I was wondering what some of you who have been playing a lot as the Allies like to do with Russia in response to a mostly German infantry build on G1. It seems to me that this would allow Russia to help out more in Asia or Africa and limit the Axis income greatly. I pondered a 5 submarine build in Caucasus to help destroy the Italian navy on turn 2 but then remembered that they are limited to 4 units in Caucasus, which reduces the odds of success. Any ideas or things that you have actually tried that ended with success?
Posts made by mikecool70
-
Options for Russia when Germany plays defensively
-
Options for Russia when Germany plays defensively
I was wondering what some of you who have been playing a lot as the Allies like to do with Russia in response to a mostly German infantry build on G1. It seems to me that this would allow Russia to help out more in Asia or Africa and limit the Axis income greatly. I pondered a 5 submarine build in Caucasus to help destroy the Italian navy on turn 2 but then remembered that they are limited to 4 units in Caucasus, which reduces the odds of success. Any ideas or things that you have actually tried that ended with success?
-
RE: Ignore Germany Strategy
This strategy is basically the same as my “Russian Sacrifice Strategy” that I wrote about in early January. As I mentioned in my thread, Germany’s best chance of defeating it is if they get a good tech early on. Also, in my thread, I assumed that Germany was going all out against Russia by building tanks and bombers so that Russia will fall as quickly as possible (probably turn 4). This strategy keeps India and Australia in UK hands and keeps the Chinese alive. It even keeps part of Russia alive (although admittedly they can’t collect income while their capital is occupied).
Now, I know that most people in my thread stated that it wouldn’t work against a good player. I see the same thing being stated in this thread. Even if that’s true, remember that both Wodan and I are assuming that Russia falls quickly due to Germany building a bunch of tanks and bombers. Every turn beyond turn 4 that Russia survives makes this plan even more effective. If I encountered a German player who built mostly infantry/artillery on turn 1 AND if I were in control of all the allied countries, then I would seriously consider trying it. In fact, I think that against a G1 inf/art build, it’s almost a guaranteed strategy, barring continuous bad dice rolls and/or Germany getting heavy bombers on turn 1. Who knows, the next time I play the allies, I might give it a try.
-
RE: Fighter Swarm
If Germany takes Karelia on G1, then UK building nothing but fighters on UK1 and then sending them all to Belorussia on UK2 while Russia stacks up infantry and tanks there in order to attempt to retake Karelia could be a useful move to prevent Germany from preemptively attacking Belorussia. Also, those fighters are quite flexible: UK could build a transport or two on UK2 and then use their fighters to attack a Karelia which Russia has weakened; or if UK retreats the land units from India and moves them to Caucasus on UK2, then those land units and all those fighters could attack/reinforce either Ukraine and/or East Ukraine, depending on what is needed. Also, if going for Karelia, USA’s fighters and even their original transport off the east coast could reach Karelia on USA3 to attack a weakened Karelia or reinforce it if UK or Russia has already taken it back. So, in short, I think it could be a very useful buy for UK.
-
RE: A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941
Another thing I’ve thought of, it might be actually better to spend 15 IPCs on turn 1 for Russia. That way, the Russian player could not spend any money on tech on turn 2 and still get 3 rolls if they did not get tech on turn 1. They would still get 6 rolls but save 5 IPCs in the process. Of course, this would result in 5 IPCs less of units for Russia on turn 1, so it’s debatable whether or not it’s worth it or not.
-
RE: A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941
Advanced Artillery: Russia starts out with a lot of infantry and a 1 artillery build now gives Russia an attack of 4 instead of 3. That’s like buying a bomber for the cost of only 4 IPCs (although admittedly, these “bombers” can only attack land and are limited to one space). Such a tech would make it much more difficult for Germany to secure any territory of Russia’s that is next to an industrial complex. In my opinion, the benefits for Russia are huge if they snag this tech. Definitely worth the 20 IPC cost.
Err, your numbers are wrong: adv art gives you 6 attack instead of 5 when buying 2 inf 1 rtl. Now, let’s calculate how much attack you can buy for 20 IPC’s: 4 inf and 2 rtl = 10 attack 12 defense 6 hits >= 30 extra “power”. To match this with adv art, you would need to buy at least 30 x 2 inf 1 rtl = 60 inf 30 rtl = 400 IPC’s >= 15 Russian turns. Not mentioning the benefit of the immediate extra army over the prolonged time Russia would need before really benefitting from this tech. So I think you got something wrong here, adv art is definitely not worth the cost of 20 IPC’s…
One artillery attacks at a 2. It also raises an infantry from a 1 to a 2. So that’s an additional 3 attack if one artillery is bought. With advanced artillery, an additional infantry is raised from 1 to 2. So this gives the player a total of 4 extra attack if you have advanced artillery and buy one artillery. That is how I came up with the “4 instead of 3” statement from my last post.
I did make a mistake in my last post regarding Mechanized Infantry. If you spend 10 IPCs on R1, then obviously you are limited to 4 tanks built on R1 instead of 6.
-
RE: A Serious Discussion of Technologies in 1941
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread. I would like to discuss something that doesn’t seem to have been addressed regarding technology: how much should be spent each turn on tech rolls? I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently in regards to Russia and here are my ideas:
Turn 1: Spend 10 IPCs on tech rolls
Turn 2: If not successful on turn 1, spend 10 more IPCs.In most games, this will yield Russia a technology by turn 2 for the cost of only 20 IPCs. The drawback is that Russia now has 20 IPCs less of units on the board. So the question becomes, will the technology that Russia gains be worth the fewer units on the board? Let’s look at Chart 1:
Advanced Artillery: Russia starts out with a lot of infantry and a 1 artillery build now gives Russia an attack of 4 instead of 3. That’s like buying a bomber for the cost of only 4 IPCs (although admittedly, these “bombers” can only attack land and are limited to one space). Such a tech would make it much more difficult for Germany to secure any territory of Russia’s that is next to an industrial complex. In my opinion, the benefits for Russia are huge if they snag this tech. Definitely worth the 20 IPC cost.
Rockets: Not as useful as advanced artillery, especially if Germany takes and secures Karelia but quite useful nevertheless. The Caucasus AA can attack Italy each turn. As long as Russia owns Karelia then Germany can be attacked each turn. Russia can retreat the AA in Karelia to Archangel if they think Germany is going to take and hold onto Karelia, and make its way to Russia, freeing up the Russian AA to go east and attack any Japanese AA built on the mainland. Worth the 20 IPC cost.
Paratroopers: If Russia can afford to build bombers, then it is probably over for the Axis anyway. In MOST games, I think this is the only tech in Chart 1 that is totally useless for Russia. Not worth the 20 IPC cost, IMHO.
Increased Industrial Production: If Russia gets this by turn 2 AND still owns Karelia, then it’s going to be much more difficult for Germany to capture and hold onto Karelia, especially if UK built some fighters on turn 1 and move them all to Karelia for added protection. Plus, this tech makes SBRs half as effective, so the German player might very well use any bombers they have on something else instead of SBRs. The more money Russia has to spend, the better. The problem is, Russia might not own Karelia, especially after G2, so this tech may not be quite as useful as advanced artillery. Worth the 20 IPC cost.
War Bonds: Limited in value, but hey, free money is free money. Definitely not useless, but on average, Russia will gain 3.5 IPCs per turn from this tech. So Russia will not begin to profit from it until turn 6. IMHO, those 20 IPCs would be better spent on units since the game will probably be decided before turn 6 anyway. Usually not worth the 20 IPC cost, unless you get lucky and recover the cost quickly (by getting the tech on roll 1 and rolling a six on both turn 1 and 2).
