Kill UK first?

Best way to do that would be an IC in france G1 buy plus possibly a destroyer pair to try and wipe out UK planes followed by Italy taking Gibralter on I1 to rally with G units.  On following turns do as you say.  Downside is, russia gonna get monster quick, but it would be worth a try.

I think the better, easier option would be to make the UK irrelevant by taking away most of her IPC’s and maybe bombing it if you want.  Taking London is no easy feat.  I think Killing the US first would probably be easier than Britain in this version.

@partenac:

Has anyone tried to invade the UK first when playing as Germany?  Most of the strategy (probably all) for Germany is to take Russia.  More often than not, a Russian player eventually goes all defense and the game stalls until Japan, US, or UK makes a significant move.  For this reason I was wondering if anyone has tried to take UK as soon as possible.

Here’s something to think about:

On G1, buy at least 2 transport along with artillery/infantry with remainder.  Wipe out the UK water fleet around UK and place transports in sea zone north of Germany.  The UK player has to make a decision now…

1.  Build more naval and land units in UK to defend the invasion
2.  Build IC in India to defend those territories

If UK opts to defend the mainland, Japan should be able to easily take India.  No IC in India means an easy target for Japan and other posters have shown how India is tough to hold if Japan goes all out at taking it.  In this case, the German purchase isn’t entirely lost.  The infantry and artillery will still be useful against Russia.  At worst, two transports worth of money was lost.

Thoughts?

This wont work, either in 41 or 42.

In both, UK has 2 fighters and 1 Bomber (10). Germany in 41 has a cruiser and sub (3) and cruiser, DD and sub (5) in 42. Since the sub is useless, the air power kills the cruiser and/or DD, then wipes the three transports. You just wasted 14 IPC.

This was a viable tactic in Revised (where the transports shot back and the subs were useful as fodder). That no longer applies.

@squirecam:

@partenac:

Has anyone tried to invade the UK first when playing as Germany?  Most of the strategy (probably all) for Germany is to take Russia.  More often than not, a Russian player eventually goes all defense and the game stalls until Japan, US, or UK makes a significant move.  For this reason I was wondering if anyone has tried to take UK as soon as possible.

Here’s something to think about:

On G1, buy at least 2 transport along with artillery/infantry with remainder.  Wipe out the UK water fleet around UK and place transports in sea zone north of Germany.  The UK player has to make a decision now…

1.  Build more naval and land units in UK to defend the invasion
2.  Build IC in India to defend those territories

If UK opts to defend the mainland, Japan should be able to easily take India.  No IC in India means an easy target for Japan and other posters have shown how India is tough to hold if Japan goes all out at taking it.  In this case, the German purchase isn’t entirely lost.  The infantry and artillery will still be useful against Russia.  At worst, two transports worth of money was lost.

Thoughts?

This wont work, either in 41 or 42.

In both, UK has 2 fighters and 1 Bomber (10). Germany in 41 has a cruiser and sub (3) and cruiser, DD and sub (5) in 42. Since the sub is useless, the air power kills the cruiser and/or DD, then wipes the three transports. You just wasted 14 IPC.

This was a viable tactic in Revised (where the transports shot back and the subs were useful as fodder). That no longer applies.

In revised you could afford to get a little cute with Germany for a Kill UK 1st policy.  Hell all you had to do was buy 1 or 2 transports (w/ no CV even) T1 and the UK was already in a tight spot.  But transports having no combat value or even fodder value, mixed with no way to produce navy in the MED, has put a severe limit on German naval options in the beggining of the game.  Bottom line, if it is the UK you fear cripple it to the point of irrelevance.  Leave the taking of a capital to fall on the USSR, or if you want to try something different the USA.  England is just not practicle and darn near impossable for a beggining game type strat at least.

Hey, if UK is buying an IC in India they can’t be much help vs. Germany, and Japan can take it anyway, so that’s a win/win for the Axis in my book.  Now getting to the taking of UK.  I agree Germany has to wipe out the UK fleet first and foremost, and as far as buying TRNs Round 1 boy that’s risky.  I think the reason why Germany plays vs Russia is obvious, if they don’t they’re in big-big trouble.  Like that 10ipc NO for openers.  Say Germany takes UK, and that’s a big if, seeing that England could always purchase a solid ground defense.  Okay, now you’ve got UK and a Big Bear coming in from the East.

I may sound conservative, but take out the UK fleet and they won’t be able to do much.  Go after Russia because if you don’t you’ll be sorry.  A lot of people think the US won the war in Germany, actually it was Russia.

The Russians helped take out Germany but let’s not forget the 8th air force which bombed Germany into submission! Without the strategic bombing from the US, Germany’s factory’s would still be producing full force and there wouldn’t have been a 2nd front. Without these, I don’t think the Russians would have been able to push into Germany.

I’m not advocating this, but in 1942, if you build a Carrier, a fighter, and a bomber as Germany, and end round one so that all your planes can make it on round 2, then you have a little better than 50% chance of winning as long as UK does not take their bombers as casualties first (G2).  If your transport south of france stays in that sea zone (and captures gibralter), you can bring an additional 1 inf and 1 tank, upping your chance to around 73%.  I am assuming that UK brings 1 inf and 1 tank from canada over during their turn, and builds no more inf that turn, and if they build more fighters they also build a carrier to take them so that there are no more than 2 fighters on the island.  Way too many IFs if you ask me.  Though, if you do fuck up your plans, what you bought is not useless.

@partenac:

Think about it like this…

Every game Russia defends against Germany.  It will counterattack here and there but the main emphasis is usually to stockpile infantry on the front lines and defend.  Germany, in turn, endlessly sends units to attack and the result is usually a drawn out conflict until an ally helps.

Instead, Germany should play it as such…

Take the territories that will give it the national objective bonus (the eastern front territories) and then just stockpile infantry to defend them.  Play against Russia the same way they typically play against Germany.  Play defensively on this front.  This may hold off any Russian attack since you’ll have a few extra IPCs to spare.  Now focus all your might on UK.  Sure, you may not be able to take the capital, but it diverts resources from the UK.  These are vital resources that they need to build IC in India and Africa if they want a good chance to hold the territories.  The UK will have to make a choice.  Either defend the capital or defend Africa/India.  The India/Africa region is more difficult for UK to defend than it is for Germany/Japan to attack.  Several more senior posters have mentioned the ease at which Egypt can be taken by second turn (at worst) and India (second turn probable).  If Germany is focusing 80% of its resources at UK, I don’t think UK can afford to split resources between capital, India, and Africa.

Even if you don’t or can’t take the capital, this is the opening that the Axis may need to wipe out Asia and Africa.  Once you have control of both of those, it’s practically a lock for the Axis based on massive economic might.

The reason why Russia is being defensive is because a superior power is diverting a superior number of resources to her borders.  If you don’t do this as Germany watch how offensive Russia will get.

Ask yourself this. Who would you rather have be more offensive to you, someone who has to spend massive amounts of their income just to land in your areas and is otherwise stuck and isolated, or someone who is on land right next door to you?

That being said, if you insist on a kill the UK first type of strategy, I would seriously start thinking about Italy actually being the major player in it.  The navy is easier to protect, and you can work on building them up to a 20plus power.  Just have German planes defend France/ pose a threa to the Royal fleet/ SBR London while you slowly build up Italy, and make sure Japan is keeping the US occupied while taking as many UK lands when it has the chance.

This may be one of the few times you would consider buying a German carrier, or maybe even a sub fleet, or something like that to really distract the UK fleet on T1 and T2 to keep them from thinking about Africa.  And any move Japan makes it’s first 2 Turns, America would have to know it has to build in the Pacific or else Japan will attack Western US.

i have taken out uk first as Germany before and still lost due to a much to powerful Russia and the US going for France every round.  Uk was eventually liberated and then Germany/Italy fell that same turn and the next turn.  After that the entire allied effort was against a very economically strong Japan, but it was only a matter of time before they were pushed out of Asia and back to the home islands.  Going after the UK is not an option.IMO

@fanofbond:

i have taken out uk first as Germany before and still lost due to a much to powerful Russia and the US going for France every round.  Uk was eventually liberated and then Germany/Italy fell that same turn and the next turn.  After that the entire allied effort was against a very economically strong Japan, but it was only a matter of time before they were pushed out of Asia and back to the home islands.  Going after the UK is not an option.IMO

If you lost UK Germany and Italy all in the same turn, I dont know what to say……

As for going after the UK, it might be possible. Its probably not very likely. But buying 2 transports G1 is certainly not the way to do it.

