Posts made by Pinch1

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1

All in all, if you think my plan is bad, then that’s fine. Just don’t look shocked when the German Roundel ends up on Moscow city.

I won’t. I’ve already pointed out that it doesn’t surprise me at all. Can it close out the game though? That’s another story. I’ll be surprised if this wins more than 40% of games this way playing against GHG’s strategy. Since that’s about where the odds are sitting. Slightly weighted in the allied territory.

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

@pinch1 Mostly agree with this, but what the heck is Dunkirk in the context of Global 1940? The only British units in mainland Europe at setup are in Paris, and will be killed G1 before they can be evacuated by sea.

Buy 9 infantry turn 1 with UK. Its Dunkirk, effectively. You telling me nobody has made that parallel?

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1 said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

You prefer the Allies more than the Axis, I can tell just by the words you use. You, and GHG and all the other players that specialize more in playing the Allies all share one thing in common and it’s that you don’t take the actual experience that other players have had to heart. The game doesn’t just go down to ‘play testing it on the board and telling you what happens’ because a million things could happen.

I actually do prefer the Axis, so conjecture yet again. I prefer Japan actually. I am just wearing an allied hat with respect to the conversation. I took GHG’s Middle Earth strategy against some opponents when I have limited allied experience and won handily several times. Soooooo… yeah, there’s that.

At this point I can see that we need to set up a few games. As I said, I am at heart and understanding an Axis player by preference. I’ll humor you by playing the allies for your grand opus strategy in exchange you’ll humor me by swapping roles. Maybe even a third game to even the odds if necessary.

I can guarantee you one thing. You have grossly underestimated me. I’m open to recognize if your strategy is valid but I have to see it on the table and I’m not resorting to this back and forth much further. I think you’re plan is a bad one. You’re gonna have to bring it.

@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.

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1

Dude I was referring to Africa when I said that. Going from North America, to Morocco, THEN to Normandy/Bordeaux.

Are you even reading the posts? You’re talking about SZ 93 in the med and I’m talking about shipping troops through the North Atlantic. Its a completely different route. I specified the exact locations and sequence for transporting. This isn’t a secret.

I feel like you’re reading the openings, getting riled up and not reading the rest. I know this. This was me, maybe 10 years ago when I was playing a lot more. I thought I had it figured out then too. I did exactly what you’ve been outlining a decade ago. It doesn’t hold up reliably to GHG’s trifecta alliance master strategy.

It’s not new bud. GHG even has an Afrika Korps video. He knows about it. He knows about it all. You gotta go back to the thinking tank. Try something a little more outside the box. Something like, what if the Axis can last out in a protracted war? What if Germany spent more money building up a navy contending the floating bridge instead of building heaps of ground units to try and defend Europe.

Do some whacky fun stuff and see how it goes. Something might stick. Then play it with a lot of people other than yourself or your regulars that you beat all the time anyways. See how it holds up under that scrutiny.

When you have that, and a pile of unconnected witnesses to agree that your material has the substance you say it does, then you can claim, you beat GHG’s strategy. Until then be humble.

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1 said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1

Another thing to note is that you only need 3 sets of transports if you use the north Atlantic route. Its even more protected. Early landings can be effective with sets of 3 or even 2 transports but the American probably has 3. it doesn’t take much to transform the line so that you only need to cover a single portion of exposed transports with your navy. You go from Canada, to UK with a set, and half a set sits in the English channel. You have air cover from scramble too. If the German fleet is in the med without air support they can have it. You unload Gibralter to close off of the straight then switch targets north where the Germans have nothing to answer with.

No, you need 4 dude. Look at the seazones and analyze. The reason you only need 3 when going to Southern France is that you can have your navy and 4 transports on Seazone 93, and constantly move units to 93, then back to 92 ready to take the next set of guys from Morocco. It takes up 2 of the transports movement.

This is where you show some inexperience. I’ll walk you through it. You move your ground units into eastern Canada, and transports into SZ106, You move second set of transports to SZ 109. The third sits in SZ110 the English Channel.

SZ 106 is safe for obvious reasons. SZ 109 has air cover form both England and Scotland, and SZ 110 has the bulk of the Yankee Navy under the umbrella of British aircover from England. 3 sets. Its cheaper and it’s safer, and you get units in the fight just as quickly.

