How to best threaten German Baltic fleet?


  • @Cornwallis

    Yes that’s my typical buy for Germany round one. I like to park that initial fleet off sz109 to convoy the UK for a turn or two.

    Same thing for Russia, you just need to pump 10 infantry, or a combo with some artillery, but 10 of those for a couple turns will do the trick to push Russia back u til turn 6 or 7.

    If you follow GHG’s method for floating bridge you can have 2 BB and Three loaded carriers ready to go for turn 4.

    It doesn’t take Germany much to match that. They have the one BB already and most the planes. US doesn’t want to take that. The matched carrier fleets favor the defender. Even still I like to have one more carrier and BB than the US. The fleet is big enough to withstand a suicide run by UK, repair and repel the US. All that money you might spend on land units to defend Scandinavia and Germany can go into fleet instead. It just does a better job covering the north. A single stack on France can react to landing attempts from the south and the Italians can hold their own for the initial push.

    It really is a big problem for the allies that I can’t quite work through. Normally time factors the allies but if allies ignore Japan they will have flipped the economic advantage to the Axis and all of a sudden the tables have turned.


  • @Pinch1 UK can always put a blokker in 110 so Ger fleet can´t reach the allied fleet. And with some fighters on london Italy can´t can open those away but that is not a long term solution.

    Trying to convoy italy and germany by sending subs into the Med and chucking troops via West Africa to middle east to fight there might be an answer?


  • @Cornwallis

    It helps but it’s not a reliable win condition. The blocker in 110 only works if you sit the fleet in sz112. If Germans have a powerful enough fleet they can keep it in sz110. Which can still be blocked but with 4 or more carriers the air power still threatens the transports left behind. One or two landings getting through are not a concern. I think the Axis can handle losing Italy for a turn even.

    The beauty of the large German fleet and the mid sized Italian fleet is that if the Allies want to commit to Rome its a hard battle and you can see it coming. The German fleet covers any meaningful advance to the North. Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark and Norway are safe. It can be completely empty of troops. The middling Italian fleet will lose but it will hurt the Allied fleet to the point it would get destroyed in a fight with with the German fleet. It’ll get trapped in the Med cut off from reinforcements.

    Its ok to let the Allies in the Mediterranean. They will land a few amphibious assaults into mainland Europe but it will peter out. I tried stacking troops in Africa to draw from but the issue again is that takes time and the Axis can prepare. Germans don’t need to worry about protecting the northern half of Europe so they can fly some planes down south or convoy the crap out of UK. All the Axis land units in southern part can cover Northern and Southern Italy. It’s not too difficult to stack those two territories enough to survive the initial wave.

    There’s always a chance of success but the point is it’s low. Like 20-30%. Japan can even land planes in Italy via Ukraine or something if needed. Japan can spare a few planes.

    Its a tough nut to crack. I tried multiple options:

    1: Suicide run with UK air power to weaken the German fleet for the Yanks. FAILURE. Germans can just sit their fleet next to Naval base and tank hits in carriers and battleships. Planes land in territory. Germans go before US and repair, fleet back to optimal, Axis lose maybe 30 or so IPCS in cheap subs/destroyers, allies lose over 100 IPCs in expensive airpower that was vital for covering the fleets and will take a long time to rebuild.

    2: Americans stack West Africa over time then move all transports into med, land 3 or so larger waves of troops into southern Europe. FAILURE! Takes too much time and is highly telegraphed. Was able to move enough troops to stack the odds in favor of Axis for Amphibious assaults. Allies landing in Southern France with all of UK’s and America’s available airpower. Beachhead lasted several turns but enough troops to cover Italy. Managed to liberate and trade France a few times, Eventually the troops ran out and the yanks had to pull back to protect the reinforcements.

    3: Spanish Beachhead. This was interesting but ultimately too slow. I liked how Allies can easily stack a lot of airbases to cover Gibraltar so protecting the reinforcements is cheap. What I dislike about it is it opens the middle east up more to the Axis and Germany can just roll tanks and mechs through Turkey and dominates the middle east. That is if Japan hasn’t done so already. The economy tips drastically for the Axis and it’s basically GG at that point. Allies don’t have the positional strength to overcome the economic deficit.

    4: Tried a big full fleet buy of submarines for US to see if that’s enough to push the German fleet. FAILURE. It’s possible for the Germans to build up enough to withstand. And with the sacrifice of purchasing land units for boots on the ground just gives the Axis another turn of breathing room to build defenses.

