Instead of escort @1 and interceptors @2 is now in BM escorts @2 and interceptors @2 ?
Then I agree with that. Promotes more bombing
UK Strategy -"Middle Earth"
-
Whats a good alternative UK strategy that you like using?
-
The problem with middle earth is the british are poor, 30-35 ipc usually. They cant build a lot of infrastructure, minors/airports/naval. For it to be successful, maximum a minor and airport in egypt. Then a tranny shuttle to and from egypt/SA can work. But as a minimum it cost 15 each round (3 inf in egypt and 2 inf in SA). If you cant afford that, its not worth it. Suddenly you need to a 25+IPC investment in london to support USA landings
-
@oysteilo Much of the point of Middle Earth is that you skip the landings-from-London. The US comes to Gibraltar and supports the UK in attacking Italy.
A factory built in Egypt itself is typically not safe, and as you point out, the UK can’t really afford to fuel more than 2 factories for most of the game. So, you use the factory in South Africa, build one in Persia on turn 2, and then you have 6 British units per turn that you can use to secure Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. This then lets you quickly send subs built in South Africa into the Med to start convoying Italy. If the UK can hold Egypt and Jordan and bother Italy with subs, then Italy will usually be far too poor to resist a strong US invasion; the US can buy whatever transports, land units, destroyers, carriers, etc. are needed, while the UK buys only the relatively cheap infantry and subs, plus maybe 1 tank in South Africa now and then. This makes the best use of the larger US income and also sets the US up to ‘fork’ West Germany, Normandy, and Italy from the sea zone next to Gibraltar.
The thought behind Middle Earth is that you usually need to invest something in the Med/Africa in order to avoid losing most of the British income, so as long as you’re playing there at all, you may as well go big in that theater. Better to just keep on pushing in the Med / Middle East than to try to pivot to an Atlantic strategy that will require substantial UK investment in many transports, destroyers, carriers, and so on. As @oysteilo correctly points out, you want to keep UK investment in infrastructure to a minimum…but you start with harbors in South Africa and Egypt, so the only infrastructure you need to buy for Middle Earth is a single minor factory in Persia and two transports (one at a time) to shuttle troops up from South Africa to Egypt. Total investment is 26 IPCs. It doesn’t get cheaper than that, as far as effective strategies go.
As @Galendae correctly points out, the strategy can lead to extremely long games against a competent Axis player; if the US needs to spend most of its income containing Japan in the opening, then a serious US invasion of Italy won’t come until much later in the game, by which point Moscow has probably fallen or at least been crippled. I don’t see a good way around this, which is part of why I prefer to play Anniversary these days rather than Global.
I’m curious if anyone can recommend other UK strategies, especially if they’re likely to lead to a shorter game. There was some interesting discussion of “Gibastion” a few years ago, but I haven’t heard of new ones since then.
-
@TheDesertFox
The Best Allied Strategies are those that adapt to what the Axis are doing. You must be flexible and take what is available. My only axiom with Allies; “the 1st USA landing in Europe has got to stick”No getting pushed back into the ocean.
I do prefer the northern route thru Norway if it makes sense, rather than go up thru the Med.
-
To fully take advantage of the minor in south africa you need a naval in Persia if you shuttle there. That can make sense if you can keep axis air out. It is also in danger of Japan subs
-
Its hard to protect thats my point. Still think minor and AB in Egypt is better
-
I’m curious if anyone can recommend other UK strategies, especially if they’re likely to lead to a shorter game. There was some interesting discussion of “Gibastion” a few years ago, but I haven’t heard of new ones since then.
What I have isn’t necessarily a complete ‘strategy’ per say but I suppose could be the makings of one. For one thing I think the UK should take Norway and Finland from Germany as early as possible. Not only is it a much-needed boost to the British economy in the West but it cripples the German economy by 10 whole IPCs. But that’s kind of just an ‘action’ more than an actual strategy.
