Nit picky German Economizer

[Jennifer]

But as you just said, it gets to CHOSE to kill a lone infantry or a lone tank, but not both.

[frood]

@Cmdr:

But as you just said, it gets to CHOSE to kill a lone infantry or a lone tank, but not both.

1st, that’s wrong - that’s not at all what I said. That choice is IF Russia and the UK somehow between them can’t take three territories held by single units.
Re-read the first words of my bolded part above - “Even if Russia somehow does not have enough…”

2ndly, even if it’s true, give your logic processor a shake. That choice between an infantry or a tank is still a CHOICE that you have given Russia, as opposed to only allowing them to kill Inf. So Russia kills 1 Inf and 1 Arm as opposed to 2 Inf in its trading.

[Guest]

Your counter Dan is an even better blessing for Germany (assuming a Karelia Stack as I stipulated about 10 pages of responses ago…)

OK, you killed a German ARM, probably w/o loss.

You also moved the UK BB and TRN to SZ4 w/ no other support (except the USSR SUB that I assume moves up to be fodder on R2).

UK is losing their TRN and Battlewagon, and USSR is losing their SUB… all to a German Air Strike from Western.

Add in a FIG build on G2 to replace one of the lost units, and UK is now scrambling to build capital ships to protect their TRNs (and will almost certainly never have a BB again while the game resolution is still in question), so that removes some nice trading firepower from UK, and saves 1 INF that will be able to counter attack on average of 2 of every 3 UK attacks that otherwise would have been dead, so nice cumulative gain for Germany on that one.

Add in a fleet move to SZ3 by the Baltic Fleet… especially if I built an AC in SZ5 on G1, and the Royal Navy is out of it for TURNS.

In short Dan, I just suckered UK into over-extending their navy on UK1 over a single German ARM. 
Nice trade for Germany, I lose 1 ARM out of 10 that I start with, UK loses their last Battleship and half of their starting Atlantic TRN capacity… not to mention Russia loses their ENTIRE NAVY.

Sure, I’ll lose a few FIGs.  But I can replace those 1 a turn with little impact to Germany’s war machine.  UK is NOT replacing Battleships, and their TRNs are not going to live long without protection…

Russia stands alone for 2-4 turns against a Germany down a few FIGs and 1 extra ARM.

[88 Millimeter]

Germany’s role in a KGF is to engage and destroy as many Russians as possible before major Allied forces show up in Norway/ France/ Italy. Then you kill as many of the interlopers as possible to keep the US and Britain from strengthening the center of the game board and easing Russia’s burden.

Because of this, I would never leave a territory vacant on the front with Russia. Germany should as a general rule be uber-aggressive. You cannot allow the Allies (especially Russia) to stack. A stacking war favors the Allies, with the rare exception of economic supremacy for the Axis. You must thin the Russian forces. Pulling back and playing defensively (as a philosophy) leads to a slow German death.

This was probably covered 619 posts ago, but just weighing in after a long absence.

[newpaintbrush]

Well, let me tell u MY argument.

You describe ur little situation . . . yeah u can have ur little “battleships” and “tanks” and “infantry” or whatever.  So there u are like ur all “king of the world” and stuff.  BUT JUST WHEN U ARE ABOUT TO WIN, IN COMES ME SPACE ALIENZ0RZ!  AHHHH

Ya it might LOOK like a normal cat, but it’s HUGE.  Compare it to the size of a battleship . . . hell, the whole board.  My cat is BIGGER THAN ASIA, FOO!

So yeah, you can huddle with your useless plastic guns in your useless little trenches.  Ur doomed to phail.

VICTORY VICTORY

[newpaintbrush]

@ncscswitch:

Your counter Dan is an even better blessing for Germany (assuming a Karelia Stack as I stipulated about 10 pages of responses ago…)

I like how you ASSUME a G1 Karelia stack, and how you ASSUME that Dan is posting in response to something you posted 10 pages ago.

IMHO G1 Karelia stack is a rare and risky strat.  There are plenty of countermoves that Russia can use for that.

. . .

Crack pipe lol.  “My strategy can beat up ur strategy”  “no my strategy’s big brother can beat up ur strategy’s big brother” “well my strategy’s dad can beat up ur strategy’s dad!”  “ya well my dad IS ur daddy”  “ooo!”  “ooo!”

