@Magro

How are you playing it? Things are pretty well set on G1 or G2 depending on how Germany decides to proceed using one of several standard naval/air attack patterns that others have outlined for Global starts. These G1 attacks render Britain no threat to German plans. Germany only needs to concentrate and centralize its eastern force, building/sending fast movers to catch up, while making Russia choose what/how to defend.

A few German strategic bomber purchases sprinkled in set the foundation for retarding Russia’s late unit production and providing enough weight to the assault. The bombers also make it very difficult for the US or UK to get a toehold before Moscow falls, because the first fleet can be wiped out if not well protected off of Gibraltar.

The problem I have as Russia is finding any way to concentrate enough force that I can prevent the German stack from marching right up to it and forcing the Red stack to withdraw rather than be lost on the subsequent turn when German air will be able to combine with the stack on attack to sweep away the defense.

Russia has almost no air or armor, and infantry stacks don’t have any offensive punch absent considerable artillery. I have tried balancing the build by foregoing 1 infantry a few rounds to build 3 “extra” artillery. That would be effective if Germany split its forces in any substantial way. However, the invading horde doesn’t need to, keeping the German spearhead together and advancing the AAA prevents any effective counter thrust.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Scandinavian infantry is trying to catch up as the spearhead takes the northern route around Pripet. If Russia tries to hold Leningrad against them, then Moscow is even more open for taking via defeat in detail by infantry that can’t reach Moscow G5. With a G1 DOW, Russian infantry that is forward is wiped out and other units are out of position, but the econ is more favorable for the Soviets for an extra turn. With a G2 DOW Russia gets little benefit from the Lend Lease NO before it is lost and less time for the Novosibirsk NO.

@Warhawk77

While as a new player there is a lot to take in since Germany has so much to do, it holds all the cards. As was noted earlier Germany has a huge number of advantages relative to its historical strength/alliances at the stated time frame of the game. OOB a determined push for Moscow is unstoppable in sufficient time. That is why on the first turn Germany can do an impossible number of things all at the same time: e.g. wipe out the UK home fleets, take France, strafe Yugoslavia, perhaps even do a G1 Barbarossa and occupy Bulgaria, maybe land an aircraft in Italy to protect the Italian fleet.

It distills down to Germany starting with far too much air power, plus too much armor, along with getting lots of “free” allied infantry units it shouldn’t have. Admittedly, some of this is clearly done to get around game mechanics issues that otherwise can’t be accounted for: simple historical force/division balances (rather than unit effectiveness/experience and operational/tactical doctrine), defensive advantage (in game mechanics) and a single ~6 month turn base preclude replication of the simultaneous assault on the Low Countries and armored penetration through the Ardennes into France resulting in rapid capitulation of all of France.

However, this has resulted in some serious distortions of the timeline. The distortions allow Germany to do far more than it should be able to, and far more easily than it should. In the game Germany doesn’t even need air power to take France and as a result is free to do things it shouldn’t be able to do immediately. Anyway, the following is offered as perspective, rather than actual house rules, alternate scenarios.

Historical considerations and how they impact game play:

• Holland/Belgium would not have any German units on them at the start of the game. Instead, Germany would have to do a simultaneous attack on them and France. Of course this would make Normandy unreachable on turn 1. Having the Low Countries already occupied by Germany means no Dunkirk…because those forces that were rushed in to protect the Low Countries were the ones evacuated along the border w/France.
• Denmark and Norway would have to be occupied during the 1st turn to open the Danish strait. They wouldn’t have a large number of forces already in them as this was occurring at the same time as the invasion of France. Instead, one would have to commit forces to taking/holding them. Not having the strait open at the start of the game means no battleship sally (along with all the extra air power) to wreck the entire British home fleet at the start. Having more of the fleet surviving changes the complexion of the game.
• While Slovakia was on board for the invasion of Poland, Hungary and Romania were not Axis members until late 1940. Romania supplied a lot of manpower during the war, but that would have to be activated by “occupation” on Turn 1 to even roughly simulate the timeline.
• Bulgaria was neutral until 1941 when it joined the Axis allowing the attacks on Greece and Yugoslavia through its soil but not by its forces. The four man infantry stack activated for it is problematic since it wasn’t a supplier of manpower to invasions of Greece/Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. Instead they served as occupiers of portions of Greece and Yugoslavia.
• Finland shouldn’t be activatable as an ally until at least a turn later (e.g. through Norway after it is activated.) Again, the super-early Barbarossa would be problematic if Germany didn’t start with Norway in hand.
• Germany’s divisional dispositions at the start of May 1940 were 114 (primarily for the attack on France/Belgium/Netherlands), 7 for Norway, 15 on the Eastern front and 29 for “Germany” administrative/forming/training (~23 divisions had formed since January), other. Basically, there was very little that wasn’t on what would be considered Western Germany in the game–the exception being the Norwegian operation. Germany essentially had to go all in to assure success. It didn’t have a plethora of excess air and armor to deploy for other ventures (Yugoslavia or Russia) at this stage.

From what I gather the bidding system is a way of compensating for Germany on steroids that steamrolls over Russia before the US or UK can effectively engage. In light of the above, negative bids for Germany might be interesting…removing a few tanks, plus a few air units would accomplish much of the same. Germany would have to be more cautious in risking air or tanks, and couldn’t play as aggressively without squandering precious air power in dicey low probability attacks.

In E40 SE Moscow should have fallen long before G8. By G8 Germany should have cleared things all the way to the Caucasus or be a turn from it. I have found the max Soviet army in Moscow to be insufficient for the task of holding on G5 (or perhaps G6 depending on what Russia does in the way of diversion trying to hold Leningrad/move toward Finland, slip around toward Germany, etc.) The numbers just aren’t there at Moscow to meet the massed air support and the large number of tanks and mechs that have been pushed forward for “just-in-time-delivery.” Maybe I should have bought an extra infantry instead of sacrificing one for three arty on about two or three turns…but that would make it very difficult to counter attack anywhere.

When I stayed put in Moscow the Russian stack died…even though I always seem to get lots of 1’s from AAA fire (which is why I have been a late convert to SBR’s.) I did better by flushing out to the south before G5 to grudgingly slow the push for Stalingrad, Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc. while step-wise retreating to British support in Iraq/Persia. Along this retreat more favorable counter attacks were possible because there was no great prize to defend and the German air had to withdraw to the west to confront the remaining allies. It kept Germany from shipping the surviving tanks back west earlier as it could after a successful stack crush in Moscow.

Any side battles the Russians undertake along the way to Moscow are crushed at favorable exchange rates by overwhelming air support and with little concern about actually holding territories other than not allowing penetration into the rear.

Italy vs. UK plays out differently each time, very much subject to dice rolls in small engagements so it has to be flexible.
Even if Italy does nothing, and rapidly capitulates, Germany has so much income with an early fall of Russia that it can go it alone. When I was retesting my G2 Barb last time, Italy got heavily diced on all of its early engagements, worst result I ever had as Italy. Italy even ended up losing Southern France initially after barely taking it on what should have been an easy battle; counterattack from French left in Normandy/Bordeaux so that Germany had to retake it G2, and this combined with failure in the Med choked the Italian economy.)

In that game Moscow fell on G5 so Germany could turn its air back to countering the US/UK. US had a bit of luck and was able to take Rome in a bold (desperate) initial strike, with UK insulating the southern Italy IC a critical turn by taking northern Italy on the same turn. After that the US could take/retake Holland/Belgium and Normany/Bordeaux and Southern Europe each turn combined with retaking northern Italy. (The first three were needed to keep the returning German strat bombers from dispatching the US fleets/transports.) UK put an IC in Greece to push units as the US was doing from two continental IC’s. However, against 100+ IPC Germany each turn, with the latter in a better position, Germany won a long war of attrition. It didn’t have a supply line to protect so it didn’t take much creativity to hold it together, while the allies had to scratch and claw to hold on.

I don’t see how Persia/Iraq are going to be of much help to Russia in time. UK can put them to better use. Taking Iraq with Russia is too late to be of help for a G2 DOW and puts too much out of position creating a net negative. The UK could use the Persians better. Granted, the thread is for a G1 DOW, so perhaps that might swing things a little differently. In that case an Italian can opener might be employed…haven’t had to resort to it.

I dunno. I have mostly tested various strategies/plays against myself and some family games. There are many more serious players that have more experience with a variety of strategies who seem to find the Moscow crush fairly direct. That is why there are these various/creative ways of diverting everyone’s output to try to keep Moscow defended.

@freh
The place where that might be applicable (loading in a newly hostile sea zone due to DOW) would be something like the G2 DOW if the Russian cruiser moved into the same sea zone as the transport on R1.

For example, if during G1 the transport was left in SZ 114 (with the German cruiser for instance), the Russian cruiser moved in while still at peace, and there was a G2 DOW. If during G1 Germany had placed some infantry/etc. in Germany proper, then they could be loaded by a transport starting in 114 and moved to SZ 115 to land in Baltic States without combat in 114. Of course, they would have to survive any defense in SZ 114 to land the troops.

One could even do something like building a DD, a TT, and an arty/inf mix in G1 to place in 114/Germany to load in 114 on G2 and land in 115 on G2 DOW anticipating opposition from the sub and needing the DD to be able to kill the sub and reduce risk of losing the cruiser and transports.

The scenarios even for the simple above example with very few units, get surprisingly complicated with the mix of builds, placement, initial load/amphib assault, sub/destroyer/air combat limits, and the like. The sparse number of units involved mean the results of any combat are very dicey. This dicey aspect is why the early Italian/UK battles are so variable. Italy can get crushed, or it can be quite threatening based on one or two early combats.

Depending on where the Russian air moved on R1, I am not keen on the idea of moving transports to amphib assault Baltic States–a move made with the intention of securing from an R2 counterattack. If the Russians want to waste a wing of their army in the Baltic States to be defeated in detail on G3, then let them. (I am more interested in concentrating the German column in Eastern Poland threatening both routes to Moscow at once with numbers that can survive an early concentrated counterattack by Russia.) The Russian air might all be in Novgorod at the start of G2 requiring more substantial German air commitment to discourage a scramble in 115, with the possibility that the transports could still be taken out by the air on R2 since the TT’s won’t have air support and might be bereft of warships as well or be facing a sub with air with a lone cruiser depending on what happened in G2. The R2 planes can fly back to Moscow or land on a stack after such a strike.

@Magro said in 100% win with axis everytime:

If the Soviets take Iraq they get +3 IPC per turn for each “liberating an axis…”. UK take Persia UK1 and build a factory there UK2. Maybye UK could take Iraq as well but could she afford producing in two factories Iraq+Persia to help the soviets? When we play Itlay often is pushed hard from turn 1. Germany is strong and does well but the UK can handle Italy and help the Soviets. If Italy is doing to bad Germany has to divert away units from Russia to help her/protect Western Europe.

I play with the same players, we might have a weird meta or way of playing off course. Tournamnet statistics whould be nice to know. Not so keen on the Moscow or bust together with a weak Russia in Axis & Allies. It makes for the same strategy over and over…

What the more experienced players have said for years is that the early marches on Moscow work. That is why the bids in global have gotten so high. The Soviets don’t have the resources to stop them even with help, especially if Italy abandons its own front and does can opening.

I have not really tested the UK Persia and “fly-everything-to-Moscow” strategies as they abandon the rest of the board, which would seemingly eliminate any later pressure in the west. Perhaps this is a mistaken way of evaluating it.

The Soviets would have to sink some resources into taking Iraq for +3 IPC’s and 2 for the territory. Best case for them would be a G1 DOW, allowing them to attack Iraq on R2 by using the 2 Caucusus infantry marched south, bringing their air down to support as well as tank and mech.

