Yes the push into Russia will be intersting. Even if Russia has more units Germany can win by not overextending, and picking its targets well.
France will be easy to defend with all those IC’s in the area to dump units into. So when attacking Russia you will have several advantages as Germany, depending on the dice gods as always……
Russia can only guess where you will actually attack. You can focus on one city or all three…if they place units wrong in defense you can make them pay dearly.
Russia is huge…hard to defend all that territory effectively. Even if Japan only makes small gains, it will help keep the defense divided.
Do not rush!!! Do not expend all your infantry fodder. If you do wait for it to catch up with your mech and armor. Artillery is not to be underestimated. Its pays in spades to have those units attacking at a 2and not a 1.
The deeper you get the longer you supply chain is…but reinforcing by the Baltic will work wonders. And the deeper you get the less cash Russia has. When you get close to Moscow the Russian player will tend to make bad moves the more nervous they get.
Just some thoughts and comments.
The Trick is to always play for the money, and always play for the long game.
Get your income to par with your opponent or better, and focus on battles where you are more likely to win more IPC value than your opponent.
decide ahead of time, map it out, what territories you need to take from whom, to maintain economic game control. Primarily this will come down to British territoires n the south pacific, the middle east, and Africa. The rest is just widdling your opponent down.
Well said. I play with the exact same mindset. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Aye, I’m thinking maybe playing defensively in the East, and having more fun attacking the UK/US than I normally do with Germany.
How about taking Spain and putting a stack of inf on Gibraltar with reinforcements in range? The US and UK would have to commit to large TRNs builds to send enough fodder there to even get into the Med. Meanwhile you can harass them with sub and airforce purchases to buy the Italians tons of time, plus let the Italians reinforce Africa and recover from the UK1/France1 attacks. Meanwhile Russia is split between Japan and Germany and forced to build defensively which limits its options; yet even with the Axis sending 1/3 of its IPCs to the West to tie up the Brits and Yanks, Germany is holding them off with moderate Mech and Arm purchases.
After stymying the Allies at Gibraltar for several turns, reducing Britain to a shambles by taking over Africa/convoy raiding, holding in the Baltic and N. Russia, and having the Japs enter a southern Russian front, I think the stage is set for the Russians to fall to a one-two or one-two-three punch as earlier described.
I meant take the other VC’s so you wouldn’t have a Moscow push
Isn’t this exactly what Global was supposed to avoid(the JTDTM and KGF?)
A couple of months ago I argued in another thread that the JTDTM was going to be alive and well in Global. Many disagreed.
Hey, I’m an LTRFTW (Long Time Reader, First Time Writer).
I’ve only had the pleasure of playing Pacific, but I own Europe as well.
My question is, what’s the best way to go about pushing into Russia? There seems to be a great deal of debate on this topic, so I’d like to know what the best way to push east is in this game.
On a side note, does India still get killed early (maybe not turn 3) by Japan? Or has global changed that, like some speculated it would?
With the new set up provied by Larry (see Canucks post) India could survive a little longer. Russia also gets 18 inf in the far eastern provinces. Since attacking UK on J1 is less likely I would probably attack Russia on J1. And with Germany I would attack on G2.
Not that this is the way to go, because I am only going to try that tommorrow for the first time (hopefully my opponent isn’t going to check this forum ;-)).
germany will build up its forces along the border until turn 4, when it will attack. the russians will mass most of their armies in leningrad,belarus and w ukraine. they will leave minimal units on the border in order to have maximum reserves in the rear. the german goal will be to take w ukraine and hold it. they will do this by using italian units to declare war on russia on I3,attack the border units and eliminate them,opening a path for the germans. on G4, the germans,using mech,armor and air, will attack and destroy the russian army exposed in w ukraine. after capturing w ukraine, it will begin to fortify this area with units it produces from its new factory in romania with the aim of using it as a base to assault and take the more valuable southern territories of russia. only a few russian units will be able to counterattack from belarus on R4, so russia wont be able to counter immediately. using the marshes to protect its northern flank while having a small force in e poland to prevent attacks from the rear, germany will force the russians to react to this threat head on. russia will mass armies on the belarus-smolensk-bryansk-rostov line and will launch counter-attacks to reclaim any territory captured. germany will concentrate on the south, but will have a small force to check any attack from the baltic states or belarus. the germans will begin to capture all of the territories worth two, to break the russian economy or at least draw out russian reserves to fight and not allowing them to stack up in moscow. germany cannot fight all over russia so it must pick a route either north or south of the marshes. the south is more valuable and so russia will fight harder to protect it. germany has more chances to succeed if it forces the russians to fight rather than retreat and stack up units.
This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.
This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.
No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet. The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.
This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining. In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.
There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values. Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.
This. Fucking THIS. I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules. They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player. It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies. If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.
This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.
This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.
No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet. The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.
This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining. In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.
There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values. Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.
This. Fucking THIS. I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules. They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player. It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies. If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.
Axis don’t need to take Moscow, London, or any North American territories to win.
There is nothing wrong with Capital Capturing rules.
CtC rule has almost no impact on game strategy for anybody past begginer and possibly intermediate players mixed with beginners.
Wrong. You just spent an entire post describing how this game is all about economics. Then you want to tell us that the biggest posible economic swing in the game (capitol capture) doesn’t matter as an incentive? :roll:
This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.