    The one thing I haven’t tried is full on abandon Europe and lay waste Japan. I don’t think that will work either but you never know. Germany will probably just convoy London without the threat of America and crush Russia. Germany becomes the new Japan if it’s ignored. It needs the pressure to force the spend away from Eastern front. It it’s allowed to spend towards the east Russia doesn’t stand a chance.

    I started running this with Axis in response to GHG’s call to battle Floating bridge combined Middle Earth with Allies. I couldn’t find an answer to this for a while. I kept getting owned by the floating bridge no matter what I did because the Allies had COMPLETE tactical freedom over all of Europe. No matter where you defend on land, there will always be a chink in the armor and the Allies can dismantle Germany piece by piece if you give them that strategic freedom. On a whim I decided to try buying HARD German navy. It was like “what if I took all the IPCs I put into defending land into defending the seas instead” and the results were surprising. It is “THE” counter to Floating bridge Middle Earth combo. moving into the Med seems to be the only option for the Allies. I’m sure there’s a way to get reasonable odds in there, just not overwhelming balance tipping. I feel like the large German navy strat is tipping the balance.


  • @Pinch1 I don’t think @Arthur-Bomber-Harris was quite right to say the carrier buy is a guaranteed L for the axis, but the problem he points to is a real one. If Germany is buying significant naval early, it is not buying land units. And if it’s air is in 110 or 112, it can’t threaten Bryansk or even Belarus. It makes it very easy for the allies to block them in Bryansk and prevent them from getting their objectives in the USSR. They can try to make up for it later but they will be doing so with less income than they otherwise would have and against a soviet union that has more income than it otherwise would have. It will typically be easier and safer to drop carriers in 112 when you are making 80 ipcs than doing so early and trying to keep up with UK/US naval spending on one side and Soviet spending on the other.


  • @farmboy

    I don’t find it much of a problem. Its only a problem if you lose patience and deviate from the game plan. Initial German buys of about 20 infantry is all you need to contain Russia until about turn 6-7. That’s 60 bucks out of the 250 or so you get for the first 5 turns. The rest goes into stacking the navy. I typically find the German advance becomes deadlocked at Ukraine-Bryansk until later in the game. It requires intervention from Japan circa turn 5-6 once they’ve dealt with China to keep Russia back.

    A wise Soviet will retreat and consolidate, gathering strength until they can push the front back. even if they do this, it’s 2-3 turns before they breach enemy territory. By that time Japan has secured economic parity for the Axis.

    The Ultimate objective is economic superiority before the Allies gain foothold in western Europe. Germany just needs to keep Russia in a pocket. Japan will handle the rest. By the time Russia is ready to push back Japan is eating up Siberia and is knocking a the back door of Moscow. Once India is dealt with a small stack of bombers can hammer Russian factories erasing their income entirely. Without reinforcements The Germans will overcome Soviet defenses. It’s just a matter of time.

    The real paradigm shift is once Japan become so strong the tempo of the game shifts, and all of a sudden time favors the Axis because the money favors the Axis. Even if the economy is the same the Allies need to cross oceans to succeed, an endeavor which requires increased spending for naval dominance. This will be something they have already failed to achieve. Japan will have enough naval assets to rival the Americans 2-1 and Germany will be matching. By that time it’s insurmountable.

    Russia can hold on and fight Germany for 10-15 turns if it likes. It doesn’t matter because Japan has probably won the game by then.


  • @Pinch1 one thing you could do is try this in a league game and see how it plays. There is a range of skill levels there, it is easy to join, and fun. And the best way to assess how well a strategy works is to play it of course. Games are typically played with a significant allied bid which is meant to balance against the innate axis advantage in the OOB game.

    I’ll just say that in my experience, the strategic choices the axis make have trade offs and a way the allies win is by recognizing what the costs of different axis choices are and exploiting them. If, for example, Japan focuses on Russia, it becomes harder for it to take/hold India and the money islands. Or if it can do that too, it means that the US is focusing on Germany which will make the German naval builds harder to defend. And if Germany is not putting sufficient pressure on the Soviets to get into caucasus and volgograd, it both impacts their income (making it harder to match US/UK spending in the atlantic), and makes it easier for the Soviets to deal with pressure from Japan too (which at this point in the game is going to be a small fraction of what the Germans and Soviets have). The Soviets don’t need to break through Germany early, they just need to keep them contained before they get in reach of Volgograd and Caucasus.


  • What I’m finding is Germany has no issues keeping up with American naval build. It’s quite the opposite.

