Spring 1942 - Fortress Europe Axis Strategy

@Bunnies:

Nice responses.  For those picking up this thread here, we are discussing German response to KGF.

I did not make clear the “Allied fighters to Moscow” shuttle idea, or the “committed infantry/artillery on G1” ideas.

1.  Allied fighters to Moscow is a bad move when taken in isolation.  As Hobbes stated, Allies cannot swap fighters for German or Japanese ground.

To clarify, I predict the situation to be that if the Allies did end up going KGF, that the US should have a minmum of 4 fighters, and the UK a minimum of 2 fighters.  The Allies should have built these fighters for three reasons.

A.  Destroy any German naval buildup in the Baltic area.  (There probably won’t be any real threatening German build in the Baltic anyways.)
B.  Landed on carriers to help protect the Allied fleet
C.  To trade territory with Germany and/or Japan together with Allied ground units.  (Early in the game, surviving UK ground forces from Trans-Jordan to India, and surviving US ground forces from China can be used to swap, using infantry/bomber or infantry/two fightes.  Later in the game, UK and US ground forces come from transports.)

So this is to say that the Allies should have fighters without having significantly impaired their Atlantic transport chain.   This is also to say that the Allies SHOULD have broken into Africa and/or have landed in Karelia/Archangel before Moscow is seriously threatened; it’s a typical KGF.  Soon, the Allies crack Norway and start threatening W. Europe in force.  It’s about now that the Allies can choose to send fighters to Moscow or West Russia.  Moscow based UK and US fighters reinforce against Japan’s final press from the east, while trading Russian territory with UK/US ground forces in the west.

That is, Allied fighters to Moscow is not a strategy of itself.  It’s a tactic the Allies should use as part of their overall plan to defend Moscow, and to buy more time for the Allies to crack Germany open.

2.  On the idea of a committed infantry/artillery build on G1 (specifically 12 infantry 1 artillery) - Russia goes first.  Russia does not need to (or, I would even say, want to) signal the Allied intentions towards Germany or Japan.  Next up is Germany.  My idea is that the Germans will inevitably want to push infantry on Russia, regardless of whatever they want to do.  Since that is the only given at this point (that you want infantry to press towards Moscow), that is what I think the G1 build should commit to.  On UK1 and US1 (AFTER the G1 turn), the Allies usually signal their intent to go KGF or KJF depending on the Axis build.

I’d say that if the Germans build a German bomber after the UK/US have already committed to KGF, that’s fine and appropriate.  But until then, I do not see a need for a German bomber.  So why build one, considering that every bomber means 4 less early infantry pressing on Moscow? UK1/US1 landing in Libya (in Africa) should already be easily covered by German fighters / bomber in Western Europe with German subs in the Atlantic.

I think that if you see an Allied fleet build coming, then you can counter with the necessary number of bombers.

There is no question that Germany CAN use early bombers.  It’s just that I think German has more need of early infantry, to open up Germany’s options by the time the first and second German-built infantry waves start hitting the Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine region.

I agree with everything. The question of the 2nd German bomber I guess is a personal choice that increases the possibility (but still low though) to prevent any UK1 naval build. Limiting the UK’s options at the beginning buys time for the Germans against the UK/US, which is how I really prefer to play Germany, regardless of KGF/KJF. Unless you are planning to move a German stack to Karelia/Ukraine around round 4, which is not my usual German play unless Russia has gone after Norway on round 1.

But your points regarding the all inf buy for G1 are valid. I’ve tried that purchase before if R1 plays out differently than usual but I’ll try it more using the all inf buy for G1.

@ashoka:

Really great discussion and strategy here; it helps me understand overall objectives and how to reach them much better.

Question though:

G1 attack Ukraine with only 2 inf and 1 fighter…

How is that possible? Usually Russia has 3 tanks, 1 art and maybe even 1 inf remaining in Ukraine (after R1 take W.R. and Ukr.)
In order to take Ukr, G1 I usually have to send 5 inf, 2 tanks and 1 fig to get 90% odds.
This changes things a little because then EE has only 4 tanks after G1 rather than 6 tanks, so it takes a little longer to build up.

Like you mentioned, the more Russia has on the Ukraine, the harder it gets to retake it. The 2 inf + 1 ftr are good for a single Russian tank.
The number of Russian units on Ukraine that survive the attack is something to consider when choosing this strat. The best counter I’ve seen so far involves Russia pushing hard on Ukraine while the remaining Allies scramble to try to squeeze G before Japan arrives.

Another question I have is when you’re just trying to trade territories for example Russia and Germany trading Ukr, what battle odds should you look for? I mean should you only commit enough units to have 75% chance to win or something like that, or should it be more like 90%?

Thanks

When trading territories I usually look more into the numbers of units involved and their power. Against 1 unit, 2 inf + fighter, against 2 units, 3 inf + ftr, against 3, 5 inf + ftr, etc. Overall I’d say that you need 75% and plus odds on those attacks.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

They would move up to Libya.  In this case it would not be a good idea to make it easy for the allies to pin and destroy your africa forces.  Better to make them chase you down, perhaps tie up more allied navy to bring forces to south africa to chase you down.

Yes. It’s just one of those automatic moves that I didn’t remember to add it here.