You can set it up just as fast by having enough transports and ground units ready at the bringing of turn 4 when you move the first set to Gibraltar to close the straight and claim Morocco. Meanwhile a second set simultaneously moves to SZ 106 and troops march up to Eastern Canada. Turn 5 you make beach-head in Europe with everything from Gibraltar while moving everything from Canada to England. The third set moves to Canada. Congratulations, you’ve just built a faster, cheaper land bridge, and can spend more monies on other stuff, like planes and bombers.

If the German navy is locked in the Med and the Luftwaffe is in Eastern Europe, you don’t need to “finish” the floating bridge. You can build it over time. The reason you have to build it up so much as per GHG is because of the threat of the Luftwaffe.

Missing this sort of detail a significant oversight and shows that there are some aspects of this game that escape your vision. It leads me to believe what your playtests are missing a key perspective and could be more thorough. I believe you severely underestimate the capability and flexibility the allies have in the Atlantic when Germany abandon’s post.

If I recall GHG’s call to action was to have somebody beat his combination allied strategy. To my knowledge nobody has taken him up on it and proved it on the table. You can tout your theories all day long but they prove nothing. You’ll have to take it to the arena with GHG. until then I have to admit, Middle earth is the real deal and a tough cookie to crack. Is there an axis combination that can beat it more reliably? Sure, but the way you are addressing it here is not the solution. It’s not about taking on each strategy alone in a vacuum, its about hitting it all together. You can’t isolate each scenario, say how to beat it, and then put the puzzle back together expecting it works the same. There is a complex balance here.

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1 said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1

Eliminating all boats in the Med turn 1 is not a guarantee depending on the effectiveness of the Taranto raid. I’ve certainly had it where this objective was not achievable.

Yeah, it kind of is. Unless you get diced, pretty much everything is going into the water with the exception of maybe a British bomber. I’ve done the rolling, looked at all the possible scenarios that good go through with the Taranto Raid, and like I said, unless the Italians get diced, which I couldn’t be less concerned about what my dice rolls are, pretty much everything is going into the water.

There is a lot of conjecture in your defense here. I want to dissect the Med just to show you how swingy that is. removing all allied warships turn 1 as Axis requires a lot of luck. I would wager it maybe 50:50 you can succeed at that. maybe 60:40.

You have the Taranto raid which I have often, not all the time, but often preserved 1 or more ships. Why does this matter? It’s an additional seazone Italy will have to counter with their remaining ships which are a sub, destroyer, cruiser and a bomber because the scramble lost the fighters.

In the case that the carrier is is healthy with a fighter or two or maybe even just a destroyer. What are the odds with the remaining Italian assets that you can reliably eliminate the allied assets in the med? You can send the sub to take out the British destroyer but that’s 50:50. Send a bomber too, sure. Check that box. Then you are left to match the French ships which is also a 50:50. That is a far cry form a likelihood. The odds that all those things work together in the same game is also something to consider.

The Mediterranean openings are very swingy and unreliable.

Odds are the British popped the Itallian ships at malta. Even more likely if the cruiser in SZ 91 survives the german subs, which can happen.

@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:

@pinch1

Instead of me saying “Germany has won the war” I should’ve said “Germany has effectively beaten the Allies to the point to which they can no longer effectively do anything to the Axis powers as a whole.”

That’s a pretty important distinction.

Germany begins with 30 IPC’s. The taking of all 3 provinces of France brings the number up to 39 IPC’s. Having also taken Bulgaria, Finland, and Morocco and/or Algeria brings the number up to 44 IPC’s a turn. Assuming we’re talking the Germans having reached and captured Moscow by then, the Germans should have gotten all the former Soviet Territory from East Poland to Smolensk and Bryansk, adding a whopping 11 more IPC’s to the count, making 55 IPC’s a turn, and thats WITHOUT having taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow. Now, assuming the Germans suceed in taking Moscow that’s 3 more IPC’s for the territory to include 2 more 1 for each territory north and south being able to blitz into Moscow adding a total of 5 more IPC’s to the count making 60 IPC’s a turn, adding on the bonus money the Soviet Union had before losing their capital, but for the purposes of consistency I will ignore this number. We’re not done yet. Assuming the Germans will have secured the Northern and Southern Industrial hubs of the Soviet Union whilst on their way to Moscow or clean it up after taking it, we have Leningrad and Karelia with a total of 3 IPC’s, Stalingrad and the Caucasus being 4 IPC’s and blitz through Archangel for the hell of it making 8 more IPC’s to the count, bringing the number to 68 IPC’s. Now, assuming the Germans have control of this having properly reached Moscow, gives them National Objective money of a whopping 20 IPC’s, 1 for each Soviet City and 1 for taking the Caucasus, bringing the number to 88 IPC’s a turn.

I suppose this makes a bigger difference on just the Europe board vs the global board.

This is how much the Germans can pack by G6-G8. With the American floating bridge made a possibility for landing in France, do I even need to explain the unit builds to counter a meager 8 units at a time being sent over to Southern France?

Now that we’ve counted all the POTENTIAL money Germany can be making, let’s count Italy.

Italy possess a meager 10 IPC’s to start. assuming Germany and Italy did the 3 plane scramble should eliminate any and all ships that went into the Taranto Raid, leaving them to take out the French ships bordering Southern France. Having taken Greece for 2 IPC’s. Tunisia for 1, Egypt/Sudan for 1, and Kenya for 1, makes 5 IPC’s along with the Italian national objective of no boats in the med giving them 20 IPC’s on their first turn. On turn 2, the Germans will be moving down to secure Gibraltar, as well as taking out Southern France giving Italy another National Objective of 5 IPC’s, as well as having taken Alexandria on turn 1 and finishing off with taking Algeria on turn 2 making for another national objective of 5 IPC’s, leaving Italy with 30 IPC’s to spend on the 2nd turn on ships needs to build up a navy. Keep in mind, by now the entirety of the British airforce should be either destroyed or fulled away from the Med to deal with Japan. Allowing the Italians to freely and safely rebuild their destroyed navy assuming the British made a successful Taranto Raid, combined with the slowly growing German Navy in the Med to protect the Italian navy.

Eliminating all boats in the Med turn 1 is not a guarantee depending on the effectiveness of the Taranto raid. I’ve certainly had it where this objective was not achievable.

With all this in mind, the Germans and Italians will be making automatic headway immediately towards Cairo to take it by turn 4 or turn 5, which is right when the Americans are SET to start the floating bridge.

Now setting the Luftwaffe aside, with the Germans and Italians having properly built up a navy and ready for action, setup inside Seazone 92, and you’ve stopped the floating bridge just like that. The Americans cannot and will not attack this navy, because they have no interest risking over 12 transports worth of IPCs to end up in the water, so the presence of the Luftwaffe is out of the question and can be prioritized on taking Moscow.

Why does America need to be worried about Warships moving though the straight of Gibralter to attack the weaker bridge.

Consider the fact that you said floating bridge or not tells me that I dont think you fully understand the merits at which the Americans are capable of doing their floating bridge. Because inevitably they’ll spend more on the Europe side than the Eastern side. And in my thread that I made on how to counter the Floating bridge, Japan plays a SIGNIFICANT role in this.

General Hand Grenade may have told you that “As long as you keep Honolulu and Sydney the Japanese can’t win the game for the Axis.” And frankly, if he and everybody else thinks that all it takes is to just ‘watch over those 2 territories and the Japanese never win’ than they might need to reevaluate themselves. Because the moment I’m finished up with Calcutta and are collecting 50+ IPC’s then this is going to happen: 10 transports, 20 guys, my entire navy, my entire airforce, take midway, attack Hawaii and win the game. The Japanese don’t have to even break a sweat to do this, and the fact that my American enemy is so willing to leave the Pacific theater alone is absolutely splendid for me as Japan.

1. If you’ve pulled back your entire navy and airforce as Japan after taking India I wager a middle Earth UK won’t struggle to reclaim it. By the time you reach Hawaii or Sydney you may very well have lost India again.
2. 10 Transports? You can talk about a lot of things but I know Japan’s capabilities. If you have 10 transports at that stage of the game you are most certainly weak on ground forces in the mainland. Especially with 3 factories built. If you are weak on mainland ground forces you are in trouble as Japan.

