Med Battleship G1

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

You guys keep repeating yourselves. You keep saying Fortress Europe does this and that but not why. It forces the allies to build more navy. How? Uk can overcome a four plane + bomber in at the most, 2 rounds. By themselves. How is this a big enough delay to win? I just can’t see it. Maybe you guys aren’t aggressive enough with the allies. You do a serious hardcore KGF to the point where no matter what happens, Germany is feeling serious heat on round 3.

It’s a matter of what you consider by the expression ‘serious heat’.

UK builds 1 AC + 2 DDs on UK1. Those are joined by the US cruiser and Russian sub. Germany can set 2 subs plus the rest of the planes on G2 on Western Europe to counter any landing. You’ll have 7 Allied units against 2 German subs + 2 bombers and 3-5 fighters. So the UK either needs to buy more ships for defense or the US buys an AC on US1 and sends it to SZ8 to join the UK fleet on US2. That will be enough to defend against the Germans but it will prevent any UK takeover of Norway on UK2, unless the UK buys more ships to defend the fleet against the Germans.
So the UK gets 1 more DD and 2 transports and infantry and gets Norway, uses 1 destroyer to block the German subs on SZ5. Now what?

The US can get 1 carrier to SZ8 on US2, but even with the destroyer from the Pacific the US fleet will be unable to move to SZ8 without being destroyed by the Germans. It can get move to SZ1 to hit Western Europe on US3 but even if the UK fleet stayed on SZ8 (letting Germany keep Norway for another round) Germany can easily reinforce W. Eur to prevent any Allied landing (even if the UK bought 3 transports on UK2 those units can’t beat a stack of 12 infantry reinforced by the German and Japanese fighters (which start landing on W. Europe by J3) and the US follow attack consist of only 4 land units plus planes.

It forces the Germans to move most of their inf to Western Europe, but until the US is able to build its landing force to 4 transports the Germans can keep up with that Allied landing buildup until they can prevent any Allied landings on W.Eur and stop the Allies from creating the 2nd front. When that happens nearly all of G’s income can be switched to the Eastern front to put the pressure back on the Russians.

Meanwhile the starting 6 fighters and 1 bomber of the Japanese arrive at W. Eur, reinforcing its defense, and if the Allies have tried to get the 4 UK and 4 US transports ready they will be limited on their moves because now the Axis can coordinate 2 naval attacks on the Atlantic.

And there’s the problem of SZ8 - the Axis airforces on W. Eur can attack it and SZ5/6, forcing the Allies to either create a 2nd defense fleet, or to switch the US shuck shuck transports through SZ1, delaying their arrival in Europe.

And what all that expense in ships costs to the Axis? Just 1 bomber for Germany on G1, if you don’t want to buy more planes for Japan and simply use its 7 starting ones. And as long as you keep W. Eur fortified, all of the rest can go to land units against Russia.

It can place some heat on Germany to defend W. Europe from after turn 3 and onwards (getting on turn 3 depends above all on luck regarding German losses on G1), I agree with you there. But that’s exactly what the Axis want that the Allies do.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Battles are fought two ways, one way uses dice, the other way is to dictate to the enemy what they will purchase.  The Jap airforce might never attack the allied navy.  A shrewd allied player will never make it an easy choice and do what it takes so as not to give the Japanese an easy victory.  But just because the allies never suffer an air attack by the Japanese does not imply a victory by the allies.  The lost opportunity costs of IPCs spent on additional navy is in itself a victory that doesn’t cost the Japanese much.

It’s already been said but I will repeat it….It makes it much easier for the Germans to defend knowing that 4-6 Jap fighters are HERE, and if the Brits land THERE instead as part of a 1-2 Brit-US punch, the Jap fighters can then easily move to THERE so in effect, they are in two places at once when considering a 1-2 Brit/US punch.

