DieFledermas' German Cookbook

[Diefledermas]

If my memory of my current game is correct, you are wrong about neutrals sending Exp Forces

I can 100% guarentee you that you can send expeditionary forces to non-aligned countries. They do, however, need to be at war with someone. You can't send troops to a country "at peace".

In my opinion, sending exped's to neutrals (or any AI country) is risky stuff.

This can happen. You do get your leader back which may soften the bitter pill. I wouldn't advise sending Panther tanks but (possibly) loosing an infantry division here and there is worth the risk (in given situations). Keep in mind you can control the exp. forces once given, it involves a little prowess and keeping them "in sight" but it works.

 

[unmerged(12221)]

I'm afraid you are wrong.

Italy cannot send exp forces, nor can it influence countries due to it's foreign minister unless allied.

Try it yourself, it is just not possible.

 

[Diefledermas]

Italy cannot send exp forces, nor can it influence countries due to it's foreign minister unless allied.

I never said Italy could influence before joining an alliance. Supporting the Spanish Civil War is an EVENT. And you can send expeditionary forces when you are neutral if the reciever is at WAR.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
Stopping the convoys isn't always the only positive outcome from convoy raiding. If the Germans can sink convoys consistently, the UK player will have to constantly click on the convoy tab and hit + for a couple convoys a day if he wants to keep them running. With a globe spanning empire like the one UK has, this distraction can lead to a loss of attention elsewhere that the Japanese or Italians can exploit.

You are VERY correct, especially if said UK player has never played UK before

Only other option for UK is to put about 5x the amount of convoys needed, reduces time between reinforcements

 

[unmerged(12221)]

And you can send expeditionary forces when you are neutral if the reciever is at WAR.

No you cannot, Italy's hands are tied.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Originally posted by Riso
No you cannot, Italy's hands are tied.

Not true, in our current MP game, I, as Italy, sent air divs to Nationalist Spain for the Civil War, and while later invading Spain with Germany, have encountered British and French exp. units, some of which even invaded Italy when I wasn't looking

 

[unmerged(8869)]

I agree with most of your guide, not about yugoslavia and battle of Britain.

Axis game is all about SU. If you spend resources for Navy or strategic bombing, you'll have to send less in Air Power and Land which are the key factors in barbarossa. Basically, as i see, Axis wins if is able to beat SU (conquering leningrad stalingrad moscow and caucausus) within one year after the start of the campaign. After US invades and it's impossible.

This is also why for me taking yugo for Germany is not important. Even if you have the port, you can't spend anything for navy so what's the point?

Filling the atlantic of subs is good but it takes lot of time to manage those subs and expecially the supply and it won't affect US invasion when it happens, so is it really worth all the IC?

Also, what are your opinion about:

1) WHen is the right time to attack in West?
2) When to attack in East (SU) ?
3) Composition of the "[erfect" army? (inf/mech/tanks/air)?

 

[Diefledermas]

Axis game is all about SU.

You won't get an argument from me on that. However, the Western Front can't be ignored and the "Soft Underbelly of Europe" shouldnt be either. What am I saying? Its a matter of strategic and tactical decisions that are variable. The majority of research and production should be tasked to the (probable) war in the East. But the other stuff shouldn't be ignored, in my opinion anyway.

1) WHen is the right time to attack in West?

not before they have a high WE. When you have the firepower to knock France out fast so you can return your focus East quickly. Early (36-37) attacks will be victorious but unless you can turn around and be in Moscow by Chritsmas you'll loose due to too few units.

2) When to attack in East (SU) ?

Heh, this response is going to sound dumb but it really is this simple: When you can win (in the East).

3) Composition of the "perfect" army? (inf/mech/tanks/air)?

This is my preferred breakdown (but perfect is a little too much hubris).

Wermacht

defensive garrisons - leg infantry with a 1/3 AT, 1/3 ART, and 1/9 AA ratio (AT if only 3 divs)
mechanized army - 9 tanks, 3 mechanized inf (no battallions)*
tank army - 9 tanks (6 AT, 3 ART), 3 mech (AT/ART mix)
mech infantry - mech w/ engineer battallions
infantry - 12 inf (3 ART, 1 AT, 1, AA)
fast tank recon group - 3 light tanks w/ Engineer battallion

Luffewaffe

defensive (allied bombing/coastal invasion) - SR fighters set on intercept on key allied bomber flight paths
strike - 2 MR fighters, 4 tac bombers*

