Sometimes losing your capitol is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too.
For instance, if you can hit Germany hard with Russian forces making it impossible to defend when England goes, who cares if Japan takes Moscow? England’s now ready to pump out 10 tanks a round and, hopefully, you have America set up with S. and W. Europe so they can put out 12 tanks a round. (IC in W. Europe, duh.) THat’s 22 tanks vs 8 of whatever Japan’s building in Moscow.
Sometimes losing your capitol is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too.
You should say:
Sometimes losing Russian capital is irrellevant to the need to destroy the armies of your enemy too!!! :evil:
It is the only case I am able to think of a capital fall without problem! I any other case it is always top priority to defend the capital.
:-D
Germany can fall.
If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.
Germany can fall.
If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.
The Allied landing force in Berlin and the 16 Allied units being produced at Germany/Southern Europe might have something to say about that.
I have never seen Germany recapture Berlin once it falls.
Really? What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?
What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops? England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.
Really? What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?
What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops? England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.
I cannot rememer ever that I saw or played a game where Germany could take back its capital after losing it to either
UK or US. If Both SE and Berlin falls to UK, then UK must also have WE, and most other TT’s which are worth
any ipc value, if not then this is bad planning. Best option is US have Berlin and UK SE+WE.
But also US have SE and UK WE+Berlin works fine usually.
Germany can fall.
If you take out Russia strong and have most of the German army left (because you pushed forward and you have a lot of your armor and fighters left) you can push back and reclaim Berlin without too much trouble.
The Allied landing force in Berlin and the 16 Allied units being produced at Germany/Southern Europe might have something to say about that.
I have never seen Germany recapture Berlin once it falls.
Strongly agree.
You will never seen it also in the future!
Berlin fall when Germany exhausted all resources, when the last German defense is overcame, not before when Wehrmacht is still strong.
Really? What if Germany has 15 fighters and 30 armor left when Berlin falls?
What if it all falls to England and America has to shuttle troops? England cannot build 16 units a round in Europe, not if they want any punch at all, and odds are, they have none left after taking Germany.
This example is a pure hypothetical scenario.
No German player may lose Germany having still 15 fighter and 30 armor.
He should have at least a comparable force to defende Berlin, in which case allied have a juggernaut force to accomplish Berlin conquest.
Or he should have leaved Berlin almost empty to be taken by the allied, in which case he deserve to be expelled by the game (having lost the capitol those nation may be out of play).
Check my game with AJ
I needed my equipment to pulverise the Russian/British/American defense and now have a 200 IPC army with Berlin in British hands. The Japanese have a 300 IPC army and the British and Americans each have about 150 IPC
I do not know the detail of your game, and I am not referring to a game in particular.
I am speaking generally.
Maybe in your case you having made all the necessary evaluation have decided for such move, basing on the game specific situation.
Moreover, coming back on topic.
How do you manage to plan such a move?
How do you evaluate the situation?
I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.
In A&A I may think of an analogy with chess.
But in this case is the Germany that place herself in a “bad position” (state on the board) and is forced to commit her forces in a series of forced move, losing unit that cannot be replaced, being Germany not allowed to buy.
I do not think that is a good example for correct planning.
It is a speculative case.
You have experienced it in a game but the result is still to be achieved.
The trick, I think, is planning what the allied nations are going to do in support of what you want to do.
Hopefully in the loss of Berlin/Capture of Moscow my ally the Japanese can support me in reclaiming Berlin, which shouldn’t be hard, just costly.
Likewise, you need to always to endeavor to make your nations work together in harmony to wring destruction and pain on your targets.
Also, focus on a goal, not on peripherals. The devil is in the details, best to leave him there.
Ok.
My question in this thread has been which kind of evaluation must make in order to plan defensive strategies, tactics and movements.
IT seems to me that planning offensive moves is more analyzed than planning defensive ones. Moreover it is more simpel to me planning to attack than organize a correct defense. As I said I often end employng in defense more units than needed. So I am trying to improve this part of my gameplay.
I mean defense is often made basing on overall strategy.
Other evalution are made considering each territory, starting from the Capital, and continuing with the list of the remaining territories.
However, capital ha to be considered in first place only if it is in danger, otherwise garrisono units may be sent to the front.
Your analisys added another pint of view.
Possibilities or necessity of offensive movements may overcome defending needs, to the point that leaving a Capiton open is a viable option.
How to identify such situation?
All depends on the board. As I said, you have to plan to mesh. You cover your allies weak points, they cover yours.
For instance, you can withstand an assault on Berlin by England, but will need help against the follow up American assault. Why not land the Japanese fighters?
You need ABattleMap - check http://frood.net/aacalc/maps/
I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.
One thing that may be similar to a sacrifice in chess is the 1-2 punch that is often needed to crack a capitol.
For example, both Japan and Germany might have 80% as big a force each as Russia has defending it. Neither one can take Russia down on their own. However, Germany can launch a suicide attack in which it loses all of its forces, and reduces Russia’s strength by 50%. Now Japan has more than enough to wipe out Russia, because of Germany’s sacrifice.
Not a perfect analogy.
On the topic of defending the capital at all costs - I have played some Russian players who just keep a huge stack in Russia, even though no major axis force is bordering Russia. The result is that the front is weakly defended, and a bunch of units are sitting where they can’t kill anything - you may as well not have them!
Ok Frood it is clear.
I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.
Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.
I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.
At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.
Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.
My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.
As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.
So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.
