilleryI’ve been perfecting this strategy for quite a while now. At this point the Axis can’t beat me no matter what they do. I never use a bid either. If you can beat this strategy then by all means tell me how so I can start winning games as the Axis again. Don’t just speculate either, play it out and try to beat it. Play it on the tabletop or on Triple A. Make sure you stick to the plan though so you can give it an honest test. The only thing I haven’t tried is using Sealion against it. Obviously that would mean you couldn’t start building there on the third turn, but at the same time you would be turning Russia into a superpower. Go get Berlin, Comrade, don’t hold back.
One thing is for sure, with that many tan units in the Middle East you will take away all hope of them attacking the strict neutrals. If they do, blow them a kiss from across the table and thank them profusely for paving the road to Berlin for you. Pick up the free infantry in the Middle East and Africa and make them pay for kicking the hornet’s nest in Middle Earth.
A competent Axis player will slaughter you without a bid. I saw an admittedly modest league player win vs +60, 80, and now +100 Allied bid vs two seperate, decent players. Without a bid, you will be defeated, regardless of plan. I am not skilled but theres a reason there is a “balanced mod” created by fans of the map. The map is unbalanced and even a wildly high bid cant always fix that. His tag is Arthur Bomber Harris and he will gladly face you, i reckon.
I can appreciate your opinion Colt. However, I’m asking people to actually prove that they can beat this strategy. They don’t need to play the game against me, they just need to play against that strategy as it is laid out. Afterwards, please let me know how you did it so that I can become a better Axis player.
I see what you are trying to do, however, i belive you are not doing it in an effective way. you are building a naval base in persia to connect it to SA. However, S/A is directly connected to egypt, and you can just as easily have a trikle of units coming from egypt, or just build another transport, and you will have acheaved the same thing. You are also building fighters in persia, while you are building inf in SA. How about switching? The plane from SA can fly north, and you will not have to use a transport for the inf. You are also only building 1 factory, and calling it middle earth. What I preferd to do was to build 2-3 factories, (iraq, iran and egypt). With your plan, you are planning to build 5 landunits a turn, With my plan, it will be 8-12.
OP: If you are spending money focused solely in one area of the map, you are giving the axis breathing room in other sectors. With this plan, it would become more viable to Germany to go sea-lion, or even do a neutral smash and blitz it’s units through turkey into the middle east ASAP. If the axis wanted it enough, they could get the middle east. Everything that you invest there can most certainly be dealt with. I think reactionary play as allies is the best strategy you can devise. Playing cat and mouse with the Axis, always trying to make sure they lose more IPC value in every skirmish. I’ve played games were Moscow falls, but the axis still surrender due to lack of economy, or even a lack of unit presence in key locations. While I’d never be against a strong allied presence in the middle east(I make an IC there almost every game), Such a large scale investment doesn’t allow you to apply pressure in other crucial areas of the map. Give the axis so many options of attack that they can’t possibly hit everything. What they decide will show you where they plan to focus their attention.
Off-Topic:
I always wondered why the allies get a buff instead of giving the axis a nerf. Has anyone tried this? I am 100% a board only player, and usually paired up with or against newer players. We never need a bid since majority of the time one of the axis powers is just not experienced enough to make any sort of real impact on the game.
From what I can see the bids are made to balance out the game vs equally skilled players. Instead of always putting allies in the chair, why not give the axis a negative bid and have them decide what they should lose in order to re-balance the board a bit. An axis player that has more attacks than units to be put into those attacks is always hard pressed to make difficult choices, which could help out the UK more considerably than slapping in a few units to cripple Italy.
There are so many experienced players on these forums. If they say I’m wrong, I would believe it lol.
