Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Allied Landing In Europe
-
For me, especially in 42’ setup, it geniunly feels like the idea of the allies making a bland ‘landing’ in europe is incredibly overstretched. What I mean by this is that having heard tons upon tons of people’s strategies, it feels like this is always such an overlooked aspect in the game, that all the Soviets need to do is ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. I, along with alot of other people would sure like to be entitled to believe that, only it’s not at simple as the allies just ‘landing’ in Europe. To start, let me take you to the beginning.
Having played an incredibly historically accurate game of Axis and Allies Anniversary 1942 setup, it really did make me realize that the Soviets really can’t ‘hold out’. Or rather they can hold out, but hold out to the point to which they’ve taken the city of Berlin. In other words, the Soviets really can’t rely on an allied landing because either A) It happens and it gets pushed out to see, or B) it takes a very VERY long time to be put into play, therefore not saving the Soviets but a lick of time, or C) It doesn’t happen. All of these feels like major contributing factors to which the Soviets can’t really rely on the Americans and/or British making an official landing in France or Northwestern Europe.
Now as for them making a D-Day sort of landing, how it’s implicated to me at the very least, it feels as if it takes a lot more steps than what is talked about. I mean for starters the British need to extinguish the German naval presence in the Atlantic to even relieve some pressure on themselves, let alone the Americans make a landing in Africa first. AFRICA FIRST. This to me, is a must for the Americans to do before even thinking about landing in mainland Europe, simply because it’s all about closing each front in the war.
Next what needs to happen is that assuming the British have taken out the German naval presence, (Which, needs to be done within 3-4 turns or else Leningrad will have been taken by then and the Germans will have too strong of a foothold in Northeastern Europe), with the British then needing to land in Norway, and Finland. Part of what the British and Americans need to really prioritize on is removing IPC’s from the Germans… for good. Part of what I mean by this is that in order to stagnate the Germany economy, you need to take IPC’s from them that they can’t get back. Norway and Finland are giving the German Player 1 tank every round of combat that’s played, which may not seem like a lot, but for any veterans reading this you know that’s HUGE. To briefly touch on why something such as that is incredibly significant is that aside from capital provinces, almost no other territory holds the IPC count of 3 or higher, especially in the Soviet Union which is primarily made up of 1’s and 2’s for IPC count. Now whether the Soviets are the ones to take Norway and Finland or the British, it is an incredibly important key factor to deteriorating the German War Machine since what the Eastern Front will all come down to is whether the Germans or Soviets can produce more tanks than that of which are being destroyed, and who can destroy more tanks all together.
The next part to all this is after having the Americans landed, the British/Soviets secure Norway and Finland, the Americans need to establish their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea (Yes, you land your troops FIRST in Africa, then move your navy into to defeat the Italian/German fleet). This will establish a firm link into Europe between Africa and Europe.
Keep in mind, whilst all this is happening, the Soviets need to be constantly making progress against Germany, this can’t be a “Germany on the doorstep of Moscow” type of deal, or else the landings into Europe just won’t work out. Also remember that as the British and American player, you still need to be keeping consistent pressure on Japan, because unlike other games, this time around Japan can actually win it for the Axis and having them grow to strong and/or already defeat the Chinese presence sets the war effort heavily in Axis favor.
To top it all off, the set standard point is that the Soviets should be pushing the Germans back all the way to East Poland and/or having regained every bit of former territory they start with, pushing the German Player back to his or her starting territories. With the stage set, the Americans will have needed to build a floating bridge across the Atlantic and into the Med to which they will then invade Italy or the Balkans. (Keep in mind part of how the Soviets will be able to push the Germans back is with the assistance of the Americans threatening the southern border, trust me the Germans WILL put defenses down south to screen your amphibious assault wherever it may be.) After having done a simulation game, I found it best for the Americans to invade Italy, not the British. As for which southern area to invade, it really depends on where the German military presence stands, observe, use your better judgement to know whether to invade Italy, the Balkans, or Romania/Bulgaria depending on the circumstances (the Soviet Union should be very close to invading German Poland/Romania Bulgaria).
