UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"

[TheDesertFox]

@Cornwallis

I’e gotta agree with Argothair on this one.

When as you stated, if trading out is the only way to go then the Allies have to do it. The U.K really doesn’t have a choice but to attempt to trade Axis boats for Allied boats. Doing Taranto would keep the balance in check after a Pearl is done, but not if America falls for the trap. Then there really isn’t anything you as the U.K can do to compensate for that.

[Argothair]

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

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.

I dunno; I think that’s too extreme. If the UK leaves the MIddle East essentially undefended, especially if there are factories to be stolen or pro-Axis Iraqis to be activated, then Japan can certainly head out that way. It always depends on what else is happening in the game. If America is crushing Italy and landing in France, then, yeah, Japan probably needs to win the game in the Pacific sooner rather than later; racking up a stronger economy won’t help you because America can take away German IPCs faster than Japan can take away British IPCs. But if America and Japan are stalemated near the Solomons/Carolines and playing footsie with their fleets, and Germany and Russia are stalemated near Moscow/Stalingrad, and Britain and Italy are stalemated near Gibraltar, then hoovering up Britain’s income might be exactly what’s needed to turn the tide. If you can get the IPC totals to the point where the Axis are outearning the Allies by 15+ IPCs/turn, then eventually Japan will take Sydney; there’s not necessarily any rush.

[Argothair]

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

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

I dunno, man, you’re the one who posted your trap to a public forum. In general, my playstyle has always been to assume that my opponents will see through my traps. I might lay a trap if it costs me nothing, but I won’t invest resources in it – I’d rather win by outplaying my opponent and forcing them to think through situations that are too hard for them than by scoring a surprise victory based on an un-repeatable trick.

[Cornwallis]

@Luftwaffles41
Can and one explain why US would fall for that. You must assume you are playing a sane player.
The question is, what might be a good alternative for Taranto.
Second question, do you guys prefer KGF or KJF? Because against proper Dark Skies it’s very hard to get boots in Europe.

[TheDesertFox]

@Cornwallis

For many reasons. I’ll give you a few. 1) There stands the incomplete inferior Japanese carrier fleet in Wake Island next your San Francisco fleet. 2) Since the rest of Japan’s navy will be sitting in the South pressuring ANZAC and India they won’t be in reach to help reinforce their 2 carriers. 3) Because that’s over 60 IPC’s worth of units to destroy which, if we’re gonna talk about expendable losses, is something the Japanese won’t be able to build back intill J4.

I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to Taranto. The British have every chance at winning it, and it doesn’t matter what you lose really, because as long as you’re taking off Italian boats then that’s fine. You’re trying to compensate and find a way to not lose anything while still taking off Axis units. Pick one. You’re going to inevitably take casualties, light or heavy, when you try to take off Axis units and if you want to be conservative then you have to let Taranto be. There’s no other way around it, that’s just the way it is dude.

Dark Skies is a really overrated strategy. Spam bombers as Germany? I mean come on. Atleast I can repay 6 infantry for 1 battle rather then repay one bomber a time. Dark Skies is a very cost inneffictive way to spend the German money. This is all my opinion. And if you wanna win the game then KGF, not Japan first. And have you looked at a little thing called the floating bridge? Because with it you’ll be shucking 8 units into France every turn.

[TheDesertFox]

@Argothair

They probably won’t… The ME only contained 6 IPC’s (not including strict neutrals) in total. It’s really not worth the time and effort to go out there. Even if it was undefended, I’d still go for Sydney because once you’ve taken Calcutta and defeated China, there really isn’t much stopping you from invading the Emu-infested land. And I agree, there shouldn’t be any rush as Japan on the J1 attack. Japan has the time it needs to divide and conquer it’s enemies before they’ll actually get the chance to respond to it. 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.

[TheDesertFox]

@Argothair

That’s fine, that’s a perfectly natural and smart way to play. Force the enemy to have to take one loss or the other. The idea of the Pearl Harbor Trap doesn’t expend any resources at all, I thought I’d hammered that down enough after we discussed that Japan really isn’t taking away from the J1 attack. I guess I don’t know though, maybe it’s personal preference, pick your poison. Do you like to have your attacks detailed and clever to try and outsmart your opponent or do you wish to try to end the game fast with the 4 move check mate. Either option works in Japan’s favor.

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[Cornwallis]

@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

[TheDesertFox]

@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.

[TheDesertFox]

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.

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[TheDesertFox]

@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.

[Cornwallis]

@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

[TheDesertFox]

@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

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[Cornwallis]

@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

[Cornwallis]

@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.

[TheDesertFox]

@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

[Argothair]

@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…