1941 barb vs 1942

[AlvaroSousa]

I have played quite a few games now. Wanted the input from everyone.

The 1941 Barb games seems spot on. I have had games where the Axis has gone all out on the Soviets ignoring Allied convoy lanes and done well. The games have both gone down literally to the last turn of the game. Great games.

But a 1942 Barb so far has not done well at all and ended up in a 1944 Axis complete loss regardless of how much you beat up the Western Allies with historical subs, taken Gibraltar, and Spain.

The Russians are packed too deep and simply attrition you to death with roughly equal production and manpower.

Anyone else play a 1942 game strategy vs a player of similar skill and what the results were.

[ncc1701e]

I am not the best player out there.

What I can say is that a Barb 1942 has always been a disaster. You need to attack in 1941. Period.

As Allies, I can now stop a Barb 1941 without inflicting enough losses to the Axis. As such, the 1942 campaign has always proved to be a disaster for me.

That is why I am coming back on Winterization speciality. For me, USSR should have better odds to launch a limited counter offensive during Winter 1941 and give few losses to some German armies before the 1942 campaign.

Right now, Axis is just sitting during winter, reinforcing, waiting Summer 1942 to destroy USSR.

[MagicMissile]

I have only done one 1942 attack and that was in my very first PBEM and I had not even played against the computer and facing a good player so that did not end well. I have also only faced one 1942 invasion that did not end well for the Axis either. I agree with ncc1701e one almost have to attack in 41. Soviets alone to 42 will have time to build a very nice army. Low xp that is true but still I dont think it is a good option for Germany.

There is a small discussion about Barbarossa balance in the "FlaviusX vs BattlevonWar AAR" for anyone interested.

[AlvaroSousa]

I saw the discussion. The 1941 Barb is fine IMO. It depends on what the Axis do vs the Western Allies.

This is what I am considering.
###Current
USSR can disband at their units and reconstruct them.
USSR builds armies Jan 1942.
USSR can DOW on May of 1942.

###Changes considering
Neutral powers can't disband units
USSR builds armies when they are a full allied power.
USSR can DOW in June of 1942.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I saw the discussion. The 1941 Barb is fine IMO. It depends on what the Axis do vs the Western Allies.

This is what I am considering.
###Current
USSR can disband at their units and reconstruct them.
USSR builds armies Jan 1942.
USSR can DOW on May of 1942.

###Changes considering
Neutral powers can't disband units
USSR builds armies when they are a full allied power.
USSR can DOW in June of 1942.

"Neutral powers can't disband units" this would also affect Italy, obviously, but for a much shorter period.

I'd like a 1942 Barb to be a viable strategy, so am not adverse to changes being made, but I'm still learning the game, so don't know what exactly what approach would be best to enable that.

[AlvaroSousa]

I might take another approach. From what I understand to maximize defenses players have to disband units and tactically use supply trucks. They shouldn't have to in the game. It needs to flow organically.

[Harrybanana]

I have seen a 42 Barbarossa work twice. Once in Sveint's game vs Sillyflower and the second in one of my own games. But for a 42 Barb to work it really depends on what the Axis are doing in 41. If they are conquering the UK and also capturing either Gibraltar or the Middle East then they will probably be fine. But if they don't conquer the UK in 41 they are doomed. Also, with the 42 Barbarossa they won't likely capture Moscow or Leningrad. But they don't need to. They just have to hold on long enough to win a VIP Victory.

[OxfordGuy3]

I wouldn't expect a '42 Barbarossa ending well *without* the axis occupying the UK AND capturing Gibraltar (presumably with Spanish help) and/or large swathes of North Africa and the Middle East, but if they do achieve that result against Allies, then a '42 Barb ought to be a viable strategy, otherwise there is no point to doing Sealion.

[michaelCLARADY]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have seen a 42 Barbarossa work twice. Once in Sveint's game vs Sillyflower and the second in one of my own games. But for a 42 Barb to work it really depends on what the Axis are doing in 41. If they are conquering the UK and also capturing either Gibraltar or the Middle East then they will probably be fine. But if they don't conquer the UK in 41 they are doomed. Also, with the 42 Barbarossa they won't likely capture Moscow or Leningrad. But they don't need to. They just have to hold on long enough to win a VIP Victory.

I mostly agree except Sveint't '42 was also well on its way to failure until Sillyflower made a fatal 1944 error on the Western Front too late in the game for recovery.