Joe (Axis) vs. Borger (Allies) [no Borger, please]

[schwerpunkt]

As for Malta, I have tried several times to subdue that island, and it seems impossible. One turn of bad luck (i.e. inflicting only 1 step losses), and you can almost start over again. In addition, I don't think that it is as strategically as important as it was in the real war. What can the allies really do with it? If they place a TAC there, it will get shot down by Axis fighters. If they place a FTR there, it will not do much harm to the Axis. The port is helpful, but not decisive. Come Husky time, the Allies will have North Africa and longe-range aircraft anyway. But I would be very interested to see how your plan turns out...

With respect to Malta, if you get the right assets into place, capturing Malta is quite achievable - I've recently done it against both Joerock and PanzerGeneral. The benefits of securing Malta are quite subtle, if you dont intend to use its extra supply points for a middle east assault. The extra port is quite useful to the axis as a base as it is within range of a leader placed in Sicily. More importantly, during Husky, it denies the allies the ability to base two FTRs there and oversee all of your forces in Sicily (potentially targetting axis TACs) - yes CVs can do this but it exposes them to potentially being sunk, whereas the FTRs are unlikely to be killed as they can switch to sentry mode if worst comes to worst.
At the end of the day, it really depends on how you intend to play your Med strategy, but, Malta can be useful.

[pk867]

Hi,

As the allies I had three games where my opponent went after Malta. In the first game he did capture, but it took 22 turns.
In the second and third game he went as long as 9 and 6 turns respectively then decided to give up. He had a couple of FTR's & TAC's besides
an extra Italian BB and subs. To me if you do not take it by 6 turns you have wasted fuel. Yes, you gain experience
but the fuel drain is large. In the game he captured Malta I went straight for Sicily and the Italian mainland bypassing Malta. After capturing Sicily
and moving up the boot I was able to retake Malta, but even then it took about 5 to 6 turns.
Even with a garrison, if you put a leader on Malta, say Cunningham and the FTR on Sentry it is very difficult to take.
When the RN shows up at the different intervals with about 2 or 3 subs you peel off the surface ships and any transports.

[joerock22]

Interesting input, fellas. And those were some real horror stories, pk867! I don't intend to go on the offensive in Africa. I will probably leave some Italian corps in Libya, but that's about it. I am increasingly feeling that Malta is not worth the trouble or the potential risk. Perhaps I would be better off making sure I have a surplus of fuel so I won't have to worry about it for the rest of the game...

[joerock22]

July 7, 1940

Brest and Bourdeaux were occupied, bringing all of France under German control. The proposed attack on Malta is quickly scrapped by the high command. Against Borger, I just want to play a conservative game and see how that works. Conservative in terms of early overall strategy, that is. I do not intend to be so laid back in Russia. Another thing I won't do is bomb London. With only one bomber and maybe ten turns max of good weather left, I could probably cost the British 50-60 PPs if I get good results. That's not worth spending 40 oil, plus whatever repairs need to be made to the Strat. There's no way I can keep London at low production in bad weather with only one bomber, either. I think in terms of bombing London, you either need to build another Strat or forget about it altogther.

Borger will probably say something to me when he realizes that I don't plan to bomb London, as he's a big proponent of that strategy. But that's fine; if everyone played the same way the game would be boring.

[schwerpunkt]

Joe,
Not trying to change your mind, but, for others benefit, there can be value in bombing London with one STR if you also very active with SUBs. The aim here is to crimp the PPs the british receive in order to force them to make some hard choices about Labs versus new units versus having to repair units (if they are trying to be aggressive).
Cheers

Neil

[joerock22]

Joe,
Not trying to change your mind, but, for others benefit, there can be value in bombing London with one STR if you also very active with SUBs. The aim here is to crimp the PPs the british receive in order to force them to make some hard choices about Labs versus new units versus having to repair units (if they are trying to be aggressive).
Cheers

Neil

I realize that, but I think the costs for me in terms of oil and PPs will be too high when compared to the benefits. I could be wrong, but that's what my experience tells me and I'm sticking to it.

[TotalerKrieg]

Hi Joe,
Thanks for doing this AAR. I think seeing how you and Stauffenberg battle each other will be helpful for a lot of us.
I am curious about how you feel about Norway these days while playing the Axis. Do you usually not bother with it or does it depend on your opponent?
Good luck with your campaign (although I am sure you won't need it)!

[joerock22]

Hi Joe,
Thanks for doing this AAR. I think seeing how you and Stauffenberg battle each other will be helpful for a lot of us.
I am curious about how you feel about Norway these days while playing the Axis. Do you usually not bother with it or does it depend on your opponent?
Good luck with your campaign (although I am sure you won't need it)!

Thanks. I'm sure I will need it against Borger. If I had to guess, I'd predict that I will lose this game by a small margin, a Minor Allied Victory like the one I achieved against Borger in our last game. But I definitely think I can win, and we'll see what happens.

As for Norway, it depends on the opponent. I know for a fact that Borger will make it a major pain in the ass. He will occupy Bergen and the northern city British or RAF units, and will probably land and reconquer the country before 1943 is over. If I'm reasonably sure the Allied player will just let me have Norway easy, then I'll invade, but I know the gain would not be worth the cost or the aggravation this game.

[ncali]

On the other hand, if the Allies retake Norway - that may not be such a bad thing from the Axis standpoint. Even if you just leave garrisons there (but especially if you leave a corps or more) - the Allies have to pay the amphibious costs, devote some airpower to the operation, and the forces used are then out of comission for a period of time. If the Allies did this in 1943, this would actually make me feel a bit better about more important fronts - like France. And depending on how you are doing elsewhere, you could make this a tough operation for the Allies. I guess what I'm saying is that Norway gets you pretty decent income for a few years and there are opportunity costs for the Allies in retaking (or trying to retake) it. And if you aren't doing much with the Luftwaffe, Norway provides a decent training opportunity for it while the oil costs are relatively low (if the Allies contest your attack).

[richardsd]

If the Allies are sensible, Norway gives them early bombing access to German Oil facilities. I agree with Joe, its a balance.

[rkr1958]

If the Allies are sensible, Norway gives them early bombing access to German Oil facilities. I agree with Joe, its a balance.

For me the strategic importance of Norway is as an air and naval base for interdicting the Murmansk convoy. See my axis vs AI tutorial AAR.

[massina_nz]

Ditto for me. But when I've played as Allies, my opponent either ignores Norway, or doesn't seriously interdict those convoys, so it's hard fo rme to tell how annoying it is for the Russians.

Has anyone been severely constrained, when playing Russia, by the Murmansk convoys not getting through?

[richardsd]

I would rather iterdict with more subs - you can burn a lot of oil up there

[massina_nz]

I think that ploy works better when you have some air cover from Norway. Later in the war the Allied STR bombers can play havoc with your u-boats, as their ASW factors steeply rise.

[richardsd]

thats when I stop fighting so hard up there!

maybe I am just to careful with my oil.

[massina_nz]

And I wasn't

[rkr1958]

Has anyone been severely constrained, when playing Russia, by the Murmansk convoys not getting through?

I have. I've used that tactic to good effect against several players. My commitment generally includes three or four bombers, one fighter, four u-boats and a 5-effectiveness leader. This force creates a "death zone" and I find usually one of two things happen, which are: (1) I either get to go after the Murmansk convoy without interference or (2) the UK/US try to escort and I sink a number of their escorts.

Also, having subs operate so close to Norway means that they can quickly return to port for upgrades and repairs.

I also treat the axis air force deployed in Norway as a reserve force that I can use in France or Germany as needed.

[Plaid]

Has anyone been severely constrained, when playing Russia, by the Murmansk convoys not getting through?

I have. I've used that tactic to good effect against several players. My commitment generally includes three or four bombers, one fighter, four u-boats and a 5-effectiveness leader. This force creates a "death zone" and I find usually one of two things happen, which are: (1) I either get to go after the Murmansk convoy without interference or (2) the UK/US try to escort and I sink a number of their escorts.

Also, having subs operate so close to Norway means that they can quickly return to port for upgrades and repairs.

I also treat the axis air force deployed in Norway as a reserve force that I can use in France or Germany as needed.

Thanks. I think question was adressed to allied players though, to figure out how russia feels without this convoys.

[rkr1958]

Has anyone been severely constrained, when playing Russia, by the Murmansk convoys not getting through?

I have. I've used that tactic to good effect against several players. My commitment generally includes three or four bombers, one fighter, four u-boats and a 5-effectiveness leader. This force creates a "death zone" and I find usually one of two things happen, which are: (1) I either get to go after the Murmansk convoy without interference or (2) the UK/US try to escort and I sink a number of their escorts.

Also, having subs operate so close to Norway means that they can quickly return to port for upgrades and repairs.

I also treat the axis air force deployed in Norway as a reserve force that I can use in France or Germany as needed.

Thanks. I think question was adressed to allied players though, to figure out how russia feels without this convoys.

Opps ... I wasn't awake yet when I responded. I have had this strategy used against me to various levels. It hurts not to get convoys through as the allied player; especially if your opponent is putting a LOT of pressure in Russia and has knocked your income down to around 100 PPs per turn.

[massina_nz]

<snip>[/quote]Opps ... I wasn't awake yet when I responded. I have had this strategy used against me to various levels. It hurts not to get convoys through as the allied player; especially if your opponent is putting a LOT of pressure in Russia and has knocked your income down to around 100 PPs per turn.[/quote]

Yeah I'm playing a game against ncali, with me as the Allies. He's put me under severe pressure in the East. When Murmansk convoy comes in, it really helps. But that's such a limited sample. I don't play Allies often, and if I have I'm not normally under much pressure. And no I'm not gloating.