Germany, a plan for victory in Europe

When you play excellent UK players and they regularly land 10-15 fighters in Moscow on UK 5 or Bryansk UK4…meaning Moscow won’t be falling for a very long time, you might start re-thinking Sea Lion and or finding a way to capture Egypt. I’ve tried to ignore Moscow in those situations and send fast movers towards the Middle East, but for me at least, that creates other potential problems like letting the massive Russian bear out of the cage.

I like playing Axis Europe board side (let a partner play Japan) and I’ve noticed that UK players are getting very aggressive nowadays because German players won’t do Sea Lion.

Everyone has an opinion on how to play Germany…so not really going there much (I like all slow ground G1 (6 artillery / 2 infantry heading straight for Moscow), or 1 bomber, 1 sub and 3 artillery heading for Leningrad)…To me, a G1 purchase of slow ground is great for Sea Lion or Barbarrossa. My best Sea Lion’s were when I did an all ground purchase. You need ground for invasion and holding back Russia.

Just saying to not discount Sea Lion. If you can creditably pull it off, then your Allies opponents (or UK opponent) will play more responsibly. It’s hard to pull it off and the reward might not be very good in the long run. However, deep down inside, an allies player should probably admit that they don’t like the “advantage” of a major player not collecting income for several turns.

@Schroeder:

Well, they should start out turn one buy buying ten infantry,

I think 6 artillery / 2 infantry, or 7 artillery (save 2$) is a better purchase G1 if getting Moscow is your objective. Mech and other infantry need to be paired up to @2 in order to negate the dice of Russian defending @2 units.

G1 6 art/2inf, G2 Mech/Armor, G3 Mech/Armor, G4 4-5x. tac. bombers, G5 strat. bombers (if you have Leningrad, then tac. bombers there to save 3$), G6 roll the dice. All ground units march towards Bryansk south of prippet marshes (all air get’s into position on G5).

That purchase order with a Barbarrossa launch on Turn 3 has been one of the ways I was lucky enough to get Moscow on Turn 6. I ignored Leningrad and Ukraine which meant cutting off some Russian units. If getting those facilities with a walk-on that won’t be recaptured, it’s also a + if you can build units on them which are available for attacking on turn 6.

Buying something like 10 Infantry turn one does two things. First, it doesn’t fake/threaten SeaLion what so ever. If you want to use every single IPC into Barbarossa that is fine, Russia will fall. But if you aren’t going to “fake” SeaLion then you at least need to threaten it. Typically for me, if I don’t want to put boats in the Atlantic as Germany then I purchase nothing G1. With taking Normandy along with France, Bulgaria and Finland on non combat, if you want to strafe Yugo or not it’s your choice, you end up with 98-100 IPCs for G2. UK needs to respect the fact that a CV, DD and 10 TTs can drop in the Baltic turn 2 and invade London turn 3 if UK wants to get fancy and purchase elsewhere besides its capital turn 1. If UK does the typical prevent SeaLion buy UK1 then you have all those IPCs to use to pound Russia on your G2 purchase. Secondly, buying 10 Infantry is just buying fodder/defensive units on G1. Germany is the aggressor on the Eastern Front not the defender. If you want to go all ground units then buy what Ichabod suggested and put some Artillary down in Germany. They will pair nicely with those 11/14 Infantry in Germany and Poland. Inf attack alone and hit with a dice roll of 1. And I feel in Global turn 1 for Germany is far to early to think about defending against landings. Which brings me back to my first point, carrier/cruiser/destroyer/sub fleet even coupled with your Battleship if it survived into G2 can be a nice little threat when coupled with your airforce to keep USA at bay until they buy enough muscle ships to go with their transports. It will also keep UK from trying to put boats back into the water before USA arrives.

As far as the Italian can opener question. Italy usually gets crushed before they even get their first turn. Taranto raid happens and they lose half their navy. They will lose their entire airforce if they choose to scramble. So don’t scramble, those fighters will be used against Russia along with your bomber. Before Italy gets their second turn, the med will typically be cleared of all Italian boats with the U.K. Ready to move back into the Med with their ships. Without German help in the Med, Italy will be hard pressed. So use Italy to help Germany with Russia. Turn 1 buy a Tank and Mech. Germany will also need tanks and mechs for this to work along with a strong airforce(bombers are my preferred unit here). And keep buying these fast moving units to get to the Russian front as quickly as possible. If Italy can capture Ukraine and hold it with German help then maybe you can buy slower moving units there. Basically after one or two good counter strikes from Russia on Germany they are going to start losing the war of attrition so they start falling back to Moscow, leaving blockers up in territories they just retreated from preventing Germany from tank and mech blitzing. If you have Italy along with front with Germany then when Russia falls back one step closer to Moscow, leaving a pesky blocker up to delay The German Panzers, Italy goes after Russia and before Germany goes again so they attack the blocker and capture that territory allowing Germany to blitz through that territory into the next and get to Moscow quicker.

Lastly, I will tell you what I believe is the Most important German unit. A good healthy stack of German Strategic Bombers does wonders for Germany in many aspects of their game. They can bomb Russian factories into submission, bomb London if SeaLion is the way to go. Help with the march towards Russia or with a strong enough stack even be used for a late game SeaLion with very few transports. And most importantly, the larger the German bomber stack the longer USA needs to stay away and keep buying carriers and planes to defend their landing fleet against your airforce. Incredible range, incredible attack power and wit an added defensive threat against smaller sized Allied landing fleets. No I am not talking “Dark Skies” but I’m a firm believer that 1 to 2 bombers should be purchased every German turn for a good while.

I agree with the kill-USSR-first. As an Allied player, I don’t care that much if London falls but I will be reevaluating the chance of surrender/succes of the game if Moscow falls.

If you buy a moderate fleet (carrier, destroyer, transport) for a Seelöwe-feint, you will make England purchase crap he won’t need for a long time in London. The main benefit (for me) is that you now have transports + the everpresent Luftwaffe + Finnish infantry that can threaten Leningrad. I usually see the Russian player retreat from Leningrad if he thinks he cannot hold it, which means you’re creating a self-fulfilling profecy where you can take Leningrad at minimal costs. Even if you and USSR keep taking and retaking Leningrad, you will keep getting that sweet NO money and prevent builds in the north. Meanwhile, the main force can take the path towards Moscow of your choosing.

Hi all. Relatively new poster here. I have been playing Axis and allies for around 10 years now. Strictly on board only, with the rare occasion of online play against my fellow friends. The vast majority of our games I have play as axis and have been playing 1940 since it’s release.

I am a firm believer that an axis strategy built around the sole purpose of focusing on one major allied nation is flawed. While the USSR should always see 90% of your income, forcing your enemy to do things that they don’t want to do is an immensely great idea. That is why the sea-lion fake is so widely known as the META(Most effective tactic available)for German openers. Even if the UK player knows without a doubt that Germany is going into Moscow, they are still forced into building defensively for at least 2 turns. If Germany isn’t threatening invasion, then the UK is free to spend it’s income where it wants. Usually ICs in the middle east, sending mechs/air to Moscow and India, and keeping Egypt in allied hands. The US wouldn’t have to worry about supporting the UK, they could focus all their income on getting troops into the fight. Ideally you would want Italy wasting almost all of it’s time and income on harassing the UK over Egypt, while also using a small force of units to defend stacks and open opportunities for Germany. For Japan you want to go HAM on anything and everything you can reach. I usually keep all my air units in the kwangsi area. Placing an air field there allows them to hit all of your priority coasts which is helpful in case Anzac or the US decide to try and take the money islands from you, and also allows you to drop Calcutta without having to land on Burma. For Germany I am either buying ships or bombers. Bombers are more flexible, but ships are great for eventually getting into the MED to support Italy.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Ichabod:

When you play excellent UK players and they regularly land 10-15 fighters in Moscow on UK 5 or Bryansk UK4…meaning Moscow won’t be falling for a very long time, you might start re-thinking Sea Lion and or finding a way to capture Egypt. I’ve tried to ignore Moscow in those situations and send fast movers towards the Middle East, but for me at least, that creates other potential problems like letting the massive Russian bear out of the cage.

I like playing Axis Europe board side (let a partner play Japan) and I’ve noticed that UK players are getting very aggressive nowadays because German players won’t do Sea Lion.

