German AA50 -41 strategy

[Imperious Leader]

Here is another variation of the German plan with targets of Archangel and Egypt on G1, but the odds are not really good and the pay off in terms of allied loses is reduced. Its however a better positional result.

Purchases: 30 IPC gets 5 INf, 1 fighter, 1 tank or 5 inf/3 tanks

Archangel:

2 inf from Finland
Baltic transport gets 1 tank 1 inf
3 fighters

against: 4 infantry, 1 art, 1 AA

15 vs.10 ( 7 vs. 6)

Egypt:
1 tank, 1 inf, 1 Art
plus Medd transport gets 1 tank ( france) and 1 infantry
Bomber

14 vs. 13 (6 vs. 5)

Eastern front:

Baltic states:
3 inf, 1 tank, 1 Art

East Poland:
3 tanks 2 infantry

Ukraine:
2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Tank

Naval:

2 subs and fighter on UK BB/AP in Labrador

Baltic sub goes against UK DD in North sea.

[03321]

@Imperious:

Archangel:

2 inf from Finland
Baltic transport gets 1 tank 1 inf
3 fighters

against: 5 infantry, 1 art, 1 AA

15 vs. 12 ( 7 vs. 6)

fixed ;)

I think a very important discussion/consideration as far as whether or not G1 Egypt is worthwhile is how much long-term benefit there is to keep the German Med. trans and the bomber, as well as what drawbacks there are to waiting a turn to take it.  Without sacrificing the bomber in front of the tank for the purpose of taking egypt, there is a 60% chance of taking it on G1 with everything you can get there.  Good odds, certainly, but nothing to hang your hat on.  If you lose badly the fighter could remain to take out the German transport, or even if you kill everything in egypt but with only the bomber remaining, UK can send his India destroyer through the Suez.  Or he could crazily send his UK bomber down to sz 15 (depending on what other needs it can serve) and land in TJ, possibly shipping 1-2 units from India.  My point being that even if you take Egypt you can still lose your transport.  So, is the risk of losing your transport without even taking Egypt worth the payoff of either taking Egypt yourself on G1 or clearing it for Italy?  I dunno, but I’m tired and shouldn’t be thinking that hard right now.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes thats right. On reason why (big reason) that Egypt was not a target on the first revision. I like you like to wait one turn, but the tradeoff is the UK fighter can go to India and the transport can bring more Inf from India, which added with at least 1-2 infantry from Jordan, brings in 3-4 more units. My medd tranny is also gonna bring 2 more men, (plus the 2 from the first turn landed in Libya)…

This makes for a similar battle but of course obviously the bomber and the structure of the other air units could be better used against UK ships on turn 1 and possibly having only a one turn window to do any damage on UK naval.

Personally, i prefer getting after the UK naval and then turning on Egypt and Karelia on turn G2.

It gives Italy a safer position to start the game with all those naval units gone. Italy can possibly support an attack on Ukraine if Russians retake, using the BB for SB

Italy should really buy a Transport on I1 because she has too many good land units that will take too long to get into battle.

I think Italy sets up for Jordan/ Egypt on I2 and in the meantime hits a soviet territory, or brings her entire fleet minus cruiser to protect central medd transports to the SZ right west of Gibraltar and gives the UK player a real test of nerves seeing all those Axis warships ready to stop remaining UK naval.

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

I do not recall saying anything about countering Germany’s first move.  I am fully aware that the Germans move first.  The added units go into the set up of the game.  They are there prior to any movement by Germany.  Lend-Lease purchases made in Turn 1 get delivered at the end of the Player’s turn 2.  Most of the UK naval units should be on the table, based on the relationship of forces between the Italian Navy and the Royal Navy.  Both the Royal Navy and US Navy are severely cut in all of the Axis and Allied games, except Pacific.  If they were not, Axis wins would be few and far between.

In the same way, in order to achieve that sacred objective of Play Balance, the ground forces that would have actually been present in the UK, and by now fully reequipped from the Dunkirk experience are heavily reduced, along with no allowance for the literally hundreds of shore batteries and coastal defenses erected by the British in case Sea Lion was actually tried.  Coastal Command was virtually the same size as Bomber Command, but is not reflected in the game.

