I agree with the shield and sword statement. It is my experience that Germany on its first turn should buy a transport for Italy and all men. Regroup your tanks and all your infantry into Eastern Europe and plan to take Karelia on turn 3 if possible. Turn 2 can work but can be costly. Germany should buy mostly all men on turn two and three as well and move them into Eastern Europr so as to overwhelm Russia and get ahead of their infantry total. Once Germany has more infantry than Russia attack Karelia with men and tanks only, save your planes. From Italy send two full transports every turn into Egypt and Trans Jordan until you secure the Suez and subsiquently Africa. Meanwhile Japan hits China, and India and then all out Russia, while still maintaining suppremacy in the Pacific by staying one step ahead of the US and as someone else mentioned take out as many US and UK ships as possible while not over commiting your fleet and only losing the cheap expendable replaceable pieces. An IC is a good idea if you are sure you can hold it: Manchuria is good to go after Russia, but can be reinforced by Japan transports anyway, FIC is safer but India is the best of both if you can capture and hold it, because it is two squares “a tank blitz” away from Caucauscus and Trans-Jordan and you can move fleet through the Suez if needed and assist Germany in conquering Africa as required. Not to mention taking precious money away from the UK. Japan would then purchase three tanks every round for India (or FIC) and keep that up until Russia falls. From India or FIC you can also launch a strike on Australia and New Zealand to further hurt UK. If UK buys an IC on India, Japan MUST capture it at all costs or UK will get the upper hand and its game over. If Germany and Japan hit fast and hard as a unit first at UK to bankrupt and “stall” them and get the valuable money they need and at US to “stall” them, then maintain that stall on both of them and go all out Russia so as to hit Moscow on the 5th or 6th turn from both sides, the Axis will have an IPC victory easily or if using victory cities (AA50 and new) or complete victory rules they will be on their way to world domination. :-)
How much in-game strategy conversation do you tolerate?
-
The frist time we played the revised edition we spent a lot of the time pulling each other to the side to discuss strategy. You guys allow that or are you strictly, “You play your country and I’ll play mine.”
-
Whenever we play there is a LOT of strategy discussion. As long as everyone is having a good time who cares…
-
In an FTF game, such conversation should NOT slow play.
A quick strat chat while getting a beverage or taking a smoke break. But not hour long sumits
-
I play with three friends, all of whom take quite a bit longer than me to take their turns, regardless of who is using which nation.
Gives me time for a smoke break, but it can get annoying.
Still, we do discuss strategy quite a bit, especially the Allies.
I’m in a crazy game right now…Japan huge in India, and also making small scale landings in Alaska/Canada… America alternating transport loads between Norway and Algeria…Britain with constant flow of men into Archangel…Russians holding the Japanese at bay in China…Germany bottled up, but too strong to take out effectively.
It’s quite possibly our longest game so far…and it’s interesting having Brits, Yanks and Russkies all defending the Eastern Front. :-)
If me and my partner could not strategize as the Allies, we would have long ago lost the game…so discussion is certainly important…it can lead to arguments, but in general someone learns something by seeing a new or different strategy from someone elses perspective, so it evens out.
-
We always played that UK/USA could strat together, but everyone else was on their own. Our justification was that the UK and US really don’t have much in the way of strategizing to do after round 1 (aka when they decide KGF or KJF) and Chruchill and Eisenhower did an extreme amount of collaberation with each other, the other nations were more solitary during the war.
(Let’s face it, Hitler and Tojo didn’t plan the invasion of Russia together, Stalin may as well have been a 3rd side in the war given the degree of information he was sent…)
BTW, we also play that US/UK troops cannot land on Russian zones unless the Russian capital falls. (From then on it’s a free for all.)
-
Isn´t this a quite strange rule?
For me it´s often important to land in Karelia or Soviet Far East if I´m beeing the Allies.
-
It is one of those variants that exists that is used instead of a bid to help balance the game and to create more historical accuracy.
Personally, I think it shifts the game from slight Allied favor to slight Axis favor. But it is an interesting house rule.
-
Just keep talking, keep a timer if need be, and remember you can pass notes in study hall if need be…
Suggested Topics
