Luftwaffe Strategy

[221B Baker Street]

@shaper:

…
SUMMARY
Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies.  The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly.  …  Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe.  If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.

That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

[SpartanJD01]

I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

(If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

[shaper]

Thanks, interesting variants and some maybe better, will take a look at that, in practice.  Next post has comments about the specific suggestions.

Basically what I’ve been trying to determine, is if its a gambit or a viable strategy.   I’m inclined to think its viable in the sense that it gives the Axis a decent shot at winning.   If it can be easily shut down  consistently or the requisite require above average luck,  then its just a gambit.  I’m not sure yet that it can.  Both sides probably need tuning, will definitely look at your suggestions for modification.   Hopefully its at least a strategy… I’ve practically written a book on it so far :)

Whether it ultimately is a winning strategy or not, I’m not sure.  Definitely a lot of variants and interesting dynamics going on and deeper than it looks at first glance. Probably could get very dangerous with a bid involved, whether it works without one, is maybe.   Regardless, more interesting than turtling.

HIT AND RUN ON MOSCOW
_[A short hit on Moscow is not an automatic game winner, but it can be very helpful and a good trade.[/i]

I just wrapped up a 12 turn game that played out that way.   Soviet forces had to conced Karalia and everything it anchors.   The round 4 air attack was combined with a strafe on Karalia, further weakening the allied position… well I remember considering it at any rate, might have waited until the Soviets moved to retake Russia.   Between Karalia and Moscow, most of the allied planes went down in flames.

Russia went with infantry from the start, as I was now aware that they had no real chance of doing more than maintaining defensive parity on the Eastern front.  This resulted in them having a few more pieces available to protect Moscow.

Germany had a tough fight ahead of it, without the airpower.  Japan had a couple of aircraft left.  The bulk of the allied airforce went down with Moscow.   Japan took with what was available and tried to set up a secondary attack.

Japan used the war spoils from its Russian hit to place two factories, one in Manchuria and one in FIC.  Prefere FIC and India but didn’t work in that game.  Factories produced armor and the ships kept bringing infantry across.   Germany was weakened and had to fend for itself.

After Moscow fell it was anybody’s game.  Allies ended up winning, but it wasn’t even close to a sure thing.
US hit western Europe as they couldn’t get Karalia yet.   Germany had to choose between driving back the invasion and turtling or turning up the heat on Asia.   They didn’t have quite enough to close the deal for the Japanese so went into homeland defense mode.  If I remember correctly they did strafe the Soviet stack at Moscow, to make it easier for Japans follow up.   They countered the invasion with mainland forces and started drawing down trying to hold both positions.

Allies were able to get a grip on Karalia.  Japanese made a couple of runs at Russia but weren’t able to secure it.  
Eventually Karalia/Moscow was reasonably secured (took a while and was in question quite a few times), and the Allies eventually got through on the weak side and were able to secure Western Europe.  The factory came online and Germany went down about the same time Japan finally broke through in Russia.

Was quite interesting, and after the factory build, had no idea which side would win.  I’m certain it could have gone either way._

[shaper]

TANK ROUTE CLEARING/AIRSTRIKE OPTIONS

I don’t think the tank clearing is a gambit, although its a potential tactic.

Whether the Moscow plane strike is used depends on the Allied play at the border.  Most of the time, they won’t be used to clear a tank path, but its an additional option.  If the Allies overplay Asia then its a straightforward German assault at the weakpoint.    Japanese troop placement varies with the Allied response, but Manchuria seems to work better overall.  Mongolia is important in most runs and usually worth the 3IPC cost.

The Japanese may need multiple roads, depending on what Brittain can land to stop it.  Usually its easier to just get the borders.    The entire Moscow airstrike thing is  a gamble, but so is any power move in a game, such as going after the fleet.  12-14 axis planes, with only brittain in between moves,  can drop a hammer on a pretty good size holding force.  If the forces in Moscow try and block access they have to be certain that they can get every one.  If even one route stays open, they will need enough troops to survive the air raid.  This means they need to send enough units to lock a victory over the course of two or three seperate battles.  These generally aren’t favorable trades for them.  They also have to cover any tank blitz routes.  US/UK can commit airpower to assist, but thats expensive as well and may make the fleet vulnerable.

