German quick route to middle east back of Russia

The biggest issue with this is why build that much navy with it. Unless I am ill-informed all those units are trapped and can not get past the straight of Turkey unless you also invade and capture Turkey.

@Strollmasta:

Protect the transports is all. Could always attack turkey and come out of the strait. Hope was to be able to take a bunch of Russian territory so they don’t have the money to build a big defense or counter assault. By the time you attack Russia, say turn 3, or 4, they’ve had that many rounds to build troops with, by the time you do get to Moscow door they have another 2-3 rounds of stacking. Kind of felt this could slow down the stack and let you bomb Moscow. I

I free its a lot of money that is probably better spend on troops. Gonna keep toying with figures.

Could also use to push into Calcutta, china and Egypt.

I do not agree that fleet is a waste of money, actually I prefer to buy fleet for all Axis in the first turns of the game as fleet (transports) = offense advantage + mobility which you need. It could be a good investment but because its such a big investment design your remaining strategy so it correlates with your goals. I have used your plan a lot when I started playing Germany with great succes. But it also failed sometimes (more and more) and I realized it was sub-optimal. You could fix that

Germany can hide behind peace.  Will probably need a Major Complex because placing only 3 units per turn isn’t enough (even carrier+2TT).  Extremely slow and expensive plan that requires you to spend the G2 money to put this fleet down.

It only works because Russia has too few planes to smash you outright.  If they could, then they should because its a navy trapped in a puddle and if they wreck it, Germany lost the game.

ABH has this right that while the Black Sea Fleet is a clever enough surprise, it wastes 2 turns of spend and time on units that cannot march to Moscow.  It does make south Russia indefensible, but so do stacks of tanks produced starting G1 not G3.

Maybe the best use of this is as a decoy to try and get the Russians to attack you with their planes…but if they fail to do so they are not really that much more vulnerable than if there were no fleet there (yes troops can amphib to the Caucasus, but they could simply march through or out of Ukraine instead, which is a free objective, not a $100 spend).  When you wait to start the march and spend the money on things other than tanks mechs and arty, the drive on Moscow falters…

You have to march on Moscow, the earlier you start the better…

I think this strategy would mostly bite off more than the chew is worth, but it would be very fun!

Purchasing a carrier + 1 destroyer +2 fighters on the carrier is enough protection for transports to make Russia think it’s not worth sacrificing it’s air force to sink the transports. No need to build a naval base…I disagree with that being “used” as a con for this fun idea.

This might be the situation like Africacorp states where violating the strict neutrals would make sense (but only if Germany and Italy would be in position to start that “race” while Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack). And the only reason to violate the strict neutrals would be to land 6 ground units, plus the Luffwaffe hitting and taking Cairo (or setting it up for Italy). The point is to further economically hurt UK Europe, gain an NO, and gain access to more NOs in the Middle East.

A plus here of course is if the UK already built an IC in Egypt and it then got captured. Upon capturing Egypt, you’d bring the fleet back to SZ100, keep churing out lots of infantry from Germany proper marching to Russia and W. Germany for defense, while using the transports in the sea zone to fight for the Caucasus. You may still never get Moscow. But this strategic theory makes me think it’s more for a building a situation where the Europe Axis board side becomes economically strong to the point they win by default.

Regardless, I do think that this strategy most likely would result in a fail due to extra risks/costs/ect. compared to the traditional time tables and purchases for a traditional Barbarossa. Germany might get hit too quickly at Norway or Holland and the allies stick a landing. Maybe a J1 might be a good supporting option after all. The allies player(s) might lick their lips and decide, I’m going to KGF and ignore Japan which then gets out of control. Anyways, as I said in the first sentence it looks like it would be fun. After all, we play this game for that reason.

Taamvan,

Major IC due to timing I think brings this risky adventure much more risky because of no war units being purchased G1 period. But I see your point of timing vs. cost. And I do agree that the surprise factor is important.

If purchasing a Major IC, then all of the boats would be purchased on Turn 2, then used to hit the Caucasus on Turn 3.

