Whoops, just thought of more setbacks for the allies in the Atlantic…
When the US builds in turn 1 in the Atlantic. Japan will not enter the war until J3. So you cannot be in SZ 91 in turn 3, you cannot even be in SZ 123. So the US cannot attack until turn 5!!!
By then Germany can have at least 30 units ready…
Good luck Allies! :-(
Any thoughts?
Sure, UK-pac and anzac will be making 30ish. China will be doing not so bad.
US can put a few more turns of pressure on germany.
Germany cannot have 30 units ready, because if they do those 30 are not going to moscow so moscow is saved.
My thoughts exactly.
If the US1 build in the Atlantic means that Japan has to change their plan and Germany is keeping 30 units back, I consider that a success
Tolstoj
This weekend doesn’t work for a game but we can figure something out. I won’t lie: I rarely play online. I like to be able to see the whole board in front of me, get up and move around, etc. Plus, my group plays almost every weekend so I’m never really wanting for a game.
Seeing as how we live far apart though, we can make it happen sometime 8-)
That’s all short term. China will always be defeated in J4, as I explained earlier (or J5 if things turn out dramaticaly for Japan). UK-PAC wil have around 5 IPC after turn 4, and ANZAC their usual 10. As US is spending in Europe India will fall and Russia will be defeated in the east…
Germany can always count how many units are needed, the rest will be of to Moscow. The 30 units include at least 10 aircraft, and 4 mobile units (that can be transported). So the force will be minimal.
The Allies will have to buy at least 12-14 transports, a whopping 84-98 IPC’s!!! :O And they have to be loaded with units. The Brazilian units cannot help, because the US can’t attack Brazil until turn 4. You have only 4 infantry, 2 artillerie, 4 Mech, a tank and some AA guns. So you will also have to buy at least 15 infantry: 45 IPC’s.
The US has only 3 turns to do this (if they want to be in Norway by turn 5): 156 IPC’s. And they need to protect their fleet. How many ships do you think you need for protection? You will have around 30 to buy a protective fleet. This won’t be possible!
And are you planning to take Gibraltar in turn 4?
So I’ve been in a run of games where I’m playing Axis, after never having gotten them previously.
Japan simply cannot be contained without a combined effort by all 5 neighboring powers. So US1 Atlantic build is the signal for Japan to become as aggressive as possible.
Looking at it from the Japan perspective, the Allies need to bring in all 5 powers to prevent them from becoming powerful quickly:
Russia needs to stack Bury with 18inf/2aa. Their job is to move to Amur in round 2 to tie up Japanese assets or make them pay for it. All assets the Japanese divert will then NOT be used against China and UK-Pac.
China needs to focus on Yunnan to the greatest extent possible, with the goal of stacking and holding it with UK-Pac backing.
UK-Pac needs to stack Burma in round 1 to back up the Chinese.
UK-Pac and ANZAC need to garrison the DEI as much as they can - leave inf on the islands to force Japan to bring in extra assets to take them, while blocking up sea spaces with DDs.
Finally, the US needs to build in Pac round 1 to stop the Japanese navy/air from being able to maneuver without reserving units for defense. A strong US navy brings a lot of Japanese air away from the south.
If the allies do ALL these things, Japan doesn’t have enough units to counter them all. It will lose somewhere. Note that the Allies need to be trading off pickets and small forces with Japan, NOT giving them a juicy target to hit.
Failing to do any ONE of these things breaks containment and Japan can go hog wild. Bring those Russian inf west, and Japan now has the units to steamroll China/UK-Pac without a problem. Fail to bring in a US fleet and Japan will easily sweep away the efforts to stymie them in DEI and will bring naval threat against India. Fail to contest Yunnan and Japan will use it as a base to contain UK-Pac while plowing through China, or as a highway to India.
So now the question is: assuming the US1 build and Russian Far East forces are committed against Japan, can Germany be contained also?
I think it can. It doesn’t really matter if Russia falls if Japan is failing also. US builds Atlantic starting round 2, so they come in one turn later, BUT there are cascading benefits from a better eastern map position for the western side, e.g. UK can commit more against Germany and less to help UK Pac survive, US can commit more to Atlantic with its Pacific-side allies healthier and generating more IPC and Japan fewer.