Whilst this is happening, it would seem to be logical for the Americans to invade France, but that’s not the case here. This time around, the British are going to have to do this. They too will have to build a floating bridge and take France from the Germans to really put pressure on the Western Front of the war.
So with the British having taken Norway, Finland, France and potentially Northwestern Europe, along with the Americans taking Italy and/or the Balkans, the Soviets should be making their final push on the German Reich, having gotten all the way to GERMAN Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, as well as Chzecheslovia/Hungary.
All in all, this is my interpretation of what it means for there to be an “Allied Landing” in Europe. Just like the in real life, it’s not really meant to come when the Soviets are in their last dyeing stages or too early on in the war, but more after the Soviets have shifted the balance beam to their favor on the offensive and after the Japanese having been cleaned up.
If you have any other ideas, feel free to share them with me
-
@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:
For me, especially in 42’ setup, it geniunly feels like the idea of the allies making a bland ‘landing’ in europe is incredibly overstretched. What I mean by this is that having heard tons upon tons of people’s strategies, it feels like this is always such an overlooked aspect in the game, that all the Soviets need to do is ‘hold out’ until the allies arrive. I, along with alot of other people would sure like to be entitled to believe that, only it’s not at simple as the allies just ‘landing’ in Europe. To start, let me take you to the beginning.
Having played an incredibly historically accurate game of Axis and Allies Anniversary 1942 setup, it really did make me realize that the Soviets really can’t ‘hold out’. Or rather they can hold out, but hold out to the point to which they’ve taken the city of Berlin. In other words, the Soviets really can’t rely on an allied landing because either A) It happens and it gets pushed out to see, or B) it takes a very VERY long time to be put into play, therefore not saving the Soviets but a lick of time, or C) It doesn’t happen. All of these feels like major contributing factors to which the Soviets can’t really rely on the Americans and/or British making an official landing in France or Northwestern Europe.
Now as for them making a D-Day sort of landing, how it’s implicated to me at the very least, it feels as if it takes a lot more steps than what is talked about. I mean for starters the British need to extinguish the German naval presence in the Atlantic to even relieve some pressure on themselves, let alone the Americans make a landing in Africa first. AFRICA FIRST. This to me, is a must for the Americans to do before even thinking about landing in mainland Europe, simply because it’s all about closing each front in the war.
Next what needs to happen is that assuming the British have taken out the German naval presence, (Which, needs to be done within 3-4 turns or else Leningrad will have been taken by then and the Germans will have too strong of a foothold in Northeastern Europe), with the British then needing to land in Norway, and Finland. Part of what the British and Americans need to really prioritize on is removing IPC’s from the Germans… for good. Part of what I mean by this is that in order to stagnate the Germany economy, you need to take IPC’s from them that they can’t get back. Norway and Finland are giving the German Player 1 tank every round of combat that’s played, which may not seem like a lot, but for any veterans reading this you know that’s HUGE. To briefly touch on why something such as that is incredibly significant is that aside from capital provinces, almost no other territory holds the IPC count of 3 or higher, especially in the Soviet Union which is primarily made up of 1’s and 2’s for IPC count. Now whether the Soviets are the ones to take Norway and Finland or the British, it is an incredibly important key factor to deteriorating the German War Machine since what the Eastern Front will all come down to is whether the Germans or Soviets can produce more tanks than that of which are being destroyed, and who can destroy more tanks all together.
The next part to all this is after having the Americans landed, the British/Soviets secure Norway and Finland, the Americans need to establish their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea (Yes, you land your troops FIRST in Africa, then move your navy into to defeat the Italian/German fleet). This will establish a firm link into Europe between Africa and Europe.
Keep in mind, whilst all this is happening, the Soviets need to be constantly making progress against Germany, this can’t be a “Germany on the doorstep of Moscow” type of deal, or else the landings into Europe just won’t work out. Also remember that as the British and American player, you still need to be keeping consistent pressure on Japan, because unlike other games, this time around Japan can actually win it for the Axis and having them grow to strong and/or already defeat the Chinese presence sets the war effort heavily in Axis favor.
