I like going barbarossa with Germany, although I don’t rush things.
I usually always buy 1cv 2trn G1 anyway, because I like to punish UK and go SeaLion in the event that they crush the Italian Fleet in the Medi
Without having the map in front of me, can you even take any russian zones and keep them, or will Russia boot you out on R1? If so, then why bother attacking G1?
I wouldn’t plan on holding the Russian territories I take G1, it would be to take out some vulnerable units that can’t be pulled back for a stronger defense later, also, if Russia does take them back, they will be coming towards German aggression while already thin. Is this still a bad idea?
To take all 3 front zones and Yugoslavia, you would need to spread out pretty thin, and expose tanks.
Up to you, but I don’t see a point. You would not get to Moscow any sooner than if you started G2. Only other option I see is to stack heavy in Epl and ignore the other zones, including Yugo.
Against a competent player, do you think going after Russia on G1 will actually draw their stack of Inf forward from Leningrad??
Thats the only reason why it may be reasonable to attack so early because 11 Inf with your air force flying over the top should flatten that stack if it moved into the Baltic in a counter on R1.
To take all 3 front zones and Yugoslavia, you would need to spread out pretty thin, and expose tanks.
Up to you, but I don’t see a point. You would not get to Moscow any sooner than if you started G2. Only other option I see is to stack heavy in Epl and ignore the other zones, including Yugo.
Yes, I would ignore Yugoslavia and leave it for Italy, but walk on Bugaria for the free 4 infantry during G1.
Against a competent player, do you think going after Russia on G1 will actually draw their stack of Inf forward from Leningrad??
Thats the only reason why it may be reasonable to attack so early because 11 Inf with your air force flying over the top should flatten that stack if it moved into the Baltic in a counter on R1.
I’m not sure what a competent player would do, because our groups have never experienced a G1 attack on Russia. I’m saying that with the setup changes suggested on HGD for play test, a G1 Russia attack is an arguable strategy.
My response would depend on what you had in those front zones. Obviously Germany can smash whatever you put there, but I would take those spaces back light and stack heavy in Bel and Nuk. If there were tanks I could hit, I’d hit those.
Hard to say exactly without knowing what there was on the board.
IMHO the key to a successful Barabarossa is…Britain.
If Britain sees that Moscow is in trouble and then does EVERYTHING they can to move quickly for a D-Day, the Germans will be spread too thin to do anything. If Britain goes for Africa/the Med, then Moscow will fall–eventually.
G1 I build 2 tnk, 2 art, 1 fighter. I need the fighter to hold off the Brits–I’d put an average of about 1 air unit/turn (maybe 2 later on) against GB. Otherwise, the art. provide support for the inf. and the tnk are my main force. I try to get a force just big enough to take/hold Leningrad, and from there churn out inf. until I’m at Moscow’s gate (when I’ll start putting tnk in Leningrad), but send my main force south towards Ukraine/Stalingrad. Once those 2 fall, Moscow’s really easy.
Personaly, I think landing in France is overrated.
I have a friend who does this, but he purchases only tanks until after moscow falls. He doesn’t beleive in infantry and is very 1 unit minded in all the countries he plays. That being said, moscow usually falls, and it is extremely hard to stop as he has stacks of 3-6 tanks in every territory in the west.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
2 infantry > 1 tank everytime.
Your friend is a fool. You should crush him!
Yes but I never get the opprotunity to play Russia. Our usual Russian player never buys just inf in moscow. The one game he did, after he got like 30 inf he switched to arty and had like 40-50+units in moscow but attacked a small german force with 6 inf 6 arty, but germany just bypassed it and attacked. He was left with one tank, Russia took Moscow back, but Germany had like 15 extra tanks in range. It was a disaster.
Re: the inf. vs. tnk issue.
IMHO inf. are only better weapons if 1. you need hits to be absorbed
2. you aren’t attacking anytime soon
3. for transport efficiency
Infantry are good for the defense of capitols or importatant territories because you can get a mass of them easily in one place. I’d rather deal with 3 tanks than 6 inf because I have to get that many more hits to destroy the infantry.
The game I’m running right now (hopefully finish tonight) the German/Italian player did a strict Barbarossa after conquering France and the results (in the Atlantic at least) were awesome. Granted, there were a few odd factors, like.
-British Med fleet making a run for the Pacific
-Getting Advanced Artillery on G2, effectively making the mass infantry stacks in the East a LOT more dangerous on the offensive.
-Italy effectively assassinating Brit income in Africa/Mid-East.
-Very successful Battle of Britain on G2 (trading fighter for fighter and rolling a 5 and 6 with both strat bombers against the factory)
As far as buys and deployment, the German left a sizable armored force (~5 tanks) supported by infantry and artillery in France with some small infantry stacks along Normandy/Holland supplemented with all of his fighters. In the East it was all Tanks/Mech infantry builds (I think he may have bought a tac bomber too)
As for the operation itself, the kick off wound up being G4 and there was probably some crazy luck with that too (in the massive initial attacks the Germans lost only three infantry). Afterward it was a matter of steamrolling armored forces across Russia until Moscow fell.
The war on my front (Japan) has been an absolute shambles though, despite conquering Calcutta…
ATrain,
Your German strat sounds a lot like one I’m trying to do except I’m hoping to pull Barbarossa on G3. That Advanced Artillery tech is a lucky roll, but I think a tech roll or 2 G2 isn’t a bad idea.
As for the Battle of Britain, IMHO the new SBR rules make it a must. By my G2, I had poured full damage on all facilities except for airbase Scotland.
If anyone can do it……
YG’s the man!
I would like to see my friend play against one of you guys because he pulls it off every time.
Also remember that if you attack Russia, you are giving them a NO (archangel) and taking one away from Germany (trade with Russia). In order to justify this 10 IPC swing, your attack had better be doing lots of damage. Its hard to sustain the momentum that early with Germany, so you will likely have to wait for reinforcements anyway, so I would just wait until you can get a real attack going. The territories that are only worth 1 IPC aren’t worth losing the NO for.
I would like to see my friend play against one of you guys because he pulls it off every time.
Tell him to come and play here at aa.org. We’ll take care of him ! :-D
The answer to your question is an emphatic yes. Barbarossa is not only viable, it is a winning strategy when pursued wisely, and is a freakin’ blast to boot.
Gargantua is right - 2 Infantry is better than a single Armor, all things being equal. But! Germany is a monster when they commit to 1 - 2 Armor per turn starting G2 (along with 8 - 10 Infantry as well). Do the math… by G6 or G7, when things are just starting to heat up, Germany can have an armored force of 15-20 Armor, making life very hard for Russia.
I think artillery a better choice early against Soviet. They boost your infs attack and have desent defence. When I reach moscow I rather roll 25 hits at 2 than 30 hits at one.
If you loose some inf you can always build mecanized to boost the artillery. Tanks is not very cost effective, they should not be bought to early, only for the last push. (besides germany has plenty of tanks)
