Mid-game German blitzing Russian south

[Ichabod]

If Germany is able to spend max effort Barbarossa, then the odds are most likely Moscow is sacked on G6 unless the allies can get a large amount of units there like US bombers and UK fighters, ect. I’m convinced of that, maybe I’m wrong.

So, if you managed to get 14 UK fighters to Moscow, you did a good job so far. At a certain point in time, you should be able to fly your air south to Persia at which point what German forces remaining aren’t enough to sack Moscow. (Obviously we all can’t see the board…ect). Also be careful to not overspend on fighters too. Need a few infantry every once in awhile for fodder.

Other players much better than me on triplea have managed to get large UK fighter stacks (+ the French fighter and 1-2 ANZAC fighters) to Moscow on turn 5 WITHOUT a UK Persian factory. No Persian factory means less reward if Germany is willing to risk letting the Russian bear out of the cage. If Russia during the retreat to Moscow did not use up a lot of blockers along the way and really built up a huge strong healthy 2-3 inf per / 1 artillery ratio with a few fighters mixed in, than Russia should have lots of firepower stored and coiled. So, if Germany sends about 10-15+ mechs/tanks south, Russia should have a chance to come out and threaten German minor IC factories somewhere.

One player attacked some Italian units on UK3. I was happy thinking now those fighters won’t make it to Moscow. I was wrong. On UK4 he built an air base on Cyprus in order to get the air movement range to Moscow on UK5. I was impressed. I was doing the max G6 Moscow builds and spent no money on boats meanwhile the US was spending 100% towards knocking out Japan. I had to go for Moscow as soon as possible but couldn’t get it quick enough.

Sometimes I feint a drive towards Persia by swinging fast movers to Caucasus in order to get the UK air to fly south to defend Persia. I do that just so that I can bomb the Moscow Major when there isn’t a swarm of UK fighters in the way. Same turn I move the stack back up.

[larrymarx]

@Ichabod:

If Germany is able to spend max effort Barbarossa, then the odds are most likely Moscow is sacked on G6 unless the allies can get a large amount of units there like US bombers and UK fighters, ect. I’m convinced of that, maybe I’m wrong.

So, if you managed to get 14 UK fighters to Moscow, you did a good job so far. At a certain point in time, you should be able to fly your air south to Persia at which point what German forces remaining aren’t enough to sack Moscow.

@Ichabod:

If Russia during the retreat to Moscow did not use up a lot of blockers along the way and really built up a huge strong healthy 2-3 inf per / 1 artillery ratio with a few fighters mixed in, than Russia should have lots of firepower stored and coiled. So, if Germany sends about 10-15+ mechs/tanks south, Russia should have a chance to come out and threaten German minor IC factories somewhere.

@Ichabod:

One player attacked some Italian units on UK3. I was happy thinking now those fighters won’t make it to Moscow. I was wrong. On UK4 he built an air base on Cyprus in order to get the air movement range to Moscow on UK5. I was impressed. I was doing the max G6 Moscow builds and spent no money on boats meanwhile the US was spending 100% towards knocking out Japan. I had to go for Moscow as soon as possible but couldn’t get it quick enough.

I fully agree with and support this analysis of the board. What I’d like to add is that the “max G6 Moscow builds” probably aren’t optimal play for Germany because the Allies have this ability to defend. Germany should play a slightly slower game and also threaten the UK and gobble up income territories.

If Germany plays this way combined with a good, fast Japanese assault in the Pacific, the Axis are very hard to beat in this game. I am trying to figure out the best approach for the Allies. As mentioned in the first two quotes above, the ability to use your defending units to come out and threaten the Axis when the time is right is a big part of it.

[Ichabod]

I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t do a max G6 Moscow build if Germany is left alone and London was properly defended. Perhaps you have to attack on a later round, but why not get the stuff in place if Germany is left alone?

G1: 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry (Fun Fact: this also works for a Sea Lion plan too because Germany needs a tremendous amount of ground to defend and push an aggressive Russia back after sacking London). Of course Sea Lion requires a crap ton of stuff to go right before you drop 9 or 10 transports in the sea which often makes a very short game.

G2: Mostly Tanks / Some Mechs (My preference is 2 tanks : 1 mech).

G3: 2 tanks : 1 Mech ratio build as much as you can.

G4: 3 tanks in Leningrad if you captured it; (I often do the northern march route cause it’s better for Moscow I think); and 3 Tac. Bombers if you have the money because they can catch up to the stack and it saves you 3 IPCs.

G5: Move into Bryansk and purchase 5 Strategic Bombers.

Larrymarx, Now is when you can be “Conservative.” If the UK flew 14 fighters into Moscow and it’s obviously not falling, than yeah, build your minor IC in W. Ukraine and prepare for the long siege. Maybe only purchase 2 bombers and all mech (because you’ll build artillery on the forward minor ICs). On G6, move into Rostov/ and work towards holding Stalingrad/Caucasus in the G6-8 timeframe while laying siege.

Lately I’m on triplea live all the time. Same handle. On live triplea, obliterating Japan has currently become in vogue…which is was why I think if at all possible, knocking Moscow out as soon as possible is important.

[Ichabod]

If Germany plays this way combined with a good, fast Japanese assault in the Pacific, the Axis are very hard to beat in this game. I am trying to figure out the best approach for the Allies. As mentioned in the first two quotes above, the ability to use your defending units to come out and threaten the Axis when the time is right is a big part of it.

My nemesis probably wants to remain anonymous. He’s developed a great KJF strategy. Essentially he shoves everything everywhere. I’ve seen other people do it to but not to the extent he does. He even uses planes to kill lone infantry and other ground right away. Doesn’t care about his pilots. It overwhelms Japan which is the weaker link compared to Germany. In my games with him, Japan cannot conduct an “assault in the Pacific.” It is very hard to beat him (and he takes no bid). At best I’m able to pick just one target; but it’s not enough to ever get Japan to the point it could win the game.

I’ve been mimicking his strategy and it’s starting to pay off. Lately in general, bids are going to China and Russia for use in allied Kill Japan First plans (or without a bid like my nemesis). I think knocking Japan out first is easier for the allies. The US gets Japan to the point that UK Pac / ANZAC / China are good on their own. Then the US switches to building mostly for landings. When I first started learning to play allies, I tried going for Germany first. That’s not a good plan because then Japan can blow up fast because there is no challenge to controlling the islands which fuels it’s drive inland.

I’m not that good at this game so my point of view only works for me. This game is very fun because of how dynamic it is. The trend on triplea live lately seems to be the allies winning more games than losing (of course the allies get a bid).

[larrymarx]

@Ichabod:

I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t do a max G6 Moscow build if Germany is left alone and London was properly defended. Perhaps you have to attack on a later round, but why not get the stuff in place if Germany is left alone?
I’m no expert either but I will give you my take on the Germany turns as well as my justification

G1: 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry (Fun Fact: this also works for a Sea Lion plan too because Germany needs a tremendous amount of ground to defend and push an aggressive Russia back after sacking London). Of course Sea Lion requires a crap ton of stuff to go right before you drop 9 or 10 transports in the sea which often makes a very short game.
2 bombers / 1 sub
At first I was a doubter but Cow brought me over to this build. Although the ground units you mentioned work for Sealion, Germany already starts with enough ground to bring in to London on G3 if the Brits let their guard down. The planes help much more because they can SBR as well as add extra units to the battle. You strafe the Scottish fleet with 2 subs + 1 battleship and also bring the cruiser out for a respectable North Sea navy that Britain should want to do something about. If it’s still there on G2 you can take Scotland, take Gibraltar, blow up the rest of the British Atlantic ships, or just save it for later.

G2: Mostly Tanks / Some Mechs (My preference is 2 tanks : 1 mech).
Mostly mechs / some tanks
It’s very surprising but if you look at battle calculators this mix of ground is almost as good as your mix on the final assault (by about a percent or so), but of course it’s a lot better on defense. Also, when you start to bring in artillery it’s better to have more mech in the stack because a bunch are going to become tanks and you need some left over for fodder.

Germany’s long term goal is Moscow, but in the mid term they are going to swarm the Caucasus and Middle East or just generally wreak havoc on the Allies with mechanized detachments around G4/G5 when Moscow goes turtle

G3: 2 tanks : 1 Mech ratio build as much as you can.
I’m building mechs to tanks at around a 3:1 ratio here

G4: 3 tanks in Leningrad if you captured it; (I often do the northern march route cause it’s better for Moscow I think); and 3 Tac. Bombers if you have the money because they can catch up to the stack and it saves you 3 IPCs.
I agree with the tanks but I am probably buying fighters instead of tacs because I am using my 4 strat bombers to reduce Moscow to rubble and the Brits are intent on shooting me out of the sky

G5: Move into Bryansk and purchase 5 Strategic Bombers.
Yes, I would make sure to threaten the final assault, but at this point I am already purchasing artillery to pump out of Ukraine and mechs or tanks for Stalingrad and Leningrad.

All of my comments above assume that the Allies are playing smart and preparing a fighter swarm. If I see that they aren’t, I would change my strategy to be more all-in on Moscow.

If the Americans are trying to KGF instead of KJF, that also changes things as I would spend more on defense to fend them off.

