The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.
Agreed.
I really don’t see any advantage of the ‘Northern’ route (Smolensk) over the Southern, as East Poland->Western Ukraine->Bryansk->Moscow is as fast as East Poland->Belarus->Smolensk/Bryansk->Moscow. The Southern route gives all the mentioned additional strategic options (Africa/ME/India) whereas the Northern has none.
Attacking either Leningrad or Ukraine with brute force (other than its fast units, the finns and its air) is a German mistake, but defending either one with Russia is an even bigger one (as Wild Bill already explained why, I’ll not), so both ICs will be in German hands anyway when either of the above ‘Moscow-approaches’ are taken with the German doomstack and Russia does not want to loose Moscow.
I was just thinking the bomber or two you dedicate to hitting Moscow would negate giving the Russians the extra 3 IPC for going the northern route, but you also have the transports in the Baltic for quick reinforcement of the push into Russia.
Am I the only one who likes to do both? Generally, you don’t need your full stack in one place until you’re knocking on Moscow’s door. I like to send the majority of my forces north to Nov, and then the Fast movers that survived yhe France battle go south along with the slow movers liberated from that pro-Axis neutral north of Greece.
Around round 5 theymeet up in Bryansk, and the real fun begns.
I believe if Japan extends the majority of their navy past India that they are setting themselves up for an invasion. They will be 3 or more turns away from Japan. Ships and planes seem to get lost in the Indian ocean anyways ;)
The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.
Agreed.
I really don’t see any advantage of the ‘Northern’ route (Smolensk) over the Southern, as East Poland->Western Ukraine->Bryansk->Moscow is as fast as East Poland->Belarus->Smolensk/Bryansk->Moscow. The Southern route gives all the mentioned additional strategic options (Africa/ME/India) whereas the Northern has none.
Attacking either Leningrad or Ukraine with brute force (other than its fast units, the finns and its air) is a German mistake, but defending either one with Russia is an even bigger one (as Wild Bill already explained why, I’ll not), so both ICs will be in German hands anyway when either of the above ‘Moscow-approaches’ are taken with the German doomstack and Russia does not want to loose Moscow.
But by going south, you miss, first, the opportunity to bring slow units by ship, as Jennifer mentioned. Second, and more severe, you cannot use the Inf from Scandinavia for the attack on Moscow. How do you reunite them? When they arrive next to Bryansk, they vanish unless accompagnied by the rest of your troops. If you split, as Shin Ji suggested, half of your troops will die without destroying much.
Okay, first things first ;-).
Bringing slow units via Leningrad over the Baltic Sea has 2 downsides:
After they have been produced, it takes them 4 turns to reach Moscow, giving Russia an extra production turn.
Germany must build a sizable TRS fleet + escorts to be able to do so.
Why I think those are downsides?
By producing fast units in Germany, or even in West Germany (!), the Wehrmacht arrives in Moscow 3 turns later, 1 turn faster than slow units transported to Leningrad. This is even cheaper, and thus, more units can be thrown towards Moscow, because there is no fleet needed. Buying ships is very expensive… Even transporting fast units over the Baltic Sea->Leningrad->Moscow isn’t faster (also takes 3 turns). But way more expensive than just driving them over land east (no Russian mud in this game 8-)).
As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.
Really, if Germany moves towards Moscow ‘deathball-style’, or even carefully split like Shin suggested (both armies can merge again in Bryansk just in time), there is nothing Russia can do but retreat, give up everything and turtle in Moscow. Too bad for the allies there is no scorched earth tactic in this game too, so the Russian minor ICs become German!
There is only 1 prerequisite for this for the Germans: Germany must maximise the number of units and attack/defense factors marching towards Moscow and must not dilute its army strength by buying ships, or else Russia can do more than just turtle.
Build for a feinted Sea Lion. Take all land units South. Take all amphibious units North. Use Italy as a can opener. Japan fast-tracks it through Mongolia.
Or what everyone else is saying.
I believe if Japan extends the majority of their navy past India that they are setting themselves up for an invasion. They will be 3 or more turns away from Japan. Ships and planes seem to get lost in the Indian ocean anyways ;)
that just made my day
As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.
I dont meant that they were stuck in Novgorod. But where do you move the guys from Finnland? They can attack Moscow from Smolensk or maybe Vologda. Your major stack, however, attacks Moscow from Bryansk. A vast Russian stack in Smolensk could now attack your armies seperately. If you just have some men north, he might not kill your big stack in the south, but the smaller in any case. If you split your army in two halfs, the Russian can decide which one to crush, leaving you with not enough troops to attack Moscow.
This is what I meant…
Ahhhh okay I see :-).
