The Double Gambit

[BriantheWise]

Ok. So we know if we stay historical, the Axis win, in all cases where the skill is relatively equal. Because of couse the Allies wouldn't do this, and wouldn't do that, even though we don't comment much on the fact that maybe the Axis wouldn't invade Spain, Iraq, Sweden, Portugal. But they do and can and win.

So the allies have had to start doing some interesting things of their own.

I started using the Dutch Gambit in play and this caused consternation. Not fair. Not realistic, etc.

Rambo would say, bleep fair, this is a war!, or some such.

Heuristic did something to me (and Rambo, who conceded to Heuristic in his match), and that was the double gambit. (my match is not yet concluded with him, so I am not sure if it truly will work)

This goes like so: Dutch gambit Plus invasion of lower Italy with a couple of corps. They take that city, I think it's Taranto, and pound the Italian fleet there in conjunction with the British Med navy.

But here's why it works and here's why there is a glitch to the game, in my opinion. Individually, both reduce Allied readiness. Combined though, it doesn't. Allied readiness goes to about -34, -1, respectively, approximately.

So Germany has it's hands full, Italy is defending for it's life and losing its navy with minimal MMP's. Go ahead and throw in a baltic gambit by launching the French ships, and the Axis are hard pressed to make it out of this and still have their strategic options remaining....

ie, got no ships left....Norway? Got no ships. Alexandria...Got no ships. Massive redeployment of air units? First you have to rebuild them.

It's not just control of the air, at this point. It's about the loss of the control of the sea. And I think it turns this game on it's head.

There is a counter, and it's tough, but the glitch that bugs me is that two allied infractions, in readiness terms, only equal one.

Even knowing there is this threat, of course, balances the game. Actually doing it, balances it more.

I anticipate using this on Irish Guards, and there is nothing he can do about it.

(I think I once said it all comes down to France)

Rambo, learn from the Wise.

Thoughts anyone?

Brian

[Liam]

We could make Neutral Rules. No invasion of Sweden/Spain/Iraq or Portugal.

[Liam]

and likewise no gambits on Italy/LowCountries...I would agree to that cause you never get to fight a real land war in Russia which is the fun part.

[Hueristic]

I would request people not comment on this until after the tourney as i would not like my strategies disected and have a counter found by the comunity before i have a chance to use the to achieve victory and thus the prize which i am working desperately towards. Brian if you have time to post you have time to do a turn. Lets get this game over with so one of us can play irish.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by BriantheWise:

But here's why it works and here's why there is a glitch to the game, in my opinion. Individually, both reduce Allied readiness. Combined though, it doesn't. Allied readiness goes to about -34, -1, respectively, approximately.

BTW this is an untrue statement.

[Kuniworth]

Yes this is untrue, readiness goes down a bit but nothing you cant live with. Im playin Huesteric right now and he pulled this Taranto invasion on me. At the meantime my italian fleet are stuck and cannot move so Royal Navy pretty much hold the cards here.

I think its brilliant.

The interesting thing is that the allied player can decide how big his own losses should be. To dislodge those two corps the axis player needs to move down german/italian troops without much airsupport which will take forever to win. Not to mention the operational movement costs for armies and the british gain from holdin Taranto. And in the meantime the Italian navy will be crushed and the british can if the situation turns bad on the italian mainland simply disembark from Taranto and sail home. Without losing much and tying up enemy forces.

Impressive Huesteric.

There is two thing to do here;

1. An interesting thing to do could be to do go on the offensive yourself sendin some troops down to egypt/Malta. However with the current bidding system this is pretty much impossible as the british seem to get an extra corps from it. And an invasion force may very well be spotted by the british BB:s.

2. The other thing you can do is hit France hard in the south as this is the allies only truely weak point. This may speed up France's downfall.

Huesteric plays it well. Maybe this will turn balance once again to the allied side. I always thought that there were to few really good allied players outthere and thats why we got a bidding system. I believe Huesteric agrees with my thoughts too.

