Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Alpha+2 Allies struggle to win, crazy alternative discovered: Surrender London!



  • After 4 games of Alpha .+2 global games in which the axis won all 4 and were not even close to losing, we have discovered a possible radical solution.

    (Incidentally, I had the opportunity to meet Stoney229 for a face to face game, and it was during a session in which global alpha game number 4 fell to the axis, that we set up a Europe board to test alpha changes, that is when this daring proposal was tested, it should scale with Global. Stoney229 is a strong player and I was able to talk him into this, so this is not totally crazy. He and I played the allies, vs a single strong axis player: Europe1940, alpha rules, oob NOs)

    Picture this: talk your British ally into surrendering London, so that Roosevelt can pressure his people into joining the war on turn 2. Of course, Churchill brings his vichy UK government to Canada aboard his shining new Air craft carrier. Details to follow:

    Radical Strategy, and a head-scratcher, but it worked wonders in Europe and has great potential in Global.

    UK turn 1: Surrender London!

    Force a German turn 2 capture of London, if the German’s use a standard AC, 2 Transport build G1. (Germany is forced to capture London, or London will continue to purchase Navy to their peril)

    Merits:

    1. While Germany collects 30-35 IPCs in plunder, U.S. player collects 25 additional IPCs in NO’s, and 25 more the following turn!
    2. UK does not build infantry that simply die on a G3 or G4 capture.
    3. UK and French air units survive the game, reinforcing the U.S. fleet after delaying Italy.
    4. UK sends air units to Gibraltar turn 1, then Egypt turn 2 to hold Egypt until the US is off of the coast of Gibraltar in strength sz91 turn 3.
    5. US factories upgrade and thus prevent any type of USA first axis strategy.
    6. UK builds a carrier for Quebec, a transport and artillery for S. Africa turn 1, if Germany refuses to capture London you do it again.
    7. By turn 4 or 5, in the Mediterranean, a UK fleet of 2 carriers, 7 air units and 6 land units (aboard 2 UK transports and 1 US transport) are able to threaten a capture of Rome, allowing UK to seize income that can permit a later build to reinforce London when the US liberates it.
      8 ) A French fighter aboard a US carrier, permits the loading of 2 French units onto a Gibraltar sz91 US transport from Morocco on turn 2 (if Italy does not attack them) and permits the fighter/and or navy to open Italian DD blocks and make landings) crazy potential.
    8. Italy is prevented from growing in time, before the US arrives. Note we did not attack the Italian fleet, we chose to flee the Mediterranean via Gibraltar. This gives the US a 3 Carrier fleet off of Gibraltar on turn 2! Fleet was (3 CV, 3 Cruisers Plus optional French Cruiser+DD if Italy permits, 1 us transport as other 1 went to Brazil as to enable the 3 infantry there to arrive on turn 4, 3 DDs, and 2 planes, as UK scramble and carrier fighters move to Egypt from Gibraltar on turn 2.) By turn 3 the fleet off of Gibraltar was 5 transports strong with the Brazilian men moving to Guiana so they can be picked up the following turn and deposited in Gibraltar.
    9. UK/Anzac are able to declare war round 1 to enable NO collections as Japan is going to be at war with the US turn 2.
      Sounds crazy, but proves interesting.

    Argument for surrendering London against a sea lion. UK building infantry and throwing away ships to transport men into London has proven time and again to fail in protecting London. UK loses 30-35 land units, and 4-5 air units. UK is unable to delay in Egypt and typically throws away expensive ships to try to slow Italy which has 4 turns to recover before the US arrives. Alternatively, Italy is sometimes left with the fleet and the US struggles with more expensive navy to breach this force. What if the UK is able to keep all of its ships (or force the Italians to attack them at Gibraltar sz 92 when the UK can scramble 3 planes plus the 2 on the carrier/fleet) and builds another carrier, plus a transport and artillery that enables 1 south African infantry to reinforce Egypt turn 2. Even with the 3 transports and starting units, Italy can not seize Egypt until turn 4! and then the UK air force of 7-8 air units lands on the carrier fleet that enters Gibraltar sz 92 turn 4, these fighters support 4-6 UK land units on board US and UK transports.

