Maybe it is something like this the OP had in mind.
G1: Major
G2: Carrier, destroyer, 5 transports
G3: Put 10 units in Caucasus
G4: Repeat
Well. First of all a major, carrier, destroyer and 5 transports is 89 IPC. Initially it seems very attractive to do this and I will try at some point. Securing caucasus, middleast and volgograd (probably) by G5 seems very tempting even at this crazy cost
Extra income
G3 + 7 for caucasus, Soviet -2 (9 difference)
G4 + 14 for caucasus and volgograd + 2 for NW Persia and -4 for Soviet (20 difference)
G5 You might even have iraq and Persia as well
You open a two front war with Soviet. Difficult with only slow moving inf/art for Soviet. Also difficult for allies to reinforce the middle east. So at this great cost there are also huge advatages. At least looks like it at first.
But here is the catch. I think it is impossible to defend this black sea fleet long term. You build 10 bombers with USA and blow it up. Even the UK might be able to blow it up by UK 5 or 6.
Maybe it is something like this the OP had in mind.
G1: Major
G2: Carrier, destroyer, 5 transports
G3: Put 10 units in Caucasus
G4: RepeatBut here is the catch. I think it is impossible to defend this black sea fleet long term. You build 10 bombers with USA and blow it up. Even the UK might be able to blow it up by UK 5 or 6.
Rus turn 2 could attack with its starting air and sink dd at least and then UK could be able to finish it off with Med air forces and India’s that it would stage in Egypt after seeing G1 buy. Lookin at 2 tacs, 3 figs available, unless we are involving UK1 Taranto, which muddies things somewhat, perhaps.
Putting down a black sea fleet is folly. Its fun, but it wont work. Ships are too expensive and inefficient to be trapped in a lake, and a stack of mechs and tanks does the same thing (opens the oil). With enough allied air power, they just blow it up, but they don’t need to because unless the very tenous plan also involves opening turkey, after the fleet assists in the oil cross, it just sits there bridging for the rest of the game.
Well the driving force behind a Major IC in Romania, for me was this. With a Major IC you can place 10 INF or 10 MECH in Romania. Going “south” in Russia is hard because of the extra distance you have to travel, it adds 1-2 turns of movement compared to the north. So, with a major IC you can produce mass amount of units compared to just 3 for a minor. Russia has to respond in a big way to a Major IC in the south.
G1 Build the major
G2 buld 10 INF
G3 Build 10 Mech or combo with ARM. 10 INF move into Bessarbia. Now the first southern factory is facing a stack of 10 INF + 10 MECH/ARM + German original units on the map on G4. That is a lot of units Russia needs to commit to the south. Germany makes it normal Baltic States push towards Lenningrad. Ignore Eastern Poland and make the Russians have to decide if they are going max effort to defend the North or the South.
Obviously a major IC or Minor IC in Romania could open up a Balkan fleet option to skip over to the Caucuss or have units close to Turkey for a an invasion. My main thought behind this idea was that Germany can put major pressure on the south and the standard Baltic states romp will put pressure on the north.
Also Romania factory can seal off a Russian counter attack into the middle, AKA Eastern Poland.
I always like it for the Turkish invasion idea however I never invaded neutrals before mostly because you’re basically giving all the neutrals on the map to the Allies since 90% of neutrals already are close to the allies.
That is a good point, but if you knock out Sweden, Turkey and Spain (all at once, then possibly portugal) as the Axis, the allies only have Saudi, Afghani, 2 x 2 in SA and 2 x1 in Africa, which is a grand total of $8 and a bunch of men stranded at the edges of the board. So, if the plan wins you the game or leads to that, it is worth it, because the key 3 (STS) are where most of the money, men and position come from in the balance.
No I get that. I want to experiment with a complete world smash and just go for critical elements. As you said, Sweden, Turkey, and Spain, would be powerful in German hands but also, I don’t like the idea of South American and Africa going to the allies. Sure the allies will have to transport those units and money but they have the navy (and usually the freedom) to do it.
Ok, another aspect to consider is that unless the Allies know you are about to violate, they wont necessarily have the troops they need in the correct position to activate all of those at once, or the ships. If they suspect it, it is much easier to prepare to take advantage.
