SC Opening Theory Guide.

[zappsweden]

Since I cannot cover every single gambit, deviation or unusual move I will only cover the most common strategies here. Simply put, it would be too big a task to answer everything possible.

Tips for Allies:

In the opening turns, Allies have loads of options. Often, the game narrows and they gotta stick to their early decided plan. Watch what Axis does in the first turns because you have to decide your strategy As soon as possible. It is VERY important that France does not fall to early. The defender should avoid moving around too much instead they should use trenches to delay the Germans. Also, planning/building second defence lines is crucial to prevent breakthroughs and to be prepared (entrenched) when Axis reach it.

Important things to look for:

G1) Did Axis raid the atlantic?

G2) Did Axis move any units away from Poland on turn one to get LC or did he gamble?

G3) Did Axis force interception with the starting French air fleet or not?

G4) how many Axis HQ's are there in the west?

Allied Possibilities Before Fall Of France:

Allies can combine almost any of the following tactics. Some are very suited for each other, some are nearly impossible to combine.

UK Strategies:

U1) Buying many corps to fill the lines in France.

U2) Putting some early MPP on air research.

U3) DOW Ireland (turn one)

U4) Replacing the Malta air and get Early air striking force in UK (including HQ)

U5) Buying HQ but keep air on Malta

U6) DOW Lowlands on Turn 1 or very rarely on Turn 2 if Axis ignored Lowlands.

U7) Using Allied navy to bombard Axis invasion of LC and France

U8) Sell Bomber

U9) Send navy to the Baltic

French Strategies:

F1) Selling the French Air

F2) Buying lots of corps and NO french HQ

F3) selling french air, and some navy to afford early French HQ (turn one)

F4). Counter attack Germany when they just attacked Lowlands.

Comments:

U1) If UK buys lots of corps, remember that UK corps placed in the maginot can be saved much easier than french ones since french ones dies when Paris falls.

U2) This tactic is risky. Allies need some luck and get L1 jets during or shortly after fall of France. The idea is, Allies can battle for Brest and perhaps keepng it if they have superior air tech.

U3) Very popular move. Normally, there is no reason to NOT attack Ireland. However, if u are planning attacking LC u should ignore Ireland because it will drive up Italy readiness too much when combined.

U4) This is a risky tactic. UK puts their money into air. The plan is that UK can use the air to attack Ireland but most often they are used to delay Axis conquest of France. Do not overextend your budget. If u battle too much with air, u will be ruined once Paris falls. Use the air where you have the odds with you.

U5)

NOt much difference from U4. UK have less air but instead saves one unit from going to Malta.

U6)

Very risky move. If Axis threw in everything in Poland it could be worthwhile though but this attack needs much luck to suceed.

U7)

If you have bought UK air it is very beneficial to use navy bombarding. If Axis attack the navy, they have to fight air first and leave them with a less efficient attack on the ship. However, it is often wise to bombard anyway. Watch out so that Axis navy do not show up and outnumber you while most of your navy still are busy hunting Atlantic hunting subs.

U8)

This tactic can be combined with almost any other tactic.

U9)

This tactic can be used almost anytime except when Axis has air far north protecting the Baltic.

F1) Selling the French air on turn one is best if France plans on buying an HQ early on. Also, if UK decided to build very few corps then France could sell the air to compensate (and buy corps)

F2) In this strategy, France will do quite well filling thir lines. That means UK does not have to build lots of corps but surely some.

F3) If France chooce to build HQ it is often good to use the buy corps tactic for UK. France will not have many units so they need support.

F4) This one works best if Axis seem to have units out of HQ support in the west early on. Also, France probably need an HQ to do this.

Tips for Axis:

Germany has few Strategic Options in the first turns but it increases later in the game.

Important things to loo for:

1) Did UK sell any air (bomber)

2) Did France sell air+navy early (indicating they bought an HQ)?

3) Are Allies missing units in France (could mean they are planning some gambit in Norway, Spain or elsewhere)?

German Strategies:

1) Sub raiding

2) DOW Denmark

3) Attacking the Allied bombarding navy

4) Prioritise Conquering Denmark after LC i.e not going full power on France

5) Sending the Axis navy towards LC

6) Giving up Ireland (no reinforcement)

7) Sending the eastern HQ west when Warsaw fall i.e before you know if Poland surrendered

[ November 10, 2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[kurt88]

Thanks for the tips Zappsweden,playing the Allies is very difficult,lots of luck involved.I'm sure this will be a great help for many players.

[Sombra]

The standart moves look a little bit boring for the Allies...

Anybody up discussing an Italien Gambit for the Allies? (excluding the possibility of the Rome Gambit) at least it opens a whole new theater in the Med.

And if the Axis Player wants to save some of his ships he has to move some of his air units early to the south of Germany (to prevent a succesful landing in Venice thus delaying the conquest of France)

[Oak]

There is no real defense for the Italian/Rome Gambit. As a result, it is widely accepted that the Italian Gambit is not allowed. Basically, it is an illegal move by the Allies. Players that want to include the Italian/Rome Gambit as an option will have a hard time finding opponents.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Oak:

There is no real defense for the Italian/Rome Gambit. As a result, it is widely accepted that the Italian Gambit is not allowed. Basically, it is an illegal move by the Allies. Players that want to include the Italian/Rome Gambit as an option will have a hard time finding opponents.

I agree regarding the "Rome gambit". I would disagree regarding the Italien Gambit. If you would point me to the discussions regarding this topic I would be grateful. Perhaps you can convince me.

At the moment my personal view is, forbidding the Italien gambit is handing over the med to the axis and telling the axis player forget about the south throw everything on France...

If there is no actual discussion thread regarding this topic we should start a new and I will now stop abusing this thread....

[zappsweden]

Yes, perhaps starting a new topic for the Italy gambit is a good idea, Sombra.

[ November 06, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Sombra]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

[QB] Tips for Allies:

UK Strategies:

U1) Buying many corps to fill the lines in France.

U2) Putting some early MPP on air research.

U3) DOW Ireland (turn one)

U4) Replacing the Malta air and get Early air striking force in UK (including HQ)

U5) Buying HQ but keep air on Malta

U6) DOW Lowlands on Turn 1 or very rarely on Turn 2 if Axis ignored Lowlands.

U7) Using Allied navy to bombard Axis invasion of LC and France

U8) Sell Bomber

French Strategies:

F1) Selling the French Air

F2) Buying lots of corps and NO french HQ

F3) selling french air, and some navy to afford early French HQ (turn one)

F4). Counter attack Germany when they just attacked Lowlands.

QUOTE]

Any favored allied strategys ....What should a beginner do...? You excluded definetly the options to send the fleet to the med, surprise attack on the baltic fleet, raiding into denmark...

[Terif]

Sombra:

I agree with your view concerning the Italian gambit. Without it the Med is Axis. When the ´normal´ italian gambit is done, a lot of interesting battles in the Med can occur, that both sides can win. Only the Rome gambit has no counter and no real disadvantage (+ should be and is forbidden).

But like a lot of other questions, it depends on the point of view:

Who prefers the historical accurracy doesnt like the italian gambit. From a playability viewpoint it is an interesting option with risks, advantages and disadvantages.

[jon_j_rambo]

I was against the no Italian gambit then, I'm against the no Italian gambit now. All it did was limit the Allies & gives the Med. Front to the Axis.

Everybody is against RRI (Rambo Rome Invasion) & that does make sense.

[zappsweden]

Ok, since this is an issue that still keep bugging ppl I will put it up for a vote.

Conditions are that at leist half of the ranked players in the Z-league must vote, else the voting is too small to be counted.

[Terif]

Thats a good idea Zapp

[Dragonheart]

I came to a time where this italian gambit was already forbidden. (RRG+normal Gambit). So i never thought about this issue.

My 2 cents concerning this gambits is that major powers should be untouched and proteced through rules. Otherwise the game would be messed up completely.

If you allow the Italian Gambit you must also allow the american gambit or early landings in russia.

The future-games will see then everytime the same allied move....destruction of italian navy...bumm no counter possible....thats the point.

If you wanna sustain a little bit of historically game than germany should get in troubles mids of Barbarossa when USA joins not early in the game.

Let´s make a stronger USA and forget that crap about the italian gambit.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:

I came to a time where this italian gambit was already forbidden. (RRG+normal Gambit). So i never thought about this issue.

My 2 cents concerning this gambits is that major powers should be untouched and proteced through rules. Otherwise the game would be messed up completely.

If you allow the Italian Gambit you must also allow the american gambit or early landings in russia.

The future-games will see then everytime the same allied move....destruction of italian navy...bumm no counter possible....thats the point.

If you wanna sustain a little bit of historically game than germany should get in troubles mids of Barbarossa when USA joins not early in the game.

Let´s make a stronger USA and forget that crap about the italian gambit.

Regarding your historically point of view. I am from Germany and I can´t remember that Germany attacked Spain, Sweden Portugal..... Or that Italy ruled the med without opposition...Should it be forbidden?

And regarding your argument that it will be always the "same" game. It is actually my feeling right now that is always the same game due to the "No Italian Gambit " rule... Axis conquers whole Europe and attacks Rusia... Britain and US have perhaps one real counterstrike possibilty and have to wait until Rusia joins the war to have any real possibilty to be active..(3 hours play of waiting and waiting oh I forgot this exciting waiting...) Early looses of the substantiel forces lead to "Sealion" and destruction of Britain.

Read the advices from some veteran players regarding "Allied strategy" sit back and read a book... (I know that there are some very good players out there who are able to pull a rabbit out of there hats... taking Spain doing something unusal...)

My point is as the rules stand right now a veteran player will always win against the allied player if you don´t give a 1:8 bit (300 level and above)

[Dragonheart]

This issues has been discussed many times before.

Concerning the bid you are rite. In a normal Z-League game i usally bid up to 350 for axis if i wanna play them, therefore its not a good solution in the PL the play a mirrored game.

[Oak]

Pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain the difference between the "Italian Gambit" and the "Rome Gambit"?

I know the Gambit (a.k.a. the Rambo Rome Invasion) where Italy surrenders on the 5th or 6th turn of the Allies. From the discussions, it appears that this is the "Rome Gambit" and that there is another "Italian Gambit". What does the "Italian Gambit" involve.

Oak

[Oak]

I figured out the difference between the Italian Gambit and Rome Invasion Gambit from another thread.

[Terif]

The italian gambit means:

Allied DOW at Italy + destruction of as many italian ships as possible. This can also include landings in italian North Africa and in the 2 italian cities Bari and Venice to destroy the ships in port (if Allies have enough transports ready ).

The consequence is: Axis need some turns to reconquer Bari and Marseilles, most of the italian fleet will be destroyed. If Allies do it right, they can conquer Tobruk (perhaps some turns later), so it is difficult for Axis to throw the Allies out of the Med. Axis has not much ships any more and no good airbase in Africa.

But if Axis really want to conquer the Med, they can do it. It is only a bit expensive: they need a lot of air, perhaps some subs and it needs time (marching from Tripoli to Alexandria...). Chances are perhaps 50/50 - or something like that - that they can conquer the Med before Barbarossa. So it can create a lot of interesting battles in the Med. All depends on how much both sides are willing to spend in the Med.

This strategy is no "game breaker" its not such a huge advantage for Allies. Sure, they can get/hold Egypt and Iraq, but they need a lot of units there to do so. These are missing elsewhere and expecially this weakens the french defence. Therefore France will fall earlier, and there is no real threat any more for Axis somewhere else than in the Med.

