Yep!
Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions
-
The Russia into Africa point, I like it generally, 2 mech 2 armor is more than enough.
~
Lately I prefer early russia units going to china. Both are good. You can do both if you buy bombers with usa and bring them into russia within 2 turns (they are really expensive infantry for this purpose, use them to attack lone units germany has) -
1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1
Yes, I agree if you are going to throw everything at Russia you should buy artillery on G1. However, based on conclusion #3 (below), I believe that land units aren’t a good purchase on G1.Hmm. If you are intending a G7 attack on Moscow, you can place 10art in Germany G2 which can participate, no more. Buying a few more artillery G1 means more artillery G7. I think the threat needs to be there even if it isn’t acted on. Otherwise the UK’s planes can hit the Axis elsewhere.
-
Point #5 for Russia sending units into the Mid East is something I often do. With that said I would still allow the UK to take Persia ASAP (most likely UK1) for a couple reasons. 1) Because if the Germans are slow boating wG3 attack it would be lost allied income. 2) Because the UK would make better use of the 2 inf IMO 3) Over 5 turns the income for Persia gives you a UK ftr that could be heading to Moscow. If the Germans didn’t attack Russia by G2 I would also have UK take NW Persia so the Russians can blitz into Iraq w/air power after a G3 attack (have Russia buy an extra mech?). Yea it could be a little more costly for the Russians but it also means they save a couple of their starting inf that would help to def the motherland. Also the Russians taking Iraq very well might entice a distraction to the axis to take it back. They don’t like when the Russians get that bonus.
Something I think that is missing from your framework is to do a Taronto or Tobruk attack. I think this falls with-in your guide lines as an opening move. Although you have listed mostly axis moves, you do say for both sides, and the UK is generally aggressive in the Med even when threatened.
-
WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar
-
WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar
Also note worthy.
-
WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar
with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.
The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.
-
WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar
Adding a German plane to Rome G1 is compulsory! The optional move is adding a plane to Tobruk.
If you also sink the SZ91 cruiser and are playing a game without an additional sub in SZ98 or similar, you give the allies a difficult choice. A lot of players will forego Taranto in this case or opt to send a second fighter from London. The latter move can’t really be combined with an IC in Egypt because it leaves London exposed.
@Hunter:
with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.
The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.
Two subs can reach - the ones in SZ103 and 108. Even if you only use one, it’s actually a coin flip because of the first strike capability of subs.
This works best in a G1 DOW scenario where you are foregoing the attack on SZ110. The other possibility is a scenario with a bid fighter in Scotland where you would normally forego one of the attacks on the Royal Navy.
-
WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar
Adding a German plane to Rome G1 is compulsory! The optional move is adding a plane to Tobruk.
If you also sink the SZ91 cruiser and are playing a game without an additional sub in SZ98 or similar, you give the allies a difficult choice. A lot of players will forego Taranto in this case or opt to send a second fighter from London. The latter move can’t really be combined with an IC in Egypt because it leaves London exposed.
@Hunter:
with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.
The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.
Two subs can reach - the ones in SZ103 and 108. Even if you only use one, it’s actually a coin flip because of the first strike capability of subs.
This works best in a G1 DOW scenario where you are foregoing the attack on SZ110. The other possibility is a scenario with a bid fighter in Scotland where you would normally forego one of the attacks on the Royal Navy.
Hmmmm… a bid fighter in Scotland… thats huge for the UK.
I would also like to point out that 6 Infantry and 1 Fighter is the standard UK 1 buy. So even if they have brought down 2 fighters from London, they are putting one on London when they place their units. All the units from Scotland will go down to London anyways, thats 2 UK fighters and the French Fighter.
If you leave the fleet in SZ 111, Thats a Battleship, Cruiser and, Destroyer for the UK that could get away and be built on in Canada. But building on it leaves London open for attack.
