Matrix Games Forums

It has occurred to me that in my current game v Tyrone that he (Axis) is unlikely to invade Russia in 1941, and will most likely be spending 1941
subjugating as much of Europe as he can before attacking Russia in 1942.

It's an interesting strategy, that in some other WWII strategy games is suicidal. But in WarPlan as of version 1.00.03 I think it's viable. With a number
of pro's and con's. But I am uncertain whether it's overall better or worse than the standard France 40/Russia 41 strategy.

I am curious to see what others think about this strategy.

Also, in so much as our game goes, I am not certain it was a planned strategy from the get go or rather forced upon Tyrone due to the rather expensive
campaign in France, expensive in time and resources.

Anyway just interested in the thoughts of others in the merits or otherwise of a 1942 attack on Russia as opposed to a 1941 attack.

In a game as World in Flames? Very viable.

In Warplan with present patch? Not viable. USA is sensibly sped up by taking Gibraltar - which means taking Spain which now is a nest of partisans. At the same time to close the Mediterranean implies the challenge of Egypt and the like... which with low supply through ports is one shot one marvel. Once you spend your efficiency, to recover adequately with the supply down there will be huge trouble and lots of turns spent waiting.

USA is sensibly sped up by taking Gibraltar

Do you know by how much? It would be nice to have some kind of inking as to the change in a US DOW
there is for each UK key territory lost.

I think it might be viable. But it depends on what the Axis can achieve in 1941. I agree a poor return for 1941 would spell doom. But imagine if the Axis were to completely take all of Europe bar Russia by early 1942. They would have a massive industrial capacity. But probably more troops required for garrisons than on the front lines. And I don't think the Russian industrial capacity is boosted any more than usual, but I am not certain about this. Solid info on the reactions of US/Russia to a megalomaniacal German player is non existent.

Completely viable. That extra year for the Sovs isn't as great as you would think it would be for them.

A stronger 42 Wehrmacht can easily overcome them. You won't be hurting on infantry, either. This indeed is the biggest constraining factor for the Germans in 41. Once they get into the depths of Russia, they need a lot of infantry both up front and in the rear. But in 41 they typically don't have the infantry on hand since they've been focusing on getting their air and mech up to speed for an invasion. They are pumping out the infantry in the middle of the campaign, or at least that's been my experience, and this is a bit hand to mouth in 41. In 42 you can be totally prepared to sustain a march into the depths of the Soviet Union, no problems at all.

The Germans can also really stockpile their oil for a full blooded 42 Barbarossa, more so than in 41.

The Red Army might be bigger in 1942, but it will be at no more than 35% experience, and much of it won't even be that high. And no infantry armies.

The Soviets can't begin to really catch up to you in terms of quality until *after* the war begins, and this is kind of unique to this game. Quantity alone isn't gonna do it for them.

Frankly, as the Soviet player in this situation I would be stockpiling a lot of production in 41. I mean, sure, you could build a whole bunch of mech or whatever. But I don't think such an unbalanced army is a great idea. Covering the entire front with mech is a honey trap for the Soviets. You will have huge problems maintaining it.

Better imo to wait until you can get infantry armies and then buy a whole bunch of them with your stockpiles. But you have to ride out 2 months before the new builds arrive.

Infantry corps are garbage for the Soviets.

as the Soviet player in this situation I would be stockpiling a lot of production in 41

This is exactly my intention. Plonking 20+ INF armies (plus the reserves) on the map is gonna help.

Those new builds should be AT. Keep your AT tech up.

You are also forced to keep up assault tech, because all your reserve infantry armies will be assault formations. The Soviets are pretty much the only major power that has to do both these techs, everybody else can skip AT.

I might build a few rifle corps in 41 as speed bumps, but understand these are completely disposable units and use them as such. They will *not* hold a line.

