@Luftwaffles41 no in the rulebook it states you need to control the strait or narrow at the beginning of your turn:
"If your side (but not necessarily your power) controlled a canal or narrow strait at the start of your turn, you may move
sea units through it (you can’t use it in the same turn that you capture it)"
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6
But i must say KGF is the most effectieve strategy but sadly not unbeatable. So i understand what your point is. Japan can more easily hold off the US fleet.
@Argothair said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
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
I mean, it’s a temporary stalemate, especially if you’re trying to fill 3 coastal ICs per turn with land units. Best case scenario, Japan is bringing in 86 IPCs/turn with Siberia, China, money islands, and India. If you buy 9 land units a turn for an average of 4 IPCs each, that’s -36 IPCs, so you’ve got about 50 IPCs to spend to match the US Pacific Fleet. You can get away with that for several turns in a row by buying carriers and filling them with your existing air force, but at some point you run out of your existing air force, and then the US, spending 80 IPCs/turn, will surpass you and drive you back. So if you go for Sydney, you are essentially betting the game that you can take Sydney before the US out-spends you in the Pacific. Taking Sydney is not as easy as it looks, partly because of all the vicious, vicious emus that defend the plains, and partly because the US can fly in fighters as reinforcements, land infantry in Queensland as reinforcements, and so on. It does happen, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.
If, on the other hand, you leave Sydney be and go conquer the Middle East, then you can get to a point where you’re straight up out-earning the USA, even after filling your factories, and that is basically an Axis win. The area that Japan an conquer by pressing west from Calcutta isn’t just 6 IPCs – you’ve got West India (2), Persia (2), Iraq (2), Syria (1), Jordan (1), Egypt (2), Sudan (1), Kenya (1), Tanganyika (1), Rhodesia (1), South West Africa (1), South Africa (2), and Madagascar (1), all within a couple of moves of India by sea. That’s 18 IPCs, not counting strict neutrals. Even if you pick only 2/3 of that, it’s still economically important, and it’s often defended with little or nothing by the middlegame. There’s also the indirect benefit of knocking the wind out of Britain’s sails – without their colonial income, they may be unable to defend against Italy or pose a significant threat to Germany, which buys you even more time to slowly conquer the globe.
Actually part of why I almost never play Global any more is that it takes frigging forever to finish the games using my favorite strategies. But that’s another story…
That’s true. Leaving Japan unchexked will give you problems in either Sydney or Afrika. The longer we play the more we are convinced that with good axis play the allies need to play PERFECT and never get diced to win.
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
You’re being repetitive. You’re not giving me a reason for how Germany is going to manage to hold off the Americans every single turn. Say what you want about the Barborossa attack, if the Germans haven’t done a G1 Barborossa then they won’t be taking Moscow by G6
They built Inf in West germany every turn and move them to Paris or north italy so every turn you bring in the next wave.
When US starts landing in say turn 4, Germany will have leningrad and east poland. Then they start DEFENDING against russua and US in order to let Japan win the game.
@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":
If you think so then fine. With 8 grounds units (4 infantry, 4 armory) into Southern France not to mention the air power the Americans will have if they’ve built their 3 AC’s in the Atlantic Ocean, will eventually allow the Soviets to catch up to the Germans and outproduce them. Frankly it doesn’t matter if the American’s invasion suceeds or not, The Germans won’t be continuing Barborossa successfully if they’re spending 1/3rd of their money elsewhere
I would like to believe you but we tried the green stores numerous times and with modest succes but too late in the game. We have been playing since 2012 and have played at least 500 games of Global on table top.
@Luftwaffles41 they sont have to capture russua. They need to defebd and buy time. Don’t forget Japan is pounding in russias back with its IC’s
@Luftwaffles41 dude, you built them in West or germany itself and Chuck them on every turn.
By turn 6 you have leningrad and you can defebd that line. You need perhaps 2 air units to retake a terrority. You are missing the point that Ger can hold out very long.by then Japan will win.
