Threadcromancy! Bringing this thread back from the dead. Now that the A&A Anniversary reprint has been out for a few months, my buddies and I are ready to give the 1942 scenario another try. We actually stuck to the 1941 scenario exclusively for a long time because of the warnings provided in this thread, but after taking a close look at the setup, I am pretty confident that flying Japanese fighters to Eastern Ukraine on J2 is an inferior move for the Axis.
It’s worth noting that my group plays with national objectives on and with the Dardanelles closed. Both of these rules tend to undercut the usefulness of the E. Ukraine rush. No matter what rules you use, though, I think the Axis have to give up way too much to make this strategy work. The Axis are essentially abandoning Africa, almost all of China, India, Siberia, the central Pacific, the Philippines, Borneo, and France in their opening moves. Moscow simply isn’t worth that price.
Assuming the strategy works perfectly, the Germans wind up with about 62 IPCs. Italy is down to about 11 IPCs (they might have Ukraine, but they don’t have anything in Africa or the Mideast). Japan is down to about 20 IPCs (they might have Manchuria and Sumatra, but they’re mostly stripped dry by the US Pacific fleet). So the Axis are making 93 IPCs total.
Meanwhile, the UK is collecting about 58 IPCs (France, Africa, Caroline Islands, India, Borneo, Australia), the USA is collecting about 60 IPCs (all 4 NOs are triggered), and China is dropping 4 infantry per turn, for an effective value of roughly 12 IPCs. So the Allies are bringing in 130 IPCs even after the fall of Moscow.
If you shut off all the national objectives, the score is something like 81 IPCs for Axis vs. 95 IPCs for Allies – still not a great deal for the Axis.
Over the next few turns after Moscow falls, the Germans can mop up Siberia, Persia, and northwestern China for an extra 8 IPCs or so, plus shift the Japanese bomber corps to do some damage to Allied factories for another 8 IPCs or so…but the Allies ought to be able to put real pressure on Norway, Finland, NW Europe, Rome, the Balkans, Thailand, Manchuria, and Sumatra, which are collectively worth 25 IPCs. Even if the Allies only take half of those territories, they’ll still be in a great position as far as total income.
The Allies are also going to be doing just fine in terms of factory placement. If Japan buys nothing but bombers on J1 and J2, then India is safe as soon as the Japanese fighters fly to E. Ukraine, and Britain can build a factory their on UK2. Britain can follow up with a factory in Egypt, if needed, on UK3 or UK4. Meanwhile, the Americans can build a factory in Norway, France, and/or the Philippines, as needed.
To address the specific game Desert Rat summarized back in 2014, I think the craziest part of that game is that Germany was somehow able to sink most of the British fleet and take Egypt on G1 while also winning against Russian stacks in Leningrad and Eastern Ukraine. We don’t know how many troops Russia had in those territories, but that’s a crazy series of wins that makes me suspect a setup error. To take Egypt G1, Germany has to sink the British destroyer in the Eastern Med, and then defeat 3 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr using at most 2 inf, 2 tnk on land. There’s only 1 ftr, 1 bmr that can reach by air, and presumably you need one of those planes for the naval battle – otherwise you’re sending 1 DD v. 1 DD and you have a 40% chance of losing the whole battle because your transport gets sunk. So you’re looking at 2 inf, 2 tnk, 1 bmr vs. 3 inf, 1 tnk, 1 ftr. The odds of Germany taking Egypt that way are only 43%. Assuming you win that battle, you then need to go try to kill “most of” the British fleet without your bomber.
That leaves you with 2 subs, 1 ftr against the British BB+DD plus the Russian sub in Sea Zone 2 – a battle where you have only 25% odds to win. You then have 2 fighters against the British DD + CA in Sea Zone 12 – a 48% battle.
Assuming you win all of those (43% * 25% * 48% = 5%), you then have to somehow win two large Russian battles with only one German fighter supporting you. I can’t calculate the odds against that, but they’re probably pretty long. Figure Germany only has about a 2% chance of actually pulling this opening off without losing any major battles. 98% of the time, one of Germany’s attacks goes wrong, and either Britain has enough fleet left to take and hold France on turn 1, or Russia has enough infantry left to take and hold parts of Eastern Europe and block the Japanese from flying their fighters in for support.
Note that taking Ukraine instead of Eastern Ukraine is not nearly as powerful for Axis, because Ukraine does not border Moscow, so Russia can afford to hold the Stalingrad factory for an extra turn. This should be enough cushion to hold Moscow for the long term. Germany only had 13% odds to take Moscow during the G3 battle as described by Desert Rat. If Britain had remembered to fly even 2 fighters to Moscow from its carrier, those odds would have dropped to less than 1%.
So this whole idea of an all-out blitz on Eastern Ukraine, then Stalingrad, then Moscow is exciting and creative, but ultimately flawed and dependent on the Axis getting insanely lucky. You’ve got maybe a 2% chance of your opening going well, a 15% chance of pulling off the Moscow attack if the opening goes poorly, and you’re facing a deficit of 20 to 30 IPCs per turn even after sacking Moscow successfully. It’s a fun variation to try sometime when you’re drunk, but it’s a lousy strategy to use for a standard opening. It’s not unstoppable.
