UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

So why did me fail?

me means middle earth?

@crockett36 Because I got shamefully sealioned as I’ve sealioned myself so many times before;

Germany buy 2 SB save 6
Kill SZ 91 CA first strking
Take Yugo outright no strafe
(play read; Stratbombing then SL)

1. Buy UK 1 8 inf 1 mech (mech went to SA)
   Do Taranto all in, Gib fighter to kill DD
   DD kills fighter Italy keeps 2 trans
   TT goes to africa with tank in anticipation of heading to Africa
   TT goes S empty
   Scotland fighter helps DD kill sub that lived in SZ 91 and is stuck in FWA

2. Germany gets ready to annhilate me and bombs me out without reply I repair 15 and buy 4 inf 1 fighter my chance of survivng the first round is like 10% and he has another wave ready as always…

G3 me = noob after so many games following a canned plan made by another noob

UK 3 noob = loses

UK has to do pat buys, it cannot do anything flexible, and it probably shouldnt send everything to Taranto, risking a backfire as the gentleman here was speaking about just this week as I was preparing.

@taamvan I usually send 2 units to the Malta sea zone battle on UK1 (eg. DD + fighter, or CA + fighter), to make darn sure to kill the second transport. Killing Italian surface boats is nice, but the transports are a higher priority on turn 1, so I wouldn’t split the UK forces in the Med so drastically as to put 9 units on Taranto and 1 on Malta. An 8/2 split makes more sense.

@Argothair Its good to hear from you again brother.

I know how to allocate the battle. I lost the SZ 91 CA. I was just blathering on to a new player in this thread about how you should never undercut Taranto because you risk a scramble. I did that and kept my CV, 1 Fighter, 1 CA. He snaked the plane stack in Syria (GHG suggests Trans J) w his 2 TTs AND he swacked my ships. Easily.

However, if you read my playout, none of that mattered–I was missing 1 inf 1 tank from Canada I ambitiously sent south.
I was missing the DD blocker
I put 1 mech in SA
AND
Everything went to Taranto

and that is a 100% idiot move because if you don’t protect UK with all you can on turns 1-2 (assuming Ger has flex power/$ and units) he can attack you with 2 waves and has a high chance of victory. Especially if you are a noob like me and send anything anywhere else and listen to people on the internet.

This is why ME doesnt work–you can’t follow all those dealpoints and get UK power south unless GER does something obvious w his starting power/$.

Some of the basic concepts might be preserved like the SA shuck, the Iraq UK 1 take, the NB on Persia but IDK, its just like I said in 2017 if you dont watch what Germany does and play on rails you will be snaked.

@taamvan Hello again, old friend! I confess that I had a little trouble following your playout; my apologies for suggesting that you don’t fully understand the Taranto Raid. Consider the comment about the 8/2 split advice for newer players, rather than advice for you. :)

That said, I disagree with 95% of what you’re saying about Middle Earth and Sea Lion. I’ve argued up and down this thread that it’s OK to lose London to a Sea Lion attack as long as you make Germany pay through the nose for it. That means any surviving Canadian forces go to London, not south, and it means the US1 build has to go at least partly in the east, and it means the R1 purchase should include some artillery and mechs, and the R2 purchase (in response to a G2 transport buy) should be mostly artillery and tanks.