As for the US Navy, it is reduced to a point where it is ludicrious, again in the name of Play Balance.

As for Italy, the following comments are made in one of your previous posts.  What do you plan on doing if the Italian player decides not to cooperate?

**2 subs in SZ-7 and fighter ( Finland ) attack Uk BB and transport (the Italian fleet will destroy the UK CA and DD off Gibraltar.

ON Italy’s turn they take Jordan with tranny landing 1 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter against 2 infantry  ( Italian infantry in Libya move up to Egypt. ( now both sides can pass thru canal on second turn)**

And of course, if the Axis had really won WW2, I would not have been born. And many millions more would have died in the death camps and under the tender mercies of the Japanese Army. And how many individuals presently posting to the forum would have been part of those millions?

Its really starting to grate on me. This continual theme of yours really has nothing to do with a GAME. Its a FREAKIN GAME we are playing.

If you cant discuss a GAME without seeing the need to adjust it so that the Allies always win so you “feel better”, then you probably need to leave this forum.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok guys… lets just leave this tread about strategy. Make your own or respond to others. And no more posts about what should be done to “balance” so that axis lose 100% of the time. Makes no sence in a game.

[Corbeau Blanc]

I barely can make out the territories on the pics i saw, but still seems to me that an early double punch could take out the caucasus region.

Italy 1 is in good position early on to capture the caucasus complex via amphibious assault. That’s 2 shore bombardment and infantry/arti against 3 infantry. Italy brings it’s tanks and plane in the balkans at the german frontline with Ukraine. It build a second transport and some ground troops.

Russia 1 retake caucasus, yes, but won’t be able to pop troops out of there.

Germany 1 strike along the frontline taking and massing in ukraine close to caucasus.

Italy 2 strike at caucasus again with 4 amphibious units and the tanks in range trough ukraine held by germany. This also yields 3 shore bombard.

R2 russia can maybe or maybe not take back caucasus but G2 should put a definitive nail in that coffin. If i was Russia player, i’D rather see it flagged Italian than Germany.

I am assuming:
-  caucasus worth still 4 IPC for italy

• 3 infantry are defending caucasus round 1
• Italy has 1 BB, 2 cruisers and 1 transport rnd1
• That Germany can consider an IC in balkans to pop transports and will take care of Africa from G3. France IC could be an option too since it connect to med if i see correctly

EDIT: Hrmmm, upon further inspection, i saw there is 4 infantry defending caucasus. Well, Italy could refrain from taking it rnd 1 while doing it’s work in Egypt and still set up with germans to take caucasus on rnd 2.

[Perry]

@axis_roll:

I guess I just don’t have the time for sheer speculation as A&A strategy discussions already are pretty nebulous even WHEN all the rules are known and games have been played to test these strategies.   :|

I seems you do at least have the time to post that you don’t have the time to discuss this topic further  8-) :mrgreen:

I’m really sorry Axis_roll, I just couldn’t help myself!  :-D :wink:

[Imperious Leader]

Caucasus cant be taken on turn 1 by Italy because Italy plays after the Soviets and you dont know what what are doing, plus thats not the focus of their bonus points. Look at what they do with their fleet and africa for turn 1. Likely your setting up them for turn two because they are a little far from action and UK will probably not leave Egypt…or will they?

[Lynxes]

G1 strategy ’41 scenario Axis & Allies Anniversary edition

Objective: get as many infantry as possible into Russia. Harass UK without risking too heavy losses, especially air units.

Builds: 8 inf, 1 sub.

Combat moves:
Baltic states: 1 inf from Norway, 1 inf from Northwestern Europe, 2 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks from Poland, 1 cruiser bombarding.
East Poland: 2 inf from Poland, 2 tanks from Czechoslovakia/Hungary, 2 tanks from Roumania/Bulgaria.
Ukraine: 3 inf, 1 art from Roumania/Bulgaria, 1 ftr from Poland, 1 ftr from Germany.
Egypt: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank from Libya, 1 inf from Morocco/algeria, 1 tank from France.
North Sea: 1 sub from Baltic Sea, 1 ftr from Norway.
Azores sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay, 1 ftr from Northwest Europe, 1 bmb from Germany (abort attack when sub is destroyed!).
East Canada sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay.

Probable results: 1-2 subs survive,  0-1 of 3 UK destroyers. In Egypt: either taken or Uk survives with ftr or ftr and tank.

Non-combat moves: 2 inf, 1 AA from Germany to France, 1 inf, 1 art from Germany to Poland (if you hit that transport in Labrador you can send one more inf to Poland). Fighters: 2 land in France, 1 in Poland, 1 in Roumania/Bulgaria. Bmb: Germany.

Placement: 8 inf in Germany, 1 sub in Baltic Sea.

Follow-up: Italy should attack vs. Egypt and put some inf in France, build an extra transport so that it can amphibious assault both in Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Turn 2 Germany buys an AA, more inf and art and another sub. From turn 3 onwards, add tanks, ftr and bmb to your inf builds of at least 6 / turn. Use your subs as casualties in conjunction with air attacks in the Atlantic, stop building them when the Royal Navy gets too powerful. In Russia, take Karelia turn 2, trade territories until your inf arrive from Germany and then put pressure vs. both Archangelsk and Caucasus. The latter should be attacked by the italians as well. If using techs, start putting 5 IPCs/turn from turn 2 on and aim for the Land/Production chart, increase this to 10 IPCs/turn if the Allies build a lot of bombers or get heavy bombers tech and stop when you get Radar or IC repair.

[Imperious Leader]

Baltic states: 1 inf from Norway, 1 inf from Northwestern Europe, 2 inf, 1 art and 2 tanks from Poland, 1 cruiser bombarding.

ok possible…

East Poland: 2 inf from Poland, 2 tanks from Czechoslovakia/Hungary, 2 tanks from Roumania/Bulgaria.

well ok…

Ukraine: 3 inf, 1 art from Roumania/Bulgaria, 1 ftr from Poland, 1 ftr from Germany.

still ok…

Egypt: 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank from Libya, 1 inf from Morocco/algeria, 1 tank from France.

No way sir. not enough juice. you will get shanked on this and lost most of what you brought in.

North Sea: 1 sub from Baltic Sea, 1 ftr from Norway.

you only need to kill a 2 destroyer ( transport is gone automatically and does not fire). i think this is overkill  ( 2 and 3)

Azores sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay, 1 ftr from Northwest Europe, 1 bmb from Germany (abort attack when sub is destroyed!).

ok i can see that…

Labrador sz: 1 sub from Bay of Biscay.

against a battleship? how is this gonna win/ Suicide mission. Battleships do fire back against subs? or is their some trick?

[Cyprian]

We haven’t really talked about spending some of your initial buys on tech.

It was my understanding that tech dice do not go away until you successfully research something, so what about spending 5IPCs on the first turn so you always have a tech roll?

[Imperious Leader]

its good to keep something in the pot brewing.Not too much because once the tech is discovered, the researchers are spent and you must buy more.

[Corbeau Blanc]

I thought nations play order was same with Italy going first now?

What’s the new order?

[03321]

Germany, Russia, Japan, UK, Italy, US in '41.  '42 is the same with Japan and Germany flip-flopped.

[Lynxes]

against a battleship? how is this gonna win/ Suicide mission. Battleships do fire back against subs? or is their some trick?

Hey, I mean the DD and TRS off Canada of course, I change my post for clarity!

The idea not to attack that BB is trying to kill off: 1 CA, 3 DD, 1 TRS (43 IPCs) instead of 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TRS (35 IPCs). Then UK won’t be able to attack your subs with the RAF and you will get a turn or two to attack with your subs.

Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!

[03321]

@Lynxes:

Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!

Egypt will probably survive with anywhere from 1 fighter to 1 fighter, 1 tank, 1 art.  Regardless it means your German trans will be dead and Germany probably won’t be able to transport any unit to Africa for the rest of the game.  If he lives with just the tank+fighter, and ships 1inf, 1 art from India + 2 inf from TJ, you won’t take Egypt with Italy.  He could also move his bomber down, forcing you to keep your navy bottled in sz 14 on I1 to protect a transport if you build one (which I prob would).  And on UK2 he can transport the 2 inf from SAF to Egypt.  Not to mention that depending on how you move he could practically force you out of Africa with just UK troops that started in the area.  Even if he doesn’t, an Allied landing in Morocco will probably be happening in the first few turns, and if you haven’t taken Egypt solidly by then you can forget about Africa.

