• '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    This discussion thread is on the UK projecting actual power and landing on Greece somewhere near rounds 5-7.

    I know there is another older thread on Greece, but that discussion was about a UK1 or UK2 landing on Greece.

    Also, has G40 been around too long for continued interest on Allied strategies?

    DISCUSSION: Winston Churchill really wanted to land on Greece after North Africa was secured. This was in part because the UK could not project power elsewhere alone. However, the US did not want adequate transports diverted elsewhere as their strategy, which the UK eventually agreed to, was landing in Normandy. US strategy advocated through France as the best route to Germany. A compromise with the UK was a joint assault on Sicily followed by a joint drive up Italy prior to D-Day. Even to this day, historians argue whether or not the allied resources committed to Italy vs. German resources committed to the defense of Italy (far less in comparison since Italy is prime defensive country), actually lengthened the war. Anyways, attacking through Greece in Global 40 would follow Churchill’s strategy that he advocated; yet didn’t happen in the war.

    Obviously it’s preferable to do the one two punch of US landing on Denmark and Norway followed by the UK on Germany…but against a good player, that’s not an option. In G40, I think Greece is a great place to attack the Axis. It’s easier to gain a foothold in Europe and build an IC. I think it a sound plan, yet it seems many players don’t consider Greece a top goal for a UK landing. Who considers this a great landing place? Who disagrees?

    Requirements:
    1. The Med is locked down; many ways to do this…I like the airbase cover on Egypt with surface warships…followed by the subbing of Italy’s IPCs prior to landing in Egypt. This causes them to turtle, especially when transports start populating within reach.
    2. Moscow is not projected to fall for at least 2-3 more turns.
    3. Works best when Japan is not doing a J1 attack as this operation is part of an overall KGF strategy.

    Advantages:
    1. Hitting the Axis in a weak spot. It’s an easier place to gain a foothold Europe. It’s easier to build an IC and build units on it without losing it right away.
    2. Draws Germany to another front which doesn’t help their objective goals at all.
    3. US can land on Normandy or Norway with better chances as well, or Germany goes all-in against the Normandy invasion which could result in the UK Greece operation succeeding.
    4. The more different landings all over the board, the better chances of one succeeding which could ultimately stop the drive towards Moscow.
    5. If the Axis know your going to land on Greece and they garrison the Balkans, that’s still a gain as those Axis troops are nowhere near an important area, like W. Germany, France, or Southern Russian territories.

    Disadvantages:
    1. US and UK divided some resources. But not as much as you’d think…usually the UK’s role following a US beachhead is to land some fighters. They can also supplement a US landing with 2 transports worth of ground units without taking too much resources from the goal of a strong Greece landing.
    2. Might result in fewer UK fighters in Moscow as some may have to be diverted to Greece initially.
    3. Might not hurt the Axis hard and quick enough to change the game. This is for a slow, but very strong drive into Europe.

  • 2020 '18 '17

    The geometry of the med. makes it very difficult to project power.  Once you leave the safety of SZ 98 behind, pretty much every Axis aircraft can reach your fleet.  Unless its fairly late in the game, there wont be an American follow-on to bring up the planes you will need to defend your position (also would need Gib. air base).

    It is a vulnerable area, the Balkans, but like the Atlantic Wall, you aren’t going to be able to hold what you take unless Germany has already been substantially defeated by losing its air force, navy, army stacks etc.  One of the 3-4 mobile armies that are prowling the eastern front can easily divert and destroy everything you could place there, Romania being an especially popular mobilizing area right next to you.

    This strat works well in the G42 scenario though, in a KGF.  Again, Germany still had to be under immense pressure (7 American bombers on London, Germany bombed every turn, 10 transports off Gibraltar) in order to stretch them thin enough to prevent him from stopping our UK takes, and again, his air force was mostly decimated before the assaults even began.

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    Taamvan,

    Great point on the counter argument to such a move. It can be hard to get enough transports and surface vessels to hit Greece. But I think by turn 5, the UK can have at least 3 transports for a landing which is enough to constitute a real threat. In theory, the UK should have at least 1 more turn on Greece to land a lot of fighters. The diverting of German mobile from Bryansk could take 2 turns to hit Greece. If mobile units are produced in Germany, the UK might have a chance to put a blocker in Albania and Bulgaria. Diversion of units to Greece coincides with my Advantage #2. However, that advantage may not be enough as the mobile units can get back to Russia fairly quick.

    I agree with your point that in G42 this plan may be more suitable.

