Allied ascendancy

[ItIsILeClerc]

Thanks, Herr, as always!
I must admit this whole savegame is based a bit on experience and a bigger part on analysis.

Your ideas make a lot of sense, ofc. Keep them coming. Your remark that you’ve ran into very similar problems with the allies against this, is troubling me because I already have a growing fear that this axis strategy is unbeatable OOB. Perhaps a ‘KJF’ has better chances but as stated before: I don’t like that KJF seems to be the one allied thing to do. Apart from doubting it will work, but that aside.

I so much agree on the lack of strategic initiative anywhere, but I don’t see any solution to this other than admitting the allies have nothing to gain in Europe/Africa before they contained/caged Japan. USA already spent its maximum in Europe (to make sure Japan cannot take Hawaii/Sydney after Calcutta is gone). All the USA can do now is to ‘copy’ the Japanese investments in the Pacific ocean and spend the remainder (if any) in Europe.
If (IF) the allies indeed have nothing to gain in Europe (:-( :-( :-(), I could try to analyse the ‘JF’ approach against this axis one, hoping that Caïro doesn’t fall under additional (Japanese) pressure. Seeing the Pac is lost anyway, Japan could very well just give it up entirely and help to kill Caïro long enough for an Axis Europe victory. In the save it already fell (1 turn) without any Japanese help.

I am indeed unsure about the UK action against the axis fleet in the med as you stated. I thought it necessary because the USN simply lacks the strength to kill it and while the axis fleets looks harmless, they do tie down a lot of allied forces in Gibraltar/Egypt. At least force the allies to stay in range of those locations, becoming a chained barkdog at best. So I thought that fleet takes away the allied flexibility and the sooner it’s gone the better. Furthermore I thought killing it will cost the allies anyway. It’s either a lot of the USN or RN lost (better to loose some navy than airforce was what I was thinking). But yeah, I may have gotten it wrong ofc.

If you liked the comments, but couldn’t find them all you can enable the comments log under the ‘view menu’ (view->show comment log). I have put in a lot of reminders for myself why I did certain things or not. Otherwise I’ll repeat past mistakes ;-).
I also updated the game to the point where we usually quit because it would take too long to continue and we lack the experience to predict where it is going (although we fear an axis victory).
Feel free to take a look and add more comments!
Before I forget: the reason why I (never) don’t take out the IC in Northern Italy is because I don’t see the point. As can be seen in the updated save, Italy never has enough income to produce >6 units after the allies are done in the med.

I played against this strategy about 7 times now and every time I feel like I have to rely on some sort of ‘desperate measures’, never really finding a proper answer. Really hope some1 here on the forum has experience with defeating this axis strategy or I will be forever lost against it (or forced into trying the seemingly mandatory KJF)…

G4J4DOMINATION_UPDT.zip

[ItIsILeClerc]

No golden hints/tips on an allied grand strategy against this?
Darn that’s too bad. I still have few ideas of my own that may be worth trying, but so far I’m not betting too much on them.

Combining my thoughts with Herr KaLeun’s I think the allies may try this next time:

• A build up in the Atlantic seems to be necessary to prolong Russian life and to prevent Gibraltar from falling.

• Since Germany obviously is perfectly capable of warding off any sort of ‘Normandy’ or ‘Norway’ (I tried numerous variants and they were all repelled) and still cage Russia for a delayed swallowing of Moscow, I figure the allied ‘Atlantic Forces’ should not stay in the Atlantic. Even though they do tie up numerous axis units that would otherwise be active in Russia.

• If the allies should not stay in the Atlantic, then where should they go? I think they should go into the med first, reducing Italy to ~5IPCs per turn. After that, they can reinforce the ME. With this ploy, allies can try to build up a base of operations in the ME.

• From this ME base of operations (UK can now hopefully build another IC there safely), allies can reinforce Russia better and put more pressure on India.

While this is yet another form of ‘JF’, I still have enormous doubts. I fear that this may give Germany too much of an easy time since it can now focus all its resources Eastwards. Not to mention the danger for London/allied convoys, if there’s no serious allied presence in the Atlantic.