In the Iraq battle the foot infantry will most likely be lost even with air support, and couldn’t make it back in time to matter anyway. The tank and mech can’t return to Moscow by G5 (only reaching Tambov on R4), so half of the Soviet armor/mech force is not available for direct defense at the critical time. That is 10 IPC’s/5 defensive punch/2 hits lost for the key defensive battle, but gaining 5 IPC’s to place in R3 and R4 for 10 IPC’s/6 defensive punch/3 hits in Moscow on G5. So a net of 1 unit by G5…although three more purchase on R5 if Germany cannot take Moscow on G5, plus the tank and mech back home.

Of course this denies Iraq to the UK, which is not that big of a deal as it requires some regional commitment to take it, forces that might be better used depending on how Italy’s dice and transports go in the first two rounds and what resources the UK has after the G1 naval/air onslaught.

The UK Persian IC is still pressed by time and resource commitment. Assuming it is coordinated with the Soviets taking Iraq, then the UK has to pull an Inf away from Africa or Malta along with the lone transport on UK1. (Could be a mech or tank which could then reach Moscow before G5, but the tank would steal considerable firepower from Africa.) The IC costs 12, so that limits UK purchasing power on UK2, and Greece is still untaken/unactivated. Depending on how Round 1 was played and UK’s buys, Italy might even have landed a force in Jordan to close the Suez temporarily and put pressure on Egypt from three sides. However, taken to the extreme the UK could be building enough air and positioning in Moscow to hold on G5. UK units in Russia cost the Soviets the 5 IPC prestige/lend lease starting on R3 or R4. Of course the UK would be weakened against Italy to do this…and exposed if Germany decided to delay the assault, shift air back west, and build transports for a late Sea Lion…those supplemental German strat bomber builds would be turned on London first.

The first round of combat is the most important many times. Depending on the situation, an attacker who gets diced in the first round might be better served to call off the attack losing mostly “fodder” rather than risking more valuable units in low/moderate probability attacks in later rounds. A single round can turn a lower probability attack into a very promising one without inordinate risk if there will be something left even if the first round goes poorly as expected.

A defender or attacker might choose to take a damaged BB as killed rather than keeping alive for the next roll. Both defender and attacker might consider their air more valuable in subsequent turns and write the ship off as lost. If one knows the attacker’s primary goal is to clear the fleet rather than trade air that both sides want to keep, then this “sacrifice” (vs an air unit) might make the attacker less likely to continue rolling. Likewise, even after winning the combat on the roll, an attacker might sink their own BB that would be left alone and easy fodder for a counter strike, rather than taking an air hit.

Then there are the questions of subsequent turn mobility that play out in complex ways. Sometimes leaving a blocker in a sea zone might outweigh keeping an air unit alive. A carrier might be kept alive in lieu of air if it is at a naval base and can be repaired and other air be flown in the next turn…or to its destination for an attack on that next turn. With multiple AC’s at least one will might be taken as a complete loss depending on where the various air has to land, how many air hits were taken, and what counter strikes are possible on the opponent’s turn.

Similarly, some mechs might be kept alive rather than arty if fast movers are needed for later turns and the arty can’t reach. Or an infantry and arty/tank/mech might be kept alive for fully filling a transport for the next hop rather than having two units left that can’t be carried on a single transport.

Single round calcs are useful for evaluating the likely cost/payback of a strafe…and the risk of taking a territory in the first round and ending up with the army out of position.

@Midnight_Reaper

Germany has ahistorically so much air power/subs, and so many tanks (and Russia ahistorically so few of each…since it actually vastly outnumbered Germany in those regards–although poorly deployed forward and lacking intelligent organizational employment/operational doctrine at the time) that Germany can simultaneously do a G1 elimination of the British home fleet, take France, and invade Russia before sitting down to breakfast.

Without Japan to bring the U.S. into the war early, the U.S. is trying to build enough transports to do anything consequential while at the same time having to build a fleet with air cover and an expensive transport chain that can’t really even get started before Moscow falls on G5 or G6. (That is without even using Italy as a can opener.)

I am trying to figure out how many German units to remove to balance the Europe game… Probably at least 1 Tac and 1 Fighter in range of the Home Fleet, probably two tanks as well, maybe one of the subs. That combo would probably save more of the Home Fleet and slow Germany’s march on Moscow a turn or so.

@Magro

That is the problem: Germany is strong enough to take Moscow on G5. Unless Germany makes a serious mistake or something goes badly awry with dice, it has the force it needs waiting beside Moscow to attack on G5.

G1 DOW seems a bit trickier for Germany to me because it allows Russia more money and options earlier, and Germany still has to wait for G5 for the infantry to reach Moscow. G1 DOW allows the Russians to move south on R1. That might just provide enough to make a difference on G5, but not if you send 2 tanks and 2 mechs south to take Iraq (the extra pair would require an extra turn to reach, squandering the earlier Russian move on Persia by the G1 DOW.) Instead one would need to use the 2 INF and the Stalingrad Mech/Tank pair. None of these survivors will return in time, only the air will.

The UK has a hard time shuttling fighters from Persia before G5 because without an airfield it is a 2 turn trip. To have both would require spending 27 IPC’s on turn 2 for the airfield and IC. Then turn 3 one would be spending essentially all of the UK’s income on fighters to fly to Moscow on turn 4 to try to stop the G5 attack. The UK will also be able to get the mech or tank there that was transported over to Persia on UK1. Of course, all of that would weaken the hold on Egypt in the early rounds and prevent occupying Greece.

How does the UK fail with Italy? All sorts of ways, and it starts with Germany’s first round attack and moves. There are two German first round naval strategies I like in this regard and both forego the SZ 110 attack. I don’t need to sink all of the big boys, they are useless without transports and vulnerable to air later. Instead a single sub is sent to 111 along with the BB and plenty of air to kill half the Home Fleet and a Scotland scramble (if the UK opts for it.) Similarly two subs are sent against the destroyer and transport in England’s home waters at SZ 109, along with lots of air, daring the UK to scramble up to 4. If the UK doesn’t scramble there is about 1/3 chance that it will have two subs sitting there and no destroyers to clear them.

