Matrix Games Forums

I always find the Greece decision a difficult one to make (assuming Italy does not hit it early to try to get Yugoslavia into the axis camp).


Pros
-One extra resource per turn.
-Much more effective Axis presence in the East Med.

Cons
-Just more coastline to defend when the Allies takeover the initiative
-CW get a heavy reinforcement of CP's.
-Increases the Romanian Oilfield exposure to Allied bombing.
-If you want to hit the USSR in 41'.....time.

Any thoughts?

Not only this, but there are more cons:

- If the brits can put 4 corps in Greece, they have a roll for the Americans on a 4 (I believe), including the islands which is VERY difficult to avoid.

- If you don't send the Germans it may take forever to take it, it even may be cannot be taken and work as a beachhead for the Allies. (If you do, you'll lose some impulses as you mentioned earlier).

- If German units go, then you need to invade Jugoslavia, which would have been nice allied (more units to garrison, less hostile coast.

And however I think it's better to go for it.

If Germany doesn't take out Greece the CW and the US will invade Greece somewhere in 1943-1944 to align the Yugo's. So Germany needs to do something about both Greece and Yugoslavia.

To me Greece has to be conquered by Germany. If the Euroaxis are going for a close the Med, it can wait until the MED is closed (thus robbing the CW of the Greek convoys).

Sounds like you have to go for it.

ORIGINAL: Centuur

If Germany doesn't take out Greece the CW and the US will invade Greece somewhere in 1943-1944 to align the Yugo's. So Germany needs to do something about both Greece and Yugoslavia.

To me Greece has to be conquered by Germany. If the Euroaxis are going for a close the Med, it can wait until the MED is closed (thus robbing the CW of the Greek convoys).

Totally agree, in my experience this is the best strategy. Another one I did in my last game is attack yugoslavia after poland combined with an early war entry of Italy to use the resources and attack greece when CW is very scarce of land units. It´s very dificult to catch the convs but CW can´t support greece.

Close the Med? Sounds nice, but in practice it usually only serves to give the americans (and brits) a foothold in Spain.

I believe it is better to see the US and the CW in Spain, than having them in Italy, trying to knock out an Axis major power.

The Axis should be able to hold out better with a closed Med. It's simply a matter of making the front smaller. If the Axis close the Med, they have far less hexes to defend if you compare this with a Med full of US and CW ships and invasion forces. If the Axis fortify Gibraltar, than it becomes even more difficult to reopen the Med out of the West. That's a couple of build points on forts which are really worth spending by the Axis after taking the Rock...

Sure, one can elect to go for a Barbarossa, but a Sitzkrieg (or a Barbarossa 1942) isn't that bad.

Consider this: the Axis close the Med. After that they invade Greece, kill it and align Yugoslavia. That's a lot of good troops, resources and factories added to the Axis cause. Germany has to advance far into the USSR to get that kind of economic support. Also: no partisans in Yugoslavia (that's really a plus, since Yugoslavia needs quite a garrison to keep those guys from appearing there). And perhaps, one gets lucky and blows really fast through the French and Spanish in 1940. Than you've got the Allies at your mercy, if you can move through Iraq and Persia into the USSR...

And the Italians can be used to defend far away from their home country...

I fully agree with Centuur here.

Closing Med, seizing Greece later and aligning Yugoslavia (HQ, 2 factories, and extra troops) is a much better option, and these extra troops and BPs per turn will be felt over time. (That and the ones in Spain too).
In the current design for me it seems a no brainer to do Barbarossa '42.

Especially as anyhow in MWiF (here going specifical) there is so much space in Russia that it's hard to conquer Sovietland rapidly.
Obviously a lot matters on Optional Rules. Limited Oversea Supply is a sort of must otherwise the Allies will land anywhere on your shores as soon as you start Barbarossa. And to not play with defensive shore bombardment (in the current incarnation Shore Bombing is plain silly, since ships can litterally double up the factors of entire armies)

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I believe it is better to see the US and the CW in Spain, than having them in Italy, trying to knock out an Axis major power.

