Ok, you guys have brought me around. I’m going to try the W. Ukraine factory in my next few games.
Germany is the last power who should be thinking about building additional production. You start with 2 major factories and you acquire 2-3 more minor factories in the early part of the game.
Germany is the last power who should be thinking about building additional production. You start with 2 major factories and you acquire 2-3 more minor factories in the early part of the game.
Possibly an overstatement? UK starts with 1 major 2 minor and don’t get the same income uplift and you wouldn’t say they don’t need a factory.
Germany have a lot of difficulty in getting artillery to Moscow in large numbers. Using Bombers or tanks to provide attack doesn’t provide the same bang for buck.
If Germany wants extra artillery they should buy it the first 2 rounds.
It’s more efficient for Germany to purchase mechanized units (which are more versatile than inf/art anyway) than buying an extra major or minor IC. Germany can also capture Karelia and Ukraine and build artillery there if need be.
I’m not a big believer in extra UK ICs either, but at least there are good justifications for buying an Egypt or (on occasion) a Persia IC.
Doesn’t it depend on Germany’s overall strategy?
If Germany is trying to take Moscow as fast as possible, then the starting IC’s are enough.
If something goes wrong or if Germany is just trying to seize and hold income producing territories, they could make use of additional IC’s on the front.
Doesn’t it depend on Germany’s overall strategy?
If Germany is trying to take Moscow as fast as possible, then the starting IC’s are enough.
If something goes wrong or if Germany is just trying to seize and hold income producing territories, they could make use of additional IC’s on the front.
Like if Germany has to dig in and build up for a few turns, an extra factory in Russia would be more efficient and cheaper (unit-wise) because it’s more effective and less costly to build 3 infantry in a factory 1 turn away from your army than it is to build those same infantry, or even mechs, back in Germany or Western Germany. It lets Germany produce a larger amount of cheap cannon fodder, in the form of infantry, than they would be able to if they only had 1-2 factories producing infantry in Russia and the western factories producing more expensive mechanized units that need to get to the front faster.
Right, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Players need to be able to shift strategies rapidly in this game depending on what their opponents do. Aircraft are very powerful because they can be redeployed easily to accomplish this goal. Placing new IC’s is another tool players have available to shift their resource deployment strategies.
I believe that the OP’s suggestion of building a Romania major has been debunked, but the possibility and its effect on the board is something that players should remain aware of.
By the way, I should mention that the “Cobra Kai” opener involves a G1 Romanian minor purchase. The idea is to seize and hold income producing territories rapidly with a tank push. What do you all think of that ploy?
@Elsass-Lorraine:
Like if Germany has to dig in and build up for a few turns, an extra factory in Russia would be more efficient and cheaper (unit-wise) because it’s more effective and less costly to build 3 infantry in a factory 1 turn away from your army than it is to build those same infantry, or even mechs, back in Germany or Western Germany. It lets Germany produce a larger amount of cheap cannon fodder, in the form of infantry, than they would be able to if they only had 1-2 factories producing infantry in Russia and the western factories producing more expensive mechanized units that need to get to the front faster.
An additional factory in USSR is wasted if you are building infantry. It only really makes any sense if used for artillery and tanks, the latter usually in the turn before the Moscow attack.
Factories develop too slowly to be optimal. Especially if you are siting them in formerly enemy territory (G2 take G3 build G4 first units G5 first attacks??). that side of the board is covered in factories already.
Mech Infantry are really weak units when viewed in isolation–weak attack, outrunning the artillery, don’t combo with tacs, expensive.
But on the massive Global board, they are awesome, and it is infantry that is weak. infantry’s only remaining advantage is that it is easier to load on a transport, so you’ll always need that. But for the $4, the mech is tossing pairs with artillery where you need it, rushing to the defense, or best; stacking for the final assault in front of your tanks and airforce. This last job is where they shine, and every early game dollar that you planned to spend on bases, factories, or slow infantry or artillery would be better as mech infantry. They can be on the front line as fast or faster than built units; once the mechs arrive; build artillery in Russia–use those productions slots to pair up. Instead of bulding so many tanks, more tanks survive. Similar Japan, though that will require factories for sure.
