I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska. I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50. Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR. Sorry.
Friendly IC
-
It’s also a very good tactic. If the allies have Germany, the dont need to have Belorussia, W. Russia and Ukraine, nor do they need Caucasus. Why not let them sit so Japan cannot have them? Meanwhile, build a massive army in Germany and then, one step at a time, take territories so that Japan has no chance to liberate them.
-
Yes Jennifer, it was the tactic adopted by Allied players, the problem has been … that I was the Axis player on the receiving end of such tactic, not a nice place to stay!
As I said they were a little more subtle and leave Germany open to counterattack, hoping that I liberate Berlin to allow then US/UK counterattack to grab German IPC!
Their build-up were in France and in Algeria, from where their troops advanced on foot onward Africa and Asia.
Finally I chose to concede.The disaster has became after a succesfull German attack on UK/US fleet aimed to destroy TRN and disrupt landing in Norway, in order to gain tempo to assault Russia. German sank almost all the TRN (4 UK and 4 US), but losing all 4 attacking sub and also three fighter. My German colleague did not rebuilt Baltic Fleet leaving it to 1 AC, 1 DD and 1 TRN and built Panzer to assault Russia assisted by me (Japan). The assault had gone well, after 3 turns Russia fell, but meanwhile US/UK rebuilt fleet and the turn after the fall of Moscow they struck the Baltic Fleet, sank it, and invaded Berlin!
So I have a question. How do you deal with US/UK fleet that lands troop in Norway or Algeria every turn? I am aimed to have a Baltic Fleet with 3 or 4 SUB tu use as fodder in assitance to air attack on the Allied fleet. Or should Germany be more active in Atlantic sending out SUB in order to “occupy” Sea Zone hindering Allied combat moves? Or there is another approach to solve the problem?
-
As a general rule…
Germany is a LAND FORCES POWER, not a Naval Forces Power.
Start with that assumption and remember that Infantry is your FRIEND (they defend well, and serve as fodder to protect your massed Tanks and Air Force)
-
And give up Norway.
Also, remember that Moscow is your target. Not the Union of S. Africa. In other words, it’s nice to have Africa, but not at the cost of giving up Russia.
-
Thanks! I will try to switch to a more land based strategy in next matches. :-D
Summarizing the problem of my collegue was the lack of infantry caused by the money spended for ships and subs! I will try to persuade him to try this strategy!
-
You can still build navy, but think defensively.
Make your opponents build the subs and ships/planes needed to attack you.Also think about this, for the cost of 4 subs (32) you can buy 2 AC’s and then land 4 ftrs on them (you start with 6, should have still have 5 after G1). That means with only 4 subs you get 8 defensive points, but with 2 AC’s you get 22!!! That is an extra 2-3 hits.
You don’t have to build 2 ACs in rd 1, but if you go AC in Rd 1 and AC in Rd 2 (or 3), you can really put a crimp in the Allies plans and even threaten to merge fleets in Sz 7.
Many players suspect the first, but the 2nd is a different story. And if UK/US went trn heavy early it will take them another 2-3 turns before they will have the offensive units to sink you. That counld buy time for you to really do damage in Afr.
Other naval tactics would be build an AC and multiple trns on G1 and take Gib with the med fleet. This threatens both the UK and a naval unification on G2, it takes some precise builds and moves from the Allies to really counter effectively.
Now, I do prefer to play a more land based Germany but you do have naval options. I just wouldn’t worry about trying to sink the Allied fleets, that gets too costly, make them sink yours.
-
DM, I do not know if it would be wise for Germany to purchase two Aircraft Carriers, especially if you are going to remove 67% of your air force from defending your land to defend a fleet that serves almost no purpose at all.
But then again, I don’t advocate the first aircraft carrier purchase.
-
I understand the needs for a more focused land strategy for German and I will try it for sure in the next matches, maximizing expenses for infantries, panzers and aircrafts. There are a lot of threads on this forum that proposes this as the better strategy for Germany.
However I believe that a minimum consideration for naval power is fundamental also for Germany. And for me finding the right equilibrium is still an open problem.
In my experience in games whit my playgroup, the loss of Baltic Fleet opens always an highway to invade Germany and Eastern Europe, so German defense had to be spread in three territories: Western Europe, Germany and Eastern Europe. This means a more tiny defense or to renounce to defend strong everywhere.
With Baltic fleet intact the Allied could hit directly only Western Europe, so Germany have to place fighters in two places: SZ-5 and France.
Ok, UK/US may always try to sink Baltic fleet and invade in the same turn, but if Sz5 is well defended this is not going to be a walking in the park.A landing in Western Europe drain German resources to counter-attack.
A landing in Eastern Europe, even if unsuccesfully, disrupts the pipeline of infantry reinforcment on the Eastern Front and this is not a good event, it slows down the assault on Moscow.
A landing in Berlin… ouch!I am aware that I am still green and inexpert at Axis and Allies but I am a good studious of History (and this is way I like A&A :-D).
Naval power may not be understimated without the worst consequences in every military conflict. The competitor that have the naval supremacy may lands troops everywhere and at same time is safe from enemy landings.
