Is it really worth it to attack Yougoslavia and Greece?

[supermax]

I would like some opinions on this.

My take is that:

1- Yougoslavia is a waste of ressource, because of the numerous partisans popping up every turn. The Axis player has to station 4-5 troops in the country at all time to control the partisans. Why bother?

2- It is better, in my opinion, to leave this corner of the map alone (including Greece) since while making sure you dont have any partisans to deal with, it also cover te whole area and prevent any plausible allied invasion on this spot. In short, one less area to garrison and defend.

3- As Allied, in every game where the Axis invade Greece i send my bombers to the area and start bombing Ploesti sometime even as soon as 1941. So in the grand scheme of things, i think the axis is better off without the small revenu it gains from those 2 countries.

4- Why would the Axis consider Yougoslavia a strategic asset?

5- Same for Greece, since appart from controling Crete, why would you strategically need the area as Axis? Its not like Denmark for example where the Axis needs to invade it in most game or pay for it...

[joerock22]

I've had some negative experiences with invading Greece in my GS games, and not just in my game against you. It seems like every time it becomes a major base of operations for the Allies. And yes, it means those forces aren't invading Italy, but once they establish a foothold, it's only a matter of time before they do. And even defending in the mountains costs me a lot of PPs and manpower. I think I may take your advice and leave Greece alone in future games.

I also think I'll leave Yugoslavia alone. For the size of the country, it gets an inordinate amount of partisans because it's mostly rough terrain. Even if it is possible to turn a profit, all the units sent to garrison the country could probably be better used elsewhere. I'm thinking of leaving Yugoslavia alone too in future games. I'm curious to see how it would work out.

[supermax]

I've had some negative experiences with invading Greece in my GS games, and not just in my game against you. It seems like every time it becomes a major base of operations for the Allies. And yes, it means those forces aren't invading Italy, but once they establish a foothold, it's only a matter of time before they do. And even defending in the mountains costs me a lot of PPs and manpower. I think I may take your advice and leave Greece alone in future games.

I also think I'll leave Yugoslavia alone. For the size of the country, it gets an inordinate amount of partisans because it's mostly rough terrain. Even if it is possible to turn a profit, all the units sent to garrison the country could probably be better used elsewhere. I'm thinking of leaving Yugoslavia alone too in future games. I'm curious to see how it would work out.

I did so in a couple of games so far and it works wonder, the front is completly dead for the whole game. No issue from that angle. I think not attacking is the best option as well. We all need to remember that the germans invaded those 2 countries mainly for political reasons (yougo) and to come to Italy's aid (Greece). I think that historically the germans also regretted both invasions since it didnt do much for their war effort.

[BuddyGrant]

Ignoring these two countries seems like a wise move. Perhaps Greece should be allied with the UK by early 1941 to better reflect the reasons the Axis invaded Greece in real life?

[supermax]

Ignoring these two countries seems like a wise move. Perhaps Greece should be allied with the UK by early 1941 to better reflect the reasons the Axis invaded Greece in real life?

Well, this would make more sense since also Yougoslavia was invaded because of a pro-allied coup.

In this game however, there are no reasons to attack this corner of the map

Buddy grant what you say make sense if we want to follow the historical timeline, since the germans didnt want to invade those 2 countries just before Barbarossa but didnt really have a choice.

[joerock22]

Greece and Yugoslavia should be treated like Norway and Denmark, and remain neutral. They should be optional for both players to invade. It's not like the USSR where you can't play the game without them. And like supermax said, if they'd been given a real choice in the matter, I think it's entirely possible that the Germans would have chosen not to invade one or both countries.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The main reason for attacking Greece is to get airbases in Crete. That means it's possible to delay and Allied advance towards Tobruk. E. g. you can rebase tactical bombers from southern Russia rather quickly to Greece and then Crete and save the situation. You also get 2 ports in the Eastern Mediterranean. That helps if you nede to flee from a naval battle in the Ionian Sea. So Greece is quite helpful the first few years of the war. Later when the partisans pop up more often then Greece draws strength from the Axis forces.

The main benefit before Barbarossa with Yugoslavia is to get rail link to Greece. That means you can get the invaders of Greece quickly to the eastern front. If the British make early advances in Egypt you can rail air units to Athens and quickly get them to Crete or even Libya. After Bulgaria joins the Axis you get rail link to Greece without Yugoslavia.

Late in the war I find it quite useful to have Yugoslavia as the Axis. I often place my tactical bombers there because they're outside Allied fighter range and they can still inflict damage upon Allied land units in southern Italy. Allied CV's and fighters can otherwise attack the airbases directly if you have to place the bombers in mainland Italy. But I agree that the frequent presence of partisans means that taking Yugoslavia is probably not worth in, at least against an experienced Allied player.

[Plaid]

Yougoslavia is just easy PP, as i get it. Can be captured in 1 turn with couple mech and couple TAC. Can easily be garrisoned with 1-2 minor axis INF units, that instantly smash partisans. I often use bulgarian. With Grece things become complicated. It is open for allied invasion and you need serious troups to defend it. Capturing also not so smooth - you either fight your way through the mountains, or do risky amphibious assault. So I dislike idea of capturing grece.