-
Giving France to italy is silly, I rather use German air to blast UK ground so italy can walk in
-
Its not silly when Italy has 2TTs+, then a grand fleet, and then 50 income! Of course no Taranto but we didnt’ know how good that was when we first started playing.
-
Thing about Russia helping out Asia and middle East is it does require USA to send bombers to Russia. Nice thing about bombers to Russia is that it can attack mech/inf/armor that tries to go past Russia to choke it’s income… USA bombers can of course attack ground units if the axis go heavy middle East as well. It takes a round longer to get to Russia going the Africa route.
USA bomber is very very effective against a j3 Dow because you can get bombers in on USA 5 in time for a G6 all in on Russia… Of course it doesn’t make it in time for a G5 all in. But you can get Anzac air for that or UK pacific air in… Generally UK pac is safe from Japan in that scenario.
I still on occasion g1 Russia and j1 swarm east russia… It is a cheese strategy, after Japan has to either take out UK pacific or shut down Iraq persia Egypt or union factories for the Europe win. USA bombers can stop a G6. So Germany is forced to go G5 with full force. All in fast game strat.
-
But yeah keeping the 18 inf around in the Pacific can be problematic for my J1 Dow.
-
Typically Russia retreating ,18 inf 2 as to Russia kind of forces Germany to G6 or g7 or choke Russia income with other means. Japan is happily making money.
-
As long as Japan can get India out of the picture Europe is so much easier of a win.uk pacific acting as a back up Russia is hard for an Egypt take down
-
Taranto raid - I think the best way to support Italy is to present the best possible Sealion threat on G1.
You overkill the British fleets in seazones 111 and 110, sending everything you can at them except for two subs. Battleship, sub, and three aircraft off Scotland, two subs and 7 aircraft in the channel. The remaining two subs take out the Canadian destroyer and transport. If the British don’t scramble, then you should win all three battles without losing any aircraft in most of your games. Then you build a destroyer and two planes. The Baltic fleet comes out to seazone 112. Of course send the fighter to Rome too.
If the U.S. is not set up to counter the Sealion and Britain decides to fight the Italians instead of cleaning up your navy, you go through with the plan. You can have Japan hold off a turn. The British are now forced into another Atlantic naval engagement that pulls resources away from Italy. You walk away with one or two subs doing convoys in the Atlantic, fewer British fighters to defend Moscow, and a stronger Italy in the Med.
-
In response to some of Cow’s posts -
You’ve got some good ideas there. Please keep them coming.
You mentioned Japan helping with the Europe side. I think this works because the European side is so much harder to contest for the Allies. This was one of my conclusions and it’s why I think the Allies should go KJF. However, if Japan is making plays to impact the European side then the Allies have to put more resources in over there where the resources have less of an impact.
-
9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
Neutral crushes absolutely have the potential to help the Axis. A favorable situation doesn’t arise in every game, of course, but the Axis players should not dismiss the possibility.
In addition to Spanish Beachhead, other reasons for neutral crushes include:
1. Opening up a surprise landing zone
2. Creating a surprise flight path
3. Side-steping into Turkey to outmaneuver an opposing army*These can help win games for the Axis just as much as for the Allies.
- Late-game scenario - Moscow has fallen, but Axis forces in Caucasus are stalled on their way to Egypt by an Allied stack at Northwest Persia. If Axis step to Turkey, Allies must fall back to Iraq. Then if Axis steps to Syria, Allies must fall back to Transjordan.
-
@Hunter:
I would also like to point out that 6 Infantry and 1 Fighter is the standard UK 1 buy.
Why would this be better sealion defense than 9 infantry?
-
@Hunter:
I would also like to point out that 6 Infantry and 1 Fighter is the standard UK 1 buy.
Why would this be better sealion defense than 9 infantry?
It’s not, but it does produce a unit that can do more than turtle.
-
I’m not comfortable with 6+1 as Britain unless Japan did a J1 and America built bombers to send to London. Germany has plenty of tactics they can employ to boost their odds in Sealion and it’s not worth the risk IMO.
Suggested Topics
