Turtle-germany…no way. Too boring. :x
Who would want to play a game just stacking up and defending :?
Not me anyways. A moderate aggression is more fun.
Mix ground-units w/luftwaffe screen vs. allied navy.
Keep bombers alive and buy 1 every round (if enough ipc).
And a steady solid march vs. Moscow w/italy in reserve to punch a hole
in the russian defence.
Never fails :roll:
Lots of inf and fighters combined with any standard german strategy of aggressive defence (controling and defending leningrad is a must!)
In our group games tend to last around 12-18 hours. Always play long term as axis! stacked inf is the key to german success!
Turtle-germany…no way. Too boring. :x
Who would want to play a game just stacking up and defending :?
Not me anyways. A moderate aggression is more fun.
Mix ground-units w/luftwaffe screen vs. allied navy.
Keep bombers alive and buy 1 every round (if enough ipc).
And a steady solid march vs. Moscow w/italy in reserve to punch a hole
in the russian defence.Never fails :roll:
With national objectives and a large dynamic map with plenty of room to manouver, if there are excessive stacks, one side or the other is messing up. Or, to put it another way, a stack-fest at any juncture in the game is only likely to benefit one side. So the side that isn’t benefiting needs to break the status quo, or deservedly lose the game.
I don’t know that this is the best German strategy, I’m new to this game, but here’s my $.02. For all I know, this is the standard or it’s outdated.
On the Western Front, Germany and Italy share the defense of France. In the East, Germany stays north as long as Karelia can be held or traded for the NO. As the Allies secure Karelia, Germany goes south. Italy is supporting this effort. Actually, this is more tactical but anyhow, the Italians take over a territory then Germany reinforces with their troops(and fighters if necessary). The goal is to hold Eastern Ukraine to try and hold Caucuses without a fight. Easier said than done. For purchasing, I buy a mix of infantry, tanks, and planes - mostly fighters for their defensive value.
Good, Bad, Ugly?
My preferred German strategy is to but 1 bomber per round. These can be used to harass Allied shipping although generally they merely force the Allies to have to add many more ships to their Atlantic fleets. They can also be used to strat bomb England but I prefer not to use German bombers for such unless the UK is very short on funds. Their main purpose is to tip the balance against Russia when the big battle finally comes although I have generally used them for trades with Russia until that time.
@Fleetwood:
I don’t know that this is the best German strategy, I’m new to this game, but here’s my $.02. For all I know, this is the standard or it’s outdated.
On the Western Front, Germany and Italy share the defense of France. In the East, Germany stays north as long as Karelia can be held or traded for the NO. As the Allies secure Karelia, Germany goes south. Italy is supporting this effort. Actually, this is more tactical but anyhow, the Italians take over a territory then Germany reinforces with their troops(and fighters if necessary). The goal is to hold Eastern Ukraine to try and hold Caucuses without a fight. Easier said than done. For purchasing, I buy a mix of infantry, tanks, and planes - mostly fighters for their defensive value.
Good, Bad, Ugly?
I think what you have posted is very good general advice. As with any game plan, it must be flexible as the game dictates (more tanks, more fighters, perhaps even an IC)
My preferred German strategy is to but 1 bomber per round. These can be used to harass Allied shipping although generally they merely force the Allies to have to add many more ships to their Atlantic fleets. They can also be used to strat bomb England but I prefer not to use German bombers for such unless the UK is very short on funds. Their main purpose is to tip the balance against Russia when the big battle finally comes although I have generally used them for trades with Russia until that time.
The only shortcoming I have with this approach is the lack of defense that Germany usually needs against the most commonly run Allied game plan of KGF. If the allies are not putting the screws to Germany via the triple team, then your approach is very strong. Range and Power is always good, especially when supporting units can take the damage (READ inf casualties), adding re-usability to their attributes.
BTW, this bomber heavy approach works well with USA too (again, range and power!)
My preferred German strategy is to but 1 bomber per round. These can be used to harass Allied shipping although generally they merely force the Allies to have to add many more ships to their Atlantic fleets. They can also be used to strat bomb England but I prefer not to use German bombers for such unless the UK is very short on funds. Their main purpose is to tip the balance against Russia when the big battle finally comes although I have generally used them for trades with Russia until that time.
The only shortcoming I have with this approach is the lack of defense that Germany usually needs against the most commonly run Allied game plan of KGF. If the allies are not putting the screws to Germany via the triple team, then your approach is very strong. Range and Power is always good, especially when supporting units can take the damage (READ inf casualties), adding re-usability to their attributes.
BTW, this bomber heavy approach works well with USA too (again, range and power!)
What could be more effective against KGF than bombers? Allies will typically have 2 or more fleets in the Atlantic, right? So that means the Allies have to spend money on (useless) surface navy in addition to gear, while Germany’s bmbs are getting used every turn.
My preferred German strategy is to but 1 bomber per round. These can be used to harass Allied shipping although generally they merely force the Allies to have to add many more ships to their Atlantic fleets. They can also be used to strat bomb England but I prefer not to use German bombers for such unless the UK is very short on funds. Their main purpose is to tip the balance against Russia when the big battle finally comes although I have generally used them for trades with Russia until that time.