Japan can frequently open up more fronts than the Allies can safely shut down, even working quickly.  Been able to manage it most games.  Not saying that it can’t be stopped, but its not as easy as it seems.  Russia is going to be hard pressed to keep its tanks in reserve.

The preferred use is to have Japan open multiple infantry fronts, likely holding at least one.  The tank is kept in reserve if possible, as it represents another access path.  Allies must react and close those gaps, possibly losing the balance against Germany.  Its actually pretty hard to stop from happening, at least without conceding Karalia to the Germans.

In this particular game Japan chased down the British transport, and carried a fighter.  Actually lost the fighter, but the Japanese were able to make it work.  Bomber tried to finish the job unsuccessfully, could have been a major issue.  Transports stayed out of enemy air range; in the sea of Japan except the landing on the Soviet beaches on R2.

TACTICS SUGGESTED
Fleet Strike
You may have something with chewing up the British Transports.  They can rebuild, but it buys time.  It also really weakens EE.  Worth exploring.  Been meaning to do that, but wanted to run the other a few times.  Was the original plan to just setup a favorable point exchange and get the groundtroops later.  After actually trying it got into this conversation and facing the superfleet, I started looking at the potentials in later usage of the luftwaffe.  Some good possibilities in creating a delay by knocking out the transports and withdrawing.

Extremely risky move, could break either way significantly if there is a big swing in the opening roll.  Could leave crippled or could be facing a pretty even fight against whats left of the superfleet.  Easily as risky as trying to strafe in EE.  Still, all options are on the table.  One of those places where you want to see an average attack/defense or better on that first roll.  That said, if survivors make it they can always boost the Japanese efforts, even a couple could help.

Heavy China
I’ll look at heavy China, but I think it opens less fronts and will be easier to defend against when the perimeter is reached.  Also gives the allies 2 more infantry and a fighter  2/2/4 to the stack later to defend with and saves the Japanese three one point attackers.  Sinkiang also becomes another hole for the Allies to plug, they can’t really afford to let Japan keep it. Worth a look though, might be misreading the value of that approach as I haven’t tried that move for Japan in about fifteen years.  I agree Russia can’t hit Manchuria without getting massacred and losing valuable units they will need at the gates of Moscow.

London Strat Bomb
Strat Bombing London is risky, obviously, likely worth it if the British IPC count drops too far though, often enough.
I think the bomber is a free agent.  Add that option to the list of choices:

Stratbomb (83%) avg IPCs 3.5, but notably variable
Try for the sub (66%) zero risk
Hit the British transport in Canada – also affects british fleet total, (75%)
Support an Egypt Strike (probably needs a fighter escort as well.  Could change Africa a lot. Lands in libya with the tank)
Stratbomb Karalia (every unit there counts too)
Support the Battleship Hit (Increases survival chance 10%, I think the bomber is the more valuable piece there)
Support the Fleet strike in North Sea (moderately increases chance of two ships surviving, insulates fighters and increases chances of getting the fleet in one shot).
Fly it to Manchuria (30% chance of being shot down) potentially useful in that theater.

Moscow using infantry. 
Pretty much what I’ve tried to do.  Usually the only viable option unless Asia goes really sideways for the Japanese.  Might be able to build a wall/counter attack source  in Novosibirsk, with some other troops, but I don’t think that works.  The picket helps, but Japan has a lot of ability to concentrate force.

Pearl
ya I’m happy with it.  For this strat anyhow.  If a battleship ends up surviving all the way thru Panama, it makes a nice boost to the US coast raider, increases the threat level on the West coast as well as giving it the ability to hop.
The transport can also grab New Zealand and the abandoned Australia instead of the West coast or Venzuala.  If the battleship lives, Panama is another option for the transport to hit.  Creates another element that the allies have to track and respond to, if nothing else.  The BB isn’t a huge asset, even if it lives, but it will eventually get into play somewhere and might serve midgame fleet protection duties.

The Med Move
Western Med in 2, North Sea on 3.  This one is interesting and has interesting implications.

PROS
Upside is that the allies have to consider that grouping a target, and its going to cost them some planes most likely, which will be in high demand in a couple of turns.  Allies could potentially commit a lot of airpower to this battlegroup.

If ignored, might make Axis able to cripple the superfleet.

Allies have less certainty about where the planes will strike, forces more fighters to protect the ships.  Significantly disrupts the allied supply chain into Russia.  Its late enough that an allied factory in finland isn’t an option, especially if the US is holding it.