Once you’ve started your 3 transport shuck as detailed in the video, don’t waver from your plan or your strategy will fail. The whole point of this strategy is to put as many units smack dab in the middle of the board so the axis will never be able to take them out. Hence the name “Middle Earth.” Your unit purchases should look like this;
Turn A- 30 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Turn B- 31 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 1 infantry, 2 artillery
Alternate between A and B every second turn. Stay the course on these purchases and don’t be tempted to build a navy instead.As far as Africa goes, don’t worry about losing Egypt early in the game. I actually prefer it if Italy takes them out because then I can get rid of them faster by using transports to counter-attack instead of chasing them across north Africa.
GHG,
In some aspects, your strategy seems to be amongst the standard UK strategies I regularly see. Lots of people activate Persia UK1 in order to immediately purchase IC there UK2. Good plan there. Sometimes I like to activate Persia with the Indian transport while hitting Ethiopia with the right combo using the Med transport. Generally I try to plan for Russia getting Iraq (I’m attacking Ethiopia anyways). Everyone is going to have an opinion on the best purchases ect….myself, I like to start with artillery purchases because mechs can catch up…or 3 fighters (to send to Moscow) if Russia has been getting bad dice rolls and my US partner is spending all of the money in east. Situation dictates of course. Sometimes it makes more sense for me to purchase 1 fighter and 1 inf/art in S. Africa as there is time for the fighter from SA to fly up. Other times like I mentioned, I might have to buy 3 fighters in Persia on UK2.
Flexibility: I think the UK needs to be flexible and not tied specifically to only spending on the Middle East. For a certain period of time it needs to…but after awhile, a UK Europe player may have to think about other options like helping the US make Germany fight a 2 front war. I’m certain you’d do that…but just saying because I didn’t see you mention this. If you don’t in your UK plan, please explain.
Cairo IC vs naval base/3rd transport:
I have to assume that at a certain point you’re going to build an IC on Cairo right? I think that’s more beneficial than purchasing a third transport and a naval base, plus it’s way cheaper. If you don’t need fighters immediately, Cairo could build mechs, Persia artillery, and SA could fly up fighters. 2 ICs is plenty and almost maximizes out what the UK can purchase anyways because they’re buying higher $ stuff.
Losing Cairo:
I think your comments may have been more just for conversation’s sake? I think your stated comments will be easy to criticize here by anyone, please don’t take it personal.
I cannot agree with the “advantage” of the UK losing Cairo. Reasons obvious to me are: at a minimum this means Italy can land on Cyprus and deny the UK NO for an even longer time because the UK transports from SZ 81 are blocked plus Cairo has to get liberated first. Germany can immediately fortify Cairo with air and Italy can keep reinforcing. Most likely they have ships remaining and at least 1 transport since they were able to get Cairo. So instead of getting UK forces ready to drive towards Calcutta during those critical rounds where you need to start marching to get there in time, like on rounds 3-4 or towards the Caucasus on rounds 5-6, your sending units and air the wrong direction. Additionally, if Italy is getting Cairo, that means they are collecting at least 1 additional National Objective which means more money to spend on building up a stronger navy or ground (my preference).
You can’t plan to beef the Middle East and buy a full turn of UK stuff for the Middle East, turn after turn,
without really knowing what Germany is doing.
Germany only needs 2 transports and 10 planes to threaten a viable invasion of London. They can build this at any time and raise the invasion risk.
UK pieces that cover the sea on carriers cannot help stop the land invasion
UK planes that leave cannot help stop the land invasion
UK planes that die cannot help stop the land invasion
UK starts with virtually nothing on London in both G40, G42
Germany? Starts with tons of stuff, buys tons more.
Germany can pick up 2-3 rounds of troops without $$. UK has to build every one. Germany can invade Scotland, Nemestia and then use the transports the next round to attack the same targets again, with a second group of transports.
These dynamics mean that UK Atl. has to react to Germany, each and every turn. Even if German odds are 50/50, losing London is devastating, so you have to constructively and conservatively protect it. I don’t think that there is ANY viable argument for saying “well, just let em take London and we’ll fix that later”. You have to stop it before it happens, by deterring it. You have to make Germany think every turn that an attack on London will cost it its airforce, since you cant really destroy their sea threat before Round 6 or so.
This is why we keep saying that Allies Strategy is reactive. Any Allied strategy that looks beyond turn 2 has to take in effect the dynamic and changing focus of the Axis to be judged as good or bad.
Committing to buy bases, high value units, and spend very little to protect or bolster UK home is a recipe for disaster because you’ll start your plan with SA buys and factory buys, the axis will see this, and should correspondingly ramp the Sea Lion threat.
I think General Hand Grenades strategy is the ultimate strategy for the UK right now. And although it has a heavy focus on the Middle East, that obviously is not the only place where he is saying to play the game. An IC in Persia, and a shuck triangle between South Africa, Cairo and Persia may take up a few IPC’s to build the infrastructure, and get the cycle going, but at the end of the day, if by round 3/4 the UK is spending 20-25IPC’s on units in that theater of war, it leaves them with another 10-15 IPC’s to bolster England defenses. And by turn 3/4, barring a late Sealion, the UK is usually in a position to starting converting its England force into an attack Europe Expeditionary Force.
The path that the Axis takes is always going to be your number one focus, over your pre-game strategy. However, using this UK strategy as a base to play your game off of, gives the UK player plenty of options to work off of as the game progresses. Be it solidifying control of Africa, closing off the Suez, backing up Calcutta, resupplying the Caucusus, or doing whatever is needed from England… all of these options are available, heck if Germany is not threatening UK territory at all you could spend a whole rounds purchase on a Indian Ocean navy and go at the Japs even.
Tambo; " that obviously is not the only place where he is saying to play the game"
GHG;
“Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 2 infantry, 1 artillery
Turn B- 31 IPC’s
Persia- 1 fighter, 1 mech, 1 tank
South Africa- 1 infantry, 2 artillery”
Taamvan;
He says to put all your money on these two MiCs, turn after turn.
The best way to evaluate this strategy is to test it out against a worthwhile opponent.
taamvan, there are many of great strategies on these forums, but you cant take them all as a unit for unit action plan.
You don’t watch Young Grasshoppers J1 attack and do it unit for unit every time, or General Hand Grenades UK strategy and build those exact units each turn. You do however follow the framework.
I don’t agree with those exact purchases every turn either, however, the framework of the strategy makes total sense. Each game is different, based on the opponents who you play, the direction that they take their strategy, and the luck of the dice. Having a broad strategy with short term, long term, specific, and broad goals is all required to be successful, and at the end of day, some luck as well.
Thank you for your comments everyone. There was a lot to respond to and I’m not that great at putting down on paper (or computer) what I’m trying to explain so I made a video to better explain what it is I’m trying to convey in regards to my strategy. The videos that I posted earlier in this thread were made for a different purpose and it would be a lot to expect people to watch them all just to respond to this thread. I tried to go further than the explanation of the first few turns and give you a better picture of what I do for the rest of the game.
As I go back through these comments now I realize that there is one question that I forgot to address by Taamvan. He questioned my desire to allow Italy to take Cairo because I thought it was a good idea. No, I was serious. Try it sometime just to see what I’m talking about. You’ll find that the Italian troops on the continent of Africa die much more quickly than if you defend Cairo. I focus on turn 2 taking out the boats in the Med and the Italian troops in sub-Saharan Africa since I give them a pass on turn 1. I actually entice them over to Cairo by leaving only 1 infantry on Alexandria on turn 1 and 1UK infantry, 2 ANZAC infantry on Cairo turn 2 (just enough for them to want to use all of their Tobruk units). On turn 3 I smash them. If Germany would like to lose some planes I’m not fussy I’ll kill those too. You still have a lot of units in the area as the UK, including an awful lot of planes. Don’t forget your naval base on Persia has made you able to strike anywhere in Middle Earth. I don’t care if I lose my N.O. for an extra turn, I have more than enough money to stock 2 MIC’s anyway. I would rather not have to chase the Italians across North Africa. By doing that I can move onto my next objective that much more quickly.
