Thank you! I just wanted to let you know of my progress. I certainly tried to do all of that in earlier games, but for one reason or another, it didn’t work well enough to net an Axis win.
100% win with axis everytime
-
If the Soviets take Iraq they get +3 IPC per turn for each “liberating an axis…”. UK take Persia UK1 and build a factory there UK2. Maybye UK could take Iraq as well but could she afford producing in two factories Iraq+Persia to help the soviets? When we play Itlay often is pushed hard from turn 1. Germany is strong and does well but the UK can handle Italy and help the Soviets. If Italy is doing to bad Germany has to divert away units from Russia to help her/protect Western Europe.
I play with the same players, we might have a weird meta or way of playing off course. Tournamnet statistics whould be nice to know. Not so keen on the Moscow or bust together with a weak Russia in Axis & Allies. It makes for the same strategy over and over…
-
@Magro Just a note. I don’t think UK can build factories in Persia or Iraq, due to them being neutral.
-
@J-o-C If the area has income 2+ and is not an island you can build an industry in it. You have to take it first though in case of Persia or Iraq.
-
@Magro Sorry about that. I guess I misunderstood the rules.
-
@J-o-C No problem. It’s not very intuative.
-
@Magro said in 100% win with axis everytime:
If the Soviets take Iraq they get +3 IPC per turn for each “liberating an axis…”. UK take Persia UK1 and build a factory there UK2. Maybye UK could take Iraq as well but could she afford producing in two factories Iraq+Persia to help the soviets? When we play Itlay often is pushed hard from turn 1. Germany is strong and does well but the UK can handle Italy and help the Soviets. If Italy is doing to bad Germany has to divert away units from Russia to help her/protect Western Europe.
I play with the same players, we might have a weird meta or way of playing off course. Tournamnet statistics whould be nice to know. Not so keen on the Moscow or bust together with a weak Russia in Axis & Allies. It makes for the same strategy over and over…
What the more experienced players have said for years is that the early marches on Moscow work. That is why the bids in global have gotten so high. The Soviets don’t have the resources to stop them even with help, especially if Italy abandons its own front and does can opening.
I have not really tested the UK Persia and “fly-everything-to-Moscow” strategies as they abandon the rest of the board, which would seemingly eliminate any later pressure in the west. Perhaps this is a mistaken way of evaluating it.
The Soviets would have to sink some resources into taking Iraq for +3 IPC’s and 2 for the territory. Best case for them would be a G1 DOW, allowing them to attack Iraq on R2 by using the 2 Caucusus infantry marched south, bringing their air down to support as well as tank and mech.
In the Iraq battle the foot infantry will most likely be lost even with air support, and couldn’t make it back in time to matter anyway. The tank and mech can’t return to Moscow by G5 (only reaching Tambov on R4), so half of the Soviet armor/mech force is not available for direct defense at the critical time. That is 10 IPC’s/5 defensive punch/2 hits lost for the key defensive battle, but gaining 5 IPC’s to place in R3 and R4 for 10 IPC’s/6 defensive punch/3 hits in Moscow on G5. So a net of 1 unit by G5…although three more purchase on R5 if Germany cannot take Moscow on G5, plus the tank and mech back home.
Of course this denies Iraq to the UK, which is not that big of a deal as it requires some regional commitment to take it, forces that might be better used depending on how Italy’s dice and transports go in the first two rounds and what resources the UK has after the G1 naval/air onslaught.
The UK Persian IC is still pressed by time and resource commitment. Assuming it is coordinated with the Soviets taking Iraq, then the UK has to pull an Inf away from Africa or Malta along with the lone transport on UK1. (Could be a mech or tank which could then reach Moscow before G5, but the tank would steal considerable firepower from Africa.) The IC costs 12, so that limits UK purchasing power on UK2, and Greece is still untaken/unactivated. Depending on how Round 1 was played and UK’s buys, Italy might even have landed a force in Jordan to close the Suez temporarily and put pressure on Egypt from three sides. However, taken to the extreme the UK could be building enough air and positioning in Moscow to hold on G5. UK units in Russia cost the Soviets the 5 IPC prestige/lend lease starting on R3 or R4. Of course the UK would be weakened against Italy to do this…and exposed if Germany decided to delay the assault, shift air back west, and build transports for a late Sea Lion…those supplemental German strat bomber builds would be turned on London first.
