Spring 1942 - Case Blue Axis Strategy

[jiman79]

Hobbes - great strategy discussion once again.
Why is it named Case Blue :?  well nevermind

Basically what you are saying is that Germany can (almost regardsless of R1 opening) take WR, if G is willing to invest enough?
You are also saying that Russia has to make a decent buy like 5 inf art arm or 3 inf, 3 arm in order to get enough boots on the ground and be able to retake territories, right?

By doing this Germany is also choosing not to do several things, and will most likely loose Africa and allow a UK navy to establish fast (depending on the loss of G air).
As I see it Germany only have ~1 round of purchases to send east along with the starting units, before all focus must be on defending UK/US invasions.

Do you think the game is “off balance” favoring axis with this aggressive German opening?
Do you find this axis strategy superior to the fortress of Europe or more as a nice second option, in case of bad allied play/dice?

[Hobbes]

@jiman79:

Hobbes - great strategy discussion once again.
Why is it named Case Blue :?  well nevermind

Case Blue was the name of the German strategic plan to conquer the Caucasus on 1942 :)

Basically what you are saying is that Germany can (almost regardsless of R1 opening) take WR, if G is willing to invest enough?
You are also saying that Russia has to make a decent buy like 5 inf art arm or 3 inf, 3 arm in order to get enough boots on the ground and be able to retake territories, right?

Regarding West Russia, yes, although it is a hard decision to make it really depends on the number of units left there. And Russia definitely needs as many ground units as possible - if Germany keeps trading West Russia with Russia then one side will eventually ran out of units.

By doing this Germany is also choosing not to do several things, and will most likely loose Africa and allow a UK navy to establish fast (depending on the loss of G air).
As I see it Germany only have ~1 round of purchases to send east along with the starting units, before all focus must be on defending UK/US invasions.

Possibly 2 rounds. Although another thing I’ve been testing is also to clear W. Eur. of units during the 1st round, which allows for an Allied landing on UK1.

Do you think the game is “off balance” favoring axis with this aggressive German opening?
Do you find this axis strategy superior to the fortress of Europe or more as a nice second option, in case of bad allied play/dice?

This opening already exists on Revised, where there was a strategy that started with putting all of Germany’s bid into Ukraine/Belo/WR/E.Eur and then hitting WRus before the Allies could respond. I think the main issue when choosing is the conditions I listed above. I don’t know yet if it is superior to Fortress Europe, but they are different conceptions.

[Hobbes]

Part 3 - The Allied Response (work in progress)

United Kingdom

• The British simply have too many important targets to hit on UK1: German Baltic fleet, SZ59, SZs15/16, Egypt/Libya, Indochina/Borneo, Algeria, Norway and others. And other that invading Norway/W. Eur or sinking the Med fleet, the rest won’t really divert Germany from the USSR on G2.
• Bottom line, the UK can still clear Africa/Med, hit Japan hard on the Pacific or reinforce Caucasus, but will have to choose on UK1 and usually focus on 1 of those options.
• Landings on Norway take some pressure off the Soviets but will still take a while before the UK can land 8 units.
• Not clearing Africa still leaves Egypt vulnerable to a G2 capture - any option the UK chooses will benefit the Axis on another area.
• The UK has a total of 7 ground units on Africa/Asia that can reach Caucasus by UK2 and defend it against a German attack from G3 onwards. It can make the difference to prevent the loss of Caucasus but it will also leave India and Africa to the Axis.

US: Going Atlantic, Pacific or both?

• Now, at this point the US has some decisions to make. The Soviets were hit badly and the UK is busy on Africa and Asia but it will take another 2 rounds before they are able to land 8 units on Europe.
• But on the Pacific, Japan seems to be fully concentrated on the USSR, the SZ52 fleet may be alive and there even might be a large naval UK force on the Indian Ocean or Indochina/Borneo on UK hands. Sounds tempting for the US to try a Pacific strat or a mixture of both? And that’s exactly what the Axis needs from the Allies.
• If the Allies commit to holding Japan on the Pacific/Asia, those are all units that won’t be helping the Soviets against the Germans. Plus, the Japanese won’t have lost any capital ships and will have 8 ground units ready to land on round 2 and continue attacking land targets on Asia. With the exception of the starting units, the only reinforcements available would have to come with Russia, which is already in dire straits holding off the Germans, so the Japanese should be able to advance through Yakut/Sinkiang and put even more pressure on the Soviets on Novo/Kazakh.
• At sea, the US build-up of naval forces is too slow to really make a difference on the first rounds - the US can land units on Borneo/East Indies by round 3 but those ships will most likely be sunk afterwards and by round 4 Caucasus should have fallen to the Germans, which allows Japan starting dealing with the US.
• If the US goes Atlantic (which would be my option), then Japan simply switches its attention to Moscow, freeing up German units to deal with Allied landings on Europe. This also allows the US to prepare to land 8 ground units on round 3 on W. Europe, something that the Germans will have to worry about.

Soviet Union

[Advosan]

If Fortress Europe is the anti-KGF strat, Case Blue sure looks like the anti-KJF strat.

[Hobbes]

@Advosan:

If Fortress Europe is the anti-KGF strat, Case Blue sure looks like the anti-KJF strat.

It actually came out of recent experience playing online at GTO - I’ve never seen so many people trying KJF or a mix of both or just going overboard with the Russians and getting a sub and a fighter on the initial buy. If the Allied player still decides to go KJF after the German round then it’s almost a sure win, although there are veteran players on GTO forums who claim that Russia can fall as long as the US holds the Pacific islands… I’m still trying to prove/disprove that hypothesis.

[Hobbes]

2nd trial in progress…

Russia bought 1 bomber, attacked Belo and WR, 12 units left in WR, Caucasus abandoned, 4 INF sent to Sinkiang. Entire Luftwaffe used on WRus at the expense of 3 fighters (Low Luck).
UK counters by landing on Archangel and build a South Africa IC. Japan moves fleet to SZ34, within range of the UK but just want I want him to try…
US goes Atlantic… this should be interesting…
Russia attacks WRus, Caucasus, Buryatia and China(!)
Germany sinks Allied fleet off SZ4, takes Caucasus, WRus, Archangel and Egypt. Russia is reduced to 6 INF, 2 ARM and the planes.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

A great piece of work.  I look forward to hearing further updates and trials in action!

[Hobbes]

Well game over, great game. The Allies built an IC on Sinkiang and managed to held it until round 4 or 5 until they were forced to pull back from the Japanese. The Germans took a hold of Caucasus on round 4 and never released it afterwards.

The SA IC didn’t work, neither the US strat of sending troops through Africa. With Germans in control of Caucasus it blocked any attempt to advance. Interesting game though.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hobbes:

there are veteran players on GTO forums who claim that Russia can fall as long as the US holds the Pacific islands… I’m still trying to prove/disprove that hypothesis.

We make some assumptions, ending with Russia falling and US grabbing the Pacific islands.  This has to be round five or six at least.  So what do we know?

1.  We know UK doesn’t have a particularly healthy navy reinforcement to Russia (or at least it shouldn’t), BECAUSE Russia fell.  (If there are loads of UK troops ready to secure Moscow after Germany grabs Moscow for a single turn, then Russia didn’t really “fall”).

2.  Probably Germany controls Africa.

3.  US has at least two carriers, four fighters, and at least two destroyers in the islands south of Japan.  Plus one or two transports, and controls certain 4 IPC islands.

Now here’s the key assumption that I think these GTO vets are making.  I would guess they think the Japanese fleet is destroyed.  If the Jap fleet is destroyed, then US has logistic advantage with amphibious assaults on territories, and probably US and UK can work together to harass European coast/Africa/finish Japan (not all of those, but enough to get a win)

But if the Japanese fleet is NOT destroyed - and it should not be, because Japan can always just run away - Germany can get into the mix.  Then, I think Axis have the advantage.

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

@Hobbes:

there are veteran players on GTO forums who claim that Russia can fall as long as the US holds the Pacific islands… I’m still trying to prove/disprove that hypothesis.

We make some assumptions, ending with Russia falling and US grabbing the Pacific islands.  This has to be round five or six at least.  So what do we know?

1.  We know UK doesn’t have a particularly healthy navy reinforcement to Russia (or at least it shouldn’t), BECAUSE Russia fell.  (If there are loads of UK troops ready to secure Moscow after Germany grabs Moscow for a single turn, then Russia didn’t really “fall”).

2.  Probably Germany controls Africa.

3.  US has at least two carriers, four fighters, and at least two destroyers in the islands south of Japan.  Plus one or two transports, and controls certain 4 IPC islands.

Now here’s the key assumption that I think these GTO vets are making.  I would guess they think the Japanese fleet is destroyed.  If the Jap fleet is destroyed, then US has logistic advantage with amphibious assaults on territories, and probably US and UK can work together to harass European coast/Africa/finish Japan (not all of those, but enough to get a win)

But if the Japanese fleet is NOT destroyed - and it should not be, because Japan can always just run away - Germany can get into the mix.  Then, I think Axis have the advantage

Meh, even if the Japanese fleet is destroyed I’m still not convinced, I need to get beaten to change my mind. The more experience you have playing J on KFJ, the more you know how to harass the US fleet, even with Yamato rusting at the bottom of the ocean.

[newpaintbrush]

Probably the GTO vets are also assuming most of the Axis air is already dead too.

[Hobbes]

I’ve faced this strat today against me and I’m glad I realized how to do it because it was very, very, very close. The other player had it all figured out - too bad I also had :)

Russia rolls badly on WRus and loses 5 inf in total, while moving the 6 inf to Buryatia. G buys 8 armor and goes for it. Game got decided on round 3 - the Russians attacked the German stack on Ukraine with everything (didn’t even bother calc - if I lost that was it) and won while the Germans attacked Caucasus (I had moved everything with the UK from India and Africa - 6 inf, 1 arm and 4 fighters and lost. Japan meanwhile was building 2 fighters a turn, in no doubt to protect either WRus or Caucasus but it was pointless when Germany lost those battles.

[newpaintbrush]

Japan needed to go IC/tanks if Germany went G1 8 tank build.

So, Hobbes - you did West Russia/Norway open with Allies, did badly at West Russia, put 6 infantry at Buryatia, and put the UK India fighter on Buryatia on UK1?  What happened with Anglo-Egypt?

[Hobbes]

I attacked WRus and Ukr with Russia. With the UK I sank the SZ16 (had brought the INF and ARM from Libya to Ukr), SZ59 and SZ5 fleets. I then pulled back everything towards Caucasus, even abandoning India to J - the Germans were getting ready to hit it heavy soon, and I think it saved my hide.