@Hobbes:

It is impossible for the UK fighters to reach Moscow by turn 4 since the fighters can’t reach any of Russia’s territories while on the UK. They can reach only Caucasus through Gibraltar and Egypt on UK4. Unless the UK gives up the Taranto attack and send the fighter from Egypt and the tac from the carrier.

Actually, if UK builds an airbase in Scotland on turn 1, then they can send all of their airforce to Russia by turn 4, even the one in Alexandria.  Alternatively, they can send all planes to the Med/Gibraltar on turn 1, land on Egypt or Trans-Jordan on turn 2 (perhaps after taking some casualties from destroying the Italian navy, then move to East Persia on turn 3, then Russia on turn 4.  I’m not saying either of these options is a good idea; just saying that it’s possible.

@Hobbes:

@calvinhobbesliker:

If GERMANY is spending most of its income on 10 tanks, what is delaying the Anglo-American landings?

It’s actually all of its income since 10 tanks cost 60 IPCs. Ideally that would be 10 tanks on G2 plus 10 more on G3 (if possible, depends on money saved from the G2 buy). All of those can reach Moscow on G5. The G4 buy really depends on what the UK has been up to and the US won’t be able to attack until US4.

Can Germany still take Russia on turn 5 if the entire UK airforce lands on it on turn 4?

@Pelanderfunk:

The Soviets get a 5 IPC bonus for being at war. In all of the global games I’ve played so far, the Soviet player has simply “declared war” on Japan on R1, regardless of whether or not they had plans to attack.

Is there any reason that the Soviets wouldn’t declare war on Japan as soon as they can? Is there any reason that being “at war” is a requirement of this NO if the Soviets can always be at war?

This has been addressed in the FAQ thread.  The Soviets have to be at war with either Germany or Italy in order to receive the 5 IPC bonus.  Of course, it would have been nice for the rulebook to say this directly.

@Bodeacious:

I would just capture Gibraltar I1 and then the UK could not touch me.

My strategy prevents Italy from taking Gibraltar since the entire UK navy is in the Med next to Gibraltar.

It’s been well established in other threads that Germany would have to be extremely lucky to take UK on G2.  Assuming that Germany loses one or two planes on G1 while taking out the UK navy and builds an aircraft carrier and two transports, I think it is best for UK to preserve the remainder of its fleet and keep Italy from expanding… even if it means allowing UK to fall. 
On UK 1, build all infantry to force Germany to build mostly transports on Germany 2 (if they intend on pursuing a Sealion strategy) and then move all of the fleet that you can to SZ 92 (next to Gibraltar).  Yes, I know that not blocking the sea zones around UK will allow Germany to get two bombardments, but that is only in the first round and it will still take luck for Germany to take UK on G2.

Moving all your fleet in the Med creates a real dilemma for Italy.  Their planes can’t reach your fleet and therefore they will lose most of the time if they send their entire navy against yours due to the slightly lower attack value versus your defense value (they would also have only 5 hits versus your 6 or 7, depending on how many of your destroyers survived).  If they attack the French fleet with their navy then you can destroy their navy on UK 2.  If they try to block you with a destroyer or cruiser then the French navy has a good chance of taking that out, allowing the UK navy to finish off the Italian navy on UK 2.  They could try to block you with a destroyer AND try to take out the French navy with their planes, but then they risk losing planes and might still not destroy the French navy.  Italy can’t leave their transports unprotected because UK’s planes can reach anywhere in the Med, unless Italy takes Crete… but wouldn’t Italy rather be putting those units in Africa to put more pressure on Egypt?

Then on UK 2, since UK is going to fall anyway due to all those German transports and tanks, abandon UK by moving all your fighters to Gibraltar.  Also, either build destroyers off of Canada or a transport and two bombers in South  Africa, depending on where you think you need it the most.  Your cruiser off of Brazil will join up with the Med fleet on turn 2 and your destroyer is ready to enter through the Suez canal, so on UK 3 the Italian navy is dead, Italy will never get any of its national objectives, and the surviving UK surface fleet will start convoy raiding German and Italian IPCs in the Med.