Mechanized Infantry: This tech is only useful for Russia if they have tanks AND if they are in a position to attack two spaces away from where they built the tanks. It seems to me that this tech would be useful mainly on turn 2, assuming that Russia built six tanks on turn 1. Make sure you position six infantry (two from Caucasus, two from Novo, and two from Kazakh) into Russia and you now have six additional units that can attack Karelia and be used as fodder if Germany moved into Karelia strongly. If Germany took Karelia on G1 and has most of their air force in Karelia after G2, then this tech just might give Russia the chance to destroy the entire German air force on G2. A game changer right there. Of course, this tech could still be useful once Japan gets within two spaces of Russia but if Russia is at that point in the game then it might be better just to buy all infantry at that point. Worth the 20 IPC cost IF conditions are right to utilize the tech; otherwise, limited usefulness and NOT worth the cost.
If Russia gets a very good tech, then I think it would probably be best not to spend much more money on future tech rolls. However, buy at least one more tech roll. You never know when that one research marker, being rolled turn after turn until you get another tech, will come in handy and make things even easier for you. Instead, just maximize the advantage that you have while you have it.
Well, those are my thoughts on tech rolls regarding Russia. I would appreciate someone doing the same for another country. Thanks.
-
RE: How to cut Germany's economy over half in three turns
yep dog is right, what if germany buys an ac and tranny for sea lion, uk is sitting there with 4 bomber 2 fig and a couple of infantry for defense?
If Germany builds a navy to invade UK, then UK has achieved its purpose: to take pressure off of Russia. Then all those bombers, fighters and remaining UK navy can destroy the German fleet and Russia is in even better shape.
-
RE: How to cut Germany's economy over half in three turns
Count_Zeppelin already touched on one problem, that being the money is incorrectly figured.
Here are some others. Since England is buying all bombers, what is preventing the Germans from throwing everything they have at Russia? Who is keeping Italy from having all of Africa? What happens when the AA guns shoot down all your bombers? What if the bombers roll all ones and twos? Who is keeping Japan company? They might feel left out and seek someone to play with.
Strategic Bombing campaigns are useful, I have used them in Revised by both sides, however, they are not the easy automatic path to victory every one assumes they are. Also a problem with this strategy as laid out is one I find with many. It assumes a static and willing victim for it to succeed and if your opponent is that bad, then do you even need a real strategy?
England is not building only bombers every turn. They do that the first couple of turns only. Then on turn 3, maybe 1 per turn or (if they get heavy bombers) 2 per turn. They should definitely build up a small fleet with at least one transport just to bleed off some German/Italian forces.
England is the only one doing this. The USA is building just enough fleet to keep Japan from attacking USA. The USA is also building enough fleet and air force to take out the Italian navy and maybe threaten Italy itself (depends on how much of the UK air force survives and if they are also bombing Italy each turn).
You ask what happens if UK loses all of its bombers or if it rolls low numbers. Well that depends on what turn it happens. If it happens on turn 2, then sure, the Axis will probably win the game. But if happens on turn 5, when Germany is already on the defensive, then the Allies can probably survive it. By the same token, I could point out that the German air force could get unlucky and be completely destroyed on G1. Wouldn’t that give the Allies an advantage at winning the game? Others have been saying that this game seems to be decided in the first few turns, so what difference does it make if the Allies lose because the UK loses all of its bombers on UK2?
What is preventing Germany from throwing everything at Russia? Uh, the SBRs perhaps? If Germany repairs the damage, then they have less money to spend on troops. The SBRs will most likely put their spendable money down to about as much as Russia’s spendable income (assuming that they don’t repair ALL of the damage each turn; but this would allow UK to use less bombers on their next turn and therefore less chance to get shot down, so it balances it out). Plus Germany might be spending money on technology, trying to get radar and/or improved production. Each 5 IPCs they spend on that is one less tank going towards Russia.
-
RE: How to cut Germany's economy over half in three turns
Yes, radar and improved factories would be bad for this plan. Of course, Germany better get it quick or it might be too late, especially if USA starts landing troops in France every turn while Russia sends all his tanks towards Germany and Italy. Plus, the more money Germany puts into technology each turn, the less land units to defend from Russia and USA.
USA would only use the starting bombers to bomb Germany and/or Italy. Actually, now that I think about it, those USA bombers may be better used doing something different.
-
How to cut Germany's economy over half in three turns
UK 1: Build 3 bombers and don’t lose that first bomber you start with (do something safe like kill remnants of German fleet)
USA1: Move the two bombers to EnglandUK 2: Build 4 bombers (with the 8 IPCs you saved from turn one you should be able to do this)
Use all six bombers to bomb Germany. Statistically, you will lose one but you’ve built four more so who cares).UK 3: Keep bombing the hell out of Germany and build at least one bomber to replace your losses. Or build two more in case you have an unlucky turn or if you want to also start pounding Italy to -6 every turn.
Of course, the benefits of the above are tremendous for Russia. Russia builds mostly tanks and Germany can’t compete with that since he’s at about 20 IPCs once making repairs. Russia can at least take Norway and Finland while USA sends in forces into the Med to take out the Balkans. That is 10 more IPCs for Russia. Of course, if NOs are not being played with, then Germany and Italy are even more screwed.
Of course, Japan is a monster and can start doing the same thing to Russia but it will take longer to set it up and Russia can still hold off Japanese forces long enough for Italy and Germany to fall once USA gets and IC built in Europe or captures Italy.
Any thoughts?
-
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
@Cmdr:
Mike,
You’re sending 7 Russian Armor into China. What are you using to keep Germany out of Moscow???
DM,
You’re spending 60-62 IPC in naval units. What are you building to take Moscow???
You two need to play each other so I can sell tickets and popcorn! :)
Just some good hearted ribbing.
Seriously, Japan can take out all the British islands in the world with 1 transport and 1 infantry. They’re undefended. Everything else is pretty much used to take out Australia (which is a continent, not an island) and Asia.
Oh, I have no intention of keeping Germany out of Moscow. I only want to make sure that Moscow doesn’t fall before G4. I think building 6 more tanks on R2 and retreating infantry from Karelia, East Ukraine, Belorussia and Archangel to Russia will guarantee that Germany doesn’t take it on G3. Then on R3, I could even abandon Russia and send 6 more tanks into China for a total of 13 infantry and 13 tanks in Buryatia and China. Japan is dead.
-
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
Japan starts with enough troops to take out the islands and such. Normally by the end of J2 I have taken Philippines, Borneo, E.Indies, New Guinea, Australia, Burma, Kwangtung and all of China except Chinghai. None of that involves any purchased units. on J3 you can count on 4 infantry and 4 armor being transported from Japan plus whatever built from my 1 or 2 mainland ICs. And I say 1 or 2 because I may be placing the second on J3.
There are easier ways for the Allies to win in '41. '41 is actually more balanced than '42.
I am curious if you have even played the game yet. I noticed your first post said looking at the board. Japan becomes a monster quickly in this game.
I don’t own the game but I’ve played it 3 times and I downloaded the map on this forum so that I could study the map. Yes, Japan can take out most of the UK territories by J2 but only if they send most of their fleet away from Japan. Any remaining fleet will easily be softened by UK bombers built in UK 1 and then finished off by the USA fleet and air force (USA could even build 3 more bombers on USA 2 once they see the Japanese fleet going towards Australia). Plus, Japan will only have around 31 income to spend on J2. They can’t afford to be building an IC on the mainland if they really want to deal with that USA fleet.
And there is no way China is going to fall if Russia sends infantry and their tank into China, unless Japan positions a lot of planes to attack on J2. But if they do that, then more of the USA fleet survives. So I think it all balances out. Sure, I’m sure a good player could make this strategy more difficult to pull off but I still think Japan is screwed if this strategy is used. Even if I’m off by one turn and can’t kick off the Japanese from the mainland and destroy their fleet until turn 6, I think it’s still doable.
-
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
I don’t think you have thought through all of Japan’s possibilities on Round 1.
