Best posts made by Pinch1

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

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

I agree with the meat of this strategy and can say with 100% confidence if the the Soviets have split their forces attempting to defend both Lenningrad AND Ukraine they will lose Moscow. You can just blow right past a lot of useful units. Germany has enough to starting ground forces alone to force the Soviets of either one of their choosing. Any units left behind in either Lenningrad or Ukraine are just easily picked off and a near free gain for the Germans come time to battle for Moscow.

However, the counter to the massing German forces on Eastern Poland is a massing of Soviet forces in Bryansk. What you will likely experience is a stalemate where each side is offensively weaker than the other is defensively strong. Neither side can confidently overtake the other’s massed forces in a decisive engagement and yes, time is on the Allies’ side.

This can be ok. You have choices at this point. Do you pull in your planes and crush the soviets at the expense of opening up Eastern Europe? Or do you hold the line and gobble remaining territory surrounding Moscow.

GHG has a strategy called Middle Earth. You build a mIC, and naval base in Persia. That works well enough to reinforce anywhere you need to. If UK concentrates spending there the Middle East is quite secure. Hardly anything from America is needed.

Apart from getting diced in Taranto America can keep the lid on containing Italy. Agreeing with @SuperbattleshipYamato moving across Africa is too slow for anything meaningful.

Middle Earth is solid, and as far as I can tell the best strat for the Allies. Apart form Germany building up a major fleet Allies should be able to push a win through without a bid.

@luftwaffles41 Yes, the Luftwaffe will come in and all but guarantee a Soviet defeat. I don’t question that. What I question is the risk of removing the luftwaffe from the western front vs the other Allies.

You will crush Russia, yes, but will you be able to obtain that final victory city in Europe? I think unlikely. Therefore, as the allied player I absolutely welcome you to bring the entire luftwaffe to the eastern front to crush the soviets. If the Germans want to obtain Moscow, they can obtain Moscow by moving everything east. This is a no brainer. They have the power of choice. If winning this game was a s simple as obtaining Moscow, nothing would stop the Axis from winning.

I disagree with the blobbing and I think deep down you do too. You define your blitzkrieg strategy by “concentrating the majority of your forces in a designated area.” This is the same thing. I welcome you to split your forces as either the Soviets or the Germans. If either side does they are doomed because you open half your army to attack from the entire enemy army.

USSR can’t split defense. If you leave or spend your IPC defending Lenningrad those units are wasted. Germany can turn on a dime with superior mobility and take Novgorod with minimal loses and you won’t have enough to hold out in Moscow. USSR Should fall back with everything. If they survive long enough they may be able to mount a counter offensive. If they Die, they die, but the game is still afoot and the luftwaffe is out of position for 2-3 turns to repel amphibious invasion. That’s the classic tradeoff.