UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

[TheDesertFox]

Nah dude, you’re good. I appreciate the opportunity to help you understand. If you wanna “Hamburg” Germany’s fleet are you going to build fighters in the U,K to do it? You’d probably need a lot more then 3 to deal any sort of damage since this time you’re not going to be attacking it with any surface warships. No, it doesn’t change their attitude, they probably will only think of that build as an odd, out of place, and totally not a cover up to Sealion build. The Germans have 5 submarines to start. 5. They don’t need more than that. Plus, if you’re gonna make the U.K player piss himself about a potential Sealion attack then go all in to faking one out to get him to place all his money in the British Isles.

[Argothair]

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

With the starting income of ANZAC and U.K Pacific, your going to take casualties that you can’t make up for as either nation. And unfortunately that’s just the way it has to be. Japan is going to kick ass in the Pacific whether ANZAC or Britain like it or hate it.

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

Build your 9+ transports with what to defend them? A single individual Cruiser. You best believe I’d kamikaze my RAF into that fight to take off 70 IPC’s that was just built for absolutely nothing.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

The most you can bring in is 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, and 1 strategic bomber to the Taranto Raid.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

[TheDesertFox]

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

I apologize for my remarks, I generally don’t try to be so critical of opinion to win a debate, but I’ll slip up sometimes so sorry about my attitude about that. I think to keep things logistical let’s keep it down to Middle Earth, Afrika Korps and the J1 attack to stay on point of the debate. Sound good?

Let’s talk about starting income for a moment. Japan starts with 26 IPCs in the bank. India, ANZAC, and China start with a combined 39 IPCs in the bank. If you allocate a modest 6 IPCs/turn from the Russians and an equally modest 24 IPCs/turn from the Americans, that’s 69:26 – the Pacific Allies are outearning Japan by nearly 3:1.

Assuming we’re still debating over J1 vs Middle Earth, I’ll do the rounds. I’m going to automatically leave China out of this due to their restrictions as a World Power. I’m going to assume that all of this should be that each Pacific ally dedicates 100% of their respective resources against the Japanese player. If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about. And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific so you’ll have to fill me in on that part if I’m misunderstanding something. And is it to no surprise that the Allied money combined turn out to be more than Japans?

At the end of a J1 attack that includes Pearl Harbor, Japan has likely picked up about 12 IPCs of territory (Kwangtung, Philippines, French Indochina, Shan State, eastern China) while forfeiting its only NO. So Japan is earning about 38 IPCs at the end of J1. Meanwhile, the Chinese can likely reopen the Burma road so will be up net about +3, ANZAC is going to collect its bonus for Malaya so will be up +5 even if you sink its starting transport, and India can pick up a money island like Sumatra to go up +4. America is now at war and will get +20 IPCs for its basic objectives; let’s say only +5 of those go into the Pacific. So at the end of turn 1 the Pacific Allies are earning something like 69 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 86 IPCs. The Allies are up 86:38 – still over a 2:1 ratio against the Japanese.

I think you’ve also neglected to mention that ANZAC won’t be getting units to Java or Celebes until as early as turn 2. The fact that they have picked up 12 IPC’s already makes up for the loss of their NO for not being at war so that’s really not something that needs to be factored in. I’m sure the Chinese could reopen the Burma road with 6 infantry and the fighter at the cost of leaving their Northern Flank completely exposed to the Japanese, not that it matters anyway with the IC’s that will be going on Hong Kong and Shangai. Once again, assuming they are prioritizing on Middle Earth, they won’t be using that transport to take Java and Sumatra unless they want to be delayed in securing the ME by 1 turn in which the Germans will already be at the gateway to the Med by then. Once again, if I could combine that money together to purchase accordingly to defeat the Japanese then we wouldn’t be discussing the J1 attack’s effectiveness.

So when you talk about how Allied countries can’t afford to replace expensive losses, I think you’ve got it backward. It’s true that ANZAC can’t literally rebuy 3 fighters in one turn, and Japan can rebuild a carrier group in 1 turn, but if the Allies can manage to trade units against Japan at even expected value or even at a slight loss, then they’re doing great. It is Japan’s obligation to explode and conquer huge amounts of territory as quickly as possible. If the Allies can stop or even just slow down that expansion, then the Allies will collectively outearn the s*** out of Japan and Japan will be overwhelmed. That’s part of why I don’t like the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack. Yes, Japan deals more damage in that attack than it suffers, but Japan isn’t conquering any economically valuable territory with those attacks, and it winds up trading quite a bit of material. The more Japan trades, the less Japan is able to expand at lightning speed.

Now this is where this get’s interesting. if I had to be honest, I don’t disagree with you on the fact that the Allies can make attempts to disrupt what the Japanese are doing in the Pacific with precise purchasing of units. But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war. Because frankly you could come up with any strategy you want about dealing with Japan in the Pacific, as long as Japan has you at the pointed end of the stick there really isn’t much any of you can do. Hence why the Pearl Harbor attack is necessary. To put America against the wall like that is something that they can’t just laugh off like they usually do, this time Japan is full front taking it to them instead of the U.S 6 turns later arriving in Tokyo. And if we’re going to look at this from a broader perspective, the idea of the turn order is for the Axis to do their thing and win, and for the allies to come back and turn things around. Aside from retaking the Road, the allies really are unable to stop the Japanese in their tracks on J1, which is why it’s such a powerful opening move. So the Allied powers in the Pacific are subjected to only taking at most 2 IPC’s away from Japan and completely unable to do anything about the rest. And as I stated from the very beginning, the Pearl harbor attack really doesn’t take away from the J1 attack and it’s effectiveness, it only adds to it.

All that said, what is your advice for the Allied Pacific player? Are they just supposed to build infantry and the occasional artillery piece and stay at home and skirmish near their capitals? If you see Japan as an irresistible force that can’t be usefully interfered with, then how do you play the Allies?

Well, that’s a good question. Frankly it’s how you would wanna play it. The core of the apple where we’re disagreeing is that you believe that it’s the Allies’ mission to stay on the offense and take it to the Japanese on the forefront of war as they continue to expand and conquer. And what I think is that it’s too risky for them to do something like that and that it’s essential for them to hunker down and defend for as long as possible. Let’s take a look at the way to win the game. Japan needs 6 victory cities in the Pacific to be victorious over the Allies. they’ll get 4 easily, Tokyo, Shangai, Hong Kong and Manila. If the British aren’t building defenses in Calcutta then Japan will more often then not take that out in a reasonable amount of time. That leaves 2 left: Honolulu and Sydney. If you’ve only focused on an outer-perimeter strategy for ANZAC and the U.K then there is absolutely nothing from stopping the Japanese to land in Western Australia and slowly move East to take it. But that’s how I’d play the Allies.

You’re nitpicking here in an effort to score cheap points; let’s try to keep the debate constructive. If Britain has enough air power in the area that the transports would be underdefended, then you build 8 transports and a destroyer, instead.

You’re also simultaneously complaining that I’m “going to take away the majority of your ground units on Germany” and that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack. Pick one! Either Germany has plenty of infantry units and won’t miss the units they send on Sea Lion, or buying 7+ land units on G1 is a reasonable part of a Sea Lion attack. Those can’t both be false at the same time.

1. As I said, I’m genuinely sorry for getting all fussy over Sealion. It has nothing to do with the Pacific and therefore has no place for either of us to try and get on top of the other with it. 2) Did I say that ground units aren’t a useful part of a Sea Lion attack? I’ll need to check back on the thread for that cause I really don’t remember saying that anywhere but I’ll check back. If I did say it then I didn’t mean to, obviously ground units are everything when going after London. For the sake of the debate I’m not gonna continue ranting over Sealion so let’s just set it aside.

That’s incorrect. 1 fighter takes off from Malta, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then returns 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 1 tac takes off from the eastern Med fleet in SZ 98, flies 2 spaces to SZ 97, and then flies 2 spaces to Malta after the battle. 2 fighters fly in from London and will ideally be taken as casualties. If you get fewer than 2 casualties, then, yes, you’ll have to leave the carrier behind in Sea Zone 97 to land those 2 fighters, but at that point you’re doing so well in the Med that Germany can’t sink your boats without taking such heavy casualties to the Luftwaffe that Moscow will be safe for many turns.

