UK Pacific Roundels

@argothair yes that indeed is an issue. That is why i stop doing taranto but this form of Gibastion. This way i save the fleet and carrier. So UK 2 i move them (UK fighters from the Med and London who are now in algeria) to Egypte and there on to Moscow. Togethee with the Anzac fighters this gives Russia a bit of breathing space.
The factory in Egypte buys subs and a fighter turn two and from turn 3 on fighters abd Land units .
It is not the perfect plan but wirh a US going 75% KJF you can’t invade Europe direct.

@Afrikakorps Mostly agree with Taamvan here – you’ve described an interesting gambit, but it sounds like your opponent fell for your trap by passively consolidating his Italian fleet and leaving it idle.

As other commenters have pointed out, the Axis can completely counter this strategy by using the Germans to clear away blockers, taking Egypt or Gibraltar pretty early and with potentially disastrous results for the British.

Even without German reinforcements, the Italian player can still actively consolidate their fleet by bringing it together in a different sea zone each turn, killing one British unit at a time. Italy-1, you kill a destroyer. Italy-2, you kill a cruiser. Take casualties on your air units or battleships, save your money on Italy’s first turn, and by turn 2 you can build an Italian carrier + sub, or carrier + fighter, or whatever else you need for naval parity. By passing up the opportunity to kill the Italian fleet on UK1, you may lose the opportunity to ever kill off that fleet, and if you follow through with plans to move the entire RAF to the Med, spend part of the UK economy in South Africa / Persia, etc., then Germany will have a free hand in the north Atlantic, and Moscow will be more vulnerable when the Germans are ready to attack it. Basically any time you concentrate the mobile British forces, you need to achieve decisive results within a couple of turns, because events will continue to develop elsewhere on the board, so if you’re merely stalemating the Italians in the Med while losing ground in the Atlantic and Moscow (and perhaps India as well), then you’re not making the right kind of forward progress on the globe as a whole.

This is an issue I wish the game by vanilla would just let you turn over control of territory to your allies as this happened a lot between Germany and Italy. I have allowed enemies forces to capture a territory just so I can turn it over to another.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@NoMercy:

It’s great that the Axis can try all these crazy strategies and likely succeed against Allies who haven’t seen them before; I just wish the Allies could do similar things…I find it a bit unfair that the Axis get to have all the fun.

I think that is just the way the game is, the Axis are the “aggressor” and need to attack to win; while the allies are the defender and need to react to the situations while keeping the big picture in mind. I think the allies are a lot of fun as well; with the UK being a lot of fun and involved everywhere and very important to the overall allied success.

Great, thanks for the info! I thought I was missing some information.

Thanks again!

@Young:

@wittmann:

I do think you need a Minor YG.

We will playtest this Sunday with the minor in India of course, but if this game mechanic proves to powerful… a small tweak like removing the Calcutta factory altogether would be an option.

How about introducing the “Medium Factory”. The rules would read

“Cost 15. Upgrades a Minor Factory to a Medium factory. Medium Factories can build up to 6 units. Medium Factories can only be built on an originally controlled starting territory that has an IPC value of 3 or more.”

I usually buy 1 fighter per round and fly it over to help out the Brits in Egypt against the Italians.  That is usually really good for keeping the Italian navy in check.  The rest I usually spend on inf and art to try and defend Calcutta when the Japs get there or if Japan’s land force is not doing so well, send them up to help the Chinese pound them even further.
I also try to land at least 2 inf each on all the DEI islands so Japan has to at least fight to get them.  Depending on what the Jap Navy is doing, I sometimes buy a destroyer or two to use as blockers just to delay Japan’s invasion one extra round.  Sometimes that is all it takes.

A lot of this depends on the UK.  If Germany pulls off a successful Sealion, then the US should spend primarily in the Atlantic so they can liberate England.  You don’t want to totally ignore the Pacific, but just spend enough there to keep Japan from going wild all over the Pacific.  With good strategy and some luck, a smaller US presence, ANZAC and India should be able to keep Japan busy long enough for the US to get England back in the game before Italy and Germany get too strong.
However, if Sealion fails or is not attempted, and the UK stays in the game for a while, then I would say US should spend primarily in the Pacific.  Again, you don’t want to completely ignore the Atlantic.  Perhaps a few destroyers to hamper German sub activity, some troops to help take back/keep Gibralter, maybe even a small invasion force on Normandy that can be backed up by British troops and open the way to liberate France.  With a small US presence, the Brits should be able to keep Italy in check in Africa and the Med while also harrassing the Germans enough so the Russians can better keep them from taking too much of Russian territory.  Meanwhile, a much larger US presence in the Pacific can pound the Japanese navy out of existence while steadily driving them back to Japan.  The US should be able to replace it’s naval losses better than Japan, especially since Japan will also have to support the land offensive against China and India.  Japan will keep losing valuable units while the Allies grow stronger.