UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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

@siparo:

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.

Siparo,

In the 2 table top games we played…obviously my demonstrations made me out to not be the “strong German player.” I hope that in a future game I could provide a better demonstration and maybe earn some Axis and Allies “skill” respect for whatever country I end up playing. I’m still disappointed about my Noob move of exposing my stack to a nice Russian counter attack at Bryansk when I could have stacked at Smolensk and most likely captured Moscow the following turn. I think the G42 rules about collecting the most IPCs at the end of turn 7 influenced my decision thinking too much.

Good job hosting that Nashville event…fun playing the guessing game too!

Ichabod

I actually played the Allies yesterday in a game. I have to be honest that I stopped playing AAG 40 after HBG global 39 and 36 came out. Recently I found players who play strictly AAG 40 OOB rules. I usually do the Middle Earth “cute name” but mine is a tad different, one mistake and and this plan falters…one distraction and it falters…I also turtled with Russia and agree it is not viable move

@Ichabod:

Siparo,

In the 2 table top games we played…obviously my demonstrations made me out to not be the “strong German player.” I hope that in a future game I could provide a better demonstration and maybe earn some Axis and Allies “skill” respect for whatever country I end up playing. I’m still disappointed about my Noob move of exposing my stack to a nice Russian counter attack at Bryansk when I could have stacked at Smolensk and most likely captured Moscow the following turn. I think the G42 rules about collecting the most IPCs at the end of turn 7 influenced my decision thinking too much.

Good job hosting that Nashville event…fun playing the guessing game too!

Ichabod

:evil:

In our most recent game of G40, my partner Germany did a 100% sea lion build (hes a new player, just learning, wanted to experiment with this).

In response, UK 1-3, was only able to build the following on 3 successive turns on South Africa

1 arty
2 mechs
1 armor

This is $18 of approx. $84 dollars available on those turns, demonstrating that only 20% of funds are available to wisely distribute around the world, when you are turtling London against the largest possible German commit (8+ TTs!)

We lost, since Russia raged, but it was still fun.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

As for Cairo, all I can suggest is try it sometime. I read a lot of people replying to this thread with their opinions and I value all of them, but nobody has taken the time to test out what I’m saying. I can’t remember why or how I gave up Cairo so easily the first time but it surprised me how easy it was to get it back and thus eliminating almost all of the Italian troops in one move. � Don’t take my word for it though, just give it a try.

GHG,

My opinions are based upon game time experiences and less theorizing. I lose more games than I win…so my “points of view” aren’t as credible as others. And remember, this dynamic game is so fun for us that even discussing strategy is enjoyable. �

Cairo Debate: I remember once I made a very credible threat towards getting Cairo. I was stacked on Alexandria and the UK player evacuated Cairo the next turn. The UK player was able to get lots of stuff in position to where in the subsequent turn if I as the Axis tried to stack on Cairo, I could have ended up losing everything to include German planes. I happened to see it and therefore did not fall into that trap. Just because you give up Cairo, doesn’t mean the Axis player is going to hand to you on a silver platter all of their forces to be lost in one lone battle. The scenario described to me, “thus eliminating almost all Italian troops in one move” is not going to regularly occur against most Axis players a second time. You also mention about getting all of the way to Bessarabia with UK units and Moscow never falling. In my game experience, these are rare occurrences, and at that point, the allies already won.

When putting your strategy on the forum, I think anyone should take for granted that everyone else may not have the time nor opportunity to spend a 10-14 game just to test out someone else’s strategy to find flaws. Honestly, I get to play 1 table top game maybe once every 2-3 months. I’m going to play the strategies I think work best for me. And besides, it’s your strategy, how could I say I really played your strategy correctly? You said that sometimes you stumble upon things and learned a new strategy. Regarding Cairo, I don’t think you can count on getting the Italian units in one fell swoop game after game.

In the few games I lost Cairo, I usually got it back (in 1 game I didn’t which I lost). It slowed me down from “beefing” up “middle earth” and therefore helping Russia. I haven’t seen a value in losing Cairo let alone evacuating just for the sake of enticing some counter attack kills.

I can assure you, if I get both London and Cairo, I will most likely win, especially if you gave up Cairo the turn prior to a successful Sea Lion attack.

Now I’m theorizing…
Lets assume that my G1 purchase is 2 bombers and 1 sub (I do that purchase occasionally). I’m left with a dented battleship in SZ 110, and 1 sub in SZ 111. UK did not scramble any battles. Germany won a 50/50 battle in SZ 106 and therefore took out that extra transport from Canada. I’m not doing a J1 attack (not a fan cause it can take Sea Lion off the table). This is a likely scenario. What are you going to purchase UK1 and where is it going? Are you going to start purchasing on SA or a naval base?

@taamvan:

In our most recent game of G40, my partner Germany did a 100% sea lion build (hes a new player, just learning, wanted to experiment with this).

In response, UK 1-3, was only able to build the following on 3 successive turns on South Africa

1 arty
2 mechs
1 armor

This is $18 of approx. $84 dollars available on those turns, demonstrating that only 20% of funds are available to wisely distribute around the world, when you are turtling London against the largest possible German commit (8+ TTs!)

