@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
Second Thoughts
-
It is easier for Germany to produce an air fleet than Uk to produce a naval fleet. This is based on game experience. This also counters an easy allied defense of Africa. Which means the UK barely has enough cash to scrape up units for an invasion France never mind magically pulling a Cruiser out of its but at the same time.
Well, ok. Lets argue semantics, then. Of course it is easier for Germany to produce aircraft to deter the UK navy from landing units by virture of Germany’s greater income. But, just because you say they can do it, doesn’t mean that it will work out for them.
The UK generally makes near 30 IPC’s or better every turn in the early part of the game. With about 30 IPC’s, the UK can magically pull out of its butt 2 CA/2 inf so Germany would need to build 1 fig, 1 bmb to very slowly begin to outpace them or at least 2 fig to maintain parity with the UK. Germany makes about 50-55 IPC’s so if you think that Germany can produce more aircraft that the UK can produce shipping, then you’re right, they can. But, since the Russians make roughly mid 30’s, Russia will be producing more ground units and start pushing Germany out of Russia and into Europe meaning less German income to maintain this strategy.
It has been my game experience that Germany can build up enough aircraft to prevent the UK from landing in Europe OR it can win the ground war against the Russians, but it can’t do both. It always loses ground somewhere. Otherwise, we would be bidding units to the Allies.
And none of this takes into account that the US can add navy and fighters to help in the UK fleet defense or that most players wouldn’t be dumb enough to risk the destruction of the luftwaffe on a 50/50 battle to sink the UK navy so you would have to maintain a very LARGE Germany air force to keep the threat in force.
-
A properly played Japan by ITSELF should have the UK down to 29 or 31 IPCs at the End of Japan 2. And that is without India falling. The UK is going to have to also build transports as well or all those CAs being built are going to waste. I assume you have read the rules and understand that shore bombardments are now matched 1 to 1 with landing units. Shore bombardments also no longer outright kill defenders before they get a chance to return fire as well now. Producing 1 BMB a turn is no problem for Germany. producing 1 CA a turn and enough units to invade France every turn with the UK is a huge stretch. And yes the US can join in but that leaves the beast in the east free to crawl up Russia AND America’s backsides.
-
Ok. Just to get this out of the way once and for all. For anyone who is interested, yes, I am playing this game, and yes, I have read the rules.
I am assuming that we are talking about the 41’ scenario because in 42’ Japan already has everything short of India and they can’t get Australia or any other UK territory (aside from NZe, and they would have to head straight for it) by round 2 in 42’.
I also assume that NO’s are in effect because Germany building 1 bomber a turn without the benefit of NO’s is going to be extremely short of ground units against Russia.
So, my first question is: Why can’t I build up a bunch of CA’s to protect my fleet before I build TP’s? They are by no means going to waste if they are allowing me to move my fleet within range of the German air force without being attacked. And if Germany is only building 1 bomber per turn, then I can alternate between 2 CA one turn and 1 CA, 1 TP the next and still be ahead of Germany in the air/fleet race.
Second, I don’t have to go after France. Aside from the fact that the UK can take Norway rather easily if Russia doesn’t take it, I can go after Northwest Europe. NWE is always defended much more lightly than France because Germany can’t spare the units to beef up both without sacrificing units for the Russian front. So I don’t need too many TP’s or ground units being built every turn to challenge Germany for a few IPC’s as well as trade a couple inf every now and then as I keep the fleet air raid proof.
Third, lets do the math.
In 41’, the bomber has to go to Egypt because if you don’t attack Egypt OR you attack without the bomber and the Egyptian fighter survives(roughly 60%), I’m building 3 bombers and sinking the Italian fleet on UK 2 and that’s the game right there.
