@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.
- 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).