The decision fork in this is how the other two subs are used: 1. Both vs. the transport/destroyer off Canada in SZ 106–fairly good chance of success along with the SZ 109 attack stripping the Atlantic of UK transports and protecting Norway for a few turns so that everyone there can head for Leningrad. But the transport can survive even if the destroyer is lost (if the second sub is at the same time, 25% of the time or so.) 2. Sending both subs against the cruiser in SZ 91–90% of success and often leaving two subs there threatening follow up attack in 111 the next turn. 3. Gambling big time by splitting the final two subs between 91 and and 106–winning both simultaneously with both subs surviving is only 20% overall. 20% of the time both subs die with no kills. The first time I tried the gamble it paid off fully, with Germany having 3 or more surviving subs, and UK no destroyers or transports in the Atlantic and Taranto/Malta attacks nerfed because of the action as well. UK had to buy destroyers…and got diced vs. subs with them.

Germany can land aircraft in southern Italy G1 to scramble against Taranto. This preserves some of Italy’s air for Med action and Italy usually buys a fighter on I1 anyway. With Italy taking Southern France and possibly Gibraltar on I1, it has a chance of getting a few turns of both the Med NO bonus and the Greece/Gibraltar/Southern France one while keeping UK busy in Africa. It depends heavily on the dice of these small actions and how many transports survived. Italy can put pressure on Egypt at the start. If the UK is unlucky with Taranto, sinking the Italian destroyer/transport around Malta, an early strafe attack or defense around Egypt, then Italy will be in good shape.

The last two times I have played through this Italy has gotten horribly diced. I actually recorded some early stats this last time for Italy: Italy’s average dice roll was over 4.1 (3.5 would be balanced, which is what UK had.) Italy only rolled 1 four times, 2 five times, and 3 ten times in 57 rolls. (Neutral allies rolled 2.9…with lots of 1’s and 2’s in Yugoslavia and Greece vs. Italy and Germany for 9 kills in 20 rolls.) A “99+%” attack failed gloriously and catastrophically. Still, Italy was able to clear the Med and occupy Gibraltar and eventually take Greece later. The sub-Saharan Africa forces were then dispersed to grab 1 IPC territories rather than threaten Egypt.

In that game, with the Persian IC, Moscow still fell on G5, despite the Germans losing 4 infantry on the single G1 Yugo “strafe.” I will have to go back to the early save after those Axis setbacks to see if I can play it better as the allies, maybe try building the airfield in Persia.

Magro,

You are correct about that Persian air distance, my mistake. I had been looking at the Caucasus routing not realizing that the Caspian Sea-Kazakhstan route cut off a space. That saves half a turn’s worth of UK income.

That last game I had hopped an Africa fighter over and shuffled a mech in, but didn’t do a fighter build in the Persia IC because of the miscount. I had tried “overworking” the German air and main thrust by pincering two infantry forces through Bessarabia and Baltic States, and a Brit landing in Norway under cover of the surviving half of the Home Fleet (SZ 106 transport had survived G1 but went to Britain because I wanted to force Germany to buy defensive forces.) However, I found I still had enough German air plus late arriving mech/tanks along with a portion of the spearhead infantry to handle these, take Western Ukraine, retake Norway, while still continuing the spearhead to Belarus next to the main Soviet stack with mech/tanks, etc. in Bryansk. And the Scandinavian infantry took Leningrad/Novgorod.

R3 counterattack odds were very poor for Russia and were going to leave a tank stack that would still have enough mech/tanks reaching it the next turn to be unstoppable. So the retreat to Moscow was made on R3.

On G4 I strat bombed Moscow’s IC with three bombers. I decided not to scramble the two Russian fighters for this as I needed their defense as badly as the IPC’s. I figured the ~50% chance of losing one of two fighters outweighed the lower chance of clipping a bomber at ~33%. The IC’s AAA missed and the bombers inflicted enough damage that I had to spend several infantry’s worth to repair for a final infantry build there on R4, which was mostly a waste as calcs showed it would not hold even with some UK help. But I stayed and was bludgeoned. German tanks reached the Caucasus on G6 and would have been unstoppable. US landing and Brit round 5 stacks/w UK fighters reinforcing in Normandy were crushed on the counterattack that turn. It would have been much better to do a fighting withdrawal toward Persia, maintaining a threat to keep German support forces in theater, rather than be unceremoniously swept away.

@trulpen

Where are the extra ships coming from? SZ 111 is dead and might have a wounded German BB in it as well (when favorable I like taking the fighter hit as Germany just to create this problem…since it gives me fits as allies/dividing later movement/attacks.) The UK is left with a single BB and cruiser in SZ 110 after G1, assuming the SZ 91 cruiser is sent to the Med.(SZ 96). Most probably, the UK has no DD’s left in the Atlantic, no transports, some German subs to contend with depending on where they survive (based mostly on scramble and dice), and a turn or two wait to inflict any counterattack.

The French have a cruiser in 110 (and a fighter if not scrambled and lost). But they can’t fully coordinate with the UK, which means piecemeal attack on the damaged BB in 111. This French attack will usually win…although not always…I have lost both in the counterattack on F1 (dice fun) which really hurts. More importantly, the disjointed command means that simultaneous attack can’t happen, so the UK has 1 BB and 1 cruiser for attacking, independent of builds, and you don’t want to expose them in front of 110 even if they win without loss–the counterstrike by 2 SB’s and 3+ fighters from W. Germany is ugly. Anything put there is a write-off with insufficient compensation. It will reduce Russian strike forces somewhat statistically, but the economics seem poor in most situations since UK moves before France.

The UK1 transport build in Canada doesn’t have an impact on the game until turn 2 or 3. It likely requires a UK1 DD as well since it will likely face 1 or 2 surviving subs–building the DD and transport are half the UK IPC’s for the round, ignoring convoy losses, which will likely reduce it even more. And then the transport only threatens Gibraltar on UK2 (and can be destroyed without loss unless supported), which might have been held by Italy as early as IT1 and might not be so easy to take (dice again). Doesn’t do anything to reinforce UK for G2, which is anemic…I am not a Sea Lion player, but a stripped UK would be hard to pass up even if I thought I was going to target Russia initially. Air units can be diverted rapidly, ground and naval not as quickly.

The UK’s lack of TT’s is a problem, but so is the lack of DD’s to clear the German subs. Germany gets an extra round of initiative as a result. Again, resorting to chess parlance, the extra round of freedom/initiative might be worth a tempo or at minimum several tempi.

UK building carriers is expensive. It means they can’t reinforce Africa, etc. A carrier costs slightly more than a transport/inf/art for South Africa. Spending early money on a carrier makes Italy more viable and a potential threat rather than readily subdued. In later rounds after Italy is neutralized UK carriers are very useful. Early on, they would seem to give Italy a reprieve and threaten little vs. the Axis. Again, the Italy/UK game in the Med is “sharp” so it is hard to predict outcomes there even if the UK is favored initially, but things often shift rapidly based on a single combat result. (That is part of the game I enjoy…the wide range of results in the Med. is one of the things I like about the game because I have seen it turn back and forth at random with what appears to be solid play…but the dice say otherwise.)

And I like the G1 sub attack on the cruiser in SZ 91 as well to weaken the UK SZ 96 and/or Taranto attacks as well. Two subs in 91 usually doom the cruiser, often with zero loss. But they leave that pesky transport/DD combo as a counterstrike (with air support tipping odds against subs), with troops landing in NCM to reinforce Gibraltar if the zone is cleared. That can deny Italy Gibraltar if 1 TT survives.

Trulpen,

The long term trades are real as you say. However, I doubt the US can get away without building substantial air cover. It needs that to threaten Italy vs. being DD blocked into Normandy attacks instead. I like to build a few SB’s as Germany after the initial mech/armor are sent away. The SB’s are for supporting the final attack on Moscow, primarily. Sometimes I will SBR Moscow with forward (the initial SB’s) a round or two, but I almost always get terrible dice when I do…33% to 60% losses vs. 1/6 expected is not in the least bit unusual for me vs various AA whether for SBR or big stack attacks, so the conversion rate for “last hit bomber” supporting infantry/mech/arty/tanks for 3 or 4 rounds is a much better value rather than preventing a few 1-2 being placed for a turn. If the US goes thin…those SBR’s in West Germany will sink the transports first. If the surviving UK fleet is sent to Gibraltar then it exposes other areas or might even be engaged earlier (surviving subs, SB’s, even a DD build since I like to clear Russian subs, but will engage targets of opportunity.)

For G1:
2 subs vs. 106, 2 vs. 109 (with loads of air support to crush any scramble–the surviving air will land in Holland with 2 or 3AA to protect them), only 1 sub and the BB (plus air vs. 111). The UK has to commit a lot of air to 109 and is likely to lose all of that…which is not good. Again, using chess parlance, it is a sharp position but a favorable one for the attacker so the defender must be wary. In 109 having the initiative: two sub hits are good for killing both destroyer and transport (subs can’t hit air), and a subsequent “retreat” of the air rather than further trades. The subs, even if they miss, soak up early air hits from the UK in the first round with the UK DD alive, while likely costing the UK some air as well from Luftwaffe attack. The second sub in 111 is overkill (and not employed, used in 106) since the German BB can be engaged along with sufficient air that a UK scramble will not help much. Without a scramble, I usually take a fighter hit just to keep that annoying BB in UK waters…again as we say (or more specifically, Nimkovich) “in chess the threat is often stronger than the execution.” Tac bombers will support my armor at 4 attack in Russia. I don’t need fighters as much and they are cheaper to replace.

Letting 110’s fleet live gives Germany trouble later since it is nearly impossible to kill without heavy losses if withdrawn to cover and with the bulk of the Luftwaffe in the East, but bypassing it gives advantage to other German interests at a critical time during the push toward Moscow. It is more of a trade than a sacrifice since neither UK transport is likely to survive and the trades are likely in Germany’s favor even with scrambles. There is some risk to the Luftwaffe, but more to the UK’s limited air from what I have tried thus far.

If you ask me what I fear more as the UK: it is the above attack as it makes things more difficult for several turns. It is semi-analogous to the Taranto problem for Italy although not as severe (assuming the UK’s SZ 96 attack succeeds in killing the second IT transport…otherwise it is close. Transports carry the real threat of capturing territory. Fleets are just ways of projecting this power.

Testing this mostly in Europe 40SE OOB (different dynamic than global, admittedly) WRT the G2 DOW, I am not sure that going after the whole of the UK fleet is really advantageous for Germany because of opportunity cost incurred. Germany can employ the air favorably every turn, while the UK fleet is only useful periodically…when transports give it leverage. Without transports, and without destroyers to oppose surviving subs, the UK fleet has no leverage…unless Germany is provoked to attack it within its protective air cover and trade air for sea. Later the fleet will have considerable value, but early on it is largely toothless, and time (initiative in chess parlance) is of the essence. I have warmed to the idea of taking out the UK transports and destroyers in G1 (109 and 106), along with the SZ111 fleet. This prevents any UK landings for a time, giving the UK a choice between Gibraltar and Norway on UK2 (the latter usually at heavy cost), it also often leaves multiple German subs running around, and possibly a damaged German BB which either France or the UK has to gamble on taking out before it gets away (costing something valuable 2/3 of the time.) Effectively for Germany/Italy this is usually about 2 turns of safety from UK landings in the Atlantic. This G1 also frequently tends to produce substantial convoy disruption for the UK that is worth a vessel or a ground unit or two. (Things change if the UK scrambles…but the scrambles result in unfavorable exchanges for the UK that leave it and the Med vulnerable while costing only modest German air power. At times I have lost every single UK/France fighter in such scrambles…which produces all sorts of problems.)

If I am pushing for Moscow on the ground, I really don’t care what the surviving UK 110 cruiser/battleship fleet is up to if they can’t land anywhere without suffering disproportionate casualties to do so, or can only strike one place without weakening others too much. Taking out the UK transports and destroyers while retaining some subs creates a favorable dynamic for Germany. The UK has to be able to build for trouncing Italy in Africa, reinforcing Russia via Persia, reinforcing Gibraltar, and/or threatening Norway, and later supporting US amphib attacks. Taking out UK transports slows them dramatically, similar to the way the UK taking out Italy’s transports does to the latter.