As the Germans, I'd want to go in with a minimum of two or even 3 paras. Those things are gold, especially in the Soviet Union where the Red Army initially will have a very difficult time counterattacking them. They can help crack just about any line the Soviet put up and this is why going all in on mech is a bad idea for the Sovs. With paratroopers Germany can simply create death traps for that mech. This is not an economical exchange for the Soviets.

Also, build up the Red Air Force in 41 if you haven't already. I think you need about 9 fighters as the Soviets. And any new fighters should be imo escort fighters. That extra range is amazingly helpful down the line. I love escort fighters and if the Soviets already didn't have so many interceptors, it would be tempting to just go all in on escort fighters (like the USA) but I don't think this is a good idea for the Sovs. Too expensive. They have over 1k production on map to start with in interceptors.

I would build 4-5 dive bombers as the Sovs. And leave the tac as is until the Red Air Force levels up to 50 experience, then maybe add some more of those.

The Red Air force will quickly get to 50 experience if you use it well, more quickly than the ground troops in fact.

@Alvaro, if you read this thread it would be great to outline the actual (if any) increases to Allied Production or earlier war entry for the US if the Axis do this strategy.

I could run a test, but I really have better things to do with my time.

@Flavius, my ideas coalesce with yours on almost all here. I have already disbanded the entire Soviet Interceptor Arm and I am replacing it with Escorts. Reasons...

I have some surprises though, which will become apparent later on.

Heh, in a 41 Barbarossa, I'd probably hold on to the interceptors. It's a close call.

But in a 42 Barbarossa, yeah, you may as well trash them. Exactly like the USA does, and for similar reasons. So this depends on the start date.

Ok, so I couldn't help myself. I ran a test.

First, as the UK I let the Germans run amuck. The earliest I could construe a US entry was Feb 1941 with 300 Prod. So Axis occupation of key UK territories brings the US in earlier and stronger.

Second, not attacking the USSR in early 1941 has consequences. In June 1941 the Russian's complete the 5 year plan. So Soviet Prod goes up to 270. Then in Jan 1942 Prod goes up again to 320 and they can build Armies. In May 1942 The Soviets can declare war with Prod at 350.

Now that I know these events, I don't think the wait till 42 to attack strategy is viable. The Axis my be forced to adopt such a strategy if things go poorly in France and make a 41 attack impossible. But a plan to attack Russia in 42 from the beginning is not wise IMO, unless there is some other factor I am unaware of.

They cannot build armies until at war when I playtested this, I think the scripting is off here. The production *does* go up, but the builds don't change.

Moreover, the reserves won't come into play until at war, either. So basically the Sovs are stuck until May of 42 when they can indeed declare war.

There's no question the Sovs are going to have a lot of production to play with here, granted. But with 35% experience and no armies, there is a window where the Germans can indeed attack and make gains even in 42.

The AI gave me real problems here. Admittedly, I had it set at max levels just to see how hard it could push. So a human wouldn't have the same raw strength, but a good human player is much smarter about how they attack than the AI is. (The AI attacking logic does some strange things and wastes a lot of movement points.)

You also have to take into consideration that the Wehrmacht itself will have much more to throw at this in 42 than in 41. An extra year of production on the other side with fairly minimal losses is no joke. Germany will be rocking something like 500 points per turn by the end of 41.

Maybe something has changed recently or for Human v Human. My test was hotseat. The Russians could definitely build Armies in Jan 1942.

This was several patches ago, so it may have been fixed. If it has been, well, that would definitely change things.

You are correct, it was not my original intention to delay Barbarossa. However with production losses and combat casualties the army is not going to be up to it as things stand.

A Barbarossa '42 would be only viable if one could close the Mediterranean.
Alas by how the things are now in the game, it's not exactly feasible in my perspective. So one is pratically railroaded in Barbarossa Historical as only 'main option' of the game.

Which is why I advocated against the partisans in Spain or having Spain still side with Axis if Gibraltar is taken. WiF works that way and works well (Given to take Gibraltar there without going through Spain is pratically a luck based strategy).