On this Topic, I would like to discuss wich route or road A&A players use to conquer Mother Russia nowa days.
Is it good to go all South and take out the vital Industrie targets Ukraine and Volgograd, turn and take out the capitol, or punch and press hard to go up North and take the direct way to Moscow?
Personally, I prefer the Southern route.
Having said that, it depends on how the allies have responded if Moscow will be assaulted right away or Caucasus/Stalingrad will be overrun.
The economical differential that can be gained south is simply too much to ignore. Furthermore, with the Germans positioned in Bryansk/Rostov, the Middle East/Africa/India can be targeted in a carefully coordinated (with Japan) and more desperate attempt to subdue the allies if they made it impossible to capture Moscow and/or even outright dangerous for the Germans to approach at the risk of a Russian counterattack.
North is the way to go if you favor cutting off the head of the snake. A quick factory, and a transport shuttle from Germany to Lenningrad speeds up the process of attacking Moscow, but they will have more cash to throw at you.
The South favors the slower playstyle, trying to get an economic advantage over Russia. I find this works best if
a) Japan is doing well against the US, delaying their involvement in Africa/Europe
b) You use German and or Italian bombers on Moscow to hammer home the economic advantage.
The added time the south requires can be offset at JUST the right moment if you can bomb Moscow well, the turn you build at Stalingrad. 3 tanks there and 3 at Ukraine, combined with a decent bombing run will put Russia in a position where their preparation for the Moscow attack is stymied by a lack of funds from both angles (both repair damage and lost income in the south)
This method can really catch the allies sleeping, because they may expect to keep pace with your buildup, and feel safe, but you tip the scales by dealing 15 damage perhaps to Moscow and setting them back 5 Infantry to build.
If Germany goes north then UK builds in Persia. By going south or through Turkey you cut off all hope of Russia being liberated. You increase the threat on India and that Persian complex which is going to supply fighters and tanks for Russia.
The southern route will generally get you Leningrad at some point. Super stack E Poland, then move south of marsh to W Ukraine to open up the south (Ukraine IC). The Russians have to make a choice to def or evac Leningrad (Ukraine as well). They know that if you be-line to Moscow their inf in Leningrad can’t make it to Moscow to def their capital, so chances are they will leave it for you. They may set-up a counter attack to retake it delaying your ability to build units in their former IC though. If they try to defend Leningrad then you move up Scandinavian units and amphib it w/air power to kill off Russian units (dead units don’t def Moscow either). Once you have Leningrad you can still use transports to bring up units through the Baltic. I agree w/SBR runs on Moscow to soften them up but taking the south, and having them give you the north seems to work. As Oz said, it’s a bit slower to destroy their econ, and you need to keep watch for Russians breaking into Mid East for their NO, and UK bringing in air power to support Moscow.
I also like to have a couple Italian mech (w/bmr) at the Russian front so they can opener for the Germans allowing the Germans to bring in some air cover so the Russians can’t strafe them. Make damn sure you bring an AA gun (maybe 2) with your German ground units to deter Russian hit & runs.
cyanight, a UK Persian IC sounds cool, and is out of the box thinking that could work in the right situation (like US going hard on Japan). With a healthy Japan though, if UK builds a Persian IC it gives the Japanese another viable (better) target. Would be very situational, and more likely for the Japanese to build in Persia/Iraq once India falls (or to even by pass India). An Egyptian IC for the UK is a more standard move. It can get them control of the Med/Mid East, and can also send support to the Russians as well. It all depends on where the US decides to fight first once they get into the war.
What about a northern route coupled with a strategic bombing campaign?
The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.
The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.
Agreed.
I really don’t see any advantage of the ‘Northern’ route (Smolensk) over the Southern, as East Poland->Western Ukraine->Bryansk->Moscow is as fast as East Poland->Belarus->Smolensk/Bryansk->Moscow. The Southern route gives all the mentioned additional strategic options (Africa/ME/India) whereas the Northern has none.
Attacking either Leningrad or Ukraine with brute force (other than its fast units, the finns and its air) is a German mistake, but defending either one with Russia is an even bigger one (as Wild Bill already explained why, I’ll not), so both ICs will be in German hands anyway when either of the above ‘Moscow-approaches’ are taken with the German doomstack and Russia does not want to loose Moscow.
I was just thinking the bomber or two you dedicate to hitting Moscow would negate giving the Russians the extra 3 IPC for going the northern route, but you also have the transports in the Baltic for quick reinforcement of the push into Russia.
Am I the only one who likes to do both? Generally, you don’t need your full stack in one place until you’re knocking on Moscow’s door. I like to send the majority of my forces north to Nov, and then the Fast movers that survived yhe France battle go south along with the slow movers liberated from that pro-Axis neutral north of Greece.
Around round 5 theymeet up in Bryansk, and the real fun begns.
I believe if Japan extends the majority of their navy past India that they are setting themselves up for an invasion. They will be 3 or more turns away from Japan. Ships and planes seem to get lost in the Indian ocean anyways ;)
The soviets still having the “2” IPC territories in the south under their control would weaken the potency of a strategic bombing campaign IMHO.
Agreed.
I really don’t see any advantage of the ‘Northern’ route (Smolensk) over the Southern, as East Poland->Western Ukraine->Bryansk->Moscow is as fast as East Poland->Belarus->Smolensk/Bryansk->Moscow. The Southern route gives all the mentioned additional strategic options (Africa/ME/India) whereas the Northern has none.
Attacking either Leningrad or Ukraine with brute force (other than its fast units, the finns and its air) is a German mistake, but defending either one with Russia is an even bigger one (as Wild Bill already explained why, I’ll not), so both ICs will be in German hands anyway when either of the above ‘Moscow-approaches’ are taken with the German doomstack and Russia does not want to loose Moscow.
But by going south, you miss, first, the opportunity to bring slow units by ship, as Jennifer mentioned. Second, and more severe, you cannot use the Inf from Scandinavia for the attack on Moscow. How do you reunite them? When they arrive next to Bryansk, they vanish unless accompagnied by the rest of your troops. If you split, as Shin Ji suggested, half of your troops will die without destroying much.
Okay, first things first ;-).
Bringing slow units via Leningrad over the Baltic Sea has 2 downsides:
After they have been produced, it takes them 4 turns to reach Moscow, giving Russia an extra production turn.
Germany must build a sizable TRS fleet + escorts to be able to do so.
Why I think those are downsides?
By producing fast units in Germany, or even in West Germany (!), the Wehrmacht arrives in Moscow 3 turns later, 1 turn faster than slow units transported to Leningrad. This is even cheaper, and thus, more units can be thrown towards Moscow, because there is no fleet needed. Buying ships is very expensive… Even transporting fast units over the Baltic Sea->Leningrad->Moscow isn’t faster (also takes 3 turns). But way more expensive than just driving them over land east (no Russian mud in this game 8-)).
As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.
Really, if Germany moves towards Moscow ‘deathball-style’, or even carefully split like Shin suggested (both armies can merge again in Bryansk just in time), there is nothing Russia can do but retreat, give up everything and turtle in Moscow. Too bad for the allies there is no scorched earth tactic in this game too, so the Russian minor ICs become German!
There is only 1 prerequisite for this for the Germans: Germany must maximise the number of units and attack/defense factors marching towards Moscow and must not dilute its army strength by buying ships, or else Russia can do more than just turtle.
Build for a feinted Sea Lion. Take all land units South. Take all amphibious units North. Use Italy as a can opener. Japan fast-tracks it through Mongolia.
Or what everyone else is saying.
I believe if Japan extends the majority of their navy past India that they are setting themselves up for an invasion. They will be 3 or more turns away from Japan. Ships and planes seem to get lost in the Indian ocean anyways ;)
that just made my day
As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.
I dont meant that they were stuck in Novgorod. But where do you move the guys from Finnland? They can attack Moscow from Smolensk or maybe Vologda. Your major stack, however, attacks Moscow from Bryansk. A vast Russian stack in Smolensk could now attack your armies seperately. If you just have some men north, he might not kill your big stack in the south, but the smaller in any case. If you split your army in two halfs, the Russian can decide which one to crush, leaving you with not enough troops to attack Moscow.
This is what I meant…
Ahhhh okay I see :-).
I agree with the idea, of course! No sane German should ever split its army and position both armies adjacent to the 1 big Russian stack. Due to the military advantage Germany starts with however, Russia cannot defend Smolensk just yet and the Finns should find connection in Bryansk safely.
The Finns can walk into Belarus->Bryansk ;-). The Reds are cowering in Moskou (and they must be) so they cannot attack the Finns in Belarus. Germany does not have to attack Moscow GE6. If Moscow is poorly defended, sure them Germans can be opportunistic. A better defended Moscow can sometimes be taken GE7 with the help of the Finns. A purrfectly defended Moscow however…
In general, if Germany is really focussed about Moscow, the Red Army cannot afford to split off troops to attack incoming German reinforcements as this means the main German army will take Moscow next turn. That is, as long as there are no Brits/Americans in Moscow and there is no threat of ‘Normandy’ in the west. Turns 1 to 6 in General.
