Has anyone tried focusing Germany’s opening efforts on (a) winning the Battle of the Atlantic, and (b) holding a solid defensive front line against Russia? The idea would be to build about 3 German subs and 1 strategic bomber per turn, sink anything Britain puts into the water, and then convoy and bomb London until the UK Europe income is neutralized. Meanwhile, you march a respectable amount of infantry and artillery to Poland, Romania, and perhaps Leningrad and Ukraine, but with no intention of penetrating deep into Russian territory – the German mission is simply to hold off Russia and hold off the UK while Italy turns into a beast. Meanwhile, Japan declares war on J1 and builds 3 transports with the idea of doing a turn 4 India Crush, forcing the US to commit 100% to the Pacific if it wants to stop Japan from winning. By turn 6 or so, Italy should hold Egypt and Persia and be making about 30 IPCs per turn; Germany should be holding steady around 50 IPCs, and UK Europe should be earning 10 IPCs or less after convoys and bombing. At that point, once the Atlantic is an Axis lake, then you can threaten to take London, which should give you the income boost (and security) you need to start pushing Russia east toward Moscow or north toward Stalingrad for the win.
I’m thinking this strategy might make an interesting middle ground between Sea Lion and Barbarossa. The problem with Sea Lion is that if your opponent sees it coming, it’s easy enough for the UK to just stack infantry in London, and then you can’t reliably take London without giving up so much ground against Russia that the Russian tanks roll into Poland and Romania and Russia becomes an unstoppable monster. The problem with Barbarossa is that it forces you to fight an unprofitable two-front war…you have to fight the British fleet in the opening or else you leave yourself vulnerable to constant harassment from the rear, but without massive air support, you can’t take Leningrad or Archangel or Stalingrad fast enough to make Barbarossa pay for itself…you lose 5 IPCs from Russian trade, Russia gains 5 IPCs from its Archangel NO, and you’ll be lucky to take enough Russian territories to fix that 5-IPC swing before turn 4.
So if instead you force Russia to come to you, but prepare well to meet that eventual Russian thrust, and you attack Britain where it’s weak (convoy zones, factories) instead of where it’s strong (dumping infantry into the major factory in London using income from far-flung colonial possessions), maybe you can seize the initiative in a way that can’t be easily countered. If this strategy works at all, it still works even when your opponent sees it coming – the Americans are forced to play in the Pacific, the Russians are forced to sit on the sidelines for three full turns, and the British are forced to fight for their convoy zones if they expect to have any significant purchasing power.
What do you think? Could this work? Why or why not?
I’m trying something like this in a league game right now. It’s BM3.
My take so far is that the J1 works a bit against it because US can bring just enough to atlantic/gibraltar early so the axis momentum there never really got started. I made some mistakes aswell that didn’t do the strategy any good. But if I were to do it again I’ll J2 dow instead.
Best regards
MrCunego
One issue with this play is it very much depends on the state of the UK fleet - any destroyers left after G1 and UK1 mean you need to save your battleship and/or build a carrier.
It could work well if Japan invades Russia in the Far East early on, because you need Russia to lose income, too, otherwise you’re just trading a reliable way to gobble up ipcs (Barbarossa) for a less reliable one (a sinkable fleet convoying up to 8 ipcs a turn)
If you take S. France on G1 you can drop a carrier and transport in the Med G2 to help Italy (their ships often end up in that sea zone on their turn 1 already) and help push for Cairo early, and help make sure Italy’s ships survive long enough for them to do the heavy lifting. That’s a big benefit, too, Italy making 20+ ipcs every turn really chips away at the UK quickly.
And if your UK opponent likes to build factories in the Middle East, one thing I pulled off once was Japan skipping their Calcutta Crush (I was a little weak for it) and spending the extra turn to land in Persia instead, or S. Africa.
I’m all for buying subs–looking for 8 in the first 2 turns.
Downsides-- subs lack defense so any Allied spend or survivors at all can threaten you, and
You need quite a few subs even to suppress the 8 income, which
Isn’t enough to paralyze UK, whenever I add the bombing, ends up
I lose planes, and at least a few of these subs and so the whole plan only costs the UK a limited amount of income while it diverts a good portion of my resources to trying to control them but I remain unable to invade or threaten.