That leaves 3 fig, 2 SS to sink 2 separate fleets of [1 BB, 1 TP in sz2] and [1 CA, 1 DD in sz12]. Let’s assume that you do fairly risky attacks of [1 fig, 1 SS v. 1 BB] and [2 fig, 1 SS v. 1 CA, 1 DD] and somehow come out of them without losing a fighter (unlikely). That gives Germany the best possible outcome you can expect when paired with the sz6 [1 CA, 1 SS v. 1 DD] attack assuming no losses there. All UK would have left is the DD/TP in sz9 while Germany will be left with their entire air force intact as well as a CA, SS in sz6.
As UK, I can build 1 CV, 2 CA in sz2 with my $43 and have $5 left over for 1 arm or 1 inf,$2 saved and use my airforce to sink the German CA taking the bomber as my casualty if need be and leaving the German SS alone. On the following turn, with my approximately $30 I can build 2 more CA and move the fleet to sz6 landing ground units in Norway. Assuming Germany built 1 bomber each turn, on G3, that gives them [3 bmb, 4 fig, 1 SS] against my [2 fig, 1 CV, 1 DD, 4 CA+Russian SS] OR [2 fig, 1 CV, 1 DD, 3 CA, 1 BB+Russian SS] if I saved $2 on UK1 and built 1 CA, 1 BB with my $32 instead of 2 CA on UK 2. Both of those G3 battles are 50/50 or worse.
Would you be willing, as Germany, to gamble on trading the entire German air force for the UK fleet there? Especially since out of the roughly $75-$80 Germany had to spend on G1 and G2, $24 went to bombers leaving about $50-$55 to buy ground units while Russia spent about $65 in that span? Would you be willing to even further hamstring Germany against Russia by building an extra fighter or bomber on G1 or G2 to make your threat only slightly in your favor against the UK fleet? Could you justify continuing on building 1 bmb every turn, being outspent by Russia in ground units, while the UK builds 1 CA, 1 TP or 2 CA plus a couple ground units every turn? It doesn’t matter if the UK only kills 1 inf per turn in the early round landings. Every German inf killed means 1 less inf going to the Russian front where Germany would already be underfunded.
I just don’t see Germany being able to sustain a policy of matching the UK 1 bmb built for every UK CA built without severly lacking units on the Russian front. If someone can do it, I’d love to see it, but I’m still skeptical.
-
Bombers can threaten both the UK naval and russia, its not like building bombers is a compelte neglect to russia. Its only a partial neglect.
-
Bombers can threaten both the UK naval and russia, its not like building bombers is a compelte neglect to russia. Its only a partial neglect.
I understand that. The bombers will help in trading territories and keep the Russians from being too aggressive in pushing a big stack toward Germany. But, the 800 pound gorilla in the room isn’t being addressed. Every turn that Germany builds a bomber to threaten the UK fleet, the Russians will be outproducing them in ground units. Every single turn. And the longer it goes on, the bigger the gorilla gets until even those bombers won’t be able to help stop the Russians from pushing into Europe.
The Russian front is critical to Germany. Losing the ground war, even if it is a very slow process early, eventually becomes a snowball that gains speed as it moves. First, they lose the [Cauc, Kar] NO. Then they have less money to keep the Russians from preventing them from gaining the 3 out of 5 territory western Russia NO. After that, it goes quicker because once Russia can get units into Eastern Europe they will start earning the big $10 NO while Germany would have it’s hands full just holding onto their core territory NO.
Add up the units that the Russians and Germans have within 2 territories of East Poland. I will include the Norway and Finland units as well as the France armor to give Germany an extra boost. I’ll tell you what the total is: Russia [24 inf, 2 art, 1 arm] Germany [14 inf, 3 art, 7 arm]. Looks pretty even right? Maybe favors Germany a bit? It does until you notice that there are only 3 infantry left behind to defend both France and NWE. That would crumble without defensive reinforcements. Where are those reinforcements going to come from when you only have $19 left to spend on G1 after buying the bomber? Don’t forget that Russia will be dumping $30 into their army on their turn and they also have 4 inf in Novo and Kaz that I didn’t count. That situation gets ugly fast if Germany wants to keep building bombers.
-
I’m not too worried about England sinking the Italian Fleet.