Yeah, it’s not that the Romanian factory isn’t useful, it’s just that it takes too long to show a return on investment, even in long games. If you spend 30 ipcs in Romania on G1, and then max place infantry there on G2, G3, and G4 (unlikely, but I’ll give it to you anyway), then you have only just then broken even vs. buying mech. infantry in Berlin…except you have a stack of 30 infantry in southeast Europe, instead of a stack of 30 mech ing, so your stack is less able to penetrate deeper into Russia.
If you carry on max placing infantry in Romania on g5 and g6, you could theoretically make a profit of 20 ipcs…but at this point you really should have captured Leningrad and/or Kiev, and those factories are more useful. Plus, a 20 ipc advantage on turn 6 from a 30 ipc investment on turn 1 is pretty shabby. If you had instead spent those 30 ipcs on transports, tanks, bombers, etc., they probably would have helped you capture additional territories worth at least 5 ipcs per turn, and then over the course of five turns, those territories would pay you at least 5 x 5 = 25 ipcs, ie, more than the 20 ipcs you could possibly hope to save with your Romanian factory.
In general, I think factories make sense when you need either extra unit capacity (too much money and nowhere to drop units) or a way to get any land units into the refion, not just when you want the most efficient possible infantry drop. UK factory in Persia makes sense because Persia is seven turns from south Africa for foot soldiers; without that factory you need expensive planes or transports to contest the region. Mechs are just not expensive enough to justify building a factory to avoid purchasing them.
I am interested in minor factories in Romania to get German boats into the black sea, but that’s different.
WOW…I come back 5 days later and I have a eye opening experience.
It seems based on the feed back that Germany is a take Moscow out by Turn 8 or concede country.
My OP idea was that a major IC in Romania would open up options in the Black Sea to build a quick strike TRS force to take the Caucauss and open up the middle east. Also open the shot to take on a Turkey plan of attack and flood the Germany Money territories.
It adds flexibility to the Germans and allows them a 3 path attack plan of attack.
Well, it is obvious now to me, that Germany does not need a 3 path attack plan and just singular focus on taking out Russia in under 8 turns, which is the Northern attack plan.
I have to say that makes this game seem, I don’t know, one dimensional and lacking.
Maybe that is the fixation on Sea Lion on the Forums. Another path to victory and a challenge instead of the straight line path of Moscow above all else in under 8 turns and then reset the board.
It seems based on the feed back that Germany is a take Moscow out by Turn 8 or concede country.
I have to say that makes this game seem, I don’t know, one dimensional and lacking.
I don’t think that’s the takeaway from what everyone has said.
If you put everything into taking Moscow by G8 and then fail, then yes, you should concede because the Allies have probably been eating in to Italy and your other flanks. You’ve sacrificed everything else and made the game one-dimensional by doing so.
You don’t have to do it that way. Germany’s role does not have to be to get Moscow as soon as possible. Certainly it is possible to get it by G8, but you should be willing to call off the G8 assault well in advance if it isn’t looking favorable. You should of course keep pushing, forcing the Allies to continue spending defensively, but also start dealing with the other situations in time so that your entire economy doesn’t fold. In this case there is still an advantage to having all those troops on the eastern front - you can hold the southern Russia territories and maybe advance into the Middle East, strengthening your economy and helping you fight off the Allies.
I think the takeaway is that Germany at least has to put up a credible threat to take Moscow no matter what else they do. Out of the seven VC’s held by the Allies on the European board after G1, Moscow is by far the best path to winning because it is also one of three capitals but easier to take and easier to defend than the other two. For this reason, saying “credible threat to take Moscow” is like saying “credible threat to win the game”. If Germany doesn’t step it up and do something major, the Allies will be able to recover from their defensive posture too soon.
In this light, Sealion can also be viewed as a threat to take Moscow. You aren’t actually going to win by holding on to London and then gathering more VC’s. You’re going to take Britain out of the fight so that you and Italy can fight the Russians unhindered.
Maybe it is something like this the OP had in mind.
G1: Major
G2: Carrier, destroyer, 5 transports
G3: Put 10 units in Caucasus
G4: Repeat
Well. First of all a major, carrier, destroyer and 5 transports is 89 IPC. Initially it seems very attractive to do this and I will try at some point. Securing caucasus, middleast and volgograd (probably) by G5 seems very tempting even at this crazy cost
Extra income
G3 + 7 for caucasus, Soviet -2 (9 difference)
G4 + 14 for caucasus and volgograd + 2 for NW Persia and -4 for Soviet (20 difference)
G5 You might even have iraq and Persia as well
You open a two front war with Soviet. Difficult with only slow moving inf/art for Soviet. Also difficult for allies to reinforce the middle east. So at this great cost there are also huge advatages. At least looks like it at first.