I thought about the same thing Brian does. If these two gambits, in the Low countries and Taranto could be combined with the remaing Royal Navy leading an invasion of northern Germany, axis would be in a sea of problem. Maybe perhaps a gamekiller. France would probably hold out for much longer in any case.

[ January 15, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Iron Ranger]

Great post Brian -bump

[JerseyJohn]

The Italian situation is definitly unrealistic. The country was very secure initially and only came to look ridiculous as Mussolini ordereded his ill-conceived invasions, all of which were done against the advice of his generals. Far from being eager to attack her, the British in the Mediteranean assumed an entirely defensive role, both on land and sea.

True, Italy should not even have entered the war, but having entered her own borders were certainly secure.

In North Africa she would undoubtedly have also been safe if she'd remained in Libya instead of attempting the invasion of Egypt. I can't complain here as Hubert's '39 scenario shows this pretty well (both sides are too weak to attempt anything in Africa) and Bill's '39 Mod requires historically accurate units to be built up to stregnth in order to launch an effective Libyan invasion.

The Dutch Gambit doesn't bother me too much. It did originally but I think now there's both historical as well as game justification for doing it.

By all rights, after the suffering both France and Belgium had endured in WW I there should really have been some pre-war pressure put on Belgium at least after Munich and the attack on Poland! The Belgian/Dutch neutrality still baffles me, especially Belgium. Knowing Germany would have to invade France and knowing the Maginot Line effectively blocked the Franco-German border, you'd think the natural conclusion would have been reached, that they'd once again serve as a dormat! A more dynamic French government might have forced the choice of alliance or invasion on the Belgians instead of merely suggesting it would be mutually advantageous.

An Anglo-French invasion of Noway actually took place; the Germans through sheer luck landed first, troops walking calmly down gangplanks in most places, and only a day ahead of the Allies, so and Allied invasion there doesn't bother me either. Though in game terms, the Allies reasons for going there would not be relavant (to block the coastal fjiords and stop shipments of Swedish ore to Germany, also to prevent German ships from skirting their way past Scotland, which isn't practical in SC).

The Greek gambit (England invading Greece) bothers me. Historically it's sheer nonsense and would no doubt have turned many minor nations toward the Axis.

Over all, I don't think the plunder rule ought to be altered as Germany needs it and it's realistic for them. Russia also plundered. It doesn't quite fit either Britain or the United States. In reality both countries did a lot of rebuilding as they moved along and I don't recall any instances of Britain or the U. S. dismantling factories and sending them back home!

France didn't have the opportunity to exhibit what her behavior may have been so I'll pass on them.

Of course, occupying a countries industrial base leads to some overall positive effect even if it's only to help rebuild local transportation networks destroyed in the fighting, so I think all countries should receive a plunder bonus but I believe it ought to be doubled for Germany and Russia with a reduction of perhaps 15% in the conquered countries subsequent MPP output to reflect poor administration and the effects of having been looted. I know this was discussed before but it didn't get anywhere and I think it's too good an idea to be let go of.

Diplomatically, I think Britain and France ought to be penalized for any invasions they make, more so than Germany, but there should also be a possibility of the Low Countries swinging one way or the other, with the Allies being the more likely turn. There should be a normal penalization for the Allies invading Norway but it should be doubled for invading Greece, Turkey or Sweden, which could not be looked upon as necessary strategically for their own defense.

As I said before, the so called Italian gambit needs to be fixed, though doing so would be difficult. The best way might be a starting airfleet inland and south of Rome to help protect the Italian navy at Taranto and Venice along with a corp at both Bari and Trieste to protect against invasion. A pre-planned naval strike would be both more costly and less rewarding and an early invasion would be utterly foolish.

[John DiFool]

In SC2 you really need to be able to stack ships

in ports. This "cower in fear outside the harbor

while one ship gets to be repaired in safety" is

rather ridiculous. Now, a Taranto-like raid on

a harbor, using air assets, is an entirely different

thing...