First off, it’s going to cost you 4 bombers, probably. (2 Cruisers, Battleship ~ 4 Bombers in power so it’s almost 50/50 without running any numbers on a sim.)
Secondly, Africa is nice and all, but you’re still losing that National Objective when Japan takes Australia and India on Japan 2.
Thirdly, I view Italy as Germany’s little brother, he’s responsible for protecting France, not taking Africa. If he can take out some African nations and waste Allied power liberating them, great, but let’s not get too heavily invested here! (No way Italy can stop America and England from taking Africa, not possible.)
That said, I do sometimes save up the cash and get a Carrier for the Italian fleet. I’ve found it useful to really annoy my allied counter-parts, problem is, the fleet has to live to round 2. hehe.
-
I’m with U-505 (and TG) on this one. CA’s with the UK can be devasting.
Germany goes before the UK, so unless Germany buys a preemptive bom the UK gets the jump on the naval build and after that, the Axis can’t compete.
It is quite easy to get to 4-5 very early. Turn 1 - 3 CA, 1 trn, supported by any surving UK ship (probably DD off Can) and US Atl ships.
The UK doesn’t need trns, they have a building cap of 8 and likely won’t have income topping 26-32 after a few rds. That means you only need 2-3 trns until you are seriously ready to hit Ger, and you are likely to have one survive G1. But if you are buying 1 heavy hitter a turn (ftr/bom/dd/ca) you’re not going to need more than 8 spots (probably 6 for ground units). Plus since trns can’t soak up fodder hits, it does no good to over produce them, they just get wasted.
So UK has 43 to spend rd 1, and 30ish Rd 2. That is enough for 3 CA (rd 1), 1-2 CA Rd 2 with 2 inf (or inf + air).
US/UK DDs act as fodder and US AC can be stationed off Alg. If I counted right Germany is looking at 3-4 dd, 4 CA minimal in Sz 6. But don’t forget Geramny has a lot to attack and counter if making gains against Russia which means all her ftrs are not necessarily in range of the Allied fleet and the Allies can adjust accordingly if there are a bunch of planes on WE. Which means a Heavy Afr landing in Rd two, and you save some cash and then make another moster purchase on UK 3 as you move your ships to Sz 6.
I should say I also wouldn’t object to a UK 1 of AC + 2 CA (or 1 CA + other stuff). Then stacking in CAs after that.
If Ger wants to sack its air trying to take out DDs and CAs (no AC scenerio), I’m all for it as an Allied player. But you also can’t assume an Allied player is going to leave himself open to a devasting attack when Germany moves prior to both the UK and US.
The US can either buy the ACs or the supporting DDs on US 1-2, leaving the UK open for the Heavy CA strat. CA’s aren’t as helpful for the US since the UK usually makes the first strike. I’d top out at 4-6 CAs enough for 2-3 trns. I have 5 in one game, but I’m looking at trying 4 with an AC in future games.
-
DM:
Theoretically, England would be well off with 8 Cruisers, Carrier or two and full decks of fighters to support their 4 transports, then they could hit the ground each round with 8 cruiser bombardments. (Yes, I’m assuming that somewhere along the line you lost the battleship. Either first round before you go, or later.)
Realistically, the British Empire loses money FAST. All it takes is Egypt or Australia to go down and you’ve lost a National Objective. If you ignore Japan, there’s no way yo are getting the objective there, and Italy/Germany can make quick work of protecting France stopping you from getting THAT objective. So it’s safe to assume, you’ll be earning in the upper twenties, lower thirties each round while Germany and Japan will be earning in the upper 50s and Italy maybe in the low twenties.
Just something to think about. I’m not saying anyone is wrong about England and fleet. I’m not saying anyone is wrong saying that Germany, with modest tech investments in hopes of Jet Power or Heavy Bombers, is wrong about air power. I just want you to think about what you should realistically have and need to do to stay in the game.