    As seen in our game (scales with Global): German’s sank Cruiser/BB in sz 110 (Normandy/Belgium), sank French and UK cruisers in sz 112(Norway/Denmark), sank UK transport and Destroyer(Quebec) and left the Scotland BB/DD, London DD/Transport, and Gibraltar Cruiser alive. On land they took France, and although the attack failed, you can plan on Normandy falling too. UK attacked the 2 subs off of Quebec with a DD/Cruiser losing 1 DD. The DD from Scotland blocked a Germany Navy assault on Gibraltar by going to sz 104 out of range of Italian air. The 3 London/Scotland fighters flew to Gibraltar, the Mediterranean fleet sailed to sz 92(E. coast gibraltar) landed the Gibraltar and Malta fighter on the Carrier, for a fleet of 5 planes(scramble/carrier based), AC, DD, Cruiser). The transport went to Persia sz and waited for the W. India infantry to march towards Persia.(we did not want to give Germany 2 more IPCs) but we could grab it next turn for 2 more infantry(my partner prefers to save it for Russia, I prefer to slow Egypt with them).

    Placing the UK produced Carrier in the Quebec fleet, and the transport and artillery in S. Africa enabled Egypt to be reinforced with 2-3 land units, 5 planes turn 2, the UK to join the US fleet off of Gibraltar turn 2 with its 2 carriers, 2 cruisers, 1 DD and a French plane aboard the Quebec carrier. In the future I would transport 2 men with the transport that flees London as that gives you 6 land units to capture Rome potentially or reinforce a US capture with UK land and air. This means you only lose the French and UK defender in London G2.

    Think about this, before you dismiss its crazy-ness 🙂

    Just some food for thought……yes, its not historically flavored, but does it balance the set up more?

    Lets here your comments, please be kind 😉               (Don’t think because I use a German avatar that this is propaganda!)



  • I’d say hold the soviets while Germany and Japan team-up to attack USA

    • UK is out of the game forever if Germany plays her cards well (money not wasted on trannies round 2, and used better in land army against the soviets and combat fleet against USA). India on the other hand will be also hard pressed because Japan will attack them round 2

    • USSR cannot attack until round 4, and then probably will attack only the Germans

    • That leaves USA as the only real menace until Stalin comes to the rescue  :lol: If Axis can achieve naval control of the Atlantic, soon or later Japan will beat India and then will shift most of their income against USA

    Without a exilied capital house rule, I’d not try this as UK. Axis could have economic advantage by round 4-5 and it’s not clear if USA can retake London in the near future without risking to lose Hawaii and Sydney … USA cannot buy boats and men at the same time



  • @Funcioneta:

    I’d say hold the soviets while Germany and Japan team-up to attack USA

    • UK is out of the game forever if Germany plays her cards well (money not wasted on trannies round 2, and used better in land army against the soviets and combat fleet against USA). India on the other hand will be also hard pressed because Japan will attack them round 2

    • USSR cannot attack until round 4, and then probably will attack only the Germans

    • That leaves USA as the only real menace until Stalin comes to the rescue  :lol: If Axis can achieve naval control of the Atlantic, soon or later Japan will beat India and then will shift most of their income against USA

    Without a exilied capital house rule, I’d not try this as UK. Axis could have economic advantage by round 4-5 and it’s not clear if USA can retake London in the near future without risking to lose Hawaii and Sydney … USA cannot buy boats and men at the same time

    How is this any different then Germany taking London round 4 and then continuing on after the U.S. anyway?

    Japan will be hard pressed, because India will be helping China on turn 1 before Japan’s starting forces can deploy most effectively. Germany will be lagging behind the US/UK fleet, good luck getting through that. Unless Japan focuses on India, they will get out of hand along with Anzac and China…If Japan deals with India, the U.S. outproduces Germany and they cannot match their navy. If Germany goes navy, Russia will get too large. Also another option for Russia is taking the middle east for 2 minor factory sites and a Russian Navy or land campaign to drive back the Japanese if they drive on USA instead. Remember after Germany captures UK it collects 49 plus 3 NOs for 62 IPCs, the US is at 77 IPCs, if any is built for Russia, that income vs the US drops further. Italy may be a non factor in this game.

    Remember on turn 1, Germany and Japan have already gone before the decision to abandon UK is made, meaning they are not positioned to capitalize on this sudden development. Also, if Germany fails to build additional transports, the most they can build/land on London is 9 units a turn.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I like it, and better, say you “inspire” the G2 sealion… if it’s Close in terms of Numbers…  what if the Germans BOTCH ?



