@gen-manstein
Exactly. See the thing is for a standard G3 attack, since I dont know a single soul that attacks on G1 let alone G2, would like to be getting at Moscow by around turn 6 at the earliest since a direct path to Moscow would take exactly 4 spaces from the original German-Soviet border.
As for what the Allies are doing, that really depends. The Allies or atleast the Soviets would hope that the Allies would be liberating Paris or at the very least close to liberating Paris, and if they aren’t then it’s game over.
As for Stalingrad, it’s one of the other priorities I feel Germany should inevitably have in the event the conflict is drawn out further than usual. It’s hard to explain how to exactly go about doing the Eastern Front since many people have many different ways of going about doing it. As for myself, I see less importance in Leningrad and more in Kiev and the southern portion of the Soviet Union since that’s where all the money is. As well as the fact that having taking Stalingrad and the Caucasus will qutie literally give you a bonus 10 IPC’s for the national objective of each these territories allowing the Germans to be able to pump out 70+ IPC’s a turn since they should be making roughly 50 if they’ve done their turn properly.
All it really comes down to is if the Soviets are willing to defend Stalingrad and if the Germans are willing to devote forces to take Stalingrad since unless you’re sending a secondary party off to go take Stalingrad, it’ll take you to G7 or G8 to taking Moscow which isn’t exactly ideal. Like I said though, for the most part I can guarantee a successful opening into a Barbarossa but unfortunately not a proper way of going about doing it since there are so many different options the German player can do and so many different outcomes.
But the Soviets should be building even after Moscow falls in the urals.
If Germany goes all out for Moscow then Paris should always get liberated. Unless allies play wrong.
Other option is if they just go after Stalingrad and oil fields then Germany of course gets money but should get some kind of victory point for each. Point for Stalingrad and a point for the oil in some way. Then u would have a clash there.
But don’t know if you have that in game.
I had a game not 36 39 and Germany took Moscow , lost Paris and west Germany and still barely pulled out a win based on Japan had to win the game then for a few more points. That was awesome.
Another game Moscow fell and Paris was liberated and Russia was able to hold Stalingrad based on correct IC moves, tankograd and Russian planes retreating after a certain amount of turn battles for Moscow.
Ok. Well good luck
@gen-manstein
You shouldn’t be losing Paris as Germany.
I assume the Americans are the ones responsible for the liberation of Paris which means 1 of 2 things.
Youre moving too slow on the Eastern Front and not taking Moscow in time or
Youre not doing anything to stop the Americans from landing.
In another thread a made i talked about how to counter the floating bridge to which the Americans are capable of shucking 8 troops at a time into Europe being they properly set it up.
The way to counter this is by doing Afrika Korps. Afrika Korps allows the German Player to build a formidable navy and send a decent amount of units down to Africa to stop the American Operation Flashlight
@luftwaffles41 said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:
@gen-manstein
You shouldn’t be losing Paris as Germany.
I assume the Americans are the ones responsible for the liberation of Paris which means 1 of 2 things.
Youre moving too slow on the Eastern Front and not taking Moscow in time or
Youre not doing anything to stop the Americans from landing.
In another thread a made i talked about how to counter the floating bridge to which the Americans are capable of shucking 8 troops at a time into Europe being they properly set it up.
The way to counter this is by doing Afrika Korps. Afrika Korps allows the German Player to build a formidable navy and send a decent amount of units down to Africa to stop the American Operation Flashlight
Depends on what you are looking for in the game. Why should Germany never lose Paris then ? Is game setup for Paris to fall in 44!and like on turn 10 or something ?
@gen-manstein
Well assuming you’re playing with natural OOB victory conditions, if Paris is being liberated by turn 10 then that’s way too late for the Allies. 4 turns late to be exact. It takes America roughly to turn 6 to get a complete floating bridge up and running and Germany only to turn 3 to officially get a navy and formidable sized army down to Africa to assist Italy as well as it’ll take the Germans to G6 to reach Moscow which is right around the time the Soviets are wanting reinforcements from Siberia and planes from UK middle east.
