Somone on ebay has a set of 1941 green British units. The only reason I havent bought them is due to the fact that the allied units are all the same sculpts and I already have plenty green British units already.
German strategy
-
Buying all men for Germany ,i find, is always sound. For the first 3 or so rounds anyhow. Sometimes a fighter or two…… i think i wrote this in another thread…dumb.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-04-08 16:12 ]
-
How dare you call your thread DUMB! Not only are you INSTULTING yourself but me. Buying all inf. ALWAYS works! As with maintaining a strong airforce, it is vital to Germany’s position. Please restore some faith into yourself.
-
LOL……i wrote dumb because i typed pretty much the same thing 2 minutes before in a different thread.
-
Ha. Who would’ve known. You almost game me a shock.
-
how would germany go on the offensive with all infantry? or are you relying on japan?
-
Ya, Im relying on Japan a little. However, IMO Germany has enough attacking 3’s and 4’s to start the game. Stacking up on men and maybe a few fighters is solid, for attacking and defending.
-
Infantry = Tanks when attacking
Infantry > tanks when defending
Edit - My Guide will explain this mathmatically (almost done! Having my hands tied in school atm)
“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference” - Robert Frost
“Only the dead will see the end of war”
<
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-04-10 11:24 ]
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Wait, what are you trying to prove? I think we all know the attack and defense of inf. and arm…
-
No, he’s talking about numbers not values in other words–if yer playing defensive, buy INF, if you are playing aggressive, go roughly 50%/50%.
I agree with some reservations depending on circumstances–interested to see his #s
Ozone27
-
I dunno, being agressive is great if you have the resources to go overboard and pound the enemy’s territories, but still you want to have at least 1 to 2 ARM vs. Inf when on the offensive.
-
Im trying to do a blitz here. Infantry can move only one space a turn. I have revised it slightly by buying a fighter, and then tanks. With the tanks in Germany, and if russia manages to take karelia back from you, you can strike her again.
-
Axis victory by Turn 5?
First off, I’m a newbies–played only 4 times. Board game, 2nd ed rule with Russia Restricted and no other variants.
I’d read many many comments that Allies always win. While I agree that the Allies have a strong advantage (eg USA, UK, & Rus IC are 1 turn away from Germany whereas Jap IC are lightyear away), I believe that advantage only translate to an Allies victory 60-65% of the time.
This is the strategy I used to get an Axis victory by Turn 5 (which works about 40% of the time–I won 4 out 4 that I played, the 40% odd was roughly estimated by on odd of the individual battles).
Germany Turn 1 (G1):
Buy: 1 Tran 7 Inf (29 IPC) w/ 3 IPC in bank.
Attacks:- BB Tran w/ 2 Inf attack Brit sub in Iraq sz and then invade Iraq with additional bomber.
- Arm & Inf from Libya and Fighter (Ukraine) blitz and attack Egypt.
- Sub (W Eur) & Fighter (E Eur) attack BB (Gibraltar)
- 3 Fighter (Nor, W Eur, Ger), Sub & Tran (Baltic) attack North Sea Fleet, usually Brit BB & Tran and Rus Sub and Tran.
- Blitz Spain (hence the 3 IPC saved) & capture Gibraltar – reason, if Ger capture Gib, Iraq, & Egypt, Brit can’t attack Ger fleet because there’s no place to land.
Probability of winning all battle with min loss is 42%.
Depending of what Rus does on R1, either min attack Caucasus or else curl up into a ball (eg if Rus put 7 Inf in Cau & 13 Inf 3 Arm 2 Fighter in Kar, withdraw from Ukraine and defend E Eur; if Rus put 1 Inf in Cau and 19 Inf 3 Arm 2 Fighter in Kar, attack Cau and withdraw from BOTH E Eur & Ukr–reason, that 19 Inf have 50% to 90% of killing off everything in E Eur even if Ger put 8 Inf 8 Arm 2-4 Fighter).
Non-Combat: move the Egypt bomber & fighter into Libya (bomber is now in range of both India & S Africa). Land remaining fighter in W Eur and/or E Eur.
J1:
Buy: 2 Trans & 3 Inf (25 IPC, none left)
Attack:- The REAL Pearl Harbor, 2 Fighter (Philippine & CV) 1 Bomber & 1 Sub vs US Sub CV & Fighter
Prob of success 90+% (you’ll lose 1 fighter & sub in pearl harbor). - Depending on Rus & Brit moves, attack one or 2 ter. (eg if Brit move tran to red sea, attack that with fighter from IndoChina to clear path for G2 invasion of S Africa or India). If Brit build India Factory, attack south. Else attack the weaker of US or Rus.