  • By the way, my last turn 4 invasion of London saw me eliminate 34 infantry/artillery, 1 armor, 5 planes for a cost of 25 German infantry. They Captured London with a loss of 2 air units to AA: 11 artillery, 5 armor, 3 fighters, 4 tacticals, and 1 bomber remained or 16 land units total to hold London.

    The question is:
    would you rather eliminate 25 German infantry 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber and permit Italy to collect 25-30 IPCs and Germany to plunder 21-26 IPCs.

    Or

    would you rather have 2 UK carriers, 2 UK cruisers, 1-2 UK Destroyers, 7 fighters (1 French), 1 tactical, 3 transports and 1 extra artillery,2 extra infantry (from London) permit Italy to collect 16 IPC plus no NOs, Germany plunders 30 IPCs and allow the US an extra 50 IPCs over 2 turns.

    The 90 IPCs collected and spent building 30 Infantry during the first 3 turns is offset by the 72 IPCs saved (50/fighters, 7 transport, 9 infantry, 6 armor) it is true that those 90 IPCs cost germany 61 IPCs in units + 22 IPCs for the London territory and NO for 2 turns (turn 4 capture assumed normally) If Germany takes on turn 3, it is even more favorable: 58 IPCs spent, +11 to Berlin minus the cost of more German units lost as it is a closer battle.

    Whoever plays UK now has something to do and is not bored and can impact the game.



  • @Gargantua:

    I like it, and better, say you “inspire” the G2 sealion… if it’s Close in terms of Numbers…  what if the Germans BOTCH ?

    Sorry, it is not close. I leave 2 infantry on London since Churchill and his cabinet represent the 2 infantry that flee via sea zone 109 transport to Quebec. These 2 units bring the Canadian garrison to 6 units that can support the 7 UK air force when taking Rome or Egypt.

    Remember, in the Mediterranean, US hits Rome first with 12 transports, then UK mops up with their 6 land units and 7 air, or they drop those into the US forces to hold against a German counterattack if the US grabs Rome. If you trade London on your terms for Rome and Egypt, the Europe board is stalemated.

    Then when Moscow falls, you simply have to retake London the next turn to keep the board locked up.
    I envision using the “extra” time the US is in the war to hamper Europe for the first 3-5 game turns, and later turns will likely focus on Japan. I do not say this makes the game pro allied, I think it makes it more of a “balanced” contest with the end outcome up in the air…that is a good thing.

    It is my suspicion after careful analysis and 4 games vs 4 people, that axis win solidly with no chance of an upset by between turns 8-12. I believe this approach may make it a contest. I have more games of Alpha to play to test this…the axis approach is London G4, Australia J5, India or Hawaii J7 or 8 for the win…or Volgograd+Novgorod G7-G10 for the win. You don’t need Moscow if you have London, and if they defend Volgograd, just take Moscow for city 8



  • This sounds like a terrible idea.  You’re banking on the premise that surrendering London for SURE on UK1 is going to be worth Italy falling on UK4 or UK5 (IF all the cards are played right).  The Allies already have it difficult enough as is in Alpha +.2 without losing 30-35 IPCs for 5 game rounds by surrendering the UK.  150 IPCs lost is a hell of a swing to come back from (maybe 125 if you count in the US’s war dec on Round 2, which usually occurs at the end of Round 3 (if you’re counting correctly)).

    Your strategy MIGHT work, barely, on the European map, but I really doubt it will work in Global, mostly because of Japan acting as a counter to the US.  You’re counting on full US builds in the Atlantic to come to the UK’s rescue/take over Italy, and the US isn’t really going to have enough IPCs left over to dissuade the Japs from attacking in the Pacific.  Once one theater is taken over, its one hell of a slog to start taking it back.  Too easy for the Japs to take over the Pacific by J6 or J7.

    Building defensively in the UK at least forces most the German IPCs from France and Europe into building TRNs for the landing, those units aren’t cheap and they’re difficult to protect with a decent surface fleet, which requires even more IPCs.  Maybe rather than considering it GAME OVER when the UK falls, have the US and SU build appropriately to counter the Nazis, either by building navy or superior land forces (Eastern Front).  Even if Germany wins London by a sizeable majority, if those troops are trapped in England or end up stuck on the wrong side of the Europe map, it can still spell an Allied win.