All in all, the Axis have the absolute advantage to win the game swiftly and soundly its up to them to enact that properly.
Ok. Not a fan of allies stuff able to go to Russia. Should only be from lend lease.
Ok. Nice talkin.
@gen-manstein
Yeh, I really don’t like it either. More often than not the UK will put a complex on Persia then slowly build up fighters and when Germany arrives they just stack all their fighters on Moscow I ain’t a fan either.
Glad I could answer your questions man! Obviously this strategy still needs some work but I just got done running a track race so I need some rest before I do that.
If you have any other questions about Germany id be more than happy to answer them with the best of my knowledge
Well I don’t play this game but was just getting up some chat about different stuff about what Russia has and don’t. Since ain’t much going on else ware.
@gen-manstein
Do you play A&A Anniversary? Thats another favorite Axis and Allies game of mine
No. Good game though. I’ve been playing 39 games since 2009.
Now I play my 41 game with group.
@gen-manstein
Ahhh okay I see. By 39 do you mean Global War 1939?
Ya. 2 buds have 39 games. Then group started playing tigermans 39 game from HBG like version 6.0. We played that. Gar was involved too. Discussed stuff with tigerman and changes were made and then HBG came out with version 1 39 game.
Then we played and discussed stuff and rules where adjusted up till version 7.2 rules.
Then HBG came out with I believe version 2 36/39 and nice map but then my group and a few other groups wouldn’t play it based on to many rules and then version 3 came out which you guys are playing now.
So after playing version 1 39 US would get to war to late in game and Russia had issues. I had like 8 house rule changes but pretty much group was done with game. So I never got a chance to test.
So in mean time I came up with my 41 game so everybody is at war and axis at peak strength.
Most guys love when US is at war at start of game.
And now we got about 50 games in on that.
Setup of my game. Plus map I made. Almost done with another version of map. 
@gen-manstein
I’ve always wanted to play 39 it seems engaging dont have the time to buy the board and pieces though
Oh I guess I read the thread title wrong. Never mind on the 39 stuff.
So yes u could make changes to the g40
Game.
You interested in playing the captains expansion g40 rules ?
@gen-manstein
I’ve heard of the Grasshopper rules but not the captain. What exactly is that?
He’s suppose to be post rules pretty quick. Has been posting individual rules here and there.
@thedesertfox Except Germany hasn’t won the war. You still need Egypt or London. Accompanying a middle Earth strategy do you expect to claim egypt after:
a: Losing a huge chunk of your forces in the battle for Moscow
b: Fending off American Beachhead.
Floating bridge finished or not. If the USA player sees planes leave striking distance of the shores of Western Europe they will be staging as close as possible, dumping troops in North Africa, setting up to take Rome, etc. You don’t need much to cover transports if the luftwaffe is in Ukraine. Unless the Luffwaffe is at least in Western Germany you can’t retaliate against a landing.
Assuming Moscow falls turn 6 AND your planes were on Bryansk to start they will be at best Eastern Poland at the end of the turn. To reach Bryansk they would have needed to be on Western Germany end of Turn 4. USA would see this and probably stage in Gibralter SZ 91 with minimal coverage, maybe 3 transports, a couple carriers, Battleship, cruiser and destroyer.
This means turn 5 when the luftwaffe heads over to Bryansk, America is free to beachhead in France. Turn 6, Moscow falls, wave 2 arrives in France. Turn 7 potentially a 3rd arrives probably with 4 transports or more and your planes still cannot touch American navy. So yes, your planes are out of position turn 4, 5, 6, AND 7 to do anything against the incoming invasion if you plan on sending them over to crush Moscow. I was being generous buy suggesting 2-3 turns.
Add to all this, the sheer ability to harass that America has from SZ91 alone. Listing possible targets that Germany can’t cover all at once: Normandy, Southern France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome. If the German player takes planes to Moscow for the early capital grab America can establish a beachhead or land troops wherever it pleases to cause the most damage to your game. Letting USA establish a foothold is really bad.