    I advocate this strategy only when a J1 attack doesn’t occur…I use the UK Pac fleet which starts with the Battleship, cruiser, destroyer (from SA). I add at least one more UK destroyer, plus the French destroyer and now you have enough fleet to where if the Luffwaffe attack the fleet off Greece, it may really hurt them. Trading German aircraft for UK surface vessels really hurts Germany IMHO. I think they need those expensive aircraft for hitting land forces wherever they may be. When playing Germany, often I’m not a fan of hitting a fleet, unless it strategically maroons allied forces in a bad spot like North Africa. Surface vessels don’t gain IPCs…they can only convoy. Holding land is most important. I prefer using German planes to hit allied forces once they land. By the time the landing occurs in Greece, the theory here is that the UK surface vessels are irrelevant. Most other UK land forces should be marching to the middle east to go up through the Caucuses or to India anyways. Transporting more forces from Egypt is situation dictates only. �


  • This would not be a big threat the way I would play germany. The way to defend the west from landings is to have a big mobile stack in W germany, Infs in east germany and some arts in paris. That way you can counterattack all of the coast. the only troops that I would need to send would be the W german ones. Since you have already committed ships and troops to the landing, there is less of a threat to the atlantic wall, so I can afford to send the troops. I also get the additional bonus of killing some allied fleet.


  • It’s always the same problem with landings, because you have 2 objectives:

    • keep the fleet alive
    • keep the beachhead alive

    It can be difficult to protect both, because Germany and Italy usually have a large airforce which are capable of reaching both. If I have to choose, I will protect the fleet. Especially if I have a factory in Egypt, I can always get more troops next turn for another landing.

    I like building an airport on the beachhead (in this case, Greece) so I can defend both fleet and troops with 3 fighters. I think I even once built an airport on Cyprus, but that’s just for the fleet of course.

    For me, landing in Greece isn’t about taking it permanently, it’s about drawing resources to me that would otherwise go to Russia. Of course, you could argue that other territories are better suited for landings (e.g. Normandy). I like toying with the Med however 😄

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    Kreuszfeld, Maybe this strategy wouldn’t be a problem for you. Using mech infantry as a defensive force is smart. I don’t see many players do this and it makes sense to have mobile defensive units. Most players like myself usually use straight leg infantry with a few other units like artillery and fighters.

    My preference is to play Germany / Italy and or all of the Axis forces. I also think that every Allied strategy will “never” work against me. But being honest with myself, I really wouldn’t like a Greece landing that would stick and stay there. That’s really out of position for me with an Axis point of view.

    If the Axis are in a good position to quickly drive off a Greece landing, than maybe I won’t do that attack. Also, I only advocate this strategy if Japan doesn’t do the J1 attack and kill the UK Pac battleship.

    Against a different opponent, this Greece strategy worked very well (which of course reinforces my belief). It helps that I caught him off guard. I started by landing just 1 transport of stuff so as not to tip off my plan. Then the next turn I landed 2 more transports worth of stuff. The first 2 ground units were completely safe unless he wanted to attack them with air (which most people wouldn’t). The next 2 transports came up from South Africa the same turn I landed on Greece and were in position. The second turn I built the IC when I landed 4 more ground units, 3 fighters and 1 tac. bomber. Also, the US prepared to simultaneously land on Normandy and Norway the same turn Greece was hit. UK supplemented US landings with fighters and ground troops. At first he didn’t think the Greece landing much of a threat compared to the US landing. But once the threat grew to such a size that it could start moving forward towards the Ukraine or Northern Italy without an adequate response, the game was basically won. I built and held an IC in Greece. Enough units were there to cause a standoff which stretched out the Axis forces too much. US landings on Norway led to Strategic bombing raids on Germany proper. Normandy was held via standoff too. The standoffs resulted in less spending on resources against Russia to the point that it would take him too long to gain a high enough probability for the Moscow attack. These initial landings occurred on Round 5.

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    Ozymandiac, I like your idea of the airbase to protect the Med fleet. Now, at the same time, my goal here in the Greece landing is for the surface fleet to be irrelevant after the initial landings. Axis aircraft hitting the UK battleship, cruiser, several destroyers, could result in expensive losses that only really hurt them. I actually kind of want Axis air to hit the fleet because it could then help the allies gain air superiority or become more even in terms of air power. In theory, the UK should be subbing Italy at this point when Greece is hit…(if everything is going right of course). So keeping the UK Med fleet alive shouldn’t be as important. I might have to purchase a few destroyers to prevent Italy from gaining their NO of no allied surface vessels in the med. But a destroyer here and there doesn’t really matter. I think once there are a bunch of landings everywhere, Germany and Italy are better off buying a ton of infantry and using them as fodder with their aircraft killing allied ground units. The Axis air units IMHO better serve their cause when they live for another day rather than sacrificed against fleets. This is part of the reason I won the game because my opponent did sink the UK fleet in the Med. But he lost valuable aircraft in the process which enhanced the chances of the landings to stick.