Jap air does much more in WEu than doing escort duty and making the US wary of a prick-shot landing on the US west coast/alaska/mexico.  You know in a KGF that the Jap airforce is looking for targets by Japan 3 onwards, unless you play against people that leave 4-5 land units just waiting to get jumped by 4-5 infantry backed by 5-7 Jap planes…

In any event Col.Stauffenberg, until you play against a decently implemented version of Fortress Europe you’ll never see its strengths.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

Heh. So do I actually. I was just talking trash.

[GCar]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway.

It’s exactly the point, axis doesn’t really want to kill allies fleet (although it will if they have the opportunity) axis might buy 1-2 planes early with Germany but after that they won’t buy any more planes. The main objective for axis is to force allies to sink 3 rounds of IPC in building a fleet and even there they might need to buy a bid more on turn 4. During that time Japan goes forwards and by the time allies actually starts getting boots in Norway, Karelia of Archangel, axis already as almost the same IPC production then allies (around 78-80 IPC). At that point there are three fronts:
-Germany vs allies on the karelia-bielorussia-ukraine line (WesEur is impossible to attack for allies as Hobbes explained since it is Germany #1 priority), it’s the only front where allies are actually attacking, they need a lot of units since Germany built essentially infantries and have huge amounts of grounds units now.
-Japan vs allies, Russia needs help there, they have been trading with Germany for a while and even though they likely built a small stack, they can’t hold alone against Japan much higher IPC production in that area (the IPC drain for both Russia and Germany on the previously mentionned line should be around 15-21 IPC/turn, this leaves somewhere between 7-15 IPC for Russia against Japan)
-Japan vs Africa, this is were the was is usually won: if Japan takes Africa they will get over 50 IPC/turn and axis will win because they have an higher IPC production and that they should already have numeric advantage of ground units on the main land (allies having less IPC they will never recover from losing Africa if they are not in a situation where they actually went through already on the Germany vs allies front. Let’s note also that if allies defends that front, Japan will attack Moscow instead.

The winner of the war will usually be the side winning one of those 3 fronts. The problem is that when Japan will have a unit stack in Persia they will be having a way too strong double threat on Moscow/Africa and that with all the IPC drained early for UK/US to build fleets, they won’t be able to protect those 2 fronts. So basically it’s all about Germany holding their front while the inevitable happens on one of the other 2 fronts, hence the huge infantries spending for Germany.

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

Heh. So do I actually. I was just talking trash.

Apologies then.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@GCar:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway.

-The winner of the war will usually be the side winning one of those 3 fronts. The problem is that when Japan will have a unit stack in Persia they will be having a way too strong double threat on Moscow/Africa and that with all the IPC drained early for UK/US to build fleets, they won’t be able to protect those 2 fronts. So basically it’s all about Germany holding their front while the inevitable happens on one of the other 2 fronts, hence the huge infantries spending for Germany.

That’s usually how every game goes if the Axis wins. Germany hangs in and waits for relatively unopposed Japan to become montrously huge but as far as them taking Africa, why is the US letting that happen? I get the UK has to worry about the Japanese planes but the US doesn’t. They can build up a big enough navy to move out as early as round 2. From there they can drop off in Africa round after round. It’s the safest, albiet slowest and most boring way for the allies to win. Just a massive march through africa.

I just don’t get how Japan is supposed to donate planes early and still spread globally with no problems. What do they do against Pearl? If New Guinea is taken? If French Indo is taken (meaning they lost a plane), what do they do against the Russian stack in Bury, the American forces in China? With only the resources we have on round one, we can do a good job of stalling Japan. I still see this as causing a greater delay for the axis then it does the allies.

[GCar]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

That’s usually how every game goes if the Axis wins. Germany hangs in and waits for relatively unopposed Japan to become montrously huge but as far as them taking Africa, why is the US letting that happen? I get the UK has to worry about the Japanese planes but the US doesn’t. They can build up a big enough navy to move out as early as round 2. From there they can drop off in Africa round after round. It’s the safest, albiet slowest and most boring way for the allies to win. Just a massive march through africa.