CONS
Ties up an infantryman in Gibralter.  Spain isn’t a likely allied target, so its stuck unless you pay its cost to get it out of there or hold out for the Japanese.  Spain is better left closed for the Axis as it tends to benefit the allies positionally.  Upshot is the infantry man there is dead unless the game takes a highly unexpected turn.

Also less force in Africa which is already marginal and won’t get reinforcements until turn 3 at best, probably quite a bit later.  Puts a lot of IPCs in the hands of the allies that the Germans could be using; 26 points/turn swing for the whole continent, pretty important and midgame may hinge on that jump.  More luck needed in Africa, although the Brit bomber (if present) may decide it has more important things to do than chase down tanks.

Allied BB 
Don’t like this part of the plan.  Taking it down unsupported with fighters is probably going to cost you one, frequently its going to cost you both of them.  Don’t think its a good trade, potential disaster for a small unit battle.  Rather lose the bomber than a fighter anyhow, as defense outweighs range in this strat.  Germany can afford to lose one fighter, maybe. Losing two means without a very good exchange means they’ve wasted their first round buy.

Fleet Strike
Doing the fleet strike might or might not be a good trade for the loss of troops in EE.  Have to play it out to see.
The balance on the Eastern front is situational, but it keeps the Soviets from putting too much into the Japanese and offers a secondary punch to secure Russia if it plays out well.

EE stack
I think the Germans need a very big stack there.  Every unit has to be responded too, if its not on the line, the Soviets can safely siphon troops towards Japan.  Its also may be the support force for Japan or present a direct threat to the Soviets if needed.  There’s a large stack of units that are fast enough and large enough to reach any of Germany’s holdings from that position.    If the Soviets go light on that front, the Axis could draw down, but I don’t think that benefits them particularly, except that it may let Germany place tanks in reserve protecting the Capitol better.  On the balance, I don’t think reducing the forces there is a particularly good plan without a very good reason.  Maybe, possibly to try and lure the Soviets out of position when Japan comes, but thats probably a weak ruse.

Since new buys are probably going in Berlin, and South Europe is almost always safe.  The western front can’t get hit hard until turn 4 at the earliest.  A turn 3 strike should be easy to repell, but may also be optional, depending on the circumstances.  Even if lightly held, its a death trap for at least the first wave that lands, if Germany chooses to make it one.  Allies moving on Western Europe disrupts the Finland supply chain and changes the game dynamic quite a bit, favored the Axis when I tried it.  Later an allied position there  can be a problem, but since the big action should be on round 3 or 4, I don’t see a light hold as that much of a liability.  If done and responded to it displaces forces for both sides.  Given the overall situation for the allies, Finland seems to play much better.

DEAD ZONE MANAGEMENT
However with that in mind.  I’ve been expirimenting with using larger deadzone task forces.

With the Luftwaffe giving air support the infantry tend to fare well and get a favorable exchange rate.  Obviously you can’t overextend doing this or leave your heavy units without too much fodder, unless you want to try and encourage  the soviets to overextend right before Japan hits them.

If the soviets respond to the deadzone, they are taking a bigger risk per unit as the volatility is higher and they have limited air support.  They have to be careful not to over allocate, and increase the chances of being hit hard by a direct German Strike.  As the stack size increases the relative impact of the two Soviet fighters decreases and the exhange rate overall weakens for the Soviets.  If they have mixed builds, it strips away some of the shielding for the main stack.  The situation is more dangerous because the Germans negotiate a better exchange rate overall than the Soviets do and creates bleeding that can tip the balance.

If they fail to take or choose to ignore  the deadzone then Germany gets a favorable IPC swing as well as gaining the potential to send a stack of tanks with a bit of infantry cover right next to Moscow.

Obviously this could be very expensive and may require the Germans to open up EE significantly.  The upside should force a counter that doesn’t have the benefit of finland based units or sea units, possibly when the Soviets can least afford to do so.  May force the airforce back to Germany, where an airstrike has to cross a second AA gun to be exercised.  Obviously this isn’t a move to be taken lightly by Germany as it may set up Southern Europe to get taken as well as putting a large army of mostly tanks in peril and without aircover.  That said, it could be a good play in some circumstances.

Germans have to be careful doing this so that they don’t make a strike on EE favorable.  A lot of how that works out depends on whether the soviets are making mixed force buys or strictly defensive buys and the overall force commitment situation.