The trick with Allies is that assets are fungible. A dd bought by ANZAC can mean one fewer bought by the US in the Pac theater, which means one more with the Atlantic fleet. UK fighters and ships not moving to India (because it doesn’t need the help) can be leveraged against Italy in Europe instead. 20 eastern Russian units can shift more than their value’s worth of IPC by garrisoning Korea, taking Manchuria, diverting and killing Japanese land units, and giving UK-Pac more time holding onto their income territories, giving China the chance to fight back more easily and generate more inf, and so on.
Making the Allies effective is essentially a financial game, being able to build assets in the theater where they need to be built, and using responsibility-shifting among the allies to free up units and IPC for the powers that need them most at any given time.
Good post Elk. I agree strongly with everything you said, with one exception:
The US is better off using US1 to stack the Atlantic and then play catchup in the Pacific. My reasoning behind this:
It seems to be universally agreed upon that the US cannot just split its money the whole way, but rather must spend heavy in one Theater, at least early on. That being the case, the US will have to play catch up in the the other Theater, meaning that, in the long run, the US will actually spend more on whichever side they ignored in round 1. So the question is which side is better suited for playing catch up? Since the Japanese have to eventually get Sydney or Hawaii, the answer is the Pacific.
If China focuses on Yunan and Russia goes Buryatia, Amur, attack, Japan should be slowed down a little.
I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.
The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.
Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.
So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.
The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.
So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.
The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.
So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.
I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.
The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.
Thats true if Japans attacks on J3. Not everything is lost for the allies! But if UK-Pac attacks in round 2, then the Americans can’t attack in round 3.
But they can’t use the units from Brazil to attack Norway in US4…
Japan has enough landunits to take China, see my other entries on this issue (at least 13 landunits in Kweichow in J2). And if the US is buying in the Atlantic, Japan will also have no problem taking DEI, and hold them for the rest of the game.
5-6 transports will not be enough. That’s just 10-12 units… Germany will have at least 20 in G4 (but I think more)…
AGAIN, I ALWAYS HAVE 10 OR MORE GERMANS PLANES AFTER G2!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW/WHY GERMANY WILL LOSE SO MANY PLANES, I NEVER DO! And, again, if they are partially in Poland they can fly both ways. But how many planes do you need to drive the Russians back? I never use more then 2-3-4. Only later if you are going to hit Moscow, or Bryansk you need them all…
If Germany will have a destroyer and a carrier (plus 4-5 aircraft) I dont think the UK will attack.
Italy can defend itself and Germany has to have a minimum of units in Norway and France. Actually Germany would love you to land in France, because it has a major factory there. And how are you going to land there from Iceland?
Yes the French plane can destroy the destroyer, I think it would not be wise for Germany to buy 2 destroyers.
What units am I using twice? And the actions I am asuming are deducted from your stated actions. Which actions are you specifically referring to?
Keep in mind the Paris factory will be reduced to a minor once you take it.
The transports ShadowHawk is speaking of are US only and don’t include any UK help. Earlier in the thread I posted an example of what US and UK could land in Norway: 18 inf, 1 tank, 3 AA, 3 ftrs. In reply you said the Axis could delay the US from getting to Norway until turn 5 (which is true) and that Germany could have 30 units (20 ground 10 air) ready to go. Let’s go off of that for a second.
First thing to remember: the extra turn delay also allows the Allies to get more units up there. But more important than that is how much Germany has sacrificed in the push for Russia in order to counter attack Norway in this scenario. Your planes are out of position; if you have 2 on that carrier and 2-3 ready to scramble, that’s 4 or 5 that are not engaged in Russia.
Let’s look at a few numbers: Germany starts with 57 ground units (I know they get 8 from Finland and Bulgaria, but they’re going to lose units in Paris and any other territories they attack, so let’s call that a wash). By the end of G4 they should’ve spent roughly 200 IPC. Take off 24 for the CV and DD you’ve purchased and that leaves 176. However, you also said you’d buy 2-3 transports, so let’s go with 2, taking it down to 162. A ten tank buy G2 seems to be standard (please correct me if I’m wrong), leaving 102, which is roughly 22 units if you buy a mix of tanks, mechs, art, inf. So let’s call this an additional 32 units, giving you 89 (assuming you’ve lost none since G1).
