@pinch1
First, I need to apologize since I don’t think I addressed that this is a combined-joint strategy with Afrika Korps and the Blitzkrieg war tactic against Russia.
Now, if we’re talking the terms of victory with the OOB rules…
Instead of me saying “Germany has won the war” I should’ve said “Germany has effectively beaten the Allies to the point to which they can no longer effectively do anything to the Axis powers as a whole.”
Germany begins with 30 IPC’s. The taking of all 3 provinces of France brings the number up to 39 IPC’s. Having also taken Bulgaria, Finland, and Morocco and/or Algeria brings the number up to 44 IPC’s a turn. Assuming we’re talking the Germans having reached and captured Moscow by then, the Germans should have gotten all the former Soviet Territory from East Poland to Smolensk and Bryansk, adding a whopping 11 more IPC’s to the count, making 55 IPC’s a turn, and thats WITHOUT having taken Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow. Now, assuming the Germans suceed in taking Moscow that’s 3 more IPC’s for the territory to include 2 more 1 for each territory north and south being able to blitz into Moscow adding a total of 5 more IPC’s to the count making 60 IPC’s a turn, adding on the bonus money the Soviet Union had before losing their capital, but for the purposes of consistency I will ignore this number. We’re not done yet. Assuming the Germans will have secured the Northern and Southern Industrial hubs of the Soviet Union whilst on their way to Moscow or clean it up after taking it, we have Leningrad and Karelia with a total of 3 IPC’s, Stalingrad and the Caucasus being 4 IPC’s and blitz through Archangel for the hell of it making 8 more IPC’s to the count, bringing the number to 68 IPC’s. Now, assuming the Germans have control of this having properly reached Moscow, gives them National Objective money of a whopping 20 IPC’s, 1 for each Soviet City and 1 for taking the Caucasus, bringing the number to 88 IPC’s a turn.
This is how much the Germans can pack by G6-G8. With the American floating bridge made a possibility for landing in France, do I even need to explain the unit builds to counter a meager 8 units at a time being sent over to Southern France?
Now that we’ve counted all the POTENTIAL money Germany can be making, let’s count Italy.
Italy possess a meager 10 IPC’s to start. assuming Germany and Italy did the 3 plane scramble should eliminate any and all ships that went into the Taranto Raid, leaving them to take out the French ships bordering Southern France. Having taken Greece for 2 IPC’s. Tunisia for 1, Egypt/Sudan for 1, and Kenya for 1, makes 5 IPC’s along with the Italian national objective of no boats in the med giving them 20 IPC’s on their first turn. On turn 2, the Germans will be moving down to secure Gibraltar, as well as taking out Southern France giving Italy another National Objective of 5 IPC’s, as well as having taken Alexandria on turn 1 and finishing off with taking Algeria on turn 2 making for another national objective of 5 IPC’s, leaving Italy with 30 IPC’s to spend on the 2nd turn on ships needs to build up a navy. Keep in mind, by now the entirety of the British airforce should be either destroyed or fulled away from the Med to deal with Japan. Allowing the Italians to freely and safely rebuild their destroyed navy assuming the British made a successful Taranto Raid, combined with the slowly growing German Navy in the Med to protect the Italian navy.
With all this in mind, the Germans and Italians will be making automatic headway immediately towards Cairo to take it by turn 4 or turn 5, which is right when the Americans are SET to start the floating bridge.
Now setting the Luftwaffe aside, with the Germans and Italians having properly built up a navy and ready for action, setup inside Seazone 92, and you’ve stopped the floating bridge just like that. The Americans cannot and will not attack this navy, because they have no interest risking over 12 transports worth of IPCs to end up in the water, so the presence of the Luftwaffe is out of the question and can be prioritized on taking Moscow.
Consider the fact that you said floating bridge or not tells me that I dont think you fully understand the merits at which the Americans are capable of doing their floating bridge. Because inevitably they’ll spend more on the Europe side than the Eastern side. And in my thread that I made on how to counter the Floating bridge, Japan plays a SIGNIFICANT role in this.
General Hand Grenade may have told you that “As long as you keep Honolulu and Sydney the Japanese can’t win the game for the Axis.” And frankly, if he and everybody else thinks that all it takes is to just ‘watch over those 2 territories and the Japanese never win’ than they might need to reevaluate themselves. Because the moment I’m finished up with Calcutta and are collecting 50+ IPC’s then this is going to happen: 10 transports, 20 guys, my entire navy, my entire airforce, take midway, attack Hawaii and win the game. The Japanese dont have to even break a sweat to do this, and the fact that my American enemy is so willing to leave the Pacific theater alone is absolutely splendid for me as Japan.
Like I said, a proper German player doesn’t need to cover Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Rome or Normandy simply if they understand how the Floating Bridge works. The floating bridge works in such a way that 2 sets of 8 transports shuck troops back and forth into Africa from N. America. Then, the way the utilize Southern France is with the very fact that with 1 single group of transports, they can move back and forward taking guys into France only need 12 transports in total to take guys form North America to Morocco and then into Southern France. If the Americans wanted to make a floating Bridge that linked into Normandy or Denmark than that would require an entire extra link of 4 transports to get troops in there. This is why America prioritizes landing in Southern France.
As for the last paragraph you posted, what are you sorry for?
If you’re sorry for the idea that this isn’t a ‘new strategy’ than, with all do respect, I suggest you look back at my original post of what this strategy was all about.
I think its obvious that if we send everything we have into Russia that we’ll find some success in taking them out. Until a certain General hand Grenade came along and said he developed a strategy for the Soviet Union involving counter attacking that was ‘impossible’ to defeat. And taking it upon myself, I found a way to counter the so said ‘unbeatable’ strategy. Like I said before, this Blitzkrieg opening is in no way supposed to thoroughly go through every single move of Barbarossa. Because after you’ve broken the Soviet Maginot Line 2.0 than the game runs like clock work of taking more Soviet territory by the second.
As for winning the game, the Axis do what the Axis do best, and win the game quickly. By G6 when the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, they’ve taken Stalingrad and Leningrad, and likely Cairo, and all of a sudden the very means at which the USA is finally prepared to make landings in London, it’s already too late. All 8 victory cities have been won for the Axis on the Europe side of the board.
The Allies’ only hope at winning is to draw out the game, make it long. There’s no magic bullet the US can use to make a quick landing in Berlin and end the whole war. The game needs to be drawn out and weighted to which the Allies arrive to save the Soviet Union. These are 2 different playable aspects that collide with eachother to win it all.
When this game made it’s debut, everybody did Barbarossa. They did it, had success and said “I’m bored, I need to find a new method of winning.” Because at the end of the day this game goes so much more in depth than just doing a Barbarossa attack. I’ve had the privilege of being able to see this concept multiple times starting from Axis and Allies 1941 edition to A&A Anniversary, A&A 1942 edition, all the way to Global 1940. I can say from experience of many previous games that this strategy goes more in depth than just the Barbarossa attack.
I hope this clears the air of confusion and misconception.