ALLIED FACTORY?
A US turn 2 factory would put tanks/airpower on the line faster and free up some transport slots for infantry, not sure whether its a good idea for the allies though in terms of the opportunity cost.  Another use would be that they could reinforce the superfleet if needed by using it as a shipyard.  Of course if f Karalia goes then the factory probably goes soon thereafter.

JAPANESE BUYS

Infantry hits the ground in round 1 because its already there and is probably needed.  Any tank bought in Round 1 can reach Moscow and presents a blitz option. Not sure that its justified, have been just buying the usual 2 trans, 3 infantry, but maybe is a good option.  Problem is that its a blind buy as asia hasn’t started yet.  Might try it at some point.

Any round 2 tanks can provide some mop up ability and may be able to give a second wave at Moscow, especially if the Germans are in a position to mix it up in Karalia, of course they are also less boots on the ground and you very likely will need some infantry unless the Allies completely collapsed on the first round for some reason.

Japanese usually want to buy a bomber in round 3, for additional punch as its the only unit that can reach the front line in one move.  The ground troops can be made up for later, the place will be swarming with them starting round 5 if the Moscow hit is successsful.  An additonal transport is another option.

Infantry is favored over tanks because you need troops that can hold factories if you are planning on building them.  That and the tanks you are churning out later will need shock troops and position holders.  If you hit Moscow even once, you can likely build tank assembly lines later.  Japan should have enough transports to move infantry from Japan in the later portion of the game.  Replacement/additional air power might be worth considering instead of factories if Moscow goes down, but I’m leaning towards a tank funnel.  India and the FIC make a nice combination if Moscow is still being disputed.  India is close to Africa by tread and somewhat close to Germany.  India is also close to any existing allied forces, so don’t build there unless it can be held.

If Japan had enough airpower to survive, a Bomber squadron and the existing fighters might be able to give the Axis another shot at a fleet strike and buy enough time for Germany.  Assuming it can get there before the Allies get a mainland factory of their own in Europe.

[shaper]

@SpartanJD01:

I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

(If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

I always figured the 3 IPC was the cost to mop up the national forces and get the local populace under control.  Not so much that it doesn’t defend itself, just that its defenses aren’t on scale or skill with the attacking troops.   Maybe the cost of paying off the locals to tolerate you having an army there if they are more amicable, possibly whatever costs are involved in getting them to “join your side”, not that they really have a choice…

Most of the Neutral countries don’t matter much.  There are a few that do.   I like being able to invade them, open up the front, increases gameplay diversity.  I’ve also played house rules that just put a couple of troops on each of them.

At any rate, two neutrals have a strong chance of getting dragged into the war in this strat.  Mongolia, almost always, just too convenient for merging attack lanes.  And Venzuala, just because it keeps the transport in range of the West coast and gives a shot to grab Brazil.

[EDIT]
221B Baker
Responded to your post, got flagged as spam, no apparent reason?  Too many consecutive posts?
Anyhow, will show when a Mod approves it.

[EDIT 2]
RE:  221B Baker Street
This was a long post which I spent quite a bit of time thinking about and writing.  It still hasn’t been approved by the mods yet.  Not going to rewrite it.   I posted it as a seperate post because its long,  addressed a seperate post and systematically discussed each of the points made.   I’m assuming there is a consecutive post limit, but since its flagged for review the mods probably have a copy of it that they can approve and post.   Guess that its up to them. [/END EDIT]

[shaper]

@221B:

That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

KJF
Considered it.  Normally tough to execute, at least for me, definitely don’t know the ins and outs of it.  I should study it more.  Just got wrapped up in exploring the superfleet KGF response.

Been several instances where even a bit of presence in the Pacific would have been useful in disrupting the Japanese plans.  Just having a bomber in range is enough to possibly force the Japanese to hold back a fighter to protect the fleet.

Even a more balanced response might work
since the entire fleet doesnt need to be taken out, necessarily to slow down the Japanese.

Post pearl harbor, particularly if its a close battle,  if the US moved into Hawaii and killed the fleet with the PacCoast battleship and some air support (since hawaii isn’t taken, per se) they could probably finish the job without too much damage.  A battleship a bomber, a temporary fighter escort and possibly a transport in range of Japan, could present a pretty serious pretty serious threat of disruption to the Japanese shipping lanes.

Not sure if the fighter if the fighter is needed to guarantee the safety of an atlantic fleet though, and its definitely useful on the other side.  The bomber landing in Hawaii might be safe or at least costly to remove.

Three transports
thought about it during a couple of the games, but wanted to work out the details of the suggested  allied setup first.  Havent’ run the survival numbers, but I suspect it would be better.  Main advantage is speed of British deployments and flexibility.  Could be very good a bit later if the allies decided it was opportune to switch targets.  Also a side benefit in that would be easier to slip allied troops into Africa without disrupting the troop flow significantly.  The battleship is nice if for some reason the British absolutely have to split their fleet but want to make it somewhat expensive to do so,  maybe sending emergency replacements to Karalia, maybe deliberately trying to entice the Germans to hit it the ships.

Spain
By the end of round 3 Japan has to be adjacent to Moscow, so they better be making inroads.

In testing haven’t had much luck with a western based or dual front invasion.  Not to say that I executed it well or understood either sides strategy as well at that time.  I’m definitely better at keeping a steady flow of units going than I used to be, so it might work better.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE SPANISH INQUISITION
The problem with the allies splitting their fleet is that the Luftwaffe can crush individual task forces in one round, limiting return fire.  Allies can easily find themselves in a spot where either the Americans or the British are without a fleet if they aren’t careful, which creates issues for them.

1 bomber and 7 fighters kills 4 ships/round on average and can easily get more without much statistical variation.  Small task forces are riskier though in some ways because they may force the Germans to bleed off air units if they aren’t lucky and lose some of the power in their knockout punch.

If the fleets are split and the first fleet goes down fast, the second fleet stands a good chance of being shut down as well, which creates a major delay in allied deployment.  Germany will probably lose most/all of their airpower if it plays out like that, but their ground forces started strong and have been getting stronger while the allies were building ships.  Japan should have enough momentum going at this point to have the Russians under pressure at the minimum.

If the Allies go for a western invasion they have a much harder time supporting the balance needed to keep the Soviets alive.  The Soviets are not on very sturdy ground even with a pipeline supporting their army and are going to have a hard time staying in the game long enough for the Allies to get Germany down and a strong enough force to stop whatever comes rolling out of Eurasia at them.

Thats the theory anyways…
but its based on minimal practical experience in that matchup, since this strats only been around for a few days, at least as a serious discussion, as far as I know.  The majority of the games I’ve played have been live play and they’ve been years ago, with a periodic immersion in the computer game when I get bored, but even thats been a while, seem to remember buying the cd a decade or so ago.  I pretty much have to sort things out as I go and relearn a lot of stuff.

BRITISH BOMBERS AND REBUILT NAVIES
Strat bombing doesn’t gain much in general, at least until you get heavies.  I’ve got the game set to 2d HBs, but thats just a personal preference.  Always an option, as long as they’ve got enough infantry built to make the bomber stack look like target practice, although at this point the luftwaffe is probably toast.

I think they might be building fighters just to keep Russia in the game as long as possible, also works good with supporting the US navy if they want.  Navy won’t need as much protection the second time its built, main problem is the opportunity cost in doing so.

TECH ROLLS
In general I’m not thinking about tech rolls too much and not using them in test games, just too much of a wildcard and I’ve got enough variable factors in this already.

After I’ve got the strategy where I feel its solid, if that turns out to be the case… might turn out to be more of a gambit to catch someone by surprise,  don’t know yet, pretty sure it would crush someone that didn’t know about it on the first go around.  Couple pretty nasty surprises that the Axis can spring that would be difficult to spot if you hadn’t run into it before.  Anyhow, after I got it wired to my satisfaction then I’ll see how tech influences it.

EE
Hmm, Maybe.  Doesnt’ work on the calculator though, although you might  get an outside shot at Berlin if the Axis get careless.  Tried actually running the Eastern front battle at different stages, just to see how it played out.  Its pretty much a serious loss for whichever side attacks, at least if both sides are playing that front as heavily as they were when I was testing.

Germany has enough infantry to absorb some damage and enough firepower to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of which battle round.  Either side could win on a lucky dice run, of course.

The biggest threat to the Axis is in letting the soviets get ahead far enough to try some kind of Crazy Ivan attack.  Its a bigger threat than anything the Western powers can throw.  The biggest advantage for the axis is if the Russians let the advantage flip to the axis side.  If you are running this strat you are watching that balance very very closely and doing your best not to screw it up.

Eastern Europe has to be built heavily and early.  Units are pulled from Norway and Southern Europe and WE is lite.
Mostly infantry is usually the second build, unless there’s a good reason not to.  With all the big units on the line, they need a buffer, the axis already have counterstrike power.  There is no naval threat to Berlin on R1 except whatever the Canada transport  and three airplanes can bring, if its not blockaded in the North Sea, which it is often. Western Europe has some threat level and is usually protected in R1, after round 2 and the infantry buffer is in place, its more vulnerable.

The east stack is heavy and lately its been going to six/seven fighters as soon as safe to do so.  WE is still in counter attack range, if need be, the bomber is out of there early, especially if there aren’t any reasonable targets, but its going to be a bit before the Allies can mount a serious invasion that can entrench without being demolished.
If the allies really want it, they can take it at a fairly low cost, holding its another issue.  Germany has a pretty big stack that can steamroll it if they need to, although it might cost them position.

Since WE isn’t a real threat until round three or four, if Germany falls back and Russia pursues they will almost definitely forfiet Moscow. 
If Russia splits forces, the Russians get crushed and then the Western powers, while Japan takes the remaining Soviets head on.    At least thats how I see it. 
If its a diversion, it better be one strong enough to unbalance the defense in EE.

Some fresh infantry, and airpower are going to hit it.  If I see it coming, the AA gun is in SE and the other is in East Europe so my aircraft can hit safely.  Pretty good chance they are already moved.  Might just move the SE one if the allies are low on bombers or can only land in Gibralter.  Depends on which side I think benefits from the WE AAgun the most.

TESTING IT

Its pretty complex as far as strats go, so its pretty easy for either side to make a serious mistake.  Lots of moving parts.  Even little things like the raider transport (assuming a pure KGF where it actually presents an unobstructed threat) can make a significant difference in the supply chain.  At times it is very possible for a piece or two to swing the Eastern front odds by several percentage points, particularly the fighters.  The Axis numbers can really take a big shift if the AA guns roll well.  If you try and crack the fleet, let me know how that shapes up.

IF the axis screws up in Asia, or gets extremely bad dice in the North Sea they are in for an uphill fight.

If they miss completely in the north sea and lose their casualty absorbers they may well be better off aborting the mission rather than take the damage (?)  Don’t know, its not highly probable and they can absorb one and still have a decent shot.  They lose a second fighter they are probably going to have to go into high risk mode and start taking some big chances.  If 3+ get blown out then they probably should have considered getting out while the getting was good.  Haven’t had to drop the attack yet, but it seems like it could be a rough ride.

If Asia goes sideways, I’m pretty sure they have to go full force through Yakutsk and/or Mongolia. They really need to be in position to attack even if it means giving up ground elsewhere. If you find a way that they can buy time, that would be useful as well.

Some allied strats might give them enough time where the Japanese could afford to attack on R5, but they can’t afford to do that against anything which effectively reinforces Karalia, as far as I can tell.

I suppose its theoretically possible for Japan to try a R3 attack by going through Mongolia or maybe the army at Yakutsk.  R1 buy trans+tanks, R2 buy a bomber R3 win a 1% dice throw to survive the counterattack at the gates of moscow ….

Anyhow, run it when you get a chance and see how it works out.  Curious about your impressions when you run it.
If you run a different allied strat, let me know what adjustments were made and what the effects were.  If you see improvements to the strategy or something that will definitively stop it in its tracks, like to know as well.

[ABWorsham4]

That is a risky plan, but much must be risked. I like it. Better have some good defensive rolls in the eastern front.

I play defense in the West, adding little as the game goes.

[Guest]

It agree, a useful phrase

[Kingme]

@shaper I remember 1 game I played I had built subs and bombers with Germany and targeted British ships all the time and I had like 7 subs and 3 bombers the Japanese had 9 subs it is a must to have for both sides to have air force and subs and the axis were lucky on land against Russia so I had isolated Britain and closed I on Russia with the axis so a great victory for them it was the 1942 edition game we played

[Kingme]

@shaper why not just develop a strategy to go after England instead of Russia much easier target in my opinion because Russia is to far I have seen England fall before in 1 game I played as the axis I took England with Germany then I took Russia with Germany the following turn had great luck that day probably my greatest game of axis and allies it was the 1986 classic version