I just don’t get how Japan is supposed to donate planes early and still spread globally with no problems. What do they do against Pearl? If New Guinea is taken? If French Indo is taken (meaning they lost a plane), what do they do against the Russian stack in Bury, the American forces in China? With only the resources we have on round one, we can do a good job of stalling Japan. I still see this as causing a greater delay for the axis then it does the allies.

For your first question, yes it is a possible and viable plan for US against Fortress Europe. Against that, Japan will forget Africa and go to Moscow while Germany (facing no disembark at all beside WesEur and SouEur, that last one being mostly a trap for US) will slowly try to get to have a small stack going froward to create a 1-2 punch against Moscow. US as the risk to be too late (the infantries takes too long to walk through Africa) but if US starts putting Infantries in Persia and Moscow is not fallen, well they are winning. The upside of this plan (in comparison to sending US in Europe by Norway, Karelia or Archangel) is the you save a lot of IPC on the navy and that you cover the 3 important fronts in a more split way then usual. The downside is that UK as trouble getting involved and that US help in Russia comes about 2 turns later then usual, giving 2 more turns for Japan to build units for the attack.

For your second question, we already mentionned that Fortress Europe is a plan against KGF (kill Germany first), it doesn’t beat every single ally strategy. If US goes after Japan instead of going after Germany this is not KGF anymore and obviously you keep the planes in Japan viscinity since you don’t need them in Europe anymore (Germany can handle UK + Russia alone) and you really need those in the Pacific to slow down the US attack. It is a bit like chess. 1…e7-e5 is a very fine move against 1.e2-e4 but it is quite bad against 1.d2-d4 :)

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@GCar:

For your second question, we already mentionned that Fortress Europe is a plan against KGF (kill Germany first), it doesn’t beat every single ally strategy. If US goes after Japan instead of going after Germany this is not KGF anymore and obviously you keep the planes in Japan viscinity since you don’t need them in Europe anymore (Germany can handle UK + Russia alone) and you really need those in the Pacific to slow down the US attack. It is a bit like chess. 1…e7-e5 is a very fine move against 1.e2-e4 but it is quite bad against 1.d2-d4 :)

I wasn’t even talking about the US going for Japan. I meant, what does Japan do with America’s starting pieces, like the ones in China and Pearl? To fight them, you need planes, to not fight them would give US a massive headstart either against Japan or Germany. There’s too many fights for them to send planes to Egypt in non-combat on round 1 is what I’m saying, and what I understand is important for Fortress Europe.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

As was mentioned several times……  The Jap planes DON’T refuse to fight in asia as they work their way to WEu.  Yes you can do Pearl on J1.  If Bury is stacked, either you can hit it with good odds in which case good for Japan or you don’t hit it on round 1.  Bury cannot be stacked for ever.  If Jap builds 3 transports on J1 which is fairly typical, do you really want ANY allied units on the Asian coast?

How often does French-Indo get taken by the brits on R1?  Usually, Brit is looking to retake Egy.  If so, big deal…the allies got lucky and so what?  With 4 transports assuming Brits kill one, 4 transports and 2 battleships take out anything the allies have on the asian coast.

If the allies are leaving around lots of units so that you need your air to mop them up, great, victory Axis.  Again, in a KGF, Jap attacks China and Pearl on J1 as it takes until J3 for air assests to get in place in WEu.

So, the allies (US) are dropping units of in Algeria, so that Infantry you build on US1 moves to Persia on US6.  Six rounds later…, SIX rounds later those early builds are just now coming into play.  I wonder what Jap would have in store for any leading stack of US forces by round 6?

I played the US that way against Fortress Europe when I first was confronted with Fortress Europe.  You know what was frustrating?  NOT being able to get allied units past Egypt.  Jap rotates transports from Sz60,61 to Sz36.  That means Jap almost always has 2+ transports that can drop off infantry right where those leading US forces want to be, and that is backed up by a stack of Tanks.

You will find that you will have to hang out in Lib until your US stack is big enough to slowly march across Egy, then TRj, then Per.  That is 3 different places the Japanese KNOW you will move to, so they will position their forces so that you are bottled up in Africa.

So, just know that Jap WILL use their air assets for whatever suits them on J1 (read Pearl and China and places unknown).  Then as the assets migrate to WEu they will still attack anything juicy or necessary.  What land forces your build on US1-3 will be facing attack in Persia 6 rounds later which gives the Japanese alot of time to have tanks and naval assets in place to deal with that extremely long supply line.  The US will be trying to figure out how to get their builds past the Japs and near the USSR via Africa and Germany will be leaning VERY far forward.

Japan can build a tank on round 3 on Japan, that tank will be in FIC on Round 4 ready to attack Persia on round 5.  On the other hand, the Infantry the US builds on Round 1 will take until round 6 to be able to attack Persia.  There is no way for the US to build enough of a stack to move past Persia when confronted with a very short supply line of the Japanese and the Jap player knows where your builds will be for 6 rounds…Eus, then Alg, Lib, Egy, Trj then finally Per.

I do look forward to being able to dissect a Fortress Europe defeat.  I wish it were easier to review historical TripleA games.

[Hobbes]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I do look forward to being able to dissect a Fortress Europe defeat.  I wish it were easier to review historical TripleA games.

I played the attached game (version 1.3.2.2) as Allies some nights ago. My opponent went for Fortress Europe or something similar. One of his mistakes was not moving the Japanese planes quickly enough, the other to allow the Allies to stack Karelia and then E. Eur.

connection_lost_on_Jul_29_at_03_57.tsvg

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Thanks Hobbes!  Once a game on TripleA is played and over, is there any way for a non participant to then go and retrieve the .tsvg file for review?

[Hobbes]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Thanks Hobbes!  Once a game on TripleA is played and over, is there any way for a non participant to then go and retrieve the .tsvg file for review?

Only if the players or a viewer save it and make it available afterwards. The problem is the non-compatibility between different versions of TripleA

[Hobbes]

Another Fortress Europe game, me as Axis. Allied player surrended round 9

FE.tsvg

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

As was mentioned several times……  The Jap planes DON’T refuse to fight in asia as they work their way to WEu.  Yes you can do Pearl on J1.  If Bury is stacked, either you can hit it with good odds in which case good for Japan or you don’t hit it on round 1.  Bury cannot be stacked for ever.  If Jap builds 3 transports on J1 which is fairly typical, do you really want ANY allied units on the Asian coast?

How often does French-Indo get taken by the brits on R1?  Usually, Brit is looking to retake Egy.  If so, big deal…the allies got lucky and so what?  With 4 transports assuming Brits kill one, 4 transports and 2 battleships take out anything the allies have on the asian coast.

If the allies are leaving around lots of units so that you need your air to mop them up, great, victory Axis.  Again, in a KGF, Jap attacks China and Pearl on J1 as it takes until J3 for air assests to get in place in WEu.

So, the allies (US) are dropping units of in Algeria, so that Infantry you build on US1 moves to Persia on US6.  Six rounds later…, SIX rounds later those early builds are just now coming into play.  I wonder what Jap would have in store for any leading stack of US forces by round 6?

I played the US that way against Fortress Europe when I first was confronted with Fortress Europe.  You know what was frustrating?  NOT being able to get allied units past Egypt.  Jap rotates transports from Sz60,61 to Sz36.  That means Jap almost always has 2+ transports that can drop off infantry right where those leading US forces want to be, and that is backed up by a stack of Tanks.