[trulster]

Yougoslavia is just easy PP, as i get it. Can be captured in 1 turn with couple mech and couple TAC. Can easily be garrisoned with 1-2 minor axis INF units, that instantly smash partisans. I often use bulgarian. With Grece things become complicated. It is open for allied invasion and you need serious troups to defend it. Capturing also not so smooth - you either fight your way through the mountains, or do risky amphibious assault. So I dislike idea of capturing grece.

You definitely need more than 1-2 inf in Yugo, that would be inviting disaster. You run the risk of a partisan popping up in one of the undefended cities/resources, and also need a lot of rail moves for the inevitable case of your 1-2 corps being unable to handle multiple partisan threats.

[Plaid]

At least you can store your reserve troops at Yogoslavia, before sending em to ostfront. So you both kill partisans and have experienced reserves
If you garrison all cities and resources, you wait a bit and enjoy 0 effectivnes training dummies.

[supermax]

At least you can store your reserve troops at Yogoslavia, before sending em to ostfront. So you both kill partisans and have experienced reserves
If you garrison all cities and resources, you wait a bit and enjoy 0 effectivnes training dummies.

Mmm thats not stupid, not stupid at all... Given that the germans could say put 4 INF early in the game there and leave them there in "training" until they get full experience(and then rotate them), those troops would come very handy later in the war when troops quality drops for the Axis...

I have 5 games running right now and most are in early stages i will try that in one of my games.

[Plaid]

Another free experience source - if you see enemy fleet near your shores, and its winter in this zone, place some nice units like mech or arm into coastal cities. There is a chance, that your opponent will see this tasty units and bombard them, while his ships have 0 ground attack, so he can only lower your units efficiency, not steps. Another side of this is that opponent's ships gain exp aswell.
I noticed this effect when seen 2-3 + garrisons along my shoreline, where was no any actual combat

[schwerpunkt]

I think Yugoslavia is always worth taking. When done well, it falls on the turn of DOW and funds a german INF every 5 turns plus 2 oil. With respect to partisans, I use my Bulgarians for anti-partisan duties and they become quite good units late in the war thanks to the experience gained (and late war upgrades). The axis allied units are basically rubbish so I'm quite happy for them to attend to the anti-partisan duties. Occaisonally they take heavy losses in combat but the manpower losses come from their own pools at least and not from the German pool, which is worth avoiding (ie I want my German troops dying doing something useful rather than against crappy garrison-partisans).

With respect to Greece though, this is definately a double edged sword. Whilst the axis has the initiative, it is very useful, but once the allies have it, it becomes a liability (eg allies basing planes in the islands to bomb Ploesti). Also, it gets lots of partisans that arrive in mountain hexes that are tough to attack or coastal hexes that potentially allow allied forces or planes to land - ughhh

[joerock22]

I think Yugoslavia is always worth taking. When done well, it falls on the turn of DOW and funds a german INF every 5 turns plus 2 oil.

Which Yugoslavia are you looking at? I count 3 PPs per turn and 0 oil. Remember that each PP from a conquered country is only worth 1/2 as much to the invader. So that's a German corps only every 12 turns, not counting repairs for anti-partisan units.

[rkr1958]

Interesting discussions since two of the games that I'm currently playing are as the allies against Max and Joe and both these games are just after the fall of France.

I know I'm a bit biased here but what I think gives GS significant re-playability are questions like this where folks are weighing the pros and cons of invading and not invading Yugoslavia and Greece.

Against a equally or more experienced allied player I would think that not invading, and not having Crete for an airbase, would likely result in an early defeat in North Africa and an early conquest of Italy. However; against a lesser skilled opponent then not invading might be a good move.

[schwerpunkt]

I think Yugoslavia is always worth taking. When done well, it falls on the turn of DOW and funds a german INF every 5 turns plus 2 oil.

Which Yugoslavia are you looking at? I count 3 PPs per turn and 0 oil. Remember that each PP from a conquered country is only worth 1/2 as much to the invader. So that's a German corps only every 12 turns, not counting repairs for anti-partisan units.

Hmm, wasnt aware that the PP's were halved. Make that 3 PP's and 1 Oil (each 3 PPs generates 1 oil point)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Yugoslavia doesn't have oil resources. They have a mine. It adds to production, but not to oil reserves.

[joerock22]

Yugoslavia doesn't have oil resources. They have a mine. It adds to production, but not to oil reserves.

If Yugoslavia had oil, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Axis player would invade every time just for the oil!

[supermax]

Yugoslavia doesn't have oil resources. They have a mine. It adds to production, but not to oil reserves.

If Yugoslavia had oil, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Axis player would invade every time just for the oil!

hehehe yeah!!!

[Plaid]

Against a equally or more experienced allied player I would think that not invading, and not having Crete for an airbase, would likely result in an early defeat in North Africa and an early conquest of Italy. However; against a lesser skilled opponent then not invading might be a good move.

Whats the difference, where to base planes? Northern Africa is big, why Crete?