We need an allied playbook.

[surfer]

Ok, for those who aren’t fans of the Middle Earth strategy, what is your alternative play for the British?
Middle Earth (especially a mIC on Persia) provides
a) aircraft to reinforce Russia to stop a Crusshia plan.
b) Added units to Egypt for late game defense
c) Units to reinforce India.

a) is critical for me. Without a means of rapidly placing 4-6 ftrs in Russia by turn 5, Russia can fall to an all out German offensive. Keeping Russia in the game as long as possible is a key feature of my Allied defense. If/when Russia does fall, the airforce can quickly regroup in Persia and begin the defense down there.
b) 3 mICs in Middle Earth (Egypt, Persia/Iraq, & SA) pumping 9 units a round into the region are necessary for the defense of the region. Especially if c) is in play–defending India is usually not a long term play, but making the Japanese really commit to the assault allows the US and ANZAC forces to move throughout the Pacific

I like Persia vs. Iraq because of the rapid ftr movement to Russia. If G moves south to attack the Middle east before conquering Russia, I generally find that a win for the Allies. Russia will build up, and the German army will bog down in a chase for the British units. Sure, Persia may fall but so would Iraq to a concentrated German assault. Both are only one space from the N. Persia entry into the Middle East.

Once Russia falls, the remaining Russian units retreat to the Middle East and Germany usually cannot defend Persia and keep moving towards Egypt while engaging both British and Russian armies.

Now maybe the nay-sayers are only against the timing of the Middle Earth plan as opposed to it entirely.

My build paradigm is:
Turn 1 is mostly a reinforcement of UK to avoid a cheap sea lion + airbase (Gibraltar) or mIC in Egypt. Turn 2 mIC in Persia + units in region. Turn 3 ftrs as necessary + mIC in Egypt if not built yet. Turn 4+ 9 units (ftrs as necessary)

BTW, my comments are colored by my preference to play BM3/4 vs. OOB, although I would expect them to be applicable to both.

[squirecam]

I never said I wasnt a fan. I actually like the thought process.

What I did say was that you cannot remove India units to do so if Japan declared war J1 and moved everything south to take India J3. I dont think its a good move when India is facing that attack but is moving out aircraft and infantry.

But I do think that is way too many complexes. You have the complex in South Africa, yet are building two more. Why arent you using the one you already have?

And I think buying an airbase + two complexes leaves London a bit undefended. Arent your opponents taking it?

[taamvan]

@squirecam Yes, that’s what i’ve been saying this entire time.

[taamvan]

@surfer

UK doesn’t have the money to power 3 factories. “Middle Earth” is an actual video and plan, we are calling any early entry into the middle east and pump through there Middle Earth though that’s not exactly what GHG meant.

You need the one in Persia because those fighters can fly direct to Moscow. Moscow can still fall so a Wilburforce (UK junkteam) can try to make German plans difficult by coming in from the south.

If you haven’t watched Japan, they’ll just come in, smash India, and then with nothing else to do with that fleet, smash your Iraq and persia factories, which paralyzes the whole idea because UK has to then stay back and protect those.

And if you build any of this early, once Germany gets 70 money and/or takes the russian money, they can just ramp and face west in 1-2 turns, putting UK home under gigantic pressure when it has like $30-35 income under best case scenario? Then they drop 10 transports under their existing fleet and UK is often totally helpless even with 30 units there.

Another reason OOB is pretty biased…

[surfer]

3 mICs = 9 units = 27 IPCs for defense. Or 1 ftr + 7 guys + 1 mech = 35. Easily in reach of UK money.

Turn 1 is still devoted to London with the exception of either airbase or mIC (not both!)
So Germany is probably not going to spend G2 buying transports. After that, it is difficult for Germany in turns 3-6 to build a fleet of transports to invade with considering the other fights it has in Russia and the US fleet in Med and Atlantic. If the Eastern front goes well for Germany, then sure invade UK, but the whole point was to prop up Russia so that war at least moves along for several turns

If Japan goes for the Middle East, the US should have a field day in the Pacific. The UK units should pull back from the coast, allow the Japanese few land forces to take Persia or whatever, and then roll over with their superior numbers of land units. Sure the Japanese could re-engage, but it will take time to build land forces again. All the while the US and ANZACs are taking SZ6, Korea, and probably the DEI.

Regardless, I still haven’t heard what the alternative to this strategy is…

Build up for massive invasion via Normandy? That always seems like a slow loser, as Germany will kill Russia and be able to focus turns 6+ on building an Atlantic wall. Assuming Germany built several aircraft, and can build 23 units/round that requires a significant investment from the Allies just to break even.

Invade Norway? Good plan until you get to Novgorod, then all those mobile German units get to converge on you. Without a credible southern threat, those units will just roll over you.

[squirecam]

@surfer

London is toast is this scenario. The allies are toast too, because after the Germans do drop transports the Japanese will take the mic you built for them. The USA will have to try to save London which is great for the Japanese.

I’m not saying a middle earth strategy cant work but this is far too aggressive. And you are not utilizing the infrastructure you already have in SA which you can transport up to the middle east.

I’m not a fan of sea lion but I would happily do so if I saw you making those purchases.

[surfer]

I don’t see that London is toast.

When would be your indicator to start your “sea lion” transport purchase?

Typically, the Allies get a bid of 6-10 in my BM3/4 games. Assuming low, that is 1 Sub for the Med to help Taranto. In OOB, the bid would be much higher, and still have 1 Sub in Med.

UK1: Typically, I Taranto, but I know that leaves London vulnerable. So 6 inf + 1 ftr. The alternative move is Gibbastion. So A/B + ftr + 1 land unit (all in UK). I take 1 ftr + 1sb to Taranto, still considerable forces left home.

G2 – I don’t think there is much weakness to UK that he sees yet. A large transport buy is possible, but not optimal.

UK2: G2 was Sea Lion buy. Then of course we are all in for defense of London. Germany either has to fight through my Med fleet that moves up to the English Channel, if Gibbastion, or kill several units in London. He can do this. Sea Lion is always an option for Germany. But the purchases I’m making here are rather “standard” for defense of UK early. In fact, nothing is in the Middle East yet.

If not, it depends on did Taranto happen? If not, then Italy could have 2-3 transports(I1 buy tranny + inf). Egypt would be vulnerable and therefore mIC there is not ideal. So mIC in Persia + 3 units (inf + art + mech in SA). Everybody ready for counter-attack in Egypt and crush Italian fleet that should be exposed.
If Taranto, did happen. mIC in Egypt is probably preferred, but not necessarily over Persia, still buy 3 units in SA.
Both scenarios = $23 in Middle East. Remainder = 1 ftr + whatever land units I can buy for London.

UK3: Assuming no Sea lion yet. All buys for Middle East. I have 2 mIC = 6 units. If Crusshia is on, I would forgo buying a 3rd mIC, because I’m buying ftrs. If not, buy the 3rd and pump out units.

After UK3, Sea Lion is not happening any time soon because the US is now in the fight and can add their ftrs to London assuming they positioned themselves appropriately, and the fleet is moving out.

UK4: purchase 3 ftrs in Middle East + existing ftrs to Persia (2 + 1 tac??)

UK5: ftrs can fly to Moscow in time for G6 if Crusshia is active. This is should be enough to stop the onslaught. If G6 buy, doubles down on attacking Russia, buy 3 more ftrs in Persia. You essentially have all of UK money going directly to Russia to prop them up. The ftrs prevent the strategic bombing raids and Russia continues to live. This is unsustainable, in face of the German advance if Germany continues to pump out tanks and mobile units in Ukraine, Volgograd, and Novgorod+ any additional dollars on air units in Germany to move in on Russia. But that 1 dimensional attack from Germany opens him up on all fronts to the US.

And again…what is the alternative that has good option to keep Russia in the fight? This is the “allied playbook” discussion, and if Middle Earth isn’t the solution, what is?

[trulpen]

There’s also the option of building units in existing factories instead, including a mIC in Cairo, and shifting air to Moscow through Greece and/or Norway.

[squirecam]

@surfer

I am not a fan of Gibraltar. I know that some people do not like Taranto. But if there is no Taranto then shouldn’t the units at least be going to Tobruk? Leaving Italy alone can make them a monster. I agree with a sub bid in the med and doing Taranto.

My sea lion concern would be a carrier build on G1 and transports on G2 or G3. That may include transports on G1 or just sub and destroyer. If Germany goes G3 and Japan is at India G3 then you cannot build for the Persia factory you built Uk2.

As I said, my alternate would be using the SA factory. Transport units from the factory directly to the mid east. Doesnt require the early 15 ipc investment. That’s 5 more units for London. Once London is safe, then you can have 3 factories to churn out units.

Try a slower version. UK1 stage all troops in trans Jordan to attack Iraq uk2. Purchase for London and SA.

Uk2 take iraq and activate Persia. Still build in SA and London.

Uk3 you can place a complex in either Iraq or Persia depending on the game situation.