@squirecam:

@fanofbond:

i have taken out uk first as Germany before and still lost due to a much to powerful Russia and the US going for France every round.  Uk was eventually liberated and then Germany/Italy fell that same turn and the next turn.  After that the entire allied effort was against a very economically strong Japan, but it was only a matter of time before they were pushed out of Asia and back to the home islands.  Going after the UK is not an option.IMO

If you lost UK Germany and Italy all in the same turn, I dont know what to say……

As for going after the UK, it might be possible. Its probably not very likely. But buying 2 transports G1 is certainly not the way to do it.

Quoted for truth.

If you buy 2 TP’s on G1, your intentions are pretty damn abvious, and all the Allies need to do to wreck your plans is ships some american units to UK, which would already be heading that direction anyways (UK, or Africa).

So what do you have now? 2 useless transports (that most probably are killed by the Royal Airforce on UK1 aswell), and 14 less IPC’s against the Russians…

I think a KUF (or KUKF? KGBF?) is possible, but it will require the Japanese to bug the Americans (= no US reinforcements to London), a swift run on UK’s assets (combo of Japan and Italy into Asian and African territories), and big German investments by turn 2 or 3, after making sure the Russian front is a stalemating battle.

Consider taking the UK to be the equivalent of a Fool’s Mate in chess (wiki it if you must). While it can happen, only a novice (or fool) would allow such an attack to be successful.

I think partenac gave an excellent description of solid strategy so I second his (I assume he is a he) approach. The most effective way to ruin England is to take away their IPC’s.

The Russians helped take out Germany but let’s not forget the 8th air force which bombed Germany into submission! Without the strategic bombing from the US, Germany’s factory’s would still be producing full force and there wouldn’t have been a 2nd front. Without these, I don’t think the Russians would have been able to push into Germany.

More like the US “helped” Russia take out Germany. 20 million Russians dead to what, 400,000 Americans? I don’t recall that Germany ever “submitted” to the US bombing attacks. I’ve read that German production actually peaked in 1944, but it didn’t really matter as they were horribly outnumbered at that point. By the time the British/American bombing campaign was in high gear, sometime in 43, the war was already lost in the east. Stalingrad and Kursk lost the war, plus by 1943 Russia was outproducing Germany. I’m not saying the Allied effort had no effect, but it certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in the war. I’m not trying to be a dick, but you Americans give yourselves way too much credit IMO.

@Rammstein:

The Russians helped take out Germany but let’s not forget the 8th air force which bombed Germany into submission! Without the strategic bombing from the US, Germany’s factory’s would still be producing full force and there wouldn’t have been a 2nd front. Without these, I don’t think the Russians would have been able to push into Germany.

More like the US “helped” Russia take out Germany. 20 million Russians dead to what, 400,000 Americans? I don’t recall that Germany ever “submitted” to the US bombing attacks. I’ve read that German production actually peaked in 1944, but it didn’t really matter as they were horribly outnumbered at that point. By the time the British/American bombing campaign was in high gear, sometime in 43, the war was already lost in the east. Stalingrad and Kursk lost the war, plus by 1943 Russia was outproducing Germany. I’m not saying the Allied effort had no effect, but it certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in the war. I’m not trying to be a dick, but you Americans give yourselves way too much credit IMO.

perhaps that conversation should be taken to the WWII forum, while this thread should keep a focus on killing the UK first strats.

@Rammstein:

The Russians helped take out Germany but let’s not forget the 8th air force which bombed Germany into submission! Without the strategic bombing from the US, Germany’s factory’s would still be producing full force and there wouldn’t have been a 2nd front. Without these, I don’t think the Russians would have been able to push into Germany.

More like the US “helped” Russia take out Germany. 20 million Russians dead to what, 400,000 Americans? I don’t recall that Germany ever “submitted” to the US bombing attacks. I’ve read that German production actually peaked in 1944, but it didn’t really matter as they were horribly outnumbered at that point. By the time the British/American bombing campaign was in high gear, sometime in 43, the war was already lost in the east. Stalingrad and Kursk lost the war, plus by 1943 Russia was outproducing Germany. I’m not saying the Allied effort had no effect, but it certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in the war. I’m not trying to be a dick, but you Americans give yourselves way too much credit IMO.