The Axis should be able to hold out better with a closed Med. It's simply a matter of making the front smaller. If the Axis close the Med, they have far less hexes to defend if you compare this with a Med full of US and CW ships and invasion forces. If the Axis fortify Gibraltar, than it becomes even more difficult to reopen the Med out of the West. That's a couple of build points on forts which are really worth spending by the Axis after taking the Rock...

Sure, one can elect to go for a Barbarossa, but a Sitzkrieg (or a Barbarossa 1942) isn't that bad.

Consider this: the Axis close the Med. After that they invade Greece, kill it and align Yugoslavia. That's a lot of good troops, resources and factories added to the Axis cause. Germany has to advance far into the USSR to get that kind of economic support. Also: no partisans in Yugoslavia (that's really a plus, since Yugoslavia needs quite a garrison to keep those guys from appearing there). And perhaps, one gets lucky and blows really fast through the French and Spanish in 1940. Than you've got the Allies at your mercy, if you can move through Iraq and Persia into the USSR...

And the Italians can be used to defend far away from their home country...

As I said, I think it's a wonderful plan. I agree with all, it's just that:

1 Some people consider that a sitzkrieg is almost a cheat or an exploit to say the least (in one of my EuroWIF games people got really angry - up to the point of almost leaving the game they had waited one year and travelled many miles to play- just beacause of this).

2 When I tried to do that, the Spanish hold on for a long time with the UK, and later US? reinforcements so I got a terrible bleeding of resources inverted in that front. Let´s remember that Allies have much more resources at the end (usually) so the game for the GE at the end is a lot about having fronts small enough that they will not consume too much units expenditure, so that you can replace your losses reasonably. But may be this happened to me because I was starting with the game and a little bit tender.

So for me, it's a wonderful plan, just I thought it was very unprobably successful, maybe I need to give another try.

Well, you can get bogged down in Spain, that's for sure. But the chance that that happens is higher in the Soviet Union...

What I don't understand is the reaction of the USSR player in your Eurowif game. It's the wrong attitude. The USSR has so much it can do, when Germany decides to go for Spain, especially when they are in trouble there.

Persia and Iraq will become proletarian nations. That's immediately top priority to fill the Soviet factories. The USSR could go for Japan (that's why the USSR should never start with a neutrality pact with Japan in place. If Germany goes for a close the Med, the USSR is indeed on the sideline of things). And if US entry is high enough: what about Turkey with the might of the Luftwaffe and the elite of the German forces fighting at the other end of Europe? The USSR only needs to be active (i.e.: at war with Japan) to get a good shot at the Turks. No way the Turks can hold against an active USSR, without German assistance. And there might be a chance to grab Bulgaria too, depending on the reaction of Germany when the USSR demands Bessarabia...

The USSR should provoke Germany to DoW them. Withdraw from the border with all your forces, making it possible for Germany to break the pact. Just DoW Japan...

Now, that's pretty risky for the USSR, since adding the Turks to the German force pool is tricky, but on the other end: if Germany is still fighting in Spain, they haven't build enough units for a war in the USSR....

Like I said before, I fully agree with centuur too. close the med is a good strategy. risky? yes, but not much more that Barbarossa 41. Spain can´t resist too much if yo get normal dice rolls. And if the things get bad, sitkrieg is a good strategy. I have won the game many times closing the med and "sitzkriegerin". If the poor soviet player gets angry is the axis player are doing well [:D]. In fact, if you are the axis, "sitzkriegering" the game is your goal, that´s the way to win!

And backing to Greece, IMO, the best is atacking very early or with closed mediterranean (and align yugoslavia, of course).

In fact, if you are the axis, "sitzkriegering" the game is your goal, that´s the way to win!

Not saying its not a valid strategy, I think it is. However, from my experience, its been tried a few times with different players at our board game group, and it never ended well for Germany! Of course as Centuur pointed out, and other things...will determine what happens in the end.

Sitzkrieg is a lot of fun for the USSR.