The area of the game I really try to devote to as the UK is in the Pacific and Indian ocean. A while back I developed a strategy that was just food for thought but I called it the “Two-Nation Navy” where I actively tried to consolidate the British Pacific fleet with ANZAC’s fleet to make for a more formidable force against Japan. Overall, I wanted a way to prevent Japan from taking over all the islands with money and just try to be a presence for them in the sea. -
@Galendae you’re correct about middle earth making for a long game. However at high level play, the USA shouldn’t be able to take ownership of Korea, Normandy, southern France and hold them or at least not easily.
Interesting viewpoint on it spoiling the fun,
-
@Argothair US can also support UK via West Africa in case Germany has a fleet and bombers to protect (dark skies). In stead then of building up an arms race in the Atlantic while Japan is growing, there is a more cheap and fast way getting US troops in the Middle East:
https://youtu.be/ZQDC0iGa7UY?si=IK9Uie74kpIKAkSb
Exact buys can differ of course, it´s more the concept i want to explain.
-
I have been looking at this too many times. Its possible. The neat thing is it requires little navy, but your units are doing nothing for several rounds. It takes for ever to get anywhere usefull. and your transports are doing what after unloading? Sure, a couple can ship infatry deeper into africa/closer to egypt. But then they are so out of position and require 3? rounds to get home? In a J1 attack you are better off to secure Gibraltar. At later JDOW you are late to the party
-
@Cornwallis That’s very creative, and I appreciate you sharing it, but I agree with oysteilo that sending American transports to West Africa is too inefficient to be a reasonable strategy.
After unloading in West Africa, the tanks and mechs can certainly drive to Egypt as you suggest, but the infantry are basically wasted – by the time they can walk to Egypt that theater should already have been resolved one way or another. If you are going to carry on shipping the infantry from West Africa to Morocco then you are wasting a move because they could have just landed in Morocco in the first place, and I cannot see any good reason to ship the infantry from West Africa to South Africa – if South Africa is threatened so badly that it needs to be rescued by the Americans, then the Allies have already lost. A ‘buildup’ of infantry in West Africa does not accomplish anything that you could not do just as easily with a ‘buildup’ in the eastern US, because the troops in West Africa still can’t reach anywhere but Gibraltar and Morocco.
-
@Argothair you can continue shipping infantry to congo (i think it is congo) that will save one round for the unf, so it takes 3 rounds to Egypt instead of 4 from West africa, but still not too efficient.
-
@oysteilo Well, sure, but then you have to dip into the thin British income to build a naval base in the Congo, or else your transports can’t quite make it back to Eastern US to pick up more ground units in one move.
-
@Argothair @oysteilo
The mech inf can reach egypt 2 rounds after landing so if Japan DOW1 you can have units there US3 and a lot on US4 so one turn later in Middle east, the same time when Germany or japan break out in the caucasus or India.Going via gibraltar more often than not leads to units stacked in gibraltar doing nothing.
The transports can get back to Mexico in 1 Turn so you need to built units in Center US and move them to Mexico. That way you can Chuck units from Mexico to West africa.
-
But why do that when you can get American units into Europe through Morrocco?
-
@Cornwallis You still need to have the US build a naval base in Mexico or Panama; otherwise the US can’t get its units from the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast Atlantic in one move.
I also don’t think the ‘unload in the Congo’ scheme works at all. The Congo borders Sea Zone 70, which is a minimum of 5 moves from any US departure point. Similarly, French Equatorial Africa is on Sea Zone 82, which is a minimum of 4 moves from any US departure point. The furthest to the southeast you can get in one naval move from anywhere in North America is just French West Africa, which is a lousy place to be unloading slow movers.
The Axis “Dark Skies” strategy of using subs and bombers to deny the Allies access to Sea Zone 91 (west of Gibraltar) is powerful, but I don’t think heading for sub-Saharan Africa is a reasonable or effective way of countering it. Instead, when you’re ready to have the US cross the Atlantic, I’d recommend building about 8 US fighters, flying them to Iceland, and from Iceland to both England and Scotland. The UK can build destroyers and one naked carrier in Sea Zone 109 (so 2 more US fighters can land there). If necessary the UK can also build a destroyer in SZ 110 to block any attack by a German Baltic Fleet. The resulting defensive stack will have 8 fighters, a carrier, and a couple of destroyers – more than enough to inflict unbearable losses against any plausible German heavy bomber force. Even if the Germans ‘win’ the resulting battle, they will be left without enough air force to take Moscow. If the Germans lose the battle or don’t take the bait, then you can follow up by building US transports, moving them to SZ 106 (Canada) and then SZ 109 (England). They can shuck back and forth between Canada and England until you’re ready for a landing; this is basically the historical Allied strategy.
-
I fail to see why anyone would build a NB in the Gulf of America.
While it would be economically possible, I just see no benefit to a 89 SZ NB in any situation.
If Axis have control of GIB, you could shuck fast movers, albeit only one per Trprt, to F WAF and back to SE Mexico as Cornwallis suggested.
Might be best to just save the Inf that would ride along and let them concentrate until you can hit GIB in force.
I just see no use for a NB in 89. Doesn’t really do you any good going to the Pacific either.
-
@barnee I’m not recommending a naval base in Mexico; I’m just pointing out that Cornwallis’s plan of repeatedly shucking units between Mexico and southwest Africa seems to imply the presence of a naval base there. I agree with you that such a naval base is ill-advised.
I think there is very little point in shucking fast movers alone to west Africa – the extra defensive value in, e.g., Cairo is not worth the cost of the transports, let alone the naval base. America starts with only one transport in the Atlantic. There’s no sense in building up a fleet of American transports unless and until you’re ready to seriously challenge a sea zone that can actually put real pressure on the Axis.
If for some reason you really need to defend Cairo, American fighters will be more efficient. For example, if you build 3 transports on turn 1, then you have a fleet of 4 transports, meaning you can shuck 2 fast movers to West Africa per turn. You admittedly start with 4 mechs that aren’t urgently needed elsewhere; let’s say you buy 2 more mechs and 2 tanks to give them a bit of offensive punch. So now over the course of turns 1-4 you can ship your 6 mechs and 2 tanks to West Africa, and they will arrive in Cairo by turn 6. This costs the US $21 for the transports, $15 for the naval base, and $20 for the extra mechs/tanks – a total of $56 to get 8 hit points into Cairo that defend with 24 pips.
Alternatively, you could just build 6 fighters for $60. That gets you 6 hit points into Cairo by turn 4 (reach West Africa on turn 3) that defend with 24 pips. You arrive notably earlier with a force that’s very nearly as powerful as the mechs/tanks, plus your starting mechs are still available to fill up transports going to, e.g., Hawaii or to prepare for a later assault on Gibraltar.
All that said, one of the many advantages of a Middle Earth strategy is that you can safely withdraw from Cairo into Sudan/Jordan. It’s not urgent for the British to hold Cairo if the Allies don’t build a factory there. The UK can build 6 new units/turn (from S. Africa & Persia) that can attack Cairo, plus most likely some support coming in from India, Malta, the troops you divert to clean up Ethiopia, and so on. By contrast, Italy is very unlikely to be able to get anything like 6 land units per turn down into the region while also defending against, e.g., American subs. Over time, the balance of power will shift back toward the Allies and you will force the Italians back out.
-
@TheDesertFox if axis leave that door open then you go for morocco but our German players on G1 buy fleet and the occasional bomber and sub to keep allies at arms length so Japan can expand. This was just one idea to prevent that arms race but still help UK and you can invest in pacific.
-
@Argothair no you don´t from Mexico it´s 2 spaces to gibraltar or West Africa.
I said West africa, not Congo. It is within range of the US and out of range of german subs. Total cost 21 IPC on tpt and 6 for 2 inf… you already have the mechs and 2 inf.
Suggested Topics
