The Afrika Korps

I’m not an A&A rules expert, so this probably won’t be much use, but for whatever it’s worth here are a couple of comments.  Your initial post said “This is an alternative strategy that is based on creating the German Afrika Korps in order to make Germany the dominant player in Africa while making Italy much more crucial and fun” and your latest post said, “I want to make this strategy work and think it can work. But also lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps.  There must be a way.”

I think it’s important to realize what people usually mean when they propose an A&A strategy.  Usually it means proposing a new method by which a player can accomplish the game’s existing objectives, using the game’s existing set-up.  What you seem to be proposing doesn’t sound like a “strategy” in that sense of the word; it seems to be an alternate set-up, with alternate objectives, whose primary purpose is to add something new to the game that you’d like to see: the presence of the Afrika Corps.  Technically, that’s not a strategy; it’s an A&A house rule, or even arguably an A&A variant, so this thread should probably be in one of those two sections of the forum rather than in the Global 1940 section.

Note that when you say that you “lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps,” you’re essentially making the same point that I just made.  A strategy is a method of winning, and what you seem to be saying here is that you’re looking for a method of winning under the modified game conditions that you’ve described.  In other words, you’re actually asking for a strategy rather than offering one.  Which is perfectly fine; I’m just saying that discussions of this type – which are very interesting – tend to work better when there’s a clear understanding of what the discussion is about and what it’s trying to accomplish.

@Afrikakorps:

So now the question is: what is realistic and could be a winning strategy?

Conceptually, what may not be realistic is having a pre-planned detailed list of all the exact moves and precise purchases and dollar-figure incomes that apply to the three Axis powers going all the way up to (and including) Turn 4.  The list seems to assume that you will successfully accomplish every single task on the list, including the capture of certain territories, which may be a dangerous assumption to make because it ignores two potential complicating factors: the dice and your opponents.  The dice might not obligingly let you check off every item on your list (given the fact that dice are my nature unpredictable), and your opponents will be actively trying to defeat you (given the fact that this is their job).

I would even argue that it would be highly dangerous to follow a predetermined 4-turn 3-power game plan, regardless of what your opponents do, because this complete lack of flexibility would put you at a disadvantage: your opponents would be able to observe what you do and react to it accordingly, while your side would ignore (and thus fail to take advantage of) any unanticipated mistakes by the enemy, and would ignore (and thus fail to deal with) any unanticipated threats by the enemy.  This sounds to me like a recipe for disater rather than victory.

To quote the line delivered by Admiral Nagumo in the movie Midway, “We can achieve a great victory, provided that Halsey and Nimitz do exactly what you expect.”  Unfortunately for Japan, the Americans followed their own plan at Midway, not Yamamoto’s plan, and Japan suffered a defeat from which the never recovered.  The Japanese were so convinced that the Americans would do everything that was expected of them that they didn’t bother to consider the question, “What will we do if we run into such-and-such a situation?”  As a result, the single rigid Japanese plan fell apart when it ran into unexpected developments.  It’s a basic principle of military strategy that plans have to take into account enemy capabilities, not just enemy intentions, because intentions (which are intangible thought processes) can change much faster than capabilities (which depend largely on quantifiable hardware), and because intelligence estimates of probable enemy intentions are not always correct.

Mr. Marc,

I don’t see where Mr. Korps has modified any set ups or rules.  I think when he inventories the “Afrika Corps” at the beginning of the post, he is optimistically predicting how many units will end up down there via Turkey on turn 4, not that there are any new special pieces added…just a new name for some existing stacks.

You and I both agree about some of the predictions made during the playout;  many of these gambits or battle plans submitted on the boards are totally unrealistic in their assumptions about what the other players will do and read as if every battle is a total success without any causalities and that the enemy is off playing Mario Brothers instead of trying to stop the Axis.  I don’t think that the prediction of 100+ for Germany AND 40+ for Italy is much more than puff but it seemed like he was sketching some optimistic outcomes…

However, these “4-turn-gambits” actually are pretty easy to pull off without having to do much reacting to what your opponents do anyways.  That is a testament to how powerful the Axis are from game start they just have a ton of mobility pieces and a great board position.

Its actually quite easy to lay out a dozen or so of these gambits…as the Axis!  The problem is that the Allies are like the Black Player in Chess, they don’t call the songs but they have to dance nonetheless.  If someone can come up with an overarching but nonreactive Allied gambit, I’d love to hear it.  The problem is, that except in G41, the Allies are so anemic and take so long to develop that all they could possibly do is react.  Also, unlike the 1985/42.2 editions, they all go last!

None of this takes the bid into account either;  if you are playing with a bid then it makes killing your way to the milestones even more difficult, and instead of ending up with an Afrika Corps of 9 armor 1 fighter 6 mechs 4 infantry and a pile of tactical bombers, what happens in real life is that after a series of do-or-die battles in which the initial predictions of $$ and megastax went out the window, you have 1 armor left that barely takes Egypt.  This is the difference between wishful thinking and real outcomes.

I’ll be going on vacation later today, taamvan, so I won’t be able to follow this debate until sometime in the new year, so I’ll just add a couple of other thoughts.  One of them is along the lines of what you said about optimistic outcomes; basically, it’s just the observation that if an A&A Global 1940 game – especially one involving a full slate of players, not just two people – could be accurately plotted and predicted up to four rounds in advance, nobody would bother playing it because everything would be too predictable.

My other comment relates to a broader issue.  Maybe it’s just a question of personal taste (in which case no attention needs to be paid to the following point), but it seems to me as if what’s being proposed here operates in the reverse direction of the normal relationship between strategy and unit purchases.  I’ll try to explain what I mean:

Normally, unit purchases serve strategy.  In other words, the sequence of the decision-making process goes in this order:

1. Decide on what general strategy to follow in order to win the game.

2. Decide on the specific unit purchases that will be made in order to implement this general strategy.

What I think has been described in this thread is a reversed situation in which strategy serves units purchases.  The sequence of the decision-making process seems to be:

1. Afrikakorps has decided what units he wants to purchase (specifically, the units that will allow him to recreeate the Afrika Korps).

2. Afrikakorps is trying to develop a strategy that will allow him to win the game on the basis of these unit purchases.

Arguably, that’s putting the cart before the horse.  If recreating the Afrika Korps was an inherently advantageous thing to do in an A&A game, there wouldn’t be any need to create a special strategy (let along a long and complicated one) to justify this purchasing decision; the advantages would automatically provide that justification, and they would apply in a broad range of circumstances rather than in a very specific game scenario.  The fact that Afrikakorps is trying to find a scenario in which recreating the Afrika Korps produces a game victory suggests to me that there are no such inherent advantages to recreating the Afrika Korps.  If there are no such inherent advantages, then this means that recreating the Afrika Korps is either harmless or conterproductive.  If it’s harmless, then that’s not a problem.  If it’s counterproductive, then that is a problem because we’d be facing the conclusion that Afrikakorps is trying to find a scenario that will let him win despite the fact that he’s recreated the Afrika Korps.  In other words, the implication would be that this purchasing strategy was being pursued for its own sake, not for its usefulness as a tool for achieving victory.  Conversely, if it’s being pursued simply for fun because it’s a cool idea, then the way to solve the problem is to simply focus on the fun and ignore the issue of whether or not it will produce an Axis win.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to simultaeously achieve both objectives (recreating the Akrika Korps and winning the game as the Axis).  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.  All I’m saying is that the more hoops have to be jumped through to produce an Axis victory as part of a game plan that’s built around the concept of recreating the Afrika Korps, the more this suggests that this concept isn’t the ideal basis on which to try to win the game.

I don’t mean to be a jerk, CWO, but your reasoning has some severe flaws.  The Axis can control many vital decisions in the game and force the Allies to respond.  For example Sea Lion can be executed with little ability for the Allies to prevent a G3 invasion of London.  The sequence of events is very scripted and bar bad dice rolling, London will be captured.  Russia will counter attack, trying to push into Germany before they are inevitably repelled.  US will push heavily in the Atlantic.  Essentially the first 4 rounds become very scripted.  There is a general consensus that Sea Lion is sub-optimal strategy if the Allies follow a good gameplan during the first couple of rounds.

We haven’t tested out the Afrika Korps game plan.  I am sure that Germany can follow a script for the first few rounds, deviating only if bad die rolls force them into Plan B.  It might be an overpowered strategy, or it might have a few critical flaws.  I am sure that we will find out over the next few months if it is a great plan (like Dark Skies), or a sub-optimal plan like Sea Lion.

Wow, that’s pretty deep Marc, you just sucked all the fun out of it lol.

Anyway, I think AK has an interesting strategy, and he is using both the existing units and purchases to achieve it. He did say it was an untested theory that he was working through. He may have named it Afrikorps, but in actuality it is more of an Axis neutral crush. Taking Turkey will allow him to use his axis mechanized force to pressure/capture the Middle East, Egypt and Southern Russia($$$).

Building up the German fleet on G1 is a common tool used to get the UK to buy mostly ground units on the first turn. I have mixed feelings about sailing it into the Med though. The Baltic fleet in conjunction with other resources can force the Russian to evacuate Leningrad, and help to def/counter attack Norway if needed. I do however like the Germans taking Gib to help get the Italian NO, and it would be interesting to use that fleet to shuffle inf through the Black Sea.

I think the biggest flaw is under estimating what the UK can/will do in the first few turns, and over estimating what Italy can achieve on It1/It2. For starters you have the Italians attacking Greece with 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank and a couple ftrs (using 2 tpts). That can only happen if the UK didn’t do Taronto (attack sz97). As discussed the UK often does Taronto and takes out sz96 as well. This move will end up with the UK fleet at the bottom of the Med later, but causes logistical problems for Italy. On IT1 the English will occupy sz97 with remainder of the Med fleet, and possibly a cruiser in sz96 (you didn’t attack sz91 on G1). You can have Italy attempt to clean up the UK fleet and attack Greece It1 (w/Albanian units and 1 loaded tpt), but that is a tall order as well. If you fail to take Greece, or take it w/heavy losses then the next step to Turkey on It2 will also suffer. If you ampib Turkey w/Italy on It2, the UK will probably be able to kill your mini Italian fleet in sz99 (only has a destroyer and cruiser protecting it if the UK did Taronto).

So if there is a Taranto on UK1, you will probably need a back up plan. Maybe have Italy attack S France and go for Spain It2. The Germans take Turkey G3 (using the Bulgarians+ whatever else can reach). I think the Germans building up next to Spain or Turkey will be a dead giveaway though.

If I am to offer more of a general critique, which is only meant to help you Afrika. I would say the following:

1. If you are prioritizing everything, you are prioritizing nothing.
2. To make a good plan, you need to understand what the natural reactions of your opponent will be.
3. There is a lot of possible delayingtactics in the game, don’t forget them.
4. Build the best units for the job

In your plan, you plan on taking Turkey, Iraq, Egypt,  Leningrad, Caucasus, Sweden, Spain and Stalingrad by the end of G4. This is simply too much. If you send enough to Turkey to threathen the middle east, you will not have enough to threathen Leningrad. If you threathen Leningrad, you will not have sent enough to the middle east to take your objectives there. You might be able to collect on Cauc, NW Persia and Iraq once or twice, but then you will be pushed back by UKs production there.
In the gameplan I have with Germany, I throw everything at getting Caucasus at the end of G6/7. In this plan, one of the freebies is that I can force Russia to retreat to moscow, so I get all of the other russian NOs for free. To realisticly acheave this, I maximize the use of the gamemechanics. I build an italian canopener from hell (strong enough to take out at least 7 infs), and I build almost only Mechs on G1-3. With all that, I don’t have a little left over, but certainly not enough to be able to afford doing the netural crush.

Really look at what a standard gameplan for your opponent would be, and if your plan can deal with that.  In this game, the UK europe player really is a Mediterranean power. Most UK players first has to protect london from a sealion, then they ususally try to fight for the med. To do that, They usually need to get factories there ASAP. The 3 best places for them is Iran, Iraq and Egypt. You should expect the UK player to drop a mIC in UK2 and UK3. (and maybe one in UK4). Those will produce 6 units every turn, and he will have a shippingroute from SA to Egypt that ships 2-3 units every turn. The force you send through Turkey really isn’t enough to deal with this huge production.

3. Your opponent can scirmish and set up so deadzones. In your plan, I really think you are missing the capability of the allies to set up deadzones. The same way the russian can counterattack the japanese army you talked about earlier, the russian can deadzone his border with inf, planes and art.  The russian army in Belo should be so strong, that you really don’t want you split your invasionforce. The army you  sendt into East poland and the baltic was so small that the russian army that should be standing in belo would kill it with very few losses.  So, since you can’t split your army like that, you can only take 1 terr a turn.  This will delay your plans.

4. I see you build a lot of tanks. Tanks is good for adding some punch to an assault, but horrible at holding the terr and preventing counterattacks. Since you are already planning on building a lot of bombers, you dont really need the punch of the tanks, what you are missing in your army is meat. So, I would switch out most of your tankbuilds with mechs.

Finally, I will give you a sample of a common UK1-4 in the middle east:

On UK1, I land in iran with Tank and inf from alexandria, while I land 2 inf from south africa in alexandria. I also move india art and inf to to westindia since your japan obviosly is North. I also move the Indian planes within range of Iraq.

In Iran then, I have 1 art, and 3 infs.

You have 4 tanks and 3 mechs in greece after G2. ON UK2, I see there is no sealion, so I build a mIC in iran, 1TT in SA and 2 inf in SA. I see that Italy has committed to not be in the middle east (I have done taronto), so I don’t need that much troops in egypt. I see the force in greece, but no TTs so I want to hit iraq with everything I can. I attack iraq with the 3 inf + 1 art from iran, I have 1 inf + 1 art from west india (with th TT), I also have 1 inf and 1 art from Egypt, + 1tank from egypt. So, at the end of UK2, I have 4 inf, 3 art and 1 tank in iraq

Germany will then only use his tanks to reinforce turkey.

The german army in turkey + greece after G3 is:  10 Tanks, 4 Mechs +6 infs.

UK3
I look at this army in turkey, I build 3 inf in iran, I build a mIC in egypt and 1 inf  + 1 art+ 1 TT in SA.

I can now chose to retreat to iran.
So,
Iraq -> iran 4 inf + 3 art + 1 tank
SA-> Iran 2 inf
East Iran - > iran 1 inf
80 -> 81 1 TT

So, At the end of UK3 I will have
10 inf, 3 art and 1 tank in iran. My planes will have started coming from the homeislands (they will have left on UK2). If we assume I did build 1 ftr on UK1, and lost about 3 to the early combats I will have about 1 bomber, 1 tac and 2-3 ftrs within range of iraq at UK4. Plus, I will have at least 2 ftrs and 1 Tac in India at this point ( You have not done an india crush)

SO, If you put everything you have in iraq, on G4, You will have:
Germany : 10 Tanks, 4 Mechs  and 6 infs
Italy: 2 inf , 2 art 2 tanks.
This is a total of 26 landunits. I am not strong enough yet to counterattack. However, I need to protect my factory.

What I have for a possible counterattack on iraq is:
10 infs, 3 arts 1 tank in iran, 3 inf and 1 arts in  Egypt (with TT), 1 inf 1 art in SA and at least 1 bomber, 2 tacs and 4 ftrs.
This is 27 units, which means that you have barely enough to stand in iraq.  Next Turn, I will have 34 units for a counterattack, and the turn after I have 41. UK will produce 7- 9 units every turn and you will have to match that with troops from germany.

The reason I mention this UK plan is that this is standard vanilla play. You need at least enough troops to be able to overcome this and take iran from me. If you take iran and my mIC, you have a shot with your plan, but, then you need to send much more troops. UK have the capability to also send troops from india in support and it is quite difficult to take iran. USSR can also send in planes and supply with mobile troops if they see it coming.

Good discussion all,

Looks like the takeaways are

1. getting into the middle east via turkey with a blitz into Syria/Iraq/NWP/Caucausus is a cool idea

2. but you’ll have to spend your 4 turns of peace knocking out minor objectives like neutrals and Egypt while the Allies get big

3. once the afrika korps forms up, its main mission (kill all allied stuff in Africa) has already been accomplished and it would be a mop-up squad to take the rest of the IPCs and maybe India/S. Russia

4)  and while that is cool, it doesn’t move you directly towards killing an Allied capital/team, which is regressive

5*) therefore, Africa is a juicy but time consuming distraction as ever (IMO)

I am trying out the Afrika Korp in a Balanced Mod game.  UK opted for an unprovoked DOW on Japan on UK1.  They are now earning huge amounts of income; capturing India via amphibious landing on J4 will be impossible.  I will give some lessons learned once this League match is complete.

Well it looks like China is getting out of control on turn 2.  They retook Yunnan and it got reinforced by India to the point that I can’t reconquer it on J3.  There are 7 more mech infantry that were built by India on UK2 so Yunnan is going to be an impenetrable fortress for the foreseeable future.

On the European front, things are not going that hot either.  I had some slightly bad die rolls on the first round, losing several German planes in the attack on the UK Navy.  I also lost a bomber doing a raid over London on G2.  I have insufficient forces to do Sea Lion on G3; now I face the decision of ferrying forces to Scotland and do a G4 Sea Lion, or abandon the operation.

Italy is the only positive part of the battle.  The Med is clear and I will be capturing both Gibraltar and Egypt on I3.  There is no need to do a Neutral crush in this game…

Well the game is over on J4 and the Axis have suffered a humiliating defeat.  Neither side of the board was doing well.

Europe: UK moved fleet next to Gibraltar on UK1 and fortified that territory.  There was no way for Germany to capture it on G2.  I switched to Sea Lion but with slightly bad dice rolling during the game the chance of success was almost zero.  Italy captured Egypt on I3 and was making 42 PUs.  Unfortunately Germany was going to get slaughtered by Russia.

Asia:  The attack on Russia on J1 is not a good plan.  UK simply declared war on UK1 and their income was too massive.  With help from ANZAC + China + India, Yunnan became an impenetrable fortress.  Key ship blocks prevented Japan from capturing islands on J3.  Perhaps better ship placement would help.  Still, I am not a fan of attacking Russia unless they put 4+ troops in Amur.  I don’t see any way for India to fall on J4 with the attack on J1 heading towards Russia, allowing the unprovoked DOW.

I won’t be trying this strategy again any time soon.

Haven’t read the whole thread but:
Won’t the UK take a transport from SZ109 to send a troop to South America, which will activate all of the armies in no time. Doesn’t matter that USA are out of the war.

no one said this in the first page and a half.