Need help with my Barbarossa

Stalingradski - I am familiar with the details of the Battle of Britain, including the accidental bombing by the Luftwaffe and the impact it had on choosing future targets.  My favorite reads have been The Second World War by John Keegan and The Panzer Leader, an autobiography by Guderian.

As far as Italy goes I am trying to figure out how the classic strategies I used for so long fit into AAG40.  Only a couple games thus far and playing this week.  However, I have thought about your Atlantic Wall approach which invests in a higher volume of German naval units than I have ever done.  I have always went straight Barbarossa and continually marched infantry stacks towards Moscow.  The more you invest in Naval units the less you have to invest in units for the eastern front.

From my point of view you make up for this on the eastern front by supplementing with Italian forces.  By supplementing with Italy you have to give up North Africa.  So it is give and take.  I have always let Germany take as many countries as possible to build their IPC income high.  My Atlantic Wall is usually the slow build up of a large force in Paris that has always been capable of knocking the invasion force right back into the ocean.  The one trick is shifting all the aircraft to Russia just prior to the Moscow battle.  With no Italians on the eastern front they have more freedom to have a go at it in North Africa, and that gives you more Italian units to defend the Axis underbelly.

If the Italians win one or two decisive battles in North Africa then it will take the allies that much longer to get to Europe.  (I have read where you consider North Africa a side show.) I think one difference between us is that I am buying time for the Axis in North Africa whereas you are buying time with the addition of Naval units into your Atlantic wall.

I haven’t played alpha rules though - only OOB, so I am sure the next game will be different.  Unsure about how the larger UK Med fleet will affect Italy’s chances in North Africa.  I like parts to your strategy, specifically the naval builds by Germany as part of the Atlantic Wall.  So, there’s lots to discover here on my part and I am certainly not holding my “classic” approach as superior to yours or others.

One thought though - maybe you have become too predictable against an opponent that is familiar with your game play.  I used to regularly win against the best opponent I ever played.  Then one game he seemed to figure out the allies and how to play against me and it took a long time to beat him again.  It was hard to veer away from a familiar and confident strategy.  Is there more than one way to win as the axis when playing a solid opponent?

With Germany its either Sealion (then Barbarossa, or if your feeling lucky, a USA invasion) or just Barbarossa.

Japan however has several options, China first, Crush Calcutta, Pearl Harbor, Sydney, Eastern Russia…

Field Marshall7 - I enjoy your analysis, points, counterpoints, and questions.

Yes to what you said about Italian land forces making up for German naval builds… I hadn’t conceptualized it - it was sort of an organic process, probably based on need, and probably as a reaction to my opponent’s style. He’s adapted well as the Allies after a couple games of Russian annhilation. He’s flexible and smart in that after Mosow falls (basically a given), he makes attacks of opportunity on former Russian territories to gain and hold Allied IPCs. In one game we’re playing, he showed up in the Caucasus in so much multinational force that he’s been able to build a US IC and airbase in the Caucasus, even as Germany owns Volgograd and all points north. That game is in the balance.

I’ve been thinking about the ratio of naval/air builds to land units. I don’t feel at this point I could go away from the overarching strategy of getting the jump on defensive naval/air superiority in the Atlantic and Med (in particular, SZs 112 and 95) in the early rounds, and then adding to it religiously. What those units buy for you is the isolation of Russia. Of course, eventually one navy or the other (Baltic or Med) will be overcome, and that’s why a regular purchase of defensive infantry with both Germany and Italy is a must. When the sea lanes are finally opened, there’s nowhere for the Allies to gain a foothold. That’s the hope!

I’d like to reemphasize that I commit to land units - meat and potatoes - as much as humanly possible. In my games, a German purchase of 54 IPCs will be eight infantry, an artillery, a mech, an armor, a fighter, and a sub, for example. A heavy dose of infantry, a small sprinkling of mechanized units, an air unit, and a naval unit. G1 gives the foundation with a Carrier… G2 gives an opportunity to add a couple destroyers and a fighter with help from French cash… then after that it becomes a regular commitment… the point being that you try for as long as possible to stay just ahead of the US/Britain, and keep the initiative. Dictate terms to them instead of being dictated to.

