Being axis is easier in these newer versions than the previous classic versions. The three steps it takes America to get to Europe is a HUGE help to the Axis. But here is my Germany and i can win 5/10 games doing this. turn 1 buy all infantry YES all infantry then take out the allied navy with German navy and fighters/bomber. Consolidate all Eastern German forces in one territory. Turn 2 buy again ALL INFANTRY again. Move the Infantry you bought turn 1 west so you can defend against Normandy invasion also move your fighters with the infantry in the west. All the forces you consolidated retreat west closer to Germany don’t worry the German battering ram is coming. Turn 3 buy all tanks move the infantry from turn two east and consolidate all forces in the EAST. Turn 4 buy tanks move the massive consolidated force south never separate the infantry from the tanks. turn 5 move tanks from turn 4 south with the main force. Turn 6 Russia should be like OMG i cant kill that massive force you should be able to take caucuss now. With japan my goal #1 is to take India at all costs if Japan has failed to do this use the German army in Caucuss to take India now you can separate the tanks from the infantry to take India. Russia will take your infantry you left behind but that is fine and retake caucuss that is fine too . now Japan is free to take Asia at will, Germany should begin to pound Russia wherever avail and take easy territories do not commit to a suicidal battle to Russia. By now the Allies can pose a threat to Western Europe. But Germany and Japan should be collecting massive IPC’s Russia is doomed here in a few turns they just cannot deal with a mobile Japan and Germany and defend itself on two fronts. I see a lot of German players go north i do not agree with this becasue there is nowhere to break out like there is in the caucuss and also if Germany can break out into Asia they can knock the allies out of asia as well. with the defense boost tanks have now they are the most affordable attacker and blocker in one land unit and with some infantry cannon fodder they are nasty on offense and defense. I go mass tanks with Japan and Germany. If you cannot win with the Axis in the newer versions you are doing something wrong. Either not attacking enough or buying aircraft or navy. Germany really doesn’t need a navy and has enough aircraft to hold the whole game as long as you don’t loose them foolishly. On paper the Allies have the advantage by getting 3 turns to axis 2 and also should have an IPC advantage. But Germany is so massive early and it takes Allies 4-5 turns to begin to be effective that’s your window with Japan and Germany about 4- 6 turns after that Allies begin taking the game in their favor. So you must get your objectives done in this time frame. If you just turtle forever with Germany you will loose. And i f Japan leaves India for too long its hard to take especially if UK buys a lot of fighters.
Theroizing an axis strategy
-
I just got this idea for an axis strat and want to know how you guys think it will play out and get ideas on how to optimize it.
The heart of the strategy is to kill the starting brit navy in s2 using 1 sub 1 fighter and 1 bomber and follow this up with building a navy so big on G1 that UK can do nothing to prevent germany from destroying a navy purchase on uk1. This is followed by Japan setting up for a J2 (preferable) or J3 alaska invasion.
The idea is that the only ally that can challenge the G navy is the U.S. and to make them spend enough ipcs on defending against japan that the UK and US will be essentially helpless or take too long to aid russia, who will have to fight Germany 1on1.
The downside of course is that G will have to cede more territory than normal the first turn or 2 to russia, but the general income and starting unit difference + delayed uk/usa help i think should make up for that.
Some concerns i’d like input on…
I’ve thought about forgoing an invasion of Africa in favor of trying to link the med. battleship w/ the baltic navy. Not collecting those ipcs will hurt G. but the UK having them shouldnt matter that much because they shouldnt be able to place much of anything anyway.
In gearing up for an alaska assault, and if the angloegypt uk fighter lives, Japan will be weakened on the asia mainland. What should Japans main objectives other than the alaska assault be. (i think it should be taking over the us/chinese territory in an effort to prevent the us from being able to snipe some ipcs)
What would your response as UK be to this? It seems it might be most effective to sit on the cash or buy some fighters and then place a super huge navy on uk2 but idk.
What do you think the best purchase for G1 is here. I think 1 carrier in baltic has too high a chance of having critical units sniped by 2ftrs/1bomb on UK1. I’m thinking G1 needs 2 carriers because that would give it more flexibility to aggressively go after the us fleet if it is too small. The problem here is that w/ this purchase germany can’t really afford to take many hits, so i was thinking eventually linking with the med bship and maybe building an extra destroyer or something on G1 might be useful.
Obviously this answer depends on how battles go and what happens on Rus1 and Uk1 but i’m not sure what the best purchase for J1 is. I’d like to place 3-4 transports in the sz that is within range of alaska, but the US will be able to hit it with 1 fighter and 1 sub. Any ideas on the optimal units to purchase/leave to defend there? or would it be better to place in the other sz and go for a J3 alaska invasion (i dont think this should really be an option since it allows US 2 turns to build a counter to germany navy).
Finally, do you think this is just bad theory or is it actually viable?
Thanks!
-
there is only one problem with this strategy.
the UK can build its Navy in a SZ that is 3 spaces away from your Fleet buildIf you build fleet in the baltic, and put all your fighters in Norway, then UK can build in SZ8. if you put the fighters in France, they build in SZ2. if you split them up, you can’t kill a good UK build.
This means that the UK actually gets 2 turns of Navy builds before you can try to attack their new navy. Yes, you can win and sink their navy, but can you really afford to kill 60 ipcs of UK navy? What is the cost of German IPCs to kill that 60 ipc UK navy? Don’t count your subs you start with, they are made for this after all and you can’t turn them into ipc. Only count what you are purchasing as navy or losing as planes. I do not think it is worth it, and you will have a Russia owning Norway, Karelia, Western Russia, BeloRussia, Ukraine, and also one of either the Balkans or Eastern Europe.
Points for originality, and you should give it a shot, but I just do not think it is feasible (at least not without lucky rolls)
-
+1 karma, please try it out and report back, as this is a new game, you need to try it out and see how well it works.
-
Instead of doing that strat, for Germany round one, do 3 infantry, 3 tanks, and two destoryers. That is 40 IPC. That way, it’ll be expensive to take out your transport in the baltic sea. Next turn, do 3 inf, 3 tanks, a cruiser, and 1 art if you have 40 IPC to spend. Put the cruiser with the battleship to ready yourself to move into the atlantic.
-
Welcome to the forum Piazza2425,
+1 karma for the input!
Please try that also and report back.
When reporting back, please provide detail of each round buys, moves and any major points for each country.
As I mentioned before consider it a new game from revised. It looks like revised but doesn’t behave like revised.
The only way we are going to learn is for people to try different tactics and see how it works out, that way we can figure out counters and how to react to certain moves.
-
Never played the revised before.
I’ll let you guys know if I am Germany again.
-
there is only one problem with this strategy.
the UK can build its Navy in a SZ that is 3 spaces away from your Fleet buildIf you build fleet in the baltic, and put all your fighters in Norway, then UK can build in SZ8. if you put the fighters in France, they build in SZ2. if you split them up, you can’t kill a good UK build.
This means that the UK actually gets 2 turns of Navy builds before you can try to attack their new navy. Yes, you can win and sink their navy, but can you really afford to kill 60 ipcs of UK navy? What is the cost of German IPCs to kill that 60 ipc UK navy? Don’t count your subs you start with, they are made for this after all and you can’t turn them into ipc. Only count what you are purchasing as navy or losing as planes. I do not think it is worth it, and you will have a Russia owning Norway, Karelia, Western Russia, BeloRussia, Ukraine, and also one of either the Balkans or Eastern Europe.
Points for originality, and you should give it a shot, but I just do not think it is feasible (at least not without lucky rolls)
if i’m not mistaken you can non-com the 2 baltic subs to be within reach of any of the seazones (you also might have that 3rd one alive if you get lucky) and that should enable you to get atleast 4 fighters (2 could land on carrier) a bomber and 2 subs to attack and the uk will have 2 destroyers a carrier and 2 fighters (plus the russian sub or crusier). Thats not that great a set up, but you really just need 4 hits (and you should average more than 3 on the first round) so you kill the carrier and then you can just retreat. He should hit you slightly over 2x so you kill your subs and maybe 1 of your 6 fighters if he hits you that 3rd time and blam, no more uk navy and now w/e navy you bought round 1 is moved out and capable of striking any uk sz and your med bship might even get to link up.