So, I do think that its a flavorful plan and a good changeup
When Allies go KGF, the subs end up hiding until they are all expended in one battle this keeps the allies bunched up but its a one shot plan maybe you knock out a good sized fleet but its usually a trade 1:1 with allies in TUV.
When the Allies don’t put much in the Atlantic, I’m free to scourge them and have even got subs off Africa (the ones who killed the Cruiser), one off Canada, and 3-4 sitting on UK money–still the inconsistent convoy dice mean UK has plenty of money and is safe, they can still produce a few units with a partially bombed-out factory and plenty of times, they repair it partially or not at all because they know they’re safe…until you take moscow which funds a late Sea Lion, but the game is about to end most of the time by then
By turn 6 or so, Italy should hold Egypt and Persia and be making about 30 IPCs per turn;
I don’t agree with that assumption above.
Your plan is very risky and it almost guarantees that Germany never captures a capital. Russia can become a problem real quick. It completely relies on Japan to achieve the Victory City win. I agree with the poster above who said to try it with a J2 DOW. Need to hold the US back one turn.
For this plan, at a minimum, I believe it is a must to successfully hold E. Poland, Romania, AND Leningrad. Leningrad gives you a nice boost of 7 IPCs and secures your northern Scandinavia flank from Russia. Russia can’t be ignored as much as stated in your introduction.
Arothair!
You crazy SOB! Germany subs? What are saying!!?!?
Bring that SHITE over to my house! I’ll send the mother F’ing subs into the deep, BRO!
GRRRR!
:mrgreen:
What Karl7 said.
And London will just not repair its factory so you won’t be able to bomb it. Italy won’t get Egypt, USA will put a bunch of subs and a dd in SZ106 to attack your convoying fleet and sink it. Perhaps UK will do that. USSR will be insanely strong.
Which takes me back to what Karl7 said.
Sub warfare is improved from prior versions of A&A, but there needs to be a way for subs to conceal themselves or potentially be in several places at once.
The map dynamics in the North Atlantic totally favor Allies. The naval bases off Canada and the US East Coast allow dds to cover most of the Atlantic and any subs that make it into the South Atlantic will also be marginal if Allies control the Gibraltar naval base.
What Karl7 said.
And London will just not repair its factory so you won’t be able to bomb it. Italy won’t get Egypt, USA will put a bunch of subs and a dd in SZ106 to attack your convoying fleet and sink it. Perhaps UK will do that. USSR will be insanely strong.
Which takes me back to what Karl7 said.
Ha ha ha…. Argothair is a buddy of mine. He’s an inventive player so hats off for thinking out of the box.
Prob as I see it is dds from EUS and Canada can hit any/all lone subs hanging around without carrier/dd support. So, any German naval strategy will have to rely on carriers and controlling Gibraltar w/airbase to create a block to any allied fleet.
But I challenge him to bring his ideas over to my Casa. We can put it to the test.
When I first started playing G40 we did something similar but once we realised the weakness of Germany sitting in SZ109, we stopped. Strat bombing London is questionable because if you lose a bomber, that impacts your ability weaken Moscow. Perhaps if there are no interceptors it might work out.
To me it comes down to a strategic choice. Germany has to defend against uk us eventually. What is going to give you the best bang for your buck.
Use naval to sink ships.
Use air to sink ships.
Use air land to repel invasion forces.
The first will catch an inexperience player but 2 and 3 are probably safer in the long run as germany cant match uk us naval builds over the long term
Some good advice here – I like the idea of Japan coming for Russian’s far eastern territories, and I agree that Leningrad is a ‘must have’ not a ‘nice to have’ for this strategy to go well for Germany.
I’m not sure I understand the part about waiting for J2 to declare war so that the US doesn’t reinforce Gibraltar – US Atlantic fleet at start of game is only one transport, one cruiser, one fighter, and one strat bomber – there’s no Allied carrier in the Atlantic, so the planes would have to land on Gibraltar itself. Britain doesn’t have enough ships to protect SZ 91 against both German subs and German planes, even if you add that one American cruiser. Italy should be able to take either Morocco or Gibraltar on I1, depending on situation, so German planes can land. So anything the Allies send to SZ 91 on turn 1 will die on G2, I think. If America wants to head over a turn early and get itself killed, great!