A last thought, I’m tired of hearing (mostly from C-Subbers) that SBR is broken or is too risky. Both sides in this game can afford to SBR and both sides in this game can avoid paying for the damages (or mitigate them through technologies) of SBR campaigns. If England decides to go Cruisers, by necessity, you are not going bombers and that means you are not sinking the Italian fleet and you are not SBRing Germany. If Germany decides to counter your cruisers with some bombers, they can be hitting England for up to 16 IPC a round in damages.
Just something to think about.
-
Tech changes everything, so I think it is safe to assume no one has tech. Obviously if Germany Gets HB, LRA or Jet Ftrs, that changes everything.
England doesn’t need a lot of income. All they need is 18 ipc per turn, that fills 3 trns, anything over that is a bonus. This of course assumes you have units already on the board from round 1 and 2.
NO’s are fine and all, but I still value position over them. Japan can have Aus/Ind and Fra is overrated. I’d never attack there just to get the 5 extra ipc. There better be a bigger strategic value, like I can actually
hold it through the G/I counter or I’m killing a bunch of G planes for UK Inf. I’ll galdly sacrifice NO’s if it means I control Kar to Belo to Mos.The reason the Gemany and Japan incomes in the 50’s aren’t that bad is b/c:
1) German build limit of 10 units.
-Germany needs to take/hold Kar or buy another IC, otherwise they only place 10 units per turn in Berlin.
-UK and Rus can match with ~12-16 units per turn that jumps up to 20+ if US joins in
2) Japan build limit of 8 units.
-In order to take Adv of 50+ you’ll need at least 2 IC
-The Allies don’t need to buy any extra ICs
3) Japan to Mos is longer.
-Japan to Mos is 6-7 turns
-UK to Kar is 1 turn, UK to Mos is 3
-US to Kar is 2 (from Ecan), 4 to Mos (from Ecan)
4) It is still cheaper to defend
-I’ll take a slightly lower income if it means I control the center of the board (Kar to Mos/Cauc and Alg to Egy). Once I feel safe in that, then I’ll pick off the outlaying areas.It is much easier to recover from losing Ind/Aus/Safr or other NOs in the first few rds then it is losing Kar or Cauc in G2 or G3.
As for 8 CA, that would be great and all, but I think that’s probably overkill.
Now I’ve only played 2 games as the Allies but you probably only need 1 AC per sz you intend to hold. So I’d go 1 to Sz 12 and 1 to Sz 6 (then moves to Sz 5 when ready).
But you don’t necessarily need the one in Sz 6 which is when you can employ a CA heavy strat. To kill 4 dd, 4 ca Germany needs 8 ftrs. They’d probably clear with 2 ftrs give or take. That is a pretty heavy investment into air for Ger. Throw in just one more dd and UK wins outright. The UK can always match Ger air buys with dds, although I try to keep the DD level down since they are pretty useless once you have naval supremacy so I like to keep just enough for a first wave and prefer if the US buys them. The US can at least use them for Ita or the Med as fodder if they aren’t needed in the North that way the UK can get more bang out of its buck with say 4 CA vs 6 dd.I find the benefit of the multiple CA (say you have 6), is you can now legitimately attack 3 ter with 2 inf, 2 CA shots and reinforce one ter (probably kar) with 2 inf. It essentially deadzones NWE, Pol, BST and make for a powerful assualt on Kar when you can go 8-12 inf (0-4 inf from Fin), multiple CA-shots, then only subject 1-2 ftrs, 1 bom (if planes are needed) to AA fire. It also forces more Axis inf to Fra. It is is better to see inf there then on the boarder of Russia.
-
Darlin, 50 IPC into 10 Units can be 10 Tanks. that’s pretty bad. Also, many players (myself EXCLUDED) like a complex in France (+6 units). And of course, there’s Improved Factories making it 12 Units cap in Germany.
Just some ideas.
-
All tank buys won’t win you the game. 8-)
The Allies will chew those up with strafes. Welcome to my lair said the spider to the fly.And again successful tech changes everything, so it can be excluded.
-
No, but all tank buys can break down Russia pretty fast. Besides, I’d probably break that 60 IPC (which is where i find Germany often enough) into a few research dice, maybe an aircraft or two, some tanks, and infantry with the odd artillery thrown in for fun. (Or a lot of artillery if I get Advanced Artillery!)
-
Has the All Tank Build worked out as a viable strategy? Statistically speaking, After Action Reports show the German Tank Rush working ONCE. Out of 30 games.
I’m not saying Tank Rushes don’t work, but they certainly haven’t proven themselves yet.
From my experience I say it is normally foolish to push tanks into Moscow unprotected. I’ve had several of my own sectors closed by Russian counterattacks due to a lack of infantry support. 10 Tanks seems like a VERY risky buy.
-
I have played about 6 games now. And 5 times the allies have won(the more experienced players on the axis). We played with tech but without NO’s. I have to disagree with the original poster. Without NO the game is far from balanced.
The one game that the axis was won on turn 1. The UK bought two IC’s one in India and one in Africa and Russia bought two researchers and 4 tanks.
-
I don’t think Jenn was advocating an all tank buy. She was merely pointing out that only having the German IC and earning 50 or so a turn is not really a problem. The problem I see is peoples minds are still stuck in classic. The only thing that defends worse than infantry is a bomber nothing else attacks worse. And no I am not advocating NOT buying Infantry I am pointing out that buying ALL infantry aint worth a flip.
And as far as Japan having to buy ICs that is no problem for them and they should have done so buy round 3 at the latest. It isn’t like they are strapped for cash.
-
No, I am not advocating an all tank buy. Just mentioning that if you are limited to 10 builds, 50 IPC can be spend on all tanks. As I clarified in my original post, I’d probably be breaking that up and getting some research too, (unless I had all the techs I personally wanted.)
-
Very well then, you may proceed.
About tech: it happens too randomly to derive a go-to strategy from it. Most of the techs are worthwhile, so you do get your monies worth out of them. But I would refrain from mentioning specific techs as talking points since it’s so difficult to target each one.
-
@Cmdr:
Darlin, 50 IPC into 10 Units can be 10 Tanks. that’s pretty bad. Also, many players (myself EXCLUDED) like a complex in France (+6 units). And of course, there’s Improved Factories making it 12 Units cap in Germany.
Just some ideas.
I don’t like the France IC either. I opposed it being provided to Germany as a gift IC because I thought it would be too powerful for Germany’s G1 opening but, as a purchased IC, it’s anti SBR benefit is offset by the fact that it is further from the front than the Germany IC and it makes France even more of a must defend territory than it already is.
I prefer the Poland IC build. It is closer to Russia, it is protected from landings from sz12, it is defended by inf/art moving from the Germany IC toward Russia, it’s cheaper to repair than the France or Germany IC’s, and it is the perfect defensive strongpoint to hold back the Russians when the Allied war of attrition begins to collapse my fronts because it helps protect my core territory NO.
And with 13 units to build, if I’m earning 50+, I have the luxury of building a fighter or bomber if I feel like it or large numbers of art/armor if I feel otherwise. But, even when I’m pushed out of Russia, I’m usually making enough income to keep it at least partially operational.
-
I find it easier to bomb France than Germany. But I like the Allied SBR campaigns. :)
I also do not find tech to be erratic. Sure, you won’t get the one you are looking for all of the time, but almost all of them are good to have and you can narrow your focus by eliminating half the choices right off the bat. (Chart 1 or Chart 2) As you fill in a chart the odds of getting the one you want increase dramatically.
1 in 6 for the first
1 in 5 for the second
1 in 4 for the third
1 in 3 for the fourth
1 in 2 for the really unlucky
guaranteed for the insanely unlucky -
The question is:
How many techs do you unlock before the game “ends?” (Defined as the point where one side SHOULD concede).
Probably 1 or 2 with the upper limit at 3 and a lower limit at 0. So you’re odds are 20-25%, which isn’t that good.
So yes, unless you invest HEAVILY in techs, unlocking specific techs ARE erratic.
Suggested Topics