-
yes, the subs reach and I was counting that. its just that any boats you build can not reach.
you could do the carrier strat, building 1 or 2 carriers, and that would then allow 2 or 4 of your fighters to make it to any seazoneGermany begins with 3 subs, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber…… so technically you don’t need to buy any more navy. If you take out his stuff in SZ2, losing only a submarine, then you are in a position to hold off his navy for a total of 3 turns.
Holding off the navy is just as good as destroying it, because when you destroy his navy you lose valuable fighters in the process. I would rather hold off his navy from landing anywhere for 3 turn, while buying all land units and maybe an extra fighter/bomber, than lose a ton of planes to destroy a navy that can be rebuilt the next turn. I’ve seen games where germany takes out the UK navy, but in the process is left with only 2 fighters and a bomber, which means that when the UK rebuilds the very next turn, Germany can not threaten the New navy. I would rather have the ability to threaten their navy the entire game, then destroy it and lose that ability for the rest of the game.
-
This game is an example of a german navy strat. Note I didn’t spend very much at fleet (1 boat each one of the 3 first rounds I think). I linked baltic and med fleets as someone said and also I taken advantage of UK’s lack of starting dds. The game is ongoing, so anything can happen, but at least it should give some idea
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15133.0
Note german Brazil! :lol:
-
I just got this idea for an axis strat and want to know how you guys think it will play out and get ideas on how to optimize it.
The heart of the strategy is to kill the starting brit navy in s2 using 1 sub 1 fighter and 1 bomber and follow this up with building a navy so big on G1 that UK can do nothing to prevent germany from destroying a navy purchase on uk1. This is followed by Japan setting up for a J2 (preferable) or J3 alaska invasion.
The idea is that the only ally that can challenge the G navy is the U.S. and to make them spend enough ipcs on defending against japan that the UK and US will be essentially helpless or take too long to aid russia, who will have to fight Germany 1on1.
The downside of course is that G will have to cede more territory than normal the first turn or 2 to russia, but the general income and starting unit difference + delayed uk/usa help i think should make up for that.
Some concerns i’d like input on…
I’ve thought about forgoing an invasion of Africa in favor of trying to link the med. battleship w/ the baltic navy. Not collecting those ipcs will hurt G. but the UK having them shouldnt matter that much because they shouldnt be able to place much of anything anyway.
In gearing up for an alaska assault, and if the angloegypt uk fighter lives, Japan will be weakened on the asia mainland. What should Japans main objectives other than the alaska assault be. (i think it should be taking over the us/chinese territory in an effort to prevent the us from being able to snipe some ipcs)
What would your response as UK be to this? It seems it might be most effective to sit on the cash or buy some fighters and then place a super huge navy on uk2 but idk.
What do you think the best purchase for G1 is here. I think 1 carrier in baltic has too high a chance of having critical units sniped by 2ftrs/1bomb on UK1. I’m thinking G1 needs 2 carriers because that would give it more flexibility to aggressively go after the us fleet if it is too small. The problem here is that w/ this purchase germany can’t really afford to take many hits, so i was thinking eventually linking with the med bship and maybe building an extra destroyer or something on G1 might be useful.
Obviously this answer depends on how battles go and what happens on Rus1 and Uk1 but i’m not sure what the best purchase for J1 is. I’d like to place 3-4 transports in the sz that is within range of alaska, but the US will be able to hit it with 1 fighter and 1 sub. Any ideas on the optimal units to purchase/leave to defend there? or would it be better to place in the other sz and go for a J3 alaska invasion (i dont think this should really be an option since it allows US 2 turns to build a counter to germany navy).
Finally, do you think this is just bad theory or is it actually viable?
Thanks!
I.C. in Western Europe imo. :-D
-
Welcome to the board Tragedy,
+1 karma to you!
-
I.C. in Western Europe imo. :-D
Is that a serious suggestion?
-
iker300,
Welcome to the forum!
+1 karma to you to start you off.
Not sure about the IC in WEu.
-
-
Is that a serious suggestion?
Yes sir it is.