So, you have 20 ground units in Finland ready to counter-attack Norway and, based on your other posts, I imagine you’ve got roughly the same in Paris ready to counter attack Normandy (btw, any ftr or tacs in Poland cannot reach the battle in Normandy). That’s 35-40 ground units in Finland and Paris, plus maybe 8-10 you had to place in Berlin, bringing us somewhere between 43-50, out of about 90, ground units, and 4-5 planes nowhere near Moscow by the end of G4. In this given scenario you are absolutely not taking Moscow. It’s not happening. The Atlantic Allies have defended Moscow without even landing in Europe.
I’d argue that the Atlantic is better for catch-up. The trade-off is you enter one round later than you would otherwise, so you need to find a way to stall Germany for one round more than otherwise.
The reasoning is that if the US builds enough of a fleet in Hawaii to tie down half the Japanese air force in defense and force the fleet to at least stay within 1 move of Japan - which it can achieve in round 1 - and combine that with aggressive play by Russia/UKPac/ANZAC/China, Japan’s “monster” phase can be delayed significantly. That represents 50+ IPC a turn swing in resources (mostly from Allies holding DEI/UK-Pac territories longer) which can then be committed by the US and UK to the European theater, since now the four other powers can keep Japan contained. ANZAC and UK-Pac making 35ish combined per turn plus the Chinese contribution is an even match against a 45 income Japan with half an airforce to use (and 18 inf 2aa in Korea is extremely inconvenient as well), Japan can be entirely consumed on land and unable to afford any additional ships at all, their transports dropping units on the mainland and not Java, Sumatra, Celebes.
Someone showed me a trick the other night where you can construct a defensive web of allied destroyers in the DEI to further frustrate and divert Japanese resources and delay the monster phase. He did everything else on the stop-Japan list as well, except he didn’t build US fleet in Pac. However, with the fleet free to do something other than defend Japan, it was able to do the job of cleaning up that nest and assaulting the islands on its own. If it were tied down in defense, then air would be diverted to both defending the fleet and also to capturing the islands, and even with everything they start with that’s not enough to also get good combats in China as well.
So that first US spend in the Pacific really does come back in a big way in making the other allies sustainable, freeing UK-Eur resources to spend immediately against Germany, and allowing the US to focus on the Atlantic as long as it needs to to get the job done.
The Atlantic “hammer” takes a few turns of builds to set up, so if you focus on it first, it’s now round 5 or 6 before the first real Pacific spend, and Japan is at 70+ IPCs with China and UK-Pac no longer able to resist. This is true even if Japan needs to clean up Russian inf in Korea as well. At that point Japan can match the US IPC for IPC and has defeated the enemy on the Asian front, while floating a nice navy into the Indian Ocean for further gains. Japan can now force the US to spend all its IPC in the Pacific and not in Europe in order to hold the line.
So the build-Pac-late scenario basically gives the US one good shot at scoring a winning blow in Europe, and that offers Germany a great strategic option, of bleeding off the US units trading territories (inf/ftr builds) and lessening the hammer’s strength with every kill. Even if you take Italy, Germany can take it back.
The Axis don’t really need Russia to fall on a schedule other than “eventually”. They just need to push it back to its capital so it’s not building, and have enough of a stack next to it not to kill it but to keep it contained. Actually capturing the capital itself is not terribly meaningful at that point. And the Germans can do that easily while dropping large amounts of inf/ftr and the occasional sub back home to repel landings - they are reinforcing every turn at 50 IPC (figure 10inf/1art/1sub/1ftr every turn) while the US is now committed to 100% Pacific builds for as long as Japan likes.
So a strategic scenario of Japan vs. US full build in the Pacific with Japan advancing on Mideast/Africa, and Germany in highly-efficient compact-defense mode pulling in 50+, China and UKPac out of the game, Russia just an idle holdout stack destined to die… that’s a pretty good Axis scenario. Allies’ whole game chances rest on that one initial US strike on Europe being effective, essentially - UK Europe won’t be able to fight off Japan and contribute against Germany at the same time.
I would rather be fighting a smaller Japan and have that hammer fall one round later, in such a manner that reinforcements could be continuously on the way, at which point extra IPC can go into Pac builds against a weaker version of Japan that can’t afford to dedicate its full IPC to a naval race and has a healthy ANZAC to contend with as well.
