Need help with my Barbarossa

If I’m not going for the G6/7 Moscow bum rush, I prefer to buy mostly inf/art every single turn in Berlin.
It’s not as exciting, but good lord does it get the job done.  And it does it much more cheaply - that is, you’ll be able to buy subs/planes in the west every turn as well.  It’s a much stronger long-term strategy.
Eventually Russia just gets crushed by the waves of German forces.

I like mech units at a point, but you should be supplanting your force with inf/art from the frontline USSR IC’s.

I know its been done, but I’ll give a quick rundown of my strategy…

G1: buy a minor IC in Romania and some naval supplements
G2: 5 inf 5 art in Berlin, and 3 art in Romania
G3: Same as above
G4: Begin the invasion
EVERY TURN AFTER: Build 5 inf and 5 art in Berlin, and 3 inf in Romania
G?: Once you feel you will soon be ready to take Moscow, build mechs and tanks in the Russian and Romania factories.

With a constant supply of 10+ units heading to Russia each turn, the Soviet Union will have to fall back, and eventually will crumble. Any money left over should be used to form an Atlantic wall. If Japan can keep America busy, Germany will have sufficient defenses when the US finally arrives.

Just finished a game crushing moscow on G9

built 3 rounds of 5 INF/5 ART from berlin G2-G4

Then tanks from Novgorod russia ICs when i got them and built plenty of tacs when i could to pair up with tanks on the final assault

honestly the key is strategic bomb the crap outta USSR factorys
on USSR 7 he could only build from volgograd (3 mechs) and on R8 after SBR repair in moscow he built 2 INF lol so scary

was pretty one sided

Ive never tried massing tanks/mechs
thing is with inf/art you have enough money to fortify france from being taken by the allies before you take moscow
if you can take moscow but lose france at the same time with berlin under immediate threat then whats the point lol ?

If you commit to a strategy, of Control over the Ukraine, and Novogorod, coupled with a factory in Romania,  you should be able to simply OUTBUILD the Russians until the game is over, as long as you can keep your income relative and increasing.

13 units a turn will put them down, and you’ll have a few extra resources to defend europe with.

That said,  building 50/50 inf and art, isn’t viable.  The ratio should be different.  You’re going to losing infantry, and having artiller around with nothing to support, doesn’t help anyone but your enemy.

I suggest 6 inf 4 art  save a buck for something else.  If you have the money, you should also be building an aircraft unit everyturn.  A fighter OR Bomber.

My other favourite is this… 3 inf UKR,  1/2 mec 1/2 arm ROM  a slow stack build in UKR,  with reinforcements in Berlin, trickling in via the baltic.

you make a good point about INF/ART ratio gargantua,

my question would be what is the best move for USSR when germany is full barbarosa starting G2?

My move has always been to pull back everything, make him move slowly but never leave my stacks vulnerable, there are hardly any battles untill moscow at or after G9. USSR will have 75+ INF and in my opinion have maximized the time it takes for Germany to take moscow, this is taking into consideration that germany is moving very slow also never leaving stacks exposed and if there are any battles (USSR is forcing germany to attack its stacks) they are usualy pretty heavily in favor of the germans.

By G9 you can have 12 INF from east russia in moscow plus the 2 extra AA from there….

if germany ever slips up, or doesnt build enough land units into moscow then USSR counter attacks will be brutal

The Inf/art ratio changes depending on what turn it is. On the first turn, I build 6 art and 4 inf in Berlin, and then on the next 3 or so turns it is 5 inf and 5 art. The reason I try to maintain equality with the ground force is because Russia usually turtles (Like Uncrustable states) and doesn’t have many big battles until they are pressured right up to Moscow, so still have a heavy dose of infantry that needs artillery support If Russia plays more aggressively and I end up losing infantry, I will be able to counter-attack more effectively when all my stacks are attacking at 2. Its worth the extra buck to have an extra 2 for 2 instead of 2 for 1. Either way it screws Russia over.

Stalingradski, I used your basic Germany blueprint in two games, and it worked brilliantly.  The Allies were never able to break down my Atlantic Wall and the Russians fell to the never-ending pressure.

In my current game where I am playing the Allies, my opponent has opted for an infantry/artillery strategy as the Germans.  It was a pretty menacing force, but eventually his main attack was ground down to just tanks. We are in turn 7, so we will see where this one ends up.  I foresee an Allied victory with the UK eventually grinding the German warmachin down with never-ending strategic bombing and relentless Russian pressure.

if there are still strategic bombers available, they should be sent to bomb the USSR, they usually have their fighters in one spot so just bomb any defenseless factory…

Thank you brisco! I’m glad it worked for you.

