@ncscswitch:
Actually, Allied control of the Med CAN prevent Germany from being a seriosu therat to Moscow… unless they want a Phyrric Victory and lose Berlin in the process.
A strong Allied fleet in the Med forces Germany to defend Norway, Western, Southern, Balkans, Ukraine, and consider Allied reinforce of Caucuses.
Germany pushed hard to Moscow, I snag Southern and start building there…
Germany goes for Caucuses and Allies interdict the forces in Ukraine, or jsut reinforce Caucuses.
If you have spent that many IPCs on naval units, you won’t have much in the way of invasion forces, unless it’s quite far into the game, by which point the Axis should already have made their crucial run on Moscow anyways.
If it’s early in the game, Germany can just push the Allies right back out of Southern Europe.
@ncscswitch:
Actually, Allied control of the Med CAN prevent Germany from being a seriosu therat to Moscow… unless they want a Phyrric Victory and lose Berlin in the process.
A strong Allied fleet in the Med forces Germany to defend Norway, Western, Southern, Balkans, Ukraine, and consider Allied reinforce of Caucuses.
Germany pushed hard to Moscow, I snag Southern and start building there…
Germany goes for Caucuses and Allies interdict the forces in Ukraine, or jsut reinforce Caucuses.If you have spent that many IPCs on naval units, you won’t have much in the way of invasion forces, unless it’s quite far into the game, by which point the Axis should already have made their crucial run on Moscow anyways.
If it’s early in the game, Germany can just push the Allies right back out of Southern Europe.
I disagree, npb, only because in my current game US threatens SEur with 6inf 1art 1arm on US4, and G has like 1inf there! The big stack is in WEur with new builds in Germ, but the new builds are slated for Russian front. If WEur forces re-take SEur, then UK threatens Normandy with 4inf 1art 3arm on UK4. All of this is AFTER the big naval battle that G supposedly won by sinking lots of Allied navy! US was busy building more stuff T1-2. Yes, G can take back SEur, but then forces have been diverted from the Russian front, which has been my point all along. G has not the ground units to defend everything. What gives?
I disagree, npb, only because in my current game US threatens SEur with 6inf 1art 1arm on US4, and G has like 1inf there! The big stack is in WEur with new builds in Germ, but the new builds are slated for Russian front. If WEur forces re-take SEur, then UK threatens Normandy with 4inf 1art 3arm on UK4. All of this is AFTER the big naval battle that G supposedly won by sinking lots of Allied navy! US was busy building more stuff T1-2. Yes, G can take back SEur, but then forces have been diverted from the Russian front, which has been my point all along. G has not the ground units to defend everything. What gives?
Sure, then. Disagree. That is your right. No. Your DUTY!
mwahahaha.
All of this is AFTER the big naval battle that G supposedly won by sinking lots of Allied navy! US was busy building more stuff T1-2. Yes, G can take back SEur, but then forces have been diverted from the Russian front, which has been my point all along. G has not the ground units to defend everything. What gives?
The Germans “win” the big Atlantic battle if they blow up the Allied navy, and do not lose a lot of Luftwaffe.
If the Germans also manage to keep a capital ship (i.e. Baltic carrier or Mediterranean battleship, whichever was closer to the Allied fleet), the Germans have REALLY won.
If the Germans lost their navy and air force in blowing up the Allied fleet, the Germans FRICKIN LOST. There is LITERALLY no reason why the Germans should lose their navy and air force early, barring really insane dice like “111111112”.
Understand that it shouldn’t be Germany’s goal just to blow up the Allied navy. Germany’s goal should of course be the capture of facilitation of the capture of Moscow, but apart from that, Germany’s goal should be to blow up the Allied navy AND keep enough of Germany’s air force and hopefully navy intact, so by the time the Allies rebuild, Germany can blow up the Allied fleet AGAIN.
–
Also, Germany isn’t SUPPOSED to try to defend everything.
Imagine, if you will, a naked, um, cat with a hankie that has to go through a crowded room. The cat can try to mince through the room while switching the hankie around, but that will take a long time and isn’t going to do the cat’s modesty much good.
OR the cat can cover up the essentials and boldly stride through the room, taking the least amount of time, and suffering the least exposure.
–
Yes, of course it’s your point to pull away German IPCs from the Russian front with a KGF plan. So what else is new? The question is, were you able to do it ENOUGH, and is Russia still able to stop Japan?
And for new players it could be good to add that Germany Sit tight in eastern Europe UNTILL japan is ready to move towards cauccasus/moscow, Then Germany will move forward as fast as the Japanesse does.
What Germany does is really very dependent on what Russia did on its turn.
If Russia moved units towards India, and moved everything else east, the Allies are probably going to be going after Japan first. (Not certainly, but maybe).
If Russia built naval units in the Mediterranean, Germany might be well advised to sink that fleet before it got any stronger – or conversely, to ignore it and build lots of tanks to put pressure on Moscow quickly.
And so forth.
Usually, Germany and Japan should both focus on Moscow, while attempting to prevent the Allies from taking complete control of the Atlantic or Pacific. In some cases, though, attacking the United Kingdom or the United States is better.
More to follow.
I think this must be Hilary clinton. YOu said absolutly nothing with your statement that involved a strategy ha.
What Germany does is really very dependent on what Russia did on its turn.
If Russia moved units towards India, and moved everything else east, the Allies are probably going to be going after Japan first. (Not certainly, but maybe).
If Russia built naval units in the Mediterranean, Germany might be well advised to sink that fleet before it got any stronger – or conversely, to ignore it and build lots of tanks to put pressure on Moscow quickly.
And so forth.
Usually, Germany and Japan should both focus on Moscow, while attempting to prevent the Allies from taking complete control of the Atlantic or Pacific. In some cases, though, attacking the United Kingdom or the United States is better.
More to follow.
I think this must be Hilary clinton.  YOu said absolutly nothing with your statement that involved a strategy ha.
In the post that you quoted, you quoted my strategy.
“What Germany does is really very dependent on what Russia did on its turn.”
Pwned.
By the way, zosima, until you respond to my “pwnage”, I will continue to officially “pwn” you in my siggy.
OK everyone, help me out here…
Why should Germany sit tight with his stack in EEur, instead of moving forward with his Inf/Rtl as fast as possible, to UKR/WRU?
What is the problem if Germany gets into UKR Before Jap is ready to strike MOS? Surely, it would only deny Russia IPC’s to build with?
Obviously I am missing something here, so I would be happy if someone points that out for me.
Cheers
You want to wait for a bit until Japan has a nice presence at russia’s backdoor, so that, if the UK has a nice stack sitting in WR and you take the Ukr or the Cauc with everything you have, and if the UK ends of either strafing you HARD or completely wiping himself out in order to reduce your stack, Japan can be right there afterwards to console your brethren’s lost brethren with a huge stack of his own, to protect you from either the nasty US boys sitting in Moscow or the commies waiting to finish you off on their turn.
Edit: Sorry for lack of punctuation. MY keyboard sucks and I’m sicker than a dog.
You want to wait for a bit until Japan has a nice presence at russia’s backdoor, so that, if the UK has a nice stack sitting in WR and you take the Ukr or the Cauc with everything you have, and if the UK ends of either strafing you HARD or completely wiping himself out in order to reduce your stack, Japan can be right there afterwards to console your brethren’s lost brethren with a huge stack of his own, to protect you from either the nasty US boys sitting in Moscow or the commies waiting to finish you off on their turn.Â
Edit: Sorry for lack of punctuation. MY keyboard sucks and I’m sicker than a dog.
What he said, but substitute “Russian” for “UK”.
Basically, if you advance too quickly with Germany, you risk getting wiped out, or a very hard strafe of your position - after which Russia can pull back in plenty of time to defend against Japan.
If you wait to advance with Germany until Japan is a real threat, then Moscow has to deal with both threats at once.
Anyways, if you advance prematurely you get wiped out or heavy strafed. That’s the real reason. If you could take and hold that territory, you shouldn’t care even if Japan can’t catch up - more territory for you means more IPCs for you and less for the Russians.
What is was laughing at is that, being reactionary isnt a strategy. Having a goal that you strive for and go all out to see to fruition is a strategy.
for instance, a strategy based on what someone else does isnt much of a strategy. Claiming that somone MUST capture Novosbrisk (I’m not saying this is an actual stategy, just giving an example) is a strategy.
What is was laughing at is that, being reactionary isnt a strategy. Having a goal that you strive for and go all out to see to fruition is a strategy.
for instance, a strategy based on what someone else does isnt much of a strategy. Claiming that somone MUST capture Novosbrisk (I’m not saying this is an actual stategy, just giving an example) is a strategy.