So, to turn a long story short, the answer to your question is: Belarus :-P.
A gambling Russian player might try the following:
You have your vast stack in Ukraine or Western Ukraine and your Finn guys moving from Novgorod to Belarus. The Russian stack of course is in Bryansk.
Now the Russian player is forced to retreat, you think. However, he attacks Belarus with a large stack from Bryansk and one Marine from Smolensk. After killing almost all of your Finn guys, he retreats to Smolensk and is now in a good position. He guardes Bryansk with one Marine against a German Blitz, of course.
Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
(…)Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
That is usually the way ;-). ‘My’ Finns lag 1 turn behind anyway. The main German army is in Western Ukraine/Belarus and the Finns are then in Leningrad.
So yes, for the Finns to be included, Germany needs to wait 1 more turn to attack Moscow. Personally I either attack Moscow without the Finns GE6 if Russia makes a mistake, with the Finns GE7 or I have to postpone the assault further, into GE8-GE10. Possibly even indefinately if Russia is strongly defended.
(…)Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course… :)
But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…
That is usually the way ;-). ‘My’ Finns lag 1 turn behind anyway. The main German army is in Western Ukraine/Belarus and the Finns are then in Leningrad.
So yes, for the Finns to be included, Germany needs to wait 1 more turn to attack Moscow. Personally I either attack Moscow without the Finns GE6 if Russia makes a mistake, with the Finns GE7 or I have to postpone the assault further, into GE8-GE10. Possibly even indefinately if Russia is strongly defended.
I usually do it something like that. Usually, I will end up with large German forces in Smolensk and Bryansk, with smaller forces in the Ukraine to get that IC and up in Leningrad.
Now, of course it depends on Russia’s strength in Moscow.
If it is a little lesser, perhaps because Russia tried to be more offensive or bought more expensive units for whatever reason, then I will go after Moscow with my two big stacks in Smolensk and Bryansk plus any tanks/mechs in Ukraine and any planes that can reach.
HOWEVER, if the Moscow defense is bigger, then I will simply wait them out. Since most of the Russian force will be defensive in nature (mostly infantry), they are not likely to attack either of my stacks in Bryansk or Smolensk for fear of too far weakening the Moscow defense and leaving it open to the other stack.
I will add a little to the Smolensk and Bryansk stacks, plus the Finns in Leningrad move out to take Archangel and Vologda (just north of Moscow). The Ukraine force moves out to take Rostov and Stalingrad, perhaps even Tambov (just south of Moscow). If, as sometimes happens, some Japanese forces have fought their way across either northern Russia or China, they could be in the position to occupy Samara and Moscow will be TOTALLY surrounded.
Meanwhile, while I am waiting on the slow stacks to get into position, I keep some bombers close to keep pounding the Russian IC. Between their shrinking territory and constantly repairing their factory, Russia will not be adding much if any to their defense while the German stacks keep growing.
Of course, all of this only works if Germany is also able to keep US/UK at bay in the west and not lose too much to them. I know I kind of made it sound easy, but it really isn’t.
If the UK is fairly active, you may have to keep repelling constant landings in Normandy, Holland and Denmark. You may even lose Norway at some time.
If the US decides to go mostly Europe, Germany will obviously have even more problems in addition to trying to overwhelm Russia. Italy can only do so much to help. Even if Italy is expanding well in the Middle East and Africa, they are still no match for the US if they really come on full powered.
I have even seen a couple of games where Germany trounced the Russians good and took Moscow with lots of units surviving, yet lost because the US/UK takes Berlin and Rome.
In these cases, you often have to simply fight off the Allies for as long as possible with maybe a much slower progress in Russia and hope for a Japanese victory in the Pacific.
That is the main problem for the US, deciding where to put the majority of their resources. If US decides to go heavy Europe, you will probably save Russia from extinction and eventually overwhelm Germany and Italy along with the Brits and Russkies. However, Japan could go nuts on the other side and totally rule the Pacific.
If US decides to go after Japan, they will probably shut Japan down but good. However, that leaves a very powerful Germany to only deal with UK and Russia, and Italy will be giving the Brits headaches on top of that.
One thing that I have noticed in these games is that the US really has to commit mostly to one side or the other for the Allies to have a good chance to win. In most games, if the US splits it’s efforts somewhat evenly between both theaters, they won’t have enough in either side to really make a difference. The game may take a little longer, but the Axis will eventually win on one side or the other.
I think it would take a really good player (probably better than me) to be able to split US resources effectively and keep both the Japanese and Euro Axis off balance enough for an eventual Allied win.
