UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

@govz

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

@JDOW

May I ask how that plays out? Has that meant Italy gets Cairo early while UK pressures Germany?

Very interesting. I’d agree that Japan usually wants at least one factory in China no later than turn 3, even if you’re primarily playing a naval game. It’s rare to see a board where you’d want zero factories, although I believe it is a possibility. You can use up your limited 10 production slots pretty easily when you’re building serious naval units. Even if you’re pulling in 80 IPCs a turn, that can usefully go to something like 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 SS, 2 trans, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk.

The USA sub build is a special case, because subs are optimized for killing your navy, but subs are bad at protecting American transports. If the USA builds more than 3 subs in the first 2 turns, then you do want to build Japanese factories, because, as you say, the subs make it too difficult for Japan to protect its fleet, and the subs also make it easier for Japan to nuke any transports that the USA tries to bring west to take over your factories. The USA is rich, but it can’t afford to build a huge sub stack and a huge carrier stack and a huge stack of loaded transports all in the first few turns, even if it ignores Europe altogether.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@simon33:

Hmm, interesting analysis. Germany has to really stretch to pull in the 24 inf too.

If a G1 buy of 3mech 3arm where done, it seems to be negative.

What happens when the more usual move of a I2+G3 DOW is done? If the Germans don’t buy fast movers G1, that is what I expect anyway.

Interesting. I had no idea that 6 tanks could potentially make East Poland not stackable…and if Germany buys mechs/tanks G1 in anticipation to bolster it, that prevents them from buying more ships for Sealion.

This is the build that helped us win our first game at YG’s tournament as the allies, and almost always my build with Russia.

Follow up round two with FULL mechanized.  Your force can hold/delay leningrad unless the germans are heavily organized and determined to take it.  Usually this can buy you an extra round or two depending on what the germans are doing, whilst you evacuate your infantry.

Ok Thanks for feedback,

So as far as German Fleet goes,

T1 Collect fleet in sz 112
T2 Hit Gibraltar (+ remaining subs for ablative wounds)
T3 Hit Frenchies
T4 Start shucking to NW Africa.

This means no BB for sz 110 battle T1, So will send in more planes.

Italian Fleet
T1 Hit Greece
T2 Hit Egypt/Syria or Shuck to Tobruk to reinforce
T3 Merge with German fleet.
T4 Shuck more to Tobruk or wherever

Turn 3-4 Germans/ Italians can start to build up a few more destroyers/Subs etc to protect.

The main idea is that with the majority of early purchases focusing on land units for Russia, the fleets will survive longer in the Med as a combined unit than separate targets. The extra support from the Germans will help to secure Italy’s NOs for longer (Unless UK/USA go all out )

This is just a distraction however while the ITA/GER blitz moves east to secure caucasus /persia. After that the Axis can start mobilising more troops/ships to defend the West.

The Malvinas War was a pyrrhic win.    The political objectives were met, at the cost of losing several multimillion dollar modern warships with many more very nearly destroyed.  The land battles were fought without the full benefit of combined arms, which then required WW2 style tactics that caused WW2 like causalities, and several of the land battles were fought solely to meet timing objectives about British progress in the UN/public sphere.

The British ships were shown to be virtually helpless in the face of even unguided bombs dropped from 2d-3d generation export fighters that cost 1/100th as much as a warship.  There was no more practical air defense from ships than in WW2.  If the Argentines had access to better fuses and a few more sea skimming missiles, the outcome would have been the loss of a dozen or more warships and a forced UK withdrawal.

The Falklands may have been the last war fought by UK forces but primarily to foster an Imperial English agenda without regard to the costs of that to the Union or anyone else.  That English agenda has, 30 years later, made the UK a dying concept where Scotland is more attached to the EU than England, which is about to leave England as a rump country…

Canada would have been unlikely to have any assets other than air refueling that would have been any less vulnerable than UK assets.  Canada has its own agendas, having contributed more overseas ‘peacekeeping’ troops and aid supplies to Afghanistan and other conflict areas in the 00s than any other relatively small nation.  Canada has always been inviting to refugees and the oppressed.  However, like Germany and France, it had little motive to be drawn into a US/England alliance of chaos so it has continued to quietly advance that agenda in wise correspondence to its actual strength and motives to do so.

I admire your patriotism but from the point of view of an objective observer, there is no Crown left to defend.  England has long ago charged off on its own course to enhance its own prestige and resolve at the expense of its junior partners (the former empire) and to the benefit of its senior one (the US).  That’s what the “Special Relationship” is all about.

And Canada may stand alone in its sentimentality about that, few of the other former British Empire/UK have any faith that England will ever do or act any different(ly).  England has always seen itself as a leader but having pompously acted that way since WW2, there is precious little left to lead.

Good suggestions, except it leaves me wondering about Japan putting some, even a little, pressure on Russian.  Like I said before, it is in my DNA to squeeze Russia with the Axis.  It may be that your suggestions are the best route for Japan but including a smaller invasion of East Russia.

I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it, and we love the game.