[oysteilo]

First of all, I dont claim to have any solutions here. I am just making some comments! It is pretty obvious that this is HIGH level gaming and wayyyyyy more advanced than I can come up with, at least while playing. But it is also highly educational to look at the file. The position of Japanese forces end of J3 is just beautiful. But the overall strategy is to contain Germany/Italy first, right? The first question I have is about Gibraltar. On UK pacific one you say Gibraltar and Egypt can not be lost. No one wants to loose egypt, I get that one. Maybe you can explain why it is so bad to loose Gibraltar for a couple of rounds? After all you are going Germany first with USA? Isnt this easily taken back by US? You even say UK pacific should help in protecting egypt, but at the end of the day you have nothing when Japan knocks on the India door? I think UK pacific and ANZAC should stall Japan as much as possible for this to work. UK pacific is not doing that. Have you considered UK2DOW on Japan? I assume the reason is, this does not fit in in the overall strategy. But again, I think the Gibraltar defense is very interesting as A LOT of resources are put in there, again why not have three planes and 15 dudes defend london? That would free up a lot of reasources for middle east? I am sure you have your reasons but again I dont understand why it is so critical to keep Gibraltar in round 2 and 3. This is probably pretty basic, but hey! But then, what becomes really interesting is the following. I have looked into a little bit on how USA spend its money. Very few units are deployed in central US, so basically it is east coast vs west coast spending. East coast IPC spending for USA is as following:
Round 1 48
Round 2 34
Round 3 34 + 14 IPC of units moved from west coast
Round 4 26
Round 5 22
Round 6 15
Round 7 6
Round 8 6
Round 9 8

In the 9 rounds we have data on US makes about 600 IPC and about 200 of them is placed in the east coast or Atlantic and 400 is placed in the pacific. Yes I see you make comments why spending is the way it is and that is fair enough, but I really dont see how this IPC spending is fitting the strategy plan? Did you consider moving pacific units to east coast early on (round 1-3) to get more power there? I dont think Germany first will succeed with this IPC spending for US combined with the UK pacific spending for saving egypt/gibraltar? To mee it seems like the allies are trying to do everthing, maybe they are better of sacrificing something and more Germany IPC spending in the Atlantic? Again, I dont claim to have any solutions because the dilemma is definately there! I am not sure if some planes placed in the pacific are moved to atlantic. Hard to keep track of everything.These are just some of my thoughts while looking at the very interesting file and by the way I am fairly new to this game so i am sure some of my comments you have very good answers to. In any case I do think it is worthwhile looking into the US IPC spending. It is becoming less and less on the european side where you are supposed to win the game. At the end of the day the IPC spending is more Japan first the Germany first?

[ItIsILeClerc]

Thanks for that nice reply oysteilo!

I must admit I personally do not play ‘perfect’ games as well ;-). The file is an analysis of a couple of recent games I played as allies against this particular axis strategy. More like a ‘replay’. The axis strategy and positioning is not even mine, but I have learned it (and even added some personal flavours) and thus could reproduce it in this replay analysis.

Am I correct that your main questions are:
1.Why is it so bad to loose Gibraltar early (rounds 2/3)?
2.Why does UK-Pac send so much stuff over to Egypt and has so very little left against Japan?
3.Why am I spending more on the Pacific with the USA and call it ‘Europe First’?

1.If Italy/Germany take Gibraltar IT/GE3, they can bring more reinforcements into it than the USA/UK can attack once the USA enters the war. USA looks like an economic powerhouse but in fact is very limited in what it can spend in Europe. Allies simply cannot afford to loose Hawaii/Sydney, so the USA is forced to spend most/all of its mid/late game IPCs in the Pacific. Therefore if Gibraltar falls too soon, allies can probably never take it back.
Difficult to explain why I think that is bad, but in short: I think it means the allies loose control over the Atlantic permanently and the Axis have a powerful (because combined) navy and airforce on a strategically invaluable location. But… this means the Axis cannot use their Luftwaffe against Russia!?! True, and this will bring problems to Germany for a short while, but not for long. Since not having Gibraltar means the allies cannot effectively threaten anything in Western Europe, Germany can focus a lot of its income directly towards Russia indefinately (this is very bad news for Stalin).

