Ottomans first strategy



  • Has anyone attempted an Ottoman first strategy? Using all of Britians IPCs in India, and using France to help secure Africa and then push on Syria. It leaves France solo to defend western europe and Italy by itself to hold back Austria, but if the CP is going for a Russia first the Alliance does have time to make the attempt. Also it puts a very large British army at the CP’s backdoor with America beggining to land stacks of troops in France by the time Russia is finished off.

    Would this work?



  • My opponent last Saturday did something like this. He used all British IPC in India. Still i could hold off the British, but it took all of the Turkish strength and attention. They couldnt do anything else. I lost that game, but i never seen CP win…



  • @Tavenier:

    My opponent last Saturday did something like this. He used all British IPC in India. Still i could hold off the British, but it took all of the Turkish strength and attention. They couldnt do anything else. I lost that game, but i never seen CP win…

    We are also seeing games where the UK spends all income in India for a couple rounds (20+ units or so over two turns). Do you think it would help if India’s production was held to 2X its IPC level (8 units)? I know it doesn’t help much (max of 16 units over 2 turns), but could slow them down some, and as the Turks you could see that they couldn’t drop 10-12 units in one turn as we’ve seen them do. If the UK ignores India for some time, you as the CP could also see what they could have there if you went for it. Right now the CP have very little chance of ever taking India when they can drop 12+ inf+ there at the last minute (with their 40+ IPC).



  • I did this as Britian and it worked really well. Have Russia attack Mesopotamia R1, buy a Fighter for India then invade Trans-Jordan and Persia while activatig Arabia and BOOM! Ottomans are in trouble. The dice were really in my favor and by T4 it looked as if the Ottomans were going to be killed by turn 6 at the latest. The Ottomans simply don’t have enough money to fight back if the British meet with early success.



  • I think limiting the British reinforcement of India is a good idea; if not an official rule change than a really good house rule.



  • I think limiting UK production in India is a good idea, but I have a suggestion. Allow naval production in India to represent Australian and Japanese ships. Perhaps not dreadnaughts, but it would help UK to build a transport fleet giving them the choice not to attack Persia and still fight the Ottomans. I think this would only work with a production limit though. Otherwise there’s nothing to stop the Brits from building a huge navy every turn. This would help out the Ottoman first strategy.



  • I like the fact that the UK can’t add to its fleet Off India, and would have to think twice about sacrificing it in attacks on enemy fleet & mines. Plus a couple more transports and the Turks would be in even worse trouble IMO. The UK fleet in India/Med is already is the biggest fish in the sea, I wouldn’t want them to have the ability to directly add to it.



  • I was thinking about this as a strategy, particularly in games where the German navy is very active.  There are a lot of assets in the region that, if all brought to bear at once, could potentially crush the Ottomans, thereby making a CP victory almost impossible.



  • To be honest I don’t think India really needs to be limited. I placed 4 units there MAX each turn. The Ottomans can only produce 5 on a good day, so really it balances out.



  • ottomans first is the most logical way to go aswell: they’re the weakest, it shifts the economic balance towards allies even more, and france can hold out on its own in western front. and when you take constantinopel you can push through ukraine and balkans with more than 15 men a round.



  • The only way I can think of to counter this strategy is for the Ottomans to dig in buying all Infantry… and Germany/Austria full force against Paris (Ignore Rome… minimal force on Russia).  Without British help in France you may be able to take Paris… maybe.



  • That maybe the only way for the CP to stand up to the assualt. Althougg they cpuld probably still pull off the RR and then turn those forces south toward India instead of western Europe. Of course, then the Americans builds and posistioning comes into play in a big way, for a large enough US force could tilt the balance in the west before India can be taken.



  • I am starting to believe in the “Paris or Bust” theory… if you don’t get Paris by the time the US gets into the war in a big way then perhaps you’ll never get Paris.

    If the UK is tied up spending money in India… then that will be the weakest France will ever be.



  • @BJCard:

    I am starting to believe in the “Paris or Bust” theory… if you don’t get Paris by the time the US gets into the war in a big way then perhaps you’ll never get Paris.Â

    If the UK is tied up spending money in India… then that will be the weakest France will ever be.

    Paris cannot be taken. even in worst case scenario, there’s an entire stack of frenchies guarding it and Britain can toss in 8 fighters per round after Ottomans are rolled up.
    perhaps with tanks and a long term economical victory (but do not ask how that can be achieved) it can be done, but still. paris or bust hardly works. please prove me wrong cause i think it’s a pity



  • Yes, I agree.  If Paris can not be taken than the CPs cannot ever win.  Its not like London is possible to take- you may as well try for Washington.

    This is why I think Paris needs to be taken as early as possible - France is weakest in the beginning and only gets stronger as England and/or the US starts plopping men down there.

    I am still experimenting with the Paris or Bust theory- the ‘long term economic plan’ doesn’t seem to work when the Ottoman is losing to the UK and France has millions of infantry to attack.  It’s hard enough to take Rome before the US gets there (I have yet to do it!- the US seems to get there in the nick of time).



  • @BJCard:

    Yes, I agree.  If Paris can not be taken than the CPs cannot ever win.  Its not like London is possible to take- you may as well try for Washington.

    This is why I think Paris needs to be taken as early as possible - France is weakest in the beginning and only gets stronger as England and/or the US starts plopping men down there.Â

    I am still experimenting with the Paris or Bust theory- the ‘long term economic plan’ doesn’t seem to work when the Ottoman is losing to the UK and France has millions of infantry to attack.  It’s hard enough to take Rome before the US gets there (I have yet to do it!- the US seems to get there in the nick of time).Â

    so far i have concluded: rome can quite easily be taken by austrians, either very soon or as soon as tanks are coming in, depends on your investment. it’s fact france is weakest at start, but i believe germans are not powerfull enough to take them ‘like a blitz’. it’s going to be a big massacre that will take many rounds, too many so russia can pound on the other front. i think germans need tanks to negate the allied air superiority



  • Even if Russia is taken or in revolution, I think its impossible to compete with a 30 IPC France and the UK dropping 8+ units in France per turn… even with tanks.

    so France needs to be a priority early.

    I suppose if Austria takes Rome out quickly and Germany takes out Russia… then there may be a game, but the US can drop 12 units in Rome on turn 5; not much time for the Austrians to get Rome (especially if Italy retreats the bulk of its forces to Rome).



  • @rjpeters70:

    To sum up, for the CP to have a chance at winning, they must:

    1. Germans take Paris early in the game, while
    2. Holding back the Russians, while
    3. Austria seizes Rome before the Americans drop 12 Inf. in there, while
    4. The Ottomans flail around to prevent the Brits from wailing on them via India, and
    5. Hoping not to have a RR take place.

    Sounds like a hopeless game for the CP.

    1. yes
    2. yes
    3. no- in a ‘Paris or Bust’ strat, Austria marches across northern Italy and helps Germany in France.  After Paris is taken, then swings down for Rome.  The other half of the Austrian army is fighting Russia.
    4. yes. Ottoman defend as best they can against the Brits and harass the Russians.
    5. A ‘Paris or Bust’ strat would likely want a revolution, vice sending enough troops to Russia to take Moscow at the expense of Paris.  Or, just hold off the Russians with Infantry and send the bulk of the German/Austrans to Paris and then Rome.

    I never said it was not hopeless for the CPs… I think it is.  But, I also think their best chance for victory is not in Russia, but in France.  France has to be priority #1 if the CPs will ever win.


  • Customizer

    I’m guessing that the designers made Switzerland so easy to take precisely in order to encourage Austria to march over the Alps and help the Germans reach Paris.

    Germany, on its own, has too much to do and new units too far to go to break through.

    Personally, I’d prefer to eliminate the Lorraine tt and make Paris one tt closer to Berlin (i.e. the same distance as Moscow). Two space moves and the Munich factory are other options, but as the rules stand only Allies playing like twonks can make it a competition.

    Alsace-Lorraineb.PNG



  • I think National objectives might be the easiest way to house rule a victory. This capitol buisness is simply to imbalanced given the type of game play.



  • I was thinking of limited production in the Ruhr. Very correct IRL.

    On topic, giving the Turks a beating in the first round is something they never really recover from. Russia and Britain attacking gives them too much tts to take back and when they do its turn four.



  • In our new games I’ve been using the strategy of sending the Canadian transport down to India if Germany’s subs either miss or they send their subs against the main UK fleet. If you thought having 2 invincible transports was tough to deal with, try three.


  • Customizer

    Nah, just plough through Persia.

    Use your transports to get an army into Karelia before the Germans reach it.



  • @zanetheinsane:

    In our new games I’ve been using the strategy of sending the Canadian transport down to India if Germany’s subs either miss or they send their subs against the main UK fleet. If you thought having 2 invincible transports was tough to deal with, try three.

    That it very interesting zanetheinsane (I like it for the allies anyway, CP not so much LOL). You could also send some Canadians to Africa to clean out the Germans faster, then head to the Middle East/Med.

    In our games the Germans have adopted to all available fleet hit the UK home fleet to sink it faster, leaving the Canadian mini fleet alone (the Atlantic subs have to go through both UK mined SZ’s though). This seems to preserve the German fleet much better, and gives you something to build with (if you go that way). Otherwise both your sea battles are a bit dicey, and the subs you send to Canada (if they survive your attack) will be sunk by the French ASAP.



  • That was the conclusion we came up with. The 2 subs versus 1 cruiser has the potential to be good (and the games where it works it was great) but the opportunity for disaster is so great that our CP players would rather risk the minefields and leave no UK boat to chance.

    I always take some Canadians with me to drop off in Egypt to further lock that down.

    Once your three transports get into position outside of India you can transport 6 units a turn directly into Mesopotamia. That is… traumatic to the Ottoman empire.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 22
  • 6
  • 4
  • 14
  • 3
  • 44
  • 5
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

58
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts