Germany playbook: overall strategy guide

[Puns_and_ships]

Apologies if this is somewhere above in the thread but could not spot it. Re the opening referred to as “Soulfein’s basic Germany opener” in @Cow’s 2013 post - would it be possible for someone to clarify this line:

b) u can grab morocco and/or gibraltar in g2 (given uk doesnt block sz110 with enough to deny ita can open), getting in range for sending transports to sz98 in g3

What exactly does this mean? If the UK stacks 110, Germany can’t reach Gibraltar on turn 2, but what exactly is the Italy can-opener move being referred to here? Wouldn’t Italy have to take Gibraltar itself to make the strait passable? How can German transports even reach sz98 in G3?

Is this still considered a strong opening almost a decade later?

Many thanks!

[barnee]

Hi @puns_and_ships I think the Italy canopener is using there Bmbr against UK blocker. Idk about the rest of it

[taamvan]

@puns_and_ships

While I can only speculate, before taranto became canon, Italy could easily mount up, either inside the med, or even better, outside the med, threatening the classic Double Sea Lion (germany and italy attack uk together, in waves, and over multiple turns, if necessary) and the US capital at the same time.

If Italy joins Germany with its full navy and transports, stopping sea lion isn’t likely at all. Attempting to block the germans from joining the italian fleet bastion can be can-opened as well, so the german fleet can join them in SZ 98, making the entire atlantic a gigantic mess for the allies.

Today, people understand SL to be less effective because of the high cost of taking it and the low amount of money at stake in taking it (compared to russia). That evolved because Taranto became a 99% move, and buying a proper defense for UK, a 90% move.

In the improperly named META of the early game, this ambush was a quick way to end any game.

[Puns_and_ships]

@taamvan @barnee Thank you for the responses, much appreciated. What would be the best way for a newish player to get to grips with the current meta? The standard Taranto move, etc - is there a good recent write up on the state of the game?

Thanks!

[taamvan]

@puns_and_ships

There are alot of good videos. The “Middle Earth” video on yt lays out some interesting ideas for building a South Africa Shuck + Persia Factory early. However, if you committ to this kind of plan 100% you leave UK vulnerable.

Germany (buy 2 bombers save 6. Attack Russia on G2. You can take UK even in the face of a strong build by killing his navy, and stratbombing him starting on turn 1, however, this allows the USA and Russia to run wild and keeps your money low.)

Russia (buy more tanks than would seem prudent. force germany to stack east poland until its forces are able to get together by projecting threat onto his backfield areas. avoid having allies units enter your zone before your bonus SZ is lost)

Japan (if you committ everything, and build air base, you can destroy India on J3, but this is a low money option. Taking Sri Lanka gives you a floating aircraft carrier. Attacking early gives the alies much more income, attacking later keeps the US waiting. The most flexible strategy is to take the money islands, carefully conquest china, and chip away at russian money as they retreat. Attempting to strike early (JDOW J1) used to be very popular and every unit is pretty much accounted for so thats a pat opener–however, attacking early gives the allies maximum money while japan is still trying to align all its forces and value territories. If you use the diplomacy to the maximum by concentrating only on china and russia that is conservative and safe but Germany is likely to have to face a gigantic threat as the USA player builds up turn after turn waiting for war…

USA Buy 2 CV to start. You will need a BB in the Atlantic to ensure control of key SZ 98. The temptation is to focus entirely on one axis or the other, but that plan allows the other axis to run wild and reach 70+ IPC. Japan is the weaker target, which is easier to overwhelm, but taking his money entirely out is difficult. Germany is a more desirable target to reduce pressure on Russia, but the lack of a clean shuck 3 spaces across the atlantic means that you’ll be stuck on the southern path. Germany has factories close to the front, so killing him piecemeal is impossible. Dont waste your precious landing troops on half-measures–built until turn 8 and then execute your plan (enter med, boggle germany, take norway, rescue leningrad–pick one)

UK build 6 inf 1 fighter first turn on UK. Any less risks a capital take. Attack Taranto with everything that can come–note that both fighters and the bomber from london can reach. If anything survives, form a bastion on malta, or syria. The UK is pretty weak but it has the advantage of being able to build a strong rescue force in the center of the board, which could save russia, prevent egypt from ever falling, and block japan. An early persia factory is nice, an iraq backup factory is even better–however your max income is only 40 so you wont be able to power all that and protect your base. Don’t leave the UK bare of figthers, or stop turtling–Germany can kill russia then use the money to build 10 transports to smash the fortified and isolated units you left in UK)

Italy is more of a liability for germany than a help. The best plan is to pull the armor from africa, add the 2 you start with, build 1 more first turn with a mech, and then have that lance of troops hide among the germans, can opening against blockers, striking where necessary. That’s a 1 shot, though. If italy can get some bonuses and keep part of fleet, that’s good–but once the USA arrives, you have to spend more german resources protecting italy than its worth and its income can be rapidly torn to shreds once control of the med is lost. This also means keeping plenty of italitan units on rome, and alive—the USA can attack you with 20+ units and air, with the ability to follow on with UK forces that will also have a substantial air force and navy by turn UK6

Anzac There are mulitple approaches, but the best one is to build extra carriers with the USA and use those to host ANZAC fighters. Keeping 1 or 2 transports alive, alone with UK units, can lead to a situation where japan has to eat 3 consecutive allied turns of rage and leapfroggoing as the minor allies take advantage of the opening USA makes. Its also easy for Japan to kill this capital and end the game by VC if you are unwary and you can only build 3 units so adding a few units each turn and saving your money to see what happens isnt a bad idea. Japan does have to step far out of position to do this, however.

