UK barbarossa strategies

nah, russia is pretty solid when he gets the NO from africa/iraq. Plus it is the only way LH could encourage italy to do some naval play.

A)  I don’t think Russia should be getting the NO for those.  It feels like an over-sight too me.
B)  It’s legal.  Cheezy, but legal.
C)  This really sucks for Italy.  I used to abandon Africa so that America couldnt get the IPC from Fr. Territories there AND conserve my strength AND not need a fleet (neutering the British attack since now it costs them time and materials and costs me nothing).  I used the addage that you only take what you need…now I NEED Iraq - so I suppose best thing there is to land as much as you can into Syria and stop the Russians.  I wonder if it’s possible to pull enough Russians out of Russia to effectively cost the Allies the game in their monosightedness of going for Algeria, Libya, Italian Somalialand, Ethiopia and Iraq?  It should be easy enough to get German planes down there for the short term to really bugger the Russians while Japan puts pressure on India to keep them away.
D.  I’d like to mention that the Northern Route is currently working and if coupled with a SERIOUS Italian push on Iraq drawing even more forces out of Russia proper, one might see Russia collapse under its own weight.

I can easily see Russia fighting in Nentsia, Novosibirsk, E. Poland, Caucasus and Timguska against the Italians, Germans and Japanese pretty easily, if they are really focused on Africa anyway.  At least it’s not as stupid cheesy as giving Russia +3 for Ireland (or Hainan, Formosa, Carolines, etc)

There is a reason why people take africa seriously with uk and drop that egypt minor down and hold it. Games are won or lost in africa sometimes.
~
russia should only have to bring at most 4 guys down (get 2 from persia). Considering they come back later, I say TOTALLY WORTH IT. :D
~
The only thing that kind of bothers me is russia in africa (the middle east is fine because of the oil), but the africa thing was not in the war.

However, I don’t think it was short sighted of an NO. It is a national objective that forces action, I like it in that respect. people would need lots of stuff to play allies without it.

Assuming England didn’t play with Italy on Round 1, there’s no way four Russian partisans are going to do anything but stain the grass red if they move down to the Middle East.

Assuming England DID play with Italy on Round 1, Russia should have a mass invasion driving into them, by the time they got to Italian Somaliland, they’d probably have no capitol left to collect on it.  And by that, I mean an all out attack on Russia.  You’d be pretty surprised how 8 defensive punch makes quite a difference between Moscow being Russian or Moscow being Germany/Italian/Japanese.  As I said before, if you are not planning to win in the Pacific, then don’t invest there.  Gives you A LOT more leeway in what you can send down Russia’s throat.

Agreed, Russia in Africa is ahistorical.  Though, if we wanted the game to be historically accurate, we would have to ban the Axis from winning.  I could see Stalin going into the middle east.  However, I highly doubt he would let England stay.

I’d rather see Russia be a 3rd power on the board, personally.  They are able to take any allied territory west of India/China that they can walk too, but England/America can still reinforce them.  It’d be a lot more historically accurate - they took Poland, Poland was an ally.

you don’t need a whole army down in africa with russia… just 1 mech 1 tank takes persia then takes iraq… 1 mech 1 armor is all russia needs… uk/usa can kill everything with air for russia. like say 6 italy guys are on tobruk, drop 2 inf and hit it with air, retreat is fine.

LL games are a bit easier to predict hits with. Dice games not so much. Still the investment russia makes to take those territories are worth it.

Yeah  yeah yeah most people try to get russia rounds 5-8, easy to stall that though.

Getting down to Africa takes so long that the cost to Russia is much greater than the benefit.  It may also tie up UK trying to defend the Russian units.

@Vance:

Getting down to Africa takes so long that the cost to Russia is much greater than the benefit.  It may also tie up UK trying to defend the Russian units.

Much depends on how early Russia is brought into the war.

R1:  Move Arm from Stalingrad to Turkmenistan.
G2: DOW on Russia
R2: NCM Arm into E.Persia
R3: Put on UK TT
UK3: Move TT to Ethiopia
R4: Unload Arm onto Somalia
R5: Blitz forward to Sudan, taking Ethopia
R6: Your in Alexandria
R7: You can take both Tobruk and Libya

Now, you sent 6 IPC worth of units to get some extra IPC.  When does that unit pay for itself?  On R5 when you blitz to Sudan.  R4 you get 3 IPC, R5 you get 7 more for 11 IPC over those two turns.  Assuming Moscow is facing the music on G7, that means that:

R5 you place 1 more Inf
R6 you place 3 more Inf
G7 hits Moscow and you have 4 die rolling @ 2 instead of 1 Arm rolling @ 3

In my general workout for UK in Egypt those UK TT are doing this:

UK1: TT via India - bring W.Indian Inf to Persia - Unlock 3 Inf.  Egyptian TT does a NCM with Inf/AA from Malta to Egypt, ending in SZ81.
UK2: Bring Indian TT with 2 Inf to Egypt.  TT behind Suez is going to Persia for that last Inf (so it has room anyways for an Arm)
UK3: Move TT with 1 Inf from Persia to Egypt

So in theory, you find a little bit of use with putting an Arm in Turkmenistan on R1 and it can pay dividends as a decent investment later - particularly if you can bog Germany down in Russia till R8-R9.  You’ll have nearly a full extra round’s purchase of Inf that you could have placed.

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.

@Axisplaya:

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.

That’s the hard part.  They could do a landing on Egypt just when your Russians happen to be there and kill them.  Iraq is quick easy money though.

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.

@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…