You will find that you will have to hang out in Lib until your US stack is big enough to slowly march across Egy, then TRj, then Per.  That is 3 different places the Japanese KNOW you will move to, so they will position their forces so that you are bottled up in Africa.

So, just know that Jap WILL use their air assets for whatever suits them on J1 (read Pearl and China and places unknown).  Then as the assets migrate to WEu they will still attack anything juicy or necessary.  What land forces your build on US1-3 will be facing attack in Persia 6 rounds later which gives the Japanese alot of time to have tanks and naval assets in place to deal with that extremely long supply line.  The US will be trying to figure out how to get their builds past the Japs and near the USSR via Africa and Germany will be leaning VERY far forward.

Japan can build a tank on round 3 on Japan, that tank will be in FIC on Round 4 ready to attack Persia on round 5.  On the other hand, the Infantry the US builds on Round 1 will take until round 6 to be able to attack Persia.  There is no way for the US to build enough of a stack to move past Persia when confronted with a very short supply line of the Japanese and the Jap player knows where your builds will be for 6 rounds…Eus, then Alg, Lib, Egy, Trj then finally Per.

I do look forward to being able to dissect a Fortress Europe defeat.  I wish it were easier to review historical TripleA games.

Ok so what’s going on in Asia this whole time? Japan has three areas of approach they have to deal with. And I don’t see how a stale mate in Persia is to the axis advantage. And how do they build 3 trans on round 1? What are they using to defend it? Because UK can get a Carrier, a plane and a bomber in striking range before they even build.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Firstly……Wow, you think it impossible for Japan to build 3 transports on Japan 1?  You also build a destroyer for 29 IPC.  By doing pearl harbour light, the Japs end up with a Carrier, 2 fighters, a battleship if you don’t use it to kill the Brit CV and a destroyer.  Really, the Japs are scared of a brit attack now on Sz 60 why again?  I will allow you your cruiser AND your sub, I will make an error and won’t attack any of those vulnerable pieces.  You will attack with a sub, fighter, bomber, cruiser and a CV.  And stupid me, by just sitting back and not attack the Brits I have allowed you a 10% chance of winning in Sz60, yup a whole 10%.   Secondly, if you commit the Brit Bomber to be in striking range of Sz60 you are letting Germany off easier.  If you commit the Brit fighter to harasses the HUGE Jap asian navy/air force you get little in return and you weaken Africa.  Sure, if Egy goes poorly on Germany1 you might want to harasses the Japs a bit.

Secondly, who mentioned a stalemate in Persia?  Not me, far from it.  Japan has COMPLETE control of that theatre.  If the US ventures into or past Egy it faces a massive Jap force of tanks, air (because the Japs know for 5 turns where you will be and can put air assets in place to attack the US stack if its even neccessary).  In fact, Japan will me marshaling their force in Persia to attack/threaten Caucus so good luck moving US forces past a massing Japanese army supported by all its navy and air force.

Dude, you keep arguing about a strategy that you have NEVER faced with people who were like you but then faced Fortress Europe.  Every argument against it you provide just shows me you don’t seem to understand how it works.  I think it would be a better use of your energy to play somebody who can play Fortress Europe.  Then either you will say “Ok, now I get it”.  Or you will see something that 100s of people who use it just failed to see.  You will be talked about as a legend for years to come.  When somebody uses Fortress Europe they will be “Stauffenberg’d” and we’ll all smirk that somebody is using an old failed strategy.  I suspect it will be the former and not the latter but you never know, maybe you just will school all of us…  Either way, time to put up or… :-)

[Advosan]

@Hobbes:

Another Fortress Europe game, me as Axis. Allied player surrended round 9

That was interesting. Fortress Europe worked fine against an allied “Mediterranean” path to Russia. Some aspects of the game worth imho mentioning:

1. Since R3 G. was left with just 4 airplanes (3 ftr, 1 bmb). Still, the Allies couldn t seem to find a safe SZ to set their fleet chain and kept losing capital ships and TTs all over the Atlantic right untill the end of the game. The very essence of Fortress Europe.
2. SZ52 J1 attack myth busted. Sparing the US fleet changed little in the game, since the US player was determined to withdraw from the pacific no matter what and use those ships in the Atlantic for KGF. But those US ships didn t change much in the Atlantic either, since KGF failed nonetheless. Another lesson learned, KGF won t work , not even if the Pacific US fleet crosses intact into the Atlantic and is used for KGF.
3. Germany had no problem surviving even without the African IPCs. Actually, trading the KAR-BLR-UKR line was more than enough to see G through untill Japan was ready to kill Moscow, even though G had also to deal with the US landings in the south. FE keeps Europe safe and dry all night long.
4. Russia was unable to survive even though they kept trading Europe, gaining 29 IPCs / turn (even reached 31). This is pretty much the best Russia can do, it wasn t enough though. The Allies must get the fleet chain going, otherwise all the IPCs of Europe won t save Russia.
5. Japan doesn t need a horde of airplanes in Europe. From its initial 7, 5 airplanes (4 ftr, 1 bmb) are enough to start FE, giving J time to build its IPC base, cross the China gorge, invade Buratya and set a siege in Persia. From there, Novosibirsk/Kazak and Caucasus are only turns away.

[Hobbes]

@Advosan:

@Hobbes:

Another Fortress Europe game, me as Axis. Allied player surrended round 9

That was interesting. Fortress Europe worked fine against an allied “Mediterranean” path to Russia.

On my experience so far this is the worse option for the Allies - the Med turns up to be a dead end and the Axis airforces have an easier reach.

Some aspects of the game worth imho mentioning:

1. Since R3 G. was left with just 4 airplanes (3 ftr, 1 bmb). Still, the Allies couldn t seem to find a safe SZ to set their fleet chain and kept losing capital ships and TTs all over the Atlantic right untill the end of the game. The very essence of Fortress Europe.

Another thing worth mentioning - G1 had a 5 inf, 5 arm buy instead of a bomber because of the starting Russian buy of 4 arm, 1 art. I made it to prevent enskive (he’s an excellent Revised player) from stacking Ukraine with the Russians. It was his first game against FE - I think he did pretty well.

2. SZ52 J1 attack myth busted. Sparing the US fleet changed little in the game, since the US player was determined to withdraw from the pacific no matter what and use those ships in the Atlantic for KGF. But those US ships didn t change much in the Atlantic either, since KGF failed nonetheless. Another lesson learned, KGF won t work , not even if the Pacific US fleet crosses intact into the Atlantic and is used for KGF.

The problem is, if the US kept the carrier and BB on the Pacific and the Japs would be forced to hold back most of its airforce or face a slow US build up.

3. Germany had no problem surviving even without the African IPCs. Actually, trading the KAR-BLR-UKR line was more than enough to see G through untill Japan was ready to kill Moscow, even though G had also to deal with the US landings in the south. FE keeps Europe safe and dry all night long.

Benefits of securing W. Europe - 6 IPC assured while denying them to the Allies. As long as G can stack W.Eur/Germany/E. Eur it will be safe.

[GCar]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Ok so what’s going on in Asia this whole time? Japan has three areas of approach they have to deal with. And I don’t see how a stale mate in Persia is to the axis advantage. And how do they build 3 trans on round 1? What are they using to defend it? Because UK can get a Carrier, a plane and a bomber in striking range before they even build.

Watch the games Hobbes took the time to post, try the strategy and honestly, until then, please stop telling everyone that what they say is bad when you are not even trying to understand. Building 3 Transports on turn 1 is VERY easy and just by watching the board it should be obvious. This is a strategy game and you need to put the time needed to understand, not just reading posts in forums. There as been many high level players taking their time here to answer your questions and you are really just arguing for the fun of it, having no intention to actually try the strategy (seriously this post has been going forever).