@argothair yes that indeed is an issue. That is why i stop doing taranto but this form of Gibastion. This way i save the fleet and carrier. So UK 2 i move them (UK fighters from the Med and London who are now in algeria) to Egypte and there on to Moscow. Togethee with the Anzac fighters this gives Russia a bit of breathing space.
The factory in Egypte buys subs and a fighter turn two and from turn 3 on fighters abd Land units .
It is not the perfect plan but wirh a US going 75% KJF you can’t invade Europe direct.
Thoughts on Allies Strategy
-
In case anyone is interested, here’s my thoughts on where I lost this game:
Lots of German troops moved into Belarus, which weren’t enough on their own to take down the Ukraine force, but combined with air and mobile troops, did (in my judgement) cut off the direct via Bryansk route back to Moscow. This led to the first sack of Moscow. It would have lasted another turn otherwise, and another round of troop buys would have required a further pause from Germany. A schoolboy error, it seems.
Some mobile units would have returned to Ukraine to save it but they were 3 squares away in Northwest Persia when sitting in the Caucusus would have done just as well.
In general, I had an insufficient attack as Russia to threaten the German spearhead enough.
I delayed strat bombing on Germany/West Germany to take down Africa, buying a 3 mobile units in South Africa instead of another strat bomber… I think this was a mistake. The Ex-taranto bomber focused on bombing North Italy. This effort was largely wasteful. Could have landed in Tunisia/Algeria UK2 and bombed Normanby, returning to London UK3.
Dubious decisions from Axis:
- No scramble applied against a Max (3 fighter) Taranto raid.
- No strategic bombing on London, in spite of the thinning of the potential interceptors.
- No take down of the UK cruiser in SZ91 on G1
- Took down the UK fleet in SZ109 in preference to SZ110 - also got unlucky in SZ111.
EDIT: A few things I’ll change up next time:
- USSR1 buy of 6 art (Leningrad & Kiev) and 2 Tanks (Stalingrad). one tank to Turkmenistan (needs to be done here to claim Persia USSR2 and use the 2 inf gained attacking Iraq.)
- USSR2
one tank to Turkmenistan- way to Persia via Eastern Persia can be cleared UK1 by West Indian troop. - US Philippines fighter won’t attempt static defence.
- More strat boming
- ANZAC can reinforce Java from NT without a J1 DOW. With a J2 DOW, they can use the troops to land on Dutch New Guinea but it might be better to use a transport bought ANZAC1.
Things which I liked:
- Strongly holding Sumatra - I mean, what else is that transport going to do but ferry troops around the islands and why not hold one island rather than lose 3? Blocks the Japanese NO. (I’m sure some will strongly disagree here but ANZAC took down the other islands even though they couldn’t hold them).
- Mobile troops in UK Pac make it hard to build factories too near Yunnan, even though that wasn’t a big problem here. And tanks also have good hitting power.
- US landing on Amur although this hasn’t been tried properly yet.
- Tobruk crush. Although this is pretty risky because if the Naval combat goes bad, so does the battle.
- Strategic bombing. Needed to be more of this. 4 US/UK Strat bombers are probably an absolute minimum. The fifth can hit Normanby or France. Doesn’t seem so important to have it escorted.
-
Kriegsmarine is looking strong with 15 subs + a handful of surface ships.
What?! :-o Seems to me that if Germany bought that many subs…then she doesn’t have near enough land units to successfully take Russia. I’ve never played a game where anybody wasted that kind of income on subs. Curious indeed.
-
Ya if US UK are not building a navy in Europe and Russia not played right.
-
I’ve purchased 10 SS at once with Germany before, but only after Russia had fallen and the Allies were relatively weak on Navy in the Atlantic.
The intent was to suicide them against the fleet to sink or cripple most if not all of their warships. Even the appearance of that was enough to delay them risking their still maneuvering fleets in Europe for a turn which bought me time to swing to the Middle East while making additional defensive purchases for Europe.
I ended up needing a 1-2 punch from the Italian Navy (who grew to collecting 35+ IPC at one point), but the entire Allied Fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic and my opponent resigned.
-
Kriegsmarine is looking strong with 15 subs + a handful of surface ships.