The more practice I get on the Axis side the more I am realizing that you can overload Japan and short-circuit the process of becoming a monster, but you need all 5 pieces (and maybe even that French destroyer) to actually achieve the effect. Japan can do three things and hold off one more threat. It cannot do three things and hold off TWO more threats. US full build Pac1 is the tipping point where Japanese resources are no longer adequate to do all the things it needs to do. You can get it at the cost of arriving in Europe one round later.
Reading this over and giving it some thought, I’m wondering if you’re right. I usually do a massive US1 Atlantic buy, but still don’t end up in Gibraltar until US3, meaning it may make more sense to save that large buy for US2. I will try it and report back!
Keep in mind the Paris factory will be reduced to a minor once you take it.
The transports ShadowHawk is speaking of are US only and don’t include any UK help. Earlier in the thread I posted an example of what US and UK could land in Norway: 18 inf, 1 tank, 3 AA, 3 ftrs. In reply you said the Axis could delay the US from getting to Norway until turn 5 (which is true) and that Germany could have 30 units (20 ground 10 air) ready to go. Let’s go off of that for a second.
First thing to remember: the extra turn delay also allows the Allies to get more units up there. But more important than that is how much Germany has sacrificed in the push for Russia in order to counter attack Norway in this scenario. Your planes are out of position; if you have 2 on that carrier and 2-3 ready to scramble, that’s 4 or 5 that are not engaged in Russia.
Let’s look at a few numbers: Germany starts with 57 ground units (I know they get 8 from Finland and Bulgaria, but they’re going to lose units in Paris and any other territories they attack, so let’s call that a wash). By the end of G4 they should’ve spent roughly 200 IPC. Take off 24 for the CV and DD you’ve purchased and that leaves 176. However, you also said you’d buy 2-3 transports, so let’s go with 2, taking it down to 162. A ten tank buy G2 seems to be standard (please correct me if I’m wrong), leaving 102, which is roughly 22 units if you buy a mix of tanks, mechs, art, inf. So let’s call this an additional 32 units, giving you 89 (assuming you’ve lost none since G1).
So, you have 20 ground units in Finland ready to counter-attack Norway and, based on your other posts, I imagine you’ve got roughly the same in Paris ready to counter attack Normandy (btw, any ftr or tacs in Poland cannot reach the battle in Normandy). That’s 35-40 ground units in Finland and Paris, plus maybe 8-10 you had to place in Berlin, bringing us somewhere between 43-50, out of about 90, ground units, and 4-5 planes nowhere near Moscow by the end of G4. In this given scenario you are absolutely not taking Moscow. It’s not happening. The Atlantic Allies have defended Moscow without even landing in Europe.
Yes that true: a major IC becomes a minor one after capture! Forgot about that one.
Again, Germany will not conquer Moscow in G4 or G5, so it doesn’t need planes in Russia. So in fact Germany can use all it’s planes in Europe.
The Russians have around 50 units at the start of R2 (including AA and air force). Germany will enter Russia with 44 units in G3 (with 10 art + 6 mech + 1 tank behind, bought in G2). After that Germany can easely buy 10 mech’s per round on Germany to send after that total of 61 units…
Let’s say germany will buy in G3 (51 IPC’s): 10 mech’s + 1 artillerie + 2 infantry… (13 units to take back Norway + cruiser)
G4: 10 mech’s + 1 tranport + 1 artillery + 1 infantry (16 units to take Norway + cruiser)
G5: 11 mech’s + 1 tank + 2 artillery + 2 infantry (20 units to take Norway + cruiser + 2 units extra for Moscow)
By the time were in R5 (supposed landing) Russia will not have 30 IPC’s to spend, so it cannot buy 10 units per round. Germany can and therefore will slowly take Russia if the other allies don’t intervene…
Thanks SubmergedElk, your “5 powers” post up above seems to match my most recent thinking. �  We played Game 93 last weekend (G42) and it doesn’t really matter whether you use the G40 or G42 set up, the Pacific considerations are the same.