    I like this strategy due to the fact that usually Axis forces aren’t garrisoned nearby. In this game, applying pressure to a weak spot always makes a difference. Axis resources being sent all the way down to Greece results in less resources for their objectives like Stalingrad or the defense of Paris. When I won this game, I didn’t think the amount of resources the UK spent on Greece made a difference on the less resources spent for Normandy. The UK collected more IPCs…Axis less IPCs and the Axis had to divide forces to a second front rather than just one.

    I think a lot of people don’t consider this a smart place to hit the Axis because it’s too far from Paris or the German capital. But why not go for a place that gains a foothold in Europe (anywhere) which draws Axis forces away from their objectives?

  • 2020 '18 '17

    The problem with all KGF’s is that you have to protect separate fleets in different sea zones and territories, sometimes having to protect/project power into SZ 91, SZ 112, SZ 110, Denmark, Gibraltar etc. and all at the same time.  Since bombers can hit the American transports crossing they have to have coverage built or kept with them all the time.  And once you attack, you leave the safety of your airbases.

    Then it gets worse;  when you attack with the US/UK fleet each fleet has to be able to withstand the scramble on the offense separately (their buddy’s planes and ships just sit there during the attack, so you’ll need even more stuff to help).  The UK doesn’t have money to rebuild its fleet and do something else, and during the middle/late stages of KGF it needs to be protecting a fleet and building waves of landing units it doesn’t have.  It certainly does not have the money for extra bases, factories or the stuff to power them, unless there is zero pressure on London.  They cant split up because the entire sea/air force is needed to make a sound defense.  All Germany/Italy have to do is hit that spearhead with everything and the Allies lose.

    Then it gets even worse;  the Americans cross very slowly and so your initial attack is basically a one shot.  Fighters would be ideal because they could back up a UK landing but they can only cross with help in one turn.  This gives you one chance to set up.

    Small piecemeal attacks just get annihilated, and you cant hold Norway until the German fleet is dead, and you cant kill that until Denmark is yours.

    You might think that attacking from the other direction is a solution but the reality is that you are spreading the UK even thinner and they are gonna kill your ships.  The Axis can concentrate all their power on the weakest point of the offense, wherever it is.  And, they can reach any occupied Europe territory from their initial bases…if not with ground units then with an invasion force or fleet (that is “What the hell is Italy doing in your games”?)

    KGF, in my xp, only works when Germany kills itself through excessive attrition and piecemeal attacks.  The Axis have a pretty strong advantage offense or defense and even when they goof up badly they can recover and still be attacking BOTH UK and USSR and have them on the ropes.


  • If there is verry little in the area that can hit greece, which is the normal case ( germany sending mechs to the russian front ) it is not a bad move at all.

    Yes germany can send mechs + air there to take your forces down, but those mechs will be 1 turn delayed to russia.
    Even worst if you can have a decent fleet there you could attack the mechs again on your next round basicaly helping russia that way.

    Say you land 6 inf there, now germany does not have a huge airforce anymore normaly they have lost some of it earlier.
    Germany can only respond with 6-10 mechs build previous round and its airforce.

    However if it does this those mechs will not be in moscow in 2 but in 3 turns.
    If it uses its airforce to attack your 6 inf those air units cannot hit your fleet or the US fleet.

    You dont have to be able to defend your fleet against the airforce of germany, you just have to make sure that if they attack with air only that you will take with you a huge part of their airforce.
    Germany losing 2 turns in the east and 4-6 planes mopping up the med fleet of the UK is good for russia.

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    Taamvan,

    I agree, all KGF’s have a counter …that’s why the Axis win often. I’ve only recently got more involved in learning this game, so I’m willing to accept that any Allied strategy I suggest has faults. The description of the situation you described does sound like the Axis would be currently winning the game and a Greece landing would be futile. There are a few things that have to go right for the Allies to make a Greece operation successful enough for the UK to land fighters on Greece it’s next turn (if no Axis mobile stationed nearby). I like this strategy when the UK gets to keep it’s Pac board battleship. But yes, I might not be so successful against a better Axis player.

