• Do you think it is worth it to go for this prime piece of real estate? it is kind of alluring with the whole 4 ipc’s, is it worth it or should we steer the course to moscow

  • I said steer the course, because you want to win as fast as you can before Britain/America land in France. Sure it’s 4 IPCs, but that wont help you reach Moscow any quicker if you’re using your main attack force to attack there. It also won’t really help protect you from D-Day.

  • I think i hit Cau faster from the south (i.e. after taking Africa) then from the North, and this is my preferred route.

  • One way to consider the Caucasus as the German player is that by extending yourself to take it, you are outflanking yourself!!

    I mean, in the classic Soviet defense, all forces are called toward Belorussia and adjoining support areas, to keep the Germans at least two territories away from Moscow, as long as possible. Now, the German answer to this must be to pressure Belorussia with maximum force as available.

    If you as the German player take Ukraine – and retake it – well, you are spending well over 4 IPCs per turn to do so. Figure the Soviets will withdraw from Caucasus anyway by turn 4 at the latest, assuming you are doing all right in the center and north. So why spend infantry (and armor & air power) on assaulting this flank zone, when the same infantry can be used to greater effect in resisting the Soviet counterattacks? I say concentrate on holding the Ukraine with maximum forces against the Belorussian flank, rather than spending them on the admittedly juicy Caucausus region. You’ll soon get it for “free,” regardless!

    The “other hand” in this case would, I suppose, be that by taking Caucasus with a small but credible force by turn 2 or 3, you may coax the Soviet player into sending some of his own dwindling forces there to retake. Even if he is successful, and eradicates some of your armor & infantry there, such a development may draw down the defensive strength of the Moscow-Belorussia salient. Good for Germany!

    Forsooth, much of the decision-making may derive from the luck of the dicerolls in your invasion of Ukraine in the first place!!

    What we know from history is… what? Hitler started Operation Barbarossa at least a month late, he ordered major thrusts toward the Caucasus in desperation, out of fear of running short of oil, and… the offensive in the center was blunted by good ol’ Zukhov & friends. Some historians figure that was it: the Nazis lost the war in 1941, followed by four more years of global carnage to certify the outcome.

  • i also like to take it because it pisses Russia off.

  • @cystic:

    I think i hit Cau faster from the south (i.e. after taking Africa) then from the North, and this is my preferred route.


    i also like to take it because it pisses Russia off.

    c_c_, you are a contradiction! 🙂 Look in the dictionary under contradiction and your picture is there. 😄 I love you man! :oops: You add a lot to these fora. 😎

  • Hmm…I usually have won the russian by using my troops to attack from 2 directions south and baltic states, that way russia must decide which to stop or try to take both of them down, but if they try both then you split his forces south and north, then you can counterattack from either direction with the northern forces from 2 turns away from you.

    Flanking and flanking more that way you make it harder for the russians, but both forces should be about same size, so that the threat is equal and decision which to stop is harder. If you have more tanks in the other force, of course that will be the most likely target to take out.

    It is very hard sometimes against a good soviet player, and when he gets 2 bombers and 4 fighters it really gets hard to take him out. Because then his counterattack is very strong…

  • There are ways to reduce the effectiveness of enemy air power, and I agree one of them is to split the opponent’s forces, so that in any single territorial attack his air force is covered by fewer infantry.

    In some ways, the THREAT of blitzing Caucasus is worth more than actually doing it. Why? Because a credible threat means a strong German force in the Ukraine. Once established there, the German can choose between applying more force upon Belorussia, or wheeling around through Stalingrad and yes maybe the Caucasus at the same time. The Soviet player can’t easily predict which is going to happen, and will have to react. The German can plan to take full advantage, whatever the reaction.

    To the extent the Soviet uses air forces against German forces in Ukraine or Caucasus, it blunts his counterattack in the center. This is a key reward for the German flanking to the south: dispersing the Soviet air power.

  • On third thought, I say Caucasus is a distraction to the German effort – which must be directed straight at Moscow. Alexander the Great won many a battle by driving heart-on into the center of a numerically superior enemy – and breaking into the headquarters tent of the field marshal or whatever, fracturing resistance, routing the stragglers, etc. (Go, Alex!)

    That maniac stooge of evil Hitler should have let Guderian & co. run the war their way. Thank goodness he didn’t, or we’d all be wearing lederhosen today instead of velour jogging suits!

  • I said take Caucausus because of its IPC value and it allows the German player to Choose to either swing into the Mid-East or turn the corner on the Russians.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys