UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

@Luftwaffles41

If Japan places a blokker in the sea zone around Hawaï then you can only attack the carriers with your airforce with is not a battle you can win. If you roll statistically you will damage the carriers and maybe kill a fighter but lose the entire US air force.

I said Taranto is the best thing but not perfect because 1 in 10 you will get diced so that is why I ask if sometimes you do somethinh else. Siredblood for exemple doesn’t do Taranto.

Even with the starting lugtwaffe the germans can easily beat back every landing. Ok they will never take russua defending in europe but when US is commited in europe Japan will eventually take Sydney or slowly push in to ME. We have had this scenario a hundred times.

@Luftwaffles41 and if you don’t put the blokker and thus letting the US attack and destroy your carriers then US has done its part in the Pacific. Then a KJF becomes attractieve i would say

@Cornwallis

Have you not even taken the time to watch The Floating Bridge? Before you keep making points you should go watch it maybe it’ll change ur perception on Dark Skies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkjC0E42d0

Yeah they’ll have a blocker left from the Pearl Harbor attack, the point is not to go after the carriers on Turn 1. Because even if the carriers move 2 spaces away from Hawaii with the naval base the Americans will be able to catch the fleet and destroy by moving 3 spaces.

Even with the starting lugtwaffe the germans can easily beat back every landing. Ok they will never take russua defending in europe but when US is commited in europe Japan will eventually take Sydney or slowly push in to ME. We have had this scenario a hundred times.

I really don’t think your remark here is very true. The Germans begin with 12 planes in total, (however many are lost in the battle of Britain/Air raids of britain) as well as the amount of fighters you’ve potentially lost against the Soviets. And if you’re whole heartedly committed to taking your entire luftwaffe away from the Eastern front to beat back an American invasion that will continue to come each and every turn then that sounds like a waste of time to me. Also fyi the U.S will be landing 8 guys every turn in Southern France, forcing Germany to take the Luftwaffe extra far to deal with it.

@Luftwaffles41 yes i know that film.

It takes 6 turns to put this in place. By then Ger will be collecting +50 IPC.

8 units per turn can be attacked by 8 Ger inf with the entire lugtwaffe. I mean that Germany can hold out long enough against that.

@Cornwallis

Where are they getting these 8 infantry? Do you plan on rebuilding these 8 infantry every turn with a Major complex on France which in turn will cost you another 20 IPC’s? If it’s happening every turn are you going to just remove your luftwaffe away form the Eastern front for good? These are things you haven’t considered yet. If Germany has 8 infantry in Southern France and their entire luftwaffe then the Americans will say “Nice, you ready for the next one?” each and every turn. Because after t4-5 the Germans should be spending those 50+ on nothing but the Eastern Front or else they won’t defeat the Soviets. The Germans cannot afford to be spending half and half.

@Luftwaffles41 yes off course you might lose one but Ger makes +40 per turn so rebuying one onze in a while is not that hard. Point is you can easily beat back 8 ground units per turn. I’m talking from experience

@Cornwallis

If you think so then fine. With 8 grounds units (4 infantry, 4 armory) into Southern France not to mention the air power the Americans will have if they’ve built their 3 AC’s in the Atlantic Ocean, will eventually allow the Soviets to catch up to the Germans and outproduce them. Frankly it doesn’t matter if the American’s invasion suceeds or not, The Germans won’t be continuing Barborossa successfully if they’re spending 1/3rd of their money elsewhere

@Luftwaffles41 dude, you built them in West or germany itself and Chuck them on every turn.
By turn 6 you have leningrad and you can defebd that line. You need perhaps 2 air units to retake a terrority. You are missing the point that Ger can hold out very long.by then Japan will win.

@Luftwaffles41 they sont have to capture russua. They need to defebd and buy time. Don’t forget Japan is pounding in russias back with its IC’s

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

If you think so then fine. With 8 grounds units (4 infantry, 4 armory) into Southern France not to mention the air power the Americans will have if they’ve built their 3 AC’s in the Atlantic Ocean, will eventually allow the Soviets to catch up to the Germans and outproduce them. Frankly it doesn’t matter if the American’s invasion suceeds or not, The Germans won’t be continuing Barborossa successfully if they’re spending 1/3rd of their money elsewhere

I would like to believe you but we tried the green stores numerous times and with modest succes but too late in the game. We have been playing since 2012 and have played at least 500 games of Global on table top.

@Cornwallis

You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

I mean, it’s a temporary stalemate, especially if you’re trying to fill 3 coastal ICs per turn with land units. Best case scenario, Japan is bringing in 86 IPCs/turn with Siberia, China, money islands, and India. If you buy 9 land units a turn for an average of 4 IPCs each, that’s -36 IPCs, so you’ve got about 50 IPCs to spend to match the US Pacific Fleet. You can get away with that for several turns in a row by buying carriers and filling them with your existing air force, but at some point you run out of your existing air force, and then the US, spending 80 IPCs/turn, will surpass you and drive you back. So if you go for Sydney, you are essentially betting the game that you can take Sydney before the US out-spends you in the Pacific. Taking Sydney is not as easy as it looks, partly because of all the vicious, vicious emus that defend the plains, and partly because the US can fly in fighters as reinforcements, land infantry in Queensland as reinforcements, and so on. It does happen, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.

If, on the other hand, you leave Sydney be and go conquer the Middle East, then you can get to a point where you’re straight up out-earning the USA, even after filling your factories, and that is basically an Axis win. The area that Japan an conquer by pressing west from Calcutta isn’t just 6 IPCs – you’ve got West India (2), Persia (2), Iraq (2), Syria (1), Jordan (1), Egypt (2), Sudan (1), Kenya (1), Tanganyika (1), Rhodesia (1), South West Africa (1), South Africa (2), and Madagascar (1), all within a couple of moves of India by sea. That’s 18 IPCs, not counting strict neutrals. Even if you pick only 2/3 of that, it’s still economically important, and it’s often defended with little or nothing by the middlegame. There’s also the indirect benefit of knocking the wind out of Britain’s sails – without their colonial income, they may be unable to defend against Italy or pose a significant threat to Germany, which buys you even more time to slowly conquer the globe.

Actually part of why I almost never play Global any more is that it takes frigging forever to finish the games using my favorite strategies. But that’s another story…

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6

They built Inf in West germany every turn and move them to Paris or north italy so every turn you bring in the next wave.
When US starts landing in say turn 4, Germany will have leningrad and east poland. Then they start DEFENDING against russua and US in order to let Japan win the game.

@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

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

I mean, it’s a temporary stalemate, especially if you’re trying to fill 3 coastal ICs per turn with land units. Best case scenario, Japan is bringing in 86 IPCs/turn with Siberia, China, money islands, and India. If you buy 9 land units a turn for an average of 4 IPCs each, that’s -36 IPCs, so you’ve got about 50 IPCs to spend to match the US Pacific Fleet. You can get away with that for several turns in a row by buying carriers and filling them with your existing air force, but at some point you run out of your existing air force, and then the US, spending 80 IPCs/turn, will surpass you and drive you back. So if you go for Sydney, you are essentially betting the game that you can take Sydney before the US out-spends you in the Pacific. Taking Sydney is not as easy as it looks, partly because of all the vicious, vicious emus that defend the plains, and partly because the US can fly in fighters as reinforcements, land infantry in Queensland as reinforcements, and so on. It does happen, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.

If, on the other hand, you leave Sydney be and go conquer the Middle East, then you can get to a point where you’re straight up out-earning the USA, even after filling your factories, and that is basically an Axis win. The area that Japan an conquer by pressing west from Calcutta isn’t just 6 IPCs – you’ve got West India (2), Persia (2), Iraq (2), Syria (1), Jordan (1), Egypt (2), Sudan (1), Kenya (1), Tanganyika (1), Rhodesia (1), South West Africa (1), South Africa (2), and Madagascar (1), all within a couple of moves of India by sea. That’s 18 IPCs, not counting strict neutrals. Even if you pick only 2/3 of that, it’s still economically important, and it’s often defended with little or nothing by the middlegame. There’s also the indirect benefit of knocking the wind out of Britain’s sails – without their colonial income, they may be unable to defend against Italy or pose a significant threat to Germany, which buys you even more time to slowly conquer the globe.

Actually part of why I almost never play Global any more is that it takes frigging forever to finish the games using my favorite strategies. But that’s another story…

That’s true. Leaving Japan unchexked will give you problems in either Sydney or Afrika. The longer we play the more we are convinced that with good axis play the allies need to play PERFECT and never get diced to win.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6

But i must say KGF is the most effectieve strategy but sadly not unbeatable. So i understand what your point is. Japan can more easily hold off the US fleet.

@Argothair

Precisely. That’s exactly what Japan should be doing. 50 IPC’s will allow you to by an AC (along with purchasing a fighter and a tac bomber) which will cost you 35 IPC’s, as well as a Battleship or maybe 2 cruisers or whatever you need most in your navy. Let’s be real here, the only way America is going to outproduce you in naval units is if their spending more then 70% of their money in the Pacific, which won’t permit you in any way shape or form to do a Floating Bridge to KGF. And to be honest, if America thought they could just send their fighters to sydney then I would play the tactic you love so much; in other words, if they tried to move their ground units and airforce to sydney then I’d just take Honolulu. That simple.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

Let’s be real here, the only way America is going to outproduce you in naval units is if their spending more then 70% of their money in the Pacific, which won’t permit you in any way shape or form to do a Floating Bridge to KGF.

Sure. That’s why which way you go as Japan depends on what’s happening in the Atlantic. If America is conducting limited Atlantic operations and is putting serious pressure on the Japanese fleet, it may be more useful to steal the ME cash than to insist on driving for Sydney, especially since you might not ever get there.

If, on the other hand, America is sending 4 full transports a turn over the Atlantic, then driving for Sydney might be exactly what you need to do to distract them from that effort, leaving all those transports they invested in empty and collecting dust.

And to be honest, if America thought they could just send their fighters to sydney then I would play the tactic you love so much; in other words, if they tried to move their ground units and airforce to sydney then I’d just take Honolulu.

You can’t fork Sydney and Honolulu if the US has a credible Pacific fleet. The only sea zone that threatens both at once is usually the Caroline Islands, which Japan has often lost by that point in the game, and even if Japan is sitting in the Caroline islands, a single US or ANZAC destroyer on the Truk <-> Sydney route will shut that option down.

So, if Japan repositions to strike Hawaii, then you bring the fighters and infantry back from Queensland to Hawaii. It’s a game of footsie. If Japan has committed to winning by taking a 6th Pacific victory city (rather than by gaining economic advantages), and the Allies are doing OK in the Atlantic, then every turn that goes by while we yo-yo back and forth across the Pacific brings the Allies closer to victory.

<><><><><><><><>

This has been a very interesting debate, but I’m going to sign off now because we’re seriously polluting the original idea of the thread, which was to discuss British opening strategy in the middle east. If you want to continue the discussion on another thread, just send me a notification there and I’ll join you.

@Argothair

Likely for the best. We could go on and on about this but frankly I think to start a new thread would be the way to go. I think this debate has been incredibly intriguing for me to watch and react, it’s genuinely fascinating to look at a strategy made by someone else, so you can see just how differently you two think. Yeah, honestly the J1 attack when you think about it has less effect towards Middle Earth anyway.

@Luftwaffles41
I’m sure your correct.
I’m just musing at this point with not a lot to back it up.

The primary issue is does it benefit the Allies or hurt them to engage in a scrap with Japan early around Hawaii. I honestly don’t know. My guess is that it benefits the Axis. But it’s just a guess.

As I said, I haven’t tried a KJF test yet. First one starts today (no German Sea Lion). I’m not optimistic for the result for the Allies. But I’m going to give it a shot, and with no Sea Lion threat that would seem to be the best of possible scenarios for the Allies. If they can’t change the game by busting on Japan without the threat of Sea Lion, it’s doubtful they can do it with Sea Lion.

But your secondary point is also probably correct, Japan pushing west is way pushing their logistical limits (although its only a 3 turn move to get to Stalingrad with fast movers from China’s coast. Just sayin’).

The reason I push on West with Japan after India is because the Hawaii/ANZAC options look so grim and long term.

Meanwhile, if the Army that was in India is falling back, if I just turn my back on them, they can be a formidable aid to Russia. Those ME transports come in handy for a speedy evacuation.

(Sorry, a bit of background info- the end games to my previous tests usually end up with Russia falling back to Stalingrad/Caucusus and the British in ME trying to lend support to prevent the final Russian collapse; while the US tries to make a difference in Western Europe. Potentially, with enough UK support from ME, the Russians can lose Moscow , but keep Stalingrad.

With the Indian Army free to play the ‘saving’ cavalry, things could get dicey indeed for the Germans. Theoretically, the UK/Soviet Armies could retake Russia. Hence the need for my Japanese Army in India continuing to apply pressure. In fact, in my last game, the UK ME force got so fat that they, pushed the Japanese back, retook India, all the while trying to save Russia at the same time [a poor choice as they should have just helped Russia]. It was a wild game).

In that same game, I had a good handful of Japanese in Western China, trying to set up an ambush for the retreating Russians from Siberia.(I mean if Chia is going to protest the Burma road, why not exploit their absence in North-Western China?) I failed in that, but it allowed me enough guys to harass the crap out of Russia with the Japanese and eventually take Stalingrad- temporarily - like 2 turns. THAT was enough to bring about the final crumble of the Soviets. After that it was just about chasing a squirming prey.

And squirm they did. The US went all in in the Pacific , which halted all Japanese production towards anything but an ever increasing Japanese Navy to counter the US. And also allowed the UK successes in India and Russia previously mentioned. wild game indeed.