@Luftwaffles41
Off course Taranto is the safest thing to do, but when you fail (which will happen in about 1 or 2 every ten games) it’s virtually game over for the british (playing without a bid off course) because now the UK has lost its fighters and its Med fleet and Italy has 2 transports left.
That’s why we are looking for a valid alternative. Off course sooner or later you have to face the italian fleet, but hopefully the UK will have a stronger navy/air force.
I once retreated the carrier to SZ98 and blocked 99. on UK1 i bought 2 bombers (so i had three on england). On It 1 they can chose to attack a lot of targets but doing so they dispears themselves.
If they dont attack the blockers around malta and SZ99 then on UK2 you can do a taranto 2.0 but with much more air power. Off course the italian fleet is also stronger and the germans can still mess up your plan, but UK with 3 bombers can attack other targes as well.
I suppose they could be if you really plan to go all in like that then you need to have something a little more coordinated then just a Taranto 2.0. Because with 36 IPC’s worth of 3 units, just know that could all go down the drain incredibly quickly if you’re not careful. But as I said, if you really plan to prioritize on going after Italy and taking it to them WITHOUT doing Taranto then you’ll be taking away from the strength in India. Just, the idea of doing Taranto is to make sure that they don’t get those 2 transports to send units places. For instance, with 2 transports Italy could send 2 guys to Greece and 2 guys down to Alexandria and be much closer to taking Egypt with reinforcements.
@Luftwaffles41 You don’t need units from pacific.
And if you combine this with tobruk then by all means let italy dispears it’s transports. Then they can drop off a few units for just once.
I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?
If a novice may jump into the conversation regarding the Hawaii strike.
As the old timey generals used to say, be wary of squabbles as they can turn into a full fledged Battle.
I think the reason I don’t like it is because:
As Japan, I want to follow up India with pressuring ME and Russia. So trading with the US is a bit of a distraction.
As Germany, I’m thrilled.
As Italy , I’m happy.
As USSR, I’m bummed.
As the UK I’m also somewhat happy.(depending on Sea Lion)
As the Chinese, UKA and ANZAC, I’m ecstatic.
As the US, it’s an interesting dilemma;
One could ignore the strike and press on as usual
or
if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this?
If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.
IDK.
Play test #5 is going to be a KJF, without a Hawaii Attack on J1. I like KJF a lot better WITH a Japan attack on Hawaii.
with Germany avoiding Sea Lion and UK going ME; we’ll see what happens with those scenarios in combo.
.
Question: what if you buy a carrier witk UK pacific and a BB withUK europe in S-Africa and thus building a UK fleet in the pacific strong enough to keep japan at distance and to threaten the Med?
On UK1, as a response to the Pearl Harbor / Wake attack, I think it’s probably a little too weird. It leaves you vulnerable to Sea Lion; if you spend 20 IPCs on a BB then that only leaves you 8 IPCs to defend London, e.g., 1 inf, 1 art. That’s usually not enough defense with America busy in the Pacific. You will also miss having those 5 land units in India – the CV build by itself doesn’t actually push the Japanese back until the BB and other reinforcements arrive from Egypt / South Africa, so the Japanese will still be able to take Borneo, Sumatra, Malaya, etc. and then once they’re in Malaya they can march to India by land and you probably can’t stop them. They can send strategic bombers instead of subs to knock out the Indian economy, if that’s even necessary.
I think the BB in South Africa + CV in India is an excellent purchase for UK2 if (a) there is no Sea Lion, and (b) Japan does not do a J1 attack, and (c ) Taranto has gone well enough and you see that you’ll be able to send some reinforcements east from the Med. But on UK1 you just don’t have enough information to conclude that it’s safe/reasonable to spend all that money on building a large Indian Ocean fleet.
I know it’s not waterproof so if you have any ideas on how to handle the italians without taranto, please tell me?
The main alternative to the Taranto raid is to attack Tobruk with land, amphibious assaults, and air power. The idea is that if you knock out the Italian armies in North Africa before they can be reinforced by land, then you defeat them in detail - Italy will wind up with control of the Med, but without enough cash or troops to ever take Egypt.
If you don’t like that either, you can rely on the Americans to knock out Italy – even if Italy is getting big, then America can build a fleet and enough infantry and transports to give Italy major headaches very early as long as Britain can keep the German Baltic fleet off of America’s back…but not if America is tied up dealing with Pearl Harbor. So if Japan does this Pearl Harbor attack J1, then I think Britain probably needs to do either Taranto or Tobruk. Otherwise Italy will be a monster and you’ll just have to accept that (usually unwise). I’ve gotten Italy up to 45+ IPCs/turn in that situation.
if one chooses to trade with Japan around Hawaii, this is a great time to start doing it. They are coming to you, within your easy striking range. So maybe … let’s do this? If that’s the choice, you might be better served going all in.
Well said. The problem with the Pearl Harbor attack is that Japan is making it easier for the US to trade units with Japan, so, by all means, accept their courteous invitation and start trading pieces. The US can replace their losses much more easily than Japan. Just don’t fall for the trap and move your fleet to a sea zone where it’ll get obliterated at low cost.
You’re really gonna do a KJF without the Pearl attack? I feel that you’re just doing that for the sake of the strategy working in general. The whole purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor is because A) Those planes and carriers are honestly extra to the natural J1 attack, and B) To take the fight to the Americans. You’re not removing any pressure off of anybody. IF anything using the carriers would just be overkill. 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.
Glad we finally agree on something ;)
And listen okay. I hope you know the more you tell people about the trap the less effective it is… >:(
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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
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.
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.
@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.
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.