Summary: The Italian gambit has advantages and disadvantages. If successful it can provide a small advantage for Allies, but this depends on what both players do after the gambit. A lot of interesting battles can occur in the Med.

[Dragonheart]

If DOW and landings in the same turn are forbidden the italian gambit is death anyway.

[kurt88]

To keep things a bit more balanced whouldn't it be good to have the African part of France remaining French after the surrender of the French?

The UK should be able to get reinforcements there on time.Axis would have to choose between Egypt and Algiers.

Could be interesting to see in SC2.

[Edwin P.]

Here are three opening game strategies that I have used;

1. Take Sicily on turn after Italy enters the war and sacrifice a corps to hold Bari. - Axis land units can only attack Sicily on a front 1 hex wide.

2. Take Norway - if the Axis delays an attack on Norway and has no air within range.

3. Send 2 newly built French units to Egypt while the rest hold the line. This gives you Egypt with 5 units assuming that the corps in Algeria goes to Gibraltor and the Corps in Gibraltor is sent to Egypt and the French unit in Beruit moves to Egypt after Italy enters the war. This can really slow down an Axis conquest of the Middle East. If The Axis does not move agianst the middle east these units can be used to take Iraq later in the Game.

[ November 09, 2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Friendly Fire]

Options also include evacuating Med Fleet to home waters... Do most experienced players do this, given the prevalant opinion that the med is a lost cause?

on a related topic:

I agree with everyone who thinks the game is more fun with the med in play, what about fixing the problem by simply changing the scenario?

Want to open up the med? Choose one or more of:

- Boost the UK fleet in Egypt

- Add some ground forces and an HQ in Egypt, placing the UK in a position to take and hold Iraq

- start with Iraq allied

- start with Turkey allied

- whatever.

Any play balance problems can be corrected over time with bidding, same as usual.

To me, the "it's not historical!" argument doesn't wash when we have a standard opening strategy where the UK attack Ireland without warning or provocation...

[ November 12, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Friendly Fire ]

[Edwin P.]

To me, the "it's not historical!" argument doesn't wash when we have a standard opening strategy where the UK attack Ireland without warning or provocation...

Consequences - for unlikely, but not impossible actions, there should be a chance for equally unlikely consequences;

IF ALLIES ATTACK IRELAND before Barbarossa, in addition to the readiness of the allies decreasing, add a 5% percentage chance for (30% Norway Joins Axis in self-defense treaty or 30% Turkey inspired by UK actions annex Iraq or 20%US revulsion temporarily stops Lend Lease (UK Loses 100MPP) or 20% Switzerland & Sweden issue formal condemation of Allied Actions (Germany gains 50MPP).

[ November 12, 2003, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Friendly Fire

I agree with everyone who thinks the game is more fun with the med in play, what about fixing the problem by simply changing the scenario?

Exactly correct. Some of the more obvious problems can be fixed in SC by changing or using a different campaign, as well as House Rules.

The Med should be a critical area, for consquences on either side. I'll briefly describe what I've done in the '39 HistResp campaign.

Iraq is given to the Axis, but has no units in it. Two turns away, there is a 5 str UK unit, intended to take Iraq. In effect, its the '41 Axis coup in Iraq that was crushed by the UK, except it takes place in '39.

In addition, UK Wavell HQ is placed in Egypt, the UK 8th Army is "en route" to Egypt and an additional naval unit is added to the Egyptian squadron (Gibralter squadron is also increased by one naval unit). The additional UK ground units are understrength, to represent the Commonwealth units that have not arrived in the Egyptian theater yet.

So while the UK will get "plunder" from Iraq, it also has to decide where it invests that plunder, especially since it has quite a few understrength units.

Hence, both the Axis and Allies would benefit from holding the Med. End result being, as soon as Italy enters the war, the Axis/Allies almost always come to blows in North Africa.