    I think surrending on UK 1 is even worse than before because now the Germans aren’t required to actually buy the 9 transports now to invade; London is taken on the cheap and the captured IPCs can go to even more naval surface and air units to prevent an Allied navy counterattack.



  • OMG are you HIGH!!! All this means is Germany doesn’t have to sink 77 IPC’s into transports and can pick and choose when to take the UK out. Imagine 77 IPC’s to throw at the USSR.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    You could try just matching the Germans man for man.  IE they have 3 trn, you have 6 men,  they BUY all those extra trans - say 7, and you do NOTHING, retreat your planes, and Spend your money as per the London surrender plan… ?



  • @SgtBlitz:

    This sounds like a terrible idea.  You’re banking on the premise that surrendering London for SURE on UK1 is going to be worth Italy falling on UK4 or UK5 (IF all the cards are played right).  The Allies already have it difficult enough as is in Alpha +.2 without losing 30-35 IPCs for 5 game rounds by surrendering the UK.  150 IPCs lost is a hell of a swing to come back from (maybe 125 if you count in the US’s war dec on Round 2, which usually occurs at the end of Round 3 (if you’re counting correctly)).

    Your strategy MIGHT work, barely, on the European map, but I really doubt it will work in Global, mostly because of Japan acting as a counter to the US.  You’re counting on full US builds in the Atlantic to come to the UK’s rescue/take over Italy, and the US isn’t really going to have enough IPCs left over to dissuade the Japs from attacking in the Pacific.  Once one theater is taken over, its one hell of a slog to start taking it back.  Too easy for the Japs to take over the Pacific by J6 or J7.

    Building defensively in the UK at least forces most the German IPCs from France and Europe into building TRNs for the landing, those units aren’t cheap and they’re difficult to protect with a decent surface fleet, which requires even more IPCs.  Maybe rather than considering it GAME OVER when the UK falls, have the US and SU build appropriately to counter the Nazis, either by building navy or superior land forces (Eastern Front).  Even if Germany wins London by a sizeable majority, if those troops are trapped in England or end up stuck on the wrong side of the Europe map, it can still spell an Allied win.

    I think surrending on UK 1 is even worse than before because now the Germans aren’t required to actually buy the 9 transports now to invade; London is taken on the cheap and the captured IPCs can go to even more naval surface and air units to prevent an Allied navy counterattack.

    I obviously do not think its game over when you lose a capital or I would not suggest this tactic, I often wait until 2 capitals fall or the victory cities end it. In fact, I never call a game, victory cities usually ends it for the axis win as is.

    Regarding the axis not building the 6-9 additional transports you call for (I only use 9 transports total and land in Scotland 2 turns prior to London capture on turn 4 myself) I would rather the German’s not have the transports as taking back London with only 3 after it is liberated is harder, especially if the air is being used in Russia late game. So I see the lack of building transports a plus.

    Secondly, turning around on Russia, when all the German units are pulled back to W. Germany for Sea lion as you have no idea what UK is going to do turn 1, means you are not likely to move into Russia until turn 3-4.

    Thirdly, if you use your 70 IPCs for land units and ships, only the first 20 land units will be close to USSR, and ships at best only permit you to equal not exceed the combined allied fleet on G2, you are still outproduced by USA. Japan still has to spend its first 4-5 turns fighting in Asia unless they are going to permit the other allies to expand.

    Lastly, London falls anyway by turn 4, and the allies lose anyway with alpha. I am waiting to try this, before I consider it a bad idea. As it is, Axis already win, so what if this makes it closer.

    Also, I am not banking on anything other then the fact that Italy will not be collecting the typical 40+ IPCs it has by turn 4. In fact I suspect they will only reach the mid teens turn 1, maybe 20 turn 2, and if they are lucky be at 30 by turn 4.

    So I am banking on the USA only needing 4 -5 turns in Europe and then moving against Japan. I’ll have to see how that works.

    Basically, I guess this should only be tried by someone that thinks the allies are going to lose anyway, otherwise stick with what works for you. I think waiting until turn 2 reduces the benefit of getting the US in on round 2 and permits Italy to secure Egypt.



