@Vance:
I thought about this too. Problem is, what if all 3 infantry hit?
Well the chance of that happening is 1/27.
But the chance of losing a 12 IPC bomber to your IC bombing is 1/3.
More worth it to kill the infantry.
Though I’d still agree with Garg that a G1 attack is not a very good plan.
Yeah i don’t like the SBR either; there are other places to deploy the bombers. The problem with the G1 attack is you probably stall for a couple of turns getting organized anyway so it doesnt really speed things up very much. But you do kill off the 7 Russians along the border and that’s not a bad haul.
I’d agree with that analysis.
But I think that the amount you have to give up to do a G1 attack along with whatever Russia can kill on R1 makes you just about break even, as far as infantry you kill in the initial attack.
I’d argue that the opportunity cost of not getting to threaten UK very well - and the subsequent crushing on Italy - would make a G1 Barbarossa prohibitive, even if there is a net gain in killing those 7 infantry.
the problem I have: limits options. pretty much says no sea lion threat whatsoever. uk should send out his 2 fighters and bomber down to 97 or wherever that bship transport of italy’s is.
I would still as uk purchase all inf, just in case. maybe 6 inf 1 fighter if you bought ground forces already.
russia goes to north persia and then can pick up iraq persia or whatever. so the nice income boost for russia a little bit sooner. the nice 7 inf kills you get is negated by the ruskie pick up of the middle east a few rounds sooner and those 7 inf you kill require you to send stuff over so he might pick up some defense rolls and counter your attack relatively easily.
I’d argue that the opportunity cost of not getting to threaten UK very well - and the subsequent crushing on Italy - would make a G1 Barbarossa prohibitive, even if there is a net gain in killing those 7 infantry.
You kill 7 infantry but don’t sink a battleship and 2 cruisers. A few turns later you might be stalled in Russia not much further ahead than if you waited til G2, and UK can be harassing you with crappy little landings in in Denmark or Holland. If they take Norway you’re in trouble. Still it is an idea.
I mainly do not do, because of iraq/persia… and not being ahead in anyway than had i waited a round, but that’s just me.
Vance I’m pretty much in complete agreement with you.
It’s an option - and a very interesting one - but I don’t think I’ll be doing it much. I like to try to play pretty optimally in my round 1 moves.
I did this once in my first game of global long ago. A G1 attack can be really good if done correctly. The opportunity to knock out the 7 inf along the border is nice and gives you a head start on Russia before the Siberians can come home.
Saturday and will by surprising my opponent with this move
do J1 DOW and go to town. :D
I just pulled a G1 barbarossa against an Allied player I really respect (Wheatbeer).
Unlike some of the other ideas in this thread, my intention was to go straight to Moscow and take it on G5 (to think of it another way, paving the way for the infantry/art. stacks in GER and SGER to go HUNG -> EP -> NUk/BEL -> SMO/BRY -> Moscow).
It’s been very interesting. As of now (the game is currently at US3), I’ve got the simulator at an 82% chance of taking Moscow in G5. Whether things play out that way is, of course, to be seen.
Some notable facts:
-my buys have been heavy on infrastructure, air, and tanks. G1 was a minor IC and AB in Romania with 2 bombers landing there following attacks on the Russian front, so as to immediately start strat. bombing Moscow G2. G2 was more bombers and a IC upgrade (I also threw a transport in the Black Sea so as to put the Bulgarian infantry into the Caucasus, but I’m unsure whether I’d do that again). G3 was a pure tank buy, and G4 (if a G5 invasion looks promising) will be complementary tac bombers.
-in order to encumber my plans to put 20 damage on Russia, my opponent passed on infantry buys for more fighters. I believe this was wise, but some may disagree. He has also positioned British planes from the med. and India to reach Moscow for UK4 (I took this into account with the sim).
-my opponent had a horrible roll when trying to clear sz125 of an Axis sub; this kept 10 IPCs out of Russian coffers that would normally be there (unless Germany felt strongly enough to sacrifice navy specifically to null that bonus–possibly a good idea)
To sum it all up: I believe a high pressure G1 Barbarossa is a sound strategy. In my next game, I will use it with an idea to better position other Axis elements to take advantage of the pressure this tactic creates (for instance, leaving India without air begs for a J3 India crush–although bringing the US into the war early presents another variable).