I agree with the idea, of course! No sane German should ever split its army and position both armies adjacent to the 1 big Russian stack. Due to the military advantage Germany starts with however, Russia cannot defend Smolensk just yet and the Finns should find connection in Bryansk safely.
The Finns can walk into Belarus->Bryansk ;-). The Reds are cowering in Moskou (and they must be) so they cannot attack the Finns in Belarus. Germany does not have to attack Moscow GE6. If Moscow is poorly defended, sure them Germans can be opportunistic. A better defended Moscow can sometimes be taken GE7 with the help of the Finns. A purrfectly defended Moscow however…
In general, if Germany is really focussed about Moscow, the Red Army cannot afford to split off troops to attack incoming German reinforcements as this means the main German army will take Moscow next turn. That is, as long as there are no Brits/Americans in Moscow and there is no threat of ‘Normandy’ in the west. Turns 1 to 6 in General.
So, to turn a long story short, the answer to your question is: Belarus :-P.
A gambling Russian player might try the following:
You have your vast stack in Ukraine or Western Ukraine and your Finn guys moving from Novgorod to Belarus. The Russian stack of course is in Bryansk.
Now the Russian player is forced to retreat, you think. However, he attacks Belarus with a large stack from Bryansk and one Marine from Smolensk. After killing almost all of your Finn guys, he retreats to Smolensk and is now in a good position. He guardes Bryansk with one Marine against a German Blitz, of course.
Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
(…)Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
That is usually the way ;-). ‘My’ Finns lag 1 turn behind anyway. The main German army is in Western Ukraine/Belarus and the Finns are then in Leningrad.
So yes, for the Finns to be included, Germany needs to wait 1 more turn to attack Moscow. Personally I either attack Moscow without the Finns GE6 if Russia makes a mistake, with the Finns GE7 or I have to postpone the assault further, into GE8-GE10. Possibly even indefinately if Russia is strongly defended.
(…)Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
That is usually the way ;-). ‘My’ Finns lag 1 turn behind anyway. The main German army is in Western Ukraine/Belarus and the Finns are then in Leningrad.
So yes, for the Finns to be included, Germany needs to wait 1 more turn to attack Moscow. Personally I either attack Moscow without the Finns GE6 if Russia makes a mistake, with the Finns GE7 or I have to postpone the assault further, into GE8-GE10. Possibly even indefinately if Russia is strongly defended.
I usually do it something like that. Usually, I will end up with large German forces in Smolensk and Bryansk, with smaller forces in the Ukraine to get that IC and up in Leningrad.
Now, of course it depends on Russia’s strength in Moscow.
If it is a little lesser, perhaps because Russia tried to be more offensive or bought more expensive units for whatever reason, then I will go after Moscow with my two big stacks in Smolensk and Bryansk plus any tanks/mechs in Ukraine and any planes that can reach.
HOWEVER, if the Moscow defense is bigger, then I will simply wait them out. Since most of the Russian force will be defensive in nature (mostly infantry), they are not likely to attack either of my stacks in Bryansk or Smolensk for fear of too far weakening the Moscow defense and leaving it open to the other stack.
I will add a little to the Smolensk and Bryansk stacks, plus the Finns in Leningrad move out to take Archangel and Vologda (just north of Moscow). The Ukraine force moves out to take Rostov and Stalingrad, perhaps even Tambov (just south of Moscow). If, as sometimes happens, some Japanese forces have fought their way across either northern Russia or China, they could be in the position to occupy Samara and Moscow will be TOTALLY surrounded.
Meanwhile, while I am waiting on the slow stacks to get into position, I keep some bombers close to keep pounding the Russian IC. Between their shrinking territory and constantly repairing their factory, Russia will not be adding much if any to their defense while the German stacks keep growing.
Of course, all of this only works if Germany is also able to keep US/UK at bay in the west and not lose too much to them. I know I kind of made it sound easy, but it really isn’t.
If the UK is fairly active, you may have to keep repelling constant landings in Normandy, Holland and Denmark. You may even lose Norway at some time.
If the US decides to go mostly Europe, Germany will obviously have even more problems in addition to trying to overwhelm Russia. Italy can only do so much to help. Even if Italy is expanding well in the Middle East and Africa, they are still no match for the US if they really come on full powered.
I have even seen a couple of games where Germany trounced the Russians good and took Moscow with lots of units surviving, yet lost because the US/UK takes Berlin and Rome.
In these cases, you often have to simply fight off the Allies for as long as possible with maybe a much slower progress in Russia and hope for a Japanese victory in the Pacific.
That is the main problem for the US, deciding where to put the majority of their resources. If US decides to go heavy Europe, you will probably save Russia from extinction and eventually overwhelm Germany and Italy along with the Brits and Russkies. However, Japan could go nuts on the other side and totally rule the Pacific.