ORIGINAL: Viktor_Kormel

Like I said before, I fully agree with centuur too. close the med is a good strategy. risky? yes, but not much more that Barbarossa 41. Spain can´t resist too much if yo get normal dice rolls. And if the things get bad, sitkrieg is a good strategy. I have won the game many times closing the med and "sitzkriegerin". If the poor soviet player gets angry is the axis player are doing well [:D]. In fact, if you are the axis, "sitzkriegering" the game is your goal, that´s the way to win!

And backing to Greece, IMO, the best is atacking very early or with closed mediterranean (and align yugoslavia, of course).

Of course Barbarossa is more dangerous. Specially if you don't crash the USSR (sometimes they can only offer ZOC defense because of bad command or very bad luck) but still pretend to push forward further from Kiev, wile your opposer has two (or three) units stacks, behind a river, plus a second line to prevent breaches.

The safest way in this case is to push up to where the resistance is too strong, and then defend. And this usually means that you got very few USSR resources, so Close the Mediterranean is more profitable too.

It's just some players don't consider it "fair". The French/Russian player only sits for a short time in France only to be destroyed, and when he can play a "real power" like USSR then he is denied to , at least till 42 or more for garrison reasons...

The worst, in our game was that the Axis not only made a sirzkrieg but also didn't close the Med, so it was a bad strategy with the Americans coming, but the russian front was stalled, he could not declare war for a long time because of Garrison, because there were almost all the Wehrmacht was there, and when I tried to (finally it was me who had to make some attacks the last day because the USSR player quitted without warning in the end) break the GE lines I had to use an o-chit and I was unlucky afterwards, so the two units who broke (AMR+MECH) and became Banner Armies, immediately died.

Soon afterwards the game had to be ended because there was no more time, but it was enough to show me that that particular wall was almost impassable. The return was that the rest of Festung Europa was very weak and falling faster, but that didn't make the USSR player any happier!

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

In fact, if you are the axis, "sitzkriegering" the game is your goal, that´s the way to win!

Not saying its not a valid strategy, I think it is. However, from my experience, its been tried a few times with different players at our board game group, and it never ended well for Germany! Of course as Centuur pointed out, and other things...will determine what happens in the end.

Sitzkrieg is a lot of fun for the USSR.

Yes, it could have been. Maybe the USSR player was few imaginative and completely focused in the GE-USSR war, but I spoke afterwards with soome attendants and the sitzkrieg concept was not popular there, although I wonder if the "survey" was reliable because I have seen Spain invaded at those tables several or many times, and this should imply a sitzkrieg, unless the GE player is very lucky.

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

In fact, if you are the axis, "sitzkriegering" the game is your goal, that´s the way to win!

Not saying its not a valid strategy, I think it is. However, from my experience, its been tried a few times with different players at our board game group, and it never ended well for Germany! Of course as Centuur pointed out, and other things...will determine what happens in the end.

Sitzkrieg is a lot of fun for the USSR.

Yes, it could have been. Maybe the USSR player was few imaginative and completely focused in the GE-USSR war, but I spoke afterwards with soome attendants and the sitzkrieg concept was not popular there, although I wonder if the "survey" was reliable because I have seen Spain invaded at those tables several or many times, and this should imply a sitzkrieg, unless the GE player is very lucky.

Like I've said before, I don't like that attitude for any Soviet player. I love to see a Close the Med happening as the Soviet player. And I mean that. I love to be on the offense. What to do with those shiny new planes, men and equipment build to defend the Motherland? There's Japan or Turkey IMHO. The German-USSR border? Who cares. If Germany DoW's me: he's welcome to do so, since it lifts the pressure on the Wallies.

But what you are saying is true. A lot of Soviet players are stuck with the conventional idea of having to face a Barbarossa 1941 and if that doesn't happen, they seem incapable of making a fast decision what to do with the time given them.

In all-out Barb where you take Yugo after/with Poland in '39 does not need a Greece in '40. But I'd say that strongly depends on the situation in the Med. If you do it, do it before they get the second Mountaineer in '41.

Game has allot of options.

Is it a good buy for the money?

ORIGINAL: TheOne

Game has allot of options.

Is it a good buy for the money?

short answer: no. You may want to start a new topic though.