I am sorry, I do not see how this is a new strategy. People have known that you could claim Moscow hands down as Germany if you brought everything to the table from the get go. This is nothing new. The challenge still remains, can you hold onto everything in Europe AND capture Egypt before the end. USA is not just going to sit around and wait. They will mobilize turn 4 and at the very least make sure you hold back your planes. They will at the very least establish a strong enough presence in N.Aftrica with tanks and Mechs to make sure Axis never claims Cairo. With Moscow falling on 6 and a luftwaffe unable to touch the American transports until 8, the floating bridge is established anyways if they only needed 5 turns of building to begin with any planes required to defend transports can be built on 5 or six and land on carriers before Germany can remove them. Its a tough prospect. Especially on the Europe board alone where there’s no Japan to pressure the States.
First, I need to apologize since I don’t think I addressed that this is a combined-joint strategy with Afrika Korps and the Blitzkrieg war tactic against Russia.
Now, if we’re talking the terms of victory with the OOB rules…
Instead of me saying “Germany has won the war” I should’ve said “Germany has effectively beaten the Allies to the point to which they can no longer effectively do anything to the Axis powers as a whole.”
Germany begins with 30 IPC’s. The taking of all 3 provinces of France brings the number up to 39 IPC’s. Having also taken Bulgaria, Finland, and Morocco and/or Algeria brings the number up to 44 IPC’s a turn. Assuming we’re talking the Germans having reached and captured Moscow by then, the Germans should have gotten all the former Soviet Territory from East Poland to Smolensk and Bryansk, adding a whopping 11 more IPC’s to the count, making 55 IPC’s a turn, and thats WITHOUT having taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow. Now, assuming the Germans suceed in taking Moscow that’s 3 more IPC’s for the territory to include 2 more 1 for each territory north and south being able to blitz into Moscow adding a total of 5 more IPC’s to the count making 60 IPC’s a turn, adding on the bonus money the Soviet Union had before losing their capital, but for the purposes of consistency I will ignore this number. We’re not done yet. Assuming the Germans will have secured the Northern and Southern Industrial hubs of the Soviet Union whilst on their way to Moscow or clean it up after taking it, we have Leningrad and Karelia with a total of 3 IPC’s, Stalingrad and the Caucasus being 4 IPC’s and blitz through Archangel for the hell of it making 8 more IPC’s to the count, bringing the number to 68 IPC’s. Now, assuming the Germans have control of this having properly reached Moscow, gives them National Objective money of a whopping 20 IPC’s, 1 for each Soviet City and 1 for taking the Caucasus, bringing the number to 88 IPC’s a turn.
This is how much the Germans can pack by G6-G8. With the American floating bridge made a possibility for landing in France, do I even need to explain the unit builds to counter a meager 8 units at a time being sent over to Southern France?
Now that we’ve counted all the POTENTIAL money Germany can be making, let’s count Italy.
Italy possess a meager 10 IPC’s to start. assuming Germany and Italy did the 3 plane scramble should eliminate any and all ships that went into the Taranto Raid, leaving them to take out the French ships bordering Southern France. Having taken Greece for 2 IPC’s. Tunisia for 1, Egypt/Sudan for 1, and Kenya for 1, makes 5 IPC’s along with the Italian national objective of no boats in the med giving them 20 IPC’s on their first turn. On turn 2, the Germans will be moving down to secure Gibraltar, as well as taking out Southern France giving Italy another National Objective of 5 IPC’s, as well as having taken Alexandria on turn 1 and finishing off with taking Algeria on turn 2 making for another national objective of 5 IPC’s, leaving Italy with 30 IPC’s to spend on the 2nd turn on ships needs to build up a navy. Keep in mind, by now the entirety of the British airforce should be either destroyed or fulled away from the Med to deal with Japan. Allowing the Italians to freely and safely rebuild their destroyed navy assuming the British made a successful Taranto Raid, combined with the slowly growing German Navy in the Med to protect the Italian navy.
With all this in mind, the Germans and Italians will be making automatic headway immediately towards Cairo to take it by turn 4 or turn 5, which is right when the Americans are SET to start the floating bridge.