Because the Allies tend to be “over the $$ hump” at that point in the game, the $8 added and expended Axis effort used to attack the neutrals, could make a big difference over time. If you as the Axis violator can win the game in 4 or fewer turns, I say do it. If your game is long and slow (eg triple AAA slog) then the Allies could take advantage of your gambit and grind you down.
The big part about doing an Axis neutral attack is that in order to get ready to kill S/T/S Germany and Italy have to be moving away or sideways from their primary objectives and setting up for the neutral attack for +2 turns, which is a distraction, and a clue about what you’re about to do.
The dynamic of the true neutrals is interesting and it centers around Spain and Turkey.
Allies do not want to enter Spain to early, launching pad for the USA onto the continent because it opens up Turkey and the back door for Germany into the middle east.
The opposite is in effect also. Germany does not want to DOW on Turkey because that just leaves Spain wide open for a USA landing and free troops.
Also Axis suffer more from a DOW on turkey because it does open up the entire board and free IPC to the USA mainly. Granted they have to divert some TRS to the edges of the map but they do not have to fight for those IPC either.
UK also gets put in a bind with Turkey also if the Allies go into Spain. It opens up one more “path” of attack they need to worry about now. Regardless if they plan for the Spain violation and attack Turkey at the same time. UK will get a violent German response to push the turkey front. Especially if there is major IC in Romania. Germany can start flooding Turkey with Mech and ARM with in 2 turns from that factory.
All good points. When the Axis violate in our club group, they target all 3 of S/T/S on one turn. Any other plan could lead to disaster as UK gets a big stack for Turkey if it adds a mobility element.
The only Allied strategy that I know of that really takes advantage is the YG Spain/Cross (discussed last year). Short version, its a 1 turn shuck-shuck for US ground troops. I haven’t personally used this since we all hashed it out (playing 42.2 this year), especially because UK may or may not be able to take turkey, but not Sweden, and Switzerland…etc.
I’d like to when our G40 games restart. The neutrals thing for both teams is mostly a fun surprise, not a consistent road to victory… except where economic victory rules are being used (tournament timed play). Then, they can be game-winning.
My group is starting up a new 1940 game tonight and Iam playing Germany/Italy. Iam going to go with this major IC plan in Romania and see what comes of it. I will let you guys know and offer a battle report so to speak.
Heck, if I get “froggy” I might video recap the game and have my son post it on You Tube.
Yeah, I never liked Spanish Beachhead because USA has to fight it’s way on it and then factory it and that depends if Germany left a small force on France but the plus is that it opens up other neutrals to it.
My group is starting up a new 1940 game tonight and Iam playing Germany/Italy. Iam going to go with this major IC plan in Romania and see what comes of it. I will let you guys know and offer a battle report so to speak.
Heck, if I get “froggy” I might video recap the game and have my son post it on You Tube.
I would be happy if I was playing the allies, for all the reasons posted above.
I have done the black sea fleet thing. There are far more cost efficient ways to get into Caucasus or Egypt. But if you do want to try it, don’t forget you need an airbase in Greece and a destroyer in case Russia drops a sub out of Ukraine to stop you from loading transports.
I didn’t think a submarine makes the sea zone hostile, so the transports could still load. If there is a warship there they could also ignore the submarine and amphibious assault.
Ah that’s right. I gues the fear was that the sub could take a shot at the carrier
I would always equip any surface fleet with destroyers just in case of submarine attacks.
@Caesar:
I would always equip any surface fleet with destroyers just in case of submarine attacks.
What?
So you build a fleet in the Black Sea, a land locked sea zone and you are afraid that Russia will build a Sub in the Black Sea? The only concern of a fleet in the Black Sea is from air power, mainly UK/USA air power.
@Caesar:
I would always equip any surface fleet with destroyers just in case of submarine attacks.
What?
So you build a fleet in the Black Sea, a land locked sea zone and you are afraid that Russia will build a Sub in the Black Sea? The only concern of a fleet in the Black Sea is from air power, mainly UK/USA air power.
You just never know!
Speaking of the Black Sea fleet, making sz 100 a convoy zone would be a good mod.
