UK barbarossa strategies

@Axisplaya:

If UK has done his job and wiped sz96 and 97 on UK1, then Italy should have a hard time unloading in Egypt by round 4. Specially if UK has kept some planes in Malta or Egypy from UK1 attacks.

That’s kind of ironic.  The Spread of Communism NO was added to make Russia strong after sea lion.  UK’s best defense against sea lion requires that they send all planes home to London (and whatever else then can get home).  So that means no Taranto raid.  Now that the final setup makes sea lion pretty unlikely, people are free to do the Taranto raid and like you said, if UK does it then Italy might not be able to prevent Russia getting its units down to Africa.

anyway I guess the reason that i don’t like the idea of Russians going down to Africa is that it just takes too long to have much impact.  By the time Russia is able to mobilize any new units with money made in Africa it is pretty close to the time when germany should be beating on Moscow’s door.

@Vance:

That’s kind of ironic.  The Spread of Communism NO was added to make Russia strong after sea lion.  UK’s best defense against sea lion requires that they send all planes home to London (and whatever else then can get home).  So that means no Taranto raid.  Now that the final setup makes sea lion pretty unlikely, people are free to do the Taranto raid and like you said, if UK does it then Italy might not be able to prevent Russia getting its units down to Africa.

anyway I guess the reason that i don’t like the idea of Russians going down to Africa is that it just takes too long to have much impact.  By the time Russia is able to mobilize any new units with money made in Africa it is pretty close to the time when germany should be beating on Moscow’s door.Â

Here i must totally agree with you. Something is wrong with  that set-up…
Taranto occurs now 100% of the time, and when Germany wants to do Sealion, it is much more difficult than it was in previous versions.
Trying to help russian units taking Eth, Somalia and eventually Tobrouk, Libya is becoming standard, and is difficult to stop for the Axis…this should be fixed by another change to Alpha 3 IMO. African Territories should not be part of the +3 NO for russian.

I wonder if they meant to include them or if it really is just a mistake.

@Axisplaya:

As unpleasant as it is, i’m going to have to agree with cow’s point of view.
Using russian units to go and grab valuable territories in Africa is easy, and does not cost much.

The spendo moves from the previous post are way too complicated and too costly…

Here is what i would advise:

R1, leave an inf in Caucasus, bring a tnk and (eventually) a mec in Turkmenistan.
UK1, activate Epr.
R2, if Russia at war, activate Npr, and activate Cpr with tnk(and mec) from Tur.
R3, take Irq (Irq might have been attacked but not taken previously by UK to make it easy for the russian).
R4, bring the tnk (+mec) in Egy. From there, you are free to take Ethipia, Somalia, and eventually Tob if possible.

All you have spent is an inf, mec, tnk, and there is no going into UK transport of any sort.

Of course, the whole thing depends on the fact that you keep the Italians uncapable of taking Egypt, and that you are able to stop them from retaking Irq quickly.

There is nothing complicated about my presentation, in fact it is as efficient as yours.  Look:

1. Economically speaking, you are investing 13 IPC worth of units, so you are -13 IPC from the onset of your strategy.  
2. With that 13 IPC investment, you take Iraq on R3 and lose 1 Inf putting you at -16 IPC for your strategy.
3. With Iraq taken, at the end of R3 you gain +5 IPC, putting you at -11 IPC for your investment.
4. With those 5 IPC, you gain 1 Inf and bank 2 IPC on R4 (This excludes the possibility of those 2 IPC being used on another unit)
5. R4 you accomplish no new territories, so you gain another +5 from Iraq.  You are now at -6 IPC for your investment.
6. On R5, you can spend 7 IPC, so you place 2 more Inf on Moscow, banking 1 IPC.
7. On R5, your Mec/Arm are in Egypt - assuming Tobruk is unavailable you can take Ethiopia for +4 IPC.
8. Ending R5, you have gained 9 IPC from your investment and are now +3 IPC on your investment.
9. Beginning R6, you have 10 IPC to spend, netting you 3 more Inf (6 Inf collectively)

The issue with your strategy is that it basically requires the UK to sacrifice 3 Inf (from Persia) to soften up Iraq for you to take.  To the allies that is a potential -9 IPC economic cost as well as those 3 Inf are also highly important for the UK to hold Egypt - which your strategy relies upon to both gain more territories and hold Iraq from Axis aggression.

I’m not saying mine is better, because both rely upon a successful defense of Egypt.

I’m just saying mine accomplishes basically the same thing and allows the UK to get 3 Inf onto Egypt which yours requires as a sacrificial lamb to net Moscow +5 IPC that could or could not be stopped by a failure to defend Egypt.

Just realize I utilize a different UK strategy for dealing with Italy that utilizes the TT in India as well as the Ftr/Tac there to reinforce Egypt.  I also (depending on G1) try to get a third TT into S.Africa to move units from there to Egypt every round instead of a Minor in Egypt.  With 3 TT you can easily shuttle purchases every round from S.Africa to Egypt and get the Russians into Italian territories it will be hard pressed to reclaim while Egypt is continually reinforced by the UK.

@Spendo02:

There is nothing complicated about my presentation, in fact it is as efficient as yours.  Look:

1. Economically speaking, you are investing 13 IPC worth of units, so you are -13 IPC from the onset of your strategy.  
2. With that 13 IPC investment, you take Iraq on R3 and lose 1 Inf putting you at -16 IPC for your strategy.
3. With Iraq taken, at the end of R3 you gain +5 IPC, putting you at -11 IPC for your investment.
4. With those 5 IPC, you gain 1 Inf and bank 2 IPC on R4 (This excludes the possibility of those 2 IPC being used on another unit)
5. R4 you accomplish no new territories, so you gain another +5 from Iraq.  You are now at -6 IPC for your investment.
6. On R5, you can spend 7 IPC, so you place 2 more Inf on Moscow, banking 1 IPC.
7. On R5, your Mec/Arm are in Egypt - assuming Tobruk is unavailable you can take Ethiopia for +4 IPC.
8. Ending R5, you have gained 9 IPC from your investment and are now +3 IPC on your investment.
9. Beginning R6, you have 10 IPC to spend, netting you 3 more Inf (6 Inf collectively)

The issue with your strategy is that it basically requires the UK to sacrifice 3 Inf (from Persia) to soften up Iraq for you to take.  To the allies that is a potential -9 IPC economic cost as well as those 3 Inf are also highly important for the UK to hold Egypt - which your strategy relies upon to both gain more territories and hold Iraq from Axis aggression.

I’m not saying mine is better, because both rely upon a successful defense of Egypt. Â

I’m just saying mine accomplishes basically the same thing and allows the UK to get 3 Inf onto Egypt which yours requires as a sacrificial lamb to net Moscow +5 IPC that could or could not be stopped by a failure to defend Egypt.

Just realize I utilize a different UK strategy for dealing with Italy that utilizes the TT in India as well as the Ftr/Tac there to reinforce Egypt.  I also (depending on G1) try to get a third TT into S.Africa to move units from there to Egypt every round instead of a Minor in Egypt.  With 3 TT you can easily shuttle purchases every round from S.Africa to Egypt and get the Russians into Italian territories it will be hard pressed to reclaim while Egypt is continually reinforced by the UK.

Spendo….I have fully understood your tactic to achieve the goal of reaching Eth and Somalia with russian units.

HOWEVER, have you noticed that sz76 is in range of bombers from West Germany ?
Doesn’t it scrap the whole grand plan if british transport are sunk WHILE HOLDING RUSSIAN UNITS ?

or perhaps a japanese plane off a carrier somewhaere down around India.

I kinda thought it was implied that the Indian fleet would be lending that transport a hand.

@Alsch91:

I kinda thought it was implied that the Indian fleet would be lending that transport a hand.

India fleet ? So we’re talking about 1 or 2 destroyers, a cruiser and a battleship.
If Germany decides to build as little as 1 bomber, the whole plan might fail…
And what german player would not blow this fleet + transport holding russian units at almost any cost ?

Germany’d have to have more than 3 bombers to take out 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 BB.

@Alsch91:

Germany’d have to have more than 3 bombers to take out 2 DD, 1 CA, 1 BB.

All i can tell you man, is that in 0% of my games will i allow russian units being tranported by sea by a microfleet just under my german nose…

Fair enough.

Kinda lame that suiciding a big chunk of your air is necessary just to level the playing field with Russia.  :roll:
That’s assuming Russia doesn’t just drive from Iraq to Egypt.

With all this talk, who says Axis has the advantage???  It seems pretty even to me if not slight Allied advantage.

@Alsch91:

Fair enough.

Kinda lame that suiciding a big chunk of your air is necessary just to level the playing field with Russia.   :roll:
That’s assuming Russia doesn’t just drive from Iraq to Egypt.

alas…you’re right !
Hence the idea of maybe correcting the Russian NO to not allow that + 3 for african territories…
Otherwise, they just can drive from Iraq, as i was saying previously…

Or maybe the solution is to DOW Russia later with Germany/italy…but who likes to do that, a G4 DOW ?

If Japan were to build a naval base in Hainan on tround 1 and then move to be within range of z80 on round 3 they could sink that fleet and transport.

Well yes, but that’s poor utilization of Japan’s resources, if you ask me.

@Axisplaya:

Hence the idea of maybe correcting the Russian NO to not allow that + 3 for african territories…

Yeah, that certainly might do it. 
To be totally frank, I really don’t care for this latest set-up; it seems a bit messy to me.
This Russia-Africa exploit being one of the more blatant examples.  Keeping the bonus to only European territories would probably fix this particular problem, you’re right.

If the Russia NO is corrected, I would like a black sea fleet for russia, 2 cruisers a destroyer and a transport. Historic accuracy would be a nice compensation. Sprinkle a bomber on top plz :)

Did you forget I don’t sacrifice my fleet in the Med against the Italian fleets on UK1?  Maybe I didn’t mention that - my bad.

I utilize the Med fleet behind the Suez to escort TT’s from the Italian Bomber (I didn’t realize the Germans can reach from Wgr).

In any case, if Germany is sending bombers at a TT in Africa and behind the Suez, then I’m feeling good about the Allied Strategy.

@Spendo02:

Did you forget I don’t sacrifice my fleet in the Med against the Italian fleets on UK1?  Maybe I didn’t mention that - my bad.

Well in that case, Italy should have no problem becoming a 30+ IPC/Round power in no time, which kinda lesser A LOT the russian threat. Italy will constantly threaten The mid-east at minimum, making it very difficult for russian units to grab african territories.

@Cow:

If the Russia NO is corrected, I would like a black sea fleet for russia, 2 cruisers a destroyer and a transport.

Why?  That’s a huge bonus to Russia; that’ll serve only to tie up and destroy about 2 German planes every game.
Historically, it’s not like Russia ever threatened Romania or Bulgaria with an invasion…so it’s hard to justify that way.
We could propose an awful lot of “historical” placements which would also be pretty unbalancing.

germany does not have to sink black sea russian ships you know, he can ignore it.