KGF seems very limiting to me, as going “strong Atlantic” cannot do anything (offensive or defensive) until turns 4/5, and it does very little to alter Germany’s strategic planning or reduce their income. �  Even though there are 6 Atlantic Wall/Italy territories, its very cheap to defend them with stacks of infantry and counterattackers, and they are very hard to hold for the Allies, very close together, and not worth much. �  Knocking Italy down seems like a good idea, but it is very easy for Germany to supplement their defenses if necessary, and I’ve seen several games where an Italy doing well contributed both a mobile lance to Barbarossa and was about 80% of the Atlantic wall defenses. �  Blocking SZ92 with one ship delays a med attack by another turn, and is very easy for the axis to do. �  � Since the US invasion is a one-shot, once they show you where they are going to drop it, you can consolidate all your other stacks. �
The only exception to the above is taking Norway, especially if you can take it or Finland (and/or Iraq) with Russian pieces, but if you go that direction you’re spending most of UK-Eur and Us effort on getting up there, and no earlier than turn 6. � Losing Africa means nothing to the Axis, its a sideshow.
I really kind of disagree that you ever have to “play catch up” in the atlantic. �  Game 93(G42) the Americans had a massive navy and went 80% Atlantic, but they still had to skirt around my wall and ended up invading through the Balkans (and Turkey lol–far more effective than I could have imagined). � Because Japan was able to defeat a few of the American fleets in the Pacific, they ended up having to reverse and build in the Pacific anyway. Taking Italy away from me wouldn’t have done much, and at that point I had control of Leningrad, so the fact that Germany was now facing the Red Army, UK and America wasn’t that big of a deal defensively (and G42 is much more defensive/Germany than G40. � Germany begins on the defense in G42.)
I’m thinking my next Pacific strategy will be to stack Russia in Amur, try for a UK DoW and Yunnan link up, and add the spoiling forces around the islands that you mention, and go 100% Pacific with the US for 5 turns. �  If Japan tries to step out of its “1 turn from Sz6” alignment", they are in grave danger.
The only exception is that you have to leave some forces on the eastern US to dissuade Italy/Germany from attacking or threatening it because you’ve sent everything West, but that could amount to like 4-6 men and one DD.
Another side point is that you have to build an invasion force with transports and men in the Atlantic–whereas in the Pacific you can do almost all combat ships. My reasoning here is that you goal is not going to be to invade Japan itself, this is both impossible and futile because Japan is so easy to defend and has so many planes and kamis. Your goal is to invade Korea instead after wrecking the Japanese fleet and preventing it from forming up on SZ 6 again. Once you own SZ6, they have no economy left and no where to place substantial forces. Unlike Germany, they don’t have 2 MajICs.
I realize that you are supposed to eventually take Tokyo, but it surrenders before it is conquered in nearly every game, since the only way you could win the invasion is by chopping their fleet down first.
Also keep in mind any ships you buy in Western US can be off Gibraltar 2 turns later, so US1 Pac buy can be there in US3. If the US fleet isn’t going to be hitting Gibraltar until US4, then first 2 turns can have Pac buys that arrive in the same place at the same time as Atlantic builds from one turn later. If that arrival at Gibraltar is in turn 4, the initial fleet in US1 can be moved to/toward Hawaii entirely as if doing a Pac buildup, only to reverse course and hit Gibraltar with the loaded Atlantic transports built in US2 and US3.
Well, I don’t think the 10 tanks will get you there. 10 artillerie and 5 mech are far more efficient in my view. Russia doesn’t even come close to preventing the Germans from taking their border territories or Leningrad. And if Germany keeps Norway, it has the extra bonus…
I always follow the Ermattungstrategie instead of a Vernichtingsstrategie. That way you are stronger in the long run. If the Russians cannot get you out of Russia and you are getting to Bryansk slowly, they will eventually lose. The Germans have more units to start with, and only have to match the Russians in productivity.
Actually Germany can start in G2, but I attack in G3 in this scenario (US 100% Atlantic).
The Germans will be above 60 IPC, and the Russians will be under 25 IPC (and under 20 IPC if the US only buys in the Atlantic: Japan will take the Far East).
Actually Germany can move in with about 20 units on G2, and Germany is always happy to exchange units with Russia (Russia risks losing a fighter as well)!
But I said I would move in on G3.
On G3 I move in with 46 units! Are the Russians going to attack those? With what? Please let me know, because I would like to defeat the German army for the first time in the games I have played. And if you take Persia those units will not be on time to help either…
After the artillerie buy in G2, I buy mostly mech’s with Germany, and some tanks if I have the IPC’s (depending on the allies’ moves). Never infantry or artillerie after G2. So if your buying fast units first and later slow units, I will be quicker in Moscow.