For Germany, this is combined with mech/armor builds on G1 &G2 (plus a DD to deal with the Russian subs) that force the early Russian infantry withdrawal from the north or risk losing the race to Moscow on G5/G6. German infantry will play catch up, but if Russia tries to hold somewhere other than opposing the primary Russian stack, the Germany infantry arrives in time to make the difference and kill pockets.

@freh
The place where that might be applicable (loading in a newly hostile sea zone due to DOW) would be something like the G2 DOW if the Russian cruiser moved into the same sea zone as the transport on R1.

For example, if during G1 the transport was left in SZ 114 (with the German cruiser for instance), the Russian cruiser moved in while still at peace, and there was a G2 DOW. If during G1 Germany had placed some infantry/etc. in Germany proper, then they could be loaded by a transport starting in 114 and moved to SZ 115 to land in Baltic States without combat in 114. Of course, they would have to survive any defense in SZ 114 to land the troops.

One could even do something like building a DD, a TT, and an arty/inf mix in G1 to place in 114/Germany to load in 114 on G2 and land in 115 on G2 DOW anticipating opposition from the sub and needing the DD to be able to kill the sub and reduce risk of losing the cruiser and transports.

The scenarios even for the simple above example with very few units, get surprisingly complicated with the mix of builds, placement, initial load/amphib assault, sub/destroyer/air combat limits, and the like. The sparse number of units involved mean the results of any combat are very dicey. This dicey aspect is why the early Italian/UK battles are so variable. Italy can get crushed, or it can be quite threatening based on one or two early combats.

Depending on where the Russian air moved on R1, I am not keen on the idea of moving transports to amphib assault Baltic States–a move made with the intention of securing from an R2 counterattack. If the Russians want to waste a wing of their army in the Baltic States to be defeated in detail on G3, then let them. (I am more interested in concentrating the German column in Eastern Poland threatening both routes to Moscow at once with numbers that can survive an early concentrated counterattack by Russia.) The Russian air might all be in Novgorod at the start of G2 requiring more substantial German air commitment to discourage a scramble in 115, with the possibility that the transports could still be taken out by the air on R2 since the TT’s won’t have air support and might be bereft of warships as well or be facing a sub with air with a lone cruiser depending on what happened in G2. The R2 planes can fly back to Moscow or land on a stack after such a strike.

Magro,

You are correct about that Persian air distance, my mistake. I had been looking at the Caucasus routing not realizing that the Caspian Sea-Kazakhstan route cut off a space. That saves half a turn’s worth of UK income.

That last game I had hopped an Africa fighter over and shuffled a mech in, but didn’t do a fighter build in the Persia IC because of the miscount. I had tried “overworking” the German air and main thrust by pincering two infantry forces through Bessarabia and Baltic States, and a Brit landing in Norway under cover of the surviving half of the Home Fleet (SZ 106 transport had survived G1 but went to Britain because I wanted to force Germany to buy defensive forces.) However, I found I still had enough German air plus late arriving mech/tanks along with a portion of the spearhead infantry to handle these, take Western Ukraine, retake Norway, while still continuing the spearhead to Belarus next to the main Soviet stack with mech/tanks, etc. in Bryansk. And the Scandinavian infantry took Leningrad/Novgorod.

R3 counterattack odds were very poor for Russia and were going to leave a tank stack that would still have enough mech/tanks reaching it the next turn to be unstoppable. So the retreat to Moscow was made on R3.

On G4 I strat bombed Moscow’s IC with three bombers. I decided not to scramble the two Russian fighters for this as I needed their defense as badly as the IPC’s. I figured the ~50% chance of losing one of two fighters outweighed the lower chance of clipping a bomber at ~33%. The IC’s AAA missed and the bombers inflicted enough damage that I had to spend several infantry’s worth to repair for a final infantry build there on R4, which was mostly a waste as calcs showed it would not hold even with some UK help. But I stayed and was bludgeoned. German tanks reached the Caucasus on G6 and would have been unstoppable. US landing and Brit round 5 stacks/w UK fighters reinforcing in Normandy were crushed on the counterattack that turn. It would have been much better to do a fighting withdrawal toward Persia, maintaining a threat to keep German support forces in theater, rather than be unceremoniously swept away.

@Magro

That is the problem: Germany is strong enough to take Moscow on G5. Unless Germany makes a serious mistake or something goes badly awry with dice, it has the force it needs waiting beside Moscow to attack on G5.

G1 DOW seems a bit trickier for Germany to me because it allows Russia more money and options earlier, and Germany still has to wait for G5 for the infantry to reach Moscow. G1 DOW allows the Russians to move south on R1. That might just provide enough to make a difference on G5, but not if you send 2 tanks and 2 mechs south to take Iraq (the extra pair would require an extra turn to reach, squandering the earlier Russian move on Persia by the G1 DOW.) Instead one would need to use the 2 INF and the Stalingrad Mech/Tank pair. None of these survivors will return in time, only the air will.

The UK has a hard time shuttling fighters from Persia before G5 because without an airfield it is a 2 turn trip. To have both would require spending 27 IPC’s on turn 2 for the airfield and IC. Then turn 3 one would be spending essentially all of the UK’s income on fighters to fly to Moscow on turn 4 to try to stop the G5 attack. The UK will also be able to get the mech or tank there that was transported over to Persia on UK1. Of course, all of that would weaken the hold on Egypt in the early rounds and prevent occupying Greece.

How does the UK fail with Italy? All sorts of ways, and it starts with Germany’s first round attack and moves. There are two German first round naval strategies I like in this regard and both forego the SZ 110 attack. I don’t need to sink all of the big boys, they are useless without transports and vulnerable to air later. Instead a single sub is sent to 111 along with the BB and plenty of air to kill half the Home Fleet and a Scotland scramble (if the UK opts for it.) Similarly two subs are sent against the destroyer and transport in England’s home waters at SZ 109, along with lots of air, daring the UK to scramble up to 4. If the UK doesn’t scramble there is about 1/3 chance that it will have two subs sitting there and no destroyers to clear them.