What?! :-o Seems to me that if Germany bought that many subs…then she doesn’t have near enough land units to successfully take Russia. I’ve never played a game where anybody wasted that kind of income on subs. Curious indeed.
It was a sea denial strategy - deny the Atlantic to the US.
Russia fell to pretty much starting units, believe it or not. Got outflanked with half its army caught in Kiev.
-
After playing as allies again, a couple more updates:
- British Mechanised units in Yunnan are awesome - used them to claim back Malaya a couple of times. The obvious counter to this is to land on Shan State also, but that means more transports needed and greater distraction from the money islands. The mechanised units are also useful for reclaiming unguarded territories. I tend to think these mobile units make building an IC in Kwangtung ill advised. I guess the other side of the coin is that it may make it mandatory.
- Soviet Mechanised units in Yunnan are largely wasteful; although could become useful if a blocker is put down in Shan State.
- ANZAC navy can do more to threaten SZ37 off Malaya and Japanese navies around the money islands. Subs in SZ54 (Qld) have awesome reach.
- US landing on Amur with one transport was far too weak. Even with two soviet planes and all ground troops, was taken down before moving. You’d need 3+ TT I reckon.
- Soviet Finish force was taken down with the help of some mobile units from Leningrad that I didn’t see. This led to the US being thrown off Norway. Gotta watch that one I guess!
- USSR taking down the middle east ASAP was an absolute boon. 7 extra production from turn 3 (2 on turn 2) with a G2 DOW helped keep the USSR going.
-
About the ANZAC landing in Brazil - I think it’s a bit risky, since you’re using valuable transports that could be used to claim the money islands (If there is not much Japanese influence) and I usually find that by around turn 3 ANZAC’s main priority is to simply defend their own borders and sea zones as the Japanese usually make a push for the money islands. I think taking and building a minor IC in Brazil would stretch ANZAC a bit too much.
Note - this is from my experience only. Please feel free to contradict me.
-
I’ve never gotten so far as to build an IC on Brazil - just using the TT and inf in the Med is useful to a certain degree.
-
@simon33 said in Thoughts on Allies Strategy:
USSR taking down the middle east ASAP was an absolute boon. 7 extra production from turn 3 (2 on turn 2) with a G2 DOW helped keep the USSR going.
Why not skip the intermission of Persia and go immediately for Iraq with the 2 inf in Caucasus? And take Persia with either the Brits UK1 or Sovjet the turn after Iraq crush? Apart from the fact that Russia does not know when GDOW will happen, unless GDOW1. But the longer Germany hesitates, the better for Mother Russia…
-
A tank/mech can roll through to Persia from Turkmenistan in a single turn if UK has activated E Persia but can’t ever roll through NW Persia straight to Persia while NW Persia is still neutral.
-
Yes, I’m aware of that. My thought is simply that NW Persia gets annected by the 2 ruskies in Caucasus after GDOW (or they just go there if NW Persia is British already) with mech(s) and tank(s) lurking in Caucasus for an Iraq hit (preferably including air support) the following round taking the inf as causalties.
The point being that taking the route through Persia to collect 2 inf would postpone the attack on Iraq for one round. The income difference is 3 and I’d say tempo is of essence.
To that logic maybe Russia can skip the infs and just go full monty with 2 mechs and 2 tanks and hope to lose only 1 or 2 mech on the move. That way the attack can come even one turn earlier, but requires that Britain has obtained NW Persia already.
The backside to all this is of course allocating troops in the south that are much needed up north. So this strategy depends a bit on how fast Germany is reckoned to build up pressure and if these resources will be crucial for Russian counter-pressure.
-
Nah, you don’t lose a round if you come from Turkmenistan.
Anyway, the G2 DOW is so rare that I’ve haven’t really bothered with that move for years. Also, without the Communism objective it’s probably better if UK takes Persia.
-
Of course, Turkmenistan… if E Persia and Persia has come under UK control. So they can attack in R3, same as the other route if G2 DOW. That’s neat. :)
On the other hand Russia can attack Iraq R3 the more direct route if NW Persia has been converted R2 or UK2, with the advantage to be in Caucasus and closer to the front against Germany.
Sorry for asking, but is the G2 DOW rare? You mean G1 DOW is generally prefered?
-
G3 DOW is more common.
-
Hehe, wrong thread, I know, but how come is that? Doesn’t Germany come at a disadvantage by prolonging the DOW against Russia? Or is it the trick with two tanks I2 taking over Russian front territories, keeping the 5 IPC NO for Germany for not being at war while still managing to get one step closer to key objectives?
The Russian Bear seems to get rather ugly when untaunted…
-
Speaking for myself as an Axis player, I’ll do a G2 DOW only if the situation arises. A bit like Sea Lion I guess. Normally, you need to buy some mobile forces G1 to have enough to prevent a counter attack. The other thing is losing the peace NO and USSR gaining its NOs a turn earlier. I guess that isn’t a big deal though.
-
If waiting for G3, I like the sneaky Italian move, getting both the intrusion G3 as well as the NO. It’s not available though without high risk if Russia leaves blocking infantry, but then they’ll just lose valuable troops in the German invasion instead.
The initiative is essential, so if it’s possible to stack in the Baltic or E Poland G2 without risking being annihilated, Germany should be well off doing it. Perhaps with the help from a transport landing, which probably requires Italy to risk aircraft on a Russian cruiser in sz 114. Probably not worth it.
One upside is that the mIC in Ukraine and/or Leningrad (less likely with possible intercept) can be bombed (1 or 2 sb’s) already in G2. On the other hand the bombing of Ukraine can be done by Italy and Germany likely has good use of it’s bombers in other areas.
To turn the perspective back to the thread subject, I’d be rather happy with Russia for an extra round of full mobilization.
-
@trulpen said in Thoughts on Allies Strategy:
To turn the perspective back to the thread subject, I’d be rather happy with Russia for an extra round of full mobilization.
Good point. As USSR you should really be making sure to block the G2 DOW.
You don’t really need to use Italian aircraft if you just want to NCM 2 more ground units to Baltic States, although if you want to amphibiously assault Novgorod, and can’t stand in SZ112 as Germany, I guess you do.
-
Now it gets even sneakier. If Italy is able to land a tank in the Baltic I2, then Germany can step in G3 along with air for protection and 2-6 inf/art extra from transports depending on the G1- and G2-builds. That should be tough for Russia to attack, especially with a reserve in Poland, and Leningrad is hanging pretty loose. The German fleet will also only be needed in sz 115 by G3, which is a big plus.
I must say this plan proposes a German power-slam on Yugoslavia, allowing two Italian tanks to travel to Slovakia on I1. If you’re not too concerned about Italy getting Greece, then annex Bulgaria and quite a bit of German force can also enter either E Poland or Bessarabia on G3. I like the latter, especially if Ukraine is being bombed.
My only concern is that the invasion of Russia G3 is a tad late. That is likely somewhat mitigated by being strong and well supported. If Russia abandons Leningrad and doesn’t much threaten to counter-attack it (going for instance with the main army to Bryansk or Smolensk, instead of settling in Belarus - by which time any slow movers from Moscow will arrive, probably making a Belarus stack in R3 rather impressive), the stacks from Baltic and Poland can unite in E Poland with the goal set for the Southern Provinces, while Leningrad will produce in the north and also be supported with transport landings.
Defending against 2 tanks along with 2 figs and possibly 1 sb if need be seems to be rather challenging for Russia. On the other hand they can easily already on R2 see what is coming for them.
I guess Russias best bet in a situation like that is to be able to intimidate the German invasion force. Will it be possible with a full inf/art buy in R1 and fast movers from Moscow in R2? I suppose it will. Can be a hefty bunch with a bite if not only inf. Question is if Russia in that situation can afford to be without it’s initial 2 mechs and 2 tanks, thinking of Iraq?
-
@simon33 said in Thoughts on Allies Strategy:
You don’t really need to use Italian aircraft if you just want to NCM 2 more ground units to Baltic States, although if you want to amphibiously assault Novgorod, and can’t stand in SZ112 as Germany, I guess you do.
Lets say Russia blocks with its cr in sz 114, then killing it G2 ties up some fleet. Of course only a sub if available. An des, cr and loaded ac moving into sz 115 on the NCM should be safe enough against the Russian sub and air. Yes, it’s certainly doable, but in that case really needs the 1 sub, 1 des, 1 ac buy in G1.
Suggested Topics