It’s OK for the UK1 turn to be “on rails” because there’s no such thing as predicting the German strategy based on the G1 buy. Germany buys subs and strat bombers? Well, they’re useful for bombing London on G2 and then supporting an invasion of London on G3. They’re also useful for keeping Allied boats away from the western front and then for bombing Russia on G4/G5 and then attacking Moscow on G6/G7. Germany buys 10 infantry? Well, they’re useful for a slow march on Moscow that lands on G8/G9. They’re also useful for loading onto transports to invade London so the rest of your army can go defend Poland, or for launching a second attack on London on G4. Germany buys a destroyer, a sub, and a cruiser? Well, they’re useful for keeping the Baltic Navy alive long enough to load more troops into Norway and Leningrad, and they’re also useful for taking out any Allied naval blockers and scramblers so that most/all of your air force can go to London itself. Any buy that has any conceivable purpose in a war on Russia can also be used effectively in a Sea Lion. You cannot tell whether Germany is coming for London until after you see the G2 buy. There is no such thing as an “obvious” G1 move; it’s nothing more than superstition. You might think that if Germany buys infantry then they’re headed east, or if Germany buys a carrier then they’re headed west, and maybe you know your particular opponent well enough to get inside their head and read their psychology, but there’s absolutely nothing about the game mechanics that forces Germany to go west or go east based on their initial purchase. At worst, a heavy British air presence near London can slightly punish a G1 infantry purchase by forcing Germany to buy some protective boats on G2, limiting them to 7 or 8 transports instead of 9 or 10. This does not mean Sea Lion will fail, and it is not a good tactic to leave your air force at home and skip Taranto just to force Germany to buy a carrier on G2. They’ll get plenty of use out of the G2 carrier if they want to do Sea Lion.

As far as basic ME concepts, you know I have a running feud with GHG on that topic – the SA shuck is solid, but the turn 1 attack on Iraq is bonkers and the naval base in Persia is overkill. Just build a transport or two in South Africa, shuck the transports back and forth, take Persia UK1, and build a factory in Persia UK2 if there’s no Sea Lion. It’s not rocket science; it’s just solid, steady play focused in the center of the map. When you include the NOs, there’s a lot of money in Egypt / Iraq / Persia, and it’s quite lightly defended – if the British move on the region early, there’s almost nothing the Axis can do to stop them, except take London at exorbitant price, which then usually loses to a follow-up attack by the Red tanks and the US Atlantic fleet. By contrast, trying to mobilize the British to attack and control any other region (e.g. Normandy, Norway, Greece, etc.) in the opening usually means you’re running straight into the teeth of heavy Axis opposition. You wind up with fewer conquests at a higher price, further from the center of the map, which gives you less flexibility in the middle game. From Egypt/Persia you can branch out to Italy, Greece, Libya, Stalingrad, India, or the money islands. From Normandy, you’ve got almost nowhere to go except Belgium.

@Argothair I’ll examine your reply further, but it was “Maphead” Dave playing with another buddy who is still learning the game, and the 2 SB save $6/+Take Yugo going all in round after round to get $$ (clearly not strafing after strafing the last 20 germany times) it was a play/option easy tell/read from my buddy and FORMER axa “student” now my Darth Vader. Plus I assumed they’d double drop me in the most obvious way possible even before we played. ME didn’t survive that.

Our German player always goes for the UK cruiser in SZ91 so attacking the italian TT around Malta and going taranto really empties London. That is why i was looking for an alternative to Taranto but i find myself facing a taranto 2.0 in UK2 or UK3.

ttaxjinh taamvan said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@crockett36 Because I got shamefully sealioned as I’ve sealioned myself so many times before;

Germany buy 2 SB save 6
Kill SZ 91 CA first strking
Take Yugo outright no strafe
(play read; Stratbombing then SL)

1. Buy UK 1 8 inf 1 mech (mech went to SA)
   Do Taranto all in, Gib fighter to kill DD
   DD kills fighter Italy keeps 2 trans
   TT goes to africa with tank in anticipation of heading to Africa
   TT goes S empty
   Scotland fighter helps DD kill sub that lived in SZ 91 and is stuck in FWA

2. Germany gets ready to annhilate me and bombs me out without reply I repair 15 and buy 4 inf 1 fighter my chance of survivng the first round is like 10% and he has another wave ready as always…

G3 me = noob after so many games following a canned plan made by another noob

UK 3 noob = loses

UK has to do pat buys, it cannot do anything flexible, and it probably shouldnt send everything to Taranto, risking a backfire as the gentleman here was speaking about just this week as I was preparing.

@cornwallis

First, I didnt know you guys had continued talking so sorry for my leave of absence,

Second, I don’t blame him for attacking the sz 91 cruiser, since after all the Middle Earth strat really only works when aligned with America’s floating bridge and the Soviet Counter Attack

@argothair

Glad to see your still here on the forums man, but I need an opinion for an German designed strategy and I feel you’d be able to give me some helpful insight. I’ve been looking at General Hand Grenades video on Middle Earth and to the apparent outcome that it has become 'unstoppable. As for myself, I don’t believe those words for even a second, so I’ve been developing a method for Germany to potentially use that could stop all 3 Allied strategies that GHG developed.