Ahhhhhhhh okay that’s completely my bad. I honestly forgot that the Tactical Bomber begins on the carrier so you could just move it to Malta when the attack is finished right sorry that’s my bad so you would be able to take both fighters from London then. I know I’m being hypocritical here but you do realize those fighters can’t make it back to London if there is a Sealion right? (unless you’re planning on building fighters on London, then it doesn’t matter).

[Argothair]

@Luftwaffles41

OK, we’re not so far apart on Sea Lion. Let’s let that one drop for now; no hard feelings at all. It’s a fun debate.

If each player could combine their IPC’s to one economy then maybe talking about the ratio of allied money to Japan would be something to talk about.

Yeah that’s kind of what I’m getting at. You can combine the Allied forces into something like a single economy by using all of them to simultaneously harass Japan. If you leave all that money in the home capitals because you’re afraid of losing the game, then each of them fights separately – Japan can bring its full force against one capital at a time, and defeat them one at a time, until Japan runs out of time or momentum. But if you send some of that money to be a nuisance to Japan, then Japan has to cope with that.

And frankly I’m not sure if you’re trying to take the average of IPC’s America/U.K is spending in the Pacific

Just a rough estimate, yeah. How much America or Russia sends Japan’s way in the opening will vary a lot from game to game, but even in a game where you’re not going hard against Japan, it might average about 30 IPCs worth of total American + Soviet material per turn. You might also be able to send a bit Japan’s way from a factory in Persia, but that’s speculative and happens later in the game.

But you’ve yet to consider the one fact that ANZAC, nor America, nor the Soviets, no the U.K, and even China to an extent are prepared for an offensive war.

Well, yeah, you can’t go after Tokyo or anything bananas like that. When I say “harassment,” I mean a campaign that is at most one step more aggressive than a fighting retreat. You’re going to be giving up territory every turn; but don’t give it up completely undefended. It’s worth losing an Allied infantry or a fighter or a destroyer or a transport from time to time if that means that Japan has to keep its southern fleet bunched together or that Japan is a turn or two late in finishing its conquest of southeast Asia. Don’t throw your whole air force away on a fool’s errand, and don’t insist on picking fights that you are guaranteed to lose badly, but do take risks and clash on the borders and retreat grudgingly and make them pay for the ground they take.

And, yeah, you might lose Calcutta and Western Australia as a result. Yeah, you have to pay attention to the defense of Sydney – build some infantry in Sydney from time to time; build a minor factory in Queensland as soon as you can manage, and then use that factory to build 1 or 2 infantry per turn while you build a boat or a plane. Even just getting 4-5 builds into Australia instead of 2-3 builds means that Sydney will be much safer. If you like the Floating Bridge idea to reinforce Hawaii (and I do), you can use those same American transports and infantry to reinforce Australia later in the game, once the sea lanes west of Hawaii are firmly under American control. It’s not that I don’t play defense; it’s that I don’t devote 100% of my resources to defense just because Japan is large and scary.

[TheDesertFox]

@Argothair

That’s the nuts and bolts I think both of us have been trying to get at here. So to finally get down to business for what the allies should be doing.

I don’t mean to project the fact that I’m paranoid as ANZAC or India. The idea is that these little slow downs, I have an idea of what you’re talking about. It would be just like Russia taking Manchuria only to hold it for 1 turn for the Japanese to spend resources to take it back, am I right? And honestly I do think of that as a distraction and annoyance to Japan, but you’re going to run out of those infantry. You always will. And there’s nothing left to hold Japan back then after that.

Basically, I’ve not stood by for a moment without considering all your thoughts and ideas to lead to a potential win of the Allied Powers in the Pacific. But my point being is that that you’re sort of getting at the idea that there’s an in between when it comes to both these nation’s low income. And I would argue that there really isn’t an in between. If you plan on trying to intercept the Japanese and their moves in the money islands with say the 1 transport from India then that’s fine. You might lose that transport and along with it Borneo Celebes and Java but if you truly believe that slowing down the Japanese will lead to the effective victory then I’m all for doing it.

To get into detail, the reason why I say there’s no in between is because if say the U.K sends frequent air raids towards the Japanese fleet or puts minor defenses in curtain areas to get them to divert small resources to taking it, then you need to be willing to keep that chain of frequent air raids going. But here lays the problem. Air raids won’t win you the game against Japan. Neither will meager small defenses in curtain key strategic areas. (I know you didn’t say that I’m just pointing it out as a notice).