Now setting the Luftwaffe aside, with the Germans and Italians having properly built up a navy and ready for action, setup inside Seazone 92, and you’ve stopped the floating bridge just like that. The Americans cannot and will not attack this navy, because they have no interest risking over 12 transports worth of IPCs to end up in the water, so the presence of the Luftwaffe is out of the question and can be prioritized on taking Moscow.
Consider the fact that you said floating bridge or not tells me that I dont think you fully understand the merits at which the Americans are capable of doing their floating bridge. Because inevitably they’ll spend more on the Europe side than the Eastern side. And in my thread that I made on how to counter the Floating bridge, Japan plays a SIGNIFICANT role in this.
General Hand Grenade may have told you that “As long as you keep Honolulu and Sydney the Japanese can’t win the game for the Axis.” And frankly, if he and everybody else thinks that all it takes is to just ‘watch over those 2 territories and the Japanese never win’ than they might need to reevaluate themselves. Because the moment I’m finished up with Calcutta and are collecting 50+ IPC’s then this is going to happen: 10 transports, 20 guys, my entire navy, my entire airforce, take midway, attack Hawaii and win the game. The Japanese dont have to even break a sweat to do this, and the fact that my American enemy is so willing to leave the Pacific theater alone is absolutely splendid for me as Japan.
Like I said, a proper German player doesn’t need to cover Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome or Normandy simply if they understand how the Floating Bridge works. The floating bridge works in such a way that 2 sets of 8 transports shuck troops back and forth into Africa from N. America. Then, the way the utilize Southern France is with the very fact that with 1 single group of transports, they can move back and forward taking guys into France only need 12 transports in total to take guys form North America to Morocco and then into Southern France. If the Americans wanted to make a floating Bridge that linked into Normandy or Denmark than that would require an entire extra link of 4 transports to get troops in there. This is why America prioritizes landing in Southern France.
As for the last paragraph you posted, what are you sorry for?
If you’re sorry for the idea that this isn’t a ‘new strategy’ than, with all do respect, I suggest you look back at my original post of what this strategy was all about.
I think its obvious that if we send everything we have into Russia that we’ll find some success in taking them out. Until a certain General hand Grenade came along and said he developed a strategy for the Soviet Union involving counter attacking that was ‘impossible’ to defeat. And taking it upon myself, I found a way to counter the so said ‘unbeatable’ strategy. Like I said before, this Blitzkrieg opening is in no way supposed to thoroughly go through every single move of Barbarossa. Because after you’ve broken the Soviet Maginot Line 2.0 than the game runs like clock work of taking more Soviet territory by the second.
As for winning the game, the Axis do what the Axis do best, and win the game quickly. By G6 when the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, they’ve taken Stalingrad and Leningrad, and likely Cairo, and all of a sudden the very means at which the USA is finally prepared to make landings in London, it’s already too late. All 8 victory cities have been won for the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
The Allies’ only hope at winning is to draw out the game, make it long. There’s no magic bullet the US can use to make a quick landing in Berlin and end the whole war. The game needs to be drawn out and weighted to which the Allies arrive to save the Soviet Union. These are 2 different playable aspects that collide with eachother to win it all.
When this game made it’s debut, everybody did Barbarossa. They did it, had success and said “I’m bored, I need to find a new method of winning.” Because at the end of the day this game goes so much more in depth than just doing a Barbarossa attack. I’ve had the privilege of being able to see this concept multiple times starting from Axis and Allies 1941 edition to A&A Anniversary, A&A 1942 edition, all the way to Global 1940. I can say from experience of many previous games that this strategy goes more in depth than just the Barbarossa attack.
I hope this clears the air of confusion and misconception.
@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:
Instead of me saying “Germany has won the war” I should’ve said “Germany has effectively beaten the Allies to the point to which they can no longer effectively do anything to the Axis powers as a whole.”
That’s a pretty important distinction.
Germany begins with 30 IPC’s. The taking of all 3 provinces of France brings the number up to 39 IPC’s. Having also taken Bulgaria, Finland, and Morocco and/or Algeria brings the number up to 44 IPC’s a turn. Assuming we’re talking the Germans having reached and captured Moscow by then, the Germans should have gotten all the former Soviet Territory from East Poland to Smolensk and Bryansk, adding a whopping 11 more IPC’s to the count, making 55 IPC’s a turn, and thats WITHOUT having taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow. Now, assuming the Germans suceed in taking Moscow that’s 3 more IPC’s for the territory to include 2 more 1 for each territory north and south being able to blitz into Moscow adding a total of 5 more IPC’s to the count making 60 IPC’s a turn, adding on the bonus money the Soviet Union had before losing their capital, but for the purposes of consistency I will ignore this number. We’re not done yet. Assuming the Germans will have secured the Northern and Southern Industrial hubs of the Soviet Union whilst on their way to Moscow or clean it up after taking it, we have Leningrad and Karelia with a total of 3 IPC’s, Stalingrad and the Caucasus being 4 IPC’s and blitz through Archangel for the hell of it making 8 more IPC’s to the count, bringing the number to 68 IPC’s. Now, assuming the Germans have control of this having properly reached Moscow, gives them National Objective money of a whopping 20 IPC’s, 1 for each Soviet City and 1 for taking the Caucasus, bringing the number to 88 IPC’s a turn.
I suppose this makes a bigger difference on just the Europe board vs the global board.
This is how much the Germans can pack by G6-G8. With the American floating bridge made a possibility for landing in France, do I even need to explain the unit builds to counter a meager 8 units at a time being sent over to Southern France?
Now that we’ve counted all the POTENTIAL money Germany can be making, let’s count Italy.
Italy possess a meager 10 IPC’s to start. assuming Germany and Italy did the 3 plane scramble should eliminate any and all ships that went into the Taranto Raid, leaving them to take out the French ships bordering Southern France. Having taken Greece for 2 IPC’s. Tunisia for 1, Egypt/Sudan for 1, and Kenya for 1, makes 5 IPC’s along with the Italian national objective of no boats in the med giving them 20 IPC’s on their first turn. On turn 2, the Germans will be moving down to secure Gibraltar, as well as taking out Southern France giving Italy another National Objective of 5 IPC’s, as well as having taken Alexandria on turn 1 and finishing off with taking Algeria on turn 2 making for another national objective of 5 IPC’s, leaving Italy with 30 IPC’s to spend on the 2nd turn on ships needs to build up a navy. Keep in mind, by now the entirety of the British airforce should be either destroyed or fulled away from the Med to deal with Japan. Allowing the Italians to freely and safely rebuild their destroyed navy assuming the British made a successful Taranto Raid, combined with the slowly growing German Navy in the Med to protect the Italian navy.
Eliminating all boats in the Med turn 1 is not a guarantee depending on the effectiveness of the Taranto raid. I’ve certainly had it where this objective was not achievable.
With all this in mind, the Germans and Italians will be making automatic headway immediately towards Cairo to take it by turn 4 or turn 5, which is right when the Americans are SET to start the floating bridge.
Now setting the Luftwaffe aside, with the Germans and Italians having properly built up a navy and ready for action, setup inside Seazone 92, and you’ve stopped the floating bridge just like that. The Americans cannot and will not attack this navy, because they have no interest risking over 12 transports worth of IPCs to end up in the water, so the presence of the Luftwaffe is out of the question and can be prioritized on taking Moscow.
Why does America need to be worried about Warships moving though the straight of Gibralter to attack the weaker bridge.
Consider the fact that you said floating bridge or not tells me that I dont think you fully understand the merits at which the Americans are capable of doing their floating bridge. Because inevitably they’ll spend more on the Europe side than the Eastern side. And in my thread that I made on how to counter the Floating bridge, Japan plays a SIGNIFICANT role in this.
General Hand Grenade may have told you that “As long as you keep Honolulu and Sydney the Japanese can’t win the game for the Axis.” And frankly, if he and everybody else thinks that all it takes is to just ‘watch over those 2 territories and the Japanese never win’ than they might need to reevaluate themselves. Because the moment I’m finished up with Calcutta and are collecting 50+ IPC’s then this is going to happen: 10 transports, 20 guys, my entire navy, my entire airforce, take midway, attack Hawaii and win the game. The Japanese don’t have to even break a sweat to do this, and the fact that my American enemy is so willing to leave the Pacific theater alone is absolutely splendid for me as Japan.