I do not claim it will always result in a G5 Moscow invasion, but it jacks up German income almost immediately, keeps Russia from settling in, and puts a lot of pressure on Britain to come to the rescue.
If anyone is interested in taking the Allies against this, PM me, I’m excited to see if it will continually work.
Jerc, what kind of position does this put the British in?
My opponent’s best bit of luck (a questionable SBR roll notwithstanding), was G1 when he scrambled fighters against a 2 sub, 3 f/tac. pair attack on sz110 (2 cruisers, 1 BB).
I got 3 hits, he got 4, and I retreated (again, to scramble in that situation is a toss-up for the UK. You don’t do it if you expect a Sea Lion. I credit my opponent for doing it because he recognized a chance to destroy Luftwaffe and thereby help Russia, which is exactly what happened). The end result? He has 2 BB’s, 2 cruisers, and what should be 2 dd’s in sz109.
My opponent was conservative in the med–no attack on the Italian navy–but given the fact that he now has 3 f. and a tac. to send to Moscow, I think his approach was correct. He could’ve been aggressive (I had no German f. in Rome for UK1), but what good is disrupting Italy if it means losing Moscow?
UK is also slightly weak in the Middle East, because Russia had to go in first for some ICs.
UK3 will be interesting.
I’d expect UK to be in something of a powerful position in the Med/Atlantic, but honestly I’d prefer not as much of a “Russia crush” as a “Russia Slow Death” game while SBR’ing and convoying UK to the poorhouse (considering their power in Med w/out Sealion, perhaps a few subs to hit convoys in the Med or the RN?
Well, it’s all about reacting to your oppoent’s moves, and the beauty of the Axis is, they start on offense.
If you start a full-out drive for Moscow on G1, your opponent must react. If he fails, great; if he succeeds, you counter. I still may hold back in the game I’m currently in, but if I do I have Leningrad, Stalingrad, and the Caucasus ripe for the picking, because he’s had no choice but to turtle.
Again, it’s too early to say too much, but one thing I am absolutely convinced of is this: With a G1 drive for Moscow, that Leningrad stack must retreat on R2 at the latest, or the game is over. A G1 Barbarossa gives you a gift-wrapped Leningrad by G3, in other words, plus the Ukraine tt’s.
As for the Middle East, what can be done? Russia got their early for some desperately-needed IPCs, but even if it was saved for Britain: UK1; take Persia, UK2; build an IC, UK3; buy planes (not cheap, BTW), UK4; finally, do something of consequence, on the last possible turn before Moscow falls.
Since forum games are public, I hope you don’t mind my noting two critical things:
1. Leaving Yugoslavia untouched for a turn 2 strafe retreat to Romania helps immensely. This lets mechs and tanks go from Paris to Romania (none of which had been lost) in a single turn. This means they rejoin the rest of the German army on NUKR on G3 making Soviet counterattack impossible.
2. Even poor to mediocre SBR puts extreme pressure on Russia at this early stage.
Taranto won’t win or lose this particular scenario in my opinion.
One thing I really did screw up: I didn’t run the dice on a possible G4 all air buy when I planned UK2. As a result, I failed to move London fighters to Scotland on UK2 so they could make it to Moscow on UK4. That could very well have saved Moscow from a G5 sack.
Despite that error, I believe I can still lower Germany’s turn 5 victory odds at Moscow to 50-60% (we can post the finalized odds when we come to it, if people are curious). Though even a costly German victory on G5 is disastrous for the Allies.
Getting those extra fighters in place probably would save Moscow, especially given the razor-thin margins we’re dealing with at present.
In the end, the basis for this entire strategy rests with SBR rules that are poorly thought out, IMO. Interceptors should fire @ 2.
Interceptors should fire @ 2.
YES THEY SHOULD OMG YES!!!
But then what about Jet interceptors? @3 is too high, @2 is too low.
Jets firing either at 2 or 3 would probably be fine; techs are not quite as important to balance as the vanilla game.
I agree completely, though, that interceptors should fire at 2.
It worked perfectly when they did, and now it’s so very easy to exploit when they don’t.
