An Axis Grand Strategy[Note: I have slightly revised this posting as of 7/11/06 because it seems I miscounted the number of 'basic' European VP (it seems to be 19, not 18 as I had it in my original posting). Also note that the posting was originally written under rules current in early 2006. Since then there have been some small but probably significant changes affecting game balance and perhaps also affecting Axis strategy such as French redeployment restrictions, slight changes to German set-up, the advent of air bases, etc. At this point, I believe much of the thoughts below are still applicable, but they need further testing against the game as it currently stands.] These are my current thoughts on how the Axis needs to go about winning the game – subject to subsequent revision, redaction, and refutation, of course…
As I currently see it, the Axis have two basic, non-exclusive ways of winning: Get to the magic VP level of 42 points in the Summer - Winter 1942 turns, or hang on to the bitter end of 1945 with ten VP. Other possibilities of course exist, but based upon actual game-playing experience to-date, the intermediate possibilities do not seem to really come up and/or work. I think the proactive 1942 win strategy is the most viable alternative and certainly the more attractive in forcing an Axis victory.
For a 42 VP win to occur, it really looks like it has to occur in mid-1942 to mid-1943. Getting to the requisite VP after that seems most unlikely given the massive Allied production effects that tend to kick in by late ’42. (Albeit this last game – mid-Jan 2006 - was won in ‘sleaze overtime’ at the 38 pt VP level in Autumn 1943 thanks to SS parachutists pulling off a dramatic surprise raid on Moscow, arresting Stalin and the entire Politburo, and who then sued for peace to hand an undeserved victory to the Axis. Sleazy, but a victory is a victory…
As a simplifying assumption, and because the game design in fact seems to work out this way, I am going to assume that the Italia-Germans and Japanese need to obtain at least 21 VP each, meaning victory is a balanced team effort between the European and Pacific Theatres.
Based upon what seem to be usual developments, the basic German ‘empire’ provides a more-or-less guaranteed ‘starting position’ at the time of Pearl Harbor of some 19 VP: Norway(1), France(3), German/Italy(7), Poland(1), Southern & Eastern Europe(3), Kiev/Kharkov(2), & Italian North Africa(2). For Japan, they start with 10 VP (China(2), Japan(3), and Japanese Central Pacific(5), with the Japs pretty much guaranteed another immediate eight VP (see below). If the Japs and Germans can pretty much guarantee getting at least their 'basic' VP each, this means the Germans and Japs must pick up five more VP by the end of the first year that the Japs are in the war. (For reference, historically near as I can make out, the Germans maxed at 19 VP while the Japanese got to 16 VP.)
The sections below detail where I think the extra VP have to come from in each Theatre.
German Grand StrategyThe Germans typically can have a lock on 15 VP by the fall of France, and by the time of Pearl Harbor can usually pick up Norway, Greece, and the two western-most Russian VP (Kiev & Kharkov), giving them 19. There are five other sources of VP (listed in order of what seems to be relative frequency in being captured across the games I’ve seen):
1) One of the triggers (one of Spain, Sweden, Turkey)
(each has one VP, usually only one does in fact trigger) – say 1 VP
2) Cairo – 2 VP
3) Russia – 2 VP or 3 VP, depending on which city is captured – say 2 VP typically when it happens
(Typically one of Stalingrad (2 VP) or Moscow (3 VP), sometimes also Baku (2 VP))
4) England - 3 VP
5) Mosul & Southern Persia – 1 VP each – say 2 VP typically when the Italians get this far (note – these are probably easily recaptured by the Russians once taken by the Axis).
Based on what I have seen to-date, I sort of view conquering Russia as a veritably hopeless cause, especially with decent conservative Russian play; if attempted, it sucks in unlimited German resources and leaves the Brits a relatively free hand to harass the Med and defend the Far East. Even with a German max-Barbarosa strategy, it seems all too often that the Russian major-city VP do not fall anyway, or are only held very briefly. A heavy Barbarosa strategy also typically leads to greatly weakening or even ignoring the Battle of the Atlantic and not pushing at all adequately against Cairo. As such, I would propose that Barbarosa not be the major all-out effort of the Germans, but only be sufficient so as to capture and hold the Kiev & Kharkov VP, say throughout 1942. This should free up resources sufficient to enable a thoroughgoing assault against Cairo AND most importantly, allow an all-out Battle of the Atlantic coupled perhaps with a credible Battle of Britain. As such, I propose that the “real” German effort be placed against Britain with just sufficient forces to knock the Russians partially back into their homeland at the start of Barbarosa.
Capturing Cairo also seems to greatly facilitate capturing the other Middle East VP (#5 above - Mosul & Persia – 2VP) and lead to being able to obtain several relatively high probability triggers (#1 Minor Neutrals – 1VP each). Capturing Cairo, with subsequent capture of the other likely triggers (e.g., Greece, Crete, Sinai, Palestine, & Crete) should lead to an almost guaranteed trigger of Turkey or Spain (~95% probability when you multiply everything out in the Axis Minor Allies trigger table). Getting Cairo along with a trigger would put the Germans at their 21+ VP and which is why I advocate a strong Cairo strategy. Capturing the other Mid East VP (#5) would be icing on the cake and insurance against Allied ripostes or Japanese shortfalls. Capturing Cairo also greatly secures the Italian eastern flank – no small matter to protecting Italy.
The direct assault against British production is critical with this strategy because it is only the British who thwart the Cairo strategy and most importantly, who can do much in the way of preparing against the Japanese. Attacking British production is particularly important if the USA does early max British Lend Lease (and which seems like a current favored early US production strategy).
This strategy therefore requires relatively early max German sub production, say starting two subs no latter than Spring 1940 (Winter ’39-40 would be even better). Four subs should always be on the production track each turn thereafter. In addition, the Germans should have at least three or four transports to have a credible invasion threat against England (forcing the Brits to use their diminished production for home guard). Note however, it has been my experience that a serious invasion of England tends to preclude taking taking the Kiev/Kharkov VP because the Barbarossa attack gets so weakened by the assault into England. As such, it is generally to be attempted only should the Brits leave London easy pickings or perhaps as a cheap diversion forcing a disproportionate British response.
Japanese Grand StrategyWhile the Japanese technically only start with 10 VP at the time of Pearl Harbor, they typically can pick up eight more: Burma(1) Singapore(1), Philippines (2), Rabaul(1), New Guinea(1), Gaudalcanal(1), & the Gilberts(1) for a ‘base’ total of 18 VP, meaning they really only need three more to get to the magic 21 VP. Sources of possible VP (not listed in any particular order):
1) Calcutta (2 VP) and Ceylon (1 VP)
2) Australia (2 VP)
3) Hawaii (2 VP)
4) Midway (1 VP)
5) Kiska (1 VP)
6) Vladivostok (1 VP) – good to take as a last-second do-or-die manuever
The Japs need at least three (and preferably four VP for safety) from the above. They also need them relatively quickly – two, three, or at MOST four turns after Pearl Harbor before the massive Allied production thwarts further advancement and starts taking VP back. Complicating a quick capture of any of the above VP is that the Japs typically must invest the first two (or more) turns taking the eight VP that gets them to the 18 VP value.
Unfortunately, which of #1 - #5 above are easiest to acquire is not possible to exactly formulate because it depends on how well the Brits and US have been able to invest in and prepare a Pacific Theatre defense. It does seem generally possible for the Japs to pretty much guarantee putting Australia and/or Hawaii out of supply if they focus on that. However, the Brits and US do have counter-moves if they anticipate such early Jap moves.
At the moment, I favor threatening to put Hawaii and Australia out of supply the turn after Pearl Harbor, followed by an assault on one of them the subsequent turn if at all feasible. I am currently thinking it might even be worthwhile to use the troops garrisoning Indonesia if needed to take Australia if that would enable Australia to be held for the two/three-turn window required for victory. This leaves the Japs stretched awfully thin across the Pacific through summer 1942 and does not allow for Brit/US counter-moves, so nothing can really be cast in concrete.
If Hawaii is reasonably well defended, then take Midway and Kiska instead. (It is not at all clear that Kiska can be seriously held more than one turn, but it is a threat forcing at least a bit of an early US diversion.) If the Brits and US have relatively heavily defended Hawaii, Australia, and/or the Southwest Pacific (New Guinea, Guadalcanal), then that should have left India open. If everything (i.e., #1 - #3 from above) is well-defended everywhere, then the Germans have failed to knock the Brits back on their keister in the Battle of the Atlantic, so blame them for Jap failures. The VP at Midway seems an important key as neither Australia nor Hawaii get to 21 VP by themselves and which means a loaded transport is probably mandatory to accompany the Pearl Harbor attack.
A late 1942 attack against India only seems possible if the Germans have crunched the Brits and/or the Middle East, as it takes so little to stop the Japs at Calcutta and it is relatively difficult to put it out of supply. An India assault also seems likely to preclude seriously threatening Australia or Hawaii. However, of course the Japs can pick up the required extra three VP by taking both Calcutta and Ceylon, and so do not need anything else – Midway would be nice insurance in this case.
SummaryIt seems the Japs are extremely dependent upon a vigorous prosecution of the Battle of the Atlantic if they are to have any real chance on their side of things. As such, even though a heavy sub investment may not really be in the Germans best interest, it seems mandatory for any kind of reasonable shot at Axis victory. And the way a vigorous commerce war works, it is at least almost certain that the Germans will do no worse than break even in terms of what they invest in subs versus what the Brits lose in production. This all presumes that Barbarosa is no longer an absolute German priority.
My current feeling is that the above outlines the best chance that the Axis has of actually forcing a victory. However, in my experience and absent the ever present dominance of the dice, the Axis are still way down in odds on being able to pull off victory without significant help from some sort of significant Allied missteps. I will admit that Allied missteps do in fact often happen - it seems to be pretty darn difficult for the Allies to coordinate the balance of requirements as precisely as the game demands. Coupled with the many random factors that can significantly influence the outcome (e.g., timing of the fall of France, minor Axis ally triggers, and which way French fleet loyalties align), each game seems always an unknown and open possibility as to victor.
dd
Show Posts