Map for 1941 axis strategy

@Argothair said in Reliable 1941 Axis Strategy:

@cheezhead1252 If you want to go hard after Africa, consider skipping the carrier – instead, build something like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 fighter on G1. Don’t bother attacking the Baltic States at all on G1, and instead use your transport to ferry extra infantry to Norway on non-combat. The overall idea is that after you take Egypt, you can pressure Stalingrad from three sides – the Germans push through Ukraine with tanks, the Italians push through Jordan with infantry, and the Japanese push through India with a few land units and a lot of fighter support.

There are interesting opportunities for a 1-2-3 knockout blow. E.g., Germans barely take Stalingrad but can’t hold it; this prevents Russia from building there, which limits how many units they can deploy next turn. Russia retakes Stalingrad, barely, but can’t afford to retake it hard because they also have to guard Moscow against German tanks in Ukraine. Japanese take Stalingrad against the weakened Russian defenses, accepting fighter plane losses to get more land units into the territory, and then Italy sends a couple of tanks and a couple of fighters to reinforce – now Russia can’t take back Stalingrad at all, and Japan is producing 2 inf + 2 tnk every turn right next to Moscow. This is basically game over for Allies even if by now the British have taken Norway & Finland and even France.

I wanted to get your opinion on the Green Skies strategy. Currently, we have been playing without the interceptor rule. My dad recently discovered this strategy and implemented it against me.

So over the last few days I have uncovered some discussion on here from the good captain as well as his video on it and he says Green Skies breaks the game without interceptors.

I wanted to pick your brain to see if you agree with this or if you have developed any counters for this or if you just play with interceptors. I realize some errors in my last game so I have much to improve and want to start there before demand the optional rule :P but still wanted to see what your thoughts are!

@xlome_00 Sea Lion is one of those attacks where the threat is mightier than the execution. If you buy a carrier for the Baltic Fleet on G1, that’s a reasonable purchase anyway to protect your supply lines to Norway/Finland/Leningrad/Baltics. If you move the German Med transport to the central Med, it is protected by the Italian fleet and can reinforce Libya, which is a reasonable move anyway. If you then bring the Italian fleet to take Gibraltar and retake Morocco, that helps score your NOs, so that’s a normal attack. So all of these preparatory moves can be done with minimal cost to the standard Axis war effort.

But then the American bomber cannot sink the German transport without landing in either Egypt (where it will die on a G2 Egypt attack) or Caucasus (where it spoils the Russian NO.)

If they leave your Med transport alive, you move it to Western Med on G2 where Italian fleet protects it again, build a second transport in Baltic on G2 plus an extra plane, and now you are threatening UK with 3 inf, 3 tank, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 bmr on a hypothetical G3 sea lion.

UK can of course defend against this, but they will have to build a fat infantry stack in London instead of factories, ships, or air power. This could cost them the Atlantic fleet or at least force them to retreat it back to Canada; if they built a factory in Africa / India, they might lose it because they cannot afford to build units there on a critical turn. Meanwhile those infantry in London will just sit there inefficiently for several turns because there are not enough transports to ship them anywhere, and not enough warships to protect the Atlantic fleet in a forward position.

Your second Baltic transport is reasonably useful for shipping inf/art to Leningrad, and the extra fighter can of course be used for trading on the eastern front, defending France, etc. as usual.

So you never actually attack London in an AA50 game – you just quietly threaten to attack it, thereby forcing the Allies to waste much more money on defense than you spent on creating the threat.

I think you can do it, but the problem is, if you can justify building the Aus IC then you probably don’t need it.

In recent months I’ve seen more and more US all Pacific (or 90% Pac) strats and with strong US play in the Pacific you don’t really need the Aus IC.  It would help, but the US can protect Aus and take EI.  Bor is a little harder, but once those islands are taken there really isn’t much need for UK support.  It’d be nice to have a little more UK support but its not necessary and certainly not at the expense of letting Russia get crushed by Germany.

I’d consider it under a few circumstances but never in rd 1.  I’d wait until UK can get at least one of its NOs.  And in this case probably the Pac NO.  With the initial UK trn and Aus troops, if you time your taking of Car Is correctly then the US can reinforce with Naval protection.  At this point if you are guaranteed to be able to count on that NO for 2-3 turns.  You might be able to afford the investment.  This would replace the potential IC in Norway.  UK can usually afford an IC in rd 3 or so.  Most cases it probably gets put in Nor, but with a strong Pacific game you can substitute it in for Aus instead.
But again if it looks that good to potentially place in Aus, you might be able to do an Indian IC instead, which is probably better.  And finally if the US was able to take EI, you might be able to place it there.  It really depends on how patient you are and what the overall board looks like as well as your overall strategy.

Of course, I’m not saying that those armor HAVE to head down there, but it DOES give the Japanese a second thought, especially with an American fleet proceeding into their home waters.

I will usually only build extra naval units with Germany if there is some sort of core to build them around. Be that a surviving cruiser or battleship. If I still have one of these in turn two or three I might build some subs or even a destroyer. Also the casualty rate on the Eastern Front cant be too high, because then I will buy extra land units instead.

So basically, it depends on how well the Allies play and how well my navy holds up. Its a opportunistic investment at best and I never considered it a feasible strategy for Germany really.

I always felt allies were stronger in both scenario. You just have to know how to play Russia agressively.

Definitely not. Allies are at a huge disadvantage in 41. Although Axis is at a huge disadvantage in 42. Its unfortunate that neither scenario is balanced.

italy is way cool. here is why:

2 tanks in bulgaria/ epl or 2 inf in EPL with ftr in range will nullify the effect of a 1inf  russian blitzblocker in EUK and BEL. that means whenever theese units are in range, russia cant  press germany with north/south push from KAR,BST / CAU,UKR .  this eases fighting for gerrmany alot imho, as it ristricts the red army.

of course italy will have to get their NOs as often as possible but how you do that really depends on what british / US are doing.

but i prefer italy pumping out ground units as much as possible. maybe a trn+ inf round one is best. this way you get 12 units at end of turn 3 to africa.

Yep, and it’s even more funny do it to the USA in a Polar Express campaign. Priceless

Also, western axis could make a try with SBRs on London if UK makes the error of not buying SAF IC. 16 damage on a country that is colecting about 25 or less? Deadly