  • @Idi:

    OMG are you HIGH!!! All this means is Germany doesn’t have to sink 77 IPC’s into transports and can pick and choose when to take the UK out. Imagine 77 IPC’s to throw at the USSR.

    Nope, all I was consuming was some Coca-cola and Dr. Pepper. We thought it sounded crazy too, then we saw the in game effects, however that was Europe only. It remains to be tested on Global.

    Italy could not even sail its fleet next to Alexandria/Egypt/Transjordan turn 1 for fear of an air attack that would deliver 5 hits the first round, with Italy only hitting at best 3 times. Remember sea zone 92 is a naval base that permits the UK to strike the combined Italian fleet with all 8 air units and the UK carrier,DD,CA…(not that I would, its just an implied threat).

    As to “pick and choose when to take UK out”…I like if they wait, I’ll continue building navy so that the US can focus on transports…saves time for the allies that way.

    Either way, I hope to set up the board and look at the effects in game this weekend. I’ll let you know if the outcome is worse then when you try to hold London.



  • You’re forgetting the main point of the UK is to hold the line against the Fascists until the cavalry shows up to save their bacon, i.e., the US and/or the Soviet Union, depending on whose butt needs saving at that moment on Round 3.  Surrendering London without any type of fight AT ALL, especially without the “Exiled Capital” rule, is just asking for an Axis victory.  How are you expected to take back the UK if you can’t build anything?  It doesn’t matter how many IPCs you save by preserving the initial starting fleet, if the Germans can just build a bunch of subs and use their still-intact starting airforce to blow the returning fleet to hell and gone by Round 4-5.  In one turn I see 9-19 SSs in production range of Gibraltar, with German posession of England, Normandy, and S. France (not to mention NB movement from SZ 112).  (They could also completely ignore you, stack the hell out of Italy, and invade Russia with everything else they’ve got.)

    The main point of the Sealion option is to remove a specific, nearby threat to Germany, with a huge amount of risk involved for the attacker, to the point of leaving the surviving invasion forces very susceptible to Allied counterattacks.  If you remove the risk involved in taking London, especially to the point where it could be considered traded back and forth or even abandoned for several turns, you’ve essentially turned a VC into a gimme for Germany by Round 2.  All that for the possibility to taking Italy without 1/3 to 1/2 of new Allies IPC builds (no new UK units) on Round 4 or 5???  Come on.

    Maybe you’re trying to use this strategy as a draw, as a lure to pull Germany away from its main target, Russia?  There’s better ways to accomplish that than completely abandoning England.



  • Spent today thinking Globally.

    If you can spare the air units in India and opt not to take a 4 dollar island turn 1[not sure if I like this], you can transport 6 land units into Egypt on turn 2 (sz 98 empty transport to Persia turn 1,S. Africa transport[Built turn 1],sea zone 39 transport to Persia-activate turn 1) meet up with the 6 UK air units there. Then the India air units can land there on turn 2 via French Madagascar (the only safe place from Ethiopian units).[turn 1: sea zones: 39,79,77,72-> F. Madagascar; turn 2: sea zones: 72,76,81->Egypt]

    This should yield 9 air units and 16 land units. That should yield 25 pieces. I believe Italy can be ready to hit Egypt turn 2 with 18 units [Ethiopia’s 3, Tobruk’s 6, 3 transports 6, 3 air units, 3 bombardments] I would suggest that Ethiopian units will not be able to participate as it is not safe to move them into anglo-egypt as you can counter attack them with 1-2 land units, 1 cruiser, 1 tactical bomber just to clear them out. I think you will hold since 7 or your defending air units are 4’s.

    I haven’t decided if I want the UK cruiser from sz39 to escort them with the French DD in case Italy grabs Trans-Jordan[or Alexandria, or Syria] so that West Germany’s Bomber can attack the transport fleet on turn 3.

    I haven’t decided if UK should then send its 9 planes to Moscow when the battle for Egypt is over. [Meaning Italy grabbed it turn 4, or the allies reinforced/liberate it from Gibraltar in which case you can leave early.] They will probably be needed as Germany could use its extra plunder to build mostly land.

    As I ponder this further, I noted that Italy will be denied National Objectives for multiple rounds. Namely: 3/4 territory one as Gibraltar will not fall, and Egypt will be denied until turn 3 or 4. No ships in the Mediterranean will be denied turns 1,3,4,5+. North Africa NO will never be had either. So over 4 turns, Italy will collect 1 NO turn 2, maybe 1 on turns 3 and 4 if Egypt falls turn 3.