U gotta love the retroactive move that allows you to pre-emptively respond to your opponent’s move.  I see rather a lot of it; too bad you can’t do it in a real game.

UNLESS u get ur opponent good and drunk, of course.  :roll:

[Lucifer]

@newpaintbrush:

UNLESS u get ur opponent good and drunk, of course.   :roll:

Have u ever tried to play opponents who are high on crack?

I’m pretty sure that u also have played A&A while u were high on crack…

[Jennifer]

Ya know, Switch, if Germany had an AC purchase on G1, you could just blockade the UK/USSR fleet in SZ 4, denying them the ability to land troops ANYWHERE and then use the German navy to sink England.  Or, better yet, get UK to attack the German fleet with BB, TRN, 2 FIG, 1 BMB vs 2 SS, 1 TRN, 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 DD. WEG

I think I finally found motivation to build carriers with Germany again.  :evil:

[trihero]

I think I finally found motivation to build carriers with Germany again.

Finally I got you convinced

[Jennifer]

@Bean:

I think I finally found motivation to build carriers with Germany again.

Finally I got you convinced

Well, in part. :P  Russia would have to leave Archangelsk open. :)

[newpaintbrush]

@Cmdr:

Ya know, Switch, if Germany had an AC purchase on G1, you could just blockade the UK/USSR fleet in SZ 4, denying them the ability to land troops ANYWHERE and then use the German navy to sink England.  Or, better yet, get UK to attack the German fleet with BB, TRN, 2 FIG, 1 BMB vs 2 SS, 1 TRN, 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 DD. WEG

I think I finally found motivation to build carriers with Germany again.  :evil:

I can see how G1 move and purchase could prevent an Allied landing in Algeria or Europe, and have done so myself.

However, the only way to “sink England” on G2 is to sacrifice at least the German Baltic fleet - and even then, considerable German sacrifices need be made, assuming the UK player is not incompetent.

If you debate this, please describe your exact G1 purchases and moves following a Russian opening of either Belorussia/West Russia or Ukraine/West Russia with Russian sub joining the UK battleship and transport northwest of UK.

[Jennifer]

Well, what can England possibly have in SZ 3 on UK 1 that Germany would attack?

2 Transports, 2 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Russian Submarine, right?

Best possible the Germans can expect to have, reasonably, on G2 to attack that with is 2 Submarines, Destroyer, Transport, 5 Fighters, Bomber.

You should be able to sink the entire enemy fleet with reasonable fighter losses.

26 Punch Attacking, 22 Punch Defending

Attacker: 4 Hits
Defender: 3 Hits

Attacker: Destroyer, 5 Fighters, Bomber - 19 Punch - 3 Hits
Defender: dBattleship, Carrier, 2 Fighters - 15 Punch - 3 Hits

Attacker: 3 Fighters, Bomber - 13 Punch - 2 Hits
Defender: dBattleship - 4 Punch - 1 Hit

Germany wins with 2 Fighters, Bomber and England has no fleet now.  That means they need to build air force AND capitol ships to defend their transports before they can build transports. (Or at least it locks America’s capitols in the North Atlantic protecting British transports.)

As for Germany’s losses?  That’s easily recovered if you want to build fighters instead of tanks, tanks being an item I don’t normally use as Germany too often anyway.

[frood]

Just to be clear, even if the UK does not liberate Archangel, Russia can likely handle trading three territories (esp. if the German stack is in Karelia, far from Ukraine)

And, even if they can’t handle all three, my other point was that Russia still gets to kill a tank, even if it has to forego killing an Inf in order to do that. No amount of stack in Karelia will prevent Russia from sending 2 Inf 1 Ftr to kill the German tank.

But in terms of a UK fleet in Z4, if Germany attacks it all out with air, that means it has no air units to trade territories with. Two or three of its air units are likely in Africa where they can’t reach Z4 anyway.

So assuming you forgo trading land territories (unlikely for Germany to do), you have maybe 4 air units attacking, which will score two hits, absorbed by the BB and the sub. The Allied fleet meanwhile is likely to kill a German Fighter, and another one in round 2 of the battle. So maybe you sink some ships but you also lose a couple air units. I’m not sure it’s worth it.\

But at the end of a day, you’ve exposed a tank without fodder to hold a 2 IPC territory. Simple as that.

You guys are lucky that you can’t take territory with fighters and bombers, because I doubt I could convince you that grabbing free territory with THOSE units would be a bad idea. (“But the Ftr defends at 4, so it would probably kill at least 4 attacking Inf before it died, and Russia would be WAY overextended…”)

5 IPC tank to take 2 IPC territory.

@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3? No one is talking about that, that has nothing to do with the Arc blitz. Give NPB his pipe back.

[Jennifer]

Ender:

I was replying to NBP’s comments about sinking England on G2.

Anyway, I think you are forgetting that even with a Karelian stack with Germany, there is still a baby E. Europe stack.  At least enough to allow Germany to strafe England and kill some Russian tanks without much jeapordy to her own tanks.

That means, no matter what Russia does, her tanks are going to die somewhere if she tries for all 3, and if she only goes for 2 then Germany gets a free collection of one of them next round.

[Weekend Gamer]

@Ender:

@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?

UK would have to be smoking something . . .

[Jennifer]

@Gamer:

@Ender:

@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?

UK would have to be smoking something . . .

Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.

[newpaintbrush]

@Cmdr:

Ender:

I was replying to NBP’s comments about sinking England on G2.

Hey, YOU’RE the one that said you were going to “sink England”, Jen.

I’m the one that said Germany would have to pay in blood.

@Cmdr:

@Gamer:

@Ender:

@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?

UK would have to be smoking something . . .

Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.

So now your position is that the Allies would at LEAST have to make a mistake to lose the UK fleet as early as G2, yes?

So - if I understand correctly - then you now concur that the Germans will NOT be blowing up the UK fleet on G2.

–

Anyways, I’m a bit interested to see how you reconcile a G1 carrier with your proposed G1 all-infantry buy in another thread.  What DO you advocate as the G1 builds, and under what circumstances, Jen?

[Weekend Gamer]

@Cmdr:

@Gamer:

@Ender:

@ Jennifer - how did UK fleet end up in Z3?

UK would have to be smoking something . . .

Or UK really, REALLY wanted to land in unoccupied Norway and didn’t think to at least block the transport, submarine with the Russian submarine.

Jenn, the only thing that blocks a sub is a destroyer.  The Russian sub is useless to block the sz5 subs from hitting sz3.

[trihero]

Germany’s role in a KGF is to engage and destroy as many Russians as possible before major Allied forces show up in Norway/ France/ Italy. Then you kill as many of the interlopers as possible to keep the US and Britain from strengthening the center of the game board and easing Russia’s burden.

Because of this, I would never leave a territory vacant on the front with Russia. Germany should as a general rule be uber-aggressive. You cannot allow the Allies (especially Russia) to stack. A stacking war favors the Allies, with the rare exception of economic supremacy for the Axis. You must thin the Russian forces. Pulling back and playing defensively (as a philosophy) leads to a slow German death.

This was probably covered 619 posts ago, but just weighing in after a long absence.

Hi 88 millimeter. I think this is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Personally I think Germany’s role is to delay the Allies as long as possible. That means barley trading territories, sneaking units into Africa to stall the Allies, massing infantry and perhaps carriers, etc. Give Japan some time to set up, you know?

Your strategy is a viable alternative, but its drawback is that you are wearing Germany thin to wear Russia down, thus making it easier for the other Allies to jump in earlier. While pulling back and playing defensively leads to a slow German death, playing offensively towards the Russians makes the German death quicker. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I mean sure there’s probably a correct objective answer but none of us are clever enough to calculate which way of playing actually is for sure and provably superior. All I can say is that it’s either a stacking war or a race to see who burns out first, and I  can’t say that one is better than the other.

Just curious though how would Germany play offensively anyhow? Put more infantry into each territory when trading? Constantly harrass and push early with the existing navy? It just seems like doing any of those just invites the other Allies to come in faster, due to less defenses elsewhere.

[Jennifer]

Yea, Gamer, I mistyped.  I meant to say Transport, Destroyer.

And I’ve always said that it would cost Germany to sink the British fleet.  Never said otherwise.  However, I then, and now, and probably will until LHTR gives England a destroyer in home waters, support the idea of sink it if you can cause it’s cheaper for you, Germany, to recover then for England!