John DiFool

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

Now, a Taranto-like raid on a harbor, using air assets, is an entirely different thing...

I wonder if carriers will take less damage on the attack (as long as they are not adjacent to defender) in SC2 in this case. Or perhaps inflict more damage because the target is sitting still?

Ken

[kenfedoroff]

BtW, Kuni, JJ, et.al.

Great thread guys. Now that I'm in the SC Ladder and likely to face(or force) this situation, I find it most interesting.

Of course, if the Italian "at start" locations were changed/(patched) it would pretty much negate the DoW surprise attack.

Sincerely,

Nervous Newbie

[Comrade Trapp]

I agree with the Dutch Gambit and any other invasion the allies or axis undertake (invading Spain, Sweden, Iraq, and even Canada or the United States). What I don't agree with is the Italian Gambit. If it was just the allies declareing war and launching a suprise attack on the Italian Navy then fine, it could have happened and it is realistic. But when allied troops invade all the unoccupied cities in Italy, it is just working the system.

Kenfedoroff likes to invade Libyera on the onset of war. (When Italy declares war on the allies he has invasion forces sitting off the coast of Tobruk and there is nothing you can do about it). I have no problem with that, Tobruk has a army in it and you can choose to defend with it or you can choose to retreat to live to fight another day.

I agree with the Dutch Gambit because the allies have to fight for it and can take losses, it could even backfire on them. In the Italian Gambit the allies do not have to fight for the cities they gain, all they have to do is defend (if they choose to do so). There is also no way it could really backfire, the allies can withdraw at any point of time. If later on in the game the axis or allies leave a city unguarded and the opposing side could invade with no losses then I say go for it, the defender made a mistake and the attacker is taking adavntage of it.

Also, some people talk about how other people make moves the could never have happened in history. I don't agree with that, the axis could have invaded Sweden if they wanted to and there would have been very little the allies could do to stop them, but the decided not to even though they could have.

I don't think any less of the players who use the Italian Gambit or any other moves, I just don't agree with some of the moves they make.

Comrade Trapp

[Jeff Gilbert]

I would love to see a screenshot of the Italian Gabit landings. Sounds interesting ...

[BriantheWise]

Comrade Trapp,

With the Italian Gambit, the allies actually do pay a price: They have to spend 30 MMP's to get to Italy, and another 30 MMP's to get out of there, and they will have to get out of there. The readiness of the U.S and Russia goes down, even further (though not quite enough, in my opinion. I think the U. S. should go way way way in the hole with this kind of gambit). They will get an extra 10 MMP's per turn, to be sure. But on the other hand, Italy is now in the war and bringing in about 90 MMP's per turn.

In some ways, it counteracts the Dutch gambit, because the Allies won't be able to fortify the southern line in time (with just the Dutch gambit, and a bit of luck on readiness, sometimes the French can have three corps on the Italian border to defend that flank and devote everything else they have to the German side of things.

Overall, it makes things a bit of a free for all, which is good. I played Heuristic when he did the double gambit, still took France, and it almost worked out ok. But not quite.

But that was my fault...It can be countered.

Jeff Gilbert,

Picture this. The fleet from Alexandria and Gibralter, and the french fleet from Marseilles, sitting just outside of taranto. Allies declare war and land with two corps. I assume one is from Tunisia, and the other has got to be from Gibralter, just at the narrow part of the boot.

Italian fleets are hemmed in and pounded, Italian fleet in Taranto is attacked overland.

Overall, Two fleets and the sub of the Italian fleet are killed, but will hurt the Allies, the Italians can bottle up the damage as needs be.

Again, I just made mistakes against this gambit, and over reacted....

I think it's a cool set of moves that can be done, yet am not sure if it's to be recommended.

On the other hand, it can kill a Rambo.

Smile.

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade

Agreed entirely that there should be no possibility of the Allies landing on Italy in 1940; they couldn't have done it. Southern Italy should have garrisons in it's cities and there should probably be an airfleet beside Rome.

I don't understand the point in leaving those hexes, as well as Southern France, without protection.

