Spring 1942 - Fortress Europe Axis Strategy

[newpaintbrush]

Nice responses.  For those picking up this thread here, we are discussing German response to KGF.

I did not make clear the “Allied fighters to Moscow” shuttle idea, or the “committed infantry/artillery on G1” ideas.

1.  Allied fighters to Moscow is a bad move when taken in isolation.  As Hobbes stated, Allies cannot swap fighters for German or Japanese ground.

To clarify, I predict the situation to be that if the Allies did end up going KGF, that the US should have a minmum of 4 fighters, and the UK a minimum of 2 fighters.  The Allies should have built these fighters for three reasons.

A.  Destroy any German naval buildup in the Baltic area.  (There probably won’t be any real threatening German build in the Baltic anyways.)
B.  Landed on carriers to help protect the Allied fleet
C.  To trade territory with Germany and/or Japan together with Allied ground units.  (Early in the game, surviving UK ground forces from Trans-Jordan to India, and surviving US ground forces from China can be used to swap, using infantry/bomber or infantry/two fightes.  Later in the game, UK and US ground forces come from transports.)

So this is to say that the Allies should have fighters without having significantly impaired their Atlantic transport chain.  This is also to say that the Allies SHOULD have broken into Africa and/or have landed in Karelia/Archangel before Moscow is seriously threatened; it’s a typical KGF.  Soon, the Allies crack Norway and start threatening W. Europe in force.  It’s about now that the Allies can choose to send fighters to Moscow or West Russia.  Moscow based UK and US fighters reinforce against Japan’s final press from the east, while trading Russian territory with UK/US ground forces in the west.

That is, Allied fighters to Moscow is not a strategy of itself.  It’s a tactic the Allies should use as part of their overall plan to defend Moscow, and to buy more time for the Allies to crack Germany open.

2.  On the idea of a committed infantry/artillery build on G1 (specifically 12 infantry 1 artillery) - Russia goes first.  Russia does not need to (or, I would even say, want to) signal the Allied intentions towards Germany or Japan.  Next up is Germany.  My idea is that the Germans will inevitably want to push infantry on Russia, regardless of whatever they want to do.  Since that is the only given at this point (that you want infantry to press towards Moscow), that is what I think the G1 build should commit to.  On UK1 and US1 (AFTER the G1 turn), the Allies usually signal their intent to go KGF or KJF depending on the Axis build.

I’d say that if the Germans build a German bomber after the UK/US have already committed to KGF, that’s fine and appropriate.  But until then, I do not see a need for a German bomber.  So why build one, considering that every bomber means 4 less early infantry pressing on Moscow? UK1/US1 landing in Libya (in Africa) should already be easily covered by German fighters / bomber in Western Europe with German subs in the Atlantic.

I think that if you see an Allied fleet build coming, then you can counter with the necessary number of bombers.

There is no question that Germany CAN use early bombers.  It’s just that I think German has more need of early infantry, to open up Germany’s options by the time the first and second German-built infantry waves start hitting the Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine region.

[newpaintbrush]

Red responses below.
@Zhukov44:

the chief rationale here is the Allies cannot make combined fleet movements from edit - probably Zhukov meant from sea zone 2 northwest of UK to sea zones 3 (Norway), 6 (Norway and Western Europe), and/or 7 (Western Europe) unless UK has sufficient protection to repel a Jap attack.  If the UK navy moves up to 2 in order to land in 4 afterwards, then the Jap figs can move to EEU.  Whatever happens the UK naval force has to be stronger than the Jap air force in order to land troops.  If the Japs keep buying planes, then UK will sink a hell of a lot of money into aircraft carriers.Response below.

-The Brazil route and the Brazil factory sound tempting, but are ineffective imho.  Unless you want to lose your starting Atlantic units, you gotta wait till USA2 to make your move to Brazil…and then you won’t land in mid-Africa until USA3.  I’d rather just mass in Algeria.Woah, I do not in any way advocate a Brazil IC.  To be clear, I predict that if there are lots of fighters in Western Europe, and few bombers, that what you should see is 2 US transports plus a light escort (1-2 destroyers plus carrier plus possible cruiser) dropping units into Brazil on one turn (since Brazil is still in range of the W. Europe bombers, the transports should be emptied), followed by the same transports picking up the Brazil units and dropping them into French West Africa/French Equatorial Africa/Belgian Congo as appropriate on the next turn.  Meanwhile, the UK builds up sea units northwest of UK.

To clarify, what I’m saying is heavy Axis investment in fighters keyed to Western Europe is, I think, possibly a mistake.  Those fighters have little flexibility against Russia (being limited to Karelia), and cannot defend Africa (being limited to countering against Libya).  The Allies can maneuver around the fighters’ limited range to achieve their objectives in both Africa (by routing through Brazil - again, NO Brazil IC!) and in Karelia/Archangel (by using its built up navy from sea zone 2 to drop into sea zone 4 on the first naval drop, then following with the cost-effective transport chain of Eastern Canada-London / London-Karelia or Archangel.  Once you have the Allies establishing that cost-effective infantry chain, it’s quite bad for the Axis.

If the Germans keep fighters in W. Europe, Allies drop ground to sea zone 4, Karelia/Archangel.  If the Germans pull fighters to E. Europe, Allies drop ground to sea zone 5, Norway, where the E. Europe fighters can’t hit them.  The same applies for Japanese fighters.  Sure, you protect Norway and Western Europe early on, but as far as I can tell, Axis fighters do not prevent the Allies from landing ground units in Europe!!!  What’s the point of guarding the barn door after the cow’s run off?

The limited range of the Axis fighters leaves the Allies free to establish the cost-effective Eastern Canada-London / London-Europe transport chain, while requiring only a single defensive Allied fleet for its London-Europe group (plus minor fleet escort for anti-bomber purposes for the transports in the Canada-London chain).  This is why I think the “correct” German response to KGF allied Atlantic transport fleet plan requires German bombers starting G2, or perhaps even on G3 - at any rate, after the Germans have seen the Allies commit to an Atlantic navy.

True, Axis fighters are a fantastic ground defense once the Allies start really messing with Germany, but I have last-moment German infantry builds to counter that, as well as a mass of tanks plus air to wipe out any premature Allied advance into Europe.  I think I’m already fairly well off in regard to ground defense.

It’s the naval defense that I’m concerned with, and as far as I see, Axis fighters in Western Europe do NOT fit the bill.

I think Germany will still want some fighters as fodder, but that bombers are the key to its defense.

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

Nice responses.  For those picking up this thread here, we are discussing German response to KGF.

I did not make clear the “Allied fighters to Moscow” shuttle idea, or the “committed infantry/artillery on G1” ideas.

1.  Allied fighters to Moscow is a bad move when taken in isolation.  As Hobbes stated, Allies cannot swap fighters for German or Japanese ground.

To clarify, I predict the situation to be that if the Allies did end up going KGF, that the US should have a minmum of 4 fighters, and the UK a minimum of 2 fighters.  The Allies should have built these fighters for three reasons.

A.  Destroy any German naval buildup in the Baltic area.  (There probably won’t be any real threatening German build in the Baltic anyways.)
B.  Landed on carriers to help protect the Allied fleet
C.  To trade territory with Germany and/or Japan together with Allied ground units.  (Early in the game, surviving UK ground forces from Trans-Jordan to India, and surviving US ground forces from China can be used to swap, using infantry/bomber or infantry/two fightes.  Later in the game, UK and US ground forces come from transports.)

So this is to say that the Allies should have fighters without having significantly impaired their Atlantic transport chain.   This is also to say that the Allies SHOULD have broken into Africa and/or have landed in Karelia/Archangel before Moscow is seriously threatened; it’s a typical KGF.  Soon, the Allies crack Norway and start threatening W. Europe in force.  It’s about now that the Allies can choose to send fighters to Moscow or West Russia.  Moscow based UK and US fighters reinforce against Japan’s final press from the east, while trading Russian territory with UK/US ground forces in the west.