Do you buy IC’s in Russia, later in the game? I always do…
Thanks for the arguments!
No I take Yugoslavia, France and Normandy the first round, and I have calculated the losses…
If you attack with 45 Russian units, you will lose more then the Germans: Germany takes Moscow with ease! That’s a horrible trade-off for Russia especially because of there weak offensive power.
Even if the Russians attack with 50, the trade-off is not favorable for Russia. I think the both lose the numbers, perhaps the Germans even win this battle (Russia has to many infantry and mech’s, almost no artillery)…
The Germans have more in behind too: 25 units (10 artillerie, 10 mech’s (bought), 3 tanks and 2 mech’s (from France)). How many will Russia have? And they have to buy in Moscow…
This way Russia is sure to fall!
Nice back-n-forth debate, I’m enjoying it.
Like to add that we have been doing a G2 Barbarossa, and it has been very effective. We have been doing somewhat of a dark sky’s (early heavy German bmr buys) with a pretty devastating J1 (see later). In the last game the Germans didn’t attack Yugo G1, he used the Bulgarians to do it G2. Theory was he generally loses a couple guys in that battle, and he wanted to have more inf at the front. This helps to deter a Russian strafe on your stack, and the Bulgarians are going to be a round behind you anyway. We have found that if the the Germans supper stack they have enough starting units to push the Russians back (Italian mobile units are helpful), and you can get to both Leningrad and Ukraine w/o much of a fight. You will force some tough decisions on the Russians because with the G2 attack you have enough starting units to go straight to Moscow (if they don’t get help). Even with say 4-5 UK air units there, odds will favor Germany slightly (keeping in mind the Luftwaffe is doubled in size by then, and bmr heavy). It’s not in Germany’s best interest to hit Moscow at that time because it will cut them deeply (but it is a real threat). After that you add a minor IC on E Ukraine and start pumping out units on Russian soil from several ICs to finish the job and the Russians are somewhat contained. The Bmrs can pull double duty from West Germany, keeping the allies at bay, and still threaten to hit Moscow. As the Germans you aren’t really looking to destroy the Allied fleet unless they seriously under build, you can double hit using Italy, or you can incorporate navy/subs (to costly, and the allies know that). Instead you set-up to kill the landing party using ground units in key areas (including transports if they go north) with an over powering Luftwaffe.
Our J1 attack is hitting both Phil and Hawaiian fleets (6 US ships sunk+Phil ftr) along with the early heavy investment in German bmrs (and some navy) is causing a lot of problems for the US. Although they are unleashed on the first turn they are finding it difficult to compete with Japan and/or go to Europe. It is up to UK to stall the Germans while the US figures out what the hell they are doing. Next time I’m allies I will look at sending the Russian mob to Amur to see what the Japanese do. It would defiantly put a thorn in their J1 attack so……like I said it is still a work in progress with us.
Just thought I would toss this into your discussion. We are still looking at the above situation over the last few games, but the allies haven’t been able to do much in response.
That way to few! Russia starts with just 3 artillery. You buy 4, that makes only a puny 7. Russia has 25 infantry at the start and 2 mech + 2 tanks (wich are neede in Persia?). You need at least 15-20 artillery to match the firepower of the German army.
Attack Eastern Poland? You have lost me, Russia cannot attack until round 4, if the Germans don’t attack…
Buying mobile units doesn’t make them stronger, but weaker in my view. You have to make stronger arguments then this. When and where is Russia going to stop the Germans? And with how many units?
I’m testplaying now and I played the game a couple of times, and Germany never failed to at least reach Bryansk in G7-8.
Would you care for a game sometimes? And by what rules do you play?
Again, thanks for the arguments!
I live in The Netherlands, so that won’t be a problem…
When do you have time? I don’t mind making it a slow game, where we play for an hour every day. Or we could just play a few hours in the weekends…
I am curious about your move with the allies, so can I play axis? And what rules do you play by?
About the dice, we play with only one dice. The rest is by calculation: if you attack for example with 20 infantry and 10 tanks:
20 X 1 = 20
10 X 3 = 30
Total = 50 / 6 = 8 hits (6 X 8 = 48)
2 left, so you throw with one dice: 2 or less is a 9th hit…
This way you rule out luck, especially in big battles…
Keep us updated on the game!