@Luftwaffles41 yes off course you might lose one but Ger makes +40 per turn so rebuying one onze in a while is not that hard. Point is you can easily beat back 8 ground units per turn. I’m talking from experience
@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.
@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
@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
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.
@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?
@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.
@Luftwaffles41 they sometimes do it for the italian NO but it’s not necessary that’s true.
Yes sometimes tobruk or sometimes ethiopia, or sometimes just moving into Iran.
We are looking for ways to make the UK fleet (carrier) survive but still pose a threat to italians.
The german buy of carrier and transports or DD/Sub is a very volatile buy bc it gives you options.
That’s why the UK needs to buy volatile units as well like fighters/bombers turn 1 with the US buying in atlantic on US1 to counter the sealion.
@Luftwaffles41 that’s what i say, Japan can and will take Sydney (and in lesser chance Hawai) if US does absolutely nothing in pacific. I’ve seen it before.
I know the J1 attack on pearl and it’s not that bad, it depends on what your goal with japan is (kill the US presence there or go for money islands?)
“How do you know they’re going Afrika Korps??? If you as the British player saw me build 2 transports and an aircraft carrier would you get any ideas? This is the type of thing you have to be really careful with as the British because you really can’t do anything to influence Germany from doing anything. If the U.K built a destroyer in 110 then I’d do Sealion so fast.”
I don’t know that, but germany starts with a transport that can reach Gibraltar and when they buy two transports and carrier then I will certainly buy the DD in Sz110.
We don’t do the taranto raid but only attack the italians around malta. After that attack you can gather the brittish remainders around gibraltar (if UK buys and Airbase on gibgralter they can hold of the germans/italians. There is a post here about this topic.
Thanks about your feedback about the building of an UK carrier and BB.
@Argothair You have a point stating the combined allies have twice the amount of cash in the pacific, so making negative trades isn’t that a big deal. But you should non the less pick your fights well because Japan has a lot of capital ships that can take a free hit. Your tactic can be compared to “death by a thousand needles”.
My group has been experimenting with a KJF and KGF etc. This is what we have concluded:
You cant leave Japan unchecked with the US, sooner or later Japan will take hawai/sydney or go for economic victory and go to africa). When doing a KGF you need to spend like 20% of your means in the pacific (for exemple a few fighters or bombers each turn) just to keep the Japanese navy busy.
UK: If you send your fighters away from londen UK1 than Sealion can and will happen. Unless th US build its first buy in atlantic (as GHG calls out in his 'london calling"). We usually buy a DD in SZ110 to block Germzny from taking Gibaltar and two fighters on london (or a bomber).
Taranto or not: if it works perfect. But it’s not the only sollution. We tend to do the Gibastion (hence the DD in SZ110 to block any german ships) or (after destroying the italian transport around malta) retrating with the UK carrier in the red Sea and unit it with the pacific fleet
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?
I as Japan would wait on declaring war on J3. On J1 and J2 buy your factory and transports but keep the bulk of your fleet around carolines. On J1 and J2 either clean up China or move land units down in order to be prepard to take India / money islands. On J3 you can then take the money slands and fall back with your fleet to filipines.
After that you indeed will have to play defensively (an Air and naval base on FIC or the chinese territory above that can help and will give a hard time to the US coming to Sz6 or attacking you.
Grand strategy should then be that Germany goes after russia and Italy can opens or keeps pressure on brittish to prevent them from sending fighters to Moscow (Japan can do the same in lesser terms of course by putting pressure on india).
Hey, I’ve been asking myself the same question, why do axis have a huge advantage. My friends and I don’t have that feeling (rather 55-45 for axis). But we never play with victory cities. Our games usually ends with axis victory when:
I think in the long run (10-15 turns) the allied will gain an advantag (if they gain more IPC per round than axis), so i think most people play with victory cities on the short-middle run (7-8 turns).
But yet again, this is my experience (playing for 14 years for 2 games a month) on the board, i don’t play on triple A.