This is an interesting gambit, though one that only works if 1) the UK player has never seen it before and 2) if the UK player is inclined to use Gibastion.

While the OP notes in his video that he believes any UK would essentially “100%” go for Gibastion after the German opening, I wouldn’t. I’m convinced that Taranto is more effective than Gibastion as a strategy, especially once one considers the trade-offs elsewhere (such as not crushing the Italians in Ethiopia turn 1). Both options have risks, but I’ve been burned too many times allowing the Italian fleet to survive. Even if I lose the entire UK Med fleet to do so, eliminating the Italian fleet the first two turns is incredibly powerful. So only use this gambit if you can be confident your opponent will use Gibastion.

Second, there are some risks with this gambit. For example, sending only two German planes to kill the French fleet only works roughly 75% of the time. Indeed, in the video the French shoot down both planes, losing only one ship. This negates Italian shore bombardment, which makes the Italian invasion of Spain another roughly 75% battle. In the video Italian shooting was so bad, I suspect the Spanish would have held had they not completely whiffed on round two of the battle. Lastly, one of the attacks on Normandy and S. France was only 90%, and even when the Germans win, better rolling by the French can see the Germans too weak to take Gibraltar without suffering significant air losses.

If you combine all this, I’d guess the gambit still has a roughly 92% chance of a favorable result. That’s not a terrible risk, but it also results in German losses against secondary targets, e.g., the French fleet. Overall, I’m not convinced the risks of the gambit are worth the payoff, especially considering this is a no bid game, so the Axis are already strongly favored to win.

That said, I suspect the biggest payoff is the look of shock on the Allied player’s face when the Italians invade Spain and precariousness of Gibraltar sinks in. :)

Continuing with the Axis, this gambit has the Japanese attack the Soviet J1, leaving the Allies alone until J3. This is a viable strategy, but I find a J1 attack on UK and US to be much stronger. You can, of course, still use the J1, but the sooner the US is in the war, the sooner they pick up all the now-pro-Allied minors nearby, so I’m guessing the gambit assumes the US doesn’t enter the war until US3 at the earliest.

Looking at the Allies, I agree with zlefin that the UK should activate Turkey, not the French. Eight extra infantry are much more valuable to the UK than the French. And I’m definitely not a big fan of building multiple Soviet SAC early, nor building tanks for India. Just because India will eventually fall if the Japanese really try, we shouldn’t make it easy for them.

I didn’t watch all the videos - there’s roughly 8 hours of video in total - so I don’t know how the Japanese were able to take and hold six victory cities using a J3 strategy. I suspect the Allied play was too lax in the Pacific, as turtling in India buys time, and turtling in Australia and Hawaii can make them practically invulnerable.

I realize most of my comments have been negative, so I want to take the opportunity to stress how much I appreciate you posting this idea. My friend and I have gotten into a bit of a rut in our gameplay, so we’ve been looking at ideas to shake things up, which is why I sent this thread to him. While we don’t use Gibastion, so this particular gambit would never work with us, it does make one consider what other gambits we can use to make the game fresh again.

@dazedwit

I’m not a fan of Bright Skies, Dark Skies nor Red Skies because I believe the strategies are too inflexible and assume certain actions by the opponents. That said, this game was the exception. Given the German/Italian gambit used, the Soviets would be in a position to act aggressively. Building bombers can make sense depending on what the Axis are doing.

I hope the Anzac gained something significant when they attacked Japan in round 2. Unless there’s an opportunity to kill something important, I’m generally not a fan of taking the decision out of Japan’s hands. Make them bear the cost of the tradeoffs. It’s amazing how often a Japanese player will hesitate, either because of the +10 IPC NO or wanting to delay the US ability to move its units freely.

If you continue to play around with the gambit, may I suggest you try a game where the UK realizes what is planned and acts accordingly? You’re focused on maximizing the impact for the Axis if the UK falls into the trap, but what is the Axis position if they don’t? It may be the costs of failure are so high it’s not worth the risk for the Axis. Or not. Won’t know until you test it.

Our current standard bid is 30 IPC.
– sub in SZ 106 makes it more difficult to take out the transport
– destroyer in SZ 91 to protect cruiser, can block invasion of Gib round 1 or go sub hunting depending on G1 combat results
– fighter in Malta and sub in SZ 98 for Taranto so no fighters from UK required

These additions tend to have immediate impact and create early vulnerability for Italy, which can also draw off some German units.

Unfortunately, it does nothing vis-a-vis Japan, but should allow the US to put some significant builds in the Pacific early before turning to a KGF strategy.

This is an interesting gambit, though one that only works if 1) the UK player has never seen it before and 2) if the UK player is inclined to use Gibastion.

While the OP notes in his video that he believes any UK would essentially “100%” go for Gibastion after the German opening, I wouldn’t. I’m convinced that Taranto is more effective than Gibastion as a strategy, especially once one considers the trade-offs elsewhere (such as not crushing the Italians in Ethiopia turn 1). Both options have risks, but I’ve been burned too many times allowing the Italian fleet to survive. Even if I lose the entire UK Med fleet to do so, eliminating the Italian fleet the first two turns is incredibly powerful. So only use this gambit if you can be confident your opponent will use Gibastion.

Second, there are some risks with this gambit. For example, sending only two German planes to kill the French fleet only works roughly 75% of the time. Indeed, in the video the French shoot down both planes, losing only one ship. This negates Italian shore bombardment, which makes the Italian invasion of Spain another roughly 75% battle. In the video Italian shooting was so bad, I suspect the Spanish would have held had they not completely whiffed on round two of the battle. Lastly, one of the attacks on Normandy and S. France was only 90%, and even when the Germans win, better rolling by the French can see the Germans too weak to take Gibraltar without suffering significant air losses.

If you combine all this, I’d guess the gambit still has a roughly 92% chance of a favorable result. That’s not a terrible risk, but it also results in German losses against secondary targets, e.g., the French fleet. Overall, I’m not convinced the risks of the gambit are worth the payoff, especially considering this is a no bid game, so the Axis are already strongly favored to win.

That said, I suspect the biggest payoff is the look of shock on the Allied player’s face when the Italians invade Spain and precariousness of Gibraltar sinks in. :)

Continuing with the Axis, this gambit has the Japanese attack the Soviet J1, leaving the Allies alone until J3. This is a viable strategy, but I find a J1 attack on UK and US to be much stronger. You can, of course, still use the J1, but the sooner the US is in the war, the sooner they pick up all the now-pro-Allied minors nearby, so I’m guessing the gambit assumes the US doesn’t enter the war until US3 at the earliest.

Looking at the Allies, I agree with zlefin that the UK should activate Turkey, not the French. Eight extra infantry are much more valuable to the UK than the French. And I’m definitely not a big fan of building multiple Soviet SAC early, nor building tanks for India. Just because India will eventually fall if the Japanese really try, we shouldn’t make it easy for them.

I didn’t watch all the videos - there’s roughly 8 hours of video in total - so I don’t know how the Japanese were able to take and hold six victory cities using a J3 strategy. I suspect the Allied play was too lax in the Pacific, as turtling in India buys time, and turtling in Australia and Hawaii can make them practically invulnerable.

I realize most of my comments have been negative, so I want to take the opportunity to stress how much I appreciate you posting this idea. My friend and I have gotten into a bit of a rut in our gameplay, so we’ve been looking at ideas to shake things up, which is why I sent this thread to him. While we don’t use Gibastion, so this particular gambit would never work with us, it does make one consider what other gambits we can use to make the game fresh again.