Strategy:
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies=“” of=“” insects=“”>–
Simply being reactionary is not a strategy. However, the subsequent posts in the thread describe some of the proper reactions, thus delineating strategies.
If your claim is that strategies need not respond to an opponent’s actions, you are pwned again.</foraging>
You obviously have to take into account what your opponent does, but I think Zosima’s point is valid, simply sitting back and saying I’ll wait to see what “X country” is going to do, is generally a very bad idea.
You do not want your opponent to dictate the the pace, the battles, or even the strat you must employ.
Germany can largely ignore Russia 1 and do what ever she wants. You can still go Med/Afr, go Baltic, or go all land.
Whether Russia attacked Belo or Ukr, is largely insignificant in what Germany should do, the only difference would be to counter Bel or Ukr, but trading for the sake of trading isn’t a strat. If you don’t have a plan as the Axis, you are going to lose every game, since time is on the Allies side.
An effective strat, will get your opponents trying to counter your moves, not the other way around.
For example, if you go with a G1 heavy Navy build in the Baltic YOU put a series of events into motion that require the Allies to do certain moves, this gives you an advantage (assuming you are experienced in these moves).
One of my typical goals is to hold Ukr with Ger as early as possible, I really don’t care where the Allies land or what they are doing, I want Ukr. Once I have that I can deadzone almost all of Europe, now the question becomes how am I doing with Japan.
If I start to worry, that the Allies are landing in Nor or Kar and divert troops north, I lose the initiative.
The reason being, if I go for Ukr and hold, the Allies can’t afford to just build up in Kar, they must react to my moves.
You want to set up effective counters, but you better be advancing your position and goals as well.
The best defense is a good offense.
My posts on page 5 were examples of general strategy for Germany. Of course, I don’t expect everyone to read the whole thread.
The beginning part of this thread was where I laid the groundwork for the WHY of the strategy - and where I waited for others to state what they would do against or as Germany. It’s the same thing I did in my Russian thread.
Plus, I do not think I resemble Hillary Clinton. I don’t have bewbies.
–
You do not want your opponent to dictate the the pace, the battles, or even the strat you must employ.
Russia has the first turn. Russia sets the pace. Russia determines what the board at the start of G1 is going to look like. Given that, it is difficult to see how you can boldly state that YOU will force your OPPONENT to respond to YOU.
I think it wiser to look at the situation and respond appropriately.
In other words, you are trying to say that I am saying that you should wait for the enemy to attack, and then that you should flail about in an ineffective panic.
What I am really saying is that you see your opponent has plants to manufacture chlorine gas, so when your opponent tries to gas you, you pull out your gas masks and laugh.
Reacting to the situation is the BEST and MOST ESSENTIAL thing to do. Exploiting weaknesses in enemy defenses is how you win, true, but first you have to not lose.
If you debate that, tell me if you try to establish a strong forward position in Ukraine on G1, by NOT taking Anglo-Egypt and landing all fighters there if Russia didn’t take Ukraine on R1.
What is was laughing at is that, being reactionary isnt a strategy. Having a goal that you strive for and go all out to see to fruition is a strategy.
for instance, a strategy based on what someone else does isnt much of a strategy. Claiming that somone MUST capture Novosbrisk (I’m not saying this is an actual stategy, just giving an example) is a strategy.
Strategy:
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies=“” of=“” insects=“”>–
Simply being reactionary is not a strategy. However, the subsequent posts in the thread describe some of the proper reactions, thus delineating strategies.
If your claim is that strategies need not respond to an opponent’s actions, you are pwned again.</foraging>
wow…you went to the dictionary. you truely have to much time. And though I may be “pwned” by you, i still can be happy in the knowledge that I am NOT YOU. And that I have a life and I have friends. And that I a confident enough person that I don’t ahve to win a pissing match on the Axis and Allies board to feel better about myself. So i’ll help you out. YOU WIN. newpaintbrush is by far the ebst person at axis and allies, and at life. I lose. I am truely “pwned” by this great human being in my midst. You win this battle, and the war my friends…you win.
What is was laughing at is that, being reactionary isnt a strategy. Having a goal that you strive for and go all out to see to fruition is a strategy.
for instance, a strategy based on what someone else does isnt much of a strategy. Claiming that somone MUST capture Novosbrisk (I’m not saying this is an actual stategy, just giving an example) is a strategy.