It might seem like he’s leaving Japan alone, but if Japan goes hard @China and the Pacific, UK can probably build an India complex that won’t be threatened until like J3.  And I’d guess the US will be building some type of Pacific navy.

[Lynxes]

/03321

Well, let’s see what will be the case on Italy1 when they make the jump versus Egypt. We assume my proposed attack and the survival of 1 ftr and 1 tank. Two scenarios:

1. India reinforcement, 2 inf

Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17

Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.

2. No india reinforcement:

Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.

So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.

I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!

[03321]

@Lynxes:

1. India reinforcement, 2 inf

Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17

Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.

Huh? How? 1st, only 2 ships can bombard because you’re only landing 2 ground troops.  2nd, the chances of taking Egypt with that attack are very small…if you hit 0/2 bombards it’s not gonna happen, 1/2 bombards gives a 13% chance to take, 2/2 bombards gives 37% chance to take…And I forgot to mention the UK can move his India destroyer through the Suez before i1 making bombardment impossible.

@Lynxes:

2. No india reinforcement:

Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

Again, only 2 can bombard, if 0 hit it’s again 37% to take, 1 hit = 69%, 2 hits = 93%.  So yes, in this case if UK does not ship units from India and does not move the destroyer through the Suez you should make that attack.  But that would be a bad move by UK.  If he will neither move the units from India to Egypt nor move the destroyer to prevent bombardment then he should move out of Egypt, either toward SAF (if he wants a SAF complex?) or toward India.  Or he could still reinforce TJ and then counter-attack Egypt on UK2 because your 4 ground troops won’t be able to hold it vs. what he can bring and you have no German troops to help defend it because you threw their trans away.

@Lynxes:

I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.

So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.

I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!

1: As I said Japan might not even have anything to threaten India until J3, and then maybe not much.  By then UK can move troops back from Egypt to India if he held Italy off, and that 1 round of stalling is worth a lot.  With Japan having to deal with Russia in the north, China in the west, and the US probably building a decent Pacific navy, I’m not sure how heavy he can go after India.

2: As I said, UK can bring the bomber down to the Mid-East on UK1, and then the BB+trans in sz 14 are threatened by fighter+bomber, good odds for UK.

3: I agree that Italy is going to be focusing on Africa much more than Germany, but I do not agree that Germany should not care about reserving its Med. trans to move guys to Africa if need be.  If the battle for Africa goes poorly for Italy in the the 1st 1-2 rounds then a German trans moving a couple guys can really help in a theater where a small amount of troops means a lot more than a dense area like Europe.

[Lynxes]

/03321

Ah, yes, you’re right about restricted shore bombardment, that makes these attacks slightly less strong.

But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.

So, if Japan does it’s job you would have:

Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 2 CA= 6 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13

Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.

That German TRS will probably be a most debated subject… I actually thought of using it in the Black Sea. Maybe shielding it in the Central Med with the Italian fleet is a good move, but too defensive for my tastes. This is a balanced strategy I chose, in order to keep the subs alive a little longer. If you think the battle of the Atlantic is a waste of your energy, you should of course send that BMB vs. Egypt. But I think this is a mistake since UK will then gather the Royal Navy in one sea zone and it will be difficult to attack at that stage.

[03321]

@Lynxes:

But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.

A good point, but that move would mean shifting a carrier west, farther from the US Navy that will be threatening soon.  Also, if Japan designates 2 fighters for the India fleet it looks like it won’t make nearly as much leeway into China on J1.

But again, that’s a fine move and if Japan takes out the trans UK will abandon Egypt before Italy has the chance to take it.  But in this situation UK has the chance of taking Egypt back on UK2 since Italy can only get 4 ground troops there, and UK can still shift their bomber down.  That would also open the door for more stalling once the SAf inf made their way north, with air cover to support their attack.  And by that time, with Italy alone concentrating pretty much everything on Egypt, the UK/US should be able to make a solid enough landing in Morocco to push east, and more or less seal off N. Africa.  This is the problem of not having any German Med. support, and seems to be a big problem to me.