@Luftwaffles41 I’m going to reply to you point-by-point on this, at least on the points that I want to address your concerns on (because as you said, we could go on about some of this stuff indefinitely):
@Luftwaffles41 said in Protecting Africa?:
I see where you’re coming from but don’t misunderstand me. Ukraine is literally one of the only territories that stands in between one of the major Russian factories and core German territory. East Poland is likely the one territory you’re guaranteed to keep if you’re reinforcing the Eastern Front properly. And as for the Baltic states well that’s going to be you’re gateway into Leningrad. Think about this. You counted it up, and said it yourself. 14 of Germany’s IPC gains are coming just from the Soviet Union. 16 if you count Karelia SSR. Only 5 is coming from your own originally controlled territories which is enough for a meager 1 tank over the Soviets. It doesn’t matter how much money the Germans inevitably get if they don’t play the Eastern Front properly the Soviets will continue to hold on. And the moment you least expect it they are pushing you back all the way to Easter Poland, but that’s besides and irrelevant to the point here.
The points about USSR being able to retake Ukraine/Baltic States are sound, but Germany gains the NOs from holding the territories at the end of their turn, not from holding them through the Soviet Turn. Perhaps a House Rule to force NO calculation to be the first phase of a turn (before purchasing units) rather than the last would help here, which is something I haven’t thought of before. It certainly gives all players in a game an incentive to be more aggressive.
As for Italy, they are pretty much a burden to the German Reich in this game. Because all Germany can really afford to let them have is the Middle East which only contains 2 ipcs unless Germany is stupid enough to let them take all of Africa for themselves. I hardly doubt a smart Italian player would send their entire military to the Eastern Front with an American presence in northern Africa as early as turn 1 as well as the likely American fleet that will be present. Rest assured my friend Italy won’t be focusing on their fleet at this point in the game when Egypt is under siege. And since their militarizes are from different nations all you can really afford to to is help the Germans defend their occupied Russian territory which the Soviet Union likely won’t attack anyway.
As I said, you have about 3-4 turns of reinforcing the Eastern Front with Italy before you have to commit to stacking. I’m basing this off of Germany sinking most of the UK Fleet G1 + accounting for the large size of the Italian Navy compared to the American Navy in the 41 Scenario (1 BB/2 CR Vs. 1 DD). USA/UK can land troops in Morocco on turn 1 but they’d just get their ships blown up by German Air Power G2 and the territory retaken by Italy I2, all for 1 IPC gain and no interruption to Italy’s NOs (although forcing Italy to turn around and recapture Morocco would slow down their momentum in Africa a bit).
Side-Note: Egypt will fall I1 if you play the Axis correctly and don’t get diced, there’s not much of a “siege” to be had.
Another thing that’s gone completely ignored is the Atlantic Ocean. What has Germany attacked there?
Personally, I go for:
- SUB+DD from SZ 5 -> SZ6 (1 DD): 93% chance to win
- 1 SUB (SZ7) + 1 FTR (Norway) + 1 BOMB (Germany) -> SZ2 (1 BB): 95% chance to win
- 1 SUB (SZ7) + 1 FTR (NW Europe) + 1 FTR (Germany) -> SZ12 (1 DD + 1 CR): 86% chance to win
This basically completely wipes out the UK Fleet.
What have they not?
After these attacks, UK/US will have the following left in the Atlantic:
- SZ10: 1 DD/1 TT (USA)
- SZ9: 1 DD/1 TT (UK)
Conveniently, this is out of range of Norway, which is where the German Bomber will be landing. INF will be kept behind in Norway to prevent an attempt at a strafe by the UK. UK’s opener will be spent on a new fleet (which is useful for Japan, since they probably won’t have the bandwidth to build an India IC unless they want to delay any landings in Europe until like B4), while US will (probably) want to spend A1 bulking up their presence in the Atlantic before hitting Morocco A2.
Did their navy survive, did it all die?
Estimated loss for Germany is losing all three Subs. UK will probably kill the Cruiser + the Baltic (SZ5) Transport on B1 by using their air force. It’s pointless for Germany to try to build navy in this scenario anyway, since all of their NOs revolve around taking Russian land.
Because what the British fleet has left in the Atlantic will likely single handedly dictate where the majority of the German money is spent.
Most if not all of Germany’s IPCs can go straight at USSR until about G3/G4, depending on how much UK/US devoted themselves to a 100% KGF strategy.
My point is that even if Germany is being this conservative with their IPC’s the latter will inevitably catch up to them. And frankly I think we can both agree on the fact that Germany does not have a big enough navy or airforce to kill the entirety of the British fleet meaning the British will indefinitely have something to build off of instead of building it from scratch.
Not really. 1 DD isn’t a whole lot to build off of, even with 43 IPC.
And I could you not with the 43 ipcs they start with really won’t make it difficult to slap a battleship and aircraft carrier in the atlantic and plop 2 fighters on it and support it with maybe a couple destroyers and a cruiser and snap crackle pop the U.K has a navy more powerful then what the Germans could ever build and they won’t be destroying this navy any time soon either. In other words this navy will have unlimited possibilities to seize control of the Med and kill the Italian fleet early on
Your estimate is slightly off (best I could manage to build with 43 IPCs was 1 AC/2 DD/1 SUB/1 TT. I guess you could build 1 AC/1 BB/1 TT too but that’s not as cost-effective), but your point is mostly solid. If UK goes 100% KGF Germany has no way of sinking the UK fleet a second time. However, if you actually intend to use this new UK fleet to hunt down the Italian Navy it will take you at least 3 turn (1 turn to build the navy, 1 turn to move it into SZ13, and 1 turn to kill the now-cornered Italian Navy (unless they did something stupid and fled to the Pacific, either way the Italian Navy is out-of-the-game at this point). That’s still 3 rounds of German/Italian troops punching the Soviets more-or-less uninterrupted.
That being said, I was probably too generous to Germany when calculating the gap between their income and the USSR’s. I forgot to account for the extremely likely scenario where UK lands in Norway B2 (after building a new fleet B1) and takes Finland B3. Doesn’t change a ton due to no NOs in that area of the board, but it’s still 3-5 less IPCs/turn the Germans will be getting.
or advance into the Baltic Sea for a liberation of Karelia (if taken) and Norway and Finland. Speaking of which that’s 2 of the 3 territories needed for that Soviet 10 ipcs national objective.
I mentioned the Norway/Finland thing in my last post. It’s irrelevant overall because the Soviets aren’t getting that 3rd territory (Poland/Bulgaria/Czechoslovakia/Balkans) unless the game is basically won for the Allies already. Additionally, I don’t think UK is grabbing Karelia B2 unless they have extremely good luck or the Germans have extremely bad luck. Too many German land units are going to be in Karelia G2 for 2 TTs-worth of land units to have any chance taking it.
And what the Germans won’t be doing is they won’t be bomb rushing it all the way for Moscow if they are smart. If they try and attempt to do that then that leaves the Soviets to attack from all sides and destroy the one army the Germans had as influence to pressure the Soviet Union. And frankly as long as there are no allied units in Soviet territory that’s fine because the longer the Soviets get that national objective the better.
It’s not really a “bomb rush”, exactly. More of a slow burn and acquirement of economic superiority. The typical game of AA50-41 (Eastern Front only) goes something like:
- G1: Take East Poland/Baltic States (main stack)/Ukraine
- R1: Counterattack Ukraine + stack East Ukraine or Belorussia
- G2: Counterattack Ukraine + take Karelia
- R2: Counterattack Ukraine
- G3: Counterattack Ukraine + take Archangel/Belorussia or East Ukraine (wherever Soviets aren’t stacking)
- R3: Counterattack Ukraine/Archangel/Belorussia or East Ukraine
- G4: Attack East Ukraine (main stack) with everything.
- R4: Stack Moscow
- G5: Attack Caucasus (main stack) with everything.
- R5: Stack Moscow
At this point, a stalemate ensues while Germany uses most of its IPCs to fend off the UK/US and holding its NOs/defending Italy while slowing building up Caucasus until they can take Moscow reliably. If the USSR tries a large-scale attack against the main Germany stack at any point during this sequence to break out of it, unless they have good dice rolls, the two stacks will destroy each other and Germany will roll over what’s left of the Soviets with their better economy. If the USSR tries to sneak around the German stack and head for the Balkans Germany can just walk their main stack into Belorussia and take Moscow (as the main Soviet stack will be out-of-position to make it back to Moscow in time to help).
Side-Note: The reason I say that it’s poor play for the US/UK to not be allowed to enter Soviet Territory for the the Soviet NO #1 to trigger is that it actively discourages perfectly sound moves (which could potentially break the above 5-turn-cycle) like:
- Having UK/US land in Karelia with a large force.
- Having the UK/US send FTRs to the Russian stack in Belorussia/East Ukraine/Moscow/wherever via the UK Aircraft Carrier(s) in SZ6
- Sending a UK stack from India to defend Caucasus to cover the Soviet’s southern flank against a potential German/Japanese/Italian attack in the mid-game.
playing with National objectives can be a bit much for the allies, but playing without it just makes the game a little too straight forward of by some infantry put them on the board, buy some more infantry and put them on the board.
I disagree. NOs force you to play the game a specific way (Germany must invade the Soviets, USSR must refuse any and all help from the Western Allies, Japan must pursue a mixed Pacific Islands/India Crush strategy, UK must attempt to fight Japan (“control an originally-Japanese territory”) and take France, Italy must focus on the Mediterranean and USA must play for both the minor Pacific Islands and take France). You can pursue other gameplay options (and there are several of them, for each country), but as long as you’re playing with NOs turned on those other options will always be sub-optimal.
I guess another way of looking at the situation would be to add more NOs to encourage alternative play styles for each country, but that’d just open entirely new cans on worms with regards to both game balance and “how many NOs is too many NOs?”
EDIT: Fixed bad formatting.