@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:
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.
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).
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
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":
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
@Luftwaffles41
Off course Taranto is the safest thing to do, but when you fail (which will happen in about 1 or 2 every ten games) it’s virtually game over for the british (playing without a bid off course) because now the UK has lost its fighters and its Med fleet and Italy has 2 transports left.
That’s why we are looking for a valid alternative. Off course sooner or later you have to face the italian fleet, but hopefully the UK will have a stronger navy/air force.
I once retreated the carrier to SZ98 and blocked 99. on UK1 i bought 2 bombers (so i had three on england). On It 1 they can chose to attack a lot of targets but doing so they dispears themselves.
If they dont attack the blockers around malta and SZ99 then on UK2 you can do a taranto 2.0 but with much more air power. Off course the italian fleet is also stronger and the germans can still mess up your plan, but UK with 3 bombers can attack other targes as well.
I suppose they could be if you really plan to go all in like that then you need to have something a little more coordinated then just a Taranto 2.0. Because with 36 IPC’s worth of 3 units, just know that could all go down the drain incredibly quickly if you’re not careful. But as I said, if you really plan to prioritize on going after Italy and taking it to them WITHOUT doing Taranto then you’ll be taking away from the strength in India. Just, the idea of doing Taranto is to make sure that they don’t get those 2 transports to send units places. For instance, with 2 transports Italy could send 2 guys to Greece and 2 guys down to Alexandria and be much closer to taking Egypt with reinforcements.
@Luftwaffles41 You don’t need units from pacific.
And if you combine this with tobruk then by all means let italy dispears it’s transports. Then they can drop off a few units for just once.
I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?
If a novice may jump into the conversation regarding the Hawaii strike.
As the old timey generals used to say, be wary of squabbles as they can turn into a full fledged Battle.
I think the reason I don’t like it is because:
As Japan, I want to follow up India with pressuring ME and Russia. So trading with the US is a bit of a distraction.
As Germany, I’m thrilled.
As Italy , I’m happy.
As USSR, I’m bummed.
As the UK I’m also somewhat happy.(depending on Sea Lion)
As the Chinese, UKA and ANZAC, I’m ecstatic.
As the US, it’s an interesting dilemma;
One could ignore the strike and press on as usual
or
if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this?
If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.
IDK.
Play test #5 is going to be a KJF, without a Hawaii Attack on J1. I like KJF a lot better WITH a Japan attack on Hawaii.
with Germany avoiding Sea Lion and UK going ME; we’ll see what happens with those scenarios in combo.
.
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?
On UK1, as a response to the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack, I think it’s probably a little too weird. It leaves you vulnerable to Sea Lion; if you spend 20 IPCs on a BB then that only leaves you 8 IPCs to defend London, e.g., 1 inf, 1 art. That’s usually not enough defense with America busy in the Pacific. You will also miss having those 5 land units in India – the CV build by itself doesn’t actually push the Japanese back until the BB and other reinforcements arrive from Egypt / South Africa, so the Japanese will still be able to take Borneo, Sumatra, Malaya, etc. and then once they’re in Malaya they can march to India by land and you probably can’t stop them. They can send strategic bombers instead of subs to knock out the Indian economy, if that’s even necessary.
I think the BB in South Africa + CV in India is an excellent purchase for UK2 if (a) there is no Sea Lion, and (b) Japan does not do a J1 attack, and (c ) Taranto has gone well enough and you see that you’ll be able to send some reinforcements east from the Med. But on UK1 you just don’t have enough information to conclude that it’s safe/reasonable to spend all that money on building a large Indian Ocean fleet.
I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?
The main alternative to the Taranto raid is to attack Tobruk with land, amphibious assaults, and air power. The idea is that if you knock out the Italian armies in North Africa before they can be reinforced by land, then you defeat them in detail - Italy will wind up with control of the Med, but without enough cash or troops to ever take Egypt.
If you don’t like that either, you can rely on the Americans to knock out Italy – even if Italy is getting big, then America can build a fleet and enough infantry and transports to give Italy major headaches very early as long as Britain can keep the German Baltic fleet off of America’s back…but not if America is tied up dealing with Pearl Harbor. So if Japan does this Pearl Harbor attack J1, then I think Britain probably needs to do either Taranto or Tobruk. Otherwise Italy will be a monster and you’ll just have to accept that (usually unwise). I’ve gotten Italy up to 45+ IPCs/turn in that situation.
if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this? If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.
Well said. The problem with the Pearl Harbor attack is that Japan is making it easier for the US to trade units with Japan, so, by all means, accept their courteous invitation and start trading pieces. The US can replace their losses much more easily than Japan. Just don’t fall for the trap and move your fleet to a sea zone where it’ll get obliterated at low cost.
You’re really gonna do a KJF without the Pearl attack? I feel that you’re just doing that for the sake of the strategy working in general. The whole purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor is because A) Those planes and carriers are honestly extra to the natural J1 attack, and B) To take the fight to the Americans. You’re not removing any pressure off of anybody. IF anything using the carriers would just be overkill. Frankly, it’s not Japan’s job to threaten the ME, it’s their job to conquer the Pacific. Unlike any other game, Japan can actually win the game without Germany winning. If you’re trying to go to the ME you’re trying to send resources to far out where they don’t belong.
Glad we finally agree on something ;)
And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is… >:(
I’e gotta agree with Argothair on this one.
When as you stated, if trading out is the only way to go then the Allies have to do it. The U.K really doesn’t have a choice but to attempt to trade Axis boats for Allied boats. Doing Taranto would keep the balance in check after a Pearl is done, but not if America falls for the trap. Then there really isn’t anything you as the U.K can do to compensate for that.
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
Frankly, it’s not Japan’s job to threaten the ME, it’s their job to conquer the Pacific. Unlike any other game, Japan can actually win the game without Germany winning. If you’re trying to go to the ME you’re trying to send resources to far out where they don’t belong.
I dunno; I think that’s too extreme. If the UK leaves the MIddle East essentially undefended, especially if there are factories to be stolen or pro-Axis Iraqis to be activated, then Japan can certainly head out that way. It always depends on what else is happening in the game. If America is crushing Italy and landing in France, then, yeah, Japan probably needs to win the game in the Pacific sooner rather than later; racking up a stronger economy won’t help you because America can take away German IPCs faster than Japan can take away British IPCs. But if America and Japan are stalemated near the Solomons/Carolines and playing footsie with their fleets, and Germany and Russia are stalemated near Moscow/Stalingrad, and Britain and Italy are stalemated near Gibraltar, then hoovering up Britain’s income might be exactly what’s needed to turn the tide. If you can get the IPC totals to the point where the Axis are outearning the Allies by 15+ IPCs/turn, then eventually Japan will take Sydney; there’s not necessarily any rush.
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is…
I dunno, man, you’re the one who posted your trap to a public forum. In general, my playstyle has always been to assume that my opponents will see through my traps. I might lay a trap if it costs me nothing, but I won’t invest resources in it – I’d rather win by outplaying my opponent and forcing them to think through situations that are too hard for them than by scoring a surprise victory based on an un-repeatable trick.
@Luftwaffles41
Can and one explain why US would fall for that. You must assume you are playing a sane player.
The question is, what might be a good alternative for Taranto.
Second question, do you guys prefer KGF or KJF? Because against proper Dark Skies it’s very hard to get boots in Europe.
For many reasons. I’ll give you a few. 1) There stands the incomplete inferior Japanese carrier fleet in Wake Island next your San Francisco fleet. 2) Since the rest of Japan’s navy will be sitting in the South pressuring ANZAC and India they won’t be in reach to help reinforce their 2 carriers. 3) Because that’s over 60 IPC’s worth of units to destroy which, if we’re gonna talk about expendable losses, is something the Japanese won’t be able to build back intill J4.
I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to Taranto. The British have every chance at winning it, and it doesn’t matter what you lose really, because as long as you’re taking off Italian boats then that’s fine. You’re trying to compensate and find a way to not lose anything while still taking off Axis units. Pick one. You’re going to inevitably take casualties, light or heavy, when you try to take off Axis units and if you want to be conservative then you have to let Taranto be. There’s no other way around it, that’s just the way it is dude.
Dark Skies is a really overrated strategy. Spam bombers as Germany? I mean come on. Atleast I can repay 6 infantry for 1 battle rather then repay one bomber a time. Dark Skies is a very cost inneffictive way to spend the German money. This is all my opinion. And if you wanna win the game then KGF, not Japan first. And have you looked at a little thing called the floating bridge? Because with it you’ll be shucking 8 units into France every turn.
They probably won’t… The ME only contained 6 IPC’s (not including strict neutrals) in total. It’s really not worth the time and effort to go out there. Even if it was undefended, I’d still go for Sydney because once you’ve taken Calcutta and defeated China, there really isn’t much stopping you from invading the Emu-infested land. And I agree, there shouldn’t be any rush as Japan on the J1 attack. Japan has the time it needs to divide and conquer it’s enemies before they’ll actually get the chance to respond to it. And frankly, if Japan has the American fleet in a stalemate then that’s a win for Japan, because at the point where they should have 3 IC’s on mainland Asia, they won’t be needing their fleet unless they’ve yet to conquer the money islands that is.
That’s fine, that’s a perfectly natural and smart way to play. Force the enemy to have to take one loss or the other. The idea of the Pearl Harbor Trap doesn’t expend any resources at all, I thought I’d hammered that down enough after we discussed that Japan really isn’t taking away from the J1 attack. I guess I don’t know though, maybe it’s personal preference, pick your poison. Do you like to have your attacks detailed and clever to try and outsmart your opponent or do you wish to try to end the game fast with the 4 move check mate. Either option works in Japan’s favor.