If im honest its less of a strategy and more of a chemical mixture of different war tactics all with the same purpose of stopping the 3 allied powers in Europe.

As for GHG’s Russian Fall Back Line and Counter Attack video, I designed a specific method for Germany to break through this which is a little war tactic that goes by the name of “Blitzkrieg”

As for the American strategy of the floating bridge, I implemented the strategy i previously mentioned to you of “Afrikakorps” as well as Japan attacking on J3 instead of J1

Now I’m trying to crack the case of defeating Middle Earth… I’ve been stuck on this one for a while.

Any ideas?

@luftwaffles41
Hi! When you attack Russia G2 and go to Moscow via the southern route (Ukrain), the time you get to Moscow the flow of UK troops hasn’t really started yet i would think. And maybe a fall of India will divert UK’s attention to defending the Middle East?

@cornwallis

Exactly! See, part of what I was developing for a German strategy was to strike at the heart of the U.K’s economy.

So hear me out on this and tell me what you think.

First and foremost, you’d obviously be doing an Afrika Korps strategy which is sending a German navy and German units to help assist Italy down in Africa, whilst doing a successful Barbarossa attack. I actually made a thread in Europe 1940 called “Countering the Russian Fall Back Line” with a well devised plan to counter the counter attacking that the Soviet Union can do.

As for which route Germany should do, I absolutely think they should be taking the southern route since 1) more money, 2) closer proximity of industrial hubs with Stalingrad as well as Ukraine.

I’ve done counting and from the East Poland border to Moscow, it’s 4 turns, which is the exact amount of time it takes for the British to bring their destroyer and transport from the British Isles all the way to South Africa to start their triangular transport process in their Middle Earth strategy.

BUT, I have developed a way to potentially counter the Middle Earth strategy and the inevitable Minor Industrial Complex that will be placed on Iraq/Western Persia with a strategy that I like to call “Naher Osten”. This strategy is still a prototype, but the way it works is basically still the same get go, so let me fill you in on the steps.

Turn 1, Germany should build 2 transports and an Aircraft Carrier to create a fake Sealion build for the British to get all ancy that Sealion will happen, continue normal German moves that you’d do on G1, as for Southern France it’s optional to take it G1 or G2 doesn’t really matter much, but leave Yugoslavia and Greece for Italy since this strategy involves Italy to play a significant role in taking Egypt.

Turn 2, Germany should take the 2 infantry from Denmark, 1-2 infantry from Norway, the tank and artillery from Normandy down to Gibraltar and Morocco to make an official landing in Africa and control the straight of Gibraltar. Germany should next be building tanks, artillery and infantry for the inevitable attack on the Soviet Union. Now, it really doesn’t matter how you divide your infantry up as the Germans, you can either build the 3 infantry on Normandy and take the 3 infantry from Greater Southern Germany to Southern France, it doesn’t matter what you do, you just need to have 6 infantry and 3 tanks on Southern France, as well as having built either 3 more tanks on France, or 2 tanks and an artillery, etc. just buy 3 units made up of tanks and/or artillery.

Turn 3, Germany then moves their transports up to Southern France, taking 3 Infantry and 3 tanks down to Tunisia with the 3 movement they get from the newly taken Naval Base. Now, turn 3 should be the proper assorting build to send towards your Barbarossa attack consisting of aircraft, infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. BUT you must build 3 transports on Southern France by G3 for this strategy to work. So, G3 should effectively be your Barbarossa attack, this is when you can go now and go hard on the Soviet Union. I spoke earlier in a thread I made of countering the Russian Fall Back Line if it is enacted and it was a long post so I don’t wanna just say the same thing here, but the point is you can go now, this is it. or you can wait to G4, I’d go on G3 though. Now, as for your newly built 3 transports, the UK may or may not have a bomber on Malta that can reach. The Italian player should take their leftover cruiser, transport and destroyer and sub, (assuming they are all alive) to the sz 93 bordering Southern France to A) Keep the 3 German transports safe and B) Protect those ships from being destroyed by the Royal Airforce, to which being there the British will only have their bomber to take it out which isn’t very cost effective to trade a bomber for a destroyer being that the cruiser gets a guaranteed 2 shots at the bomber. So you’ll have a total of 6 transports, 3 bordering North Africa and 3 on Southern France.