* I use a combination of the above mechanized army and strike air group. The lack of attacked AT and ART battlalions allows the mech army to move faster and the "flying artillery" more than makes up for the loss of battallions. The strike groups can also be "attached" to whatever mech army needs them. Mech armies are my primary offensive forces (1 strike for every 3 mech armies). I usually have tank armies on a 1/6 ratio with the mech armies to "kill" enemy tank armies. Infantry is used to backfill advances and protect supply lines, recon should be self-explanatory

 

[unmerged(8869)]

Why do you mix mechanized inf with tanks ? don't you risk to lose some speed speed?

and how much air in comparison of land? There are many players who use only few air, others not use any at all. And there are players who build massive fleets of bombers.

 

[Diefledermas]

Why do you mix mechanized inf with tanks ? don't you risk to lose some speed speed?

infantry defends armor against other infantry. if the speed loss is a major concern attach engineer battallions to the mechs and the offset is minimal (I don't, but it could solve this issue)

how much air in comparison of land

"rough" estimate:

1 SR fighter for every 12 garrison inf

1 MR/2 TAC for every 12 mech army units

no air for tank armies/recon/off inf

so.. 1 air unit for every 9 land units? I build units more on a need basis (i.e. I need a couple SR fighters in Hamburg, etc..)

 

[unmerged(15472)]

Varak,

You were already allied to axis when you send the exp forces. i'm pretty certain that italy can not send exp forces under any circumstance unless a member of the axis. the allies that send exp forces were members of the 'allies' so that is why they could. i as USA could not send exp force to spain because i'm not in an alliance. Most of italy's Diplimatic options are disabled until they join axis.

Brindle

 

[unmerged(8869)]

Originally posted by Diefledermas
"rough" estimate:

1 SR fighter for every 12 garrison inf

1 MR/2 TAC for every 12 mech army units

no air for tank armies/recon/off inf

so.. 1 air unit for every 9 land units? I build units more on a need basis (i.e. I need a couple SR fighters in Hamburg, etc..)

Isn't that too few? Assuming Germany can get like 240 divisions, you would have around 30 air units between bombers and fighters. How can you fight against someone who builds like 100 bombers?

 

[Diefledermas]

Isn't that too few? Assuming Germany can get like 240 divisions, you would have around 30 air units between bombers and fighters. How can you fight against someone who builds like 100 bombers?

Well, there is no static right answer, Obviously if someone builds 100 bombers (I'm assuming you mean UK/USA) then you would have to increase your SR fighter output. Keep in mind that provincal AA guns assist in this fight as well.

When I first started playing MP I originally used to build a lot of fighters for the assumed Allied bomber onslaught. For some reason the UK and USA players tend not to do that. Doesn't ask me why they don't, I would. Maybe they just can't see the results bombing wreaks.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Originally posted by Brindle
Varak,

You were already allied to axis when you send the exp forces. i'm pretty certain that italy can not send exp forces under any circumstance unless a member of the axis. the allies that send exp forces were members of the 'allies' so that is why they could. i as USA could not send exp force to spain because i'm not in an alliance. Most of italy's Diplimatic options are disabled until they join axis.

Brindle

Thought I was solo during the Spanish Civil war, but I'm not sure, you are probably right. Sorry, my bad


Just tried a quick SP startup, and you are correct.

 

[Diefledermas]

i'm pretty certain that italy can not send exp forces under any circumstance unless a member of the axis

I tested it too. I was 100% wrong. Since I usually play Germany, USSR, and the UK (the alliance leaders) it never occured to me about the absense of the expeditionary option when neutral. Yet another argument to allow for more flexibility to the neutral nations. Japan Co-prosperity sphere alliance? Anyway, my apologies for the misinformation.

 

[unmerged(12221)]

As I said, the problem lies at Italy's foreign minister.

Ideologic Crusaders plain suck.

 

[unmerged(13158)]

Use subs/naval bombers to defeat England

I think it goes without saying that sizing up your opponents, and predicting their strategies is the key to success in MP.

As the Germans, the biggest variable is the Soviets. You will know, based on the type of player controlling the Soviets, right off the bat if you should concentrate on Navy/Air (defeat Allies first strategy) or ground (defeat Soviets/neutralize Allies strategy).

That said, any competent SU player would be what Die defines as "the backstabber," and you must be prepared for a Bigglesworth-type to take over later - even if one doesn't start in the slot. Therefore, the best German strategy should always concentrate on defeating the Soviets first, and neutralizing the Allies.

