THE UNBEATABLE STRATEGY!

I think that the reason no one has responed to your strat is that it is generaly accepted that it is easier to win with Germany.

If you want comments develope a strat to take out America. I gaurantee you will get a response to that! :P

true, it’s hard to win with allies
actually, i’m going to start bidding at 30+ from now on, because germany is easier to play, and better!

that strategy is ok i guess, but why don’t you go to www.aaeuropemc.com and try it out?

It isn’t the most efficiant strategy i’ve heard of because you are reinforcing finland.

Hmm, still people think that germany is stronger than the allies. The thing in playing the allies that they must see the plan, what the german player is making in his mind. And use their forces together, not separately. That is why most players with germany wins because his opponents play independently against him and not together as allies…

Mat, as for your strategy against good allies players that won’t work. When you retreat to germany, you give the soviets a turn to kill the finnish army away from threatening him…

If the soviets get 3 free fighters (1 usa and 2 british) to their army, they will be very hard nut to crack.

The most difficult thing in playing with soviets if they don’t get enough help from allies, they must sacrifice troops to against germans and destroy german troops to ease the pressure in russia…

“I’t easy too stop the germans dead in their tracks”

HEY INXDUK!!!tHE ALLIES ARE EASIER TOO WIN WITH THEN GERMANY, BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY.

Mat I agree, if you stay in finland one turn, but in your message you in my opinion start too early the attack to karelia. Because russia if he deployed his tanks correctly, can make a devastating attack to the finnish forces and when you invaded karelia, you can’t land fighters there to help them defend the soviet attack. After that destroying it the russians on their next turn see that your stack is in either baltic, or east poland and accordingly can move their tanks and troops from karelia to south…

One thing that many forget is still the allies?? why don’t the allies help soviets fully, by usa buying 1 fighter a turn and moving it to russia. England securing norway and finland away. So that troops and fighters can be moved to russia easier…

Regarding Dzertfish’s post above, you might also get some good discussion going by highlighting Sea Lion: the invasion of UK. Really super tough to pull off; there are some posts about it way back from early 2002, like page 10 or 11 in the Europe forum here, but none of them seem to give much hope for Germany taking UK. It would seem that EVERYTHING has to go just right, including heavy good luck in dice.

Hey, Mr. Mat – I played a test game wif dis strategy of yours.

It seems you leave yourself open to major pressures from the Atlantic, since you don’t reinvest in subs or air power during the first three turns.

However, Germany won – and convincingly!!

Nevertheless, it is still worth considering these points:::::

As you spend zero on air units, your airforce will almost certainly be degraded. Ironically, you are giving the Soviets just enough breathing room so that they can build up their airforce. How? By retreating in turn 2, you are giving Soviet more time and more land to use in defense! Thus he feels less pressed to spend all-out on infantry. And the additional fighters he can buy will make his counterattacks more flexible and potent.

If I am Soviet, I will in turn 1 build Karelia infantry up to about 8 units – and I will move the antiaircraft gun from Archangel into Karelia. This has a good chance to take down at least one of the likely 3 or 4 fighters you send against me.

As Soviet, I see you are swelling up all forces into Germany as a mighty stack. Why then would I be pulled into Poland, stretching out my forces so that you can take them, one bite at a time? I smell the trap too easily. But do I have any alternative? Well, since you are evacuating your forward positions, I may spend a couple of infantry to occupy them, thanks! But only just the minimum. This takes a bit of pressure off my IPC count, too.

My success at stalling out your Karelian advance – or even retaking Karelia in turn 2 – means that I don’t really have much to worry about on the flanks. You, the German, will have spent all your forces in the north by the start of turn 3. Meanwhile in the south, you have withdrawn or stayed silent, keeping the pressure soft on Ukraine.

The sum: when, in turn 3, you unleash the mighty ground stack into Poland, I don’t lose much material. Instead, I continue to build toward the Belorussian defense – where the fight will not come until turn 5. Even if you succeed, and smash into Moscow by turn 6, the UK & US have near-total command of the sea, which permits them to test your Fortress Europe defenses starting as early as turn 4, and Germany itself by turn 5.

In the test game I played, Germany was indeed able to muster sufficient ground and air units to hold Germany and retake BEL-NETH. In fact, looked like the Germans could hold off indefinitely. Don’t know if better administration and a bit luckier dicing could have turned the tide for US/UK.

On the Russian front, at any rate, your strategy seems to have real power.

Mat sorry I didn’t explain clearly enough. And maybe I did write wrongly, but what zimzaxzeo said in his test game that is almost excatly what was done to my finland army…

But it still is a very good strategy, because it forces the soviet to concentrate troops to north. But you might have troops enough to pressure from the south too, that way he really must think where he strikes with his tanks…

One strategy is making many fronts where the soviets could strike. Why not on turn 2 try to take ukraine, east poland, baltic states and karelia. That way it will be really hard for the russians to take all of them back and after that you have foot hold on russian soil. Your new poland forces were waiting to counterattack to baltic or east poland if the soviet player took them. Then to get a good foothold you could place 3-4 fighters to soviet land and from there build your forces to strike to moscow or caucasus. Because in my opinion still if you use ipc the soviet losing 4ipc land is great loss, and usually he really want to take it back. When you get to hold russia to lower than 15ipc strategic bombing should start, to really drop the infranty build to minimum…

I have now won my german vs allies games. From 10 games, germany won 5-6 and allies won 4-5. And my gaming group think I am the best player in the game…

Hey Thamor - -

It is fun when playing Germany to make these attacks on many territories. Only problem is it means you are giving Soviet player opportunity to use more of his infantry at its maximum strength of “2” – in other words defending – and at the same time, you on the offensive are forced to shed your infantry, which is more limited in quantity and which you need to conserve for the final stages.

As Germany, I like to keep eastern front attacks to a minimum, and to organize so that I have a 2-to-1 unit count in these attacks. I like to mass air so that I can win in one or two rounds of dicing. I am extremely reluctant to commit armor to attacks until the fight for Belorussia & Moscow. A disciplined Soviet player will have similar goals – not wasting infantry on counterattacks, but attacking only where the odds are completely advantageous. And holding back armor until the final stages.

It is interesting to me that Mat’s strategy balances both of these choices. His German player stops attacking – even withdraws – rather than broaden the front (except for the Karelia feint). And his Soviet player can counterattack to take territory safely where the German reduces the defenders – but by doing this, the Soviet risks spreading his lines and weakening the central defense. I think Mat’s plan works for the German player because the Soviet has no business extending his front when it is so hard to reinforce! Even getting territory for FREE is a trap for the Russians!