To top it all off, the set standard point is that the Soviets should be pushing the Germans back all the way to East Poland and/or having regained every bit of former territory they start with, pushing the German Player back to his or her starting territories. With the stage set, the Americans will have needed to build a floating bridge across the Atlantic and into the Med to which they will then invade Italy or the Balkans. (Keep in mind part of how the Soviets will be able to push the Germans back is with the assistance of the Americans threatening the southern border, trust me the Germans WILL put defenses down south to screen your amphibious assault wherever it may be.) After having done a simulation game, I found it best for the Americans to invade Italy, not the British. As for which southern area to invade, it really depends on where the German military presence stands, observe, use your better judgement to know whether to invade Italy, the Balkans, or Romania/Bulgaria depending on the circumstances (the Soviet Union should be very close to invading German Poland/Romania Bulgaria).
Whilst this is happening, it would seem to be logical for the Americans to invade France, but that’s not the case here. This time around, the British are going to have to do this. They too will have to build a floating bridge and take France from the Germans to really put pressure on the Western Front of the war.
So with the British having taken Norway, Finland, France and potentially Northwestern Europe, along with the Americans taking Italy and/or the Balkans, the Soviets should be making their final push on the German Reich, having gotten all the way to GERMAN Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, as well as Chzecheslovia/Hungary.
All in all, this is my interpretation of what it means for there to be an “Allied Landing” in Europe. Just like the in real life, it’s not really meant to come when the Soviets are in their last dyeing stages or too early on in the war, but more after the Soviets have shifted the balance beam to their favor on the offensive and after the Japanese having been cleaned up.
If you have any other ideas, feel free to share them with me
Germany should not be letting the allies get rid of its fleet. In fact, Germany should extinguish the UK fleet on turn 1 and then build a carrier. Its going to take time before the allies can get rid of it.
-
@squirecam Just the problem though. Germany REALLY needs to rely on good dice roles and proper placement of the kreigsmarine and luftwaffe because the Germans won’t be able to destroy the entirety of the British fleet, I’ve tried it and looked at multiple different scenarios they wont be able to destroy every last bit of it, hense why it should be the U.K’s priority to see to it that the Germans lose their navy in turn of that happening. I do agree with your sediment about the Germans building an aircraft carrier but the only problem is that unlike Global 40’, German really isn’t in a financial situation to be able to support a navy whilst fight on the Eastern Front, because as I stated in my previous message, the core of the apple comes down to who can build more tanks, the Germans or Soviets. It doesn’t matter how many tanks they just need to be building more, no matter what the costs, that’s atleast form my perspective of how either side could win the war
-
@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:
@squirecam Just the problem though. Germany REALLY needs to rely on good dice roles and proper placement of the kreigsmarine and luftwaffe because the Germans won’t be able to destroy the entirety of the British fleet, I’ve tried it and looked at multiple different scenarios they wont be able to destroy every last bit of it, hense why it should be the U.K’s priority to see to it that the Germans lose their navy in turn of that happening. I do agree with your sediment about the Germans building an aircraft carrier but the only problem is that unlike Global 40’, German really isn’t in a financial situation to be able to support a navy whilst fight on the Eastern Front, because as I stated in my previous message, the core of the apple comes down to who can build more tanks, the Germans or Soviets. It doesn’t matter how many tanks they just need to be building more, no matter what the costs, that’s atleast form my perspective of how either side could win the war
That depends. The VC condition is 13. So Germany just needs leningrad if Japan is left alone. And they can get the other 3 VC then.
You dont need German tanks to win. You just need to not lose your German fleet until it’s too late for the Allies to win.
Most of the Gencon players will have the USA in the Pacific for this very reason.
-
Something else I forgot to really explained. It never really hits me nor does it really strike other players that as playing Germany, you’re techincally matched up with someone else with the exact same income as your own (The Soviet Union in the 41’ setup, with a 1 IPC difference). Obviously the difference between the 2 is starting strength.