[taamvan]

@squirecam @trulpen @surfer

Again, we have to stop using this name “Sea Lion” to refer to any invasion of London. Sea Lion implies a plan from game start–what I’m really talking about is your opponent noting that you’ve undergarrisoned UK and taking advantage of that at the worst possible moment.

In OOB both Germany and Japan have massive airpower that allows them huge striking power and flexibility.

Combine that with high “flop” incomes of 60-70 and taking out Allied capitals, they can appear to be complacent on one front–only to suddenly whip around and destroy the Allies on another front.

Post-moscow-kill, Germany still has plenty of land units and planes—so they don’t really need to build more, maybe some infantry. But this isn’t about a programmatic attack on London its about a vicious surprise that happens if your fighters flew away and you didnt build men all game.

Gib-stack helps with this because UK has a fleet. But then, Italy rages and demolishes the “Middle of the Board Factory UK” strategy.

[Cornwallis]

@taamvan The problem with Gibastion is that sooner or later you still need to attack or deal with the italian fleet, in a kind of Taranto 2.0, and in the mean time you can’t focus on helping Russia bc you have to check and balance the Italian navy. There really is no good answer bc every strategy has its pro’s and con’s.
One thing is certain: UK1 built 95% -100% on London. Anything else is asking for troubles.

[squirecam]

@cornwallis

Agreed. Dont like making Italy stronger just to have to attack them UK2 or 3 after they have reinforced.

Better to just do Taranto and hope the fleet kills planes as it dies in the counter.

[taamvan]

@squirecam @Cornwallis

Agree, though I like the fleet. Its the temptation of flying the fighters away that is deadly–they can’t easily get back home once the Axis rage.

Agree.

[Cornwallis]

@taamvan The longer i play this game, the more i’m convinced that the allies have the most chance of winning when they’re not defeated.
Explaination: when allies try to make a push or get diced in an attack at sea or air , they are doomed. When they lose a key city like Egypt, Moscow or India too cheap, they are doomed.
Taranto is a 80 or 90% win for allies but when you get diced things will look grimm. That’s why as Allies you must avoid those kind of battles and force the Axis player to take those risky moves on you.
In that perspective UK should primarily focus on defense of those key locations, especcially in the early game.

[taamvan]

@cornwallis

This is how I put it.

#1 Dont rely on luck. You will need luck, but dont rely on it.

Making risky attacks is a losing move. You want your opponent to take those kinds of risks.

#2 Even if the TUV trade goes your way, or your odds in a certain battle look good–the Allies can easily “defeat themselves”.

The allies are tempted to take advantage of seemingly advantageous situations like grabbing a few dollars or defeating a few men or “softening up” the germans when all those things lead to a dissipation of power that favors a stronger team over a weaker one.

The $1 territories don’t really move the ball. Taking small money at the cost of position or units isn’t worth it. Many of the players better than me ignore the small things completely just to get 1-2 more units at the critical time and place.

[Cornwallis]

@taamvan

That is exactly what i mean. First priority is defending. An early and easy victory is very rare and can backfire easily.
That’s why on UK1 i built all in London, except 01 Mec in SA and “occupy” Persia. A factory on UK2 (depending of course on what Ger and Japan do) and slow/fast movers combo from SA. I keep my Indian fighters in India and built all inf with India, trying to buy as much time as i can. The role of UK is not to defeat Axis but delaying the defeat of Moscow/India so US can become large.

[taamvan]

@cornwallis

The allies cannot win the short game, even with a bid. They have to play for a long, cadgy game where every unit saved from destruction is a unit that comes back for revenge later down the road.

I don’t like Egypt Factory for this reason–you can’t build that until its safe or its a target for the Italians. And like we just said–if the Italians have 2 TT, Syria TJ and therefore Iraq and Persia are not safe and so you can’t just make your plan “buy factories everywhere” until you see what the opponent does.

[squirecam]

@cornwallis

I dont see how Taranto is risky. If you bring in enough units to cover a scramble, Italy is left with a tough choice. Either scramble, in which case the odds are still against them, or dont scramble, in which case Taranto is a piece of cake.

There are many ways to ensure Taranto is a success. Including bringing another fighter or a med sub bid. If Italy scrambles and loses, they are in much worse shape than if they had just lost the fleet.

[trulpen]

Axis won’t scramble against Toronto, unless Allies go in weak with like a 70 % battle after scramble. Even then it might not be worth it.

Taranto is costly for another reason, namely that the fleet and air stuck in z97 is toast one way or another. Either Italy can take it out immediately or Germany sweeps in with a crushing air-strike.

Taranto is not a losing move, but it does cripple UK for some time.

[trulpen]

Can safely be assumed that Axis will never scramble against Toronto, but might against Taranto. ;)