Everyone has an opinion on how to play Germany…so not really going there much (I like all slow ground G1 (6 artillery / 2 infantry heading straight for Moscow), or 1 bomber, 1 sub and 3 artillery heading for Leningrad)…To me, a G1 purchase of slow ground is great for Sea Lion or Barbarrossa. My best Sea Lion’s were when I did an all ground purchase. You need ground for invasion and holding back Russia.

Just saying to not discount Sea Lion. If you can creditably pull it off, then your Allies opponents (or UK opponent) will play more responsibly. It’s hard to pull it off and the reward might not be very good in the long run. However, deep down inside, an allies player should probably admit that they don’t like the “advantage” of a major player not collecting income for several turns.

You can only start landing planes turn 3.
UK starts with 4 planes in europe a plane takes 2 rounds so round 4 you need to have 15 planes to be able to land them round 5.
you can build 12 planes with your total income in 4 rounds if you dont buy anything else. So landing 15 planes in moscow is a bit of an overstatement.
10 would be pushing it if you dont lose any planes so no scramble and no taranto.
And planes from UK-proper will have a hard time actualy getting to their destination as they have to go throught scotland.

Shawdowhawk, I’ve played some really good players online who have beaten me because they were able to get 10-15 fighters in Moscow on Turn 5. It’s not an overstatement. But to re-evaluate my statement, I’ll say “allied” countries, not just the UK. ANZAC can often get 3 fighters there. 1 French fighter + 7-10 UK fighters. It happens enough to irritate me. Even if only 5 UK fighters make it, plus 3 ANZAC, 1 French, 3 Russian (as purchasing 1 fighter happens regularly), that’s still 12 fighters.

I think the common problem with this “Tan Skies” idea is the UK is able to do this and stop Germany at the gates of Moscow. Players say the risk/reward ratio to go for SeaLion doesn’t justify doing so and Russia should be the primary focus. I ask what reward is there in being stopped before gaining the Russian capital by a stack of UK fighters and having the USA landing troops on your western borders at the same time? Italy is defeated, Germany is now having to split its income in defending the west while still putting money into the East. Seems like 8 VCs won’t be achieved like this. At least in my opinion.

If there is no UK Europe income then Italy is doing well and there are no stacks of Fighters flying to defend Moscow. Sure Russia can get a good shot at Germany for a turn or so, but Germany does get 28-34 IPCs from UK to use next turn to build accordingly. The USA might come to liberate London which is fine. I’d rather the United States player being focused on liberating an ally rather then deciding what landing point is going to mess up my German strategy the most. At least for a turn or two. Keeping in mind that if the USA is going hard Atlantic to try and liberate UK and get onto the continent of Europe, then what is Japan facing as opposition in the Pacific, needing only two VCs at this point to win the game?

I usually assume that good Allies players will have a big stack of fighters in Moscow before Germany can launch an effective attack.  For that type of adversary, I plan on a more economic-based strategy.  Fast movers head down to the oil fields while a couple other fast movers head into Siberia.  I usually can’t make it all the way to Egypt, but Germany will be doing very well if it can get an income of 80-90 PUs per round.  In a balanced mod game, however, this plan often fails because the United States can be earning obscene amounts of production.

I find that a big stack of planes is very useful in this strategy because it can be used to threaten Allied fleets, counterattack invasions into Western Europe, and project power into Russia/Middle East.  One key of this plan is not losing Scandinavia.  Whenever possible I add another couple infantry via transport into Finland.

“I am a believer that Sea Lion should not be attempted by Germany, and that instead they should use all their resources to go after Russia”

This sounds like a great plan, so you just have to decide whether you want to attack on G1 or G2 (or I1).  G1 stretches you thinner and there is a ton to accomplish if you are hitting USSR and UK at the same time so G2 also sounds like a good idea.

I personally prefer to get the faster units rather than building infantry or artillery.  However, you can buy and carry more of that stuff on transports.  Buy just 1 transport and UK has to take notice.  Leave most or all of your planes on West Germany or Paris and they have to be careful.

Germany can buy a navy and do a ton of great stuff with that but its expensive and its going to slow your spearhead down.

If Italy keeps its navy bc your opponent is a noob, take Syria and then take the oil $$ from there.

Whether that happens or not,

Both Germany and Italy can just buy mechs and armor and come through with a sweet spearhead that kills Russia quickly.

Infantry are ok but you can reserve them for where you have frontline factories.  As long as you protect Denmark, the rest of the coastal stuff is pretty easy just to retake rather than hold.

Russia gets stratbombed over and over again.  Japan comes in, taking all of Russia’s territory, every game, starting turn 1.

When all this happens, the Axis advantage becomes huge and they are making 70-80 each, should be game over most of the time with no bid.

@Ichabod:

@ShadowHAwk:

You can only start landing planes turn 3.
UK starts with 4 planes in europe a plane takes 2 rounds so round 4 you need to have 15 planes to be able to land them round 5.
you can build 12 planes with your total income in 4 rounds if you dont buy anything else. So landing 15 planes in moscow is a bit of an overstatement.
10 would be pushing it if you dont lose any planes so no scramble and no taranto.
And planes from UK-proper will have a hard time actualy getting to their destination as they have to go throught scotland.

Shawdowhawk, I’ve played some really good players online who have beaten me because they were able to get 10-15 fighters in Moscow on Turn 5. It’s not an overstatement. But to re-evaluate my statement, I’ll say “allied” countries, not just the UK. ANZAC can often get 3 fighters there. 1 French fighter + 7-10 UK fighters. It happens enough to irritate me. Even if only 5 UK fighters make it, plus 3 ANZAC, 1 French, 3 Russian (as purchasing 1 fighter happens regularly), that’s still 12 fighters.

You can only get planes from London to Moscow in two turns if Finland or Norway are in Allied hands ; or there is a CV to stage onto.

Flying around via the Med is a 5 turn afair unless there’s an airbase on TransJordan which makes it possible in 4.

Getting 10+ planes on Moscow by the end of turn 5 seems possible but requires sacrificing many other objectives.

I’ve become a big fan of a single bomber buy G1.  Along with the two you already have, if you decide to go SL you can get a solid strategic bombing of London in on G2, and if you don’t go SL, it’s still useful to have unlike (in my opinion) a CV in the baltic.

I also am a big fan of a bomber build on G1.  I often do a sub and two bombers.  The sub can come in handy cleaning up remaining UK fleet and the two bombers are invaluable.  You can completely bomb London’s factory back to the stone age on G2 if you are bent on doing a Sea Lion, or help attack Greece/Med ships/Atlantic ships.  You really don’t want UK to be building a factory in Egypt on UK1.

I normally like a DD G1 but the sub is interesting. Still gives a hit and saves 2IPC. The 4th bomber has a good chance of maxing out the damage on the UK factory so I’m not convinced of it.

But if one bomber is shot down can be the difference between putting the factory out of commission or not.

Hmm.

I like to bomb factories when it’s feasible and sometimes that’s one of the tools required for me to get Moscow (in the few games I’ve won, which isn’t many. I lose more than I win…probably 2:1).

However, I’m kind of risk adverse to bombing.

When possible, I prefer to bomb with just 1-2 bombers by Italy, then 1 or 2 bombers with Germany. Its still 3-4 dice thrown at the bombers, but it seems to me that I have less bombers shot down this way. When playing a table top, if I throw a handful a dice the “odds” are still technically the same as if I threw them one at a time. Maybe it’s superstition, but the results seems to come out with more 1s that way.

I’d rather not max out the factory in Moscow if I concurrently lost a bomber than get minimal damage and not lose a bomber. I don’t like losing a 12 IPC plane that I also need to keep rolling @4 round after round during the big battle. I’m kind of for a happy medium on bombings I guess. I will at times bring 3 bombers…but a lot of conditions have to be met before I start doing something like that.

Ichabod: You have to do Axis and Allies more statistically.

Sending a bomber: 
5/6ths of the time reducing the defense by 2-4 power
1/6th of the time reducing your attack next round by 4 power.

Even reducing the opponents defense by a single infantry far outweighs the potential 1/6th chance of losing the bomber.  Having said that, the London factories usually shoot down 3 out of 4 of my bombers and I am left scratching my head why my excellently planned Sea Lion is going down in failure.

You can also style the SBR as a contrast to attacking the same TUV in regular battle.  There are many times when UK planes (or another power) end up attacking by themselves in order to kill a few crucial but cheap land units or soften up a crucial weak point with a 1-2 punch.    If I lost 1-2 bombers killing 1-3 blocking infantry, I’d regard it as a good tactical trade even if I lost 24 to 9 TUV.

