Clash of the Mortals (Allied Major Victory)

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Cybvep]

I think that the Axis player will go for 1942 Barbarossa and possibly for a Fortress Europa kind of strategy. Expect heavy pressure in the NA, a potential Sea Lion in 1941 and no offensive action (or very limited offensive action) in the East in 1942.

[Crazygunner1]

I think that the Axis player will go for 1942 Barbarossa and possibly for a Fortress Europa kind of strategy. Expect heavy pressure in the NA, a potential Sea Lion in 1941 and no offensive action (or very limited offensive action) in the East in 1942.

I think that people are more and more seeing a 1942 Barbarossa as a good option. I have to agree, with the resources that he puts in NA and the the fall of Yugoslavia will be to close to Barbarossa. But he hasn´t captured Malta wich means that it will be difficutl for him. Got any spare troops to send from the brittish isles?

[rkr1958]

I think that the Axis player will go for 1942 Barbarossa and possibly for a Fortress Europa kind of strategy. Expect heavy pressure in the NA, a potential Sea Lion in 1941 and no offensive action (or very limited offensive action) in the East in 1942.

Well, I'll guess I'll know for sure which directing he's turning when spring comes 5 to 6 turns from now.

I think that people are more and more seeing a 1942 Barbarossa as a good option. I have to agree, with the resources that he puts in NA and the the fall of Yugoslavia will be to close to Barbarossa. But he hasn´t captured Malta wich means that it will be difficutl for him. Got any spare troops to send from the brittish isles?

My objective with the Brits is to survive. It's going to take some effort from the US to gain control of the Atlantic. On the upside; it means less to attack Russia with.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Cybvep]

Yep, he will invade GB in 1941 and you will be hard pressed on every front, because you won't have either the Russians or the Americans on your side.

[rkr1958]

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Losing Egypt is not a big deal if you can send reinforcements to Iraq and hold the Axis there. The Axis will struggle if they don't capture oilfields in Iraq so saving the units you can in Egypt seems like a good strategy.

The biggest worry for you is the huge number of subs. Maybe the subs will hunt down any transports sailing for western Africa. That's an important way for the Axis to prevent reinforcements to Iraq. Losing Iraq means you may lose Persia and then a 1942 Barbarossa may storm towards Baku from the south.

So you need destroyers to escort transports that will sail corps units to Iraq.

You have a very good chance of winning this game if you can survive the oncoming onslaught. Losing units in Egypt is the way for you to lose control so getting the units you can
to safety is very important. Especially your air units should not risk being seriously depleted. Even if the Axis player moves at full speed towards Baghdad it will take quite a few turns to get there. You control the rail network.

With the heavy Axis presence in Africa you may afford to be bolder with Russia and focus on building offensive units earlier. Russia is the most dangerous Allied opponent for Germany so Germany need to have a substantial presence in the east front to hold the Russians at bay for some time.

I wonder how the German sub force will operate. Will they go after convoys or lurk near transport loops? The former can be quite devastating for Britain because 12 subs can easily stop all 3 convoys unless you escort them heavily with DD's. So many subs can actually start hunting the UK escorts instead.

So this game is very interesting indeed. It will be fun to watch how much the Axis will benefit from taking Egypt and trying to take Iraq. People say it's not worth the effort, but maybe this game can show otherwise. Regardless of the outcome it's fun to have to do a different strategy than the standard stalemate in Libya and early 1941 Barbarossa.

[Cybvep]

If the Axis player only manages to take Egypt, then it will certainly not be worth the effort. Even if he manages to capture Iraq and later Iran, it may still not be worth the effort, because the additional oil income may come too late and the Allies will still be able to invade the NA from the west, because they control Gibraltar. IMO attacking the Middle East is only a viable option in two cases - when you follow the attack up with the Sea Lion OR when you conquer Spain. It doesn't seem as the Axis player is interested in Spain here, so that excludes the second option. The British income is not that high in 1940-1941 and the UK is heavily dependant on convoys, so with so many subs, convoys can be sunk and the RN can be heavily damaged or at least prevented from threatening the Axis transports. That's why I think that the Sea Lion in 1941 is likely - the British will be fighting alone until the end of 1941 and even then it will take time to bring the Americans to GB (it may already be too late). In the East, Fortress Europa strategy should be used, i.e. few attacks, many units, good defensive leaders etc.

If the Axis player decides to conquer the Middle East and tries to conduct an offensive Barbarossa in 1942, then IMO it will end in a disaster for him. Too many delays, too much resources at the Allied disposal, too much wasted PPs and oil etc.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Morris]

After invest so much in subs & NA , Axis is too weak to face Russia in 1941 ,but after 1942 Russia will be a steamroller . Even if Axis get whole Middle east , they will lose Berlin !

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Morris]

14 Irac parisans ! Is there a maxium of Irac partisans ?

Anyway , If Allies(UK) can keep Axis busy until US & USSR entry , Allies win !

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]