I think the definition of neutralize is a tough one to define however - in my opinion it includes driving the UK out of their homeland.

I am a big supporter of the submarine tactics - yes, all it is is an annoyance to the UK - but it helps prevent the UK from spreading her resources evenly to the Allies.

But subs alone will not sufficiently slow down the Allies to the point of neutralization.You must find a way to augment them.

With the time associated with building a strong surface fleet, obviously that option is ruled out by default unless the Soviets are vanquished.

With the cost of strategic bombers - 1 bomber equals 3 infantry divisions, not to mention research - I'm not so sure I support the bomb England down while also trying to prosecute a war against the Soviets. The primary reason I say this is they are not mutually supporting of your submarine fleet.

In my opinion the number one overlooked production strategy aspect are Naval Bombers - with no Royal Navy England is a prize waiting to be had. What you do is get the Royal Navy running roughshod trying to catch your subs. They divide their force and get into small "hunting" groups. then, when they finally find a few subs poking around off the coast of Norway the 20-stack of Naval bombers hits them.

Bam, no more hunting group. This is how you wear down the Royal Navy - and agan, no Royal Navy, no England.

Defeating England will not win the war, but it will certainly neutralize the Allies - permitting you to concentrate the rest of your resources on the SU.

 

[Diefledermas]

right off the bat if you should concentrate on Navy/Air (defeat Allies first strategy) or ground (defeat Soviets/neutralize Allies strategy).

Air Techs are what I think of as "multi-purpose". They are good for all theatres/types of warfare. Since this a German specific thread I'll give a couple quick examples.

tactical bombers with deep penetration bombs will soften up the fortresses on the Maginot Line or the fortress walls in the East. Fighters can defend against Allied bombing just as easily as they escort tactical strikes. Strategic bombers can hit Soviet industry just as easily of British industry (most of the German heavy bombers were actually used for this purpose).

With the time associated with building a strong surface fleet, obviously that option is ruled out by default unless the Soviets are vanquished.

I'm in agreement here. Germany just doesn't have the bandwidth to deal with a blue water navy. "Sink the Bizmark" rings a little too true.

In my opinion the number one overlooked production strategy aspect are Naval Bombers

A viable tactic to be sure.

You will know, based on the type of player controlling the Soviets, right off the bat if you should concentrate on Navy/Air (defeat Allies first strategy) or ground (defeat Soviets/neutralize Allies strategy).

Who to hit first, not hit, ally with, declare a mortal enemy. This is all variable and what makes the game worth playing

 

[unmerged(13158)]

Just researched the Battle of the Atlantic a bit....

German naval strategy in 1939 was based on a simple calculation - if 750,000 tons of British shipping were sunk every month for a year then Britain would be forced to surrender.

Germany began the war with 57 submarines - about 6 units in HOI terms. The actual number they needed to maintain was 350 subs - 35 in HOI terms. Now, if HOI was constructed right, this should hold true in game terms. Therefore, maintain a fleet of 35 subs at sea for a year and Britain is starved to death.

Now, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to produce this fleet of subs. The trick would be keeping them at sea in the face of Royal Navy forays. In order to do that you build Condors, lots of Condors. You also build plenty of Me 110s (long range fighters) to escort them.

I also consider it a good idea to maintain that initial surface fleet as a striking force - just one more thing to distract the Brits attention as it can do some serious damage. Just keep it in port just like the Germans did historically - but when it does go on forays make sure they come back.

Your gamble is that the British player does not concentrate on sufficient numbers of longe range fighters initially to challenge the Condors. Best case scenario is that they've developed a large fleet of short-range Spitfires that can't challenge the Condors at all.

Natural reaction for the Brits would be to start work on long-range fighters. This complete re-tooling would take at least a year before a sufficient force could be assembled to challenge the Condors. By that time the Royal Navy will have been wittled down and unwilling to venture where you have air superiority.

In addition: they will have attempted some suicide impalements on the Atlantic Wall to reduce your staging area for the Condors. Valuable resources will go into developing medium fighters, and resources will not be distributed evenly to the Allies.

England should be wide-open for Sea Lion by then.

Historically the germans never came close to their stated objective. The closest they ever came was April - June of 1942 when they averaged almost exactly 750,000 tonnes a month.

 

[Diefledermas]

In order to do that you build Condors, lots of Condors. You also build plenty of Me 110s (long range fighters) to escort them.

wouldn't it be easier (and cheaper) to base your subs from the Western coast of France or Norway?