2.I admit this is a dilemma. Always. And one of my points of doubt. If you look at the save you can see that even with so much stuff from UK_Pac, allies still lost Egypt. Only for 1 turn but what would happen if UK did not send all that towards Egypt… My guess is Egypt would be in mortal danger, let alone South Africa later on. If some1 can show us a way to keep Egypt/South Africa (and London, ofc) without sending a lot of Pacific stuff over, I’ll jump a hole in the sky from joy :). So yes, that’s the dilemma I have: protect Egypt OR harass Japan. I don’t think UK can do both. I lean towards protecting Egypt because Japan will get what it wants anyway, if the USA spends most of its early income on Europe. Maybe the trick is to spend more on the Pacific with the USA early on, switching to Europe later, but that would put Gibraltar in danger again… argggg >.< maybe there’s a golden investment split for the USA that I am still unaware of hehheh. With J4 the USA has not much to spend anyway…

3.Well, if you look at the investments you are right. It’s about 200IPCs going Europe and about 300IPCs going pacific. And that’s the thing with Japan: 300IPCs is (roughly) the bare minimum the USA must spend in the Pac first 9 turns, or Japan will grab Hawaii in the late game, sending the complete IJN + IJAF after it.
So I guess basically any ‘Europe First’ strategy is impossible if Japan knows its math as well. If I play Japan and I see the USA send >200IPCs into Europe, I start a calculation and will likely go after Hawaii later on. Nothing the USA can do against it. Axis 6VC win in the pacific. It is even worse with a J1, in which case the USA is not allowed to spend >100IPCs in Europe, but we’re talking J4 now ;-). It’s a matter of what you want to call it if the USA does NOT go on a Japan First strategy. I’d like to call it Europe First but technically it is indeed more like a 2:3 approach (Europe:Pacifc) out of sheer necessity to spend a certain minimum amount versus Japan.

I hope that answered all your questions oysteilo, and thanks again.
And please don’t think that certain games are more advanced than you can comprehend! Every1’s insight is valuable and yours might be just the missing link between failure and succes :-).

[ChocolatePancake]

I would definitely give an early Persia factory a try. From Persia you can purchase 3 more fast movers, which combined with the South Africa factory makes holding Egypt much easier.
Also from Persia, I’ve had some success skirmishing with the Germans in the Caucasus and even Stalingrad sometimes. A factory there makes it much more difficult for Germany to hold those two critical territories, and fighters purchased there can move directly to Moscow next turn to reinforce it.
It also makes it much easier to try and reclaim India if you want to go that route.

Of course, the downside to this approach is that the UK generally ends up spending less on naval units, making the allied fleet less dangerous in the Atlantic.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Thanks Pancake,

I am currently thinking along the same lines. A less dangerous allied fleet in the Atlantic seems to be no problem because Germany can repel any invasion threat the allies can come up with anyway.

I am thinking to build up an invasion threat to force Germany to build a lot of troops in the west and then sail through the med/ME to threaten Japanese posessions from there and give Moscow some more aircover (hopefully enough).
Or perhaps drop allied invaders on top of the German reserves in Finland and/or Leningrad. This will however require an even stronger escort against the Luftwaffe. Since the IPCs to build those  extra escorts have to come from somewhere, this means having less troops in the ME, no US submarines convoying #97 and #93 or less US invaders.

I am also inconclusive about the role UK_Pac has to play. Should they send less aid to Egypt? Is it their purpose (agent smith :lol:) to harass Japan? But harassing Japan seems pointless compared to controlling Egypt. Sigh, I am getting lost. Why don’t the Axis just automatically loose the game if they haven’t won by turn 15 or so… Or anythig that would force them to not turtle up so much.

[Sniper]

As far as the situation in Egypt goes, I’d say you definitely need the sea units from the Pacific to hold out.

Actually, I would highly recommend building an aircraft carrier in India on UK1 and landing the fighter and the tactical bomber on it immediately. You can move the battleship in from SZ37 as well, and at that point you’ve got an extra aircraft carrier and a battleship in the Red Sea by UK2. Obviously you want to take the infantry from West India and take Persia as quickly as possible; at that point, with the planes and bombardment you have, you can ferry the infantry over and harass the Italians in Central Africa (I would recommend an amphibious assault on Ethiopia from Persia on UK2 if you don’t need the planes/battleship immediately).