    Take the floating bridge by GHG for example, a fleet 2 BB and 3 full carriers, a destroyer and cruiser, a few sets of loaded transports is pretty much the first 5 full turns of purchasing for USA. Factor in American needs to replenish the landing forces every turn, if that is 4 seats of transports it’s a minimum 28 IPCs spent on ground forces. Doesn’t leave much to build the fleet past turn 5.

    Germany needs 1 BB and 3 Carriers and 1 fighter to match. 80 IPCs where USA had to build from scratch. Carrier fleets are defensive by nature and thus USA needs to overspend to overcome and still have protection to cover transports. Anything America builds Germany has 2 turns to prepare for before it’s in a position to affect them. If the troops never land, Germany doesn’t care how long it takes put Russia in a box. If USA tries to outpace the Germans enough it sacrifices too much in the Pacific to overcome Japan and it loses Hawaii. The economy become favorable for the Axis by turn 8-9. Allies have up until turn 6 to have purchased everything they need to affect the outcome in Europe which is not enough.

    As far as a bid is concerned, yeah that changes things, but OOB this has been my most sound observation. It’s the most heavily tilted strategy I have seen for the Axis. The use of going hard German navy has been really effective for me. I used to pay GHG’s floating bridge middle earth combo and that was killer. I could beat the Axis every time, no bids. I agree that there are tradeoffs that the Allies need to exploit. I’m just having a hard time seeing the exploit in this variation. I’m not saying there isn’t an answer, I’m just saying I’m not seeing it yet and I have a pretty good eye for the exploits. You’re welcome to try it.

  • 2024 2023 '22

    @Pinch1

    I just finished a Europe 1940 game against myself testing this strategy out:

    2024-12-11-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

    After 10 turns, I’m ready to “call” the game in favor of the Allies. As you can see, while the German navy did prove surprisingly effective holding northern Europe, the US and Britain proved strong enough to keep the transport line into the Mediterranean, while the Soviets were able to hold the line and were never in serious danger of losing Moscow. Once the British from South Africa began moving northwards it was all over for Italy in Africa and the Middle East.

    I’m not sure if I did something wrong. While I do believe the Germans may have made slightly more mistakes (looking back, they could’ve advanced faster into Ukraine) than the Allies, I don’t think it was decisive.

    I am not very good at playing the Axis in Europe 1940 though:

    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41133/how-to-win-as-the-axis

    I do think if this was a Global 1940 game the Axis would’ve won handily, but I find this is the case with almost any strategy (with out of box rules and no bid).


  • @Pinch1

    I think you’re playing against a weaker US player. As this article demonstrates, there’s almost no reason to buy battleships and no reason to buy cruisers. If the US is doing that, then it’s obvious they’re handicapping their naval strength. In the game I attached in the last post, the US only ever bought destroyers, submarines, and carriers.


  • @SuperbattleshipYamato

    Yes Japan is the ringer for Global. In Europe there is no aid for Germany. Russia and America do not have back pressure from Japan. By turn 10 Japan is over 100 IPCs they own the Middle East, China, Siberia, are bombing the Russians to nothing. I wouldn’t support this strategy in a game of Europe because it depends on Japanese intervention.


  • @SuperbattleshipYamato

    The cruiser is a starting unit. I never purchase cruisers as America. I disagree with the battleships analysis. The value of a battleship is amplified by the amount of hits it can tank over the game. If it tanks and repairs a single hit in the game it becomes worth more than destroyers and subs. In a single fight the destroyers are like infantry, the best pound for pound investment, but a balanced fleet adds intrinsic strategic value and more long term benefits.

    A fleet with many ablative hits that can repair will withstand suicide runs meant to weaken the fleet. A pure destroyer and sub build cannot repair itself. Say the British decide to throw all their air power at the fleet. Tank the hits on carriers and battleships, lose a couple subs and destroyers, and planes end on land. Before the Americans follow up that fleet repairs and for the cost of a couple small ships vs British losing over 100IPCS in the attack the fleet is full strength.

    When you get large fleets it becomes more likely to preserve those units over the course of the game and have them soak multiple hits. Every destroyer that tanks a hit is 8 IPCs lost. A battleship that repairs costs nothing and can continue to project it’s threat on the board.

  • 2024 2023 '22

    @Pinch1

    Thanks for the advice. I’ll look into it.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 19
  • 9
  • 16
  • 27
  • 5
  • 17
  • 26
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts