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
In response to DarthMaximus:
Short version: I’m sure we’re not really saying anything fundamentally different for the most part. However, I think the board at the end of R1 looks significantly different depending on the Russian plan. In particular, if a Russian fighter and tank were diverted towards India, and six infantry stacked in Burytia (with another possible four infantry in Yakut, or possibly the six infantry at Burytia split with five at Soviet Far East and one at Burytia instead) - I think the German plan should change based on these indicators.
Of course, I am not REALLY saying, or thinking, that you would support a G1 fortification of Ukraine, and I am sure that YOU in turn, are not REALLY saying, or thinking, that the German purchase should wildly vary based on the Allied purchase. Germany, of course, should purchase what will be anticipated to be MOST USEFUL, wouldn’t you concur? But isn’t what most useful going to be determined by the position on the board? Therefore, shouldn’t Germany be responsive to the Russians? Not slavishly overreacting, of course, but responsive.
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
True.
But, I do have a slight problem if your possible G1 can so easily be countered before you even go. Why give it serious consideration?
I’d file that under situational strat, which I don’t think is necessarily “reactive” or bad, just that you don’t want to buy too many ships if Russian ftrs can land in London or something.
Likewise, as Japan, prior to the start I could say “I’m want to buy an IC for Man, and do…” But that flys out the window if the Allies go KJF.
In response to DarthMaximus:
Short version: I’m sure we’re not really saying anything fundamentally different for the most part. However, I think the board at the end of R1 looks significantly different depending on the Russian plan. In particular, if a Russian fighter and tank were diverted towards India, and six infantry stacked in Burytia (with another possible four infantry in Yakut, or possibly the six infantry at Burytia split with five at Soviet Far East and one at Burytia instead) - I think the German plan should change based on these indicators.
Of course, I am not REALLY saying, or thinking, that you would support a G1 fortification of Ukraine, and I am sure that YOU in turn, are not REALLY saying, or thinking, that the German purchase should wildly vary based on the Allied purchase. Germany, of course, should purchase what will be anticipated to be MOST USEFUL, wouldn’t you concur? But isn’t what most useful going to be determined by the position on the board? Therefore, shouldn’t Germany be responsive to the Russians? Not slavishly overreacting, of course, but responsive.
I do think we probably are saying just about the same thing, and clearly the Allies can do some things such as set up a KJF, that can alter some moves.
Yes, don’t overract, be responsive, but look for the opportunities to force your opponent to react to your moves.
True. But, I do have a slight problem if your possible G1 can so easily be countered before you even go. Why give it serious consideration?
I’d file that under situational strat, which I don’t think is necessarily “reactive” or bad, just that you don’t want to buy too many ships if Russian ftrs can land in London or something.
Likewise, as Japan, prior to the start I could say "I’m want to buy an IC for Man, and do…"Â But that flys out the window if the Allies go KJF.
It’s not that my “possible” G1 move can be “easily countered”, it is that opportunities or dice have necessitated a change.
As I stated in another thread on this topic, lets use a USSR1 Ukraine attack. Let say I put the bid in UKR. Despite that, USSR attacks. If USSR takes UKR with, say, 3 tanks and an art, then I think Germany should make a substantial land buy, in order to replace those troops lost in retaking UKR. Germany cant afford “all sea” units.
Likewise, when USSR attacks UKR, it whiffs, and is forced to retreat. WR also goes poorly (lost 3-4 Inf or so). USSR is now badily damaged. Why bother with sea units. Why not just buy land and get the weakened USSR??
Why be “stubborn” and buy sea units when opportunities present a better option. USSR took a risk and got bad dice. So capitalize…
Squirecam
True. But, I do have a slight problem if your possible G1 can so easily be countered before you even go. Why give it serious consideration?
I’d file that under situational strat, which I don’t think is necessarily “reactive” or bad, just that you don’t want to buy too many ships if Russian ftrs can land in London or something.
Likewise, as Japan, prior to the start I could say "I’m want to buy an IC for Man, and do…"Â But that flys out the window if the Allies go KJF.It’s not that my “possible” G1 move can be “easily countered”, it is that opportunities or dice have necessitated a change.
As I stated in another thread on this topic, lets use a USSR1 Ukraine attack. Let say I put the bid in UKR. Despite that, USSR attacks. If USSR takes UKR with, say, 3 tanks and an art, then I think Germany should make a substantial land buy, in order to replace those troops lost in retaking UKR. Germany cant afford “all sea” units.
Likewise, when USSR attacks UKR, it whiffs, and is forced to retreat. WR also goes poorly (lost 3-4 Inf or so). USSR is now badily damaged. Why bother with sea units. Why not just buy land and get the weakened USSR??
Why be “stubborn” and buy sea units when opportunities present a better option. USSR took a risk and got bad dice. So capitalize…
Squirecam
I agree.
Which is why I (as Germany) always plan on buying land units prior to the start of all my games. If Russia does well, I’ll need the reinforcements, and if they do poorly, I can move in and capitalize.
I assume Russia will always attack Wrus and Ukr and will take with avg-good dice. Thus I default to land buy for Ger, and base my strats on these conditions.
Sort of assume the worst, until proven otherwise.
However, if Russia does something different or makes a KJF play, etc, certainly I can adjust and it might end up as a game where I’d like to really try something new whether it is naval or more air or whatever. But I’m not sure if I’d consider other Russian openings quite as strong, so if I see something else that I might consider weaker, surely I’ll try to take advantage of it, but I’m not going to assume a “weaker” opening from the start.
I guess I’m saying, IMO, there is difference in capitalizing on what you may think is a mistake by your opponent vs. basing a strat on what your opponent does.
I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.
I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.
Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?
If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.
If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.
I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.
Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?
If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.
If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.
Yes.
But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)
You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.