If US decides to go after Japan, they will probably shut Japan down but good. However, that leaves a very powerful Germany to only deal with UK and Russia, and Italy will be giving the Brits headaches on top of that.
One thing that I have noticed in these games is that the US really has to commit mostly to one side or the other for the Allies to have a good chance to win. In most games, if the US splits it’s efforts somewhat evenly between both theaters, they won’t have enough in either side to really make a difference. The game may take a little longer, but the Axis will eventually win on one side or the other.
I think it would take a really good player (probably better than me) to be able to split US resources effectively and keep both the Japanese and Euro Axis off balance enough for an eventual Allied win.
Yeah, I noticed lots of players are having a difficult time deciding exactly how to ‘spendsplit’ the American income…
Back to Russia. Shaniana made a good point in that the Russians will kill half the German army if it is split at the wrong time at the wrong place.
The way I often see the eastern front develop is that Russia has way too much defense in Moscow for the Germans to attack it. Germany on the other hand also has way too much defense in its main stack for the Russians to attack. The Luftwaffe usually must be used in this defense as well.
Kind of a standoff and this is the point where the turning point comes OR Russia collapses. And this depends on how well the USA and UK can ‘arrest’ the German reinforcements from G4 and onwards. If they do it well, Germany cannot find enough forces to surround Moscow because this will weaken its main army so that Russia can destroy it (or strafe if that is more opportune). But on the other hand, if Germany can find a way to keep channeling enough reinforcements into Russia it becomes very difficult for the allies (but not Always impossible).
I found that it really helps if you can manage to keep at least 2-3 bombers to keep hitting the Russian IC. If you keep putting damage on Russia’s factory, they will have less to buy units with.
Of course, you are right, it also depends on how much you have to deal with the Western Allies as to whether you can keep adding reinforcements to your stack in Russia.
Also, if you start to lose bombers to AA fire or interceptors, it will be hard to replace them AND deal with the Western Allies AND keep adding units to your Russia stack.
AND I agree that indeed, a large amount of Spitfires often deters me from bombing Moscow. Sorry for parroting but tat ‘and’,
I just found that too funny to ignore :-). Seriously, Russia cannot survive a determined and focussed attack on Moscow without lots of units from the UK to help them out.
If I play the UK I always take into account Russia will need 8 of my FTR minimum UK5. More if it looks like a serious bombing campaign will hit Moscow. If Russia screws up by loosing too much troops in the opening turns of the war (for example by trying to defend Leningrad) and/or buying too few bodies to defend itself during the turns that it is still able to buy anything serious (at least 11 units per turn for the first 5 turns -on average-), it becomes very hard for the RAF to save them. If not impossile :cry:.
Okay, there is where we differ. In our games, UK almost never sends any planes to Russia. They keep their planes to try and do something against Germany themselves. Russia tends to be kind of left alone to fend for itself. That being said, there have been several games where Russia manages to defend Moscow well. There are so many factors involved: what Russia decides to buy, whether they try counter attacks or totally retreat, what they do with the guys in the east, how much Germany is able to bring to bear.
I have said several times that we need to play more like ALLIES, although I have been guilty of this myself when playing either side. We each tend to use our own units to advance our own objectives. Sometimes we will land planes to support Allied landings or do follow-up attacks.
(…)I have said several times that we need to play more like ALLIES, although I have been guilty of this myself when playing either side. We each tend to use our own units to advance our own objectives. Sometimes we will land planes to support Allied landings or do follow-up attacks.
Very wise words!
Teamwork. IMHO this is 1 of the 2 problems the allies must overcome if they want to win the game. The other one being ‘intelligence’. The ability to see what the axis are trying to do and react properly. The more players in the team, the more difficult both problems become for the allies.
The Axis only need some sort of vague plan about what they are going to do. Japan waiting with its DOW till J3 or not being about the most detailed part of it ;-).
I do agree, that the southern route is the more safest way to play.
But, Germany can’t do it alone, it needs at least the threat/help of Japan and Can opener Italy to guarantee the victory over the Moscow campaign.
So much depends on how the Russian player retreats…
I have done Shins style once because the player allowed it…if a more polished player controlled it, I would be more hesitant to split forces…but certainly, if its allowable, I agree it is a great way…it works especially well in Axis and Allies Second Edition itself…
I have now played 3 games in a row where I took Moscow as Germany…One way was split as Shin suggested, one was STRAIGHT up the middle (the guy playing Russia left central territories wide open, didn’t even leave a single unit to slow me down, I blitzed right through), and the other time was through the south. I’ve NEVER gone through the North…I could be wrong but it always felt more opposed, not economically as beneficial, and perhaps a turn longer (I could be wrong though, I don’t have the board in front of me.)