Here is a video to better explain my strategy and answer your questions and comments;
https://youtu.be/F4q2C2lcKAA
GeneralHandGrenade,
What are the Germans doing while you set all this up with the British? It does not sound like you are making a push into Southern Russia to contest the Germans which means by turn around turn 8 you’re going to be against a united Eurasia with Germany making 100+ IPCs. 30+ British IPCs in the Middle East does not stop 100+ IPCs worth of Germans coming through the Caucasus. In this scenario, the only way the British could hold onto the Middle East (and more importantly Cairo) is if the Americans are committing 100% of their resources on Western Europe but that can only happen if the Japanese have been contained to the Home Islands.
Holding the Middle East is important to the Allies for the sake of denying the Axis those IPCs but it is not a game winning position.
A gaming winning position is where:
The Japanese have been contained to the Home Islands,
The British hold the Middle East,
The Allies are beating/stalmating Germany in economics because of SBRs and convoy disruptions,
The Allies are threatening landings all over Western Europe from Gibraltar
The Germans are getting their butts kicked by my counter-attacking Russians. Don’t just tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, prove it. Watch the videos, learn how to play my Allies strategy and then try to beat it. When you’re done tell me exactly how you did it so I can become a better Axis player. I’m not saying that your opinion is worth nothing, I’m listening to everything that you and everyone else is saying to me. All I’m saying is that you need to actually put the pieces down on the board and play it out. I can’t wait to see how I can collect over 100 IPC’s for the Germans against this strategy.
Don’t give it a half-hearted attempt either. This strategy relies on all of the Allied nations doing their parts and I detail every one of them in my videos. It’s not just about the UK.
I’m pretty sure ghg includes the standard strategy of flying fighters up from Persia to Moscow to defend it. He isn’t just waiting for Moscow to fall.
Similar with Calcutta, although oob sbr rules make a fighter purchase uk1 a must Imo. I cannot agree with that aspect of ghg’s strategy.
Actually I’ve never had to land a fighter on Moscow to this point. The Germans haven’t gotten close enough for me to have to do that. I am aware of that strategy though and I’m sure that some day I will have to use it if things don’t go well for Russia. Sending mechs and tanks into the Eastern Front is usually enough to stop the Germans and Italians. It’s surprising how easy it is to do the reverse can opener against them in Bessarabia and bust into the Balkans or Romania. With Russia able to build in the Ukraine, it’s a lot easier than having to march units from Berlin or Northern Italy.
I think its important to try new things, im always doing crazy stuff, and you know what, you learn. My group used to always criticize me for my tactics… “your doing that, you should do this”… “you throwing the game”… Now, those same people don’t say anything, they listen/watch as I win 90% of the time playing 1 on 1. I find myself now battling against my strategies I used on them, when before they would basically do a grasshopper video…
I have no problems winning as axis, and I have no problems winning as allied… naturally you lose some, but I don’t feel the bid is necessary with experienced players, our group plays every week (our group consists of 21, 7 regulars), sometimes 2-3 a week, for the past year, we have a lot of time in. Ive personally worked a long time on debugging the current strategies out there, which ill go over when I do my own videos.
I even used to give the Allies the +30 IPCs, but I don’t anymore, we don’t need it… we are a lethal bunch
Point is, you have to try new ideas to discover new ideas. My UK strategy is 100% different then this, and mine kicks ass too, there are many ways to win this game… and many ways to lose it… always try new ideas, you will become a better player.
You keep doing what your doing GHG!
Actually I’ve never had to land a fighter on Moscow to this point. The Germans haven’t gotten close enough for me to have to do that. I am aware of that strategy though and I’m sure that some day I will have to use it if things don’t go well for Russia. Sending mechs and tanks into the Eastern Front is usually enough to stop the Germans and Italians. It’s surprising how easy it is to do the reverse can opener against them in Bessarabia and bust into the Balkans or Romania. With Russia able to build in the Ukraine, it’s a lot easier than having to march units from Berlin or Northern Italy.
OK…
This has been a very engaging thread. I like the general idea of U.K. Factories in the Middle East and have used them to varying degrees in past games.
As others have said, it really depends on what Germany does with regards to Sea Lion. Russia alone cannot stop a strong German player.
I’ve seen many strong players build transports and aircraft carrier for Germany to threaten sea lion and force U.K. defensive builds at home and take resources away from the Mid East, only to turn north around Scandinavia and use the fleet to crush Leningrad.
I have to agree with most of what Tamvan has said. While I’ve never played him, I know others that have. He is one of the best players on this forum.
It’s surprising how easy it is to do the reverse can opener against them in Bessarabia and bust into the Balkans or Romania. With Russia able to build in the Ukraine, it’s a lot easier than having to march units from Berlin or Northern Italy.
GHG,
I was the person who responded about Italy taking Cairo. Anyways, I have to respectfully disagree with your philosophy here. Italy can make a play towards Alexandria with 6 ground and 2 more ground using the transport from SZ 95. Then if the UK all but abandons Cairo as suggested, Italy can hit it with a substantial amount of forces. On G3, Germany could reinforce with 4-5 planes and keep reinforcing as long as it takes for Italy to seriously make a play to hold it. Italy can have a substantial amount of forces there compared to the UK if playing straight up OOB setup. The UK will most likely get Cairo back, but it may not be for a long time which means less stuff going towards helping out Russia. I’d rather have the Italian units stranded in the middle of North Africa not really threatening anything than sitting on Cairo; that way the UK is dictating the ground unit fight, not the other way around.
In regards to your quote, reading that makes me think you haven’t played very many solid Axis players. Against solid axis players the UK will have to reinforce Russia with fighters and units into the Caucasus, but that’s about as far as any UK units get. UK units are not getting to Bessarabia to can open. Basing your views off of anything else means to me you haven’t been challenged as stated above. Regarding your initial strategy, I agree with activating Persia UK1 in order to beef up the middle east. But in the triplea community, Sea Lion has once again become very popular as a way to prevent the UK from building on middle east minor ICs. Axis players are really tired of stacks of UK fighters and other ground coming up into the Caucasus. Recently when playing the UK, I purchased 6 infantry/1fighter for London and Germany still pulled off Sea Lion and held off Russia very well. Axis won the game against me and a much better teammate. In the games I’ve played, on triplea or table top, in most of them Germany pushes the allies back to Moscow and or the 3 territories north and south of Moscow. Moscow regularly falls more than 50% of the games even with UK planes. I know I’m not the best player. I will respect your opinion to differ. I have played about 10 table top games (1940 and 1942 setup) and I’ve played about 75 games on triplea (which is different in that it’s electronic and you use a battle calc). So, I do have a little experience to base my viewpoints on. I may not have the time to watch your video or count exactly which pieces are where and state exactly how many pieces are purchased by Germany on Turn 4…ect. In most games I’ve played with solid players, the Axis dictate the scenarios and the allies respond. In most games, it’s not really until turns 5-6 that the allies can really influence an axis response. That’s why it’s not necessary to really get into too many specifics in this dynamic game where one game to the next completely plays out differently. Chess is setup the same, but is completely different on the board 5-6 moves in.
Having said that, I would say that any criticisms from say Taamvan would hold more weight than most in the forum. He and his team won the GENCON tournament for 2016. Also, I trust criticisms from Arthur Bomber Harris (if he joins the conversation) as he beat me with a bid of 30 IPCs and Siparo who is now 2-0 against me table top! I need to step up my game!
Ichabod