China try to stay alive. all you can really do is slow japan down, without help. in an unbid game, that isn’t wise.

Among strong players, a bid of 40+ is needed to prevent the barbarossa strategy from kiling russia in 60-80% of games.

Among moderate players, I usually suggest a bid of 12, 16, or 20.

There is also a G42 setup that is more balanced and a faster start.

[barnee]

@puns_and_ships Good advice from taamvan. Also, if you have triplea, you can look up past games in https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/65/play-online-axis-allies by some of the more experienced players and see what they do.

[Puns_and_ships]

@taamvan @barnee thank you for your replies, really helpful - I will have a look!

[simon33]

@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Attack Taranto with everything that can come–note that both fighters and the bomber from london can reach

This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.

[taamvan]

@simon33

You’re definitely right, and while the bastion can be destroyed, it forces the Italians to take the risk of screwing up the battle (and moving away from their safe zone) which I like. It also messes up 2 of their bonuses, which makes attacking you at close odds more enticing.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.

I have not played enough people to know how popular or unpopular Taranto is becoming however on average it does not cost more than it destroys.

Assuming a sub bid for SZ98 the Taranto attack is SS, DD, CL, AC, 3 Ftr, Tac + Bmb. Being the success rate is 98% with a 3 fighter scramble I have never seen anyone scramble. The TUV is +$25 taking the tactical as the average loss first. Since the Italians have a negative counter attack usually they kill the French fleet in SZ93 and any remaining British units in SZ96. Thus they get convoy disrupted for an average of -$8.

The German counter attack, assuming it can go all out and does not have another target off the British Isles or Normandy and/or Holland, is +$29 with an average loss of 2.65 fighters.

Therefore, the overall average, from the Allied perspective is:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2.65 fighter loss -$29
d) Total average TUV is +4

Looking at it another way the most likely top two results are:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$36
d) Total average TUV is -3

a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$26
d) Total average TUV is +7

Destroying half the Italian fleet on UK1 and doing convoy disruption pretty much takes Italy out to the game immediately. Losing 2 UK fighters to 2 or 3 German fighters on a counter attack is a plus as it helps Russia and limits the German air threat everywhere.

From a TUV perspective it is a winner. From a strategy perspective it is even better.

[taamvan]

@andrewaagamer

That is true, but what is more or less guaranteed is that the UK will lose their fleet, whereas gibastion they are likely to keep it.

Not all games are open bid. There are many situations where is no convoy damage (as the planes fly elsewhere like syria or cyprus), it seems pretty rare in our games. The italians may attack what air lands but after the retaliation they don’t have much left, which is good for the allies.

Italy having money is bad, Italy being broke and having no navy is really good. In that basic dynamic, gibastion may or may not cost them the navy, but it will stop them from getting the money they need. And if the UK navy is there, then it doesnt really matter what the Italian built when the USA arrives, they can smash it.

Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.

My post really wasn’t about which strategy is better. My post was about replying to the comment “which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.” With a sub bid Taranto is not going to fail, and as I showed, with average dice, it is cost effective. My goal was just to make sure that any information presented is accurate. Let the reader make their own decisions then.

I think both strategies have their pluses and minuses. I have used both and for a while I was a Gibastion fan and now I have come around to liking Taranto better for my own reasons. I don’t think one is a lot better than the other; they are fairly even and both reasonable strategies. I would agree with your post as long as you have a sub build Taranto is the slightly better choice.

Since any bid in OOB or BM3 is going to be at least $16 than I would, as the Allies, always do Taranto.

[simon33]

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Assuming a sub bid for SZ98 the Taranto attack is SS, DD, CL, AC, 3 Ftr, Tac + Bmb

I can’t remember ever seeing anyone do the attack with 2 fighters from London as well as the sub bid. Also, you can’t rely on battle calculator results because of the effect that planes can be splashed by retreating.

Even if you assume a remaining UK fleet of sub+DD+Cru+CV+2ftr, I would still attack as Italy for the reasons you outline. Even if it’s a strafe, you have likely reduced the convoying and Luftwaffe losses. It still has a realistic chance of winning and what else does the remaining Italian fleet do?

So I don’t think your scenario is very realistic. you assume max convoy damage and best case for the allies.

Now maybe you would argue that you should indeed do the Taranto attack as strongly as you suggest and I would agree that the Axis should not scramble in that scenario. You have to anticipate one defensive hit though, you could take it on a plane and keep the fleet intact but who would do that? Probably on the sub. Still leaves 2 planes on the CV with nowhere else to land.