At the end of the day, that’s what the commitment to regular additions of air and sea units represents… the maintaining of initiative. Being proactive instead of reactive. Once the European Axis has to start reacting to the Allies, in my opinion the writing is on the wall. Credible navies and air forces give Germany and Italy options, and at the very least force the Allies to have to deal with more contingencies, and defend more fronts. As soon as Germany and Italy have the appearance of being landlocked, the Allies get to begin to apply focused pressure precisely where they choose. That’s bad!

Yes to what you said about buying time by raiding Africa. I like the thinking behind it, and I want to figure out how to take and hold Egypt with Italy and still take Moscow with Germany alone.

Yes to what you said about becoming predictable. A good opponent will find the antidote, and then you’re forced to change what you’re up to… that’s where I’m at. I look forward to trying new stuff.

I look forward to your game report - try the Spiky Shield/Armored Fist version of Barbarossa with Germany, and let me know how to run a better Italy!

If I may add to this conversation…

@Stalingradski:

I’d like to reemphasize that I commit to land units - meat and potatoes - as much as humanly possible. In my games, a German purchase of 54 IPCs will be eight infantry, an artillery, a mech, an armor, a fighter, and a sub, for example. A heavy dose of infantry, a small sprinkling of mechanized units, an air unit, and a naval unit. G1 gives the foundation with a Carrier… G2 gives an opportunity to add a couple destroyers and a fighter with help from French cash… then after that it becomes a regular commitment… the point being that you try for as long as possible to stay just ahead of the US/Britain, and keep the initiative. Dictate terms to them instead of being dictated to.

Yes to what you said about buying time by raiding Africa. I like the thinking behind it, and I want to figure out how to take and hold Egypt with Italy and still take Moscow with Germany alone.

My personal opinion is that you aren’t putting enough strength into your ground purchases. I probably don’t have the experience you do, but from my games I believe that 8 inf, 1 mech, and 1 art is not enough of a ground presence to really hurt the Russians. I think it is better to have 6 inf and 4 art as your primary reinforcement supply, mainly because you are getting a lot more attacking strength without the need for an a significant air presence. I think that if you bought a fighter maybe every other round, you could really bulk up your ground forces in Russia. The fighter may not be necessary after all, especially if you have Italy focus 100% in the med, forcing the UK to divert its attention from Germany to the Italians. This way, you might have a better chance of taking Russia with Germany alone.

6 INF and 4 ART you will run out of infantry too fast and be left with lonely artillery peices
you NEVER want to be in a position where you trading noninfantry units for infantry

if im russia and you have a bunch of tanks and artillery with little or no infantry im gonna attack you just for the sole purpose of trading infantry for tanks and artillery that is a win for russia

keep the build ratio at atleast 1 ART per 2-3 INF if not more

1 Air unit, 1 sub, 1 ARM, 2-3 ART, and the rest INF is a really good German buy for Barbarossa on most turns leading up to battle of Moscow

a 54 IPC buy would be 1 sub, 1 fighter, 1 armor, 2 artillery, 8 infantry

germany needs to mass infantry leading up to moscow or risk losing too much in taking it

1. I go lower inf. I honestly would rather lose a couple artillery than fight with too many 1’s. Sure, you want cannon fodder, but 1 art 2 inf or 1 art 1 arm 3 inf FTW.
2. You NEED mech units, especially as you close on Moscow–2 minors isn’t enough production.

@techroll42:

1. I go lower inf. I honestly would rather lose a couple artillery than fight with too many 1’s. Sure, you want cannon fodder, but 1 art 2 inf or 1 art 1 arm 3 inf FTW.
2. You NEED mech units, especially as you close on Moscow–2 minors isn’t enough production.

mixing in a couple mech units cant hurt too much if your building them in west germany because germany IC is maxed out with INF and ART

Great conversation!

I think all those builds are valid, and could be used to take out Russia.

For me, as Uncrustable said, I fear infantry exhaustion. I’ve had too many games as a younger man in which I had too many tanks, etc… and not enough fodder. In big stack battles, you run out of infantry very quickly, and before you know it your armor is getting eaten up. Bad… unless it wins you the game.