    In regards to your comments on guarding multiple SZs, it’s possible that the Allies might only have to protect two SZs in the Atlantic. SZ91 and SZ 105 in particular if Normandy was conquered (when playing Germany, I never take Normandy now). SZ105 adds an extra space for aircraft to hit it which means they have to land in S. France or France proper, and or only attack the SZ with expensive bombers. Also, to go after the fleet in that SZ lots of aircraft have to be taken out of the Russian theater. If Normandy was never conquered by the Axis, then just SZ93 and SZ91 for attacks on S. France. However, I see your point on possibly having to defend 3 sea zones if Normandy was never conquered and the Allies deciding hitting Holland turn by turn is worth it for an attrition battle.

    Using SZ105 was done against me when I was playing Germany in a table top game. I now use it. If Germany has some subs or something in the Baltic, then I use a UK destroyer as a blocker in SZ110. The guy that used SZ105 when landing on Normandy (while I was playing Germany) is probably someone you’ve played at one of the tournaments.

    When hitting Norway, I only use a destroyer and enough air in SZ112 to prevent a German scramble. Those transports / 1 destroyer are on a one way mission.

    If the German player has enough bombers to sink the SZ91 fleet, then how many less tanks or mechs were purchased for operations against Russia? If Germany is still building subs and boats for a defensive threat in round 5, also, how much do these resource result in hurting the growing German power against Russia? Finding that right balance is hard for me when playing the Axis. That’s why I think opening another front in Greece really makes a difference. Losing 12 IPC bombers is very expensive for Germany when fighting a two or 3 front war. It seems to me that on a KGF plan, (when I’m playing Germany), that the US can buy so many loaded carriers and destroyers that it’s hard for Germany to keep up and try to sink them while simultaneously spending the right amount of resources to knock out Russia. Especially on the G42 setup. I’m definitely less experienced as you are…and I appreciate your comments on some of my other threads.

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    Taamvan,

    Your comment…(that is “What the hell is Italy doing in your games”?) means that the Axis player either never lost control of the Med or Italy has mobile units in good position and or adequate amounts of air to hit landings. I understand that sentiment. Myself, I like to think that I can play Italy fairly well. I’ve become a fan of buying lots of subs and bombers to control the med as Italy. If my opponent locked down the med like that, then yes, in that situation, as a UK player, I wouldn’t be able to go for a Greece Operation unless the required amount of resources was invested. At which point investing UK resources towards Greece would probably be a failed strategy. The US did not agree with Churchill in investing resources towards a drive into Europe through Greece. I hope that I’ve learned how to play enough to the point that I won’t pursue a strategy like this when the situation dictates not to.

    It’s probably true that any Allied strategy could be defeated. In many instances, it’s probably true that this may not work and that the US and UK should or could not divert their forces. My point of the thread is that I think the strategy of going for Greece is a great place for the UK to attack if the situation permits it. I think the benefits out way the negatives in opening a front down there. However, UK players often still don’t consider it even if the situation could permit it.


  • @Ichabod:

    My preference is to play Germany / Italy and or all of the Axis forces. I also think that every Allied strategy will “never” work against me. But being honest with myself, I really wouldn’t like a Greece landing that would stick and stay there. That’s really out of position for me with an Axis point of view.

    If the Axis are in a good position to quickly drive off a Greece landing, than maybe I won’t do that attack. Also, I only advocate this strategy if Japan doesn’t do the J1 attack and kill the UK Pac battleship.

    Against a different opponent, this Greece strategy worked very well (which of course reinforces my belief). It helps that I caught him off guard. I started by landing just 1 transport of stuff so as not to tip off my plan. Then the next turn I landed 2 more transports worth of stuff. The first 2 ground units were completely safe unless he wanted to attack them with air (which most people wouldn’t). The next 2 transports came up from South Africa the same turn I landed on Greece and were in position. The second turn I built the IC when I landed 4 more ground units, 3 fighters and 1 tac. bomber. Also, the US prepared to simultaneously land on Normandy and Norway the same turn Greece was hit. UK supplemented US landings with fighters and ground troops. At first he didn’t think the Greece landing much of a threat compared to the US landing. But once the threat grew to such a size that it could start moving forward towards the Ukraine or Northern Italy without an adequate response, the game was basically won. I built and held an IC in Greece. Enough units were there to cause a standoff which stretched out the Axis forces too much. US landings on Norway led to Strategic bombing raids on Germany proper. Normandy was held via standoff too. The standoffs resulted in less spending on resources against Russia to the point that it would take him too long to gain a high enough probability for the Moscow attack. These initial landings occurred on Round 5.

