Slitherine

Hi,

I have France. What if I as Axis along with my Italian friends take Spain & Portugal ? Is that a tactical error ? Anyone tried that before and succeeded in the long-run ?

Regards,
Derek

julyderek wrote:Hi,

I have France. What if I as Axis along with my Italian friends take Spain & Portugal ? Is that a tactical error ? Anyone tried that before and succeeded in the long-run ?

Regards,
Derek

Derek -

Look at the terrain, it will take a few months to get to Madrid - they have a large fighting force as well - My advice? Look to the north for a better prospect (Norway-Sweden)

Jay

julyderek wrote:Hi,

I have France. What if I as Axis along with my Italian friends take Spain & Portugal ? Is that a tactical error ? Anyone tried that before and succeeded in the long-run ?

Regards,
Derek

I currently have a game going where my opponent is trying this. The benefit is that it turns the Med into an "Axis Lake" and virtually ensures the fall of the Middle East (and it's oil resources). The drawback is that now he has more territory to defend, and England is very strong. It could work though. The war will still be decided in Russia. I will let you know how the game turns out if I remember.

julyderek wrote:Hi,

I have France. What if I as Axis along with my Italian friends take Spain & Portugal ? Is that a tactical error ? Anyone tried that before and succeeded in the long-run ?

Regards,
Derek

A few months ago I was playing Allies and my Axis opponent tried this. I think his main motivation was to get at Gibraltar.

It didn't work out. I think it took him 8 turns to take Madrid, in part because the British intervened aggressively, and partly because he was at the same time trying to take out places like Yugoslavia. While he did eventually conquer Spain and, several turns later, Gibraltar, it was a Pyrrhic victory.

If one manages to capture Spain and thus Gibraltar without losing too much time or materials, the Axis is very close in winning the game.

In my opinion, whether or not to attack Spain/Portugal depends on one major factor. What is Englands PP status? If they're on the ropes, then, if the casualties you can cause will cost them more than the PPs they can can repair, giving them one more headache. The more pressure that can be put onto the British during the "fights alone" stage, the more likely something valuable is lost due to a lack of resources to protect it.

Jyri

I am the one who is trying the Spanish option against joerock.

It took me 5 turns to take Madrid and another 4 to take Gibraltar. Also took the Suez Canal. this is a strategy that i have wanted to try for a while.

1- The Med becomes an Axis Lake
2- The Axis player can move the whole italian fleet in the MED. joining up with the 2 germans subs and the BB, + some german ship production, and say 1 fighter 2 bombers, you can master the Atlantic if you play smartly, thus blocking the brisith from landing anything major for a while, or at least think about it before they do.
3- Also, it means that you do not need any garrison in the MED, and that the middle east is very easy to take. No more oil problem for the germans
4- Spain gives some good production
5- While the germans have consequently more territory to manage, i can say from experience from previous games that it is a very easy country to defend and it takes a long while for the Allies to be really effective in the area. So i dont think the Allies have it going in invading Spain, unless they want to make a strong bid for Gibraltar.. But, once its lost, whats the benefit of retaking it, wasting precious time? It takes less ressources to a german player to defend that area
6- You do have to try different stuff for games to be different!

The only advantage for taking spain is that you take africa. But still, this brings also a weak barbarossa.

And if Germany wins in africa and loses in russia, they lost the war. And this strategy makes germany attacking russia with less oil and units than if they just attack russia after france/norway/yugo.

germany can lose all africa and still win the game...they need just to win in russia.

raffo80 wrote:The only advantage for taking spain is that you take africa. But still, this brings also a weak barbarossa.

And if Germany wins in africa and loses in russia, they lost the war. And this strategy makes germany attacking russia with less oil and units than if they just attack russia after france/norway/yugo.

germany can lose all africa and still win the game...they need just to win in russia.

There's an interesting theoretical question here, I mean in terms of grand strategy for Axis: To what extent does crippling the UK compensate for a weaker effort vs. Russia? That seems to be the core question in some of the current threads.

Obviously, a complete conquest of Britain (i.e. taking out London & Ottawa) should provide decisive results--almost certainly a game-winner. OTOH, even with a maximally powerful Russian campaign, completely letting England off the hook is probably a recipe for defeat. So, to me the question is this, How much should Axis, on average, dedicate to reducing Britain's ability to wage war?

Capturing the straights and helping with the north african front, including capturing of Egypt can be done without that much expenses in equipment to have a bad effect in the USSR. It has several benefits, making the guarding of southern europe irrelevant, using all those assets, land, air and naval, to the other fronts, including USSR, cutting the allies from extra resources and providing a way to threaten USSR from the south.

Derek - Have you tried it?

Jay

KingHunter wrote:Derek - Have you tried it?

Jay

No havent tried it yet.

Good to go - Your delay in France is quite good!


Jay

KingHunter wrote:Good to go - Your delay in France is quite good!


Jay

How about playing a reverse game with me ? Me Germany ?

I'll be keen to see how this plays out.

For me, I can't see it as anything other than a bad move. As someone pointed out above, the entire war is decided on the Russian Front. Germany cannot lose that and still win, and I'd be very surprised to see Germany beat Russia and not win the game.

Anything that distracts from setting up the best possible Barbarossa seems not worth it, unless it can be done in a turn or two (ok, Yugoslavia is typically 3-4 turns, but is worth it if you have the spare time).

As it happened in history, Mussolini's disastrous invasion of Greece coupled with a Pro-Allied coup in Yugoslavia was a supremely crucial turning point. It delayed the German invasion of Russia by six weeks, and who knows what would have happened without that delay. Given that German units came up only 30kms short of Moscow in Nov/Dec 41, I think it likely that the extra six weeks would have made a difference.

It's important to note too, that unlike 1812, Moscow was an enormously critical strategic target and due to the Soviet penchant for centralisation was practically the heart of the entire Russian rail network. Unlike 1812 and Napoleon, it's loss in 1941 to Hitler would have had massive implications for the Soviets (particularly if the entire German line was 6 weeks advanced, a la Leningrad and into the Caucasus).

julyderek wrote:

KingHunter wrote:Good to go - Your delay in France is quite good!


Jay

How about playing a reverse game with me ? Me Germany ?

Ahh, My friend - Let's finish our dance and see how it goes. I have yet to meet our friend Gabriele in his conquest of Russia. You seem to think that he is quite good.


Jay

KingHunter wrote:

julyderek wrote:

KingHunter wrote:Good to go - Your delay in France is quite good!


Jay

How about playing a reverse game with me ? Me Germany ?

Ahh, My friend - Let's finish our dance and see how it goes. I have yet to meet our friend Gabriele in his conquest of Russia. You seem to think that he is quite good.


Jay

I am Gabriele. Soon barbarossa will start in our game as well.