Honestly, My recommendation as far as dealing with Italy goes is to alleviate the pressure from the United States and go all-out with the UK. In my experience (which is very brief, by the way, so don’t quote me on any of this, haha), the United States needs almost everything it has economically to neutralize Japan before it can get a firm foothold in the Pacific. I would revert around 80% of the US’ income to the Pacific, and then make up for the missing units by pulling everything the UK has into Europe and hammering Italy from the Red Sea (eventually invading Europe from Italy or the territory surrounding it).

That’s my recommendation; although, I’m relatively inexperienced with this particular game, so it may not be particularly reliable.  :wink:

[ItIsILeClerc]

Hey HAwk,

did you take a look at the savefile?
I think Germany prooved that it could easily prevent any invasions AND defend against Russia.
In this savefile the allies decided to remove Italy from North Africa and convoy the axis in the med, for a total economic damage/IPC swing of 26IPCs per turn.

I think the allies could go North (Norway, Finland) instead, but then they have to leave Italy alone and also not convoy the med (buying more escorts for fleetprotection instead).
This is worth an IPC swing of 15IPCs. Maybe more (but not more than 26) if Leningrad can also be taken.
So all in all i’m not convinced the allies should invade North as best option, but I see it can be done.

@Sniper: your experience about the US needing (almost?) all its economy to neutralize Japan is correct.
I think the question is: do they need to neutralize Japan first before doing anything else. I begin to fear the answer to this is yes, which means no meaningful US involvement in Europe for at least 8 turns.

[Sniper]

Exactly, which is why the UK needs to turn up the pressure in the Med early to compensate for the lack of US units in the Atlantic.

Honestly, if you want my opinion, I’d say attempting to secure Gibraltar early with the US is a lost cause. Italy is going to take it, and at that point you’re just conducting amphibious assaults back and forth for like 3 turns, with each side taking Gibraltar, then losing it, then taking it, then losing it again, and all the while, Italy still gets the extra 5 IPCs every turn, and now the US navy is vulnerable to the German air force for several turns in a row, which doesn’t usually work out so well economically for the Allies. My recommendation would be to hammer Italy with the UK as hard as possible, while holding Germany off from Russia, so that the US can unload everything it has on Japan and free up the Pacific board. If you succeed and Germany hasn’t successfully taken Moscow yet (which, if the Soviets play their cards right, is unlikely, especially if the Luftwaffe has turned its attention to the UK’s forces in the Med/North Africa), then you can turn the US on Italy and invade Europe from the south late-game.

So yah; I really don’t see how the US can go for a “Europe First” approach and still prevent Japan from wrapping up a win in the Pacific, but if you hammer the Japs hard and are able to take Tokyo mid/late game before Europe falls apart, the US can take on Italy pretty easily later on.

[ItIsILeClerc]

A sound plan, Sniper.
I like it. All thought-through strategies the allies can come up with adds to their chance of winning.

Russia will however not be able to survive, without any threatening US involvement in Europe. That is a certainty.
So with a Japan First strategy, the allies will loose Russia and must therefore look very very strong in the ME/Africa and ofc also not loose London. Since Japan will be contained (hopefully, because this is not as easy as it sounds), the economies should be balanced.

Alas then, if there’s no ideas to prove otherwise, I’ll have to submit to the ‘JF’ doctrine  :-(  :-(  :-(. One way or the other. I may still consider building a lot of stuff in Europe, but sail it through the med into the Pac to at least castrate Italy and to prolong the life of Russia. USA has no business invading Europe before Japan is permanently contained.

[ItIsILeClerc]

C’mon HAwk, I’m thinking you only saw the first few turns of the save. I’ll try to explain anyway.

@ShadowHAwk:

Well in the savegame you basicaly did nothing to stop the axis. You gave up afrika without a fight, you could have destroyed italian forces a lot quicker.
>> I removed Italy from Africa completely. If you think destroying Italian forces quicker than I did, please explain. I don’t think it is possible but I’m open for suggestions. That’s the reason why I posted all this in the first place. If you saw the savegame I don’t understand this comment.

Also why not just take iraq, sure if you play fancy and give it to russia then they have 3 extra but taking it gives you more flexibility in the med.
>> Well, in the long term it gives the allies some 16 extra Russian Units and 30 more IPCs than when UK takes it. If the UK takes it, they’ll have to send a lot more troops into Russia and the allies loose an extra 1INF per turn. The downside of taking Iraq with Russia, ofc: allies will want to defend it against Japan a little later in the game, to enjoy that extra +3NO for a while, which gives the allies that 1INF extra per turn (Russian).

Why not just kill the 1 lonely italian inf below egypt round 2? Not like italy can attack egypt that turn, not with 1 inf 1 art 1 arm and 1 mech you can do with 2 units less.
Also capturing your original zones back gives you your bonus.
>> Becasue I was not holding Egypt against Italy, but against GE3. Italy could make a ‘hit and run’ attack, not taking Egypt but soften it up against a GE3 attack.

With no attack on UK incomming anyway you could even buy a factory on egypt round 1, with the airforce you have in the med after round 1 you can do almost anything you really want. Even germany with 2 transports will have a hard time.
>> Building an IC in Egypt UK1 will result in the loss of Gibraltar Big time. Germany can even launch a surprise attack on London if so many resources go into the med this early. Even with London relatively safe, UK is hard pressed, even with all the aircraft they have, because they need to defend 2 very important locations with it: Gibraltar + Egypt. UK can do three basic things:
1. Defend Egypt at all costs. Requires UK2 to build an IC there immediately and land the air from Malta there as well. Egypt will become an uncrackable fortress but Germany will then just attack Gibraltar and secure it. Allies loose control over the Atlantic unless USA wants to spend a LOT more in Europe than I did -> invites Japan into Hawaii because of not enough pacific investments from USA.
2. Defend Gibraltar with everything. Germany still has a ~60% chance of taking it, but will loose a lot of air in doing so. 6 German aircraft lost to 9 UK ones. At least the axis cannot secure Gibraltar against the USA afterwards but I’d say this is still bad for the allies. 9RAF lost hurts them much more than those 6 lost Luftwaffe hurt Germany. This is what I did. It can alternatively result in the loss of Egypt, but only for 1 or 2 turns IF the axis come for it and leave the possible slaughter at Gibraltar for what it is. Shown in the save.
3. Neglecting defenses and try to be offensive. At this stage of the game, that’s just a disaster going happen to the allies because the axis just mop up the spread out forces, or (if the allies are clever) attack where the allies cannot counter attack. That is, Egypt or Gibraltar.

Also russia is verry passive, your saying to the axis just come take everything im not even trying to stop you. your stack of 20+ inf retreats for 1 italian tank.
>> Russia never retreats for Italy, but for the Germans that reinforce the Italians.
Remember turn sequence: Italy, then Germany and then Russia again. Russia cannot hold ground against the Germans. Leaving enough Russians to repel Italy would be counterproductive, as Russia then repeatedly will loose a lot more units than the Germans (like 7:2 early, and 10:3 later on), a course of events that will result in an even worse end game for the allies.

Also having no bite at all with russia makes it verry easy for germany and italy to just swamp you, you can hardly attack them if they spread thin. Having a few more art in the stack makes it so germany at least has to think about where to put its units
**>> This makes sense, but I can tell you: I’ve been there, done that. Russia simply won’t have enough bite early on. I usually built more ART at start and switch to more INF later on. I realized that Russia does not have enough bite so this time I tried going more defensive. Building MECH instead of ART, because they can reach the important defensive spot faster (Belarus).

And would you really consider leaving units behind or attacking Germans/Italians if this worsens the allied situation??? If Russia is anything but passive, they will loose far more units than the axis will, resulting in a far worse situation than can be seen in the savegame. I just don’t see how Russia can be anything but passive, untill they reached the point where they can actually kill the entire axis stack (or force them to step back). And that point is there in the savegame, but only briefly because Germany does not allow the allies to invade Europe which gives the Germans the freedom to focus more on Russia in the late game. All because the USA can’t reinforce Europe any further because their hands are tied in the Pacific.**

So in short I hope some1 can either
-show/argue that loosing Gibraltar is NOT that bad;
-show/argue that the USA can actually spend less in the PAC in this situation (~300IPCs first 8 turns), without endangering Hawaii/Sydney (should Japan decide to not threaten/convoy Africa but return their forces eastwards).

[ColonelCarter]

I would say losing Gibraltar is the lesser of the two evils for a couple of reasons:

1. It’s only worth 5 to Italy, as opposed to Egypt’s 7+potential 5 in German NO
2. Any German air stationed in Gibraltar to defend it is 2 turns away from threatening the Russian stack, unless they build an airbase which drains their money. German air in Egypt can fly up to Romania and directly threaten anywhere but Moscow itself.
3. Securing Egypt early means you can start dropping fleet into SZ98 early. If you have an airbase with planes to scramble in Egypt, even putting a destroyer there every turn will draw out Italian units if they want to collect on their clear Med NO.

Also, if you choose to go Japan first with the US, Britain can hold Egypt on their own a lot easier than Gibraltar. And when the US can turn around and start spending against Germany/Italy, either Gib will be fairly lightly defended and easily seized with the number of transports needed to do anything in Europe anyway, it will be heavily air defended in which case Russia should be able to breathe easier for several rounds, or it will be defended with many ground troops shucked over, meaning either a weaker Europe or stronger Russia.

A couple comments about the save file itself though. Round 2 Britain should have moved the two Rhodesia inf up to Belgian Congo. Italy could hit them with 2 inf+bomber, but then that bomber is dead. And then on Round 3, Germany left its Atlantic fleet without scramble defense. That was the perfect opportunity for Britain to sink them with the 2 fighters in London and the bomber from Gibraltar. Sure, Germany could have tucked them safe in SZ 113, but you can’t expect an opponent to play absolutely perfectly and have to be able punish those mistakes.

Last I’d like to talk a little about going Japan First. The idea of a G4/J4 is for the Axis to lie low and take all the money they can from the few powers they start at war with and then take lots more when they have to attack, while the Allies (mainly the US) struggle without war money and positioning. This works great in Europe: Britain is an isolated enemy that offers Italy good amounts of NO money, Russia is poor when not at war, and the US is stuck to their coast and SZ102, which is only better for carrier planes. However, Japan doesn’t share all these advantages. The US and ANZAC are poorer when not at war, but India is not. China and Russia’s east are isolated and weak powers, but they aren’t as lucrative as the Mediterranean is to G&I, nor is it as hard to get them into nothingness status as it is to Britain. And probably the most important, the US isn’t glued to their coast. Everything that the US starts with in the Pacific and their Round 1 buy can be stationed off of Queensland Round 3 ready to threaten the newly-captured DEIs. Say the US buys 2 carrier 2 destroyer US1. You can place one or both of the carriers in the Atlantic to deter Germany from building transports for a “surprise” Sealion, and when they don’t, sail them to SZ 51 (around Samoa) US2 instead. Then they can reach New Zealand Round 3, able to tag up with the rest of the Queensland fleet Round 4.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Thanks, ColonelCarter!

Those comments make a lot of sense to me.

I can’t remember exactly why I didn’t attack that German fleet that was left without aircover, but I do remember I looked at the possibility. Probably was scared about the axis combination: IT3 take Egypt->GE4 has a NB and can reach Gibraltar from there. Any FTR that attacked that little fleet would be unable to defend Gibraltar. I must admit though, loosing Gibraltar to GE4 would have been perfectly acceptable in this situation (I could have left it completely empty). My bad ;-). Glad I can comfort myself this was not a very crucial mistake of some sorts :-D. Same for the Rhodesian INF.

I guess it all boils down to: put more pressure onto the Japanese First (a lot of people give this advice). And by the way I LOVE your tips about how to do so in the Pac. That will alter the way the Japanese can execute their plans. It’s so easy to forget USN is not ‘glued to their coast’ and Queensland is a valid staging point even when not at war.

The only thing I don’t like is that this will (again!) force the allies into a Pacific Focus. I suspect this must be some ‘revenge’ of the developers for all those years (in the 1st edition) the allies were able to execute their historic plans of ‘Europe First’  :|.