Brian

Good points about the drawbacks of these Allied Gambits. Eventually France still falls and Britain is on it's own, reduced American and Soviet readiness can be a killer for the Brits.

[ January 23, 2003, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Fubarno]

I agree that Italy should have an air fleet at start as historically they had one of the larger air forces at the beginning of the war.The only explanation for it being left out was play balance.

I'll try adding an Italian air corp in the editor and see how it plays out.

I like the sugestion made earlier for modable AI routines for SC2. This could really add life to the game with players developing these routines and offering them up for other players to download and try. It would be revolutionary but I don't know if it is in the realm of reality and be user friendly too.

[JerseyJohn]

Fubarno

A good idea but you won't be able to do it unless Italy is already activated. It's unavailable in the 1939 scenario unless you want to have Italy enter as Germany starts the war.

If you want to add them in the 1940 scenario, having Italy enter with the Invasion of France is a little more realistic except Mussolini was still hedging his bets.

By 1940 Italy's large airforce was hopelessly obsolescent, so it's hard to say what they should have. I don't think two airfleets would be unreasonable, though they should initially be separated by a sizable distance.

They had people researching jet engines and were still sending some of their pilots up in biplane fighters!

[ January 23, 2003, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

I would request people not comment on this until after the tourney as i would not like my strategies disected and have a counter found by the comunity before i have a chance to use the to achieve victory and thus the prize which i am working desperately towards.

WOW it's not often u get to Qoute yourself HAH

So now that the Tourney's over I will comment on this thread. Basically The "Double Gambit" As so aply named by brain is an evolution that when first met will confuse and disorient an axis player. This has the Advantage of shifting the balance to the Allies for a short time. But ALL good axis players have had time now to think of various counters to this and all i have met recently either do this well or give up the AXIS real CHEAP Lol. So in effect it is just another evolution of the 39 Scenerio. Albiet one that the axis player has no control over. Which is probally why there was soo much adversion to it when first encountered.

AS Italian readiness went from 76 too 100 in one turn VS irish i was not able to use it against him. But i did manage to use a delayed type italian invasion and the crux of that was that i drew him off both palmero and Tiranna and subsequently took both as a result (not that it got me a victory mind you). The AXIS still won.

SO my dreams of useing on Hubert are Dashed

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

I think its brilliant.

Impressive Huesteric.

THX MAN I'm Blushin

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

I believe Huesteric agrees with my thoughts too.

That i do man. As far as combining it with a Northern Sea campain I can't see that happening without air cover but My recent game have givin me some thought on other possibilities

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Italian situation is definitly unrealistic.

As I said before, the so called Italian gambit needs to be fixed, though doing so would be difficult.

Poor jersey. If it's not in the history books It shouldn't be played out in a game

Just kiddin man i'll keep trying to find a historically balanced Scenerio with ya till we grow old and...o wait **** we all ready there

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

I agree with the Dutch Gambit and any other invasion the allies or axis undertake (invading Spain, Sweden, Iraq, and even Canada or the United States). What I don't agree with is the Italian Gambit.

This is a Self Negating Statement. But i get your point. THINK of it this way. All it does is give the Axis a bloody nose(the allies get a few more Mpp's while the italians lose some). For a very short time if the axis player does not go balastic and freak out. The Allies cannot hold this city for long if the Axis plays a smart and methodical game. Overreacting to the situation is what will cost the axis the game.

[Hueristic]

Double post.

[ February 13, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[Hueristic]

triple post. Lost connection bunch o times trying to post this and here's the result

[ February 13, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by BriantheWise:

Comrade Trapp,

With the Italian Gambit, the allies actually do pay a price: They have to spend 30 MMP's to get to Italy, and another 30 MMP's to get out of there, and they will have to get out of there. The readiness of the U.S and Russia goes down,

Very true i never did do the math but assumed the allies should get a balance of like 50 when all said and done. And it really helps to slow them Ictalians down i hate to see um take greece or iraq