Like I said, a proper German player doesn’t need to cover Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome or Normandy simply if they understand how the Floating Bridge works. The floating bridge works in such a way that 2 sets of 8 transports shuck troops back and forth into Africa from N. America. Then, the way the utilize Southern France is with the very fact that with 1 single group of transports, they can move back and forward taking guys into France only need 12 transports in total to take guys form North America to Morocco and then into Southern France. If the Americans wanted to make a floating Bridge that linked into Normandy or Denmark than that would require an entire extra link of 4 transports to get troops in there. This is why America prioritizes landing in Southern France.

You very much need to cover all those places because even a one shot landing on Western Germany is worth losing a few transports. You take Western Germany and downgrade the industrial complex. Sure they take it back but Germany’s ability to defend just got a lot harder when you can’t pump out enough guys to defend with.

Another thing to note is that you only need 3 sets of transports if you use the north Atlantic route. Its even more protected. Early landings can be effective with sets of 3 or even 2 transports but the American probably has 3. it doesn’t take much to transform the line so that you only need to cover a single portion of exposed transports with your navy. You go from Canada, to UK with a set, and half a set sits in the English channel. You have air cover from scramble too. If the German fleet is in the med without air support they can have it. You unload Gibralter to close off of the straight then switch targets north where the Germans have nothing to answer with.

As for the last paragraph you posted, what are you sorry for?

If you’re sorry for the idea that this isn’t a ‘new strategy’ than, with all do respect, I suggest you look back at my original post of what this strategy was all about.

I think its obvious that if we send everything we have into Russia that we’ll find some success in taking them out. Until a certain General hand Grenade came along and said he developed a strategy for the Soviet Union involving counter attacking that was ‘impossible’ to defeat. And taking it upon myself, I found a way to counter the so said ‘unbeatable’ strategy. Like I said before, this Blitzkrieg opening is in no way supposed to thoroughly go through every single move of Barbarossa. Because after you’ve broken the Soviet Maginot Line 2.0 than the game runs like clock work of taking more Soviet territory by the second.

I watched the soviet strategy and its not the Soviet strat that holds back the Germans. I can already see several flaws in the GHG Russia strat and I’ve played it. Its the fallback in conjunction with Middle Earth in conjunction with Floating Bridge that work together with the two latter being the more important. He buys a tank and an artillery each turn. in hopes of destroying exposed German armor. The solution is simple, don’t expose your armor by spreading too thin.

As for winning the game, the Axis do what the Axis do best, and win the game quickly. By G6 when the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, they’ve taken Stalingrad and Leningrad, and likely Cairo, and all of a sudden the very means at which the USA is finally prepared to make landings in London, it’s already too late. All 8 victory cities have been won for the Axis on the Europe side of the board.

The Allies’ only hope at winning is to draw out the game, make it long. There’s no magic bullet the US can use to make a quick landing in Berlin and end the whole war. The game needs to be drawn out and weighted to which the Allies arrive to save the Soviet Union. These are 2 different playable aspects that collide with each other to win it all.

When this game made it’s debut, everybody did Barbarossa. They did it, had success and said “I’m bored, I need to find a new method of winning.” Because at the end of the day this game goes so much more in depth than just doing a Barbarossa attack. I’ve had the privilege of being able to see this concept multiple times starting from Axis and Allies 1941 edition to A&A Anniversary, A&A 1942 edition, all the way to Global 1940. I can say from experience of many previous games that this strategy goes more in depth than just the Barbarossa attack.

I hope this clears the air of confusion and misconception.

And yet all you are Suggesting is G3 Barbarossa variant with Afrika Korps. both strategies everyone including GHG is aware of for some time as the leading contenders in the Axis arsenal. Both strategies that GHG claims are not reliable enough to counter The allied combo of Russia Fallback, Floating Bridge and most of all Middle Earth.

@thedesertfox Except Germany hasn’t won the war. You still need Egypt or London. Accompanying a middle Earth strategy do you expect to claim egypt after:

a: Losing a huge chunk of your forces in the battle for Moscow
b: Fending off American Beachhead.

Floating bridge finished or not. If the USA player sees planes leave striking distance of the shores of Western Europe they will be staging as close as possible, dumping troops in North Africa, setting up to take Rome, etc. You don’t need much to cover transports if the luftwaffe is in Ukraine. Unless the Luffwaffe is at least in Western Germany you can’t retaliate against a landing.

Assuming Moscow falls turn 6 AND your planes were on Bryansk to start they will be at best Eastern Poland at the end of the turn. To reach Bryansk they would have needed to be on Western Germany end of Turn 4. USA would see this and probably stage in Gibralter SZ 91 with minimal coverage, maybe 3 transports, a couple carriers, Battleship, cruiser and destroyer.

This means turn 5 when the luftwaffe heads over to Bryansk, America is free to beachhead in France. Turn 6, Moscow falls, wave 2 arrives in France. Turn 7 potentially a 3rd arrives probably with 4 transports or more and your planes still cannot touch American navy. So yes, your planes are out of position turn 4, 5, 6, AND 7 to do anything against the incoming invasion if you plan on sending them over to crush Moscow. I was being generous buy suggesting 2-3 turns.

Add to all this, the sheer ability to harass that America has from SZ91 alone. Listing possible targets that Germany can’t cover all at once: Normandy, Southern France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome. If the German player takes planes to Moscow for the early capital grab America can establish a beachhead or land troops wherever it pleases to cause the most damage to your game. Letting USA establish a foothold is really bad.

I am sorry, I do not see how this is a new strategy. People have known that you could claim Moscow hands down as Germany if you brought everything to the table from the get go. This is nothing new. The challenge still remains, can you hold onto everything in Europe AND capture Egypt before the end. USA is not just going to sit around and wait. They will mobilize turn 4 and at the very least make sure you hold back your planes. They will at the very least establish a strong enough presence in N.Aftrica with tanks and Mechs to make sure Axis never claims Cairo. With Moscow falling on 6 and a luftwaffe unable to touch the American transports until 8, the floating bridge is established anyways if they only needed 5 turns of building to begin with any planes required to defend transports can be built on 5 or six and land on carriers before Germany can remove them. Its a tough prospect. Especially on the Europe board alone where there’s no Japan to pressure the States.

@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.

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.

So my results so far with the German Atlantic fleet are inconclusive with a test game I am currently running. I’m playing out the land bridge scenario with Middle earth and about 5-6 turns in. If I could use a single word to describe the game it would be stalemate.

UK Middle earth is feverishly reinforcing India from the Japanese who are making small gains in their push to take India.
Japan has a strong position with minimal investment of America in the pacific Japan has had an easy time securing their holdings in the south pacific and creating a steady supply of troops to the mainland. Having slowly conquered China and built a wall of infantry on the Chinese/Russian border Japan is poised to push into Russia’s back door from multiple directions and claim the first major swing in IPCs that would likely swing the balance in favor of the Axis. Their fleet is easily twice the size of the combined American & ANZAC fleet conglomerated on Hawaii. Japan has the luxury of options at this point and is dictating the pace of the game on the pacific side.

USA has advanced their floating bridge fleet to Gibraltar. A last minute airbase purchase from UK allowed their north African planes to land protecting their fleet from the looming German navy based in the English channel which is on par plus a few subs and destroyers. A battle in the Gibraltar sea zone could tip either way, its a 50/50 gamble. Neither side has an advantage. An attack would surely cripple the landing force, transports would survive but planes would be forced to land Italy has a token naval and air force protecting the sea zone around Rome which the Americans cannot penetrate without a naval escort. Their transports would be doomed to perish. and the landing force would have a narrow margin of success. The choice is Germany’s at this point an attack will cost their navy but buy them time, perhaps 3-4 turns of security in Europe as USA rebuilds their escort.

UK is tied up in India and cannot help elsewhere without losing ground in India. India requires full support to withstand further Japanese gains into their territory. Russia is holding. Neither force is large enough offensively to overcome the other defensively at a margin that would provide much assurance. Still looking like they have to retreat back to the capital which is bombed to the max. Their factory in Ukraine is about to fall and with only a single factory remaining and Japan about to provoke war form a second front it is unlikely Russia will be pushing back unless Germany has to retire their planes from the front. Which they might depending on what happens in the west.

America has one choice for a successful landing to make an impact, which is Italy. An assault North is unwinnable without the coverage of a defensive air force scramble. First they have to push through a blocker destroyer but also they have to split the fleet to ensure Italy does not block a second turn. An impact has to be made now and capturing Rome even for just a single turn could offset the balance. Enough defense must be left to cover the second wave of transports from an air assault of a potential. The lone destroyer must be used as a blocker to prevent the German navy from accompanying the air assault.

Long story short, can the Axis hold off the american beachhead? It’s 50/50 and will make or break the game. Both sides need to weight the risk reward at this point as the margins for error are extremely narrow.

Based on this play test yet unfinished the game remains balanced on a pin head. Which is what I hoped for. I think the strategy is sound. Will keep you posted of the final resolution.

@oysteilo I think if America buys so many subs They pretty much playing right into German hands. I’ve done the mass sub buy before and it sounds good on paper and just never pans out. For 2 more IPCs you counter with a destroyer. A single destroyer nullifies your sub abilities. A full turn of subs and bombers? No ground troops? You just lost a turn. That’s the whole point. Make the USA dump all its monies into navies. Now eventually the USA with several turns of full buys in navies will overpower the German navy. But they have to significantly outpace the German navy because what you do when the USA is too powerful is pull back, but by that time Russia is pushed back to Moscow, Japan has secured India. The Axis have found economic advantage you the allies are yet to build boots on the ground.

Once you see those subs drop and move up you can build a few destroyers and start picking off subs with air support. What America needs is protection for its transports because one or two landings isn’t going to win the allies the game. It has to be a sustained allied beachhead to make way into Germany. A whole turn of subs aren’t going to protect your transports when they make their first landing. Pull your entire airforce back and deal with the American beachhead. Let Russia take their territory back piecemeal it’s going great to take 3 or 4 turns to push back into German territory.

It’s not unbeatable but this is in response to the UK moving all support to the middle of the board and not supporting the US beachhead. The strategy works when USA pretty much ignores Japan and goes all in to invade Germany. Thing is the USA has to do two things.

1. Create a sustainable beachhead
2. Protect its transports from German counterattack.

It is absolutely worth it for the German player to sacrifice everything to blow that escort out of the water. That puts the USA back like 3 turns. The idea is to protect mainland Europe or at least narrow the American options for attack routes.

The most cost effective route for America to go is to establish a continuous beachhead is in the English Channel, with air cover and additional naval support from GB. Alternate routes will cost more. More $ = more time, which is exactly what the Axis want. Anywhere else with continuous chain of invading ground troops will net you an additional set of 3-4 transports and a longer chain. If Italy is your route the following logistical problems present themselves.

1. Transport chain is stretched and exposed
2. You cannot ignore a large German fleet presence and will therefore have to divide your fleet to protect transports at both Gibraltar and the Italian coast.
3. You’ll need to spend 30 IPCs a turn just to pump out Ground troops leaving 40 for everything else

Also remember Japan was just left to its own devices. By all means build a round of subs and bombers. That’s a whole turn of no more ground troops landing in europe. Happy day. So the thing is you have to contend with the Germany navy because if you go around it. It’ll go through your back door. If you contend with it you’ve got no support because UK is dumping all it’s resources in the Middle East. By now Japan is rocking half a dozen loaded carriers in the direction of the enemy of it’s choosing toting a 90+ IPC economy. It’s unstoppable at that point. If you haven’t made breakthrough into land in Europe by now you’re in rough shape.

I believe that this strategy is sound and relatively inexpensive way of keeping America off the land. I don’t think they can make the appropriate impact without UK assitance soon enough to stem the tide.

If Middle earth is the strategy that it’s amped up to be this is the counter. You put your money where the UK isn’t. The Atlantic and force the USA to build a stronger bridge. GHG has 3 carriers and 2 battleships to escort his troops. The rest is transports and troops. That’s enough when the German player has a merger naval presence. Not enough when the German navy is on par and the Luftwaffe is in waiting. Instead of spending your excess in ground troops to defend the land throw it into ships. That force the USA to spend more on ships that can’t take land. You’re essentially buying time for Japan.