    That means over 4 turns, Italy will only collect 10-15 IPCs (5 a turn for 3 out of 4 turns), compare that with a possible turn 3 and 4 all three collection for a total of 30 IPCs if you did not surrender London. 5-10 More if they grab some on turn 2.

    Just thinking about some possible merits, I realize pulling from the India theater is not necessary feasible, will have to play test to discover if it is.


  • Customizer

    This strategy only works because you are using that exiled capital rule, right?  If London falls, UK Europe can be governed from Ottawa, right?  Personally, I don’t agree with this exiled capital rule.  For one thing, it seems like cheating to me and is very unfair to the other side.  It is usually very hard to capture an enemy capital (Paris not withstanding) and once you got through all the trouble and expense just to have your opponent say, “Okay, my capital is over here now”.  That’s just not right.
    Secondly, if you are going to have an exiled capital rule, why does it only apply to UK?  What if Washington falls?  Couldn’t the US move their capital to San Francisco?  If Moscow falls, couldn’t Russia move to Stalingrad?  How about the Axis?  If Berlin falls, couldn’t they move to Warsaw?  My point is that if you are going to let one country do this, then the same rule should apply to all nations.
    This being the case, I won’t be trying this strategy.  The UK is governed by London and always will be.  London is where the money is and where the decisions are made.  If London falls, then until the Yanks come and retake it, the UK will simply have a lesser role in the war for a while.
    By the way, in my first game using the Alpha+2 setup and rules, Germany was unable to pull off Sealion and the Allies ended up winning in a 13 round game.  Both Germany and Britain lost their navies.  Britain eventually built some navy back up and ended up taking Berlin right after the US took Denmark.  It was a nasty one-two punch that spelled the end of the Third Reich.



  • Canada and even South Africa were not puppets of Great Britain. They should be able of buying even with London fallen, or at least change them to true neutrals or neutral pro-allies (some type of surrender event is needed or otherwise is nonsense that Canada cannot built while still at war). Note that in real life, Free France continued the fight from freaking Brazzaville. The exilied capital rule is a must and in fact I feel cheating when winning a game just because of a cheap Sea Lion (the rival got uncared and undefended London). It’s enough bad that the enemy sacks your income and losing the big IC as well … why add salt to the wound? Let the loser buy units in other ICs. The current capital rules are a remanent of old Classic rules and don’t fit the new bigger board



  • just to make sure: it is a game, right? (not history repeated, hmm?) 😉



  • @knp7765:

    This strategy only works because you are using that exiled capital rule, right?  If London falls, UK Europe can be governed from Ottawa, right?  Personally, I don’t agree with this exiled capital rule.  For one thing, it seems like cheating to me and is very unfair to the other side.  It is usually very hard to capture an enemy capital (Paris not withstanding) and once you got through all the trouble and expense just to have your opponent say, “Okay, my capital is over here now”.  That’s just not right.
    Secondly, if you are going to have an exiled capital rule, why does it only apply to UK?  What if Washington falls?  Couldn’t the US move their capital to San Francisco?  If Moscow falls, couldn’t Russia move to Stalingrad?  How about the Axis?  If Berlin falls, couldn’t they move to Warsaw?  My point is that if you are going to let one country do this, then the same rule should apply to all nations.
    This being the case, I won’t be trying this strategy.  The UK is governed by London and always will be.  London is where the money is and where the decisions are made.  If London falls, then until the Yanks come and retake it, the UK will simply have a lesser role in the war for a while.
    By the way, in my first game using the Alpha+2 setup and rules, Germany was unable to pull off Sealion and the Allies ended up winning in a 13 round game.  Both Germany and Britain lost their navies.  Britain eventually built some navy back up and ended up taking Berlin right after the US took Denmark.  It was a nasty one-two punch that spelled the end of the Third Reich.

    Nope, I am not aware of the exiled rule, this idea is a way to save starting UK assets to better redeploy them elsewhere. With the right plan, I believe you can lose London while using the units to neutralize Italy, then reinforce Russia.

    I have much more testing and planning to do. I was wondering if anyone else has tried this before?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    So basically, the trade is, that you WIPE OUT U.K. so that you can WIPE OUT Italy.

    Not a bad trade I suppose…



  • @JamesAleman:

    @knp7765:

    This strategy only works because you are using that exiled capital rule, right?  If London falls, UK Europe can be governed from Ottawa, right?  Personally, I don’t agree with this exiled capital rule.  For one thing, it seems like cheating to me and is very unfair to the other side.  It is usually very hard to capture an enemy capital (Paris not withstanding) and once you got through all the trouble and expense just to have your opponent say, “Okay, my capital is over here now”.  That’s just not right.
    Secondly, if you are going to have an exiled capital rule, why does it only apply to UK?  What if Washington falls?  Couldn’t the US move their capital to San Francisco?  If Moscow falls, couldn’t Russia move to Stalingrad?  How about the Axis?  If Berlin falls, couldn’t they move to Warsaw?  My point is that if you are going to let one country do this, then the same rule should apply to all nations.
    This being the case, I won’t be trying this strategy.  The UK is governed by London and always will be.  London is where the money is and where the decisions are made.  If London falls, then until the Yanks come and retake it, the UK will simply have a lesser role in the war for a while.
    By the way, in my first game using the Alpha+2 setup and rules, Germany was unable to pull off Sealion and the Allies ended up winning in a 13 round game.  Both Germany and Britain lost their navies.  Britain eventually built some navy back up and ended up taking Berlin right after the US took Denmark.  It was a nasty one-two punch that spelled the end of the Third Reich.

    Nope, I am not aware of the exiled rule, this idea is a way to save starting UK assets to better redeploy them elsewhere. With the right plan, I believe you can lose London while using the units to neutralize Italy, then reinforce Russia.

    I have much more testing and planning to do. I was wondering if anyone else has tried this before?

    Tried what? UK suicide……



  • @Gargantua:

    So basically, the trade is, that you WIPE OUT U.K. so that you can WIPE OUT Italy.

    Not a bad trade I suppose…

    You also get the U.S. into the war on turn 2. Again, I’m not saying this is going to replace other UK strategies, I just think it has enough merits to be explored further. It did work wonders in Europe 1940 using alpha rules and setup, that I can testify to. That does not mean it will also work in Global, but I like what I see, so far. Time will tell.



  • I have to hand it to you James I never would have even considered this. I am not so confident it will work but I do see what you are saying about the US dollars. I still think that Germany will incur massive casualties in the battle of britain. I have not yet played this game against real opponents but in looking at it and doing a game against myself Germany seems to knock UK out in turn 3 or 4. That is at great cost though giving Russia a HUGE upper hand. I am curious give me your buys for Germany turns 1-4. Thanks James



  • @GoSanchez6:

    I have to hand it to you James I never would have even considered this. I am not so confident it will work but I do see what you are saying about the US dollars. I still think that Germany will incur massive casualties in the battle of britain. I have not yet played this game against real opponents but in looking at it and doing a game against myself Germany seems to knock UK out in turn 3 or 4. That is at great cost though giving Russia a HUGE upper hand. I am curious give me your buys for Germany turns 1-4. Thanks James

    I assume you are referring to my German buys, when I play a “normal” game in which the UK tries to hold.

    Summary and then the builds:
    I start with a standard sea lion, on turn 2 I land 5 infantry and 1 AAgun on Scotland: If London counter-attacks with air, I can kill a fighter, if they send too much land and take, I grab London the next turn. Most likely, I just got 5 guys I don’t have to transport later. I then use 9 transports to drop off 18 more units and important my air force on Scotland’s air base on Scotland turn 3. Then I land 18 more units on London plus the 23 land units in Scotland and the 11 air units (alpha 2 setup). I lose 2 air units and 25 infantry, but I capture London and kill 35 land, 5 air units. Now my planes have range to land in Germany since they were on Scotland’s air base. I capture London with 11 artillery, 5 armor, and 9 air units.

    Battle lasts 4 combat rounds: I hit 14 times, they hit 14; I hit 12, they hit 9; I hit 9 time, they hit 5; I hit 7 times, they hit 2 times. Totals: 42 hits (Uk only has 40 units) they hit 30 on average (I won with them hitting 5 below in the above game due to a low round for them and a high round for me).