That is, Allied fighters to Moscow is not a strategy of itself.  It’s a tactic the Allies should use as part of their overall plan to defend Moscow, and to buy more time for the Allies to crack Germany open.

2.  On the idea of a committed infantry/artillery build on G1 (specifically 12 infantry 1 artillery) - Russia goes first.  Russia does not need to (or, I would even say, want to) signal the Allied intentions towards Germany or Japan.  Next up is Germany.  My idea is that the Germans will inevitably want to push infantry on Russia, regardless of whatever they want to do.  Since that is the only given at this point (that you want infantry to press towards Moscow), that is what I think the G1 build should commit to.  On UK1 and US1 (AFTER the G1 turn), the Allies usually signal their intent to go KGF or KJF depending on the Axis build.

I’d say that if the Germans build a German bomber after the UK/US have already committed to KGF, that’s fine and appropriate.  But until then, I do not see a need for a German bomber.  So why build one, considering that every bomber means 4 less early infantry pressing on Moscow? UK1/US1 landing in Libya (in Africa) should already be easily covered by German fighters / bomber in Western Europe with German subs in the Atlantic.

I think that if you see an Allied fleet build coming, then you can counter with the necessary number of bombers.

There is no question that Germany CAN use early bombers.  It’s just that I think German has more need of early infantry, to open up Germany’s options by the time the first and second German-built infantry waves start hitting the Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine region.

I agree with everything. The question of the 2nd German bomber I guess is a personal choice that increases the possibility (but still low though) to prevent any UK1 naval build. Limiting the UK’s options at the beginning buys time for the Germans against the UK/US, which is how I really prefer to play Germany, regardless of KGF/KJF. Unless you are planning to move a German stack to Karelia/Ukraine around round 4, which is not my usual German play unless Russia has gone after Norway on round 1.

But your points regarding the all inf buy for G1 are valid. I’ve tried that purchase before if R1 plays out differently than usual but I’ll try it more using the all inf buy for G1.

[Zhukov44]

@Bunnies:

I’d say that if the Germans build a German bomber after the UK/US have already committed to KGF, that’s fine and appropriate.  But until then, I do not see a need for a German bomber.  So why build one, considering that every bomber means 4 less early infantry pressing on Moscow? UK1/US1 landing in Libya (in Africa) should already be easily covered by German fighters / bomber in Western Europe with German subs in the Atlantic.

I think that if you see an Allied fleet build coming, then you can counter with the necessary number of bombers.

If you buy no bomber, then that means UK may be able to build SZ2 or SZ8 UK1.  Consider the odds Hobbes posted on SZ2

Germany: 1 ftr, 2 bmrs, 2 subs
Allies: 2 ftrs, 2 DDs, 1 AC, 1 sub
33.1% win, 66.9% loss

Germany: 2 ftrs, 2 bmrs, 2 subs
Allies: 2 ftrs, 2 DDs, 1 AC, 1 sub
68.5% win, 31.5% loss

So if all you got is 2 figs 1 bmb 2 ss (an optimistic scenario) then your odds are only a tad better than 33%.  If I’m UK, I’m happy to take that bet……even if I lose I’ll take u-boats and planes down with me.  But with the extra bomber, G’s odds jump to 69%.  A large part of why I prefer 2 bombers is for security on those (common) occasions when Germany loses 1-2 more figs in SZ13 or SZ2…  With the 2 bmb buy, I can be confident I’ll have 70%+ for SZ2 G2 unless I got absolutely diced G1.

Now, that’s only a 1 turn delay…is 1 turn worth missing out on the extra inf?  The delay translates into IPCs for Axis.  There are the costs to UK in putting its cash into ACs and dds early.  There’s the 6 swing of controlling Norway (ie you will control it through G3, if not longer).  You also prevent a secure landing in Africa for an additional turn, which could be a significant IPC swing.  Lastly, there’s the value of having extra bombers each turn for the duration of the game.

If Allies see my bomber buy and decide to play a KJF strategy, then that’s great…the odds for Axis victory have gone up!  I would think a KGF response is equally as likely since Germany will be perceived as thin on the ground for the first few turns.  In reality, while the Soviets might score some temporary gains because Germany is inf light, they won’t be able to follow up unless the German player continues to invest in non land units like subs or bombers.  Germany’s mass of air power ensures Russia will get the worst of the trades over the duration.

Like Hobbes I could see myself forgetting about the bombers and going all inf/art/arm against certain R1 moves, such as a successful Nor conquest.

[newpaintbrush]

Looking at the board again, I see that you’re right about the Norway deterrent.  Clever.

I’ll have to think about the Norway/Africa situation again!

[dustwhit]

Great discussion. Insightful. Helpful.

[ashoka]

Really great discussion and strategy here; it helps me understand overall objectives and how to reach them much better.

Question though:

G1 attack Ukraine with only 2 inf and 1 fighter…

How is that possible? Usually Russia has 3 tanks, 1 art and maybe even 1 inf remaining in Ukraine (after R1 take W.R. and Ukr.)
In order to take Ukr, G1 I usually have to send 5 inf, 2 tanks and 1 fig to get 90% odds.
This changes things a little because then EE has only 4 tanks after G1 rather than 6 tanks, so it takes a little longer to build up.

Another question I have is when you’re just trying to trade territories for example Russia and Germany trading Ukr, what battle odds should you look for? I mean should you only commit enough units to have 75% chance to win or something like that, or should it be more like 90%?

Thanks

[Hobbes]

@ashoka:

Really great discussion and strategy here; it helps me understand overall objectives and how to reach them much better.

Question though:

G1 attack Ukraine with only 2 inf and 1 fighter…

How is that possible? Usually Russia has 3 tanks, 1 art and maybe even 1 inf remaining in Ukraine (after R1 take W.R. and Ukr.)
In order to take Ukr, G1 I usually have to send 5 inf, 2 tanks and 1 fig to get 90% odds.
This changes things a little because then EE has only 4 tanks after G1 rather than 6 tanks, so it takes a little longer to build up.

Like you mentioned, the more Russia has on the Ukraine, the harder it gets to retake it. The 2 inf + 1 ftr are good for a single Russian tank.
The number of Russian units on Ukraine that survive the attack is something to consider when choosing this strat. The best counter I’ve seen so far involves Russia pushing hard on Ukraine while the remaining Allies scramble to try to squeeze G before Japan arrives.

Another question I have is when you’re just trying to trade territories for example Russia and Germany trading Ukr, what battle odds should you look for? I mean should you only commit enough units to have 75% chance to win or something like that, or should it be more like 90%?

Thanks

When trading territories I usually look more into the numbers of units involved and their power. Against 1 unit, 2 inf + fighter, against 2 units, 3 inf + ftr, against 3, 5 inf + ftr, etc. Overall I’d say that you need 75% and plus odds on those attacks.

[jiman79]

Very helpfull discussion on strategy - I was following it for a game where I play Axis and it worked out well  :-D

For the G1 non-combat turn do you not usually move the Algeria inf+arm to Libya?
It was not explicitly mentioned in the G1 non-combat.
I always do it to be able to retake Egypt?

Do you guys keep them in Algeria to absorb US landing???

[MrMalachiCrunch]

They would move up to Libya.  In this case it would not be a good idea to make it easy for the allies to pin and destroy your africa forces.  Better to make them chase you down, perhaps tie up more allied navy to bring forces to south africa to chase you down.

[Hobbes]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

They would move up to Libya.  In this case it would not be a good idea to make it easy for the allies to pin and destroy your africa forces.  Better to make them chase you down, perhaps tie up more allied navy to bring forces to south africa to chase you down.

Yes. It’s just one of those automatic moves that I didn’t remember to add it here.

[Kingme]

Re: Spring 1942 - Fortress Europe Axis StrategyI remember one game I played as axis I built nothing but submarines with Germany and japan and it helped to secure the coastal territories from attack I also used the German subs had like 7 of them at one and 3 bombers and targeted the British fleet and in the pacific with japan I built up to 9 subs and had a huge air force with them and scared the Americans out of the pacific and my armies were victorious in Russia about to collapse even protected my transports really good