Like I said, a proper German player doesn’t need to cover Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome or Normandy simply if they understand how the Floating Bridge works. The floating bridge works in such a way that 2 sets of 8 transports shuck troops back and forth into Africa from N. America. Then, the way the utilize Southern France is with the very fact that with 1 single group of transports, they can move back and forward taking guys into France only need 12 transports in total to take guys form North America to Morocco and then into Southern France. If the Americans wanted to make a floating Bridge that linked into Normandy or Denmark than that would require an entire extra link of 4 transports to get troops in there. This is why America prioritizes landing in Southern France.
You very much need to cover all those places because even a one shot landing on Western Germany is worth losing a few transports. You take Western Germany and downgrade the industrial complex. Sure they take it back but Germany’s ability to defend just got a lot harder when you can’t pump out enough guys to defend with.
Another thing to note is that you only need 3 sets of transports if you use the north Atlantic route. Its even more protected. Early landings can be effective with sets of 3 or even 2 transports but the American probably has 3. it doesn’t take much to transform the line so that you only need to cover a single portion of exposed transports with your navy. You go from Canada, to UK with a set, and half a set sits in the English channel. You have air cover from scramble too. If the German fleet is in the med without air support they can have it. You unload Gibralter to close off of the straight then switch targets north where the Germans have nothing to answer with.
As for the last paragraph you posted, what are you sorry for?
If you’re sorry for the idea that this isn’t a ‘new strategy’ than, with all do respect, I suggest you look back at my original post of what this strategy was all about.
I think its obvious that if we send everything we have into Russia that we’ll find some success in taking them out. Until a certain General hand Grenade came along and said he developed a strategy for the Soviet Union involving counter attacking that was ‘impossible’ to defeat. And taking it upon myself, I found a way to counter the so said ‘unbeatable’ strategy. Like I said before, this Blitzkrieg opening is in no way supposed to thoroughly go through every single move of Barbarossa. Because after you’ve broken the Soviet Maginot Line 2.0 than the game runs like clock work of taking more Soviet territory by the second.
I watched the soviet strategy and its not the Soviet strat that holds back the Germans. I can already see several flaws in the GHG Russia strat and I’ve played it. Its the fallback in conjunction with Middle Earth in conjunction with Floating Bridge that work together with the two latter being the more important. He buys a tank and an artillery each turn. in hopes of destroying exposed German armor. The solution is simple, don’t expose your armor by spreading too thin.
As for winning the game, the Axis do what the Axis do best, and win the game quickly. By G6 when the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, they’ve taken Stalingrad and Leningrad, and likely Cairo, and all of a sudden the very means at which the USA is finally prepared to make landings in London, it’s already too late. All 8 victory cities have been won for the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
The Allies’ only hope at winning is to draw out the game, make it long. There’s no magic bullet the US can use to make a quick landing in Berlin and end the whole war. The game needs to be drawn out and weighted to which the Allies arrive to save the Soviet Union. These are 2 different playable aspects that collide with each other to win it all.
When this game made it’s debut, everybody did Barbarossa. They did it, had success and said “I’m bored, I need to find a new method of winning.” Because at the end of the day this game goes so much more in depth than just doing a Barbarossa attack. I’ve had the privilege of being able to see this concept multiple times starting from Axis and Allies 1941 edition to A&A Anniversary, A&A 1942 edition, all the way to Global 1940. I can say from experience of many previous games that this strategy goes more in depth than just the Barbarossa attack.
I hope this clears the air of confusion and misconception.
And yet all you are Suggesting is G3 Barbarossa variant with Afrika Korps. both strategies everyone including GHG is aware of for some time as the leading contenders in the Axis arsenal. Both strategies that GHG claims are not reliable enough to counter The allied combo of Russia Fallback, Floating Bridge and most of all Middle Earth.