But here is the catch. I think it is impossible to defend this black sea fleet long term. You build 10 bombers with USA and blow it up. Even the UK might be able to blow it up by UK 5 or 6.
Maybe it is something like this the OP had in mind.
G1: Major
G2: Carrier, destroyer, 5 transports
G3: Put 10 units in Caucasus
G4: RepeatBut here is the catch. I think it is impossible to defend this black sea fleet long term. You build 10 bombers with USA and blow it up. Even the UK might be able to blow it up by UK 5 or 6.
Rus turn 2 could attack with its starting air and sink dd at least and then UK could be able to finish it off with Med air forces and India’s that it would stage in Egypt after seeing G1 buy. Lookin at 2 tacs, 3 figs available, unless we are involving UK1 Taranto, which muddies things somewhat, perhaps.
Putting down a black sea fleet is folly. Its fun, but it wont work. Ships are too expensive and inefficient to be trapped in a lake, and a stack of mechs and tanks does the same thing (opens the oil). With enough allied air power, they just blow it up, but they don’t need to because unless the very tenous plan also involves opening turkey, after the fleet assists in the oil cross, it just sits there bridging for the rest of the game.
Well the driving force behind a Major IC in Romania, for me was this. With a Major IC you can place 10 INF or 10 MECH in Romania. Going “south” in Russia is hard because of the extra distance you have to travel, it adds 1-2 turns of movement compared to the north. So, with a major IC you can produce mass amount of units compared to just 3 for a minor. Russia has to respond in a big way to a Major IC in the south.
G1 Build the major
G2 buld 10 INF
G3 Build 10 Mech or combo with ARM. 10 INF move into Bessarbia. Now the first southern factory is facing a stack of 10 INF + 10 MECH/ARM + German original units on the map on G4. That is a lot of units Russia needs to commit to the south. Germany makes it normal Baltic States push towards Lenningrad. Ignore Eastern Poland and make the Russians have to decide if they are going max effort to defend the North or the South.
Obviously a major IC or Minor IC in Romania could open up a Balkan fleet option to skip over to the Caucuss or have units close to Turkey for a an invasion. My main thought behind this idea was that Germany can put major pressure on the south and the standard Baltic states romp will put pressure on the north.
Also Romania factory can seal off a Russian counter attack into the middle, AKA Eastern Poland.
I always like it for the Turkish invasion idea however I never invaded neutrals before mostly because you’re basically giving all the neutrals on the map to the Allies since 90% of neutrals already are close to the allies.
That is a good point, but if you knock out Sweden, Turkey and Spain (all at once, then possibly portugal) as the Axis, the allies only have Saudi, Afghani, 2 x 2 in SA and 2 x1 in Africa, which is a grand total of $8 and a bunch of men stranded at the edges of the board. So, if the plan wins you the game or leads to that, it is worth it, because the key 3 (STS) are where most of the money, men and position come from in the balance.
No I get that. I want to experiment with a complete world smash and just go for critical elements. As you said, Sweden, Turkey, and Spain, would be powerful in German hands but also, I don’t like the idea of South American and Africa going to the allies. Sure the allies will have to transport those units and money but they have the navy (and usually the freedom) to do it.
Ok, another aspect to consider is that unless the Allies know you are about to violate, they wont necessarily have the troops they need in the correct position to activate all of those at once, or the ships. If they suspect it, it is much easier to prepare to take advantage.
Because the Allies tend to be “over the $$ hump” at that point in the game, the $8 added and expended Axis effort used to attack the neutrals, could make a big difference over time. If you as the Axis violator can win the game in 4 or fewer turns, I say do it. If your game is long and slow (eg triple AAA slog) then the Allies could take advantage of your gambit and grind you down.
The big part about doing an Axis neutral attack is that in order to get ready to kill S/T/S Germany and Italy have to be moving away or sideways from their primary objectives and setting up for the neutral attack for +2 turns, which is a distraction, and a clue about what you’re about to do.