The USA can bring in just enough subs by the end of turn 5 to make sure that every convoy territory is disrupted by Italy’s turn 6, putting Italy’s income down almost to zero (perhaps 1 economy for Bulgaria).

Now obviously the Soviets will be having a hard time against Germany since Germany will need less infantry and tanks to take out UK and may use some of those loaded transports to attack the Soviets.  But without that Cairo victory city, Germany has to take out all three of the Soviet victory cities while keeping the ones the Axis already have.

I don’t think the Germans can take out UK AND Novgorad on turn 3; most likely it will be turn 4 when Novgorad falls.  After that, Russia is three turns away;  but surely a competent Soviet player would not lose both of its remaining victory cities on turn 7.  I don’t know the absolute earliest it could be taken against competent Allied players but it seems like turn 10 at the absolute minimum (and I think I’m being generous).  This would require Germany sending almost everything it can spare against the Soviets WHILE trying to defend UK, France, and Southern Italy.  I don’t see how any competent USA player can’t take back and hold at least ONE of those territories by the time that last Soviet victory city is taken, especially with Italy earning almost zero starting on turn 6.

Of course, I understand that Germany can help out Italy by building more navy and/or fighters to help clear the Med of UK naval units, but then that only helps keep the Soviets in play for longer, giving the USA more time to liberate a victory city.

@larrymarx:

Well, I just finished a game where I employed my submarine strategy and it failed miserably. I violated my own rule of not using it if America puts 100% into the Atlantic from turn 1. I arrogantly believed I could hold them off because they began producing straight ground units and transports to follow up their initial fleet. My problem was that he flew four bombers against my surface navy, crushing it and eliminating any chance of blocking him with my destroyers. It swung the naval standoff in his favor. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe continued to dwindle. He was able to make a landing with 22 land units in France after liberating the UK. I might have been able to salvage the naval war, but then I wouldn’t have been doing anything against his invading force. I ended up hurling 19 submarines and a bomber against the US navy in a last ditch effort. I rolled down, and the game was over.

However, I realized something. If the Italians had had an air force, or if the Japanese had flown a bunch of planes to Europe, I could have salvaged the game. Because my subs could only damage naval units, he ended up damaging all five of his carriers and landing his planes in France. His navy was reduced to only about 20 pips defending 11 transports. If the Italians or Japs had had a followup attack, they could have finished the job for the Germans. I still would have had to deal with the French and the American liberators, but at least their reinforcements would have been stalled.

One thing I did well in this game, however, was eliminate the Russian threat with minimal use of force. I used the flanking maneuver discussed elsewhere on these forums, landing north of Moscow. I took Leningrad with 2 units (it was defended by 1 infantry) and put 20 units in Nenetsia. Russia shrank like a frightened turtle. A combined German and Italian offensive shortly cleared the eastern front of all remaining Russians, killing most of their offensive units. Italy and Germany then had respectable economies, especially since Italy had captured all of Africa. The game rested entirely in the hands of the Americans, whose punches were unfortunately just too strong to block.

With better strategic planning, I might have been able to pull off a naval Germany this game. I am considering alternatives to the submarines, such as destroyers and loaded carriers. It could be that this strategy may never work against a pure KGF strategy, but I’m still keeping the possibility open.

A final thought that ties this post back into the forum’s topic: if I had kept my subs in the Baltic, they would have been a fairly effective deterrent to building naval units out of a Norway factory, assuming I could also hold Denmark. It would take a lot of American IPCs to put something in the water that could stand up to 19 submarines. Thoughts?

Do you think building all subs would have worked better had you not gotten within range of those USA bombers?  If you take out London and Scotland, then your fleet is safe from bombers in SZ 109.  I suppose the USA could then try to lure you out by sending some of its fleet out towards you but then you should respond by only sending enough to have slightly better odds.  Of course, Italy and Japan have to be doing their part too to harass the USA.

@larrymarx:

Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London. In a game I played, I attempted to hold it with land units. I turtled up and it ended up costing me. Russia was able to take my border territories and gain their +6 bonuses, getting +26 for three territories on one turn. Even with huge stacks of infantry, the game was a slow defeat for the axis.

I began to reconsider my turn 4 options. What if instead of buying tons of infantry, I had used UK’s cash to build about 11 submarines and 2 destroyers? Navy is capable of defending multiple territories at once, so I would have been able to pull all remaining land (including turn three purchases) to the Russian front, ideally taking Leningrad for the IPC bonus and to eliminate the Russian national objective. In the Atlantic, the Americans would have to have a sizable navy to hold off my new fleet. The idea is that you send out destroyers as blockers so they can never attack your submarines, then counterattack whatever they send at the destroyers with an appropriate number of subs and air units. You keep building 1 or 2 destroyers per turn, and the rest submarines. Because the Americans need to invest some money in transports and ground units, and because subs provide the best deal on offense for your money, the naval race will be even or at least you’ll be able to hold them off for quite a few turns.

Meanwhile, the Russians are pounding away at you, and this is the biggest problem with this strategy. You only have a few turns of few to no land purchases before they take Berlin. For this reason, the strategy can only work with concerted aid from Japan and Italy. Italy needs to climb quickly in production and start pumping infantry, and Japan needs to climb in production and start hurling tanks at Moscow.

If the Americans put 100% of their money into the Atlantic from turn 1 and pull their Pacific units as well, I doubt this strategy should be attempted, but depending on the setup on turn 4 after a Sealion, I think this strategy should at least be on the table.

I think this is an excellent post Sealion strategy.   I think building all subs on turn 3 (assuming you are very sure that you will take London on turn 3) is the best move that Germany can make.  On turn 4, you can move all those subs, along with your surface fleet, to the seazone just west of UK and build 10 more subs in that same seazone.  This plan will work best if Japan waits till turn 3 to go to war since it severely limits how much navy USA can build by turn 3.  And the best thing is that the USA might be building some transports and land units on turns 1 and 2, limiting their navy even more.

Edit: I forgot that the major factory turns into a minor factory after Germany takes it.  Building all subs and moving them west might only work if Italy combines it fleet with Germany’s.

@bugoo:

@WILD:

@bugoo:

Don’t forget the 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 fig from alexandria that can get up there.   8-)

That’s something I don’t think I’ve heard before. They have the movement points to get to England in two turns. Could they (tpt w/ground troops) get through the Med though? They would have to be in sz 92 end of UK1. Sz 92 is not exactly safe from the axis.

Is is with a cruiser block in SZ 94.  Only way for the germans to hit it would be to land planes in africa on G2, out of range for G3 sea lion.

Also, if the transport by the UK survives, it can join up with the transport from Egypt and load up two French infantry from North Africa which then unload on UK on French turn 2.

@technobabble66:

Just out of interest, has anyone playing Japan tried to take Panama?

I kinda thought among several strategic options for Japan (aside from possibly a few better ones  :-)) that japan could focus its attention on hitting Hawaii J1, then taking Panama J2; or maybe J3 after destroying the US Pacific fleet first.
Obviously Japan would still employ a strategy to strike China and maybe russia at the same time to maintain other lines of pressure, but the idea with the Panama strategy is that it attains a base for Japan that enables the fully massed Japanese fleet to strike either the US East or West coast. This would probably be backed up by landing Bombers and fighters into panama asap. Without a navy the US should be rendered impotent for at least a few rounds…
To be extra tricky, the Japanese fleet could also cross the pond to hit the english fleet and strike into the heart of the tyrannical european dogs!!
Possibly would want to coordinate it with German airstrikes on the UK fleet in G1 or G2.

Thoughts??

I’m thinking that having either Germany or Italy take out West Indies and then building an airbase so the Japanese airforce can land there and scramble would be a better idea.  Then let the convoy raiding begin.

@Imperious:

If Germany does not have a large enough fleet to shuck to Norway or does not have its own factory in either Sweden or Finland, and if USA takes Norway and builds a Major factory…. what can Germany do?

Forget France or Spain. Major USA factory is Norway is game over for Germany.

Right?

It all depends on how close the Axis are to gaining that last victory city needed to win the game.  What turn can USA reasonably take and hold Norway?