Strategy:
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies=“” of=“” insects=“”>–
Simply being reactionary is not a strategy. However, the subsequent posts in the thread describe some of the proper reactions, thus delineating strategies.
If your claim is that strategies need not respond to an opponent’s actions, you are pwned again.</foraging>
wow…you went to the dictionary. you truely have to much time. And though I may be “pwned” by you, i still can be happy in the knowledge that I am NOT YOU.  And that I have a life and I have friends. And that I a confident enough person that I don’t ahve to win a pissing match on the Axis and Allies board to feel better about myself. So i’ll help you out.  YOU WIN. newpaintbrush is by far the ebst person at axis and allies, and at life. I lose. I am truely “pwned” by this great human being in my midst.  You win this battle, and the war my friends…you win. Â
victory, victory!
back to my crack pipe.
you people now have 2 threads that demonstrate who is “owned” concept. That will be quite enough.
You do not want your opponent to dictate the the pace, the battles, or even the strat you must employ.
Russia has the first turn. Russia sets the pace. Russia determines what the board at the start of G1 is going to look like. Given that, it is difficult to see how you can boldly state that YOU will force your OPPONENT to respond to YOU.
I’m not sure if it is that bold, I mean rd 1 seems pretty “canned” as it is.
Russia will attack Wrus, Belo, or Ukr in some combination but not all 3.
Germany will kill the UK BB, attack Egy, attack Kar and counter Belo or Ukr.
All this is pretty standard so simply being prepared for the “most popular” Russian openings gives the Germans the ability to really take the momentum.
There is very little if anything that Russia can do that will prevent me from buying any one of these (my preferred G1 buys):
10 inf, 2 arm
12 inf, 1 rt
10 inf, 1 ftr
8 inf, 3 arm save 1 (or 8 inf, 4 rt)
All have relatively the same purpose, help me control Europe while I gather what I can in Afr in the first 3-4 rds or so.
The UK and US simply can’t get mobilzed fast enough and put a significant threat on Europe to prevent Germany form having about 4 turns to build up to move against Russia. Â Likewise, Russia is typically on her own for about the first 4 turns (minus Allied air). Â This is when the Axis can try to take control. Â Whether UK and US are buying air or trns or whatever, isn’t that important b/c of the supply lines and pressing Allied priorities take precedence (ie sink Baltic fleet, sink Med fleet, reclaim Afr).
On the flipside as the Allies, if I can prevent Germany from being able to move large stacks towards Ukr/Cauc, then you can usually box Germany in and turn Russia towads Japan as UK and US finish off Berlin.
This is why I’m not really a fan of Germany naval buys, IMO it has the potential to provide the Allies, namely Russia, with added time since Germany’s land power will be slightly diminshed in rds 1-3.
Reacting to the situation is the BEST and MOST ESSENTIAL thing to do. Exploiting weaknesses in enemy defenses is how you win, true, but first you have to not lose.
Playing not to lose will get you beat.
You want to be the one to force your opponent into tough decisions.
If you debate that, tell me if you try to establish a strong forward position in Ukraine on G1, by NOT taking Anglo-Egypt and landing all fighters there if Russia didn’t take Ukraine on R1.
There’s a difference between forcing the issue and being stupid.
All players have their own risk tolerance.
On G1, what is the point? Â Japan hasn’t even gone yet and is not even in Chi, let alone Sin.
Now make that G4-5 coupled with a Japan move to Kaz or Novo and I make that move.
I guess the best way to talk about this would be to divide up the goals between turn goals and overall goals.
Turn goals:
gain IPC, trade, don’t place your army in a position to get wiped out.
Overall goals:
(examples)
hold afr, take ukr/cauc, squeeze Rus, threat HI and Ala, claim as many ipc as you can…
Your turn goals, should always help in achieving your overall goal otherwise you may just end up spinning your wheels.
There is very little if anything that Russia can do that will prevent me from buying any one of these (my preferred G1 buys):
10 inf, 2 arm
12 inf, 1 rt
10 inf, 1 ftr
8 inf, 3 arm save 1 (or 8 inf, 4 rt)All have relatively the same purpose, help me control Europe while I gather what I can in Afr in the first 3-4 rds or so.
Yes. And they are all “similar” land buys. But if your purchase choices were land vs sea, there are things USSR does R1 that makes a sea purchase more/less risky.
Just because USSR1 doesnt affect your buy does not mean USSR1 does not affect others first round purchases.
Squirecam