That’s why I’m whole heartedly committed to the defense of Sydney and Calcutta for when the Japanese do arrive. In other words, I’d rather be safe then sorry. Because If I’ve lost too many of my IPC’s where I can’t afford to continue these air raids and small defenses then I’m standing here without a defensive perimeter as ANZAC and the U.K. And swapping between Offense and Defense each turn doesn’t work in this scenario. You cannot build say 3 infantry turn 1, then maybe 1 fighter and a tank the next, and so on and so forth. Because then you’re not committed to one strategy or the other.

That’s why I play the Allies the way I do

[Argothair]

Yeah, I mean that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with committing 100% to defense, if that’s your style – as long as someone counterattacks at some point. If you prefer to just stack max D in Calcutta and Sydney while waiting patiently for the Americans (or whoever) to come to the rescue, then as long as they do come to the rescue before it’s too late.

I’m not waffling between offense and defense; I’m committing to a strategy of harassment. My purchase might vary from turn to turn, but the aim is always the same: invest just enough in defense of the Allied capitals to keep the odds that Japan can take and hold a 6th victory city below 10%, and send all remaining resources to interfere with the Japanese battle plan.

There’s a saying in war that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. But that doesn’t happen automatically; the enemy has to actively go and screw around with what you’re doing. Can Japan adapt to losing a transport here, an infantry there? Yes, almost always, but it takes expert-level play. If you just play passive defense, then even an amateur opponent can pick an opening strategy off the forums, copy it exactly, and get to a solid middlegame. If you actively interfere with the Axis openings, then the Axis player has to understand what’s gone wrong, how bad it is on each front, and how and when to fix it. You give your opponent a lot more opportunities to make mistakes that way, and then when they do make a mistake, you pounce on them.

[TheDesertFox]

@Argothair

I hear where you’re coming from. And the way you play is perfectly fine. Just know that you’re bound to run out of resources eventually with the J1 attack. See, the one thing that’s always kept me on edge is that for countries such as Germany, they dont have to worry about the Allies interfering with their peace with the Soviet Union and America. But with Japan bringing all the Allies into the war, they’re still able to get away with their opening move without the Allies being able to intercept any of what happens on J1. If you know a way to to defeat the J1 attack on turn 1 then I’d really like to hear it. And this goes the same for the Pearl Harbor trap that Japan can set for America. If it’s as simple as no falling for it then Japan should have no difficulty and watching for their opponents moves. Japan has the time that they need to conquer the Pacific Allies before the Americans come across the water if they even do. And with a Pearl Harbor attack that’s going to delay the Americans from even going to Pearl Harbor for another 2-3 turns just with 2 aircraft carriers and an island worth no IPC’s. ANZAC and the U.K won’t defeat Japan, But America will. It’s up to the U.S player to want to make that happen.

[Cornwallis]

@Argothair You have a point stating the combined allies have twice the amount of cash in the pacific, so making negative trades isn’t that a big deal. But you should non the less pick your fights well because Japan has a lot of capital ships that can take a free hit. Your tactic can be compared to “death by a thousand needles”.

My group has been experimenting with a KJF and KGF etc. This is what we have concluded:

1. You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.

2. UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).

3. Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet

4. Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

[TheDesertFox]

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

1. You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.

Actually, yes you can. Because no matter how much ass Japan kicks in the Pacific they can’t win the game without taking Sydney of Honolulu. I seriously doubt Japan will spend its’ resources to try and attempt a takeover of Africa, too far away.

So let me introduce you to the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan sends 2 destroyers, 1 submarine, 2 fighters, and 2 tactical bombers against the Hawaiian fleet. Scramble or no scramble the odds are in the 90s for Japan to win. Japan has a big enough navy to where they can afford to use some for the Americans without disrupting what they’re doing in a J1 attack

2. UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).

How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.

3. Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet

With the 3 plane scramble in Taranto you might lose a little more then just your destroyer and cruiser. Frankly as the U.K, it’s not a huge deal to let that fleet go, it really isn’t. But it is for the Italians.

4. Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

You’d be giving yourself a difficult choice to make. You’re basically saying “Choose to stop Italy or choose to stop Japan”. One or the other. And before I go on about this, both of these surface warships imo wouldn’t seem like good purchases from the U.K. Spending the Majority of your Pacific Economy and over 60% of your Europe economy on 2 surface warships that might not even live to see another day by the Japanese isn’t very cost effective. Because as Japan, I’m going to have 2 battleships and an aircraft carrier left down in Southern Pacific so that already outbeats any navy you try and forge together.

[Cornwallis]

@Luftwaffles41 that’s what i say, Japan can and will take Sydney (and in lesser chance Hawai) if US does absolutely nothing in pacific. I’ve seen it before.

I know the J1 attack on pearl and it’s not that bad, it depends on what your goal with japan is (kill the US presence there or go for money islands?)

“How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.”

I don’t know that, but germany starts with a transport that can reach Gibraltar and when they buy two transports and carrier then I will certainly buy the DD in Sz110.

We don’t do the taranto raid but only attack the italians around malta. After that attack you can gather the brittish remainders around gibraltar (if UK buys and Airbase on gibgralter they can hold of the germans/italians. There is a post here about this topic.

Thanks about your feedback about the building of an UK carrier and BB.

[TheDesertFox]

Personally, I see no reason for Germany to just send their transport down there all willy nilly, that’s a huge waste of what could be used against Barborossa. The destroyer in 110 doesn’t really work because of German Air Supremacy which will destroy it and then have their navy move down to gibraltar in the non combat movement phase. So if you don’t plan to do the Taranto Raid then are you doing Tobruk? Or do you just not feel attacking the Italians?

[Cornwallis]

@Luftwaffles41 they sometimes do it for the italian NO but it’s not necessary that’s true.
Yes sometimes tobruk or sometimes ethiopia, or sometimes just moving into Iran.
We are looking for ways to make the UK fleet (carrier) survive but still pose a threat to italians.

The german buy of carrier and transports or DD/Sub is a very volatile buy bc it gives you options.
That’s why the UK needs to buy volatile units as well like fighters/bombers turn 1 with the US buying in atlantic on US1 to counter the sealion.

[TheDesertFox]

That’s very true, but at the same time the U.K doesn’t have a lot to work with. They need to be very specific and choose the right places to focus their 28 IPC’s because if they do it in the wrong area, then the other could prove to be fatally consequential. I understand why you would want to keep the U.K’s carrier in the Med Sea but assuming you’re not attacking SZ 97 or SZ95, that will allow the Italians to consolidate their navy and build on it to which after that you’ll likely never get another chance to take a shot at that navy.

Regardless, the Med is complicated for both Italy and the U.K. It’s a game of chess but you spun around in a circle 10 times before you started. You could say what you want about the G1 German build, personally I dont see much use in building a DD and Sub just because I won’t be needing them right away in a natural Afrika Korps strategy. Frankly, that’s the idea. When Japan does the Pearl Harbor attacking they’re setting up a trap for the United States. And if they fall for the trap then that permits Germany to do Sealion. And even if they get 90% of the Allied money against them regardless Japan will win on the other side of the board.

[Cornwallis]

@Luftwaffles41
Off course Taranto is the safest thing to do, but when you fail (which will happen in about 1 or 2 every ten games) it’s virtually game over for the british (playing without a bid off course) because now the UK has lost its fighters and its Med fleet and Italy has 2 transports left.
That’s why we are looking for a valid alternative. Off course sooner or later you have to face the italian fleet, but hopefully the UK will have a stronger navy/air force.

I once retreated the carrier to SZ98 and blocked 99. on UK1 i bought 2 bombers (so i had three on england). On It 1 they can chose to attack a lot of targets but doing so they dispears themselves.
If they dont attack the blockers around malta and SZ99 then on UK2 you can do a taranto 2.0 but with much more air power. Off course the italian fleet is also stronger and the germans can still mess up your plan, but UK with 3 bombers can attack other targes as well.

[TheDesertFox]

@Cornwallis

I suppose they could be if you really plan to go all in like that then you need to have something a little more coordinated then just a Taranto 2.0. Because with 36 IPC’s worth of 3 units, just know that could all go down the drain incredibly quickly if you’re not careful. But as I said, if you really plan to prioritize on going after Italy and taking it to them WITHOUT doing Taranto then you’ll be taking away from the strength in India. Just, the idea of doing Taranto is to make sure that they don’t get those 2 transports to send units places. For instance, with 2 transports Italy could send 2 guys to Greece and 2 guys down to Alexandria and be much closer to taking Egypt with reinforcements.

[Cornwallis]

@Luftwaffles41 You don’t need units from pacific.
And if you combine this with tobruk then by all means let italy dispears it’s transports. Then they can drop off a few units for just once.
I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?

[Stough]

If a novice may jump into the conversation regarding the Hawaii strike.

As the old timey generals used to say, be wary of squabbles as they can turn into a full fledged Battle.

I think the reason I don’t like it is because:
As Japan, I want to follow up India with pressuring ME and Russia. So trading with the US is a bit of a distraction.
As Germany, I’m thrilled.
As Italy , I’m happy.
As USSR, I’m bummed.
As the UK I’m also somewhat happy.(depending on Sea Lion)
As the Chinese, UKA and ANZAC, I’m ecstatic.

As the US, it’s an interesting dilemma;
One could ignore the strike and press on as usual

or

if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this?

If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.

IDK.
Play test #5 is going to be a KJF, without a Hawaii Attack on J1. I like KJF a lot better WITH a Japan attack on Hawaii.
with Germany avoiding Sea Lion and UK going ME; we’ll see what happens with those scenarios in combo.

.

[Argothair]

Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?

On UK1, as a response to the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack, I think it’s probably a little too weird. It leaves you vulnerable to Sea Lion; if you spend 20 IPCs on a BB then that only leaves you 8 IPCs to defend London, e.g., 1 inf, 1 art. That’s usually not enough defense with America busy in the Pacific. You will also miss having those 5 land units in India – the CV build by itself doesn’t actually push the Japanese back until the BB and other reinforcements arrive from Egypt / South Africa, so the Japanese will still be able to take Borneo, Sumatra, Malaya, etc. and then once they’re in Malaya they can march to India by land and you probably can’t stop them. They can send strategic bombers instead of subs to knock out the Indian economy, if that’s even necessary.

I think the BB in South Africa + CV in India is an excellent purchase for UK2 if (a) there is no Sea Lion, and (b) Japan does not do a J1 attack, and (c ) Taranto has gone well enough and you see that you’ll be able to send some reinforcements east from the Med. But on UK1 you just don’t have enough information to conclude that it’s safe/reasonable to spend all that money on building a large Indian Ocean fleet.

I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?

The main alternative to the Taranto raid is to attack Tobruk with land, amphibious assaults, and air power. The idea is that if you knock out the Italian armies in North Africa before they can be reinforced by land, then you defeat them in detail - Italy will wind up with control of the Med, but without enough cash or troops to ever take Egypt.

If you don’t like that either, you can rely on the Americans to knock out Italy – even if Italy is getting big, then America can build a fleet and enough infantry and transports to give Italy major headaches very early as long as Britain can keep the German Baltic fleet off of America’s back…but not if America is tied up dealing with Pearl Harbor. So if Japan does this Pearl Harbor attack J1, then I think Britain probably needs to do either Taranto or Tobruk. Otherwise Italy will be a monster and you’ll just have to accept that (usually unwise). I’ve gotten Italy up to 45+ IPCs/turn in that situation.

if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this? If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.

Well said. The problem with the Pearl Harbor attack is that Japan is making it easier for the US to trade units with Japan, so, by all means, accept their courteous invitation and start trading pieces. The US can replace their losses much more easily than Japan. Just don’t fall for the trap and move your fleet to a sea zone where it’ll get obliterated at low cost.

[TheDesertFox]

@Stough

You’re really gonna do a KJF without the Pearl attack? I feel that you’re just doing that for the sake of the strategy working in general. The whole purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor is because A) Those planes and carriers are honestly extra to the natural J1 attack, and B) To take the fight to the Americans. You’re not removing any pressure off of anybody. IF anything using the carriers would just be overkill. Frankly, it’s not Japan’s job to threaten the ME, it’s their job to conquer the Pacific. Unlike any other game, Japan can actually win the game without Germany winning. If you’re trying to go to the ME you’re trying to send resources to far out where they don’t belong.

[TheDesertFox]

@Argothair

Glad we finally agree on something ;)

And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is… >:(