See the problem with buying land troops in Europe is you have to defend like 10 possible beachheads. You’ll need to spread out like 50 infantry and spend 3 -4 turns making this impenetrable wall in France only to have the allies make landing in Italy or Norway, establish a base and then bomb the crap out of Germany.
If you put that money into the navy you don’t need ground forces in Europe in eccess. You protect your key zones only because the yanks might land without a fuss but they’ll be out of position and vulnerable. That escort force has to be large enough to absolutely withstand a German assault, not on par. It has to be twice as large. America doesn’t want to be chasing a navy around the board. America want to land marines. They can’t do that safely with a sizeable German navy on the board.

This is easily countered by UK investing it’s money in altantic to support, but then we’re back to the issue of Japan taking India too easily again. Around and around we go on this roller coaster.

TLDR: It’s not an absolute deadbreak strategy but if Middle Earth shifts favour into the allies hands I says this puts it back to par. May the better player win.

@Argothair give it a try. You might be surprised.

Yes I meant Berlin. Point I’m making is that the units that can make it to Moscow are typically the units bought in the first 3 turns because it takes 5 moves to reach Moscow from the nearest factory in Berlin. So if you want to hit Moscow ASAP that means you have to have the bulk of your infantry in place. Meaning a round 2 purchase can assault Moscow On the 7th round and so on and so forth. If you rush in with early purchases in infantry and artillery G1/2 then you can probably seal the deal in Russia and from R3/4 be dedicating more money to the western front. Which can be a lot of money on navies to contend with a landing force. America will have to go full Europe and Japan will ravage the pacific.

A mix of stuff. It’s essentially a way for UK to get a lot of stuff exactly where it’s needed. The axis players start gunning for India or Moscow because once you get to that point it’s essentially over for the allies. So middle earth is aimed at taking away that crush victory. Which works IF the axis plans are to go all in for the knockout punch between turns 7-9.

What I like to do with the axis when I see a knockout is inprobable is divert attention to securing economic edge whist turtling the enemy. It’s easy for Germany to turtle Russia. You’re essentially gunning for Moscow turn 7 at the soonest. Infantry/Artillery from West Germany can be at Moscow on 7th turn. Maybe some tanks and mech too but mostly with your starting units and troops bought from turns 1-3 that puts Russia in the back foot. At that point you force a battle to the gates of Moscow and Eussia is forced to turtle. Then you envelope take their territories and bomb their factory to oblivion. Once you’re close enough you use bombers and escorts. If he decides to intercept yo’ll lose planes but you can replace he can’t. Do the same to India too with Japan.

Now a good chunk of your monies in Germany can go toward your navy. If he’s spending all his money in middle earth he has a measly 2 fighters in GB. Park a couple carriers and destroyers and a sub or 2 in the convoy SZ of GB and Scotland to remove a combined 8 IPCs from UK. For a pretty cheap investment you can have 3 German carriers loaded with fighters. It’ll be impossible for the US to establish a beach head without UK support from GB. Germany can just amass it’s navy and combined Luftwaffe to destroy the land bridge as soon as it moves into position.

Get Japan rolling with 5-6 carriers too and the US has to split it’s purchases to keep The Japs honest.

In the end UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs after convoy raids which will limit their impact on the board at middle earth. America will never land without UK intervention in the Europe theatre. Germany with otherwise always have enough to kill that land bridge. And it’s completely worth it. Busy the time US rebuilds their war ships to restore the bridge. Germany has rebuilt the Luftwaffe and some ships again. If UK ignores the German navy just convoy them. This works even better if you survive the German battleship in the opening round.

Tried it out and it seems to be every bit as effective as it’s made to be. My thoughts to beating it are about not caring about the Middle East. When I win with the axis it’s because you push for economic advantage and then maintain.

You can make Japan an IPC monster without taking India. Just keep them at 0 dollars by bombing the crap out of them. While China and rake Russia’s back door.

Taking the Middle East for Axis is like a win more strategy that puts the nail in the coffin. You can drop Russia to Nothing by turtling them in Moscow and clean up their IPCs. You should be able to get Germany and Japan roughly 70+ without winning the game. In the process Italy should be around 20. So that’s like 160 IPC. You’re left with USA 70+, ANZAC 10, UK 35-40. So it’ll be 160 to 120. You’ve already won if yo can maintain your gains. Just play the long game at that point. So you don’t take Calcutta in 7 turns. You’ll get there. Shift your focus away from winning all out to winning by attrition.