This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.
No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet. The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.
This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining. In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.
There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values. Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.
This. Fucking THIS. I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules. They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player. It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies. If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.
Axis don’t need to take Moscow, London, or any North American territories to win.
I never said they did, but since capitol capture is an instant win (in 95% of cases) it still has a huge impact upon optimal play. There is very little incentive to do anything else with the instant win condition dangling there so easily.
My ideal house rule would be to remove VCs in locations which never see any action (washington? LA? Ottowa? Are you serious?) and provide an instant win for axis and instant win for allies based on VCs (one which is attainable without capturing capitols, forcing players to attack/defend more than one spot, thus increasing possible strategies).
Off the top of my head I would add a VC to South Africa (Cape Town) and then say:
Axis win with:
Allies win with:
Would need to playtest this to see if it’s too easy for Axis/allies and need to maybe adjust a number or two.
Then I would weaken the capitol capture rules to only give half cash to victor and still allow loser to earn income and produce in remaining factories (even build one if neccessary). This would provide a reason for the Quebec factory to exist (in case London falls). This, IMHO, would provide a much more dynamic game. Does Italy drive hard for Cape Town? Do the brits fight for Africa (and it’s two VCs) or try to stall them in continental Europe? The US cannot ignore Japan because if they take all VCs but 1 (honalulu, calcutta, or sydny most like) axis win. Japan has a much bigger incentive to work historically and not drive for Moscow.
Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.
This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.
This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.
No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet. The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.
This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining. In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.
There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values. Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.
This. Fucking THIS. I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules. They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player. It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies. If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.
Axis don’t need to take Moscow, London, or any North American territories to win.
I never said they did, but since capitol capture is an instant win (in 95% of cases) it still has a huge impact upon optimal play. There is very little incentive to do anything else with the instant win condition dangling there so easily.
My ideal house rule would be to remove VCs in locations which never see any action (washington? LA? Ottowa? Are you serious?) and provide an instant win for axis and instant win for allies based on VCs (one which is attainable without capturing capitols, forcing players to attack/defend more than one spot, thus increasing possible strategies).
Off the top of my head I would add a VC to South Africa (Cape Town) and then say:
Axis win with:
- Total of 12 VCs between the two theaters
OR- 6 of the 7 in the pacific
OR- 7 of the 10 in Europe/Africa.
Allies win with:
- 10 Total VCs Starting End of Turn 4
OR- 4 of the 7 in Pacific Starting End of T4 (they start with 5 on T1)
OR- 7 of the 10 in Europe Starting End of T4
OR- Capture of Japan (very hard to do compared to Moscow if Japan is paying attention, and only provided to prevent Japan from ignoring it’s capitol in favor of land rush).
Would need to playtest this to see if it’s too easy for Axis/allies and need to maybe adjust a number or two.
Then I would weaken the capitol capture rules to only give half cash to victor and still allow loser to earn income and produce in remaining factories (even build one if neccessary). This would provide a reason for the Quebec factory to exist (in case London falls). This, IMHO, would provide a much more dynamic game. Does Italy drive hard for Cape Town? Do the brits fight for Africa (and it’s two VCs) or try to stall them in continental Europe? The US cannot ignore Japan because if they take all VCs but 1 (honalulu, calcutta, or sydny most like) axis win. Japan has a much bigger incentive to work historically and not drive for Moscow.
FYI, on this map, capetown is in SW Africa
Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.
That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.
FYI, on this map, capetown is in SW Africa
Johannesburg then.
Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.
That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.
repetetive? If you don’t want Moscow, you don’t have to go for it. You can have Japan invade Australia and Hawaii instead.
Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.
That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.
repetetive? If you don’t want Moscow, you don’t have to go for it. You can have Japan invade Australia and Hawaii instead.
Sure, and I could invade Brazil with Japan too :roll:
It’s repetitive because it is the optimal strategy. Sure, if you want to play sub-optimally you can do all kinds of stuff. But if you don’t care about winning why are you playing the game? Game systems don’t work unless all players buy into the goals of the game.
France and Italy both surrendered before their capitals were captured.
Hitler ignored the pleas to head for Moscow in order to destroy the Russian army in the field and gain the more valuable oil of the Caucasus.
Germany was essentially defeated economically by the capture of the West German Ruhr industries, rather than the fall of distant Berlin.
Britain would not have stopped fighting if the Germans had captured London.
I don’t think ANY capital was captured in WWI, certainly not of the major powers.
France and Italy both surrendered before their capitals were captured.
Hitler ignored the pleas to head for Moscow in order to destroy the Russian army in the field and gain the more valuable oil of the Caucasus.
Germany was essentially defeated economically by the capture of the West German Ruhr industries, rather than the fall of distant Berlin.
Britain would not have stopped fighting if the Germans had captured London.
I don’t think ANY capital was captured in WWI, certainly not of the major powers.
France surrendered on June 22, Paris fell on June 14.
I’m still unsure about people saying that this is the optimal strategy. Although I think something we could do to make the game a little more realistic would be to institute unit counts for each country based on the populations of the powers. Like Russia could have up to 75 units on the board at once, Germany 60, Italy 30, etc. IDK how that would work but I think it could help the people that still cry the inf. push mechanic is king.