Larrymarx, Now is when you can be “Conservative.” If the UK flew 14 fighters into Moscow and it’s obviously not falling, than yeah, build your minor IC in W. Ukraine and prepare for the long siege. Maybe only purchase 2 bombers and all mech (because you’ll build artillery on the forward minor ICs). On G6, move into Rostov/ and work towards holding Stalingrad/Caucasus in the G6-8 timeframe while laying siege.

Using my plan, the Allies still have to fly so much air into Moscow that what’s leftover doesn’t make much of a difference by itself. I’m still forcing them to prepare to go all in on defense because the option to press the attack fully is always there.

Lately I’m on triplea live all the time. Same handle. On live triplea, obliterating Japan has currently become in vogue…which is was why I think if at all possible, knocking Moscow out as soon as possible is important.
Laying seige so they can’t do anything is better than actually taking it because it requires far fewer resources, and you’re using what’s leftover to scoop up income and punish the Allies so much for ignoring you that you make up for Japan’s steady deterioration. You turn it around so that racing to crush Japan as fast as possible becomes important for the Allies as opposed to having that timer over your head.

[larrymarx]

@Ichabod:

Essentially he shoves everything everywhere. I’ve seen other people do it to but not to the extent he does. He even uses planes to kill lone infantry and other ground right away. Doesn’t care about his pilots. It overwhelms Japan which is the weaker link compared to Germany. In my games with him, Japan cannot conduct an “assault in the Pacific.” It is very hard to beat him (and he takes no bid). At best I’m able to pick just one target; but it’s not enough to ever get Japan to the point it could win the game.

I’ve been mimicking his strategy and it’s starting to pay off. Lately in general, bids are going to China and Russia for use in allied Kill Japan First plans (or without a bid like my nemesis). I think knocking Japan out first is easier for the allies. The US gets Japan to the point that UK Pac / ANZAC / China are good on their own. Then the US switches to building mostly for landings. When I first started learning to play allies, I tried going for Germany first. That’s not a good plan because then Japan can blow up fast because there is no challenge to controlling the islands which fuels it’s drive inland.

As with your first post, I fully agree with this analysis. I’ve been testing Allied strategy and I’m developing an opening that sounds exactly like what your nemesis is doing. I still don’t think it’s enough to beat the Germans in time (see my plan above), but I hope I’m wrong and the Allies end up having an equal chance to win.

@Ichabod:

I’m not that good at this game so my point of view only works for me.

That’s a valid stance but my opinion is that we should work together to determine objectively what the best strategies to pursue are.

[hcp]

Thank you for all your replies!  Attached are the rough replication of the game play by the end of the sixth turn (perhaps I forgot some details, and I did not put down facilities in the map).

On the Europe map:

• We see the Bryansk and Moscow stacks.  Russian does not have the odds to counterattack Bryansk even when Germany splits >10 tanks south.  Thanks to the NOs in Russian south, G6 get a handsome income of >70.
• The German bombers are so threatening.  It can threaten Russia inf. build, allowing Germany mobile units to blitzing Russian south, hold the UK planes not going to assist India retake, threatening seazone 93.
• UK has Persia-Iraq factories … but Egypt is about to fall to Italians with plane support.
• The Eastern Persian stack are used to counterattack India.

On the Pacific map:

• Japan gets India in J5.  Japan will conquer Asia in the upcoming one or two turns, to solidify its economic position, and build boats and land units for sail.

PS:

• The Axis’s strategies are originally Dark Skyies (Germany), but the US floating bridge (GHG’s strategy) prevents Germany further build bombers.  For Japan it is India crunch, then securing Asian income, then go for the last VC.
• The Allies’ strategies are (Russian) Moscow R6 stack, (UK) Persian-Iraq factory, (US) floating bridge.  But since Moscow dominates, so UK does not get much land units in middle east.

Larry, wish that you can find some optimal equilibrium strategies for Axis and Allies.  Thank you.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I’m not sure if this could help because I can’t see all of the exact numbers there in the photo, but you could take the transports in sz 91 and the fleet in Southern France (along with the troops there), and land on Rome. It would break the bridge but you could always purchase more transports on the same turn. That might have surprised your opponent and taken Italy out of the game. Not sure if it was too late for that but you could get a couple of extra factories in Italy and then move your fleet either to the north Atlantic or the Pacific. Then you wouldn’t need the extra transports after all. My sense is that you’re too late though.

[Caesar-Seriona]

What a strange setup in Europe. France is back with US support, Italy is basically conquered however Germany flanks are protected by Italy with a stalemate with Italy in Africa.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Also, this is one the weakest naval presents by both Japan and US in Pacific but Japan controls India so why not have Japan smash UK in Middle East?

[hcp]

@GeneralHandGrenade:

I’m not sure if this could help because I can’t see all of the exact numbers there in the photo, but you could take the transports in sz 91 and the fleet in Southern France (along with the troops there), and land on Rome. It would break the bridge but you could always purchase more transports on the same turn. That might have surprised your opponent and taken Italy out of the game. Not sure if it was too late for that but you could get a couple of extra factories in Italy and then move your fleet either to the north Atlantic or the Pacific. Then you wouldn’t need the extra transports after all. My sense is that you’re too late though.

Thanks GHG.  In our game European allies always had an issue on whether to break the bridge to conquer Rome - which means less money on Pacific. 
Actually on the same vein, Germany also faced a tough choice on whether to use its bombers to break the bridge - the loss of Germany planes means Russia can build up more counterattack units, but the four American transports are attractive.

@Caesar:

Also, this is one the weakest naval presents by both Japan and US in Pacific but Japan controls India so why not have Japan smash UK in Middle East?

Thanks Caesar Seriona.  That’s a good idea.  In our game Japan stopped advancing into the Middle East because it preserved those transports and go back to Japan to reload land units.  But it seems Japan smashing Middle East would further interrupt Allies defense/counterattack.
To prevent this, shall we pull back some UK/France destroyers to seazones 78-79 as blockers?

[Caesar-Seriona]

I don’t think anything would come of the naval blockage. Japan is in great position to link their forces with Germany and Japan is already giving the reach around in USSR. Also, who ever is playing China needs to combine those stacks/

[Zhukov44]

@hcp:

Hello all.  In my previous game,
Germany originally targeted a G6 Moscow attack, and in G5 stack with Bryansk with 33 inf, 12 art, 3AAA, 11 mech, 30 tanks (with 5 fig, 5 tact, 8 bombers in Leningrad/Berlin)

When Germany has such a large mech/tank stack (eg 30+, in this case 40+) they are more or less free to drive wherever they want on the map.  What Allies need to bear in mind is this mechanized force can only go 1 (or 2, if they split up) ways.  So Allies should adapt to what Axis does.  This mechanized force cannot be everywhere at once, at where it is not, the Allies need to go on the offensive.

Can UK defend the Middle East?  Some UK opponents have succeeded in dissuading me from going south by building 2-3 factories in Persia/Iraq/Egypt and stacking lots of units and fighters there (usually via a defensive stack in NWE Persia).  But I question the overall efficacy of this strategy.  Axis can press UK by simultaneously advancing on India and NWE Persia and forcing UK to abandon one of the other.  Or they can ignore the UK stack in the Middle East and focus on subjugating the rest of Eurasia (Siberia and China) while keeping their main army sitting in Cauc, which keeps the UK and Russian armies divided and unable to reinforce each other, while Germany continues to build up.

It’s important to try to hold on to Egypt with a combined defensive force if you can, but when the mechanized force is that big, it may not be feasible.  If the German armored force is forced to run down to Egypt, then they probably won’t muster another major attack on Moscow until G10 at the earliest (usually later, like G12 or G13).  Allies have to hope that they can break down Japan and have some kind of offensive in the Atlantic going by that time.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Except in this set up as the board stands, UK is in a very terrible position in Middle East because if all three Axis just goes right into Persia, they will not stand and either let them get destroyed or pull out plus Italy is still in excellent position against Egypt which makes it even more worse as they just can’t really pull out and then engage the west.

[hcp]

@Zhukov44:

When Germany has such a large mech/tank stack (eg 30+, in this case 40+) they are more or less free to drive wherever they want on the map.  What Allies need to bear in mind is this mechanized force can only go 1 (or 2, if they split up) ways.  So Allies should adapt to what Axis does.  This mechanized force cannot be everywhere at once, at where it is not, the Allies need to go on the offensive.

Thanks Caesar Seriona and Zhukov. 
Given my board situation.  In case Germany and Japan go for Egypt or Middle East, perhaps the US player can transport troops and land in Egypt/Middle East to provide additional defensive forces.  Anyway I will test it in my next game.

The thing that the Allies worry most is the German mobile stacks going to Calcutta from turn 6 onward, and help defend that VC, so that Japan can focus all naval/bomber build for the last VC.  Do allies have any counter-strategy for it?  I am afraid that the Moscow stack is too slow to exert timely offense pressure on the Pacific side of the map.

[taamvan]

Well, in theory, if he has to either take the whole German Mega-stack south, or has to divert enough of it away such that he cannot continue to gain odds against Moscow, then Russia “won”, because Germany’s odds decline turn after turn, rather than increasing.

Of course Cow with 78 Axis wins would probably tell you that Moscow alone still loses.  That’s because a power with no money and damaged factories can never climb the “odds curve”, Russian power increase drops to zero, while German units continue to arrive.

[Caesar-Seriona]

The Med is controlled by the USN with no real threat so the US can take its units in France and dump them to support UK.