The likely losses in that scenario for the allies are not that high, interestingly. I have never been a fan of leaving the fleet for Germany to clean up though, not least because of the 2 dice of convoying from the sub and each plane. The remaining Italian fleet has so little useful work to do that it may as well smash itself on the UK fleet. Of course, if the UK does tip the CV, retreating immediately is normally the wisest action, probably even if the planes can land on Yugo or Greece.

In some games taking those planes out of London could invite a sea lion.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

I can’t remember ever seeing anyone do the attack with 2 fighters from London as well as the sub bid.

Really? Then you have never played me as I always do. Of course, you don’t have to. Bringing just one fighter drops it to 93% instead to 98% with a 3 fighter scramble and at those odds I doubt anyone would scramble so it works out the same.

I like having the extra fighter down there to protect Malta and to get as much firepower into the Med and Middle East ASAP so I bring 2.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Even if you assume a remaining UK fleet of sub+DD+Cru+CV+2ftr, I would still attack as Italy for the reasons you outline. Even if it’s a strafe, you have likely reduced the convoying and Luftwaffe losses. It still has a realistic chance of winning and what else does the remaining Italian fleet do?

Yes, but any Italian counterattack means the French fleet escapes and the British fleet in SZ96 has to be dealt with by the Germans. Also, even a strafe means Italian planes are at risk. Losing the Italian fleet is bad. Losing the Italian air force is really bad.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Also, you can’t rely on battle calculator results because of the effect that planes can be splashed by retreating.

Not sure what you mean by that? You mean when the Germans counter attack?

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

In some games taking those planes out of London could invite a sea lion.

As far as Sealion I am assuming an all-land build by Germany. If they build any ships, then that changes things and Taranto changes to Gibastion.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

So I don’t think your scenario is very realistic. you assume max convoy damage and best case for the allies.

Actually, I used averages for everything.

[simon33]

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Not sure what you mean by that? You mean when the Germans counter attack?

I’ll try it another way. When you calculate the odds for the UK defence in SZ97 you are miscalculating. The battle calculator assigns the first hit on the UK forces against the CV which cannot be done in the actual battle because the Axis can just retreat and sink the planes.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

ringing just one fighter drops it to 93% instead to 98% with a 3 fighter scramble and at those odds I doubt anyone would scramble so it works out the same.

I probably would. I am aware of the scenario you refer to and it is, as you outline, really, really undesirable. The downside of the no scramble is that it can cost Luftwaffe, which is not good. Although I might sometimes not scramble. Either way though, there is no way that I am not counter attacking with Italy.

I definitely scramble at anything weaker than that attack. Only costs 1 Luftwaffe when clearing out the fleet later costs more.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Actually, I used averages for everything.

What about the casualties from Taranto, for example?

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Yes, but any Italian counterattack means the French fleet escapes and the British fleet in SZ96 has to be dealt with by the Germans. Also, even a strafe means Italian planes are at risk. Losing the Italian fleet is bad. Losing the Italian air force is really bad.

I think you are worrying too much about the Italian air. The Luftwaffe can reinforce. I would take that risk every time.

French ships escaping? So what. Then you don’t have to kill them. There may be a cruiser in 96 for the Luftwaffe to finish off. It can be argued that it isn’t worth half a plane. If it escapes to the Red Sea it struggles to get back in the game.

Having said all that, maybe the 2ftr from London move is worth more consideration. Especially if you use the Indian transport to claim Persia so you can use the British transport suiciding to take Greece. With the sub bid, scrambling would be insane.

[Cornwallis]

@taamvan If Italy takes S-France than the entire Luftwaffe can attack gibastion and destroy it in one or two blows.
Thus leaving the Med for the italians. Do you think Gibastion is worth in (in a no bid game)?
I have been attacking the italian DD and Tpt at Malta + tobruk strafe. In NCM putting a DD at greece so Italy can’t reach Egypt. It gives the italians three SZ to attack and it safes the Carrier (retreat through Suez and combine with Pacific fleet.

[taamvan]

@cornwallis

If the planes start with some in Holland and most in W Germany, aren’t they 1 move short to attack SZ92? Am I missing something?

More UK ships can come to SZ92 on UK2, but the gibbastion usually moves at that point.

In some of the variants we play, its not just the fleet but also the airbase that is threatented (because the axis can come in force over land to attack gibraltar) and so its fallen out of favor insteat people hide in the red sea

[simon33]

Italy can take Algeria to provide a landing space. So not sure what taking S France has to do with it.

I guess if the entire Luftwaffe attacks, they can indeed win 95%. The cost seems quite high though. I calculate 7 planes lost.

[Cornwallis]

@simon33 Yes i meant Algeria in stead of S-France. You can defend Algeria with UK but it requires one or two fighters, which means you’re weakening your UK fleet.

Usually Ger buys one or two air units on G1, so they have more to strike. The few times the Ger did attack me at gibraltar, they sure as hell didn’t lose 7 air units:p they have 10 Fgr and Tac Bomb and at least two bombers so a lot of power if they can land on Algeria.

It can be S-Fr if Germany takes it on G1, so they can buy carriers but that’s another discussion.