You are correct that the war was “over” in 1943 (in the sense that Germany had no hope of actually winning any longer). Its only goal was to survive long enough to force a peace. And the allied bombing campaign did not have real effects until after 1943.

However, the real aid of the US was in the lend lease the USSR got. Without the significant supplies sent by the USA, the war would not have been “won” in 1943. Those tanks, trucks, wheat, fuel, and other supplies were desperately neeeded by Stalin. Who knows what might have happened without them.

See this book

Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II
http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739107364

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/9941_roosevelt.html

The USSR received hundreds of thousands of military vehicles and motorbikes. Lack of fuel was ameliorated with deliveries of 2.5 million tons of petroleum products. The profusion of Roosevelt’s “garden hose” provided Stalin with 595 ships, including 28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 trawlers, 22 torpedo boats, 140 anti-submarine vessels and others. The Soviet air force received 4,952 Aerocobra and 2,410 Kingcobra fighter jets. Soviet pilot Alexander Pokryshkin fought with Hitler’s Luftwaffe aces in Aerocobra planes, which made him a Hero of the Soviet Union hero three times over.

The lend-lease agreement supplied the USSR with 2,7 thousand A-20 and 861 B-25 bomber planes. Soviet tank divisions received 7,056 tanks, 8,218 anti-aircraft emplacements, 131,600 machine guns and other arms.

Soviet propaganda tried to diminish the importance of the American help. Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.

The help was delivered to the USSR via Iran and major Soviet sea ports. About 3,000 transport vessels arrived at the ports of Murmansk, Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok, and delivered 1.3 million tons of cargo. It would be incorrect to diminish the significance of such all-embracing help from the New World as a serious factor that assisted in the victorious ending of the war.

AND since you mentioned Kursk (operation Citaldel), Russia wouldn’t have known about it unless England broke the code and delivered the plans of the attack to Stalin.  England wouldn’t be alive to decode the crypto if the US didn’t develop sonar and give it to the British……

C’mon… you guys compare material help to 20 millions lives…

I’m from Canada and yet still well aware that there is huge difference between money and human lives. I’d rather pay money to equip someone to fight for me than take the bullet myself if I had the option…

I honor allied countries people that fought but you got to really take a harder look at that war if you can’t see the real fighting and bulk of the war occured between Russia and Germany.

For the UK strat, it’s very doable but you need a baltic carrier and France IC on G1. This leaves you with a weak Eastern front so it’s a race before Russia becomes too dangerous. If Japan and Italy are correctly played however, you can stall russians long enough to gain control of Atlantic. Anyways, I’ll post details later.

I truly believe that KUKF is only half correct.
I have played many games of A&A and the Xeno World at World series as well, and the true constant is that UK is too difficult to take early, because as soon as you make your intensions clear, next UK turn all they need to do is buy all men and you will not have enough to take it. Taking it on G1 is too tight. And after that UK can anticipate all your moves.
The reason I say it is half correct is that in my view you have to crush UK as much as possible as early as possible, except Britain, Canada and Australia. Take out as many of their naval pieces as you can and then the idea is for the Axis to take all of UK’s money and NO’s away so Germany is dominating in the money. An IC on France first turn is a great idea so G2 you buy at least 1 transport iand 1 sub in the Med to add to Italy’s fleet and help Italy take Africa, Middle East and then assist Japan to take away India if they are having trouble. Also it is import to note that Russia can then be attacked from the middle east with Italy or Germany. If the Axis can take control of the Med, and manage to capture Egypt early and hold it, so as to go deeper into Africa, along with taking Trans-Jordan and Gilbraltor, Italy now gets all of its NO’s and makes around 25 IPC’s per turn. Germany and Italy combine thier naval forces south of France and they each can then add one or two naval piece to their fleet each round. Once the fleet is large enough it can be moved on the same turn into the Atlantic beside France so as to reach Britain and/or America. If the Axis control the Atlantic and can add pieces every round to stay ahead of the Allies, they will win.
Germany should keep UK at bay and concentrate on acheiving its NO’s and then trying to get the upper hand on Russia, while planning its buys accordingly.
Japan needs to take out UK in India and south seas, push deep into China, and mount a significant force to go into Soviet far east and move forward towards Russia.
The Axis should try to avoid losing terittories they capture, as this slowing down plays into the Allis hand and prolongs the Axis advance and can stop it all together. 8-)