As has been stated India is not secure and japan may even let you build an IC there so they can take Australia on J2 and take the India IC a couple of turns latter. On average dice a good Japanese player should have eliminated the ability for China to even produce units by US2. Any Russian attacks south from Siberia merely liberate a territory to count towards Chinese infantry production. Japan moves between Russia and the US. Don’t plan on it still being liberated. Japan also starts with a large fleet. It takes several turns for the US to catch up. Japan also makes more money than the US and can easily out produce or equal them while still fighting in Asia. I do not like the Alaskan IC. Every game of Anniversary or Revised I have seen it in the builder of it has ultimately lost it. Also how are the Allies invading Africa if the US is building Pacific Ships?If Japan is going all out against the UK islands and India, then they are not putting many forces into Manchuria. If they don’t take the Chinese territory Xingxia on J2 (which Russia can reinforce with 2-4 infantry and 1 tank) then those 7 Russian tanks along with those infantry can take Suiyan on R3 and then Manchuria falls one turn earlier. Yes, Russia doesn’t get extra income from that territory (which is actually good since that is less money for Germany to take) but Japan loses 8 IPCs since the territory is worth 3 IPCs and he loses one of his NOs, negating his gains from the UK. Japan starts out at 17 IPCs and USA starts at 40, so Japan does not make more money than USA, even if they expand rapidly. Japan can’t fight off Russia, USA, UK, and China all at once. Maybe 2 or even 3 of them. But not all 4.
The Allies don’t have to invade Africa. They can simply build an IC in South Africa and then use some or all of the pre-existing air force to support their inf and tanks in South Africa that move northward. Italy can’t compete with that.
-
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
I think you are likely to see Germany counter with a Baltic fleet either before Mos falls or the turn they get to cash in from the Russian bank.
Germany only needs 60 ipc to buy 2 AC, 4 dd or 62 ipc for 1 ac and 7 dd. I don’t think the Allies can sink that fleet so easily and if they can’t sink it right away Germany will just add to it until it is safe to move to sz 6, then they start pressuring London.
Japan will also realize what is happening by J2 and …
Now yes, Germany might build a ton of tanks and sweep across Asia, but the Allies can limit those tanks to one movement per turn, so it’s going to take awhile. In fact, Russia could even vacate all of his units from Russia the turn before it falls and slowly move East with them, leaving behind one infantry each turn. While Germany is taking out Asia, the Allies actually take out Japan and build up enough bombers to keep Italy at 0 IPCs every turn. They also build up enough fleet around UK to prevent Germany from ever taking it.
Germany will not go after Aisa once Mos falls.
I think this is a lot of “ifs” to account for. Without details, I’m not conviced you can sink the J fleet (which starts with 3 AC + planes, 1 bb, 1 CA), keep Ita at 9 ipc (and buy allied boms to reduce them to 0), AND keep the Germans from going after London.
Yes, what UK and USA do depends on what the Axis do. But if Germany doesn’t go after Asia after Moscow falls, then Germany is limited to around 60 IPCs (except for the one time bonus once he takes Russia’s money). UK can easily build 50 IPCs worth of navy on UK 3, still allowing those first two turn of builds to be used against Japan. Remember, once the Japanese are off the mainland, they are down to at most 10 IPCs per turn. USA can easily spend about 30 IPCs to continue on against Japan while the other 20 IPCs reinforce the UK fleet.
-
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
@Cmdr:
Because most Japanese players have it set up at J1 to hit India with a lot of firepower on J2 before England can build there, I don’t see why anyone advocates building an IC in India, at least until Japan’s gotten its forces moved out into China and a turn or two away from India anyway.
If Japan sets it up to take India on J2, then it might be best for UK to build 2 bombers instead of an IC in the Pacific Arena. Then build more bombers the next turn and send all bombers to within striking distance of the SZ next to Japan. Sure, UK would lose its entire air force on the turn they attack the Japanese fleet but then the USA would lose less of its fleet and air force when they followed up to wipe out the Japanese fleet around turn 4 or 5. Plus, more units set up to attack India means less Japanese land units in Manchuria, so Russia loses less tanks when it attacks it. Also, with all those naval units near India, USA could consider building an IC in Alaska, allowing 2 naval units per turn to be within 2 spaces of the Japan SZ. Such an IC would be able to drop troops off into Russia every turn once the Japanese are wiped out (in addition to units the USA builds in Japan each turn).
So, what the UK and USA do is reactionary to what the Japanese do.
. -
RE: Russian Sacrifice Strategy
@Cmdr:
My thoughts, no particular order.
1) I have yet been able to take out Japan before Russia falls. Generally, I can get Japan, but usually a couple rounds after Russia has fallen and Germany’s become a monster. Perhaps I am just not going about it correctly.
2) Russia should be able to hold Germany back well enough if you retreat in round 1 and build nothing but offensive equipment that round. (Do not confuse this with nothing but armor/fighters for the entire game, I am only referring to round 1 purchases!)
3) Africa seems to have actually become MORE important than anything! I was under the impression, originally, that Africa could be shrugged off by the allies since they had NOs, but if anything, it’s even MORE important now.
1) My strategy involves the Allies taking Japan 2 or 3 turns after Russia falls. But before that, Japan has been reduced to only 8 IPCs and is effectively out of the game. Also, since it kicks Japan off the mainland so quickly, there are enough Chinese and Russian units left over to slow the German tanks down to one movement per turn. Sure, Germany will probably get up to around 100 economy but by then Japan is in allied hands, a massive fleet has been built up around UK to prevent Germany from attacking it and there is also a large transport system set up so that the Allies can attack from multiple directions.
2) Yes, I know that Russia can hold off Germany long enough till the UK and USA transports start unloading in Europe every turn and that probably makes for a quicker victory for the Allies. This is just a strategy that I came up with because I thought it would be fun. Everyone’s been saying that if Germany takes Moscow then it’s over for the allies but I’m trying to show that that probably is usually not true.
3) I agree that Africa is very important. My strategy involves building an IC in the Pacific arena. This leaves UK with 28 IPCs, allowing UK to build another IC in South Africa or transports to help keep Africa. Personally, I favor an IC in South Africa since the transports could be sunk by the German air force.
-
Russian Sacrifice Strategy
I’ve been looking at the 1941 setup and have been trying to figure if the Allies could still win the game if Russia falls but the Allies take Japan. I came up with the idea of Russia purposely sacrificing itself (temporarily) so that Japan definitely falls and is kicked out of Asia fairly quickly.
I think it should go without saying that if all three of the Allies as well as the Chinese units are focusing on Japan, then Japan can be pushed off the mainland as well as have its entire fleet destroyed.
I have not worked out all the details yet; in fact, I’m sure there are various ways it could be done, but here is one way it could be done:
Russia builds 6 tanks on R1 but then on R2 sends them all East, either through Russia or China. Japan can put enough units on the mainland to hold off both the Russian and Chinese units but the UK will build an IC either in India or Australia (or maybe even East Indies if the Japanese fleet isn’t positioned close to it after J1) and the USA builds nothing but fleet on turn 1 (probably two carriers and a cruiser and then land all four fighters on the carriers).
With this combined pressure, Japan can’t handle all the threats and will soon be reduced to nothing but Japan and 8 IPCs. And no, Italy can’t take Africa in this situation, because UK could also build an IC in South Africa and crank out tanks while using their air force from the UK as support.
Now, assuming that Germany built nothing but tanks on turn 1 and then nothing but bombers once they realized what was going on, I think Russia will fall on turn 4. But by then it’s too late: Japan is kicked completely off the mainland on turn 5 and their navy completely destroyed either on turn 4 or 5 (USA and UK build more fleet and then nothing but bombers on the turn before they plan to attack the Japanese fleet).
If Germany has lost Morocco, then they are at around 65 economy (with NO’s), Italy at 9 and Japan at 8 while the USA and UK are getting well over 100 plus 4 Chinese infantry per turn. With only 8 economy, Japan will quickly fall, adding even more income to either the UK or USA player. Sure, Germany can build a huge navy the turn after Russia falls but the UK player can plan for this and build some naval units instead of nothing but bombers the turn that Russia does fall.
Now yes, Germany might build a ton of tanks and sweep across Asia, but the Allies can limit those tanks to one movement per turn, so it’s going to take awhile. In fact, Russia could even vacate all of his units from Russia the turn before it falls and slowly move East with them, leaving behind one infantry each turn. While Germany is taking out Asia, the Allies actually take out Japan and build up enough bombers to keep Italy at 0 IPCs every turn. They also build up enough fleet around UK to prevent Germany from ever taking it.
At this point, the Allies will still have a slight lead in economy due to most of the UK and USA NOs being met, plus they should have a large transport system set up at this point to where Germany can not protect both the Far East as well as Europe. There are simply too many territories those transports can go to and once the Allies secure a foothold in Asia and/or Europe, it is downhill for Germany and only a matter of time before the Allies retake Russia.
It should be obvious that if Germany does not build mostly tanks on turn 1, then Russia will be able to survive even longer, making the retaking of Russia even quicker by probably saving the Far East from ever falling to the Germans. If NOs are not being used, then it’s hard to say which side is hurt more but I would lean towards the Axis since less economy those crucial first couple of turns means that Russia might be able to hold on until turn 5.
Of course, the above is just one way it could play out. Once Japan realizes what is happening, they may start building nothing but 8 infantry each turn, causing it take longer to take out Japan. But then the Allies could simply respond by build less attack fleet and more transports. Both the UK and USA go after Japan, so they can always adjust their purchases.
In my opinion, about the only way Germany might have a chance is if they get heavy bombers early on and start bombing the UK while building fleet. But then that means less German tanks in the Far East once Russia falls and the USA can build more fleet to protect UK and UK still has over 35 IPCs to spend even after they repair the damage.
Obviously, there are plenty of ways to modify/tweak the above and I welcome any input and criticisms that you might have.
-
RE: Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
It seems to me that if Germany does not take out Egypt on G1 then it is very easy for UK to prevent Germany/Italy from taking it out Africa altogether. Simply build three bombers on UK1, leave one inf behind in Egypt and then put everything else that you can on Trans-Jordan (except your original bomber that is needed to attack the German cruiser in the Baltic Sea). If Italy then attacks Egypt in force then you still own the Trans-Jordan and your four bombers and fighter take out their fleet and then your remaining bombers and two inf from South Africa will finish off the rest of their troops (not to mention you could land troops in Morocco). About the only thing Italy could do to try to stop it is do a suicide run against Trans-Jordan and hope that both of his bombardments and both of his land units get hits, softening up Trans-Jordan for an attack by Germany. But that would really be counting on a lot of luck.
Now of course, all of the above assumes that Germany did not send any air units to Libya on G1. But I think that would be a huge mistake on Germany’s part. Those air units are desperately needed to take out most of the UK navy. That UK transport in SZ 9 is already most likely to survive. If you land air units in Libya after they’ve attacked the destroyer and cruiser in SZ 12 then there is a very good chance that the battleship and/or transport in SZ 2 survived. Your not going to get a second chance to take out those transports and now UK is able to invade either France or NW Europe with four land units on UK 1. If I were the UK player in that situation, I would build two more transports and six land units and be ready to invade Europe even more forcibly on UK 2. The USA player could also build transports and by turn 3 reinforce the UK player with land and air units Sure, Germany and Italy might actually take out a large part of Africa then but the allies landing troops in Europe every turn takes a huge burden off of Russia by forcing Germany to keep any builds made in Germany attacking/defending in the West. So any gains made in Africa will be lost by Germany losing Norway, Finland and any territories that Russia manages to retake.
So in summary, I guess it’s probably best for Germany and Italy to not even try to take out Africa. Perhaps their best bet is to put just enough pressure in Africa to try to tie up the allied units long enough to where Japan could take it out.
-
RE: Turn 2 D-day gambit, terrible idea?
I think it might work as long as Germany tried to take out four territories on the Eastern front during their first turn, causing their forces to be spread out too thin and allowing Russia to take out some German tanks. If Germany is more passive and sends all their tanks to Eastern Poland then UK and USA probably should focus more on keeping Russia alive than trying to secure France. If Russia falls, then Germany will be probably be able to take France back. It all depends on how aggressive Germany is.