Strategies for Greece

[Cybvep]

I've always had some trouble with taking Greece, assuming that 1941 Barbarossa was the goal. So, is it worth it and do you do it? What is your approach? When do you attack? ARMs? MECHs? Amphibious assaults? Paras? Do you take Crete?

[amcdonel]

There is one strategy for invading Greece listed in the GS 3.1 manual in the Strategies Chapter under the "Axis Invasion of Other Countries" sub-section.

Hope it helps some...

alec

[Tex01532]

I've never understood going after Greece. The terrain is treacherous, and the pp you get from it just doesn't seem worth it in my opinion. Especially when you should be prepping for Barbarossa. What is the advantage?

[AugustusTiberius]

Italy. Or as the game puts it "Mussolini is thrilled".

It helps with Italian morale, it provides two more ports in the eastern Med and, as those who are beta testing are finding out, it increases the Axis effectiveness through the increased range and airbases that do not count against supply (the map of Crete has changed providing another hex closer to Africa).

I tended to overlook Greece for a long time but am now into taking it in certain cases: France falls in early summer or I am going after Gibraltar (and getting Spain in) through French North Africa and delaying Barbarossa to '42.

In the former it is a sea invasion with German Pz/PzGr (with at least one good attacking commander) and TAC based in Albania. This is often followed up by a weather-dpendent invasion of Yugoslavia in February '41 before Barbarossa.

In the latter, take Yugoslavia in spring '41 and attack Greece via land (or sea in addition) in the summer of '41. It battle trains units (XP) and gets a whole lot more PPs for the inevitable '42 shitstorm that is the eastern front. And in this scenario, you are putting hard pressure on the Brits anyway (Middle East oil for your fortress Europa) so the advantage of Crete and those ports come into play.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I usually attack Yugoslavia in the Fall of 1940 as soon as the 2nd Vienna treaty is signed. When Yugoslavia falls then I rail units to Skopje and invade Greece with som armor, mech and corps units. I use the Luftwaffe in hexes that won't be affected by mud so I get full airpower when fighting towards Athens.

I use Italian subs to scout for the Royal Navy and if they're too far away I use Italian BB's to bombard Athens on the same turn the land forces arrive there. Subs can be used to screen the BB's a bit if the Royal Navy arrives a bit later. If the Royal Navy sails for Athens then I use the Luftwaffe to harass the BB's and maybe sink them with subs and Italian BB's to finish off the ships.

Unless Britain lands with several corps units in Crete I take Crete with a paradrop and then supported by the Luftwaffe. You have some turns to get the job done and return them to the east front in time for Barbarossa.

The main downside about Greece is that you might burn quite a bit of oil to finish the job if the Allied player decides to invervene. If they do so it could be at the expense of units needed to capture Libya. So the Axis can make a slightly weaker Barbarossa and try to get to the Suez as well. You just have to improvise based upon the opportunities that appear.

Usually you will have some skirmishes between the Royal Navy and Regina Marina. Usually the side that loses will limp to port to lick their wounds and the winning side will do the same. So a land attack on Greece is almost always successful.

Before I used to do an amphibious landing on Athens, but that one is much easier for the Allied player to stop. A land assault is impossible to stop without landing a big force near Athens before the Germans arrive.

So I believe taking Greece is actually worth doing. You get +5 max Italian morale and 2 extra Bulgarian corps units. The Greek partisans aren't as annoying as the Yugoslavian partisans.

If you also get Crete you have excellent airbases to cover Tobruk. I usually send some of the Luftwaffe units from Russia to Crete for the winter of 1942 to make it harder for the British to get anywhere. Luftwaffe bombers will inflict heavy damage upon the UK mechs and armor units trying to take Tobruk. This is particularly useful in GS v3.2 with the extended air ranges. By interfering some turns from Crete you burn a bit more oil so your 1942 German objective in Russia should be Maikop and Grozny to produce more oil. Crossing the Caucasus is not easy. So Baku might be too far away.

[Cybvep]

By interfering some turns from Crete you burn a bit more oil so your 1942 German objective in Russia should be Maikop and Grozny to produce more oil.

This sounds a bit impractical. You will probably burn more oil in the process of capturing these places than you will eventually get out of them. They are not easy to defend, either.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

In quite a few of my games I've manage to get the front line all the way to Caucausus and built a defense line there. It's hard for the Germans to get further, but it's hard for the Russians to push the Germans back too.

I have a similar defense line running from Stalingrad towards the Caspian Sea alongside Volga.

It's when the Russians put up overwhelming force to cross the Volga you have to run. That usually happens late 1943. At least then you know the main Russian offensive will happen in the south. That should leave the center and north a bit more quiet.

Germany can do the same as Russia and trade territory for time. If you can hold the Rostov and Voronezh line into 1944 you have a good chance winning the game.

[Cybvep]

I certainly agree that it's better for the Axis player when the Allied player focuses his Eastern counter-offensive on the southern part of the front. There is a lot of territory to capture there, which takes a large amount of time. Moreover, the Soviets often get stuck in Romania and Hungary because of harsh terrain. However, if the Allied player actually does the opposite and attack in the north, the Axis player will be forced to withdraw the troops from the south faster than one might think, because they will be needed in Poland. In practice, you will get about one year worth of oil production from Maikop and Grozny, which is not very impressive if you consider the amount of oil that you actually have to spend to take these places. That's why I think that it's not worth it. Of course, I'm talking about a fairly standard game between equal players. The situation may be different if the Soviets leave the Caucasus completely undefended, for example.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Well, you got to attack somewhere in Russia in 1942 with the Axis forces. You need to kill Soviet forces. Doing it in the south is easier than in the north. In the north you have to struggle with forests and swamps.

With proper oil management I rarely run out of oil as the Germans. Maybe in the very end of the game if things go really badly. So I'm not that concerned about spending some oil to get to Maikop and Grozny.

Usually I try to capture Leningrad and Petrozavodsk in the north so I can form a defense line a bit further east there. That could shorten the front line a bit. There are some nice rivers to use there to dig-in behind.

So the Russians will often strike in the center to get the steamroller going. I've tried a few times taking the Moscow area and it's not that simple. Encircling Moscow is particularly tricky. The right flank can be pushed back, but if the Russians focus their main forces there then they can make you make for trying to make a pincer. A left pincer will have to take forest hex by forest hex and that takes a long time and heavy casualties. To do this you need lots of airstrikes that will burn quite a bit of oil.

I simply don't see that a southern campaign spends more oil than any of the other strategies. Well, except fortress Europe where you just dig-in and wait for the Russians. That strategy is a bad one in my opinion since you give away the initiative way too early.

[Plaid]

Those areas (Stalingrad/Maikop/Grozny) area all in 3 supply zone for Axis. Campaigning there is risky in general. Any large engage will favour Soviets and it will be hard to disengage when you want.

[AugustusTiberius]

Another variation on Borger's invasion involves the land attack and a partial sea borne invasion.

Use a German mech or armour with a good commander and invade via the Gulf of Corinth. The objective in this case is the mine hex. Your land invasion should reach Larissa and the Greek corps should be attacked and pushed westward. If successful, and with two TAC hitting it to should be (plus the supporting naval unit's shore bombardment) the mine hex is take. This allows for Athens to be attacked from two land hexes with at least shore bombardment and two TAC the following turn which has a high probability of reducing Athens so low that it is gone in the next turn (I have been lucky with two shore bombardment and the TACs and have taken it in one - i.e. the second invasion turn). In addition, there is a third good German unit awaiting to replace one of the attacks if they are unduly damaged.

It costs some oil but it gains great experience, Mussolini is thrilled and you have the Greek PPs and the island of Crete.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Crete is not guaranteed if the Allied responds quickly sending a British corps to Heraklion.

[AugustusTiberius]

True that... often a garrison with a defensive commander, and a fighter group or two, is sufficient once ashore to hold Crete for the Brits so an Italian sub stationed to the east of the port is most effective in blocking the Brits.