We lost, since Russia raged, but it was still fun.

Did your Axis partner DOW on Russia prior to Sea Lion in order to occupy E. Poland? How soon or where did Russia stack in order to really threaten Germany?

GHG,

My preference is to play global via table top. But being a father with a 14 month old son and a husband to my wonderful wife, I can’t justify dedicating a 12-14 hour Saturday more than 1x per 2-3 months. Playing a few hours of triplea in the evening after my son is put to bed is sometimes the only way I can play. Yes, triplea isn’t the same, but it’s a good electronic version.

Amongst the triplea global 40 regulars, Sea Lion has recently become very popular again. A few months ago, I started a post called “Tan Skies” (meaning large stacks of UK fighters getting to Moscow being a problem for Germany). Players are really tired of aggressive UK strategies like your plan and lately seem to be testing the limitations of Sea Lion again. An opponent recently pulled off Sea Lion against me and it wasn’t pyrrhic (he only had to take like 2 plane hits). He declared war on Russia G2 in order to snatch E. Poland. This was easy because he positioned his ground on G1 like he was going to do Barbarossa but his forces were evenly positioned from Romania on up to Poland so the Russian player couldn’t tell if he was going to go north or south of the Pripet marshes. Grabbing E. Poland on G2 really puts Russia out of position for subsequent threats of Germany and helps to block Russia from immediately getting lots of NO bonuses. I was shocked when he bought a ton of transports G2 even though I placed the “responsible” 6 infantry / 1 fighter on London. His reasoning for still doing Sea Lion despite 6 inf/1 fig was that the US was setting itself up for a KJF strategy and he needed to slow them down. The US navy was in wrong place to where they couldn’t immediately move any ships to New Brunswick. His G1 purchase I think was 1 bomber, 1 sub, 4 infantry. The axis won this game.

Until this game, it hadn’t really occurred to me that 8 infantry / 1 artillery is a better defensive purchase. Duh… We buy the 6/1 so we get 1 useful fighter. If Germany purchases 1 transport on G1, I’m now more inclined to purchase 8 infantry/ 1 artillery for London against good opponents. I’ll still buy 6 infantry / 1 fighter if a German opponent purchased like described above. But it was rather shocking.

Thanks for the endorsements, wish I got so many working at Sprint!

Im not trying to dismiss any idea outright.  Sometimes a static plan (esp for allies) is dangerous

esp in G42 we are now challenging this idea that india is hopless by forumlating

a rescue plan via persia so J3 doesnt pull odds
a takeback plan so japan doesnt flow tanks into russia belly and get comfy
a responsive plan that lets UK get assertive/protective if japan is dumb enough to wait or focus elsewhere

buys are awesome but unlike G42, its UK3 before you can drop 1 guy on persia, iraq, or even egypt (assuming threat) so GHG plan covers UK3-7 and its a deep commit.  GHG plan does accomplish the above goals if we can threaten japans control of india but alot of games are over or nearly over by turn 7 (aaa games last longer than live ones usually)

will try to watch your video when not at work

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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.

You must be playing VERY weak German players.  Unless that country decides to do a Sea Lion attack, there is no way that Russia can prevent them from laying siege to Moscow.  Key to the German plan is buying 10 tanks/mechs in Germany on G2 and supporting the spearhead army with additional fast movers and/or additional planes purchased on G3-G5.  Italy should buy a tank and mech on I1 and use their four fast movers + planes to can open as necessary.

Buying a factory in Persia on UK2 is an excellent plan since the fighters can prevent Germany from taking Moscow and slow down efforts to move into the Middle East.  I am surprised that you would allow Italy to take Egypt early in the game.  Germany can usually land enough planes to prevent a counterattack until Italy can handle the situation themselves.

There is a general learning curve where Germany initially struggles against Russia.  Players frequently find themselves open to counter attack and sometimes see that Berlin gets captured by the Red Army.  I assure you that in a non-BM game with normal dice outcomes there is absolutely nothing sane that you can do to prevent Germany from marching:

G3: Eastern Poland
G4: Belarus
  R4: Russian troops must retreat to Moscow or else Italian canopers take Smolensk and German fast movers take the capitol
G5: Bryansk*  sometimes a few German fighters are required to support the Italian/German stack for this critical move.

After that point the realities of the game take over.  Against an aggressive Russian player who built too many artillery and didn’t obtain fighter support from other Allied players, Moscow will fall.  Otherwise, I besiege the capitol and head down to the oil fields with a sub-force.  I have played very aggressive Russian players who are willing to throw away large stacks of infantry to prevent Italian canopening, but that only hastens the eventual fall of Moscow.  They are throwing away a bunch of units that defend as 2s in return for a few German units that attack as 1s.

You can go through the battlecalcs for each round.  It isn’t too hard to figure out how big each German/Russian stack will be with the assumption that two or three German planes will be lost in the opening couple of rounds.  Do the exercise and see that your ambitious plans do not hold water.  I am sure that you merely have found novice opponents who misspend German money and build too much fleet, throw away the planes, or do other stupid things.

Generalhandgrenade. How about you just take a game with ABH to see how it goes?