Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

I don’t have ideas on how to stop this. Italy’s navy cannot be saved indefinately imho.

What I do know is that the London defense in your post is not enough to stop Germany from taking London with 20 units surviving (with LowLuck system)…
Downside for the Axis with this, is that Russia will much likely be strong enough to contest Eastern Europe for a while (but not strong enough to threaten Berlin). Upside is that London is firmly in axis hands and the Italian Navy is still largely intact.
If Italy sails out its remaining TRS (with/without protection) it can bring at least 4 more land units into Africa and (combined with its airforce) become dangerous for the UK there.
UK should have a hard time deciding between keeping the RAF in Egypt for defense or using it in killing the Italian navy but loosing precious RAF units. Possibly tipping the balance in favor of Italian ground/air forces in Africa.

Egypt can of course now be reinforced from India but their resources may be a little… limited  :wink:

So the bottomline is that maybe the UK must weaken Africa even further to keep London alive or at least make a German victory there at least a pyyrhic one (so that it can be easily liberated by the USA, spelling doom to the Axis cause).
I say maybe because this is a scenario that I have not seen played out till the end. I have seen the Germans up until their noses in trouble because of roughly 200 IPCs worth of units not active against Russia (compared to throwing everything into Stalin’s face) but that was with London liberated again.
Now there is 221IPCs worth of units less against Russia: 2 turns worth of IPCs spent on ships only + all German forces in London that will become POW’s because USA will sink the Kriegsmarine before extraction is even possible. But Germany can still decide that it doesn’t need such a large garrison in London, buying more land units against Russia and surviving Sea Lion with 11-15 units.

Very interesting things to try out :-)

Just be careful not to shoot in your own feet by doing this  :-D.

Italy could still have easy access to neutrals (=extra troops + income) in Africa and Germany…
…Well, Germany will have easy access to Sweden and Turkey if you attack Spain. Turkey may not be as easy if the UK (right after the USA) can take it (and hold it) but that ofc depends a lot on how the war in Africa is going.
And last but not least, the USA is going to loose units by attacking Spain. Not a lot but some 2-4 depending on the dice and this might just be enough to limit further operations for a turn or two, leaving Germany in its comfort-zone a while longer.
Normally I am not fond of loosing american units in situations like this, because the war in the Pacific may make it very hard for the USA to replace lost troops in Europe (you don’t want Japan to snipe 6VC there and the USA plays a key role there).
But since this is Europe only, there is no Japan to worry about and it will be easier to replace lost troops.

Anyway, you get the picture  :wink:.

From top to bottom, my preferences are:

-Can the allies leapfrog the UK into Berlin (US taking Denmark + Norway)?
-Can Rome be taken without being kicked out next turn immediately?
-Can the allies safely land in Normandy?
-We can land in Norway (which is a great aircraft carrier to launch RAIDS from on German factories)!

But it depends of course a lot on how the axis positioned their strength. Norway should  always be possible and if Mainland Europe is nowhere safe (at this moment) I comfort myself that all those German defenders are NOT active in Russia.

The only downside of Norway is that the allies loose, for a couple of turns, their flexibility to strike everywhere they want. The Axis forces can be less stretched. It shouldn’t be too much of a problem but the allies must still be aware of it.

So, yes, DDay can be a success but imho the Axis dictate if it is possible or not.

If you are known in your play group for launching nasty surprises against the UK, the best thing UK can do is play very cautious with the pieces it has that can reach London.

So far I have experienced two possible strategies for the UK to ward off a disaster (GE occupying London with a rather large garrison, very difficult for the USA to liberate -even more so if Japan can put a lot of pressure on the USA in the pacific):

• Build and bring a LOT of units to Gibraltar UK1 -> London UK2. This may either save London or get GE a pyrrhic victory easily overcome by the USA. Works against both focused and surprise Sea Lions. Note: UK has to treat ‘GE building nothing’ as a focused SL!

• Make London have 5 to 6 aircraft (no more of 4 being ftr/tac), ready to strike UK2. If GE tries to launch a surprise Sea Lion (i.e. builds a lot of TRS but does not have a lot of escortships GE2), UK can build 2CV in the channel -providing a landing spot for the shorter ranged aircraft- and kill the invasion fleet. This works only against nasty surprises and gives UK more units to fight with in the Med., possibly even doing a ‘Taranto’, but not in the most optimal strength ratio.

In my experience, the top possibility for the UK is the only ones that can ward off disaster should GE build nothing GE1 and it does NOT work if UK launches ‘Taranto’, so go ahead and punish the allies if they launch it. Maybe next time they will be more cautious, leaving more toys for Italy to play with  :wink:.

@MistuhJay:

@ItIsILeClerc:

I still think the best way to get the brits into their most cautious mode, is GE buying nothing GE1. If the Uk gets agressive, GE2 can produce a deadly force for SL GE3. Even Barbarossa is still a very good option.

But what’s stopping UK from doing the same thing?  Buy nothing, run Taranto, and wait til UK2 to respond to a Sealion threat.  Seems like a lot of German initiative is being sacrificed with little payoff.

The fact that the UK only has 1 major IC in London stops it from doing the same. Germany has 2 (WGermany + Berlin) and can squeeze out 20 units GE2 after not building anything GE1. UK however, will face major defeat if it can only place 10units UK2.

The rulebook uses the term “sea units”. I think submarines qualify for that  :wink:.

In real life you might have a point (who can detect where a nation’s subs are), but the wording of the rules leave no room for interpretation.

Unfortunately, the CA and TRS can’t reach 110. Just realized they start in 114 :-(. It can get there GE2 though.

Exactly my point.
Though it hurts, the BB is required for attacking 110 to prevent a catastrophe for the Germans.

I have yet to meet the Brit who is willing to take the risk of scrambling 110 if Germany attacks it with 2subs 1BB 3FTR 3TAC (projected hits inflicted: 4, but 5 may be the best to acknowledge).

Of course, this is all LL-talk. If you are playing with the dice and your opponent is a gambler, he/she might scramble anyway and loose the game right there. Or win it, if the dice seem to hate you (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32089.0)…

If you know your opponent won’t scramble, consider building an AB in Holland instead of the CV. With that base, Germany can has 1sub 1CA 1BB 3FTR and a TRS in the channel 8-).

@ShadowHAwk:

Actualy i give them a target 2 tempting not to attack as germany.

buy 1 AC + 1 dest.
2 subs -> gibraltar cruisers
2 subs 1 BB 1 fig 1 tact 1 strategic  vs the fleet of scotland
1 sub  All air vs the channel fleet. This is optional.
Land at least 1 fig in south italy.
Optional -> sink the france fleet with 1 fig 1 tactical 1 strategic and land them in south italy.

Target is to strafe the fleet of schotland get idealy 3-4 hits and then retreat to the SC off denmark. with 1 damaged BB.

So this gives the UK 2 options.
Attack your damaged BB and have a decent chance of sinking that fleet.
Attack Italy and leave itself wide open for Sea lion, his BB cant repair and next round it will be dead.

And even if they sink italy fleet next turn they will lose a lot of money in convoy zones the turn after.

Even though it is optional, it looks like GE should not attack SZ110:
If UK scrambles, GE looses 6air, to the UK only 3 (remember, the scramblers cannot hit submarines). Isn’t this a killing blow for any subsequent Sea Lion/Barbarossa?
But not attacking 110 leaves an undamaged BB+2CA in the channel. Combined with the (likely) damaged BB from SZ111, doesn’t this also provide the UK with an excellent deterrent against Sea Lion?
Even with GE 2SUB + 3FTR + 3TAC versus UK BB + 2CA + 3FTR, the projection of survivors is 1 German aircraft. So 5 German air lost to 3 brits.

I still think the best way to get the brits into their most cautious mode, is GE buying nothing GE1. If the Uk gets agressive, GE2 can produce a deadly force for SL GE3. Even Barbarossa is still a very good option.

@knp:
I think your HR will make angry bird easier for the axis.
To a gamebreaking level? Maybe yes, maybe no, I don’t know. The way I see it, grabbing Turkey is the strongest point of this strategy because it gives quick access to all the axis oil-oriented NO’s and to the shortcut into Calcutta. Or Africa. The HR takes away I think the main downsides for the axis to attack Turkey: extra troops + income for the allies coming from Spain and African neutrals, plus the cancellation of the Swedish NO for Germany (and extra income for the allies later on when Sweden is taken).

@Cyanight:
You are welcome. I love this way of ‘exploring strategies’ with like-minded people  :-). Give and recieve feedback. Yummy!
While we’re at it, maybe it would be a boost to your strategy if you accept that Spain/Gibraltar  cannot be held.
You could attack spain just to deny the US those extra troops and then get the hell out of there, returning the ARM/MECH/AIR to the ‘eastfront’, reverting to the standard western defense.

Really like the idea of taking the time to take on Russia/China with Japan. Done that myself couple of times. Only downside of delaying the US till round 4, is India + ANZAC DOW Japan round3 gaining massive economies. Those two will become very angry birds themselves. Let alone the US who can perfectly see on beforehand what is going on (moving after Japan) and focus a ‘bit’ more on Germany. Caveat emptor! Every advantage has a disadvantage in this game  :wink:.

I truly like the idea and hope for the best,
but I fear the Russian threat will to be too much for GE and IT with this strategy. I do not know for sure and will try it out someday! Why I think so:

US3/4: 8inf+3art+4mech+1arm -> Take Gibraltar.
UK3/4: 2inf+arm+art+6ftr -> Reinforce Gibraltar.

The above are reasonable numbers of allied troops in the atlantic at that time in the game. Reasonable as in nothing special. Could be better, could be worse. USA doesnt have to bleed the pacific dry or something like that.

I understand that GE wants to protect Gibraltar/Spain in this strategy. For this, GE needs 10mech+6arm+5ftr+5tac+2str as a counter strikeforce in SFrance. A smaller force will also be victorious but that will be a pyrrhic victory (GE loosing half its luftwaffe) and will thus end axis hope for victory.

Now, calculating the IPC-worth of axis units that is not active in/against Russia (compared to a standard Barbarossa) because of this strategy, I get to 257IPCs that Russia does NOT have to deal with:
-Building 8mech and keeping them in France (GE will loose 2 in Spain);
-Keeping the 4 original mech in France;
-Keeping 6arm in France;
-Keeping the Luftwaffe from defensive duty in/against Russia (based in either Paris or W. Germany);
-More subs + TRS built;
-2ICs built;
-Extra axis units lost in the attack on Turkey/Sweden…
-If UK scrambles SZ111 you are likely to unnecessarily loose 2 planes there (consider sending no planes into France).

I’ll not look into Turkey. The UK is on its flanks but it is so close to Russia that I take all axis units there as ‘offending Russia’ :wink:.

So, a total of at least 257IPCs-worth of units compared to a standard Barbarossa is not active against the Red Army. I know from (Sea Lion) experience that 215IPCs worth of units NOT active in Russia is a disaster for Germany. And now I look at 257!

Surely the red army must spread out more but so does the Wehrmacht. Really curious about how this will go when I try it!

@knp7765:

(…)I think this is a strategy that can work if your opponent is not expecting it. However, if the Allies expect a neutral crush to happen, they can plan around it.

Well said.
I expected as much tbh. Regarding grand strategies this game is very sharply balanced or so it seems.

I am also very interested in this strategy, but I can’t follow your math, Razor.

Sure, before Germany attacks Russia, GEIT can have a 70IPC income together (you forgot to count Greece and Yughoslavia) in the optimistic case. In our games, Italy never gets to Iraq with Germany busy in Russia (not even if London is conquered by Germany, but that is another strategy) and the NO for a clear med is only very short lived. A couple of turns later the Axis peak at 90 together.
Some NOs are lost, others are gained, same as some territories. From this point on, if the allies got their act together, things will slowly get worse for the axis, but with Norway and Italian NO gone (both go rather quickly) the score plummets to 77 first. Fast.

Now for the True Neutral strategy.
When I calculate the axis income, obviously I get to the same 70IPC income before the attack on Turkey/Russia. This proceeds into 110IPCs per turn in the very optimistic case that Germany and Italy can take all of the middle east + Caucasus + Cairo.
Portugal, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the clear med cannot be held very long, so that reduces this still very optimistic case down to 89 IPCs/turn quickly.

Here is where I must enter the area of guessing: can Germany and Italy take Cairo AND all of the middle east AND Caucasus? AND not loose a single eastern European country?? I think GE must make a choice here. Assuming they take the oil + Caucasus (most rewarding), Cairo will be out of the equasion, reducing the projected axis income to 77IPCs/turn…

So the score for Barbarossa:True Neutrals would be 77:77 in my ‘prediction’. :-o.

Well, certainly I am going to try it sometime soon to see how/what/where and when.

Like the commander said before me, apart from all the extra troops (!), the allies will gain at least +7 IPCs per turn compared to a GE campaign in the RU motherland… And that is when they can NOT contest any of the middle eastern areas. I really believe they will be able to do just that. Russia will be a monster soon, producing in the 50’s to 60’s every turn.
Assuming Russia will be the one taking Finland, Norway and Sweden, the allies will be making even +13IPC more per turn minimum, versus an axis that will make roughly the same as usual.

@knp7765:

I also have a question about the game. In the event that Germany/Italy does a “Neutral Crush” and maybe spends time taking over the Middle East and/or securing the Med and North Africa, and they do NOT declare war on Russia by turn 4, do you think it would be wise for Russia to declare war on Germany, even if they don’t actually attack, to cancel that German NO for peace with the Soviet Union?

My personal opinion: that seems to be the wise decision.
Not only will it cancel the 5IPCs to Germany, it also gives 5IPCs to Russia. The allies should not allow any axis partner to focus on a theatre unchallenged. Force them germans to spread their armies over thousands of miles.

My 2 cents.

@knp7765:

ItIsILeClerc,
That was some interesting facts regarding Turkey and the possibility of an Axis invasion. You mentioned UK sending an expeditionary force to aid the Turks. I am curious, do you think that could have possibly weakened the UK in North Africa, perhaps making it easier for the Afrika Korps to defeat them?

Hi knp,

I know that the Commonwealth forces in the middle east consisted of more than just the 8th army (yes, the one involved in defeating Rommel  :wink:).
There were also the 9th and 10th army, tasked with defending Iraqi and Persian Oil. Roughly 50 divisions total.
I don’t have any more information so I can only guess as to what those 2 armies were doing while the 8th army chased Rommel.
My guess is, however, that they were sitting in Persia/Iraq in strategic reserve so I would have sent them into Turkey had Germany attacked it because what better place could there be to defend the Iraqi/Persian oil than in the Turkish mountains?! Britain, as Germany and Italy, was courting the Turks into joining them and I can only see that as proof that they all knew the strategical importance of Turkey.
While in the business of reading tea-leaves, if the CW would not have been able to aid Turkey, there is also the Russian standing. Do we believe that Stalin would have accepted a German invasion of Turkey and would not have demanded ‘retreat or else’? After all, for Germany to attack Poland (and exert its influence into some other countries bordering Russia), The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact had to be made up. Careful political maneuvering to avoid military conflict.

Perhaps we need to create a new thread regarding Turkey alone  :-D.

I like the local effects it may or may not have to attack Turkey with the axis: dispersion of the Red Army? Caucasus and the oil-rich middle east in German Hands? And if so, for how long? Axis being able to sandwich Caïro?

Personally I am pondering… Germany could march towards Calcutta via this shortcut with an army that could be large enough to defeat India, or just barely not do so (in which case Japan of course will finish the job). This might give Japan the opportunity to spend just that much more IPCs on taking Hawaï instead of India so that Both Calcutta and Hawaï could be in axis hands turn 8.
Wishful thinking or a viable strategy, I have not put much thought in it yet, so it remains to be seen.

Germany/Italy can attack through Turkey but they really have to be aware of the costs. It may well be a Pandora’s box opened by Germany, especially because of all the other Neutrals. Spain, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Angola are now easily turned by the allies and they deliver a no small number of extra troops in the allied lap. Not to mention South America. And Russia will have more IPCs for longer. Last but not least, the attack on Russia comes later, closer to the point where the USA and UK are starting to peak and that is a very dangerous time for the axis because they will have less time to wage a war unchallenged.

I also think the game reflects the Turkish situation OK. Turkey slightly too weak but that is offset by the other neutrals that will join the allies.

Warning: historical/geographical jibber jabber below. If you are only interested in the game I would skip it :wink:
I do not think one can estimate the Turkish supposed strength against Germany/Italy in WW2 by the fact they were driven back by the Greeks up until '22. The Greeks had aid from their allies Italy, France, Britain and the Turks were also not a little weakened by all the previous events that had led to this point; its defeat as the Ottoman Empire at the hands of General Sir Edmund Allenby in WW1 being not a mall factor. We could even admire the Turks for being able to survive all that  :-).
Early '41 the Turkish army again consisted of roughly 50 divisions. Albeit poorly equipped but they still would’ve had favourable terrain. The Mountains of east-, southeast-, and the mediterranean part of Anatolia are reaching 1,5 to 3 kilometers into the sky so that is no easy obstacle to wrest from any defender. We might wonder if the Turks would have surrendered if Ankara + istanbul were conquered by the axis, but I am not that good reading coffee or tea-leaves  :evil:.
Last but not least, I don’t think Britain would not have sent expeditionary forces to aid the Turks had Germany attacked. And they were not so ill-equipped. So I am not convinced that Germany would have been able to march through Turkey with ease. The more I dive into this, the more I am inclined to think that for Germany going thru Turkey may help to win the Middle East, but not so much the Soviet Union (which is where the war can be won).

The whole Turkey -> Middle East Oil has me intrigued for a long time now!

I’ve read somewhere this was part of the Rommel ‘fantasy’. Given his brilliance one can only imagine that the fantasy-label comes from the Germans not being able to try it because of the whole lebensraum thing going on.

Definately worth a study for a future A&A game ;-)

I have tried to do just this in some other games more into simulation than A&A and I Always stumbled into the following problems:

• The turkish army is not so big, but the country is very, very mountainous. A dreamland for defensive campaigns, guerilla-tactics like cutting supplylines etc. And the mountains alone will slow any army down like Russian mud could be jealous of.

• Once ploughed through Turkey, the army must wade through hundreds of miles of desert, a nightmare for supplylines.

Basically all my tries failed because of -you might guess- failing supply lines or not enough resources available to even set up the supply lines necessary to get the army where it needs to go!
Not to mention that the enormous amounts of resources needed to keep the supplies flowing, severely limit the supplies left for a Russian campaign.

Likewise, as a comparison, the Commonwealth/UK of course were not hindered by this, because they could race through Persia along the coast, similar like Rommel did in North Africa (and as both armies acknowledged, this is/was the only option when waging a desertwar).

I keep wondering how close such simulations are to a real life situation of those times, but in A&A, the ‘huge’ Turkish army might not even be huge enough to reflect the sheer stopping power of the supply-nightmare a German/Italian army would have faced had they tried to reach Middle East via Turkey!

@ColonelCarter:

(…)
Point (3) only says that the dice must be rolled simultaneously (i.e. before any casualties are chosen), it does not say that you don’t have to keep track of what unit rolled what. (…)

Thanks, Colonel, that cleared it to me. I can sleep well again, knowing I always played it right ;-).

Just to get this straight.

I stumbled upon the (2nd ed.) rules regarding this particular situation (conduct combat) and it says:

(…)
3. ALL attacking units roll their dice (and all units with the same attack value roll simultanuously, somewhere further in the rules).
4. The defender MUST assign as much hits as possible (i.e. sub-hits on ships, other hits on air).
(…)

It confuses me because applying all this to ‘the battle of the baltic sea’, doesn’t this mean that German attacking units all fire and if there is 2 (or more) hits from German FTR and CA combined, the defending Russian fleet MUST assign a hit to the sub (i.e. they MUST assume the German CA scored a hit)??
Because all German FTR and CA roll @3 and we must roll them at the same time: taking the rules strictly I tend to think we are not allowed to separate the German CA from the FTR??

If the Russian fleet would have, say 2 subs and all German attackers @3 score a hit, THEN only 1 sub can be taken as a loss because we cannot assume 2CA scored a hit where there is only 1…

I Always separated the dice in situations like this baltic battle but now I am  :? :?

A&A is a game of thr… balance  :roll:

The NOs and the military positions cannot reflect history, because the balance of the game would be ruined.

A historical simulation in this game would mean Russia producing like triple the infantry it can now (although during the first year or so, the infantry must have its attack and defense values halved).
America should have at least double the income it has now, the RN should be a monster at start, Japan should have much more infantry but have way less airplanes, China should have more areas to retreat into, and the list goes on.

My point is: the game is reasonably balanced right now. If you want to redesign the NOs, you should at least maintain the current income levels or increase the levels of all Major Powers or else the balance is disturbed into a point where one side always wins and the other side never stands a chance.

The fact that Russia can get income from otherwise worthless area’s is balanced by the fact that the Axis can completely ‘bird-cage’ Russia in its own Motherland, which is also ridiculous. I mean… Japan, crossing all of China with a massive army to also threaten Moscow?
Even more ridiculous: while doing so, Japan can still perfectly defend against the USA if the latter choose to go for a Germany-first strategy.

Russia receiving income from worthless areas could be seen as a way to make up for the fact that they do not receive lend lease via Persia once Archangelsk is taken by the Germans.