    Hi! I actually prefer to play the allies 🙂  I am also a fan of miniature invasions, especially if the Italian fleet is dead (it seems to be dead if they didn’t retake it immediately).  A miniature invasion of Greece, an mIC and some reinforcements can fast become a big problem for the axis. but, so can any beachhead on the continent. In my “plan” with the allies, I would ideally use the Americans to do this. The British will often have mIC in Persia, Iraq and Egypt, doing all of their production, and sending what they can to support Russia and protect caucus and Stalingrad from the Germans. Spending that extra UK cash when they already produce in the theater will make them weaker on the Russian border.

    Once i read my reasoning, I see that it is not ideal at all to have the us in greece like that. It might be better to just do the Spanish beachhead and have UK kill Turkey, building a mIC there. If you have the forces to kill turkey, you should only take avg 8-10 IPC loss in the attack, taking Greece will lose you 7 IPC for the TT.  You might as well build you mIC in Turkey at that point.


  • @Ichabod:

    Taamvan,

    Your comment…(that is “What the hell is Italy doing in your games”?) means that the Axis player either never lost control of the Med or Italy has mobile units in good position and or adequate amounts of air to hit landings. I understand that sentiment. Myself, I like to think that I can play Italy fairly well. I’ve become a fan of buying lots of subs and bombers to control the med as Italy. If my opponent locked down the med like that, then yes, in that situation, as a UK player, I wouldn’t be able to go for a Greece Operation unless the required amount of resources was invested. At which point investing UK resources towards Greece would probably be a failed strategy. The US did not agree with Churchill in investing resources towards a drive into Europe through Greece. I hope that I’ve learned how to play enough to the point that I won’t pursue a strategy like this when the situation dictates not to.

    It’s probably true that any Allied strategy could be defeated. In many instances, it’s probably true that this may not work and that the US and UK should or could not divert their forces. My point of the thread is that I think the strategy of going for Greece is a great place for the UK to attack if the situation permits it. I think the benefits out way the negatives in opening a front down there. However, UK players often still don’t consider it even if the situation could permit it.

    Wondering with what money you buy bombers and subs with italy.
    Italy is screwed from the first round ( especialy with a bid in the med ) if your lucky you actualy get money to spend round 2.

    If the allies lock down italy hard you will not be making over 15 at all ever. More like there will be subs everywhere and you will be at 0 income for the whole game after a few rounds.
    And that also means no support for germany in russia or any defence in the west as no italian units can be bought.

    Every single strategy can be countered if you know it is comming. But Not everything can be countered at once.
    If you invade greece when germany just got a hold of bryansk how is germany going to react?

    Sure it can send its mechs from eastern poland ( asuming mech tank build germany -> Epoland -> Bryansk ) with some air but those units are not in bryansk for a few turns.
    Couple that with a good art-inf buy from russia and a few mechs/tanks with air in northern persia and suddenly germany cannot just counter greece.
    It can counter greece and pull out of bryansk, it can reinforce bryansk and not counter greece, it can go after the fleet and reinforce but not counter.
    Air has to be in bryansk or the land forces from Eastern poland have to get there to make that stack safe.
    Russia can hit it and take away most forces ( russia is rebuilding in moscow you are not in bryansk ) and UK can hit the tanks left and lands its planes in moscow.
    Once germany losses its tanks you are not taking moscow anymore anytime soon

  • '17

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    ShawdoHAwk,

    Depending of course how much of a thrashing Italy gets in UK1, will mean whether or not as the Italian player I’ll try to secure the med.

    If it looks like there is a chance, then I1, I’ll buy a sub, and save whatever IPCs I can and kill whichever surface fleet looks the best situation for Italy (French boats or UK ships if they did the Taranto raid). From there on, my goal is to try to keep buying as many subs and bombers (while keeping 1 destroyer in a safe position to counter allied subs) as it takes to scare off any allied surface fleet from venturing into the med. If the med is secure, then Italy can start buying straight leg infantry to help defend western Europe or mech infantry to help get Russia. In this scenario description, obviously, my UK Greece Operation idea would be futile.

    I appreciate the comments from those who challenged this strategy and those who supported it in theory. Most on this thread are probably a much better player than me. It’s only really recent that I think I “learned” how to play this game. I’ve played Axis and Allies since I was kid; but never got to play much. Also, it’s only recent that I figured out a way to play Global 40 table top…meetup groups. It’s hard to find players for table top games. I see some of your names on TripleA. If I play you as the allies, please forget this thread, LOL!

    Ichabod.


  • @Ichabod:

    Disclaimer:  I’m really not a good Axis and Allies Player…please don’t take my thread the wrong way.

    ShawdoHAwk,

    Depending of course how much of a thrashing Italy gets in UK1, will mean whether or not as the Italian player I’ll try to secure the med.

    If it looks like there is a chance, then I1, I’ll buy a sub, and save whatever IPCs I can and kill whichever surface fleet looks the best situation for Italy (French boats or UK ships if they did the Taranto raid). From there on, my goal is to try to keep buying as many subs and bombers (while keeping 1 destroyer in a safe position to counter allied subs) as it takes to scare off any allied surface fleet from venturing into the med. If the med is secure, then Italy can start buying straight leg infantry to help defend western Europe or mech infantry to help get Russia. In this scenario description, obviously, my UK Greece Operation idea would be futile.

    I appreciate the comments from those who challenged this strategy and those who supported it in theory. Most on this thread are probably a much better player than me. It’s only really recent that I think I “learned” how to play this game. I’ve played Axis and Allies since I was kid; but never got to play much. Also, it’s only recent that I figured out a way to play Global 40 table top…meetup groups. It’s hard to find players for table top games. I see some of your names on TripleA. If I play you as the allies, please forget this thread, LOL!

    Ichabod.

    What normaly happens round 1,
    UK does taranto and is left with either a full carrier + cruiser + destroyer and italy did not scrambe.
    Or the carrier isnt there and italy does not have any airforce.

    So itay has 1 sub 1dest 1 cruiser and 1 transport round 1.
    If it does not attack the UK fleet or if it did not scramble it will lose some / a lot in convoy damage.
    If it does attack the UK fleet the french can either attack whats left ( they have to do something with their fleet )

    What prevents the UK from putting a destroyer and a group of subs in the suez channel and just attacking your little fleet?

  • '17

    ShawdoHAwk,

    When I’ve played Italy (table top game), it’s hard for me to recover after the devastating Taranto raid and it probably best to let Germany kill the UK med fleet. I think I’ve only had 1 table top game where as Italy I was able to control the med with subs and bombers. In that game the Allies were doing a Kill Japan First plan so there was a better chance for Italy get somewhere.

    When I play UK, I’m hoping to do what you suggest, put subs and a destroyer in the Red Sea, and then kill the remaining Italian warships. Which of course leads me back to the my suggestion of the Greece Operation objective.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Historically, I suspect a large part of why Churchill pushed to invade Greece was out of (1) a sense of honor and shame about having failed to defend Greece in 1941, (2) a longstanding Greco-philia in elite British culture, and (3) an interest in drawing the post-war border with the Soviets somewhere rather southeast of Vienna. I’m not sure there were any strictly tactical justifications for a Greek invasion. Greece is mountainous, full of islands, and didn’t have any strategic raw materials or industries.

    In Global 40, I’m happy to land in Greece if I have a loaded transport to spare in the eastern Med…sometimes you can overestimate how much force you’ll need to wipe Italy off of the African continent, so if you have extra forces in the theater and you’re not in imminent danger of losing Stalingrad, then Greece is a natural place to stage a “diversion.” Germany can deal with a small landing in Greece without too much trouble, but if the British resources are there anyway, then you might tie up more Axis resources in Greece than you would in Persia. And if the Axis totally ignore your landing, then I suppose you may as well turn it into a beachhead.

    But this whole idea of intentionally preparing for a Greek landing, and buying multiple additional units specifically to support the landing, seems off base to me. There’s nothing that exciting in or near Greece. It borders Albania and Bulgaria, both of which are only worth 1 IPC. It’s not a chokepoint on the way from anywhere to anywhere else, and nobody needs it as an airbase or naval base. You don’t flip any national objectives by playing in the Balkans. I guess in BM there is a small NO for Greece, but you also need Sardinia or Sicily, and if you’ve got enough naval dominance to start picking off islands in the central Med, you should be trying to build up to capture Rome, not messing around with a diversionary nuisance campaign.


  • @Argothair:

    Historically, I suspect a large part of why Churchill pushed to invade Greece was out of (1) a sense of honor and shame about having failed to defend Greece in 1941, (2) a longstanding Greco-philia in elite British culture, and (3) an interest in drawing the post-war border with the Soviets somewhere rather southeast of Vienna. I’m not sure there were any strictly tactical justifications for a Greek invasion. Greece is mountainous, full of islands, and didn’t have any strategic raw materials or industries.