What you probably found is if you’re patient, and methodical about your purchases, you can have a blast with Germany. But the key is the dedication to the Kriegsmarine, a slowly growing Atlantic Wall, and a steady flow of at least 6 Infantry toward Russia. The patiently added Mech/Armor units grow until they become absolutely monstrous, lurking behind those boots. Russia can’t keep up, and the Allies can’t break through in the west.

Or by the time they do, Russia is done.

IMO, it’s no longer a trade war vs Russia like in the old games, it’s a take-and-hold-territories war, which requires a great deal of mobility and flexibility (the purchase of 2-3 mobile forces + an aircraft per turn) combined with volume (the purchase of 8 - 10 infantry per turn).

Russia is a very easy faction to control. All you have to do is what Stalin did. He basically made his frontal defense weak on purpose so his rear defenses were strong. And also, with Russia’s income, buy Infantry then Mech Infantry, then artillery and that is all you buy.

@ Stalingradski - Do you not ever consider a Sealion approach then?  I like your builds recommendations and agree with the steady flow of boots towards Russia.  Earlier we had exchanged thoughts regarding a major IC on the eastern front.  I had only played OOB rules then and see that in alpha the Berlin IC has been converted to a major which really negates the need for the Major IC on the eastern front.  Been tossing around the Sealion option and it seems like it isn’t part of your strategy at all?

Field - thanks for asking.

To me, finding a mechanical method that takes out the UK, guaranteed, feels like a cheat. I’m a little bit of a purist, and I feel that Barbarossa is the natural order of things.

It then becomes a question of… do you see this game as a boardgame (just like any other) to be conquered and won, or a historical reenactment to be played better than the actual war was waged? That’s a major philosophical question for players of this game. It isn’t a terribly serious one, unless you think that A&A is serious fun… which I do.

So, I always purchase two transports on G1, to create the appearance and threat of Sealion, which forces the UK to purchase accordingly, and slows them down in Africa.

If the UK player defends London properly, I then turn all attention to the East… an economic war against the UK (strategic bombing/naval throttling in SZs 109/103), and a methodical dismantling of Russia.

If the UK player decides to leave London less heavily defended, I’d go ahead and put on a full-scale assault on London. I happen to play regularly against a person who always defends the UK against Sealion.

My answer, then, is to posture for Sealion - always - and from then on act based on the actions of your opponent.

I have always thought of the game as “a reenactment to be played better than the actual war was waged.”  If you are posturing for Sealion then that seems to mirror history somewhat.  I think if Hitler could have invaded England he would have.  Finding the method to take out UK is historical - Hitler just couldn’t do it, or thought the Luftwaffe had done more damage to England’s capacity to continue than it actually had.

In that sense Sealion is both a viable option as “winning a board game” and as better “historical reenactment.”  If you are emphasizing the “guarantee” of taking the UK out by discovering/developing a full-proof method then I agree.  I haven’t played the global game enough to know.  From reading different posts though it appears that prior to alpha 3 the success of Sealion was statistically very high (guaranteed), but the latest rules change that. Correct me if I am wrong here.

So then, in alpha 3+, against an experienced UK player who knows how to defend against an invasion Sealion has some risk to it.  A gamble?  One that could ruin Germany and be difficult to recover from if failed.  Your Atlantic Wall theory and unit production for Barbarossa, pushing infantry toward the East, is low risk and seems like the safest road travelled for the Axis that gives them a chance to win.

Now, I have read where you suggest possibly moving your Baltic fleet into the Med to cause problems for the Allies helping the Italians.  Is this a regular option for you or just a circumstantial one depending on the position of the Allies in a particular game?

Appreciate the thoughts - I enjoy reading how people play the game as much as I enjoy reading the history of it.

Sealion is very possible, You have to use your Baltic fleet and some planes and Tacs from Germany. Use Your subs too. The northern fleet must be destroyed to. Use more planes from germany and your northern subs to destroy it. You might have some heavy loses, But if they are destroyed, Sealion is easy.

Correct me if I have some wrong things.

don’t know if sealion is easy
but it is possible

FM7 - great point that Hitler would have invaded England if he could have. When I was younger, I read a great deal about Sealion, and the two major issues for Germany were air supremacy and the marshalling of enough watercraft to pull it off. The first nearly happened (but for the accidental bombing of London and subsequent switch from targeting airfields/radar to blitz bombing), but the second was never close to reality.

You’re right that the latest version did a good job making Sealion less of a mathematical certainty. To that I say good job to Larry, Krieghund, and playtesters. It had to be done. At this point I think it’d take playing against someone unprepared to get an easy Sealion chance.

Yes, Barbarossa is lower risk - I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right. For me it’s also beyond winning or losing and becomes about the art of it all. The dance on the Eastern Front is quite nice… if you’re Germany.

The movement of part of the German fleet to the Med is absolutely circumstantial - I find that I like to have a German boat or two to go with airpower, to be used as fodder in helping Italy (try to!) keep control of the Med and contest for NOs. Plus Germany can give a one time boost to Italy by capturing Gibraltar and Morocco before heading north again to prepare for the invasion of Russia.

Now I need help with my Italy play… my main opponent has caught on to my strategy, and counters it with a major concentration of Brit forces in the center of the board. He holds Egypt/Iraq/Persia, builds an IC, and pushes up through Caucasus, and causes me all kinds of trouble… any thoughts on how to balance a good Barbarossa and still have Italy be a player in Africa and the Middle East? I tend to protect the underbelly fiercely with Italy, pull out of Africa, push small stacks of infantry toward Russia, and make the Allies earn their way into the Med in very bloody fashion. But I never get Egypt or Iraq…

When I was younger, I read a great deal about Sealion, and the two major issues for Germany were air supremacy and the marshalling of enough watercraft to pull it off. The first nearly happened (but for the accidental bombing of London and subsequent switch from targeting airfields/radar to blitz bombing), but the second was never close to reality.

Yeah…German ideas for invading England amphibiously were…um…interesting.

For example the Germans figured they could make enough flat barges to transport all their troops and stuff, so the Wehrmacht would cross the ENGLISH CHANNEL on flat, open boats with little air cover…

Stalingradski - I am familiar with the details of the Battle of Britain, including the accidental bombing by the Luftwaffe and the impact it had on choosing future targets.  My favorite reads have been The Second World War by John Keegan and The Panzer Leader, an autobiography by Guderian.

As far as Italy goes I am trying to figure out how the classic strategies I used for so long fit into AAG40.  Only a couple games thus far and playing this week.  However, I have thought about your Atlantic Wall approach which invests in a higher volume of German naval units than I have ever done.  I have always went straight Barbarossa and continually marched infantry stacks towards Moscow.  The more you invest in Naval units the less you have to invest in units for the eastern front.

From my point of view you make up for this on the eastern front by supplementing with Italian forces.  By supplementing with Italy you have to give up North Africa.  So it is give and take.  I have always let Germany take as many countries as possible to build their IPC income high.  My Atlantic Wall is usually the slow build up of a large force in Paris that has always been capable of knocking the invasion force right back into the ocean.  The one trick is shifting all the aircraft to Russia just prior to the Moscow battle.  With no Italians on the eastern front they have more freedom to have a go at it in North Africa, and that gives you more Italian units to defend the Axis underbelly.

If the Italians win one or two decisive battles in North Africa then it will take the allies that much longer to get to Europe.  (I have read where you consider North Africa a side show.) I think one difference between us is that I am buying time for the Axis in North Africa whereas you are buying time with the addition of Naval units into your Atlantic wall.

I haven’t played alpha rules though - only OOB, so I am sure the next game will be different.  Unsure about how the larger UK Med fleet will affect Italy’s chances in North Africa.  I like parts to your strategy, specifically the naval builds by Germany as part of the Atlantic Wall.  So, there’s lots to discover here on my part and I am certainly not holding my “classic” approach as superior to yours or others.

One thought though - maybe you have become too predictable against an opponent that is familiar with your game play.  I used to regularly win against the best opponent I ever played.  Then one game he seemed to figure out the allies and how to play against me and it took a long time to beat him again.  It was hard to veer away from a familiar and confident strategy.  Is there more than one way to win as the axis when playing a solid opponent?

With Germany its either Sealion (then Barbarossa, or if your feeling lucky, a USA invasion) or just Barbarossa.

Japan however has several options, China first, Crush Calcutta, Pearl Harbor, Sydney, Eastern Russia…