Turn 4, this is where the strategy is put into play, keep in mind this is the exactly moment where the UK JUST STARTS to get their triangular transport route moving in the Indian Ocean so this couldn’t be better timing for Germany to disrupt the UK. Now, for building units you might wanna consider building a ship or 2 in the Med to help build up the German navy, as well as continually building the proper builds to help assist the invasion on Barbarossa. Now for the combat moves, Germany should take their navy, their 3 transports that will carry 3 infantry and 3 tanks, and their 3 transports on Southern France carrying 3 more infantry, and likely 1 tank and an artillery (It can be whatever you want, you just need to atleast bring 3 tanks), and bring these across the Med and land in SYRIA. The British may or may not know what’s coming, and might have aircraft there as well as some other units, which is perfectly fine, the more units there the better for you. So to recap, you’ll be taking your entire navy, 6 transports holding a total of 6 infantry, 4 tanks, and 2 artillery to Syria, and if there are any units there then you’ll get a landing shot with the battleship and cruiser.

Within the next 2-3 turns you’ll be able to march across the Middle East, taking the IPCs, the Industrial Complex, and the National Objective money from the British player, whilst Italy focuses on taking out Egypt, and while Japan works on taking out Calcutta, and with this, the British player is absolutely overwhelmed, they effectively have all 3 major Axis powers all marching for their base of operations, which the British just can’t afford to take on all 3 Axis powers, I don’t care how many units the British place in the Middle East and Africa, they just can’t industrialize fast enough to take on all 3 Axis powers. Keep in mind that after you make your landing on G4 into the Middle East, your ships should IMMEDIATLY turn back around to face the impending American navy that is coming across the water, and within a span of 3-4 turns you should have built at least 1 boat to put in the Med to help size up the American navy with your own and with the combined strength of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, you’ll be able to push the Americans out from their invasion of Operation Torch, therefore winning the game for yourself since the Americans HAVE to make their landing in Africa by turn 4, and if they’re pushed out then its game over, they can’t afford to make another landing because by then the Soviets will have lost the war.

I know this post was super long so I’m really sorry for making you have to read all this but I really wanted to make sure this strategy was devised and well thought out to take on the Allied powers.

Tell me what you think!

@luftwaffles41 Hey, buddy, glad you’re still enjoying the game. I think a landing in Syria is often a good idea, because it’s under-defended, it’s worth some cash, it’s conveniently located near other Italian resources, and it threatens an immediate move into Iraq to activate the armies there and the oil income for the Axis.

That said, I wouldn’t design an entire opening around that landing, and I think landing with 2 transports there is usually plenty; it’s rare for the British to have enough units stacked in Jordan or enough fast movers in Egypt to safely kill 4 Italian land units.

The main problem I see with your reasoning here is that while you certain can wrest control of the middle east from Britain by ganging up on it with Germany, Italy, and Japan all at once, that won’t win you the game – the UK plus Canada and south Africa is still earning enough cash that you can’t easily take London even after wiping the Brits off of the tropics, and if all you do is seize the middle east, most of china, and the money islands, then you’re not out-earning the Allies. The Japanese pretty much have to go after at least one of India, Australia, Siberia, or Hawaii in order to pose a serious threat to the Allies in the Pacific, and the Germans need to either take Moscow, take London, or penetrate quite deep into southern Russia – probably all the way to the Caucasus. Just gaining control of Persia from the middle eastern side won’t win you the game if the Russians are still holding Stalingrad, Caucasus, etc. from the north. By concentrating so many resources on knocking the British out of the tropics – where they have relatively strong defensive potential – you are likely giving up on the chance to score a knockout blow on Moscow, Calcutta, Sydney, etc., which in turn means that the Allies will be outproducing you and able to overwhelm you at a time and place of their choosing. It’s true that Italy will become a monster – I’ve gotten her up to 42+ IPCs that way – and that can throw some players off, but that’s still much less than, e.g., the USA is earning. If the USA is dumping 60 IPCs/turn into the north African theater, then eventually Italian income will start going back down. You also might catch a British player off-guard if they build too many factories too soon, and win the game that way, but when I play middle Earth I try to be relatively conservative: one factory in Persia on UK2 if there’s no Sea Lion, and then maybe one more in Egypt or Iraq (not both) on UK4 or so if the region looks reasonably secure. The idea is to use the factories you have to crank out a lot of infantry and subs, which are a pain in the a** for the Axis to go kill. If I see you focusing on the middle east as the Axis, then as Britain I won’t build that second factory, and instead I’ll put some resources into building up an Atlantic fleet that can harass Norway, Belgium, and so on. Nothing requires me to fight to the death over Egypt. I can withdraw to Sudan and then to Ethiopia and force you to choose between pursuing me into less-valuable theaters or leaving my army intact to re-take Egypt later.

In terms of what I do recommend for German strategy, I’m not as skilled with the German pieces as I am with the British, but my insight is that victory as the Germans relies on crippling the Russians at an affordable price, which in turn relies on early control of Leningrad and Kiev – if you own Leningrad and Kiev, you can build 6 slow units a turn to use as cannon fodder while you build mechs and tanks in East Germany to threaten can openers. The problem is that you only have enough tanks in the opening to guarantee one of those two production centers. So, I typically send my tanks south to grab Kiev, and rely on transports to take Leningrad. A German Baltic fleet with 3-4 warships and 2-4 transports is affordable, will protect Norway, and can either force an early Russian retreat from Leningrad or allow you to crush the Russian garrison there. You can also keep shucking German units to Leningrad even after you’ve taken control of the factory; that allows you to place, e.g., some infantry and artillery in West Germany which can then either go west (if the Allies do land in Normandy/Belgium that turn) or go east by transport (if the Allies don’t).

Good luck, and have fun!

@argothair

That’s exactly what I was worried about too is the thing. While I was able to do an Afrika Korps strategy without diverting too many units away from a Barbarossa attack, there would still be something to be said for devoting so many resources to such an unpopulated area.

My sincere apologies by the way for not stating the terms of victory, I was just kind of going off the top of my head and not necessarily considering victory conditions, but I suppose now that I’ve been reminded of it that I should touch on it a little.

So when I was playing the German Reich in a test run of Global 40’ with a buddy of mine, I was able to really test Afrika Korps whilst try to defeat the Russian Fall Back Line that is so popularly used to counteract the German offensive. But frankly, Germany should initially prioritize on the southern quadrant of the Soviet Union, not the North for the very simple reason that the south has much more income then the North, LOTS more income. You’d be surprised just how quickly the Soviet IPC Marker drops on the numbers scale just by take a few territories in the Southern area of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that it just so happens to be the undefended part due to the fact that the Soviets don’t really see much prioritization in the Southern quadrant they see Leningrad see the situation they’re in and think “Well that’s worth protecting more than the south.”

As for the British building just switching over to the exposed Western European front, I highly doubt this would be optimal for the UK to do. For starters, I’ve tried building a navy from scratch, it ain’t as easy as it sounds. Second, the main philosophy that any British player should follow is wherever the Germans take the fight, you bring the fight. If Germany goes full swing for a Sealion attack, you better meet them with all the units in the world to make em fight for it. The same goes for Africa and the Middle East. the Germans and italians dont even have to take a single bit of sub-Saharan Africa to be making around 50+ IPC’s a turn. And as for attacking the Middle East, like General Hand Grenade said, Middle Earth is something you have to be committed to, you can’t spend some IPC’s on transports and an IC and then just call it a day returning to the fight in the Atlantic Ocean, because the UK don’t make enough income to be able to do something like that, they need to be concentrated in one specific area to defeating the Germans, and that’ll either be Africa or the Atlantic, it just can’t be both, that’d be overstretching yourself too much for a country that tends to make less than 30 IPC’s a turn.

And as for the setup I suggested, obviously 12 units would not be mandatory if the British were not doing a full swing Middle Earth strategy, you’d probably only need 6 to go in there, and secure the factory there and the naval base. But the main reason I say bring 12 units to the Middle East is because you wont have another chance to shuck units back down to Africa, once you set up your designated units in Africa, everything else should be going towards Barbarossa.

Speaking of which now that I’m talking about Barbarossa the other reason I would have wanted to bring 12 units to the Middle East wouldn’t be just to secure the IC and stop the Middle Earth strategy, but to then later move into the Caucasus and flank the Soviet Armies, which I feel that this move is WAY TOO underrated, I seriously feel like people don’t do this nearly enough as they could be. Flank the Soviets form the Middle East up, secure the Caucus and Stalingrad, and just by doing that will get you a whopping 14 IPC’s from securing just those 2 territories, along with the bonus 12 IPC’s for securing the Middle East (Trans Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Persia + 6 IPCs for National Objective).

I could understand why you wouldn’t think that a movement to build a navy and send 12 ground units south just do to what you already would have done doesn’t make a lot of sense, and in some sense I agree with that thinking, but it becomes a lot more worth the time and effort to go down there then what one might expect initially since you’re playing an important role in the fight for Africa as well as giving the role of the Italians to assist you.

As for the victory conditions, I think we all know that the Soviets are going to die, especially with the new war tactic I introduced in a thread I posted just recently on stopping the Russian Fall Back Line and overall moving through Russia hastily and swiftly. Leningrad will fall overtime due to the overextended Soviet border, Stalingrad will absolutely fall with the Blitzkrieg tactic I imposed as well as having taken control of Kiev and the southern German force in charge of securing the Middle East for the extra IPC’s to which will come up and take Stalingrad, leaving Moscow to the Germans to move in and take out all together.

Granted, that’s 7 of 8 cities (assuming we’re playing by the victory city conditions). With the last remaining city being Cairo, in Egypt. Hence, how the compilation of German Strategies all tie together with the immediate cut off of Middle Earth, the Italians will then be able to take Egypt and if they’re just to incompetent to do it then there’s nothing stopping the Germans from coming in and cleaning it up, thus ending the war completely with a swift Axis victory.

Overall, I feel like a standard Barbarossa attack just doesn’t work anymore, since like I said before, you need 8 cities to win with the 8th city either being London or Cairo, and since Cairo is easier to obtain then London than I say why not go for it, the main purpose was to counter all 3 of the Allied strategies that General Hand Grenade would end up imposing on the German player and frankly I say that having done this right, you’ve succeeded in stopping all 3 strategies single handedly as Germany.

If I missed something, don’t hesitate to let me know

@luftwaffles41 I think defending London when the Axis come for London makes sense, because building anywhere else is mostly a dead end – if you lose the British capital, then other British units won’t be very effective. Otherwise, I firmly believe in hitting people where they’re weak, not where they’re strong. If you punch someone’s nose, you’ll break their nose; if you punch someone’s shoulder, you’ll just break your hand. So, no, I don’t have to spend 100% of British income in the middle east just because you’re attacking it. Part of winning A&A is learning how to use an inadequate force to extract maximum pain from your opponent. You will surrender the region in response to a max attack, but only slowly and gradually and at great cost to your opponent. If your opponent sends less than a max attack, then you get a stalemate in the region, which is also fine.

Having a sense that Britain needs to focus 100% in one theater is relative. Yes, British income is modest, and yes, they benefit from focusing, but so do the Germans. If the Germans invest big in the Med and then switch gears back to eastern Europe, that will be costly for them, as well. The question is not “can I afford to retool” but “does my retooling cost me more than my opponent’s retooling?” As the UK, I’m buying maybe 1 factory and 1 or 2 transports to enable the Middle Earth defense. As Germany and Italy, you are talking about buying 3 transports, plus the warships to escort them, plus diverting the entire luftwaffe for quite some time. I don’t see that the UK has a harder time pivoting away from the region than germany does.

Finally, the reason why flanking the Soviets from the south is not as exciting as it looks is because it’s a long frigging way away. Unless you pull off perfect can openers (not guaranteed given that Britain can afford to throw away 2-3 infantry at a time as blockers on some turns, and neither the Italians nor the Germans are likely to have lots of extra units at the end of their supply lines), you’re looking at something like I3 Egypt, I4 Jordan, I5 Iraq, I6 Persia, I7 Northwest Persia, so your first little poke into Russian territory doesn’t come until turn 8 or so, and often that poke is quite small and can be batted aside by Russian slow movers built in Stalingrad. If the British actually build a factory in Persia and build infantry there, you’re looking at more like turn 10 or 11. It can be done, and it can win games, but it’s not an opening strategy; it’s a middlegame strategy.

@argothair

Precisely. Though the greatest asset that the UK has tends to be their greatest curse.

To put simply, the UK dont have the power to decide where the game is going to be played. They just dont, ultimately that decision is decided by Germany. And it’s the UK’s responsibility to meet the Germans wherever they try to go. Obviously devoting 100% of your resources to that area would just be ineffective but to get down to the core basics, what else are you gonna do, man?

By G2 I will have already done my big strategic bombing run, ranked up lots of IPC’s on your naval base, air base and Industrial complex, so why bother paying that down when all that’s going to happen is that it’s going to reappear? And back to the very fabrication that the UK’s greatest asset is their greatest curse, I am referring to Middle Earth. The Middle East is largely controlled by the UK with no other Axis power having the ability to take that away, hence why its the UK’s greatest asset. An industrialized area that the Axis can’t get to? That’s a win-win for me. Produce a large concentrated amount of units in one area whilst having that area naturally impenetrable by the Axis powers.

All the same, it becomes their greatest curse when they don’t expect the Axis to come down there. Going off your point of hitting someone in their weak spot, this is exactly that. General Hand Grenade sure as hell didn’t sound like he knew the Axis could make their way into the Middle East swiftly and soundly, and truth be told they sure can, this is the exact weakness of a British player, a so said “Safe Haven” to produce and industrialize penetrated by the Axis powers in such a way you didn’t even think was possible.

The idea of doing a middle earth strategy requires of the British to take the lead, take control, and decide where the fight’s going to be. And in doing this, they’re putting their foot down toward Germany, basically telling them that I decide where this game goes. And the player in charge of Germany can either sit down and take that back talk or back hand the British player for thinking they can step out of line and call the shots for where the fighting is going to be.

All in all, if as the British role in the Atlantic and Africa, that you want to prioritize back up in the Atlantic Ocean I’d be more than happy to welcome that change of pace, because all it means for me is that my Italian partner and myself will have an easier time winning out the majority of the IPC’s that remain in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

The Germans and Axis powers overall are trained, prepared, and ready to enact on a swift victory, they’ve more often than not made strategies designed to end the game fast and efficiently, to get in and get out, none of this fiddle around stuff with areas of the globe that don’t matter. And to touch on your point of the so said building anywhere else being a ‘dead end’ well, the dead end is Berlin. It should be the of the Allies priority to make a train with carts full of infantry, artillery, and tanks headed straight for Berlin to capture it, no matter how it’s done, it needs to be done, and they can do it in any sort of fashion they wish, from the North down, the West, or the South from Africa and Middle East.

The British building a factory in Persia won’t delay the Germans to turn 10-11 by then either, 1) the Germans already won the Eastern Front by then, 2) the Japanese are on the doorstep of Calcutta by then so by the time turn 3 roles around the British should already be devoting troops to defend Calcutta, and 3) the approach from south into the Soviet Union isn’t either what this build is based around, since to me that’d be kind of a waste, just a thought to the fact that it’s a win win situation with being able to take the Middle East and the national objective money, stop the Middle Earth strategy, and as icing on the top be able to take the Caucasus as early as turn 7.

And like I said, the Germans have an incredibly open window to get units down to the Middle East and Africa whilst still keeping an effective Barbarossa attack. They aren’t swapping back and forward between the two they’re the good fight on 2 fronts, yes, they are fighting a 2 front war.

As for the Soviet flanking strategy, that’s more of an after taste, and meant for securing the Caucuses in the late game if the Soviets are giving you a run for your money. If I can get the Soviets to build slow movers like infantry, artillery and fighters to put on Stalingrad, than I’m doing my job, and I’m doing it effectively to extinguish the Soviet War Effort on the main Eastern Front.

@luftwaffles41 the problem I see is on T2.
You mentioned to sail down to Gib and take Marrocco and/or Gibraltar.

This can be simply denied by placing a UK E DD in sz110.

Regarding Germanys Investments of a CV and TT for the course of landing in N.Africa.
Well yeah, you have to spend money to perform so, but these IPC will be missed on Eastern front.
Every ship you buy is weaken your punch against Russia.

I am not saying that you have a bad Strategy. The Strategy is clear. Neuter UKE in the Mid East.
But technically and or Tactical vise it is less of an Option bc of when things are not going as plannend.

The other thing what comes to my mind is, that you have to know that your opponent is planning on a mid earth game wich has some similarities with other UK openers i think.

Other than that, keep on brain storming.
It is allways good to have peoples here who trying out New ways

Best regards

AetV

@aequitas-et-veritas

I can absolutely see where you’re coming from. I honestly thought the same would result of me having done my own Afrika Korps strategy but to my surprise, I really didn’t take as many units as I thought I did down to the Med and Africa to assist Italy, atleast I didnt have to take down units I purchased, only units that were used in the invasion of France to which everything else moved back over for the Barbarossa attack. I know, it’s hard taking what I’m saying for granted and I dont blame you, I’d honestly have to show you in an actual game representation what I’m talking about to prove that the Germans really dont take away from their Barbarossa attack atleast initially with the first 12 units sent down to Africa.

Having built a CV and 2 transports only requires 30 of your IPC’s to be spent, which takes all your money up. During G2, all of your money (which is like 70 IPC’s give or take if you’ve done the G1 turn properly) should go to your Barbarossa attack, we’re talking planes, tanks, infantry, artillery, mech infantry, etc. The same for the most part goes with G3, with the except of spending like 8 or 12 of your 50 IPC’s on a boat, since I like to build the occasional boat here and there to help assist the navy down south, to which if I got a destroyer I would merely be negating 2 artillery and if I got a cruiser I’d be negating 2 tanks, which there’s something to be said for that but it’s the fact that I’ll only need it once.

Regarding the so said UK blocker on 110…

1. I suppose it doesn’t cost anything for the UK to do that, but this type of strategy is to make them believe that Sealion is happening, therefore get the British to prioritize on the British Isles.

2. If the UK were to move their only surviving destroyer to 110, all it would merely take for me is to destroy that sucker with one of the many planes I have at my disposal, then on the non-combat stage take my units down to the straight of Gibraltar, which granted I won’t be able to land them but that doesn’t really compensate for anything and the British have just effectively thrown away a destroyer as well as the transport that comes with it without delaying the Germans.

There is the problem that if you just kill the blocker and hang out on the shores–you don’t take Gibraltar, which means you can’t enter the Med with surface fleet. It delays you a whole turn.

@surfer

Well yeah like I said, then turn 3 you’d land guys in Gibraltar and Morocco, on the non-combat stage you’ll move in to the Med and pick up the guys from Southern France.

Like I said, for a single destroyer being thrown into the mess like that without any actual information that Germany is going to go Afrika Korps, it really doesn’t delay the Germans at all since they’ll still be able to get into the Med before the Americans are at war. Granted, if the British could stop the Germans from getting into the Med AFTER G3, then yah it’d be a worth while tactic but they can’t since most if not all of their navy will be completely obliterated.

And maybe this would be a little bit more significant in the Grasshopper Tournament scenario, but in terms of out of box rules, it really doesn’t matter when the Germans arrive with troops to Africa as long as it’s within the first 5 turns since it takes the Americans 6 turns to complete their Floating Bridge to get to Europe.