-
My example with the Soviet colonies in the South is time. If it takes long the Allies win. Soviet have enough fast units and airpower to take Iraq on the map. The airplanes will be back in Moscow so you are loosing 2 tanks and 2 mechs in Moscow. If Germany is strong enough to attack Moscow G5 it’s not worth it. If Germany needs more time is it not? You might be right. If Italys navy is shut down Iraq is very mangable
How does the UK fail with Italy except by dice going bad? This is when Germany goes Barbarossa fast and does not build a fleet or keep loads of units in the West. Persia is a free “conquest” for UK turn 1 and gives two free infantry. Egypt is reconquerable for the UK, especially with a Middle East factory and Iraqs pro axis forces gone. If USSR get lend lease the Germans failed to keep a sub outside Norway alive. When Germany has declared war on Soviet G2 to invade London shoudl be very hard. Off course if the Germans trick you to build hardly any defence in London and never goes early Barbarossa it could be a short game…
-
That is the problem: Germany is strong enough to take Moscow on G5. Unless Germany makes a serious mistake or something goes badly awry with dice, it has the force it needs waiting beside Moscow to attack on G5.
G1 DOW seems a bit trickier for Germany to me because it allows Russia more money and options earlier, and Germany still has to wait for G5 for the infantry to reach Moscow. G1 DOW allows the Russians to move south on R1. That might just provide enough to make a difference on G5, but not if you send 2 tanks and 2 mechs south to take Iraq (the extra pair would require an extra turn to reach, squandering the earlier Russian move on Persia by the G1 DOW.) Instead one would need to use the 2 INF and the Stalingrad Mech/Tank pair. None of these survivors will return in time, only the air will.
The UK has a hard time shuttling fighters from Persia before G5 because without an airfield it is a 2 turn trip. To have both would require spending 27 IPC’s on turn 2 for the airfield and IC. Then turn 3 one would be spending essentially all of the UK’s income on fighters to fly to Moscow on turn 4 to try to stop the G5 attack. The UK will also be able to get the mech or tank there that was transported over to Persia on UK1. Of course, all of that would weaken the hold on Egypt in the early rounds and prevent occupying Greece.
How does the UK fail with Italy? All sorts of ways, and it starts with Germany’s first round attack and moves. There are two German first round naval strategies I like in this regard and both forego the SZ 110 attack. I don’t need to sink all of the big boys, they are useless without transports and vulnerable to air later. Instead a single sub is sent to 111 along with the BB and plenty of air to kill half the Home Fleet and a Scotland scramble (if the UK opts for it.) Similarly two subs are sent against the destroyer and transport in England’s home waters at SZ 109, along with lots of air, daring the UK to scramble up to 4. If the UK doesn’t scramble there is about 1/3 chance that it will have two subs sitting there and no destroyers to clear them.
The decision fork in this is how the other two subs are used: 1. Both vs. the transport/destroyer off Canada in SZ 106–fairly good chance of success along with the SZ 109 attack stripping the Atlantic of UK transports and protecting Norway for a few turns so that everyone there can head for Leningrad. But the transport can survive even if the destroyer is lost (if the second sub is at the same time, 25% of the time or so.) 2. Sending both subs against the cruiser in SZ 91–90% of success and often leaving two subs there threatening follow up attack in 111 the next turn. 3. Gambling big time by splitting the final two subs between 91 and and 106–winning both simultaneously with both subs surviving is only 20% overall. 20% of the time both subs die with no kills. The first time I tried the gamble it paid off fully, with Germany having 3 or more surviving subs, and UK no destroyers or transports in the Atlantic and Taranto/Malta attacks nerfed because of the action as well. UK had to buy destroyers…and got diced vs. subs with them.
Germany can land aircraft in southern Italy G1 to scramble against Taranto. This preserves some of Italy’s air for Med action and Italy usually buys a fighter on I1 anyway. With Italy taking Southern France and possibly Gibraltar on I1, it has a chance of getting a few turns of both the Med NO bonus and the Greece/Gibraltar/Southern France one while keeping UK busy in Africa. It depends heavily on the dice of these small actions and how many transports survived. Italy can put pressure on Egypt at the start. If the UK is unlucky with Taranto, sinking the Italian destroyer/transport around Malta, an early strafe attack or defense around Egypt, then Italy will be in good shape.
The last two times I have played through this Italy has gotten horribly diced. I actually recorded some early stats this last time for Italy: Italy’s average dice roll was over 4.1 (3.5 would be balanced, which is what UK had.) Italy only rolled 1 four times, 2 five times, and 3 ten times in 57 rolls. (Neutral allies rolled 2.9…with lots of 1’s and 2’s in Yugoslavia and Greece vs. Italy and Germany for 9 kills in 20 rolls.) A “99+%” attack failed gloriously and catastrophically. Still, Italy was able to clear the Med and occupy Gibraltar and eventually take Greece later. The sub-Saharan Africa forces were then dispersed to grab 1 IPC territories rather than threaten Egypt.
In that game, with the Persian IC, Moscow still fell on G5, despite the Germans losing 4 infantry on the single G1 Yugo “strafe.” I will have to go back to the early save after those Axis setbacks to see if I can play it better as the allies, maybe try building the airfield in Persia.
-
Obviously we are not doing well with Italy. Normally she stuggles. She can do fine shortly but is normally shut down by the UK.
Germany is often doing good so to get Itlay going seems key. In Global japan si sledom weak either so Italy is the missing Axis link for us.Persia is four (4) steps from Moscow for a plane, the Caspian sea is flyable. Persia -Caspian Sea-Kazahkstan-Samara-Moscow. By UK4 the first plane built in Persia are in Moscow. But also UK4 tanks and mech plus the Persian free inf could be in Caucasus. UK planes in Moscow can fly out to support a British attack and then land back in Moscow.
Germany has the forces to march to Moscow but an attack G5 is not assured to be at good odds.
If you loose the attack badly it’s game over. If you are strong next to Mocow G5 and the Russians not great!
Our issue is that if you cant take Moscow fast the allies build/reinforce a lot so Germany has to do serious production nearby (Ukraine/Novogrod even Volgogrod and/or Romiania) to outbuild them. That takes time = USA lands in the West.I like the suggested German bomber strategy, can see how it stops the Russian building 10 infantry in Moscow (or forces them to pay a lot extra to build many units). Will try that next time. This could crack the pesky Southen help from UK or Iraq… untouchabale income issue :-)
-
Magro,
You are correct about that Persian air distance, my mistake. I had been looking at the Caucasus routing not realizing that the Caspian Sea-Kazakhstan route cut off a space. That saves half a turn’s worth of UK income.
That last game I had hopped an Africa fighter over and shuffled a mech in, but didn’t do a fighter build in the Persia IC because of the miscount. I had tried “overworking” the German air and main thrust by pincering two infantry forces through Bessarabia and Baltic States, and a Brit landing in Norway under cover of the surviving half of the Home Fleet (SZ 106 transport had survived G1 but went to Britain because I wanted to force Germany to buy defensive forces.) However, I found I still had enough German air plus late arriving mech/tanks along with a portion of the spearhead infantry to handle these, take Western Ukraine, retake Norway, while still continuing the spearhead to Belarus next to the main Soviet stack with mech/tanks, etc. in Bryansk. And the Scandinavian infantry took Leningrad/Novgorod.
R3 counterattack odds were very poor for Russia and were going to leave a tank stack that would still have enough mech/tanks reaching it the next turn to be unstoppable. So the retreat to Moscow was made on R3.
On G4 I strat bombed Moscow’s IC with three bombers. I decided not to scramble the two Russian fighters for this as I needed their defense as badly as the IPC’s. I figured the ~50% chance of losing one of two fighters outweighed the lower chance of clipping a bomber at ~33%. The IC’s AAA missed and the bombers inflicted enough damage that I had to spend several infantry’s worth to repair for a final infantry build there on R4, which was mostly a waste as calcs showed it would not hold even with some UK help. But I stayed and was bludgeoned. German tanks reached the Caucasus on G6 and would have been unstoppable. US landing and Brit round 5 stacks/w UK fighters reinforcing in Normandy were crushed on the counterattack that turn. It would have been much better to do a fighting withdrawal toward Persia, maintaining a threat to keep German support forces in theater, rather than be unceremoniously swept away.
Suggested Topics