The only shortcoming I have with this approach is the lack of defense that Germany usually needs against the most commonly run Allied game plan of KGF. If the allies are not putting the screws to Germany via the triple team, then your approach is very strong. Range and Power is always good, especially when supporting units can take the damage (READ inf casualties), adding re-usability to their attributes.
BTW, this bomber heavy approach works well with USA too (again, range and power!)
What could be more effective against KGF than bombers? Allies will typically have 2 or more fleets in the Atlantic, right? So that means the Allies have to spend money on (useless) surface navy in addition to gear, while Germany’s bmbs are getting used every turn.
This circles back to the optimal Allied KGF move.
Carriers loaded with ftrs are probably your best Allied option.
ESPECIALLY against a bomber laden Luftwaffe
I guess it depends on how you want to defend against a KGF move with Germany
Do you?
1). Keep them from ever landing by sinking the allied navy (your approach mentioned above)
2). Keep them from landing with a strong Atlantic wall (the method I prefer)
or lastly when neither 1 or 2 is viable
3). have such a strong counter as to merely allow a trading of france.
Why do I advocate 2 over 1?
Defense is always cheaper / easier in A&A (and real war too). Also, all axis partners can help in this effort. Italy pumping out inf, Japan flying their unused ftrs to land in France and/or Italy. that way, if the allies do land and take a heavily defended France, the German airforce would not be decimated (Jap ftrs should be sacrificed first).
If Germany alone was counted on to protect herself by building so many bombers to keep the allied navy away, Russia probably would be to bleed them dry.
Of course, we are talk generalities, and games can vary greatly from one to the next.
axis_roll in that scenario I would start to switch to Fighters and Tanks as the need for defense increased. The fighters can still assist the bombers for a strike on a navy if it should become available. I am not a fan of KGF in AA50-41. at least not one of the all out from the start ignore Japan ones. I am quite confidante that I can hold out long enough to develop the dreaded Godzilla Japan. There is also no reason you can not do 1 and 2. I normally do starting from turn 1. In that game with Darth I did not as he did not have a significant presence in the Atlantic so there was no need of such. And Zhukov is on the right path. The Allies have to buy additional ships due to the increased strength of the Luftwaffe. This buys time. Time to play patty-cake with Russia while Japan gets geared up and time to beef up the Atlantic Wall. So far it has by far worked best for me. Much better than an IC in France anyway. :-D
axis_roll in that scenario I would start to switch to Fighters and Tanks as the need for defense increased. The fighters can still assist the bombers for a strike on a navy if it should become available.
oh, I agree 100%. I was responding to Zhukov’s assertion that nothing was better than bombers against a KGF.
And to follow-up with your other points regarding KGF. Yes, allowing an unfettered Japan to grow unchecked creates a monster that (more than likely) can not be stopped.
I will say that a KGF strategy that initially ignores Japan and pressures the European Axis (Germany, France and Italy) can spill over into a USA funnel of troops thru egypt, trj and persia. Perhaps in enough time to help the Russian southern flank, in conjunction with the lessened Eastern European forces to allow Russia to fight Japan on the ground.
The game at that point can become a battle of attrition and who wins some of the smaller trading battles and/or an economic war.
At that point, it can be anyones game.
axis_roll in that scenario I would start to switch to Fighters and Tanks as the need for defense increased. The fighters can still assist the bombers for a strike on a navy if it should become available. I am not a fan of KGF in AA50-41. at least not one of the all out from the start ignore Japan ones. I am quite confidante that I can hold out long enough to develop the dreaded Godzilla Japan. There is also no reason you can not do 1 and 2. I normally do starting from turn 1. In that game with Darth I did not as he did not have a significant presence in the Atlantic so there was no need of such. And Zhukov is on the right path. The Allies have to buy additional ships due to the increased strength of the Luftwaffe. This buys time. Time to play patty-cake with Russia while Japan gets geared up and time to beef up the Atlantic Wall. So far it has by far worked best for me. Much better than an IC in France anyway. :-D
Agreed bigdog. I have never been a fan of the France IC. If you dont install it on turn 1 you only get a few turns to use it plus I dont’ like giving the allies added incentive for france. I prefer to keep a large cash reserve for germany so I can continue to pump out 10/12 units /turn regardless of a SBR campaign or dwindling ger economy as it seems most players are more comfortable with KGF. I cant remember the last '41 game I won with germany taking russia without any asiatic help. I have been in many more situations where germany is surrounded but relatively inpenetrable due to an infantry stack w/6-8 ftrs and armor.
Some good points Battlingmaxo, and I suspect from a non-tech standpoint that is the best option for Germany, stockpiling the extra cash to use as needed. I am normally a tech player so I spend the excess on research.
As far as Carriers for the Allied fleet I think that is a good response up to a point but I think after a certain mass of carriers is reached the US is better served with Destroyers for fodder and the UK is better off with Cruisers to facilitate strafes using bombardments. That is from my German view of things at least. I do not play KGF with the Allies so I could be wrong.