I also find that it’s easy to get into a ‘hoard’ mentality - personally I usually end up trying as hard as I can to hold on to my stacks of artillery. It’s a personal tendency I’m trying to break… but nobody minds infantry dying on the front… except the infantry  :-D

KillOFzee - what I’ve found is that if you’re going for a methodical kill of Russia (let’s say Turn 10) and not a quick knockout, the slow buildup of your complementary units (artillery, mech, armor, air) eventually gains a mass that makes Russia’s fall inevitable. Then all those infantry investments have been doing three things - being taken as casualties on the East Front; very nicely holding down your Atlantic flank; and still massing enough to kill Mother Russia.

But I don’t doubt that larger volumes of artillery could do it also, and maybe faster… it’s just that you might find yourself losing more of your premium units in the fight for Moscow, etc. There’s more than one way to skin the Russian cat!

I see your guy’s point, but I think that you are overvaluing artillery.

Me theory is that, Germany can afford to lose 1 less infantry on the Atlantic front in order to upgrade that 8 inf, 2 art purchase into a 5 inf 5 art purchase, regardless of what my losses will be in Russia. Once I have some Russian factories, I am going to pump out infantry directly in the motherland, so any loses I experienced in previous battles will be reinforced when it finally counts.

My preferred strategy involves moving artillery from Poland to Finland prior to Barbarossa, so I have little to no artillery if I do not buy a lot of it early on. So, yes, as the rounds progress, I would not buy so much artillery and buy mainly infantry, but for the rounds G2-G5 it’s, 6 inf, 4 art. Germany can afford this, and more.

I have not tested this strategy yet but I am pretty sure it will be good.

Axis is at is always been a game about economy.

Next time I play the axis I will go for barbarossa. Since my group likes to play to 14 VCs japan should chose to do something else than just attacking russia, and draw up US resources in pacific, so that if US focuses to much on europe, japan will carry the day. In a barbarossa game I will build one minor with japan in round 1 and another one in round 2. I will focus on china in the first few rounds of the game and not declare on the wallies before germany goes for barbarossa, that should mean turn 3. I will base my fleet in the south china sea, with trannies, airbase and fleet base, so that it will be ready in case anzak and UK decares on japan. I will try to build 6 mech per turn in my factories on land and try to kill china before I go to war with wallies. I will also prolly attack USSR in round 2 or 3.

Germany will do the cheap sealion feint and save 30 ipc on their first turn. I will send italians (2 tanks + bomber + build 1 mech/turn) to the east front, I will also let italy italy take bulgaria (germany takes yugo, tank from N italy takes bulgaria,I think this should be a good idea) to get the extra 4 inf with italia. With this setup I should have at least 4 inf, 2 tanks, 2 mechs, 1 bomber from round 4 and out. I am planning to let italy take east poland in round 2 and have germany reinforce it in g3 while marching their troops towards russia. italys role in russia will be to take the land I will stack. (except for ukranie). Germany can advance in russia as long as russia is unable to counterattacki, to maximize defence italy can take the terretory, germany can move their entire stack there and land their planes. as long as the germany has enough mech/tanks in the stack italy can act as a canopener and force ussr to retreat if they can’t counterattack.

my plan as germany is to build in g2 a minor in romania 20 inf in east/w germany and 6 mechs in france/bordaux (=12+60+24 = 96, if I have less, I will build alittle differently. not 100% sure about the 10 inf in w germany, maybe they should be 6 inf 4 mech instead, can use the trannie to move the inf forward and the mechs can move with the big stack). Note that I am building 0 art, that is because my goal is not to take moscow as soon as possible, it is rather to take all the OTHER money in russia. turn 3 I will move to reinforce italy in e poland while moving most units towards russia. At the same time I will build 3 inf in romania possibly 1 bomber in w germany and the rest should be mech in germany.

in round 4 I should be able to take w ukraine while building 1 bomber and enough tanks to have at least 10 that can be in rostow by round 6 and rest mech.
round 5 I move to ukraine and build mechs I will also abuild a few units for the norhtern flank (to be on the trannie).

round 6 I will produce in ukraine, at this point the stack should be at about 80-100 units, depending on losses and how much is sent north if that is enough to stand in rostov, i will do that, if not, I will keep building mech and inf in ukraine until I am strong enough.

russia will probably have to abandon its entire northern front to stop my stack, this means that I should be able to get leningrad for pretty cheap about round 5-6.

the moment I can stand in rostow, russia is toast. when this happens the italians wil probably have about 4 inf, 3 mechs 2 tanks 1 bomber in round 7 standing in rostov. that means that the russians have to put at least 10 units in tambov to be able to stand in bryansk (or vice verca), these 10 units is perfect food for my planes backed up by 6 inf, they are also enough that russia possibly don’t have enough units to actually stand in bryansk. So the only choise the russians should have at this point should be to retreat to moscow. now I can divert about 10-20 units to the middle east to take stalingrad, caucasus, iran and iraq. the NOs there is hopefully enough to win me the game.

once I am able to stand in rostov and russia has to retreat to moscow, I will start building arts, I will possibly build a minor in rostov also to speed up the process, (while sending enough to the middle east to take if ofc). building 9-12 art/turn in russia should make my stack capable of taking moscow by round 12 or so.

how good this will work is ofc dependent on a few things.
1. how much resources the allies have to send to japan
2. how many russian terrs japan is capable of taking with the 6 mechs they produce each turn, hopefully they could take most stuff east of moscow.
3. how soon the wallies can put a fleet on gib
4. how soon norway falls
5. how much preassure there is on italy
6. when the wallies start landing in bordaux
7. when/if india falls and what japan does then (africa or anzak)

the bombers I plan to build is to be able to both stratbomb moscow and to have against the wallies fleet.

so this is my plan

I really like the overarching strategy of heading South. The north of the board will probably be isolated anyhow, and you can take at your leisure. The push to Rostov and can-opening there is a good concept.

Here is a report on how my game went this week and can be a bit of a field test for different strategic approaches.  I decided to follow the “Stalingradski Plan” which he himself details here:

In my games, a German purchase of 54 IPCs will be eight infantry, an artillery, a mech, an armor, a fighter, and a sub, for example. A heavy dose of infantry, a small sprinkling of mechanized units, an air unit, and a naval unit. G1 gives the foundation with a Carrier… G2 gives an opportunity to add a couple destroyers and a fighter with help from French cash… then after that it becomes a regular commitment… the point being that you try for as long as possible to stay just ahead of the US/Britain, and keep the initiative. Dictate terms to them instead of being dictated to.

The only difference for me was what I did with the Italians.  As Stalingradski has detailed earlier in this thread he will use the Italians on the eastern front to help with Barbarossa.  I did not.  I tried to let the Italians pressure the allies by focusing on Africa.  I bought the aircraft carrier G1 and followed the subsequent rounds with supplemental naval builds and one or two fighters.  The combination of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were impressively formidable.  Germany attacked allied fleets every single turn and by G4 there wasn’t a single allied warship on the Atlantic map except for a small U.S. force making its way over.  On one turn I sent most of the Luftwaffe on a SBR of London and scored a hit of 18 on the their IC!  UK was in dire need of help by then, but the mental note is that Germany did buy itself a lot of time.  Time to slowly build an army in Paris to meet any future invasion and time to deal with Russia.

I did feel like my infantry stacks were thinner on the eastern front due to the naval builds and keeping Italy focused on a Med. strategy.  Fortunately, the Russian player evenly distributed his forces along the front.   I concentrated mine in two areas and with the flexibility of the Luftwaffe I had the option of punching through in areas of my choosing.  Shuttling troops G1-G4 via transports through Norway and into Finland gave me a small northern force that drew a lot of the Red army North of Lenningrad and spread him out all the way down to Stalingrad.