    Builds: T1:carrier,2 transports(30IPCs); T2: 6 transports,carrier,destroyer,artillery(70IPCs); T3: 2 subs, 1 Destroyer, 9 infantry,2 artillery(55); T4: 2 subs, 1 Destroyer, 9 infantry, 2 artillery(55); T5: 2 subs, 1 Destroyer, 12 infantry, 9 artillery (92); T6andT7: 2 subs, 1 Destroyer, 10 infantry, 2 artillery (58); T8: 2 subs, 1 Destroyer, 10 infantry, 4 artillery(66)….Conquered Regions under German control during this plan (t=turn acquired): Scottland(t2), London(t4), Finland(t1), Normandy(t1), France(t1), Yugoslavia(t1), Bulgaria(t1), Greece(t2).

    As you can see, I choose to split navy/land as My goal is to delay the game 8 rounds in Europe (hence the fleet that keeps America at bay), I usually have 6 cities in the Pacific by turn 8 at the latest. If necessary, I win with Europe by grabbing Stalingrad and Leningrad by between turns 10-12.  Above builds reflect a US early build against Japan strategy. German loses 4 subs round 1 and keeps the BB,CA and 1 Sub to add to the naval builds for a navy of: BB,CA,2CVwith2Ftrs2Tacs, 7DD, 13 subs by turn 8.



  • James thanks for the reply but what about Russia? Looking at your builds gives you next to nothing for the eastern front to what Russia is going to have by then. I do see your point of buying artillery instead of tanks because they are cheaper and give the infantry more of a punch. In my simulated game I was using only the artillery that Germany starts with and buying tanks for more punch. If I get the chance to look at your theory I will test it. LOL man.



  • @GoSanchez6:

    James thanks for the reply but what about Russia? Looking at your builds gives you next to nothing for the eastern front to what Russia is going to have by then. I do see your point of buying artillery instead of tanks because they are cheaper and give the infantry more of a punch. In my simulated game I was using only the artillery that Germany starts with and buying tanks for more punch. If I get the chance to look at your theory I will test it. LOL man.

    Thank you for trying it out first, it may prove to be a bad move. Those German builds were for a typical game where London tried to hold, and my goal was not to take Russia, just buy time for Japan, hence the heavy navy. I find that Germany, being next to its production and Russia being too far from theirs, means locally, the Russian’s are outproduced long before their increased income can arrive, thus they fall back 2 turns after entering Germany in my games. You only need to place 11-12 land units next to Russia’s, 5-6 that “stream” in from the nearest factories….more can come, but at a slower pace.

    If surrendering London does not work, there may be some tweaks that can salvage some or all of its merits. Again, I am not saying this is a “killer” strategy…it just amazed me in the Europe version when I saw the effect on Italy and the US. I strive to think outside of the box, and when that pays off, I’m happy. At the very least, I like to think it can be just another tool in your arsenal for those situations in which it may be useful.

    For example, recently I verified the ruling with Krieg, If Germany turn 1 attacks Yugoslavia and fails to take…for whatever reason…accidentally or on purpose. Yugoslavia becomes a landing zone which permits 2 more planes in alpha2 to strike Italy’s navy in zone 97. Malta and Gibraltar fighters can use it as a landing zone as it becomes an ally per page 11 of Europe 1940 rulebook. That is an example of a tool in my arsenal for when Germany makes this an option…this is one of those things that slips past some players.

    I hope for the UK1 pullout to become just another tool or option for veteran players. We can name it the “Bell-Fey” Gambit. Or the “Chamberlain maneuver”. Other names: “The Benny Hill”, “Operation: Open House”, “Alpha Gamble”, “Larry’s Parry”, “The Gouse-step Mis-step”, “The Atlantic Mouse Trap”, “Balkan Express”, “Malta Mayham”,  “G day”, “France II”, “Operation Neville” or “Atlantic Stall”

    Anyone else have a name for it?



  • @Idi:

    Tried what? UK suicide……

    Well, lets call it: “Operation: Open House”. Have you tried something similar? Worse case scenario, you’ll become an exiled leader 🙂

    By the way, Mr. Amin (300,000 deaths caused), how is Uganda these days? I understand your successor: Milton OBOTE (1980-85) (100,000 deaths caused) was in turn thrown out by Yoweri MUSEVENI in 1986. I here there is Egyptian styled unrest these days.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 52
  • 40
  • 8
  • 34
  • 4
  • 15
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games

33
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts