I played against someone who used a similar strategy, building up a huge force in the Middle East to block German movement into that theater. The flexibility of the UK air force to reinforce Moscow made it impossible to affordably take down that capitol. India also became a difficult place to threaten. Eventually I saved up the German money for a round and then plopped down a huge Sea Lion assault force to capture London! The American fleet was out of position in the Med to block the attack.
It is easier to execute these sneak attacks during a face-to-face game.
In your experience, how well does this strategy work if India falls early say J4? If Japan does a focused amphibious landing against India early, by the time the transport shuck has been established only 1 transport shipment of troops will have arrived in the middle east UK4. There is not one strategy that is perfect, but a lot of concern seems to be directed towards Italy’s ability to threaten Egypt. I would counter this argument by saying that the amount of aircraft present in the mediterranean would give the UK the firepower needed to recapture Egypt if it fell. Additionally German aircraft would be out of position and unable to support early attacks in Russia. The real problem this strategy has, as has been identified, is large amphibious landings by the axis. It does not work against sea lion and it does not work against a calcutta crush. Sea Lion is pretty weak, but a naval landing in India is not unheard of.
My criticism is that I don’t think this strategy effectively reinforces India in time. Units moving from Eastern Persia to India are not fast and only 1 or 2 waves could arrive by J6. The incremental advantages gained in the long term from a transport shuck are really strong, but how can you save India with this strategy against determined Japanese attack?
If Japan wants to commit the resources it can take Calcutta on turn 4 regardless of what the UK does. The only way they would fail is extremely poor rolling. In my video all I laid out is how to set up Middle Earth. The challenge is what to do from there with the influx of British units in the middle of the board.
It takes all of your creativity and instincts to properly utilize your position. After securing the Middle East my preference would be to secure Africa and the Med. The only thing that would delay that for me is if Japan is making a move towards Calcutta. As you stated there is only one transport load of units from South Africa before J4, but there is also 3 units built in Persia and the air from the Med that can be shifted to India. What that gives you is 5 ground troops (at least 4 fast movers), any leftover units from taking the Middle East (2-5 units), plus the air (2-5 planes). I’ve had to deal with the Calcutta Crush before while playing Middle Earth.If Japan is going to Calcutta J4 then they will not have many ground units left over after the assault, leaving you the opportunity to retake it. There’s no guarantee you’ll get it back but if you don’t have all of those units there you will likely never get it back. If you do get it back then Japan will have blown it’s wad in the attempt and forsaken the Chinese, the Money Islands, and the Americans who now have the opportunity to turn the table on Japan. The naval base that I put in Persia allows me to throw some units (sacrificing transports) as far away as Burma and Shan State if the right moment presents itself. Bottom line: The Calcutta Crush is not a reason to not do Middle Earth because no other strategy is going to prevent it either.
As far as Sealion goes, please do Sealion if you’re playing against me. I will make that a short game. You don’t purchase your Persia complex until UK2 and by then you will know if Germany is doing an early game Sealion. Forget about Middle Earth and gang up on Germany. After you sink their navy on US3 and UK3, feed them a steady diet of Russian tanks, mechs, planes, artillery, and infantry. Support that with Americans and newly liberated British on the western front. Do enough to keep the Japanese from capturing 6 Victory Cities in the Pacific and burn down the Third Reich.
That would be London Calling;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0ZYQ-C4i28&t=3091s
The one time that my opponents did Sealion and Calcutta Crush on me simultaneously, the assault on India failed due to bad rolling and then I sank the German navy. It would have been a close game if India would have fallen, but it turned out to be pretty one-sided. You can’t count on that kind of luck every game, but then again if the Axis are completely fixated on the UK and determined to prevent Middle Earth it should leave the other nations open to coming up with a way to pull out a win.
GHG, I’m in the middle of a game right now in which I have opted to play the Middle Earth strategy. Germany has gone full Sea Lion, while Japan has failed the attempt for Calcutta, and failed to hold the money islands. You outlined perfectly how to counter the axis forces, and I am now in a position to destroy the German navy, and feed the Soviet advance. UK has enough residual forces left in the Middle East and North Africa to hold of the weak Italians. I don’t see how someone could argue against this UK strategy. In my experience the Middle East has been a power house for any power that controls it.
I guess the problem is that the strategy is so similar to the standard strategy of the UK taking the Middle East and strengthening it. The only real variation is the two transport shuck with the naval base and Iraq UK1 instead of UK2. Neither of those things have any discernible reason.
It seems like everyone says that even though none of them have tried it. Go figure.
This hardly fought game between Me1945 and I was pretty much Middle Earth:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39992.480
The concept of support between Middle East, Moscow and India was definitely exploited.
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega. Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference. I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.
So, thank you for sharing the game, Omega1759 – but I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t attack Iraq until turn 3, and you didn’t build a naval base in Persia.
These are really the two points I’m arguing with GHG about: the UK1 attack on Iraq, and the UK2 naval base in Persia. The rest of the strategy mostly seems reasonable – the middle east is obviously an important region of the board, and trying to reinforce it by building units in South Africa is obviously a reasonable choice. I just don’t see how the specific tactics of UK1 attack on Iraq or the UK2 naval base in Persia add any value to the overall strategic plan of strengthening the middle east.
GHG, in a dice game like Axis & Allies, even the craziest strategies can work once in a while, and slightly sub-optimal strategies can work as much as 40% of the time. I think your version of Middle Earth is slightly but clearly sub-optimal: you’re telling us to do two important things (attack Iraq round 1 + build a naval base in Persia) that are clearly worse than Britain’s available alternatives. I’ve written about two full pages spelling out why I think the alternatives are clearly worse, and your only real response has been to say “try it” or “come to British Columbia.” Instead of responding to the specific arguments people are making against your strategy, you’re just repeating the contents of your original post, and telling people to trust you. I don’t think you’ve earned our trust! Part of the problem is that trying your tactics once won’t prove anything. I could play your strategy out exactly as you suggest, and it could win, because your strategy isn’t shit, it’s just slightly sub-optimal. I could play your strategy 5 times and win 3 of my games, depending on how the dice go and how strong my opponents are. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t have won 4 out of 5 games if I’d used a better strategy. The only experimental way to determine the effectiveness of a strategy is to play at least 5 full games using strategy A and 5 full games using strategy B, for a total of over 100 hours of gaming.
So, you don’t have to defend the theory behind your tactics if you don’t want to – but don’t be offended if people aren’t willing to invest 100+ hours into trying out tactics that you’re not even willing to put 1 hour into debating on paper.
Argothair, I have been defending my strategy for over a year now in this thread and in live games. By now I’m tired of people telling me that my strategy is, as you call it “suboptimal”. Forgive me if I don’t want to keep answering the same questions over and over again.
I’ve already answered your question regarding Iraq this past week after you asked me about it. Just for you I’ll answer the question about the naval base for the umpteenth time;
The point of having the naval base is for being a) Being able to separate your 2 complexes from each other while being able to utilize them each turn. The Axis are more powerful in the game and if they really put their mind to it they can invade the Middle East from both sides and eventually wear down the UK and take it. If you put both of them there (Iraq or Egypt and Persia) you will lose both of them instead of just one of them.
And b) To give the UK greater mobility. Honestly, if you don’t try it you will not see the beauty of how mobile your forces will be. The UK Pacific and UK Europe will work together as one big force more so than they ever did before. You add an extra transport every so often and they project their power that much further. If you’re not too busy saving Calcutta or Russia then you’re taking down Rome in a one-two punch with the Americans. One takes Northern Italy and the other takes Rome on the same turn so that Germany can’t liberate them.
Obviously on a video I can only put down the first few turns of this strategy because you will have to improvise every game like you always do. There is no exact blueprint for how you set up Middle Earth or how you use it for the rest of the game. The Axis will dictate the direction of play like they do almost every game. Some games I will take Ethiopia before I take Iraq, sometimes not be able to drop the complex on Persia until the 3rd or 4th turn, sometimes wait until the 4th or 5th turn to drop the naval base. It depends on the circumstances of each game and what the Axis gives you. I can tell you for certain though that the strategy works better with the naval base that not with it. I have tried it both ways and I know how much better it is. The longer the game goes the more it will come in handy. It helps if you can put an airbase there later in the game but that’s only if you have too much money to spend.
Think about it this way, your starting point is the middle of the map (hence the name of the strategy), the further you can move from that point in one move the wider the circumference you can draw on the map as your control zone. It’s not just about being able to create a transport shuck although that’s how I originally set it up the first time. When I realized how much better it was than not having the naval base I never looked back.
Whatever you do don’t try it though. Don’t believe me because I don’t play Triplea and I can’t possibly know what I’m talking about. Keep doing what you’re doing and keep laughing at us hacks who play on a table top. We’re not worthy…
@Arthur:
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega. Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference. I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.Â
It definitely isn’t 30 is not even enough. I would say 45 is more reasonable to even things out.
@Arthur:
That looked like a fun game between two great players, Omega.� Having the +30 Allied bid, including the often-disallowed New Guinea build, made a significant difference.� I still scratch my head that some people think that the game is intrinsically balanced sans bid or mod.�
It definitely isn’t 30 is not even enough. I would say 45 is more reasonable to even things out.
Besides playoff games, there aren’t that many G40 games with bids 30+ that I’m aware of. That makes it a pretty small sample size. Perhaps 30 is about right. It seems that 20-25 isn’t enough statistically though.
My only real problem with a G40 game with a bid is the SBR rules. Perhaps I get too agitated about it, but they aren’t right in G40.2 to my way of thinking at least.
Tried it out and it seems to be every bit as effective as it’s made to be. My thoughts to beating it are about not caring about the Middle East. When I win with the axis it’s because you push for economic advantage and then maintain.
You can make Japan an IPC monster without taking India. Just keep them at 0 dollars by bombing the crap out of them. While China and rake Russia’s back door.
Taking the Middle East for Axis is like a win more strategy that puts the nail in the coffin. You can drop Russia to Nothing by turtling them in Moscow and clean up their IPCs. You should be able to get Germany and Japan roughly 70+ without winning the game. In the process Italy should be around 20. So that’s like 160 IPC. You’re left with USA 70+, ANZAC 10, UK 35-40. So it’ll be 160 to 120. You’ve already won if yo can maintain your gains. Just play the long game at that point. So you don’t take Calcutta in 7 turns. You’ll get there. Shift your focus away from winning all out to winning by attrition.
Interesting Pinch1. What did the UK do in this area before you tried the strategy? I put down a Persia factory UK2 and attack Iraq UK2, and just build ground units normally.
A mix of stuff. It’s essentially a way for UK to get a lot of stuff exactly where it’s needed. The axis players start gunning for India or Moscow because once you get to that point it’s essentially over for the allies. So middle earth is aimed at taking away that crush victory. Which works IF the axis plans are to go all in for the knockout punch between turns 7-9.
What I like to do with the axis when I see a knockout is inprobable is divert attention to securing economic edge whist turtling the enemy. It’s easy for Germany to turtle Russia. You’re essentially gunning for Moscow turn 7 at the soonest. Infantry/Artillery from West Germany can be at Moscow on 7th turn. Maybe some tanks and mech too but mostly with your starting units and troops bought from turns 1-3 that puts Russia in the back foot. At that point you force a battle to the gates of Moscow and Eussia is forced to turtle. Then you envelope take their territories and bomb their factory to oblivion. Once you’re close enough you use bombers and escorts. If he decides to intercept yo’ll lose planes but you can replace he can’t. Do the same to India too with Japan.
Now a good chunk of your monies in Germany can go toward your navy. If he’s spending all his money in middle earth he has a measly 2 fighters in GB. Park a couple carriers and destroyers and a sub or 2 in the convoy SZ of GB and Scotland to remove a combined 8 IPCs from UK. For a pretty cheap investment you can have 3 German carriers loaded with fighters. It’ll be impossible for the US to establish a beach head without UK support from GB. Germany can just amass it’s navy and combined Luftwaffe to destroy the land bridge as soon as it moves into position.
Get Japan rolling with 5-6 carriers too and the US has to split it’s purchases to keep The Japs honest.
In the end UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs after convoy raids which will limit their impact on the board at middle earth. America will never land without UK intervention in the Europe theatre. Germany with otherwise always have enough to kill that land bridge. And it’s completely worth it. Busy the time US rebuilds their war ships to restore the bridge. Germany has rebuilt the Luftwaffe and some ships again. If UK ignores the German navy just convoy them. This works even better if you survive the German battleship in the opening round.
I’m confused as to why you’re saying artillery bought in W Germany can reach Moscow turn 7. Why wouldn’t you build it in Berlin? You aren’t playing 1st edition are you? Many people try to get Moscow turn 6 in 2nd edition.
Yes I meant Berlin. Point I’m making is that the units that can make it to Moscow are typically the units bought in the first 3 turns because it takes 5 moves to reach Moscow from the nearest factory in Berlin. So if you want to hit Moscow ASAP that means you have to have the bulk of your infantry in place. Meaning a round 2 purchase can assault Moscow On the 7th round and so on and so forth. If you rush in with early purchases in infantry and artillery G1/2 then you can probably seal the deal in Russia and from R3/4 be dedicating more money to the western front. Which can be a lot of money on navies to contend with a landing force. America will have to go full Europe and Japan will ravage the pacific.
@Pinch1 That’s either an exaggeration or a very risky gambit.
True, after round 2 your slow movers built in Berlin won’t reach Moscow in time to attack it round 7, but the game doesn’t end when you attack Moscow; you’ve got to hold it, push into Persia and Egypt, and so on. You also usually want some mechs and tanks in Berlin on turn 3, some fighters to head east on turn 4 or 5, and some units built in Leningrad and Kiev on turns 5 and 6. If you pay for all of that, there’s almost nothing left over for a navy. If you skip all of that then you can pretty easily get blocked out of Moscow by British fighters, or at least you can be forced to wager the game on a battle with 50% odds or less…and if you lose that battle then you lose the game because you have no reinforcements on the eastern front, so Russia promptly recovers and stabilizes.
There’s something to be said for building army early and naval/air in the mid game with Germany, but I think you’re taking that idea way too far.
@Argothair give it a try. You might be surprised.
@Pinch1 Meh. It takes 10 seconds for you to tell me to give it a try; it takes 10 hours for me to test your ideas in one game of Global, and even then, if I get crushed, you could call it a fluke. I’ve never met you and I have no reason to trust your judgment. If you really want other people to give it a try, why not respond in detail to my concerns? If you don’t care very much, then that’s fine; we can agree to disagree – it’s just a game.