The decision fork in this is how the other two subs are used: 1. Both vs. the transport/destroyer off Canada in SZ 106–fairly good chance of success along with the SZ 109 attack stripping the Atlantic of UK transports and protecting Norway for a few turns so that everyone there can head for Leningrad. But the transport can survive even if the destroyer is lost (if the second sub is at the same time, 25% of the time or so.) 2. Sending both subs against the cruiser in SZ 91–90% of success and often leaving two subs there threatening follow up attack in 111 the next turn. 3. Gambling big time by splitting the final two subs between 91 and and 106–winning both simultaneously with both subs surviving is only 20% overall. 20% of the time both subs die with no kills. The first time I tried the gamble it paid off fully, with Germany having 3 or more surviving subs, and UK no destroyers or transports in the Atlantic and Taranto/Malta attacks nerfed because of the action as well. UK had to buy destroyers…and got diced vs. subs with them.

Germany can land aircraft in southern Italy G1 to scramble against Taranto. This preserves some of Italy’s air for Med action and Italy usually buys a fighter on I1 anyway. With Italy taking Southern France and possibly Gibraltar on I1, it has a chance of getting a few turns of both the Med NO bonus and the Greece/Gibraltar/Southern France one while keeping UK busy in Africa. It depends heavily on the dice of these small actions and how many transports survived. Italy can put pressure on Egypt at the start. If the UK is unlucky with Taranto, sinking the Italian destroyer/transport around Malta, an early strafe attack or defense around Egypt, then Italy will be in good shape.

The last two times I have played through this Italy has gotten horribly diced. I actually recorded some early stats this last time for Italy: Italy’s average dice roll was over 4.1 (3.5 would be balanced, which is what UK had.) Italy only rolled 1 four times, 2 five times, and 3 ten times in 57 rolls. (Neutral allies rolled 2.9…with lots of 1’s and 2’s in Yugoslavia and Greece vs. Italy and Germany for 9 kills in 20 rolls.) A “99+%” attack failed gloriously and catastrophically. Still, Italy was able to clear the Med and occupy Gibraltar and eventually take Greece later. The sub-Saharan Africa forces were then dispersed to grab 1 IPC territories rather than threaten Egypt.

In that game, with the Persian IC, Moscow still fell on G5, despite the Germans losing 4 infantry on the single G1 Yugo “strafe.” I will have to go back to the early save after those Axis setbacks to see if I can play it better as the allies, maybe try building the airfield in Persia.

The first round of combat is the most important many times. Depending on the situation, an attacker who gets diced in the first round might be better served to call off the attack losing mostly “fodder” rather than risking more valuable units in low/moderate probability attacks in later rounds. A single round can turn a lower probability attack into a very promising one without inordinate risk if there will be something left even if the first round goes poorly as expected.

A defender or attacker might choose to take a damaged BB as killed rather than keeping alive for the next roll. Both defender and attacker might consider their air more valuable in subsequent turns and write the ship off as lost. If one knows the attacker’s primary goal is to clear the fleet rather than trade air that both sides want to keep, then this “sacrifice” (vs an air unit) might make the attacker less likely to continue rolling. Likewise, even after winning the combat on the roll, an attacker might sink their own BB that would be left alone and easy fodder for a counter strike, rather than taking an air hit.

Then there are the questions of subsequent turn mobility that play out in complex ways. Sometimes leaving a blocker in a sea zone might outweigh keeping an air unit alive. A carrier might be kept alive in lieu of air if it is at a naval base and can be repaired and other air be flown in the next turn…or to its destination for an attack on that next turn. With multiple AC’s at least one will might be taken as a complete loss depending on where the various air has to land, how many air hits were taken, and what counter strikes are possible on the opponent’s turn.

Similarly, some mechs might be kept alive rather than arty if fast movers are needed for later turns and the arty can’t reach. Or an infantry and arty/tank/mech might be kept alive for fully filling a transport for the next hop rather than having two units left that can’t be carried on a single transport.

Single round calcs are useful for evaluating the likely cost/payback of a strafe…and the risk of taking a territory in the first round and ending up with the army out of position.

@Magro said in 100% win with axis everytime:

If the Soviets take Iraq they get +3 IPC per turn for each “liberating an axis…”. UK take Persia UK1 and build a factory there UK2. Maybye UK could take Iraq as well but could she afford producing in two factories Iraq+Persia to help the soviets? When we play Itlay often is pushed hard from turn 1. Germany is strong and does well but the UK can handle Italy and help the Soviets. If Italy is doing to bad Germany has to divert away units from Russia to help her/protect Western Europe.

I play with the same players, we might have a weird meta or way of playing off course. Tournamnet statistics whould be nice to know. Not so keen on the Moscow or bust together with a weak Russia in Axis & Allies. It makes for the same strategy over and over…

What the more experienced players have said for years is that the early marches on Moscow work. That is why the bids in global have gotten so high. The Soviets don’t have the resources to stop them even with help, especially if Italy abandons its own front and does can opening.

I have not really tested the UK Persia and “fly-everything-to-Moscow” strategies as they abandon the rest of the board, which would seemingly eliminate any later pressure in the west. Perhaps this is a mistaken way of evaluating it.

The Soviets would have to sink some resources into taking Iraq for +3 IPC’s and 2 for the territory. Best case for them would be a G1 DOW, allowing them to attack Iraq on R2 by using the 2 Caucusus infantry marched south, bringing their air down to support as well as tank and mech.

In the Iraq battle the foot infantry will most likely be lost even with air support, and couldn’t make it back in time to matter anyway. The tank and mech can’t return to Moscow by G5 (only reaching Tambov on R4), so half of the Soviet armor/mech force is not available for direct defense at the critical time. That is 10 IPC’s/5 defensive punch/2 hits lost for the key defensive battle, but gaining 5 IPC’s to place in R3 and R4 for 10 IPC’s/6 defensive punch/3 hits in Moscow on G5. So a net of 1 unit by G5…although three more purchase on R5 if Germany cannot take Moscow on G5, plus the tank and mech back home.