@pinch1 said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:
@thedesertfox said in Countering the Russian Fall Back Line:
Eliminating all boats in the Med turn 1 is not a guarantee depending on the effectiveness of the Taranto raid. I’ve certainly had it where this objective was not achievable.
Yeah, it kind of is. Unless you get diced, pretty much everything is going into the water with the exception of maybe a British bomber. I’ve done the rolling, looked at all the possible scenarios that good go through with the Taranto Raid, and like I said, unless the Italians get diced, which I couldn’t be less concerned about what my dice rolls are, pretty much everything is going into the water.
Why does America need to be worried about Warships moving though the straight of Gibralter to attack the weaker bridge.
Why do they need to be worried? Because this is fastest and only genuine link they have of getting divisions into Europe. On top of that, a campaign in North Africa to take Cairo only leaves the Americans with the choice of having to stop the Germans and Italians. The Americans can’t be screwing around trying to make landings in far off places, they need to be getting to Europe as quickly as they possibly can to save the Soviets in a well timed and not-rushed manor.
- If you’ve pulled back your entire navy and airforce as Japan after taking India I wager a middle Earth UK won’t struggle to reclaim it. By the time you reach Hawaii or Sydney you may very well have lost India again.
- 10 Transports? You can talk about a lot of things but I know Japan’s capabilities. If you have 10 transports at that stage of the game you are most certainly weak on ground forces in the mainland. Especially with 3 factories built. If you are weak on mainland ground forces you are in trouble as Japan.
Be authentic here. You’re assuming that I’ve pulled my navy and airforce completely out of the mainland continent of Asia. Be realistic because obviously that wouldn’t be the case. And if Calcutta has fallen to the Japanese, which it likely will, then the Middle Earth strategy wasn’t properly utilized, or it’s effectiveness if being overstretched and overrated.
How am I weak on ground forces? Japan should be prioritizing transports to reach the corners of the Pacific in obtaining the Money islands and make landings on Southern Asia. 10 transports is chump change to Japan, especially when they build transports over a series of turns instead of all at once like Germany has to do with Sealion. All I’m literally doing is taking these transports back to Japan, building up units to invade Hawaii, I’m not even spending as much as I would for like I would be in a German Sealion attack.
You very much need to cover all those places because even a one shot landing on Western Germany is worth losing a few transports. You take Western Germany and downgrade the industrial complex. Sure they take it back but Germany’s ability to defend just got a lot harder when you can’t pump out enough guys to defend with.
Dude, it goes as simple as putting 10 guys on Western Germany before the invasion is even coming, because you would know this as well as I do that as the Axis, the Floating Bridge isn’t exactly anything worthy of calling it a ‘surprise attack.’ And no, no it’s not worth losing ‘a few’ transports. Because what’s going to happen is your going to throw your navy and 4-8 transports to land in Western Germany only for the invasion to be repelled and your link of sending guys to Europe broken. Like I said, I could care less if the Americans make landings close to my industrial hubs, it makes my job easier clearing out the wasps from the hive.
Another thing to note is that you only need 3 sets of transports if you use the north Atlantic route. Its even more protected. Early landings can be effective with sets of 3 or even 2 transports but the American probably has 3. it doesn’t take much to transform the line so that you only need to cover a single portion of exposed transports with your navy. You go from Canada, to UK with a set, and half a set sits in the English channel. You have air cover from scramble too. If the German fleet is in the med without air support they can have it. You unload Gibralter to close off of the straight then switch targets north where the Germans have nothing to answer with.
No, you need 4 dude. Look at the seazones and analyze. The reason you only need 3 when going to Southern France is that you can have your navy and 4 transports on Seazone 93, and constantly move units to 93, then back to 92 ready to take the next set of guys from Morocco. It takes up 2 of the transports movement.
As for doing this with Normandy, you have to have 4 sets of 4 transports. 2 sets of transports are going back and forward from Morocco to North America back to Morocco. If you wanted to go up to Normandy from Morocco, you need to go through Sea zones 104 and 105 to make a landing which uses up all the movement of the transports, therefore, if you wanna shuck guys into Normandy or anywhere else consistently every turn you need another set of transports.