However, Italy was the bell cow.  UK1 attacked the smaller force of Italian ships off Malta and landed aircraft on the carrier.  On I1 all the remaining Italian fleet plus two fighters and the bomber pounced destroying the UK fleet.  The French ships bugged out only to eventually die in the English channel at the hands of the Luftwaffe.  Italy owned the Med, took the Greek peninsula I2 and began staging the capture of Egypt for I3.  I used my transports to pull my troops out of Tobruk on I1 so that they could live to fight another day.  I think the loss of the UK Med fleet and the serious pounding in London by Germany caused the UK to give up Africa.

There are other variables too.  Japan was owning the allies in the Pacific which made the U.S. dump a lot of IPC production into the war effort there.  Japan had taken the Philippine islands and all of the DEI and Malaya by J4.  The impact this had on the Atlantic side was that the U.S. hadn’t really prepared itself to jump in and aid Britain once it was allowed to enter the war.  Another variable might have been if the UK had chosen to take out the larger Italian fleet on UK1 then control of the Med might have been more of an uphill climb.

Post Game Evaluation:  I like the Stalingradski Plan and will use a variation of it going forward.  The combined power of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine is truly a nasty problem for the allies.  I did not initiate Barbarossa until I had to on G4.  But that gave me a lot of time to take out UK and go for Africa.  I think Africa is valuable enough to be part of your strategic goals.  Use some of the Luftwaffe in the Med if you have to and drive the allies out of the Med sea.  Italy can then have free range to shuttle troops over, combine with aircraft and shore bombardments and take control in Africa.  Japan played its part to though drawing the U.S. to overextend in the Pacific.  There has to be some flexibility in your plan as it won’t always play out the same way.

Nice report! I’m off to work, but will comment tonight -

FM7 -

What you said about the Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe purchases is exactly why I do it - to buy time vs Russia. I also do it because it keeps the initiative in the Atlantic… the Allies have to overcome your Spiked Shield, and you can add to it in reaction to their purchases.

Yes it slows down Barbarossa, but in the time it takes to overcome the Axis fleet, Moscow should have fallen, or at the least been isolated and withering on the vine.

The northern force via Norway/Finland does as you said - it forces Russia to leave a decent defensive force in the North, or abandon it completely.

I’m very interested in your attacks of opportunity in Africa - did you focus on a particular set of territories/SZs? If the US were to spend more IPCs in the Atlantic, how do you think you’d respond with Italy? My normal opponent tends to build a UK IC in Iraq, and has a strong US/UK presence in SZ91 as soon as he can.

Well, it does depend on game situations and I suppose there are some thresh holds that have to be defended at the risk of losing others.  You could not go after Africa to the extent of losing Normandy, or Barbarossa for that matter.  I think the value of the Stalingradski Plan is the isolation of Russia, so don’t waist it fighting too hard for Africa if the allies go all in for it.  Here are some specifics of my game that might help.

1. German fighter from eastern front lands in Italy at the end of G1 since it can’t participate in sinking of English channel ships on G1 combat.  This way it can be scrambled with the Italian fighters to defend ships in sz 97 if UK chooses to fight there.  I read about this in another thread and pretty sure it “flies” with the scrambling rules (would like to know otherwise).  This is a deterrent to not go after the Italian battleship.

2. UK chose to attack Italian ships in sz 96 and land all planes on AC after battle.  As I stated before I pounced and destroyed the UK Med fleet.  French ships being outmatched bugged out. But UK did advance troops out of Cairo towards the taking of Tobruk.  In non combat phase I moved transports down to pick up troops in Tobruk.

3.  Uk2 repurchased fleet and placed them in sz 110 only to be destroyed by Germans.  G1 purchased transport and UK player did suspect Sea Lion and purchased accordingly over first several rounds.  This didn’t leave the UK player a lot of ability to help in Africa.  I think the control of Med sea by Italy gives you North Africa until U.S. enters and you can expand Italy’s income by a lot by that time.

4.  You can take Egypt on I2, but I did it I3.  If the UK player bought an IC there then they had less to spend defending London, or purchasing navy.  But bringing aircraft, shore bombardments, and units on transports, and more importantly your units from South of Egypt was enough to win Cairo.  I staged units in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and they attacked in unison - very helpful fodder for taking Cairo.

5. After Italy takes the Greek peninsula some of these troops may shuttle towards the eastern front to help there.  In my game that would not have detracted too much from the taking of Africa, but the following turns the purchases were strategic to aid an African campaign.  If most of your IPC production flows towards Barbarossa too early you may prolong or weaken efforts by the Afrikacorps.  I can see Italy’s income expanding enough to begin a purchasing pattern similar to Germany’s with some infantry purchases going towards Barbarossa, slowly building up home guard, and then the rest going into the Med. Wall, as opposed to the Atlantic Wall.

6. If need be Germany can take Southern Europe and then be able to drop some subs into the Med to help take or hold it.

Have to go now but these are some initial thoughts to get Italy discussion going.

Good stuff FM - I’ll reply point by point:

1. This is a good move, and pretty important to make the UK bleed to take out the Battleship etc. Try bringing two German aircraft - that way when you scramble three  total aircraft, Italy will be left with at least one fighter. Otherwise, the Italian airforce is just about wiped out.

2. The UK player can hit SZ96 with Cruiser/Fighter and SZ97 with everything from SZ98, Fighter from Malta, Fighter and Bomber from UK. Even with a scramble from S Italy, UK should win with a decent amount of air power remaining - which can land on Malta. Italy is left with only the fleet in SZ95 to start.

3. With UK taking out most of the Med fleet, it takes several turns for Italy to recover, claim NOs, and take N Afican territiories. If lucky enough to see the UK back out of the Med and not attack on UK1, Italy will have some fun adventuring.

4. As UK I tend to take out Ethiopia on UK1 (combined with assault on Italy’s navies as detailed above) with Cruiser from SZ39 and all available land units that can reach - that limits Italy on their first turn. It makes taking Egypt a little harder.

5. Yes! Agreed on all counts.

6. Yes! Very helpful for Italy.

I would add that I also typically purchase a Transport/Inf/Art on UK2 in S Africa, and that can make it to Egypt before Italy goes on turn 3. Thise two units can mean the difference between Egypt living or dying.

@Stalingradski:

Good stuff FM - I’ll reply point by point:

1. This is a good move, and pretty important to make the UK bleed to take out the Battleship etc. Try bringing two German aircraft - that way when you scramble three� total aircraft, Italy will be left with at least one fighter. Otherwise, the Italian airforce is just about wiped out.

2. The UK player can hit SZ96 with Cruiser/Fighter and SZ97 with everything from SZ98, Fighter from Malta, Fighter and Bomber from UK. Even with a scramble from S Italy, UK should win with a decent amount of air power remaining - which can land on Malta. Italy is left with only the fleet in SZ95 to start.

3. With UK taking out most of the Med fleet, it takes several turns for Italy to recover, claim NOs, and take N Afican territiories. If lucky enough to see the UK back out of the Med and not attack on UK1, Italy will have some fun adventuring.

4. As UK I tend to take out Ethiopia on UK1 (combined with assault on Italy’s navies as detailed above) with Cruiser from SZ39 and all available land units that can reach - that limits Italy on their first turn. It makes taking Egypt a little harder.

5. Yes! Agreed on all counts.

6. Yes! Very helpful for Italy.

I would add that I also typically purchase a Transport/Inf/Art on UK2 in S Africa, and that can make it to Egypt before Italy goes on turn 3. Thise two units can mean the difference between Egypt living or dying.

In reference to the red text… I have a UK strategy that actually gives Italy the Med and turtles on Egypt.  In the end, the UK / US end up with the following in SZ91 at the end of UK4:

1 CV w Ftr/Tac, 1 BB, 5 CR, 3 DD, 7 TT (with units to fill them).  I can grow the TT and ground units for the UK, but a lot of that depends on how obvious Germany is on its feign of Sea Lion and I may end up short a CR and DD to run blocker in SZ110 to lighten the Sea Lion attack if it is, indeed, coming.

It generally includes a UK2 purchase of 1 TT with 1 Art/Inf in each S.African and Canadian Minor IC’s (28 IPC total, 3 IPC on an Inf in London if not SBR’d) and a UK3 purchase of a Ftr/CV in Canada on UK3 (to arrive in SZ91 on UK4).

Makes the fleet a bit bigger with 2 CV w 1 Ftr/Tac on one, 1 Ftr on the other (Gib’s fighter can land on it on UK4), 1 BB, 5 CR, 3 DD, 9 TT with units to fill them at the end of UK4.  If Egypt has not fallen, its possible to make some huge dents in Italy very soon, much earlier than the Axis will get in striking distance of Moscow.

I haven’t employed it yet but here are the intangibles:

Sea Lion actually happening can create some issues, less TT, and more units on London

Can lose the DD/TT in SZ106 limiting the UK to a single TT from SZ109 and how soon you can open up Brazil’s Infantry to load onto TT.

G1 attacks on SZ110/SZ111 and how they occur.  I haven’t decided on the best move for fleets surviving either G1 attack - nor how many Ftr to scramble depending on the attacks they face.  I’d prefer to not toss aircraft out the window for the UK, but not scrambling at all and giving up your fleets opens up Sea Lion more than you think (Sets you back to Alpha 3.5 scenarios).

In particular, I want the UK aircraft available to reinforce any US landing on US5 - the more that are alive, the harder it is for the Axis to retake S.France, N.Italy, Rome, Normandy, Holland, Denmark, Norway or even W.Germany if left lightly defended (Dropping that Major German IC to a Minor is a BIG DEAL, regardless of the losses you get for taking/losing it).

I haven’t determined what to do it Italy decides to go for Gibraltar instead of Egypt early based on the UK fleet withdrawing and turtling on Egypt.

I’m not sure how bad the consequences are of sending the UK BB and 1 Ftr/Tac from Calcutta in regards to Japanese moves.  From what I understand, Japan can J3 Calcutta if it is determined to regardless of what Calcutta does.  As such, I’d rather have the UK ship and Aircraft crushing the Axis hopes in the Atlantic/Med than shot down/sunk in the south pacific.

Spend - I absorbed your well-thought out post - thinking about it - will respond later. A lot to chew on -

@Stalingradski:

Spend - I absorbed your well-thought out post - thinking about it - will respond later. A lot to chew on -

Basics are, take the CV, CR from the Med down to SZ72.

Move the UK BB from SZ37 to SZ75.

Fly the UK Ftr/Tac from India to the CV in SZ72.

Use the UK Ftr in Malta, Tac from the CV in SZ98, the DD from SZ98 and take out the Italian DD/TT in SZ96.  Fly the aircraft to Egypt.

Retreat all the ground units from Alexandria to Egypt.  Use the TT from SZ98 to ferry Inf from Persia to Egypt.

You can even get the UK Ftr from Gib to Egypt if you really think you need it by landing it in on UK1 in French Central Africa and on UK2 getting it into Egypt.  If you really want, you can also fly those aircraft that landed on the CV in SZ72 to Egypt as well to have 3 Ftr, 2 Tac to address any Italian aggression as early as I2.

US1 spends 26 IPC on 2 TT 1 CR
US2 spends 26 IPC on 2 TT 1 CR
US3 adds the 5th TT, spends the rest on filling out infantry to fill those TT up with the Mech/Arm/Art.
US4 US sends 1 Ftr to a potential CV purchase off Canada from UK3, 3 CR and 5 loaded TT to land in Morocco or Gib

UK4 will be what I described reinforcing the US flotilla from an aggressive Axis move into SZ91 (potentially have the UK4 purchase be an AB in Gib to scramble any aircraft you can muster down there).

Then unleash hell in wherever you choose (preferably Italy) and reinforce it with UK aircraft based out of the Med.

I like it - it helped that I could look at a map to follow your moves.

Typically, I kill SZs 96 & 97 when I’m the UK, and use my Pacific Battleship to bolster the US fleet once it shows up in the Carolines - it can make the difference between moving forward or not.

But, I like your purchases and logistics - do you make a play at all for Iraq before Italy gets it’s claws into it? I usually activate C Persia then assault Iraq next using aircraft from Egypt - if no Sealion threat, it’s a great place for an IC if Italy isn’t super active in the Med…