Of course this denies Iraq to the UK, which is not that big of a deal as it requires some regional commitment to take it, forces that might be better used depending on how Italy’s dice and transports go in the first two rounds and what resources the UK has after the G1 naval/air onslaught.

The UK Persian IC is still pressed by time and resource commitment. Assuming it is coordinated with the Soviets taking Iraq, then the UK has to pull an Inf away from Africa or Malta along with the lone transport on UK1. (Could be a mech or tank which could then reach Moscow before G5, but the tank would steal considerable firepower from Africa.) The IC costs 12, so that limits UK purchasing power on UK2, and Greece is still untaken/unactivated. Depending on how Round 1 was played and UK’s buys, Italy might even have landed a force in Jordan to close the Suez temporarily and put pressure on Egypt from three sides. However, taken to the extreme the UK could be building enough air and positioning in Moscow to hold on G5. UK units in Russia cost the Soviets the 5 IPC prestige/lend lease starting on R3 or R4. Of course the UK would be weakened against Italy to do this…and exposed if Germany decided to delay the assault, shift air back west, and build transports for a late Sea Lion…those supplemental German strat bomber builds would be turned on London first.

In E40 SE Moscow should have fallen long before G8. By G8 Germany should have cleared things all the way to the Caucasus or be a turn from it. I have found the max Soviet army in Moscow to be insufficient for the task of holding on G5 (or perhaps G6 depending on what Russia does in the way of diversion trying to hold Leningrad/move toward Finland, slip around toward Germany, etc.) The numbers just aren’t there at Moscow to meet the massed air support and the large number of tanks and mechs that have been pushed forward for “just-in-time-delivery.” Maybe I should have bought an extra infantry instead of sacrificing one for three arty on about two or three turns…but that would make it very difficult to counter attack anywhere.

When I stayed put in Moscow the Russian stack died…even though I always seem to get lots of 1’s from AAA fire (which is why I have been a late convert to SBR’s.) I did better by flushing out to the south before G5 to grudgingly slow the push for Stalingrad, Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc. while step-wise retreating to British support in Iraq/Persia. Along this retreat more favorable counter attacks were possible because there was no great prize to defend and the German air had to withdraw to the west to confront the remaining allies. It kept Germany from shipping the surviving tanks back west earlier as it could after a successful stack crush in Moscow.

Any side battles the Russians undertake along the way to Moscow are crushed at favorable exchange rates by overwhelming air support and with little concern about actually holding territories other than not allowing penetration into the rear.

Italy vs. UK plays out differently each time, very much subject to dice rolls in small engagements so it has to be flexible.
Even if Italy does nothing, and rapidly capitulates, Germany has so much income with an early fall of Russia that it can go it alone. When I was retesting my G2 Barb last time, Italy got heavily diced on all of its early engagements, worst result I ever had as Italy. Italy even ended up losing Southern France initially after barely taking it on what should have been an easy battle; counterattack from French left in Normandy/Bordeaux so that Germany had to retake it G2, and this combined with failure in the Med choked the Italian economy.)

In that game Moscow fell on G5 so Germany could turn its air back to countering the US/UK. US had a bit of luck and was able to take Rome in a bold (desperate) initial strike, with UK insulating the southern Italy IC a critical turn by taking northern Italy on the same turn. After that the US could take/retake Holland/Belgium and Normany/Bordeaux and Southern Europe each turn combined with retaking northern Italy. (The first three were needed to keep the returning German strat bombers from dispatching the US fleets/transports.) UK put an IC in Greece to push units as the US was doing from two continental IC’s. However, against 100+ IPC Germany each turn, with the latter in a better position, Germany won a long war of attrition. It didn’t have a supply line to protect so it didn’t take much creativity to hold it together, while the allies had to scratch and claw to hold on.

I don’t see how Persia/Iraq are going to be of much help to Russia in time. UK can put them to better use. Taking Iraq with Russia is too late to be of help for a G2 DOW and puts too much out of position creating a net negative. The UK could use the Persians better. Granted, the thread is for a G1 DOW, so perhaps that might swing things a little differently. In that case an Italian can opener might be employed…haven’t had to resort to it.

I dunno. I have mostly tested various strategies/plays against myself and some family games. There are many more serious players that have more experience with a variety of strategies who seem to find the Moscow crush fairly direct. That is why there are these various/creative ways of diverting everyone’s output to try to keep Moscow defended.

@Magro

How are you playing it? Things are pretty well set on G1 or G2 depending on how Germany decides to proceed using one of several standard naval/air attack patterns that others have outlined for Global starts. These G1 attacks render Britain no threat to German plans. Germany only needs to concentrate and centralize its eastern force, building/sending fast movers to catch up, while making Russia choose what/how to defend.

A few German strategic bomber purchases sprinkled in set the foundation for retarding Russia’s late unit production and providing enough weight to the assault. The bombers also make it very difficult for the US or UK to get a toehold before Moscow falls, because the first fleet can be wiped out if not well protected off of Gibraltar.

The problem I have as Russia is finding any way to concentrate enough force that I can prevent the German stack from marching right up to it and forcing the Red stack to withdraw rather than be lost on the subsequent turn when German air will be able to combine with the stack on attack to sweep away the defense.

Russia has almost no air or armor, and infantry stacks don’t have any offensive punch absent considerable artillery. I have tried balancing the build by foregoing 1 infantry a few rounds to build 3 “extra” artillery. That would be effective if Germany split its forces in any substantial way. However, the invading horde doesn’t need to, keeping the German spearhead together and advancing the AAA prevents any effective counter thrust.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Scandinavian infantry is trying to catch up as the spearhead takes the northern route around Pripet. If Russia tries to hold Leningrad against them, then Moscow is even more open for taking via defeat in detail by infantry that can’t reach Moscow G5. With a G1 DOW, Russian infantry that is forward is wiped out and other units are out of position, but the econ is more favorable for the Soviets for an extra turn. With a G2 DOW Russia gets little benefit from the Lend Lease NO before it is lost and less time for the Novosibirsk NO.