Finally, people are talking about saving the German BB, building German carriers, etc. – that really is not the intent of this opening; I’m not even trying to control the surface of the water; it’s undersea warfare and commerce raiding only. Obviously you can’t leave 8 subs sitting in SZ 109 with no escort; they’ll just get killed. And, yes, I agree with you that it’s not economical for Germany to try to maintain surface control of SZ 109 because Germany can’t afford to keep up with US/UK spending there. But if you are using subs and planes only, then you can kill anything the Allies put in the water while doing some convoy damage here and there. Maybe you have 3 subs in SZ 109, 1 sub in SZ 119 (Scotland), 1 sub in SZ 106 (Canada), could even send a sub or two south along the west coast of Africa; plenty of convoy zones there. They’re not all going to hit every turn, but it’s a way of reducing the UK economy to the point where it can’t compete with Italy. If the UK builds Atlantic destroyers, you sink the destroyers, convoy, bomb, and that uses up the entire UK budget. If the UK doesn’t build Atlantic destroyers, your subs are safe, you go a little heavier against Russia, maybe take Ukraine, and you don’t have to worry about Allied landings in Europe ever. True, you’re not taking any capitals, but you get the total Axis income up above 135 IPCs (60 Germany + 25 Italy + 45 Japan), you knock the total Allied income below 145 IPCs (70 USA + 30 USSR + 20 UK Europe + 10 China + 15 ANZAC), and at some point the fact that the Allies have to keep paying for transports to get their troops into combat but the Axis can just dump their troops right onto the front lines provides an advantage and the Axis can just slowly push forward and keep taking one territory at a time until they win, not by sacking a capital but just by taking and holding 90% of the mainland Eurasia/Africa landmass. If India falls, or China collapses, or Siberia goes for the Japanese, or Germany breaks into Stalingrad, that’s all you need to tip the world economy for the Axis. The Axis aren’t taking any capitals – but neither are the Allies.
Or, if the US charges hard into the Atlantic to rescue Britain, then Japan should be able to win in the Pacific.
And I’m no expert; I’m still new at this map, and maybe the strategy totally doesn’t work. I just wanted to make sure you guys see what I see before you decide. :-)
What will Germany do if UK builds its DDs in SZ106? Germany can’t reach them there realistically. If Germany still has some of its starting subs remaining, US1 you’ve got to expect a DD will be dropped into SZ101, which will then take out probably all the subs in one SZ once US are at war.
To answer my own question, Germany will have to withdraw from SZ109 and they can’t use SZ119 either.
The outline of this strategy im thinking 1) an attack only 1 of the 2 uk fleets on turn 1 2) buying 5 subs G1 3) sink the cruiser and the canadian dd and transport via #1 can send at least 2 subs each if you nerf the other battles hope we have like 10 subs on G3?
UK can run from you in most cases, and suppressing his income with just subs is pretty hard. Its a fun idea but it gives the allies lots of choices also.
I kind of think its crazy to leave the UK with large expensive THREE capital ships that you could easily sink and only lose your subs and maybe a plane or the battleship. At the very least I can see the value in trying to do the battleship retreat.
If you really wanted to convoy UK into oblivion, I’d plan on Barbarossa G3 or G4… buy the G1 bomber and carrier. Kill as much fleet as you can, retreat the German battleship if there is only 1 UK ship. 2 subs at Canada, ignore cruiser down south… G2 buy depends on if the battleship is alive but you need a destroyer and bombers and 2 or more subs. 1 sub is for sz 125, the destroyer for the Russians, 1+ sub joins the bombers in killing anything at Gibraltor.
I’d also consider taking S. France on G1 so on G2 you can build a carrier and transport there, which protects the Italian fleet and can help out with ground forces. Puts more pressure on UK in Africa to push their spending all over, not concentrated.
By G3 you’ve got an idea whether you can get away with convoy sz 109. Maybe the German carrier heads north after turn 3 if Italy gets things under control quickly.
Or if things don’t go Italy’s way, they can buy subs to hit things off Gibraltor, too.