If purchasing a Minor IC, then transports would be purchased on Turn 2, then used to hit the Caucasus on Turn 3 (then Germany would place new units (carrier + destroyer + fighters) there for protection). So I don’t see the actual time saving by purchasing a Major.

If purchasing a Minor IC on Turn 1, I would also purchase 3 artillery and 2 infantry (5 ground units) to try to mitigate the naval purchases. Remember, often people used to purchase a carrier + 2 transports, or a destroyer and a sub and no ground units to “fake” Sea Lion. Some still purchase all naval units on G1 and still make it to Moscow.

Strollmaster,

In my games, Germany doesn’t get troops to Egypt because I’m playing a competent UK player. The only time(s) that’s remotely possible and has occurred is if the UK player doesn’t take out two Italian transports UK1. In that situation the German Luffwaffe is used for defensive purposely to let Italy build up on Alexandria before attacking Egypt. Never have I as Germany thought it smart to purchase an IC in Yugo just for the purpose of going after Egypt. Not worth it all. In that case, let Germany get S. France. I think purchasing a minor IC just for hitting Caucasus is a better plan than a minor at Yugo for Egypt.

Ichabod

Wow Russian carrier. Can honestly say I’ve never seen that before : )

From play testing by myself on TripleA 3 games. I’m not so sure the expenditures of a Black Sea Fleet for transporting units to Caucasus were really worth it. I never tried this plan with a Major IC.

I found that from the Russian player’s perspective it wasn’t hard to cover that area as they are or will have built just as many ground units as Germany did due to the IPC expenditures on ships. When the transports are built, it’s clear to the Russian player that they have to start producing units at Stalingrad to protect Southern Russia. The German side didn’t have a whole lot of powerful units ready to start the simultaneous march towards to Bryansk from the south while concurrently hitting the Caucasus on Turn 3. However, by Turn 4, it may have started making a difference.

Another serious problem with this plan is that due to purchasing the fleet in the Black Sea, the German player had virtually no defensive fleet to protect Norway when/if the Scharnhorst (Battleship) was lost. Once time I ran this and that battleship wasn’t lost. Either way, the US player is able to land 6-8 troops on Normandy, plus 4 UK ground and 4-6 Allies fighters. This early landing is not going to be pushed off quickly.

Conclusion:  1. The Baltic German Battleship must remain so it’s cheaper to build on it, plus the 3 plane scramble from W. Germany to hold the allies from snatching that NO from Germany. If Germany has to build an entire fleet in Norway or garrison it’s northern Army in Finland (to protect Norway via counter attack), this strategy fails real quick. Either way, this strategy makes for an obvious Kill Germany First strategy for the allies. 2.  Consider not attacking Russia until Turn 4. This way Germany gets to collect a NO one more time. Can hit Russia anywhere near the Black Sea with 6 cheap infantry and a lot of planes in order to make up for the extra Russian infantry/artillery builds.

3. Germany must bomb Stalingrad the same turn it attacks Russia in order to also start making up for the cost of the ships.
Russia has to build in Stalingrad or give up position.

4. I found in my game testing that it was better for Japan to do a strong J1 attack on the Western Allies with the hopes of actually winning on the Pacific side board. Not attacking the US until round 3/4 or Round 1 doesn’t really matter because the US is making a strong landing on US 5 no matter what if they’re doing a KGF attack. Also, this caused the UK player to think about sending units towards Calcutta or towards the Caucasus. They couldn’t do both.

Yep, you can.   Any AB bordering a SZ can scramble out over an ambhib from that SZ into any adjacent territory.  The targeted landing zone need not be the terr. with the AB.

Ichabod,

Now you’re getting me to remember that it was a airbase that my opp. used to protect the ships.   With only 3 units coming down G2 we would have to buy the carrier, destroyer and one other.   If we add the AB, we need all 5 fighters to help so they cant be used elsewhere.  I suppose AB + MiC might be a stronger play than the big factory, but all of these ideas are super expensive, but then the transports come out few and slow.   Germany doesn’t necessarily need amphib ground troops to be joining these battles so badly, the advantage is positional (you cut off the reinforce route by blocking caucausus), it just has such a massive mobility and air lightsaber it can crush strongpoints wherever they are…

If you’re facing a Russian Carrier and the Axis doesn’t win, something went wrong.   Did someone violate Swiss neutrality?

Taamvan,

Obviously buying a Minor IC in Romania plus a fleet (or Airbase) to protect transports for sending troops right to the Caucasus or Ukraine (wherever makes the most sense) is not going to supersede just buying normal ground and air. From play testing on TripleA, it was easy for me to see from the allies’ perspective that the German Black Sea Fleet is a not a better investment than normal ground/air. It’s just fun to try a different strategy rather than the normal time table march towards Bryansk on G5-6 and hitting Moscow on G6-7. The timetable march towards Moscow makes me think of the famous mobilization timetables of World War 1.

Doing this Black Sea transport plan might make the allied player lick their lips and say well, “I guess I’m doing a KGF plan.” So, I think Japan should do a strong J1 attack because regardless, the US can make a strong landing on Germany (due to all of the purchases in Romania) on US 5 whether or not Japan brings them into the war on J1 or J3. Japan needs to do really well and get out of hand to force the US to respond to them and not do what they want to do KGF.

One thing I did like from the German perspective is that the German player could hit several places with only cheap infantry cannon fodder and lots of planes on G4 which are not stacked up like the usual situation (might be able to start this on G3 if doing the airbase/3 transport purchase plan). This is a key difference compared to the normal march plan. The idea is that you want to think of this rather than marching into Russia until you’ve hit them a few turns. I think of this soley as a strategy for repeatable trying to take the Caucasus NO, while removing Russian units from the board rather than 1 or 2 infantry blockers at a time.

By building a carrier, destroyer, and 1 transport Turn 2 (I realized surface war ships were required due to the UK bomber being on Malta after the UK1 Taranto raid), Germany couldn’t do much on G3 with 1 transport. But it caused Russia to hold a few units back, rather than consolidating as quickly for a stack on Bryansk. I will play test with an air base and 3 transport purchase on G2 (which is cheaper at that moment than purchasing a carrier and destroyer combo, plus an air base has other benefits than a just a carrier sitting in the Black Sea). Of course this means 3 fighters are stuck there, which means having to purchase lots of fighters for other areas and 3rd order effect problem being Germany might not have enough IPCs to cover that cost. But in the short term, Germany could hit Russia on G3 with 6 infantry + air on G3. Then at least once more on G4 before they have to really worry about the allies coming.

In my play testing, Russia was able to stack about 8 units of ground on the Caucasus on R2 with air (if pretending I didn’t know on R1 that Germany planned to build transports with the Romanian minor IC). This prevented Germany from striking until G4 (due to only having 1 transport). So by going with an air base and 3 transports on G2, Germany might be able to strike harder and faster, smash those 8 units which becomes attritional, or simply walk into the Caucasus. Might make a difference.

I will play test this on TripleA tonight see what happens.

A couple comments about this updated plan:

1. Many Allied players are now retreating the Med fleet to the Red Sea and bringing over a couple of fighters from India to prevent an Italian conquest of Egpyt.  I see that at least half of my games now.  The airbase would be insufficient to protect the transports from the UK planes that could land in the Caucasus.

2)  I would love to see these alternative opening strategies be play tested in either in an Allies +25-30 bid game or in a balance mod game with competent opponents.  I am not very impressed if a plan only works against inexperienced Allied players or in a unmodified game where the Axis has a 75% chance of winning using one of the more standard openings. Against bad opponents I could even propose a strat like massive German aa Gun build and get it to succeed.

Arthur Bomber Harris,

Not true for UK 2. The 3 fighter scramble is enough to protect the transports from the UK hitting the transports in the Black Sea because Germany and Russia would not be at war yet. Only the UK bomber from Malta could hit the transports and land back in UK territory. Fighters/tacs could not hit those transports if they’re either in Egypt or Malta.

Depending on where and how many UK and Russian planes are, yes, on G3, Germany may then have to add surface warships. But by purchasing an airbase rather surface warships on G2, Germany gets to hit Russia with 6 cannon fodder troops that turn, which hopefully if successful offsets the cost.

If of course Germany does have to purchase surface ships on G3, than this makes the investment becomes even more expensive and further proof of this not being a good plan. However, it still looks like a fun idea and I will to do some more play testing.

With the Russian player buying a destroyer and carrier in the Baltic on the first turn you have already won the game IMO so it doesn’t matter what strat you do lol (24 Russian IPCs on ships instead of troops :?). Buy a couple subs for the Baltic to reduce your losses when you air sweep that shiny new Russian carrier  :evil:

Taking out that Russian fleet w/Russian air on it will be a huge bonus  :-D

Stollmaster,

8 units was not a lot off the front lines for Russia. It’s all relative. If Germany didn’t purchase a Romanian IC, didn’t purchase a black sea fleet, airbase whatever, than yes, 8 units would have been a lot off the front lines. But in this scenario from my play testing, 8 units was reasonable for Russia. In fact, I could say 9 units when adding the tac. bomber.

Believe me, I want to make this strategy work so don’t underestimate my criticisms.

From play testing last night, I found from the Russia perspective, I was able to move the starting 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 infantry from Rostov, and 2 fighters to the Caucasus and still match the defensive strength required against the German stack that was smaller than normal (due to all of the purchases in the Black Sea and the minor IC in Romania). This is also assuming that Russia isn’t going to attack Iraq because I’m play testing Russia using every piece essential for defense. Also, when play testing, worst case scenario for Germany was me having the US and UK do a KGF plan. Disaster for Germany was going to happen real quick. It was very obvious in my play testing. In other play testing, I’ll try to have Germany do a sacrifice Gibraltar capture followed by more troops from Italy in order to stall and counter that for at least another turn or 2.

As soon as transports are built on the Black Sea, Russia obviously has to start producing in Stalingrad in order to get a chance to move out it’s mobile from the Caucasus and or build more defensive strength there. It obviously becomes a “new” avenue of approach for the defense of Moscow.

Tonight, I will try the airbase, destroyer, and 2 transport purchase on G2 (and the 3 transport purchase plan), then hit Russia on G3 with 2 transports and also play test it with 3 transports (while then adding in the place new units phase a destroyer for extra defense…). I think 2 transports (4 ground) will not be enough. However, I think 6 ground from 3 transports might be enough to either make the Russia player not stack the Caucasus (for fear of losing their air/tanks), so Germany can either walk-in for a NO, or Germany will get to smash units and start a war of attrition much quicker.

I’ve never seen the plan where a “good” UK player retreats into SZ81 with results that produce a better allied situation. I just haven’t experienced that yet. Letting Italy keep 2 transports and their battleship for me tips the Med balance favorably towards the Axis. I’ve successfully made Italy go hog wild in that scenario a few times. Italy grows very powerful as a minor power when and if the UK fails to take out or retreats to SZ81.

Also, It doesn’t matter if fighters are sitting on a UK carrier on SZ81 or they flew to Persia from India en route to Egypt. They could still hit the Black Sea once Russia is at war. I was saying that the only unit that the UK can hit the Black Sea with on UK2 is a bomber because fighters and tac. bombers don’t have the range to land in UK territories. They can’t land in Russian owned territories. Russia is a neutral until Round 4 or when Germany attacks them on Round 3. Well, I guess the carrier could move up to SZ99 from SZ81 to be a legal landing zone for a fighter, tac. bomber combo to add to the UK bomber. But in that scenario, why didn’t Italy land on Trans/Jordan to block the Suez Canal? That’s the obvious solution to help protect the Black Sea fleet.