There is no ## to ## comparison here–if the UK planes open the way to victory, then a sacrifice even of the entire airforce is “worth it” no matter what the numerical or economic trade offs are.

When you bomb out a power, (especially USSR with its limited $$ and scope of units), you are “killing” units before they ever exist, which leaves your opponent weaker on the counter attack and he is not refilling Moscow each turn instead he is paying off damage.  This leads to a lack of crucial counterattack units against the japanese backdoor at a critical time.  Russia is weakening itself with every re-take that it has to make, and the fact that units are being lost that would have been placed in the crucial backfield at the crucial time (R3-6) is a devastating combo.

When you add these things to the fact that Germany is producing 2:1 IPCs than Russia, it should make clear that even if Germany loses more $$ value of bombers, or that it seems like a lopsided $:$ trade (it is) …that is a very Germany+ trade for most of the game, and especially against Russia.

The dynamic against Germany is reversed;  Germany has 26 production capacity and can even capture more.  It has a $$ advantage early on, and has a 2:1 $ advantage against UK or USSR alone (and it has x2 as many bombers as the allies most of the time).  Most importantly, the number of choices and targets mean that Germany should be able to produce pretty much unabated no matter how many bombers come or how many it shoots down.  It also has many more fighters to stop those bombers.  That means that bombers lost bombing Germany are lost at an overall disadvantage that is the opposite of the Germany-Russia+ trade.

There is an allied bomber breakpoint where this is no longer true (its about 7-8 bombers+) where the allies can saturate every SB target but typically they will then use the bomber stream to kill units not hit factories because once you get enough bombers, they can destroy a fair sized stack without much help…

the only way to alter these dynamics is to pile on those fighters.  You already need them for defense, and unless German fighters can come (less likely than bombers being able to reach) once you have 3-4 fighters on a factory, they have to really think about coming in alone.  London and Moscow and Tokyo can reach ## of fighters that can dissuade SBR without much alteration in how they typically buy.

Well stated, Taamvan.  I would add that the Axis is focusing their spending on defeating a couple key opponents.  If you do a standard game, Germany is willing to trade straight up against Russia.  In fact, even trading 1.2 German units to kill 1 Russian unit could be worthwhile if you think you have a shot at pushing all the way to Moscow.  The Russians ground units defend at 2 while your German cannon fodder have attack power of 1 so you are still gaining ground at that exchange rate.

If you are doing a Sea Lion, you should be willing to give up some TUV in exchanges if it increases your chance of winning without a massive catastrophe to your air force.  Capturing London but losing most of your planes is going to be a failed game against a good opponent.  I certainly am willing to risk losing a bomber over London on G2, but I am very scared to lose 5-10 planes on the G3 invasion round.

@Arthur:

I also am a big fan of a bomber build on G1.� � I often do a sub and two bombers.� � The sub can come in handy cleaning up remaining UK fleet and the two bombers are invaluable.� � You can completely bomb London’s factory back to the stone age on G2 if you are bent on doing a Sea Lion, or help attack Greece/Med ships/Atlantic ships.� � You really don’t want UK to be building a factory in Egypt on UK1.� �

Arthur Bomber Harris,

My current favored G1 purchase is 1 bomber, 2 infantry, 3 artillery (followed by a G2 Sea Lion or Barbarossa purchase). I didn’t use to buy any bombers G1, but I learned from your demonstration it’s a good idea to start building a nice bomber stack right away (and I don’t mean “dark skies” style, which I didn’t think you did to me).

I recently won a Global 40 game in triplea on the Europe Axis size where I did do a Sea Lion. For some reason (not intended), I was able to set Germany up to play the long haul. I played this game soon after you had beaten me with a provided 30 PUs! Embarrassing that one…LOL! I think I’m better at playing the allies now. Anyways, for the conversation of how to win with the Europe Axis, my G1 purchase was 2 bombers and 2 infantry (2 bombers inspired by you beating me). The guy handed London to me on a silver platter (8 tanks survived, no planes shot down by AAA). I couldn’t resist taking it. London was eventually liberated by the US of course…but Moscow was still taken somewhere near round 13 due to a strong bombing campaign. After getting Moscow and killing the stack that evacuated, the allies team (multi-game) conceded. Japan did really well, but wasn’t able to get and hold all of the Victory Cities required to win on that side.