Does anyone still do a G1 Barbarossa?

[weddingsinger]

I’m curious if anyone still invades Russia G1, even if its only sometimes, and, if so, how does that go for you?

As best as I can tell, it probably costs Germany a couple of tanks early, but does it end up clearing out some Russian infantry?

Basically I’m asking, is it worth it?

To me it looks like you can take the Baltic States and Eastern Poland with your infantry and help from the two planes on that side of Europe, but not Bessarabia or the Russian cruiser unless I want to involve tanks?

Allied players, if you see a G1, does that change your UK buy?

[Navymule]

If I’m playing Allies and Germany does a G1 on Russia, my first purchase is a factory in Egypt. I think one of the drawbacks to a G1 Barbarossa is Italy ends up minimized most of the time. Just my 2 cents.

[weddingsinger]

@Navymule:

If I’m playing Allies and Germany does a G1 on Russia, my first purchase is a factory in Egypt. I think one of the drawbacks to a G1 Barbarossa is Italy ends up minimized most of the time. Just my 2 cents.

This is actually why I’m asking.  I’m considering it as a strategy to then do Sea Lion.

Full idea: Germany on G2 can easily bring enough troops for Sea Lion back to Germany, W. Germany, and Norway, but now UK didn’t build in London, or built very little. I thought it might be a fun idea to pull every once in a L-O-N-G while.

[Navymule]

I would imagine your Allied opponent would notice the movement west and take appropriate actions. In my example, after a mIC on UK1 and then you move ground troops back west on G2, I could build defensively on UK2.  But then you leave yourself vulnerable to the Soviet counterattack. I think moving your German ground troops back and forth like that on the first two turns weakens any assault you may have.

IMO if you attack the Soviets G1, you have to table Sea Lion until you have the eastern front well in hand. But I’m sure there are some that will refute that.

[weddingsinger]

@Navymule:

I would imagine your Allied opponent would notice the movement west and take appropriate actions. In my example, after a mIC on UK1 and then you move ground troops back west on G2, I could build defensively on UK2.  But then you leave yourself vulnerable to the Soviet counterattack. I think moving your German ground troops back and forth like that on the first two turns weakens any assault you may have.

IMO if you attack the Soviets G1, you have to table Sea Lion until you have the eastern front well in hand. But I’m sure there are some that will refute that.

G2 usually ends with London factory max bombed by 3-4 bombers, so that’s less an issue.  So the U.S. presumably won’t be rushing units on US1 to get to London, and UK2 will only have 10-15 ipcs to spend on defense.  That means London should have about 5 AA, 7 inf, 1 mech, 1 tank, and 2 fighters, then whatever UK buys with 15 ipcs, so the move should mean they’ve got 1-3 fewer inf and 1-2 fewer fighters

So here is what Germany ends up with: You take 6 or 7 inf from Norway/Finland, 2 inf that started in Denmark, and 2-3 from Germany (who move to Poland on G1) so Germany still has about 15 infantry in Romania/Bulgaria at the end of the turn (depends on Yugoslavia attack/retreat), and only 2 art and 2 or 3 tanks.

But Russia doesn’t know about Sea Lion on R1, so not sure how aggressive they’d be.  That’s what I’m thinking through… a 6 tank buy might be their best option but they’re not attacking German territory until R3 for sure.  A still strong U.S. Atlantic buy and Russian tanks might be the combo that means its a truly terrible idea.

You really do risk ceding Finland/Norway to Russia and Italy has to commit to the Russian front.

But… you take London G3, and G5 you have 10 or 11 transports to retake everything on the Baltic sea: Norway, Finland, Novgorod, Baltic States, and Poland.

[Navymule]

All good points.  But once Germany buys a crap ton of transports, it’s on like Donkey Kong with the Soviets.  You don’t buy than many transports to attack Novgorod.  The Reds will know at that point you’re going to London and buy appropriately. So will the Americans.  I am no fan of Sea Lion, but understand its role in the game. I think the threat is more important than the execution, at least in the first five or so turns.

Once you capture Moscow, however, I think that Sea Lion is quite viable.

All in all, I think a G1 attack used as a feint for Sea Lion is risky, at best.  Good to think about though.  8-)

[cyanight]

Almost 90% of the time I do a G1 with Axis.  Yes its risky but you can take Russia on turn 5.

Building an IC in Egypt is a bad idea for G1.  Its better if you place in Persia.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I think UK factory on Egypt is bad for UK regardless what the Axis powers does because you never know if Italy can get the drop against UK. The issue I have with G1 USSR is that you are spreading yourself thin against France and USSR. I don’t think it’s wise to go for USSR west border, Paris, and all the neutrals in one move plus you might be isolating Italy before that nation can get off its feet.

[weddingsinger]

@cyanight:

Almost 90% of the time I do a G1 with Axis.  Yes its risky but you can take Russia on turn 5.

Building an IC in Egypt is a bad idea for G1.  Its better if you place in Persia.

May I ask what you do, exactly, on G1?  I was looking at the board and it seems like I’d do a pretty standard opening and then send:

3 inf and 1 tactical to Baltic States (3 Russian inf)
2 inf and 1 tank to E. Poland (2 Russian inf)
2 inf and 1 fighter to Bessarabia (2 Russian inf)
1 tank from Romania goes to Yugoslavia to allow retreat to Romania
1 tank from Slovakia/Hungary goes to Bulgaria

Which only puts 1 tank within range of the Russian counter attack but not great odds that I’ll win all 3 battles.

[Caesar-Seriona]

The issue with a G1 Barbarossa too also puts the Germany Baltic Fleet at danger since half of it can’t reach UK so you might want to go after the cruiser and submarine which means that USSR might scramble their fighter.

[cyanight]

@weddingsinger:

@cyanight:

Almost 90% of the time I do a G1 with Axis. � Yes its risky but you can take Russia on turn 5. �

Building an IC in Egypt is a bad idea for G1. � Its better if you place in Persia.

May I ask what you do, exactly, on G1? � I was looking at the board and it seems like I’d do a pretty standard opening and then send:

3 inf and 1 tactical to Baltic States (3 Russian inf)
2 inf and 1 tank to E. Poland (2 Russian inf)
2 inf and 1 fighter to Bessarabia (2 Russian inf)
1 tank from Romania goes to Yugoslavia to allow retreat to Romania
1 tank from Slovakia/Hungary goes to Bulgaria

Which only puts 1 tank within range of the Russian counter attack but not great odds that I’ll win all 3 battles.

Actually I stack E.Poland with 6 tanks and 2 inf. Attack Yugo with 4 mech and 7 inf. Retreat to Romania. Now you have 4 mech in Romania.  Use planes to take Baltic, Bessarabia and France.  I like to one hit France if possible. Do not attack ships with planes use them on France.  Use subs on Ca, DD, TT.  I play with USA not at war for 3 turns.  Most players don’t know how to utilize a huge navy the way it should be.  Russia should fall by turn 5.

[KGrimB]

I know its probably not optimal, but I pretty much always build 6 inf and 1 fighter on London UK1. I always send some aircraft to the Mediterranean and with 60-70 ipcs on G2, Germany can attempt Sea Lion even if they may not have been originally considering it unless you have the defenses.

I would also agree against the factory in Egypt. It can be a little precarious early with nearby German air and I think that normally games where you have an option to build a factory in Egypt are games where the Mediterranean is already in the Allies’s favor. It doesn’t exactly create opportunities the same way a factory in Persia does. Just use transports with South Africa.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@KGrimB:

I know its probably not optimal, but I pretty much always build 6 inf and 1 fighter on London UK1. I always send some aircraft to the Mediterranean and with 60-70 ipcs on G2, Germany can attempt Sea Lion even if they may not have been originally considering it unless you have the defenses.

I would also agree against the factory in Egypt. It can be a little precarious early with nearby German air and I think that normally games where you have an option to build a factory in Egypt are games where the Mediterranean is already in the Allies’s favor. It doesn’t exactly create opportunities the same way a factory in Persia does. Just use transports with South Africa.

Sea Lion on G2 is foolish because ideally, Germany would need to buff its navy, build infantry, and transports so that shouldn’t be done until at least G3.

[Ichabod]

I didn’t interpret his comments to mean a G2 Sea Lion. But if he did, it would probably mean dropping 6 Infantry on Scotland and than attacking England on G3. Double Scotch can get a little tricky sometimes.

[KGrimB]

@Caesar:

@KGrimB:

I know its probably not optimal, but I pretty much always build 6 inf and 1 fighter on London UK1. I always send some aircraft to the Mediterranean and with 60-70 ipcs on G2, Germany can attempt Sea Lion even if they may not have been originally considering it unless you have the defenses.

I would also agree against the factory in Egypt. It can be a little precarious early with nearby German air and I think that normally games where you have an option to build a factory in Egypt are games where the Mediterranean is already in the Allies’s favor. It doesn’t exactly create opportunities the same way a factory in Persia does. Just use transports with South Africa.

Sea Lion on G2 is foolish because ideally, Germany would need to buff its navy, build infantry, and transports so that shouldn’t be done until at least G3.

You misunderstand me. Sea Lion G3 is the most realistic because it is after you buy transports on G2, after SBR, and after T1 convoys. Germany evaluates early sea lion based on what London does turn 1.

With respect to the original question, I think a g1 Dow on Russia to bait UK into not defending for sea lion could work. However, you’re probably short 1-2 transports from strafing Yugoslavia, not hitting other parts of France, missing Russian wheat NO, and committing German aircraft to the eastern front or other riskier battles. Thus you exaggerate your existing problems because you give up all of the pros of G1 and take away units from that front just to get them stuck on an island with 1 VC instead of attacking a country with 3 VC.

It’s too much for one country. You would need to make sacrifices with Italy’s dreams in the Med. You can’t give them the help they need and they would have to spend on forces to delay Russia. They could attack London with their Bomber.

I think what would sell this plan and give Germany a better chance of baiting the UK would be a Japanese attack on Russia. If you bring America into the war you probably have no chance of winning in Europe. If you keep them out you get a better chance at London and Japan can draw some attention from Russia. Otherwise the Siberian infantry are probably garunteed arriving in Moscow and probably other Russian forces would occupy Iraq.