Do you have any suggestions you can share?Not a good idea: you have a nice one in Italy
O.P. Objectives:
- Build a Huge German Navy: Why would the O.P. build a huge Navy in S.Z. 14? One of the Goals of the O.P. strat. is to bog down the U.S. on the West Coast.
- Destroy U.K. Navy purchases: How can German Navy in S.Z. 14 destroy U.K. Navy Purchases?
- Considering Linking Fleets/ Considering not even invading Africa: S.Z. 7 >>> S.Z. 14
-
Not a good idea: you have a nice one in Italy
O.P. Objectives:
- Build a Huge German Navy: Why would the O.P. build a huge Navy in S.Z. 14? One of the Goals of the O.P. strat. is to bog down the U.S. on the West Coast.
- Destroy U.K. Navy purchases: How can German Navy in S.Z. 14 destroy U.K. Navy Purchases?
- Considering Linking Fleets/ Considering not even invading Africa: S.Z. 7 >>> S.Z. 14
You could buy boats in z14 and then move to Atlantic. If you buy a IC at WEU, you will still lose a round, the same round you would lose moving. I can, however, see the profits of linking at z7, and I think is a good strat if well done. But a IC is 15 IPCs not spent in fleet or fighters, and you have to fight soviets also. I think buying less than 8 land units as Germany each round is giving too much advantage to USSR
Resuming, I would buy 2 subs at z14, 1 ac at z14, 1 fig to ger & 1 sub to z14 or any other combo rather than buying any IC for Germany, even WEU
Don’t get confused, a early navy strat is good for Germany in this game, and probably will be very deadly when it gets polished. But I think a IC is not the solution to do that
-
The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.
-
The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.
Unnecessary? In most cases yeah, it seems that way. If you plan on building a large German Navy to dominate U.K.? I think its debatable.
Either way I like to play Devil’s advocate. :evil:Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?
If the U.K./U.S. is semi-competent the factory would have a lot of damage on it, if it does get overthrown.
Lets face it, if WEU gets taken and your factory overthrown you failed wayyy before that even happens.The OP wanted to build a German navy to destroy U.K. navy purchase. The only possible way to do that is to stage a German navy in S.Z. 7. If your going to stage/link their, your way better off just building them their. It takes 3 turns to get their from S.Z. 14.
Btw, their is an upside to that I.C. A German Navy in S.Z. 7 puts an extreme amount of pressure on U.K.
If Japan is going for a large Alaska Invasion on J2, I was considering the possibilities of invading Eastern Canada on the next German turn.
I haven’t had time to experiment with it.This isn’t my strat…, I’m just bouncing ideas…
I’m not sure what you mean by “it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket”, please elaborate. :wink:
-
First, expense is the main reason to be skeptical of the I.C., not the threat of losing it. But since I brought the latter up, I guess I might as well elaborate a little bit in my thinking in response to Tragedy.
In response to your question, losing Western Europe with an I.C. already there would be very much like losing Southern Europe. It might be easier for the Allies to get to Western Europe than Southern Europe, depending on what the board looks like.
I think it may be that part of the reason you don’t see the Allies invading Western Europe until very late is not because it’s impossible for them to take it, but because it’s too costly knowing they’re going to get quickly kicked back out again. (I don’t know; I guess I’ve never played against a really, really good German player and they might do a better job locking it down than I’ve seen players do.) Anyway, if an I.C. is already there, reinforcement is somewhat easier, even though they’d still be vulnerable to a turn of German counterattack. You’re mostly right on this, though; if you’ve been betting on naval superiority but your fleet has broken down and a large-scale invasion of Western Europe is taking place, you’re already in pretty bad shape.
As for Canada, well, I suppose that depends on whether the Americans are asleep at the wheel.
-
The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.
Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?
Disagree. In AA50, I think it’s accurate to say this (that if Germany loses France they are probably doomed to lose the game). In Revised or this game, trading Western Europe is perfectly acceptable–it is Moscow and Berlin that are essential, not Paris. The only thing that is vital is that you don’t allow the Allies to hold Paris.
The Western IC has promise in theory and might work if the Allies don’t react and/or focus on Japan. But it still seems like a waste of IPCs given u already got more than enough factories and that the Western IC is a serious potential liability.
Suggested Topics
