Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Europe Engulfed» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Looking for a war council rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bonaparte
United States
DesMoines
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I have played a number of large WW2 games I am new to EE. This game seems to have some strategic flexibility so I am seeking council. As the Axis player I have taken Poland, Denmark, Belgium, and then gone with Vichy France. Following this I declared was on Spain. I will finish taking Spain this turn and Gibraltar the following turn. It will be early 1941. The British player is very conservative and will like play defensively until the U.S. comes in. At this point what I am considering are the following:


Take Alexandria, with as little German assistance as I can.
Take Yugoslavia and push to Greece.
Attack Norway and Sweden.


What are your opinions on these three? I am particularly unclear on why to take Norway / Sweden. I would like to take Alexandria and eliminate the British presence in the Med. It makes sense to me to secure the Italians morale as long as possible. It also makes sense to me to get control of as much of the Balkans and Greece as I can. It seems the only other option to these is to build, build, build, and get ready for Barbarossa. But if nothing else, that seems boring. SO what are your thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierre Pinguet
France
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi there!
A few comments:
It seems counterproductive to take Sweden, as they will provide WERP even when Neutral, without a need for Garrison.
By controlling Norway however, you will prevent the UK to send too much lend lease to the USSR.

Taking Greece and Yugoslavia are worthy goals, since they add werps, and if playing with Optionals, UK could buy Greece entry into the war on the WAllies side.

The big question however is SeaLion or Barbarossa?
If your planning for SeaLion, then Alexandria is a must, as it will (combined with Gibraltar) kill all UK fleet in the Med trough OOS and will allow you to Send the Italian Navy in the Atlantic, giving you a good chance at an amphibious invasion.

If however your only goal is to forestall an Italian Morale Collapse, you don't need to go all the way and eradicate UK presence in Egypt, as just keeping Gibraltar and Athens are enough to prevent Morale Collapse. (Check the rules, I'm not too sure, but I think it's something like that).

Without Gibraltar, the Forces in Egypt will only get supply around the Cape, so that should keep them on the defensive. Eventually, the US will land in Morocco without opposition from Vichy, and will start to push, with supply coming from the Atlantic...

You WILL need most of your strength for Barbarossa, so it's up to you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierre Pinguet
France
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dave Davies wrote:
As the Axis player I have taken Poland, Denmark, Belgium, and then gone with Vichy France.

You have conquered the Netherlands, haven't you?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick B
United States
Saint Louis
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Holding BOTH Gibraltar and Athens will prevent Italian Morale Collapse, correct.

I would like to point out:
1. The Germans should be taking Yugoslavia and Greece because of the 4 WERPs, and more importantly, it's on the way to taking Crete. Having Crete (and presumably Sicily) shrinks Allied Mediterranean sea supply to 2 units per Fleet Point, which bites for the British until the Americans join the war.

2. Every block that the Germans send to the Med will make Barbarossa that much understrength. The Med won't win you the game, or lose it for you, but messing up in Russia will definitely lose you the game. If you think you can pull can erase the British from the Med with a little German help through clever play and good luck, go for it.

3. I would disagree about Sea Lion and the Med: actually kicking the British out of the Med would make Sea Lion harder, not easier, IMO. At that point, all the units will stay in Britain instead of being built and being shipped out. I think that it's the THREAT of losing the Med that is the biggest benefit to Sea Lion: if the Brits think they're about to lose in Egypt, they'll send way too many units there, the Italians engage them in combat to tie them up, and the Germans launch Sea Lion. All of those units are stuck in Egypt if the Italians pushed the attack hard enough. That's what got me a successful Sea Lion the last time I played as the Germans.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Karlsson
Sweden
Linköping
Östergötland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
One useful thing about taking all of Africa is that then you can attack Baku from the south. This is generally very bad for the Russians.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick B
United States
Saint Louis
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Jon Karlsson wrote:
One useful thing about taking all of Africa is that then you can attack Baku from the south. This is generally very bad for the Russians.

How so? Unless you mean a surprise attack on a woefully undefended Baku. (Assuming the Germans didn't expend all their SA's kicking the Brits out of Africa) Really, it's not 2 fronts at that point, it's just one longer front, with a big lake in the middle (although it is a front with the Russian's 5 Werp area on the front line).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierre Pinguet
France
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bignickel wrote:


3. I would disagree about Sea Lion and the Med: actually kicking the British out of the Med would make Sea Lion harder, not easier, IMO. At that point, all the units will stay in Britain instead of being built and being shipped out. I think that it's the THREAT of losing the Med that is the biggest benefit to Sea Lion: if the Brits think they're about to lose in Egypt, they'll send way too many units there, the Italians engage them in combat to tie them up, and the Germans launch Sea Lion. All of those units are stuck in Egypt if the Italians pushed the attack hard enough. That's what got me a successful Sea Lion the last time I played as the Germans.


Interesting, how many German fleet did you have? If you started building them, the UK player should have seen it coming. Or was UK so empty that only 2 blocks where enough , even with Allied interdiction?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Karlsson
Sweden
Linköping
Östergötland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bignickel wrote:
Jon Karlsson wrote:
This is generally very bad for the Russians.

How so?


I may have overstated this, with "generally". I should have written that it could be very bad for the Russian. In my games, the Russians have generally defended the Caucasus in Grozny, and just had a light garrison in Baku, if any. If the Germans can get at Baku directly from the south, without having to go through Grozny, then the Russians must defend in Baku too. And early on, the Russians don't really have a lot of troops, so this could be a problem.

Being able to draw supply through the Med via a controlled Grozny into Russia also means that the Germans are less susceptible to getting (all of) their supply cut by the Russians.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick B
United States
Saint Louis
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Pippin123 wrote:

Interesting, how many German fleet did you have? If you started building them, the UK player should have seen it coming. Or was UK so empty that only 2 blocks where enough , even with Allied interdiction?

I built a fleet point, and then I moved one from the Baltic, which he didn't notice. He had only 3 units, which I guess were mostly militia, and I was right. Meanwhile, all of the units he sent down to the Med were stuck in a battle with the Italians.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Carroll
United States
Urbana
Illinois
flag msg tools
Soli Deo Gloria!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dave Davies wrote:
Take Alexandria, with as little German assistance as I can.

Without at least some German assistance, I wouldn't expect to take Alexandria, unless the British do something really stupid. And it sounds like your opponent is conservative, so he probably won't.

Quote:
Take Yugoslavia and push to Greece.

Definitely take Yugoslavia. Taking Greece is a worthy goal, but don't let it delay you too much. If you can take it in spring '41 and be in position for a July Barbarossa, then go for it. Bear in mind, though, that those three or four infantry in rough terrain can really eat up your Special Actions. Are those 2 WERPs/turn really going to be worth it?

Yes, taking Crete is valuable for shrinking British supply. But if you've already taken Gibraltar, then it's worthless, as they can't supply through the Med anyway.

Quote:
Attack Norway and Sweden.

As others have already pointed out, attacking Sweden is counterproductive. You already get 2 WERPs/turn from Sweden, without the outlay (invasion) or overhead (garrison). But Norway is quite valuable, both to preserve Swedish neutrality and block British Lend-Lease to the Soviets. I'm kind of surprised that the British haven't already moved on Norway themselves, though you did say that your opponent was cautious.

Of your three options, this one (and taking Yugo) seem the best ways to help Barbarossa. I'd go with those.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.