As for doing this with Canada, it still takes a whole turn of moving units from Eastern US to Canada, you’re not compensating for anything with this being as it’s still gonna take them 4 turns to get there.
I watched the soviet strategy and its not the Soviet strat that holds back the Germans. I can already see several flaws in the GHG Russia strat and I’ve played it. Its the fallback in conjunction with Middle Earth in conjunction with Floating Bridge that work together with the two latter being the more important. He buys a tank and an artillery each turn. in hopes of destroying exposed German armor. The solution is simple, don’t expose your armor by spreading too thin.
Well I’m glad you dont think so, because General Hand Grenade and a lot of other people sure think it does. You should swoop by his “Middle Earth” thread sometime and see some of the posts he made debating with other Axis players about how Middle Earth works to which the Soviets will be quote on quote “Destroying Germany with their counter attacking”.
Frankly, my duty was to find a counter to all 3 of these strategies, so in the event that all 3 of them were used it would be more than easy of me to counter one for the rest of them to fall apart, seeing as you said they work ‘harmoniously’ together. Which is the exact weakness of the Allies, the fact that in order to win the game they need to have all 3 players of each Allied power
If the solution was ‘simple’ than was mine not transparent enough? I literally gave my 2 cents in telling any Axis player to do what Germany did in real life, and use Blitzkrieg to pass this Maginot Line 2.0 that the Soviets have created. This stuff isn’t rocket science. The idea at which General Hand Grenade imposes this strategy he ends up telling everybody it’s impossible to beat since you only have the 2 options of moving everything in or only your infantry in, which you don’t have to do either. With GHG and alot of other people making it sound like you need to throw everything you have at this simple Russian defense line to break through tell me they didn’t do anything actual thinking in how to go about doing this. I can afford to do alot of other things than Barbarossa with the Blitzkrieg tactic at my disposal, like Afrika Korps or Noher Osten.
And yet all you are Suggesting is G3 Barbarossa variant with Afrika Korps. both strategies everyone including GHG is aware of for some time as the leading contenders in the Axis arsenal. Both strategies that GHG claims are not reliable enough to counter The allied combo of Russia Fallback, Floating Bridge and most of all Middle Earth.
Is that really all I’m suggesting though? I’ve been thorough about what I’ve been trying to convey. A proper means of strategies at which the Germans can employ to defeat The Russian Fall Back Line, Middle Earth, and the Floating Bridge.
It’s fascinating how he merely ‘claimed’ that Afrika Korps and a G3 Barbarossa don’t counter his assortment of Allies strategies instead of actually ‘showing’ that it can’t be done, because with the first time go at fighting these 3 strategies I was able to counter all 3 of them.
In due time I’ll create a thread for countering Middle Earth, but the details are still vague and on the table for figuring it out, but for the most part I have it all down and dealt with to fight back against the Middle Earth tactic.
The compilation of Blitzkrieg, Afrikakorps, and Noher Osten each prioritize on one of each Allied nation and imposes their will on whatever strategy they spark up. I’ve said countless times now that this is so much more than just a G3 Barbarossa, but merely a tactic at which you defeat the so said ‘unbeatable strategy’.
I think we’ve hit rock bottom on this discussion. My objective was to counter this compilation of Allied strategies and I’ve done just that. The only thing you’re telling me at this point is the fact that the Allies merely have to do what they’re already doing in their corresponding strategies whether you’re the USSR, UK, or USA to which I’ve said multiple times that if the Allies truly wish to find a counter to these German strategies, develop and design a new strategy to beat it instead of telling me all the old, drawn out and vague reasons for why the previous strategy that everybody knows about still beats the Germans because of this reason and because of that reason. That’s what this community is about, when one side finds a strategy that outbeats the other, the other side takes it upon themselves to find something new to counter that strategy that had previously countered their strategy instead of naming off the million and one reasons why the new strategy that has proved to counter the old one ‘can’t counter it’ because of this reason and this circumstance.
Frankly, as per the Allies side of the forums, if they want to become better Axis players then I merely have one thing to say.
You’ll always become better at playing the Axis until you let the Allies side of you say otherwise.