Sub’s are 6 IPC’s, Destroyers 8 cruisers 12 in other words for every German naval unit lost at sea is 1 German tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained, which isn’t an effective trade even the slightest. For the most part, if the Americas and Britain decide to take the latter and KGF then I would forget about navy. The Germans dont need a navy to prevent the allies from landing.
Now granted, if you’re going by the standard of 13 VC’s to win the game, then Japan will have already done their part, leaving Germany to make the final push on the Soviet Union, leaving there no reason to build a navy, that is you don’t plan to do the unthinkable option of operation Sealion, which I’ve found to be for the most part nearly impossible to accomplish unless the British just leave themselves wide open. Because like I said, for every warship lost in the Atlantic that will more than likely be a tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained for the use against the Eastern Front.
-
To simplify what I’m saying, Germany let alone already doesn’t start with that impressive of a navy, it’ll be the Luftwaffe doing all the heavy lifting over seas, and with whatever leftover navy you have in either scenario setups of the game will more than likely be destroyed to save the German Airforce for later use against the Soviet Union.
-
@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:
Something else I forgot to really explained. It never really hits me nor does it really strike other players that as playing Germany, you’re techincally matched up with someone else with the exact same income as your own (The Soviet Union in the 41’ setup, with a 1 IPC difference). Obviously the difference between the 2 is starting strength.
Sub’s are 6 IPC’s, Destroyers 8 cruisers 12 in other words for every German naval unit lost at sea is 1 German tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained, which isn’t an effective trade even the slightest. For the most part, if the Americas and Britain decide to take the latter and KGF then I would forget about navy. The Germans dont need a navy to prevent the allies from landing.
Now granted, if you’re going by the standard of 13 VC’s to win the game, then Japan will have already done their part, leaving Germany to make the final push on the Soviet Union, leaving there no reason to build a navy, that is you don’t plan to do the unthinkable option of operation Sealion, which I’ve found to be for the most part nearly impossible to accomplish unless the British just leave themselves wide open. Because like I said, for every warship lost in the Atlantic that will more than likely be a tank and an infantry that could’ve been gained for the use against the Eastern Front.
The German navy is important for me because it alone protects 4 VC. You need four times the infantry to do the same job. That’s a waste of IPC.
Russia cant win if the stacks are equal. Moscow may not fall quickly if the stacks are equal. But Germany doesnt need it to. Germany can walk up to Moscow and then take Caucus and USSR cant do anything about it.
I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.
-
@squirecam said in Allied Landing In Europe:
@luftwaffles41 said in Allied Landing In Europe:
I’d much rather have transports moving troops directly into Lenningrad then worrying about tanks. Moscow is going to fall once they are deprived of enough IPC. Or, I’ll never get there because I’m defending and letting Japan win.
I absolutely agree with this. This is how the German player should take Leningrad. Obviously with troops bordering leningrad as well like from Finland/Belarussia as well as the Baltic states. And granted it doesn’t take a huge navy to protect 3 transports givertake. Like I said, unless theres a detail I’m missing, Leningrad won’t win you the war, but it’ll substantially put the war effort in your favor as Germany, and frankly taking Leningrad should be Germany’s #1 priority to begin with, regardless of the 1941 or 1942 setup, and I would expect a proper Soviet player to take immediate actions to protecting Leningrad as if it’s more important than Moscow, and if the Soviet player thinks retreating from Leningrad is a good idea then you’ve just basically won the game.
But all in all, this is of me going by the idea that the Soviet Player knows what they’re doing, and knows how to take immediate steps to fighting off the Germans on the Eastern Front.
Like I said, I dont disagree that Germany shouldn’t have a navy say in the Baltic Sea to protect the territories bordering it as well as the transports but no way in hell will they be building a large enough navy to take on the every growing size of the British and American navy. (Yes, I’ve done a 42’ scenario with a buddy of mine and as the allies both America and Britain had possession of atleast 2 aircraft carriers filled with fighters and a battleships).
Hense why the only way Germany will be able to so said “Walk up to Moscow and then take Caucusus” is through tanks and blitzkreig. it’s what they were designed to do, move fast and move efficiently across terrain
Suggested Topics