Napoleon quits all the plans to invade England after defeat at Trafalgar and that was the first step of his final defeat.
Germany have lost two World War, one after the other, also because German Navy has not been able to gain the upper hand (this is not the only reason naturally).
Roman Empire was built not only with the mighty Legions but also with a powerful Fleet that gained the control on Mediterranean Sea (that was called by them “Mare Nostrum”).I am not saying that I do not believe in German Land Strategies. I am only saying that IMHO having also a complementary naval strategies may help to stay alive a little more time, and also may help in staying alive better.
-
Just make sure you drain the allied resources when they take W. Europe or E. Europe. Preferably drained so that they only have 1 or 2 ground units left and have spent airpower, manpower and machine (artillery/armor) power to get there.
-
I see, so the proposed approach is a reactive strategy in which German player focus is to maximize defense in WE, GER e EE.
As I said I am willin to test this strategies! :-)Thanks!
-
I would. But you also have to engage Russia enough to keep them occupied while Japan eats up their land with little or no resistance.
-
…
I am aware that I am still green and inexpert at Axis and Allies but I am a good studious of History (and this is way I like A&A :-D).
Naval power may not be understimated without the worst consequences in every military conflict. The competitor that have the naval supremacy may lands troops everywhere and at same time is safe from enemy landings.
Napoleon quits all the plans to invade England after defeat at Trafalgar and that was the first step of his final defeat.
Germany have lost two World War, one after the other, also because German Navy has not been able to gain the upper hand (this is not the only reason naturally).
Roman Empire was built not only with the mighty Legions but also with a powerful Fleet that gained the control on Mediterranean Sea (that was called by them “Mare Nostrum”).I am not saying that I do not believe in German Land Strategies. I am only saying that IMHO having also a complementary naval strategies may help to stay alive a little more time, and also may help in staying alive better.
I, too, have thought that A&A does not represent naval power correctly. IMO, this is because there is no concept of trade. Nations earn income via the land they own at the end of their turn. If you own the land, you get the income no matter how isolated or cut-off it is. There is no concept of naval disruption of trade.
Realistically, If the Suez canal is blocked the UK should lose some of the income from Asia and Australia. Likewise, if Panama were to ever fall to the Axis, the US should lose a little more income than just 1. U-Boats in the North Atlantic should cause a slight decrease for the UK. If you could completely surround a nation with your navy, they should not be allow to collect income outside the blockade or at least have it drastically reduced. Germany tried to do this to UK and the US did it to Japan to great effect. I read this some place else:
Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan in his famous book about the influence of sea power on history wrote that a nation’s sea power consists of its merchant ships. He saw its warship navy as being auxiliary to the merchant navy, its function being to keep the sea lanes open for its merchants (and to deny their use to an adversary’s ships)
That said, switch is absolutely correct about Germany being a land power. A&A is a land centric game. The navy exists only to move land units around or prevent land units from landing. By that reasoning, you should only have just enough navy to move your land units around as you wish. Which is why I usually have some transports in the Baltic to aid in shuttling German Infantry to Leningrad. Their aided defense of Berlin is secondary.
-
That said, switch is absolutely correct about Germany being a land power. A&A is a land centric game. The navy exists only to move land units around or prevent land units from landing. By that reasoning, you should only have just enough navy to move your land units around as you wish. Which is why I usually have some transports in the Baltic to aid in shuttling German Infantry to Leningrad. Their aided defense of Berlin is secondary.
In fact in my next games with German I am going to spend the maximum number of IPC in infantry!
I also agree with you that resources from territories that lays on the other shore of the sea must be transported by merchant ship in homeland to be used and that in A&A this aspect is completely overlooked.
But I will continue to play A&A and I am willing to learn as much as possible about it! -
Well, I don’t know if I would go that conservative with any nation besides Russia. Every nation needs infantry, but all infantry is probably too defensive for the Axis.
-
And as I found out in my game against TC (still in progress) it is TOO SLOW.
If you leave Russia in the upper $30’s, even if you “trade” them back down to the teens each turn, it just gets too strong to crack.
-
In fact, saying maximum number of IPC in INF should mean that I intend tol spend about 24-30 IPC per turn on INF, and the remaining in FIG and Panzers.
The building of the AC on sz5 seemed to be not a good move as it appeared to me, many discussion on this forum pointed to the weakness of such tactics.
In our games German Batlic Fleet used as “Fleet in Being” (Another concept from Mahan) has always scared the UK player giving to Germany more tranquillity.
But I am trying to alter my strategy for Germany in one more land based.I will come back with reasults and impressions as soon as possible. Week end is coming… and we planned two days of A&A playing.
-
:-o
I play low luck mostlly in the TripleA ladder and am toying with the idea of building 2 transports in the Baltic on G1. Thus, with a DD and 3 Transports, and the 2 subs as soak offs, I am assured of Killing one UK fighter for 2 rounds and possible the Bmbr before they sink even one of my transports! if they don’t block well the English channel, it could turn into a successful “Operation Sealion”! If well blocked, then 3 transports of infantry to Karilia on G2 is a good thing too.
Crazy Ivan :roll:
Suggested Topics