    Greece was in range of the romanian oil fields, the only oil fields available to germany in the war ( or at least a major supplier ).
    That justified invading or at least liberating part of greece, so yes it would be a pure military reason not out of honor or politics. Ofcourse they could always add these as reasons to look better 🙂

  • '17

    @Argothair:

    But this whole idea of intentionally preparing for a Greek landing, and buying multiple additional units specifically to support the landing, seems off base to me.

    you should be trying to build up to capture Rome, not messing around with a diversionary nuisance campaign.

    I think I implied agreement with this type of sentiment in my initial post in the second and third paragraphs. Especially the one titled “Requirements.”

    But also, your point about there being nothing there…limited threats as no victory city nearby, not much IPCs ect…is partially why in one game as the Axis player I ignored a landing in Greece too long. By ignoring it too long, I let the UK player turn it into a real landing that did begin to threaten money like Romania ect and cause me to divert troops down there, rather keeping my drive and hold of the Caucasus strong.


  • As pointed out UK landings in the Balkans won’t flip the income tracker very much, but could be a good diversion of axis resources. Sounds like the UK is probably doing this Greece mission on its own, so a couple things would need to happen for it to be effective (as short lived as it might be).

    1. Italian navy sunk (probably UK1), so they can’t use it to quickly respond by hitting your fleet, or transport units over to crush your landing party. Being you probably lost your UK Med fleet in the early rounds, you might consider adding a new carrier to your make shift fleet so the Luftwaffe bleeds if they hit you a second time.

    2. You should probably clear out N Africa so Italy can’t grow its income by pushing into the French territories (depends on what the US is doing, maybe you want that so USA retakes them and gets the otherwise lost French income). Also because you are transporting most of you Egyptian’s to Greece you don’t want the Italians to get any ideas. I know you can easily squash any Italian threat because they can’t get more ground units over w/o navy, but it could distract your reinforcements to Greece. On a side note often times I see the Italians use there remaining transport to get some of those N African units back to Europe where they would be more useful after a Taronto attack.

    3. Catch the axis out of position (no mobile ground units in range of Greece), which is possible IMO. You don’t want them to push you back into the sea the same turn you land. Being this could be a solo mission you will need to hold Greece to bring in reinforcements on your next turn. It would be a good Idea to get an AA gun in there too. You can bring in reinforcements from Egypt each turn if you station your fleet in sz99 (tpts move back-in forth), but then you aren’t convoying Italy so you should also probably try to get some subs into sz97 as well. If you station your fleet in sz97 for convoy, then you would need to either split up your trts and only get 1/2 the units in every turn, bring in units every other turn, or have a flow of units moving to Toburk/Syria to shuttle them across in one turn (the later would require some advanced planning).

    What is the goal once you take Greece?

    Do you want to build an IC to mobilize more ground units or was it strictly a diversionary tactic? I guess this decision might rest on how the axis respond, and it’s unlikely that they just ignore it (although they may not be able to immediately respond). So they will either redirect units already built (which is good because they were meant for Moscow), or possibly build some mobile units which would take a couple turns to get to the Balkans.

    So yes I think an allied landing in Greece can make things interesting in the right situation. Besides being a diversion of axis resources UK ftrs can fly directly from Greece to Moscow in one turn. So if it gets to hot you have a several options IMO. Stay there and force them to hit you chewing up valuable mobile axis units (and maybe some air) that even if they don’t die are now 3 turns from Moscow. Could attack axis units that are in range just to remove them from play. Could also do a defensive retreat having some units jump back on your tpts to cause havoc somewhere else (like wack a mole lol), while the others either attack killing axis ground units that are in range, or forcing them to come down to finish you off as your ftrs fly to Moscow.

    One other thing that was kinda touched on is if Greece is a safe place to transport over some ground units for 1 turn, then it would be a great place to use as a staging point to attack Turkey as part of a neutral crush. Say you only have 3 UK transports in the eastern Med, you can drop 6 units on Greece from sz99 (if axis don’t have ground units in range to kill them). Then next turn those 6 units walk into Turkey (along w/any units in Syria or Iraq), and the 3 transports are used to ferry in 6 more units from Egypt/TJ for 12+ ground units and air power to quick take out Turkey. It’s similar to having the USA stage ground units on Gibraltar, and next turn walk them into Spain as the US transports head home to pick up units to return the next turn. Doing both of these at the same time would be pretty cool.


  • I’m currently playing as the Allies in an OOB G40 game and I’m coming up on UK6. Turn one I stacked heavy in London and cleared a lot of the Med. The axis did a J1 attack and it looked like Sealion was off the table so I did a buy that I have never done which was a CV in South Africa UK2. That badboy has been holding down the Med strong, especially when you consider the med was wiped after Taranto. That carrier along witha few allied destroyers and a cruiser is just enough to hold off part of the Luftwaffe in range. So I may just have to land a few loaded transports on Greece my coming turn, considering most of the German ground forces are at the gates of Russia or preventing US landings in the West and Italy is turtled. This is the perfect time to spring a landing in Greece. Mind you I only have 3 transports loaded but the Axis are a full turn away from dealing with it. I’m going for it. If I can land planes next turn and hold it a factory might be in play. Especially with 20 US ground units in Gibralter and a small stack of UK ground and air on my Iraq factory. This is quite juicy.

    Anyone else ever buy a CV in South Africa early with UK?


  • Yep, I even suggested a carrier buy in my above post (#1). Would either be built in S Africa or Egypt (if you built an IC).


  • You sure did…good call…

  • 2020 '18 '17

    Lots of good ideas here guys.

    If the UK Tarantos, they are pretty likely to lose the first carrier they start with.  They probably should bring it to the battle, as it can soak 2 casualties but this carrier (HMS Illustrious?)  ends up being really valuable if it survives.

    If you bid a sub, you can bring 1 tac 1 sub 2 figthers 1 strat 1 DD.  This is not enough, but it doesn’t force you to bring the carrier in to die.  I call this “Taranto lite” but its not going to work if they have 3 scramblers.

    So, since you probably can’t save it all, you have 3 choices

    1. bring it all and kill Italy fleet (Taranto)
    2. bring it all but the carrier (Taranto lite)
    3. hide it all and play the long game, perhaps combining UK Pac fleet with whatever you’ve got

    If you don’t control the med after UK2, building either factory (Iraq or Egypt) on UK1 or UK2 is kind of dangerous (since Italy can invade Syria, or hit your surviving planes, or otherwise set up to grab the factory before you can protect it).  As others have pointed out, you already have 2 other factories to use; you don’t abs. have to have that production its just right up in the Axis’ face.

    In that spirit, I’d say that the greek invasion is something that shouldn’t happen early in the game, or in a way that you risk any TTs that you have.  Even UK is doing awesome, it will need a grand fleet or more to defend against a massive airstrike, and you can’t risk losing it before then.  All continental invasions are easy for the Axis to rebuke, so you need to make this crucial sacrifice of ground units at a time when Germany cant respond or it takes away crucial power from the eastern thrust.

    As we’ve discussed at length, UK isn’t calling the dance and so they cant do any factories or expensive builds if Germany is going to invade.  If they aren’t going to invade, its open season on your buys but you don’t have the $$ to power more than 1 focus at a time.

    Some suggestions

    buy TT for SA, along with an arty.  Have the TT that is in the red sea shuttle back and forth every turn, naval base to naval base, this is almost as good as an Egypt factory and you do both, UK owns the levant.  Forget sea power;  just use land to take and hold the oil.

    buy subs 1 per turn in SA.  don’t do Taranto (or do Taranto lite).  Get these guys together in the red sea, hold open the canal, and contest the med with planes, ward Italy off.  If they don’t play or cant, use these to crush Italy’s income, after you eliminate all their DDs.

    Especially in G42, build the Persia factory and use that to save India.  With a combination of Allied planes, a delayed Japanese threat (J2 or later), and every guy and mech and tank you can bring, you can make india hard to take.  During a G40 J1, probably this wont work as well as it takes longer to seize Persia and get that started. (UK3 first units built)

  • '18 '17 '16

    When I enter the Med with my UK fleet I prefer to go straight for Rome. I will wait until I have enough transports (4) and enough ground units (16) to hit Rome twice on back to back turns. The second wave of ground units will be waiting in Libya so I don’t have to move to get them and give the Italians a chance to recover. At the same time the Americans will also hit either Rome or Northern Italy in the same sea zone (95) thus giving me 2 fleets in the same sea zone to protect against the axis planes. The US fleet is a massive one with at least 2 loaded carriers and 2 battleships along with Cruisers and Destroyers plus at least 4 transports shucking troops turn after turn from Eastern US. It’s an indefensible move as long as the axis has given you enough time to set it all up.

    After Italy has fallen then a third wave of UK ground units will hit Greece. At this point the only question is does Japan have the wherewithal to take 6 victory cities?

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 7
  • 29
  • 3
  • 11
  • 3
  • 2
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

67
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts