All three Allied powers must co-operate closely and follow this strategy closely for this strategy to work, but when it does- watch out Axis!
The USSR must build exclusively in Moscow, preferably 9 inf on t1, 2 ftrs on t2, 9 inf on t3, and so forth. Germany will likely not be in a position to take Moscow before t5-6, so Russia could very reasonably have: 28 inf, 6 ftrs, 1 mech, 1 tank and 2 AAA in Moscow. However, if they follow this strategy, they will wind up with even more. Russia needs to put 1 unit (preferably 1 infantry) in every territory without a facility. This will prevent German blitzing. Britain has a role to play to minimise Italian can-opening ability. It’s also important to abandon EVERY TERRITORYpt] except for Moscow. If this strategy is executed properly, handing the Axis 2 VCs will not matter. In addition, once you get that +9 IPC bonus, alternate purchases between 10 inf and 3 ftr and 1 armour. Make sure you get plenty of British fighter support from Scotland via Archangel or Nenestia.
If Germany does a G1 attack, then you’re in a far worse position, but not a fatal one. Germany will be on the border with Leningrad and Ukraine, but since there are facilities in those territories, they cannot be blitzed through. Abandon them, and send everything directly to Moscow. In the centre, keep the 1 inf. in Belarus, and ensure that you can put 1 unit in Smolensk and Bryansk. The good news is that you’ll get that +9 bonus straightaway.
Either way, ideally, Germany should have Moscow partly or fully encircled by turn 6 or 7, and even using the ICs it has captured. However, you should have 35-odd infantry, 7-8 fighters, and a handful of tanks, all supplemented by British fighters. When Moscow is partially or fully encircled, don’t launch counteroffensives against juicy German targets unless the Allies have a strong beachhead in the West that requires Germany’s attention. Germany has two advantages here: First, they simply will take Moscow eventually. They are increasing their forces in the East constantly, while you will be unable to after a while. Second, they will have up to 40 extra IPCs (25 for the Russian territories, +5 for Leningrad, +5 for Stalingrad, +5 for the Caucasus). This is where the other Allies come in…
Britain has a key role to play in this strategy. In the first four turns, they need to protect Cairo. On t1, Britain should build a mIC in Cairo and 1 ftr in London. They also need to do Taranto (even throwing in their strat bomber and fighter). Tobruk is also necessary. It is vital for as many German subs as possible to be killed (because neither you or the US will have much for destroyers). The Italian fleet in 96 also should be destroyed with the Malta fighter (which should fly to Cairo). Finally, the 2 ftrs in London should go to Scotland. On t2, they should build 1 ftr in London, 1 ftr in Cairo, and 1 tank in Cairo. As soon as Germany and Russia go to war, whatever air units are in Scotland should go to Archangel or Nenestia. If you are doing really well, activate Persia and turn out some fighters for Moscow. That probably won’t happen, though. Don’t feel pressure to launch an independent invasion of Europe, either. When America has a firm foothold in Normandy, you should (a, hit Norway, (b, build some strat bombers and sap Germany of production capacity, (c, take Holland or Denmark, just to force Germany to lengthen the front a little bit.
If Germany goes for a Sea Lion, do something insane. Don’t worry about London. You read that right. DON’T WORRY ABOUT LONDON!!!pt] Instead, build an IC in Cairo and a destroyer in 109 to fight U-Boats and clear the Atlantic for American ships. Do Taranto, Tobruk, and kill the 96 fleet. On t2, put three tanks in Cairo (18), 1 tank in South Africa, and 1 infantry in South Africa. London will likely have fallen by t3, but the good news is that you’ll soon get US aid, and Russia will have plenty of time to build up.
The United States will save the Allies. Literally. It’s their job to invade Europe and bring down Germany. On t1, they should purchase 6 inf and 1 destroyer (to help fight U-Boats). Their destroyer should stay in 101. On t2, the US will have 44 IPCs, and they should build 3 tanks and 3 artillery. Finally on turn 3, they should build 6 transports. Once the US is up to 60 IPCs, they should build: 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, and 4 transports every turn. The US just has to keep hitting Germany in the West. Trying to take Rome if Britain has been particularly successful against Italy is also an option. Just tie down enough Axis units and IPCs that the Germans exhaust themselves taking Moscow, and cannot take Cairo. Then- kill the Axis.
In sum, this strategy calls for the USSR to delay Germany’s advance while making Moscow nearly impossible to conquer, Britain keeping Italy weak while providing fighter support to Moscow, and the US striking hard against occupied France and eventually killing Germany.
This strategy will not work in Global because the US is committing nearly all of its resources to the Atlantic, so Japan can win for the Axis in Global.
Also, this strategy is based in large part on the theory that ‘as Italy goes, so goes the Axis’, first coined by Requester45:
Hey guys! I have a theory that I wanted to put out there and see if it holds true for you guys as it does for me. I have played a countless number of games of G40, as all the different powers. I have noticed something very interesting, and wanted to share wiht you all.
In every game that the Italians have had a base income of 25 IPC or higher, the Axis have won … regardless of the outcome in the Pacific. Now this theory ties in with the idea that the Middle East is an essential power house for any nation controlling it, as well as North African objectives. I won’t go into too much detail on Italian strategies, but I wanted to see if this theory holds true for you guys as well.
By focussing Britain’s power chiefly against Italy, the Germans will be forced to divert resources to prop up the south, as opposed to spending them on quickly crushing Russia or defending the West.
Also, another criticism I can see coming about this strategy is “you’re giving Germany 40 free IPCs a turn”. Well, yes, but I’m also forcing them to spend a lot of that money. Because Italy is being kept weak, Germany is going to need a Mediterranean IC. It may even need to build naval units or an Afrika Korps. Also- it takes time and resources to build an army that can smash Moscow, so a lot of that 40 will be needed to maintain the Eastern Front. Finally, after the Americans land in France and secure a beachhead that the Germans can’t destroy, holding Paris and launching a counteroffensive to keep the Allies out of W. Germany and Paris will be expensive priorities that may eat into the 40.
I see a number of holes in this strategy.
With only 1 Russian infantry defending each territory, Italy really doesn’t need much to can-open with…the starting airforce and starting mechs/tanks, even without forces from Tobruk, will probably be enough. You only have to can-open three times for Germany to be sitting at the gates of Moscow. Germany could be attacking Moscow as early as turn 5.
With only 2 British fighters (and no infantry!) built in London on the first turn, Germany can do a very easy, very cheap Sea Lion…maybe only 3-4 total German transports. With no American warships built in the first 3 turns other than 1 destroyer, it becomes easy for Germany to screen the Americans out of London with German destroyers, or maybe even have Germany sink the 6 American transports with air power based out of London or a Baltic carrier. This means that Germany takes and holds London while still making progress in the east.
Building an early factory in Cairo is in tension with your plan to fly fighters from London through Nenetsia to Moscow – if you’re building lots of British fighters to defend Moscow, you won’t be able to afford to fill the Cairo factory. If you can’t fill the factory, you’d be better off building a transport in South Africa, or just building mechs in South Africa and letting them drive north.
You don’t really explain how you plan to take Italy out of the game other than a first-turn Tobruk + Taranto, which can fail pretty badly for the UK if they try to do both at once and the dice go poorly. Even if the dice go well, that’s not a knock-out blow. Italy still has one fleet left, and an army in Italy, and an air force, and some infantry in east Africa. You say that you will “focus Britain’s power chiefly against Italy,” but you also talk about building British fighters for Moscow and building multiple tanks in Cairo, neither of which are necessarily anti-Italy. How do you get the tanks from Cairo to Rome? Italy doesn’t necessarily have to take Cairo; they can just clear the Med, take Gibraltar and Greece, and wind up collecting plenty of income.
How much have you tested this strategy, either against yourself, or against the AI, or against live players? It sounds like part of the appeal of the strategy is that you’re imagining Britain doing two different things at once (guarding Moscow and smashing Italy) at full force, and you’re not taking Britain’s budget constraints seriously. I think if you played this out a few times you would see how and why Britain is unable to afford to do all of the work that you’re assigning to Britain.
Even without Italian can-opening, simply retreating all the way to Moscow is a dangerous play.
When Russia does this, I use the Luftwaffe to attack territories behind the front lines that only have 1 INF defending them. Helps clear them out quickly, allowing me to blitz through and it frees Italy up to focus on Cairo. I don’t like Italian can-opener strategies, Italy needs to be challenging the UK in Africa/Middle East, not just helping in Russia.
As Russia, you need to know a lost cause on the front lines and trade territories for turns while fortifying Moscow, but you need to push back too. If Germany has one giant stack of ground units, you need to be pushing back with mech infantry trying to rush “past” it into Germany’s original territories (Romania, Poland, etc). There are IPC’s + Russian NO’s to claim by taking German territories, even briefly.
A smart German player will bypass Moscow to go claim the Russian territory with the +9 NO and then start pounding on Moscow. Russia needs to fight smart, but they can’t just collapse into Moscow and hope that they can hold the Alamo … they have to actually fight back.
several things i like about this strategy:
1. you are hoping the Allies win. I call global 40.2 the axis’ wet dream.
2. planes to moscow. 10 allied planes to moscow can make it nearly impregnable. britain is the better gifter because they can do it so much more quickly. It also gives the russian player a backbone confidence to go on the offensive and regain some territories.
i’ve got to get ready for work. this might not be THE answer that rebalances the game, but keep thinking. it’s out there. like the white whale…it’s out there.
Also, another criticism I can see coming about this strategy is “you’re giving Germany 40 free IPCs a turn”. Well, yes, but I’m also forcing them to spend a lot of that money. Because Italy is being kept weak, Germany is going to need a Mediterranean IC. It may even need to build naval units or an Afrika Korps. Also- it takes time and resources to build an army that can smash Moscow, so a lot of that 40 will be needed to maintain the Eastern Front.
There’s something I’m wondering about this. The strategy being proposed, if I understand it correctly, is for the Russians to retreat into Moscow, transform it into an impregnable fortress, abandon all their other territories to the Germans and resist the temptation to attack the German units besieging Moscow. What I’m wondering is: what if the German player realizes that the Russians are doing this? If he does so, he might draw the following conclusions:
The Russian strategy has given Germany a ton of free IPCs.
Moscow poses no offensive threat to Germany because the Russians have dug into a purely defensive position at Moscow.
Because of this purely defensive stance, Moscow’s financial and industrial importance is being used for the sole purpose of reinforcing Russia’s static defensive position in Moscow, which on the one hand makes Moscow a tough nut to crack if Germany decides to attack it (as AxisAndAllies1940 says, “it takes time and resources to build an army that can smash Moscow”) but on the other hand it means that all the Russian reinforcements being poured into Moscow will remain idle – and thus will be wasted – if Germany chooses not to attack Moscow…a choice that Germany can afford to make because, as point 2 above argues, a purely defensive Russian stance at Moscow poses no offensive threat to Germany;
Germany is therefore free to keep minimal forces around Moscow (rather than doing what the Russians are expecting them to do, which is for Germany to deploy massive resources around Moscow), and can most profitably spend its ton of free IPCs by building up and using its forces elsewhere – such at Italy.
there were islands in the pac that the allies bypassed because they were not strategically valuable. that is my view of Moscow. chase the rats into their hole and bypass for the middle east, India, north Africa and eventually Siberia.
When they come out to play, play wack a mole.
In my experience with Europe. As Germany I always get Russia, it is really easy to take, especially under a g1 dow and especially with low luck.
The allies should try to get something going before Russia falls on g5 or g6
It comes down to taking norway with usa, africa corp with uk, and later mass drop spain. There really isn’t much Russia can do, if Russia lives long, allies win automatically.
