Romanian IC G1

[seancb]

I know someone has some experience on making this work and the mechanics of how to use this strategy. Any help, comments, experiences, opinions, etc are greatly appreciated.

[A Former User]

An IC on Romania on G1 would be a mistake in my opinion. Either a Major or a Minor IC could be purchased; here are both scenarios:
1-Minor IC
This will take half of Germany’s initial IPC’s. It will not be able to be used until the end of Round 2. It can produce 3 units per round.
2-Major IC
This will take all of Germany’s initial IPC’s. It will not be able to be used until the end of Round 2. It can produce 10 units per round.
Both options are, in my opinion, a mistake. They take away from Germany’s initial monetary initiative too much. The German player needs those 15 or 30 IPC’s to either build up for a Sealion or execute a[preferably G1] Barbarossa. The necessary units for Sealion can be built on Western Germany, and the necessary units for Barbarossa can be built on Germany proper with no need for a Romanian IC.
I hope this helps;
-AxisandAlliesGeneral

[taamvan]

Yep, a lot of stuff you can do here.   Can buy 1 turn eastwards or southwards.  Can make a huge fortress square with a navy, airbase, all of that.

Problem is that if you go for the major, you’ll be spending all your money on that and troops for it, which sort of limits the other things you can do.  With the stuff all showing up buried in your heartland, it won’t be forward placed to attack/defend against the Western Allies, its an all Russia strategy.   Usually, because of the Baltic German Navy, you’ll be able to tear Leningrad apart from 2-3 directions, but with all your eggs will be in this southern basket, you will probably be emphasizing drilling into the Russian money south and getting the 12 income that’s down there and the oil.   If you just do the minor, its not as much of a commit but it doesn’t change as much either. Â

And with the german navy in the northern sector, you get the dual threat of sea lion and Leningrad–the navy gives you the same additional mobility as the industrial complex (trading 2 turns of movement for 1) but with more threat projection and choices.

At least in my experience, the mobility pieces are simply better for their cost (mechs, mostly), and these can pretty much make up the same distance as the forward placed base does, but with not as much expense.   It is still only 1 space closer Romania to Moscow vs Germany to Moscow and the placement of Bessarabia and the marshes mean that its not a direct path.

Its a fairly vanilla strategy to place this base.  #1  you don’t need the extra capacity you start with 29 units per turn #2 it shows your plan off early #3 limits your choices by committing all your resources

One pretty cool idea that one of the posters laid out recently is build the thing, then have Italy take Bessarabia or E Poland and start the war, having all your Romania mobility roll through that gap as one big stack.  Like the plan, but its not a huge surprise and you have to wait until T3 to get any built units rolling through.

[seancb]

The thought was to build 10 arty and connect with available units. Thoughts? Also not planning on G1 Barbarossa

[WILD BILL]

I think dropping an IC (minor or major) on Romania teligrahs your intentions too much. This was a popular thing to do before the Ukraine minor IC was added to the game though. Now it is much better for the Germans to just move in and take that Russian IC in the south because the units you build there are closer to the front. If you want to build an IC I suggest you wait until you get on Russian soil to do so.

[seancb]

The initial thought was to try to press the south where all the good money is and keep the Bryansk stack neutered by making a german stack. G3 was attack time and build 10 infantry on Romania with max infantry in Germany. G4 mechs take Ukraine, northern army hits Leningrad. G5 slam Rostov. G6 Stalingrad Caucasus max defend Europe wall up and wait for some Japan help on the other side collect 70+ IPC’s. All while SBR Moscow and/or London. It’s a bit slower but I think it would be a bit more fun while enticing USA to try to come to Europe. I’ll try it and let you know if I can execute this. I only consider this because my opponent loves to turtle in Moscow and i seem to run out of steam and I thought by making it a 2 turn move to get to Moscow I could somehow outbuild him and bomb him at the same time increasing my chances of winning the big battle.

[WILD BILL]

If you build a major in Romainia (spend 30 IPCs) on G1, then build the 10 art G2 for an additional 40 IPCs (70 IPC invested) you are ready to invade Russia on G3 (Besserarabia, or E Poland).

If you don’t spend that 30 IPCs on major IC and just build 10 art in Germany G1 (40 IPCs invested), they move to Poland G2, and on G3 those art are still able to invade Russia (E Poland) G3.

Both have similar results, but there is much you can do with the 30 IPCs saved, like build mech/tanks for Germany G2 in Berlin to also hit E Poland on G3.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@seancb:

I know someone has some experience on making this work and the mechanics of how to use this strategy. Any help, comments, experiences, opinions, etc are greatly appreciated.

I’ve never used this myself, but I’ve seen it used twice.

The bad thing of course is that you are not spending that money on forces for Russia. The good thing is that everything you build there is a whole turn closer to Moscow – tanks built there can hit Moscow in two turns, not three. So you’re paying 30 IPCs for a permanent one territory boost to the speed of all units built there.

Is it technically telegraphing? Yes, but sometimes it’s perfectly ok to telegraph and Germany facing off against Russia is one of those times.

Marsh

[seancb]

Marsh seems to see what I was going for. The extra move gets me there quicker and I can send tanks/mechs sooner. One good 10 tank build and I think Russia goes down economically and the Allies will need a lot of push once I do the big infantry purchase and wall up.

[Charles de Gaulle]

This is a very controversial topic which I find myself arguing about in my brain all the time.  I used to do it quite often but I have found that I like threatening Sea Lion better because it helps Italy a lot.  One time I went as far as building a Black Sea Fleet and taking Caucasus, but it costs too much.  Building faster ilunits in Germany will sae you money but not in the long run; you can always get the six artillery a turn later with Leningrad and Umraine. The extra range is nice but you lose some initiative and secrecy against the Allies.  I think it all comes down to Do you want to go full Barbarossa? Or do you want to try doing things in the Mediterranean and help Italy or threaten Sea Lion then go for Leningrad?  This in itself is the crux of what makes A&A great.  Both are viable options which you simply need to try and see how you can execute it and how your opponent responds.

[seancb]

DeGaulle did you get the 39 setup finished with all your revisions? Would like to try it out still.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Email sent! You can also see it in house rules.  :-D

[MarshmallowofWar]

@seancb:

Marsh seems to see what I was going for. The extra move gets me there quicker and I can send tanks/mechs sooner. One good 10 tank build and I think Russia goes down economically and the Allies will need a lot of push once I do the big infantry purchase and wall up.

Please note that I’m not actually advocating a major IC in Romania.

Marsh

[seancb]

hahahhahah No one will hold you to that quote Marsh.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Spending 30 IPCs without building any units makes me uncomfortable.  8-)

The movement benefit is quite real though.

[Charles de Gaulle]

Another problem is the fact that building in Romania means those units coudn’t help the West if necessary. 
Sometimes building on Germany or even West Germany can kill two birds with one stone by giving adequate defense.  On your next turn you move these to the Eastern Front and build another wave.  There is no flexibillity with Romania.

[Kreuzfeld]

I have done it, Won the game.

My plan was to stack rostov on G6 with the italians capable of killing 10 russians, this would force russia to retreat to moscow and I could take caucase, stalingrad and the middle east allowing me to win on production. At that point, germany would have 30 IPC start +  10-15 from france and minors+ 18-20 from russia west and south of moscow. + 0-4 middle east  = 58-69.  Add to this +5 Leningrad, +5 Stalingrad + 5 cauc +5 denmark/Norway, +2-6 middle east Giving a total of 80- 95 IPC.

I did buy G1 MIC , then on G2, I bought 10 inf in rumania (maybe 8 inf 2 art) and 10 mech in germany, then on G3 I bought 10 mech in rumania and on G4 I bought another 10 mech in rumania. This gave me a total of 40 inf/mech able to reach where I wanted by turn 6 .

If I had just buildt germany, (and wanted max mech) I would have built G1: 8 mech, G2 18 mech, G3 10 mech for a total of 36 mechs being able to reach on G6

[Narvik]

The Jewel of the Reich strategy.

Building facilities in Romania can help you win the game, if you do it correct and follow my orders, and your opponent is a casual player from the lower level of the ladder. Against a very skilled and or lucky opponent nothing helps.

G 1 you need to build a minor IC and an Airbase in Romania.
G 2 you must buy a Carrier and two Trannies for the Black Sea

Now you can threat with power projection against 4 Russian territories, Bessarabia, Ukraine, Rostov and Caucasus. This will be killing zones that you strafe with a few inf and a ton of planes. Every time you get Caucasus you will also get a 5 IPC NO.

Use Italy as can opener. Italian planes starting from Italy can even land on the G. Carrier after strafing operations against the Russian territories around the Black Sea.

Russia can no way afford to stack all this 4 territories against a joint Axis operation including both amphibious assaults, can opening and strafing.

G3 you can build inf and artillery in Romania and sail them to Rostov for a fast transfer.

Later turns, Tanks and Mechs build in Ukraine can reach Moscow the next turn, and planes build in Romania can also reach Moscow the next turn, as long as you did not forget to build the AB too.

Now I would like to see a Russian player surviving this onslaught, man…

[A Former User]

True, there is a large benefit to being able to produce 10 units[such as 10 tanks] closer to the front with a Romanian Major IC on G1. However, the Germans will quickly take the Leningrad and Ukraine IC’s, and this will give the Germans the capability to produce 60% of the amount of units on the front for free. Plus, if 3 tanks are bought each turn for Leningrad and 3 tanks for Ukraine, that leaves Germany with easily 24-44 IPC’s to spend somewhere else. Especially if the rout of G3 Barbarossa is indeed taken, that ability to have a free 24-44 IPC’s[60-80 ICP’s-6 tanks] means that 8-14 infantry or 6-11 artillery can be produced on the Paris/Western Germany front to combat an American offensive/American offensives.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Charles:

Another problem is the fact that building in Romania means those units coudn’t help the West if necessary.  
Sometimes building on Germany or even West Germany can kill two birds with one stone by giving adequate defense.  On your next turn you move these to the Eastern Front and build another wave.  There is no flexibillity with Romania.

I don’t think arguing that Romania is not flexible is a really sound point. Germany already has major ICs in Germany and West Germany, and the minor in Paris in all but weird circumstances. Germany has plenty of flexibility in where it positions its builds, and adding Romania probably adds flexibility instead of subtracting it.

Once units are placed in Romania they don’t the ability to contribute to West Germany’s defense, but that is easily overcome by placing your units in the correct location!

Marsh