@thedesertfox said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

So then if we’re to do a head count here, I wanna know exactly how much stuff the UK can genuinly bring into a Taranto Raid.

To me, its genuinly going to take a keen UK player to know they can bring this much stuff into Taranto and frankly, even if a UK player did know they could bring this much stuff in, if they did I’d welcome it as Germany seeing that they’ve taken almost every single plane off of the British Isles with no logical way to get back until G3 which is the exact time I would be doing a Sealion attack.

So a combined German and Italian crusade could work inside the Med, the Axis just need to make sure they scramble those fighters into the fight no matter what happens.

Sealion has been known to be a Hail Mary for quite some time. It is arguably more of a liability for Germany because it costs too much. If UK purchases a full compliment of infantry turn 1(what I call the Dunkirk move) its not worth it. The cost is just too great. USA liberates it too easily and you don’t have the advantage of having pushed the Soviets back. You lose more than you gain. A single fighter missing from the battle of England isn’t going to matter as much as putting Italy in the pooper. Sealion if you play a noob who doesn’t Dunkirk. If Dunkirk happens divert, its not worth the effort. It’ll cost you more in blood in the long run.

I do think most competitive players understand that Sealion after Dunkirk is a game in the bag and would welcome it even more than yourself. This is why they elect to move an additional fighter off England. It is a comfortable thing for most to do. Especially for those who enjoy playing an offensive USSR.

I agree with the meat of this strategy and can say with 100% confidence if the the Soviets have split their forces attempting to defend both Lenningrad AND Ukraine they will lose Moscow. You can just blow right past a lot of useful units. Germany has enough to starting ground forces alone to force the Soviets of either one of their choosing. Any units left behind in either Lenningrad or Ukraine are just easily picked off and a near free gain for the Germans come time to battle for Moscow.

However, the counter to the massing German forces on Eastern Poland is a massing of Soviet forces in Bryansk. What you will likely experience is a stalemate where each side is offensively weaker than the other is defensively strong. Neither side can confidently overtake the other’s massed forces in a decisive engagement and yes, time is on the Allies’ side.

This can be ok. You have choices at this point. Do you pull in your planes and crush the soviets at the expense of opening up Eastern Europe? Or do you hold the line and gobble remaining territory surrounding Moscow.

GHG has a strategy called Middle Earth. You build a mIC, and naval base in Persia. That works well enough to reinforce anywhere you need to. If UK concentrates spending there the Middle East is quite secure. Hardly anything from America is needed.

Apart from getting diced in Taranto America can keep the lid on containing Italy. Agreeing with @SuperbattleshipYamato moving across Africa is too slow for anything meaningful.

Middle Earth is solid, and as far as I can tell the best strat for the Allies. Apart form Germany building up a major fleet Allies should be able to push a win through without a bid.

@luftwaffles41 Yes, the Luftwaffe will come in and all but guarantee a Soviet defeat. I don’t question that. What I question is the risk of removing the luftwaffe from the western front vs the other Allies.

You will crush Russia, yes, but will you be able to obtain that final victory city in Europe? I think unlikely. Therefore, as the allied player I absolutely welcome you to bring the entire luftwaffe to the eastern front to crush the soviets. If the Germans want to obtain Moscow, they can obtain Moscow by moving everything east. This is a no brainer. They have the power of choice. If winning this game was a s simple as obtaining Moscow, nothing would stop the Axis from winning.

I disagree with the blobbing and I think deep down you do too. You define your blitzkrieg strategy by “concentrating the majority of your forces in a designated area.” This is the same thing. I welcome you to split your forces as either the Soviets or the Germans. If either side does they are doomed because you open half your army to attack from the entire enemy army.

USSR can’t split defense. If you leave or spend your IPC defending Lenningrad those units are wasted. Germany can turn on a dime with superior mobility and take Novgorod with minimal loses and you won’t have enough to hold out in Moscow. USSR Should fall back with everything. If they survive long enough they may be able to mount a counter offensive. If they Die, they die, but the game is still afoot and the luftwaffe is out of position for 2-3 turns to repel amphibious invasion. That’s the classic tradeoff.

@Cornwallis

If US goes full pacific they can make like super hard for Japan.

There’s a good video by GHG on the Middle Earth Floating Bridge combo. Its a killer strategy. He likes to dump a lot into Europe, get boots on the ground. I struggled to find a counter play to it for a while. Its strong enough to overcome a moderate German navy and push it into the Baltic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4q2C2lcKAA&t=1568s

GHG has a strategy called Middle Earth. You build a mIC, and naval base in Persia. That works well enough to reinforce anywhere you need to. If UK concentrates spending there the Middle East is quite secure. Hardly anything from America is needed.

Apart from getting diced in Taranto America can keep the lid on containing Italy. Agreeing with @SuperbattleshipYamato moving across Africa is too slow for anything meaningful.

Middle Earth is solid, and as far as I can tell the best strat for the Allies. Apart form Germany building up a major fleet Allies should be able to push a win through without a bid.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

The cruiser is a starting unit. I never purchase cruisers as America. I disagree with the battleships analysis. The value of a battleship is amplified by the amount of hits it can tank over the game. If it tanks and repairs a single hit in the game it becomes worth more than destroyers and subs. In a single fight the destroyers are like infantry, the best pound for pound investment, but a balanced fleet adds intrinsic strategic value and more long term benefits.

A fleet with many ablative hits that can repair will withstand suicide runs meant to weaken the fleet. A pure destroyer and sub build cannot repair itself. Say the British decide to throw all their air power at the fleet. Tank the hits on carriers and battleships, lose a couple subs and destroyers, and planes end on land. Before the Americans follow up that fleet repairs and for the cost of a couple small ships vs British losing over 100IPCS in the attack the fleet is full strength.

When you get large fleets it becomes more likely to preserve those units over the course of the game and have them soak multiple hits. Every destroyer that tanks a hit is 8 IPCs lost. A battleship that repairs costs nothing and can continue to project it’s threat on the board.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Yes Japan is the ringer for Global. In Europe there is no aid for Germany. Russia and America do not have back pressure from Japan. By turn 10 Japan is over 100 IPCs they own the Middle East, China, Siberia, are bombing the Russians to nothing. I wouldn’t support this strategy in a game of Europe because it depends on Japanese intervention.

What I’m finding is Germany has no issues keeping up with American naval build. It’s quite the opposite.

Take the floating bridge by GHG for example, a fleet 2 BB and 3 full carriers, a destroyer and cruiser, a few sets of loaded transports is pretty much the first 5 full turns of purchasing for USA. Factor in American needs to replenish the landing forces every turn, if that is 4 seats of transports it’s a minimum 28 IPCs spent on ground forces. Doesn’t leave much to build the fleet past turn 5.

Germany needs 1 BB and 3 Carriers and 1 fighter to match. 80 IPCs where USA had to build from scratch. Carrier fleets are defensive by nature and thus USA needs to overspend to overcome and still have protection to cover transports. Anything America builds Germany has 2 turns to prepare for before it’s in a position to affect them. If the troops never land, Germany doesn’t care how long it takes put Russia in a box. If USA tries to outpace the Germans enough it sacrifices too much in the Pacific to overcome Japan and it loses Hawaii. The economy become favorable for the Axis by turn 8-9. Allies have up until turn 6 to have purchased everything they need to affect the outcome in Europe which is not enough.

As far as a bid is concerned, yeah that changes things, but OOB this has been my most sound observation. It’s the most heavily tilted strategy I have seen for the Axis. The use of going hard German navy has been really effective for me. I used to pay GHG’s floating bridge middle earth combo and that was killer. I could beat the Axis every time, no bids. I agree that there are tradeoffs that the Allies need to exploit. I’m just having a hard time seeing the exploit in this variation. I’m not saying there isn’t an answer, I’m just saying I’m not seeing it yet and I have a pretty good eye for the exploits. You’re welcome to try it.

@farmboy

I don’t find it much of a problem. Its only a problem if you lose patience and deviate from the game plan. Initial German buys of about 20 infantry is all you need to contain Russia until about turn 6-7. That’s 60 bucks out of the 250 or so you get for the first 5 turns. The rest goes into stacking the navy. I typically find the German advance becomes deadlocked at Ukraine-Bryansk until later in the game. It requires intervention from Japan circa turn 5-6 once they’ve dealt with China to keep Russia back.

A wise Soviet will retreat and consolidate, gathering strength until they can push the front back. even if they do this, it’s 2-3 turns before they breach enemy territory. By that time Japan has secured economic parity for the Axis.

The Ultimate objective is economic superiority before the Allies gain foothold in western Europe. Germany just needs to keep Russia in a pocket. Japan will handle the rest. By the time Russia is ready to push back Japan is eating up Siberia and is knocking a the back door of Moscow. Once India is dealt with a small stack of bombers can hammer Russian factories erasing their income entirely. Without reinforcements The Germans will overcome Soviet defenses. It’s just a matter of time.

The real paradigm shift is once Japan become so strong the tempo of the game shifts, and all of a sudden time favors the Axis because the money favors the Axis. Even if the economy is the same the Allies need to cross oceans to succeed, an endeavor which requires increased spending for naval dominance. This will be something they have already failed to achieve. Japan will have enough naval assets to rival the Americans 2-1 and Germany will be matching. By that time it’s insurmountable.

Russia can hold on and fight Germany for 10-15 turns if it likes. It doesn’t matter because Japan has probably won the game by then.

@TheDesertFox

If Germany builds in Navy significantly they can take Norway off the table. unless allies are staged in sz 109. If allies staged in sz 109 Italy is not threatened. Norway is great location to even throw transports at IF Germany doesn’t have a fleet to dominate it. I personally play with a large German fleet that takes sz109 off the table. If Allies want to waste money attacking Norway they’ll either have to sacrifice those transports and replace every turn or leave the protection of their air bases with their fleet and lose their invasion assets entirely.

Losing Norway for some time is worth it if Axis destroy the possibility of allied invasion of mainland Europe. It’ll be 4 or so turns before they can threaten again, by that time Germany has dealt with the incursion in Scandinavia and Italy is rampaging through North Africa and Middle East. The cost of taking the heat off Italy can be detrimental.

Piecemeal dismantling Germany only works if allies have guaranteed naval superiority and the freedom to choose their battle ground.

Don’t get me wrong, I like invading Norway. I have just found that overwhelming German naval presence completely shuts that down as a viable option. Insomuch as a move to threaten Norway requires heavy commitment and telegraphs the Allies intent. Preparations can be made to thwart that effort, Italy remains unthreatened and can bolster it’s position in the Mediterranean.

I like keeping the pressure on from sz91. It keeps the Italians in check, they can’t operate freely with their limited assets if they want to protect Rome. If Germany doesn’t protect the seas Norway is a great place to hit. Most players do not invest in a large German navy so it’s a great way to whittle away at the Axis position.

I don’t play that way with Germany. I found instead of wasting all those IPCs trying to protect multiple fronts I started dumping them into German navy. That covers the North for me. It’s had amazing results for Germany. Try it out and you’re gonna be really scratching your head trying to figure out a way around it.

@Cornwallis

It helps but it’s not a reliable win condition. The blocker in 110 only works if you sit the fleet in sz112. If Germans have a powerful enough fleet they can keep it in sz110. Which can still be blocked but with 4 or more carriers the air power still threatens the transports left behind. One or two landings getting through are not a concern. I think the Axis can handle losing Italy for a turn even.

The beauty of the large German fleet and the mid sized Italian fleet is that if the Allies want to commit to Rome its a hard battle and you can see it coming. The German fleet covers any meaningful advance to the North. Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark and Norway are safe. It can be completely empty of troops. The middling Italian fleet will lose but it will hurt the Allied fleet to the point it would get destroyed in a fight with with the German fleet. It’ll get trapped in the Med cut off from reinforcements.

Its ok to let the Allies in the Mediterranean. They will land a few amphibious assaults into mainland Europe but it will peter out. I tried stacking troops in Africa to draw from but the issue again is that takes time and the Axis can prepare. Germans don’t need to worry about protecting the northern half of Europe so they can fly some planes down south or convoy the crap out of UK. All the Axis land units in southern part can cover Northern and Southern Italy. It’s not too difficult to stack those two territories enough to survive the initial wave.

There’s always a chance of success but the point is it’s low. Like 20-30%. Japan can even land planes in Italy via Ukraine or something if needed. Japan can spare a few planes.

Its a tough nut to crack. I tried multiple options:

1: Suicide run with UK air power to weaken the German fleet for the Yanks. FAILURE. Germans can just sit their fleet next to Naval base and tank hits in carriers and battleships. Planes land in territory. Germans go before US and repair, fleet back to optimal, Axis lose maybe 30 or so IPCS in cheap subs/destroyers, allies lose over 100 IPCs in expensive airpower that was vital for covering the fleets and will take a long time to rebuild.

2: Americans stack West Africa over time then move all transports into med, land 3 or so larger waves of troops into southern Europe. FAILURE! Takes too much time and is highly telegraphed. Was able to move enough troops to stack the odds in favor of Axis for Amphibious assaults. Allies landing in Southern France with all of UK’s and America’s available airpower. Beachhead lasted several turns but enough troops to cover Italy. Managed to liberate and trade France a few times, Eventually the troops ran out and the yanks had to pull back to protect the reinforcements.

3: Spanish Beachhead. This was interesting but ultimately too slow. I liked how Allies can easily stack a lot of airbases to cover Gibraltar so protecting the reinforcements is cheap. What I dislike about it is it opens the middle east up more to the Axis and Germany can just roll tanks and mechs through Turkey and dominates the middle east. That is if Japan hasn’t done so already. The economy tips drastically for the Axis and it’s basically GG at that point. Allies don’t have the positional strength to overcome the economic deficit.

4: Tried a big full fleet buy of submarines for US to see if that’s enough to push the German fleet. FAILURE. It’s possible for the Germans to build up enough to withstand. And with the sacrifice of purchasing land units for boots on the ground just gives the Axis another turn of breathing room to build defenses.

The one thing I haven’t tried is full on abandon Europe and lay waste Japan. I don’t think that will work either but you never know. Germany will probably just convoy London without the threat of America and crush Russia. Germany becomes the new Japan if it’s ignored. It needs the pressure to force the spend away from Eastern front. It it’s allowed to spend towards the east Russia doesn’t stand a chance.

I started running this with Axis in response to GHG’s call to battle Floating bridge combined Middle Earth with Allies. I couldn’t find an answer to this for a while. I kept getting owned by the floating bridge no matter what I did because the Allies had COMPLETE tactical freedom over all of Europe. No matter where you defend on land, there will always be a chink in the armor and the Allies can dismantle Germany piece by piece if you give them that strategic freedom. On a whim I decided to try buying HARD German navy. It was like “what if I took all the IPCs I put into defending land into defending the seas instead” and the results were surprising. It is “THE” counter to Floating bridge Middle Earth combo. moving into the Med seems to be the only option for the Allies. I’m sure there’s a way to get reasonable odds in there, just not overwhelming balance tipping. I feel like the large German navy strat is tipping the balance.

@Cornwallis

Yes that’s my typical buy for Germany round one. I like to park that initial fleet off sz109 to convoy the UK for a turn or two.

Same thing for Russia, you just need to pump 10 infantry, or a combo with some artillery, but 10 of those for a couple turns will do the trick to push Russia back u til turn 6 or 7.

If you follow GHG’s method for floating bridge you can have 2 BB and Three loaded carriers ready to go for turn 4.

It doesn’t take Germany much to match that. They have the one BB already and most the planes. US doesn’t want to take that. The matched carrier fleets favor the defender. Even still I like to have one more carrier and BB than the US. The fleet is big enough to withstand a suicide run by UK, repair and repel the US. All that money you might spend on land units to defend Scandinavia and Germany can go into fleet instead. It just does a better job covering the north. A single stack on France can react to landing attempts from the south and the Italians can hold their own for the initial push.

It really is a big problem for the allies that I can’t quite work through. Normally time factors the allies but if allies ignore Japan they will have flipped the economic advantage to the Axis and all of a sudden the tables have turned.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Let them move into the med. US has to truck transports in a chain which would need to be protected at Gibraltar AND in the med. A large German fleet full of carriers just dumps the air power to the med. Fighters can reach from sz112 to the Italian coast. They can’t cover both.

If both Germany and Italy invest heavily in fleets from the start the allies have to push in with their fleets to protect the transports exposing a weakness in the supply chain. With heavy German naval power you have the flexibility to cut that off and the allies can’t push or sustain an attack. They get one or two dumps of troops but not enough to keep the beach head. It will fail without continuous reinforcements.

It’s minimal investment for Germany to build that navy. They start with most the fighters. USA has to build from zero. If the axis remove the transport protection that buys them 3-4 turns until they face another significant threat via invasion. That’s enough time to make another second push on Russia. They’ll make no more money because Japan ate up Central Asia and is bombing their factories to oblivion from Khazikstan.

Give it a try, plus when allies push their navy into the med Germany can just convoy the hell out of UK freely. I’m telling you go HARD navy with Germany.

You gonna spend all that money on German land units on the continent that are just gonna die. Allies can just pick the weakest part. Spend it on ships and fighters instead. Production wise it’s hard to keep up with just a ground war.

Trust me I’ve been playing with this for years and I can’t find a reliable way to push it. Best I can do is find 40% odds victory to establish the beach head with allies and those are not good odds to stake the game on. Fail at that and it’s over, there’s no coming back. Allies get one shot at it.