Who do you go for as Germany?

I’ve tried this out a few times, it is like a “sneaky sea-lion”. I don’t usually have issues with US coming to liberate Britain in this scenario either because it is so fast. You can make it a real blind-side if you move the french troops back and move troops to the Russian front as if you’re preparing for a big Eastern push.

@genken said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

I have searched for this on the forums and cannot find a reference to it. In the setup for Germany there are 2 pieces for aircraft carriers. I am axis and I started an Africa Korps movement but US entered the war in turn 1. Now I will need 2 carriers to guard the med in SZ 91 but I also want to place a carrier in SZ 113 to counter a possible Russian attack formulated by my cunning opponent. I can use a plastic chip in SZ 91. Is it permissible in the rules for Germany to have 3 carriers in play?

Why do you think that you need CV’s to protect the Med.?
I am curious, wouldn’t Bmbrs doing the same Job and give you more flexibility?
So now you spent 48 ipcs for three CV’s and 32 are lost compared to 48 = 4 Bmbrs plus your Ftr’s and the Allies player would have had to think about it sailing to Gibraltar…just my thoughts…

sub 3 mech 2 tank if you g1 dow russia.
sub 2 bomber standard g2/g3 dow russia or invade london.

The gold standard of buys. Everything else is sub optimal. Why is that? For the G1 dow Germany is attacking 7 infantry, france (all in, no normandy or southern france, can’t risk losing mech/armor for 2 or 3 ipc better to let italy do it and use arty round 2 for normandy) attempting to strafe yugoslavia, sinking one of the two fleets (usually the bship 2 cruiser), sinking dd trans with 2 sub, and sub to sz 125 to prevent Russia NO.

For a standard game the 2 bombers have more potential. They sink naval, you could fly everything to southern italy and attack egypt, if allies park on syria with air you can attack it, bombers could bomb london and you can buy transports to take uk out of the game if UK disrespects you. The bombers are able to attack and take russia in later rounds unlike naval. Oh and bombing the Russians typically puts on a hurt G4/G5, which can occur before allies start flying fighters in.  You do whatever attacks you prefer g1.

Since you use marines as an example, it seems you are playing g40 mod3, in which case sub optimal strategies become better… but g40 mod3 still heavily favors axis. Germany still brings in the pain train, except instead of a 21 ipc bid you get NO money. So initial allies attacks and defenses are diminished, this puts more pressure on the axis to play more aggressive, which they want to do anyway.

@Elsass-Lorraine:

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

I didn’t mean to be harsh just speculating. I get it. This game is special because it has a lot more nuance than one would readily perceive.  I have no problem with the thread just made me scratch my head.

@Caesar:

But doesn’t that also mean that because you share a sea zone with your enemy, you are required to engage them unless you leave it?

Sort of true. Just that you are able to load units before leaving it. So the exception is of no use if you want to land on a territory which you already own.

Well said on everything. The only thing I might disagree on are the Russian units in the east. In a KJF game you need those 20 units to defend Moscow, otherwise Moscow just rolls over and dies way too easily.

With a 22 bid have you seen anyone bid a carrier sub with UK? This would allow UK to stack 92 depending on what Germany buys.

Ah,
But the coast was not yet taken from me J3 or J4 ;-). It never completely was. If you do the math, it looks like this:

26 + 10NO’s (outer perimeter + Hawai) + 1 (Hawai) + 20 (DEI) + 2 (Phil) + 8 (China) + 9 (SE Asia) + 4 (some Russian territories) = 80 max!

Later on I lost a LOT of ground in Russia + Asia, so from turn 5 the income went down quickly… I made a start invading Australian territories and contested some SE Asian territories back and forth and my guess is that by that time the Japanese income was indeed more between 55 - 65 IPCs a turn.
Compared to the 80 - 95 IPCs Japan can collect when going all in against Asia, Russia and Middle East this is peanuts, but the latter strategy puts the Axis in a time/tempo disadvantage (IMHO ;-)).

BTW, I have to correct myself. Repeating J1 & J2 in my head today I came to the conclusion I got some numbers wrong in my lazy guesswork some days ago ;-). I’ll correct them in my previous posts.

@Alsch91:

Sounds fine to me Jen.  I apologize if I came off as arrogant; I’m simply interested in which tipped the Sealion balance more strongly - 5 more hits for UK vs 1 more Strat and a weaker France for Germany.

Well, it’s more than just 5 hits lost.  England lost, at a minimum, 13 Punch as well but that’s only looking at what units you no longer have to bring to the fight, you are not looking at the losses due to Convoy Raids that cannot be stopped (no destroyers left) nor the Strategic Bombers hitting the Complex.  Between CRD and SBR England should lose another 6 units.  So now England is down 11 Hits and 25 Punch and that is very significant really.