NonCombat: move both BB & the CV into invasion range of the attack route.
So in any case, the idea between this strategy is to grab Africa & Asia & Pacific by Turn 3/4 to get to 84 IPC victory. The T1 move essentially knock the allies out of them. Ger will concede Europe and build up Inf to recapture in Turn 3 to 5. Ger fleet is now safe until Turn 3 with an extra tran to land some more inf into afr. Jap is safe from US and can concentrate on massing an attack and capturing asia/pacific. Since Allies have no IC in Asia/Africa, it’ll be hard for them to defend. If Rus try to defend both front, Ger (with its buy of all Inf) will be able to control E Eur/Ukr/Cau and possibly Kar. In fact, Axis does not have to capture Kar nor Russia to win. They can get to 84 IPC without them. The only chance the Allies have to is land armor in Africa or to do Normandy by Turn 4.
With this strategy, Axis should win 40% of the time by Turn 5.
Obviously, I have limited experience, so would like to hear the expert on how they can defeat this strategy.
-
Good job. :smile:
A turn five EV is possible like you said. But make sure you can defend your positions in Africa! That is key. Now there’s the advantage of not having to spend large troops in order to hold the Russian Front. Use these extra inf to your advantage. Also with Germany, how many transports do you expect to buy? -
Wait a mo’! He cannot blitz Spain(a neutal country in which his forces must stop) and then take out Gibralter on G1.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Are we makin’up rules as we go? I posted re: this problem before.” - Xi -
I think I’ll start responding to the other thread. What can I say? Scrolling down is hard. :sad:
-
Yanni and Moses, I’m curious about your opinions on an interesting variation that I play with some friends…
The historical background is based on this false premis: Germany remains very friendly to the US and respects all US citizens and assets. Due to excellent diplomacy, the US is unable to declare war on Germany.
1.) No Weapons development.
2.) 2 Hit BBs, but NO RR.
3.) US not allowed to attack German territories and units until a)Japan proper is captured, or b) Germany attacks an American unit.
This variation can be very fun because it finally forces America to do something in the Pacific. It also forces Britain to pick up the slack in Africa. Both nations can still rienforce RUS with fighters.
Please tell me what you think…
-
Sound like a good plan you got there. :)
However, is there anything else to distinguish it from Japan First strat, which is also a valid and often used tactic third only to the “Conveyor Belt” and D-Day?For example I like your throw in the UK-Germ Seasaw battle in Africa. How about making the scale even greater (changing IPC values, beefing up both sides’ Med Fleet, more ARM, making the Suez Canal more vital). Maybe we’ll get a greater perspective on the Afrika Korps vs. the British 8th Army.
-
Arggh! TG Moses 2-Hit BBs, while a perfectly good A & A rule, are NOT “militaristically” nor historically correct! BBs were by WWII dangerously vulnerable to aircraft fire and/or the torpedo–in spite of various improvements since the 30s including reinforced bulkheads, increased speed & compartmentalization and additional AA defense. CVs just DOMINATED WWII and this is reflected in (regular) A & A. Not knocking “2-hit BBs” as a rule or BBs in reality (they are very cool!) just pointing out “2-hit BBs” is not historically accurate, as I am sure the U.S. Defense Dept. would agree :wink: !
As far as the strategy suggested, I think KING TIGER, as usual, summed it up…'nuff said…
Ozone27
-
So basically Allies is always easiest to play with?
-
“Arggh! TG Moses 2-Hit BBs, while a perfectly good A & A rule, are NOT “militaristically” nor historically correct! BBs were by WWII dangerously vulnerable to aircraft fire and/or the torpedo–in spite of various improvements since the 30s including reinforced bulkheads, increased speed & compartmentalization and additional AA defense.”
Ha, maybe with wimpy British and German battleships! :wink: But when you’re up against US Iowa Class Battleships which are watertight, great fire control systems, the best mix of advanced proximity AA guns, and 17 inches of armor (count ‘em, 17 inches!) - lets just say that torpedoes and even aircraft will have a very tough time crippling them, let alone sinking even one! 8) For just an idea on how tough these ships would be - consider how hard it was for the US to sink the Japanese Musashi and Yamamoto type BBs (they took A LOT of torpedos before sinking). And our Iowas were even widely regarded by experts as being even better defended against such attacks!
Suggested Topics
