I’m a relatively new improving player.
Firstly, one thing I’ve noticed doing traditional G1 moves. (Destroying fleet in SZ2, SZ13, SZ15)
If this happens, I’m pretty much guaranteed a loss. So….one day I was playing Axis and my opponent built a Battleship in SZ14 on G1 and did not attack AES until G2. it seems to really slow down the Allied advance in Africa so that Germany can take it. Why?
After G1 I just buy 1 bomber and multiple inf every turn. Play cat and mouse with Russia until Japanese come to the rescue. I also many times am able to destroy rebuilt british fleet G2 with subs/aircraft. Of course this is all predicated on a KGF strategy.
I had a similar development in my last match. Germany built Carrier and Transport in the Mediterranean on G1 and was lucky with his attack on AES (3 troops standing) and in the counter on UK1 (cleared AES but couldn’t lost all groundtrops. had to land Bomber and Fighter next to it, so the fighters from the carrier could take me out and land on AES). The result was a complete Africa for Germany, a quite unusual occurance.
The match went to the Allies, nevertheless. Germany overcommited to Africa (having 35 IPC of troops there, plus AC and additional transport) and played some horrible mistakes in the endgame, not fortifying Germany enough when it was threatened by UK/US + Russian troops from East Germany.
Allies ignored Africa completely, except for turn 2 when it was used as a distraction for the impending invasion on Norway and for a combined allied fleet.
After having played 10-15 matches lately, I tend more and more towards limiting African investment. Like Hobbes said in another thread, if the Allies want Africa, they will take it. And strengthening Africa with its 1 and 2 IPC countries (11 total) considerably weakens the eastern front, where there are so much more interesting targets.
Currently, I’d take 5 INF 1 tank over the Battleship anytime. Or Bomber, INF, tank.
Africa has no victory point, no strategic advantage except for lowering UK income / vs. lowering Russian income. But then, it’s Russia who you have to beat if you want to win.
So if anything, I’d go for an AC + tran for the Med. It has basically the same effect, but adds another route to Caucasus. On the other hand, neither a Carrier nor a Battleship will ever defend either Germany or your panzers on their way to Moscow. So… nah…
Africa has no victory point, no strategic advantage except for lowering UK income / vs. lowering Russian income. But then, it’s Russia who you have to beat if you want to win.
I disagree. Africa also gives Germany IC which it can spend on units. Plus, you have to take into account the amount of ICs the US and/or UK has to spend to counter this extra battleship. The Battleship ends up paying for itself.
So if anything, I’d go for an AC + tran for the Med. It has basically the same effect, but adds another route to Caucasus. On the other hand, neither a Carrier nor a Battleship will ever defend either Germany or your panzers on their way to Moscow. So… nah…
I’ll try the AC + tran. I still think the Battleship might be better as it can take 2 hits. This makes a world of difference if it is in a minor or major naval battle. The AC is also useless without a fighter.
I won twice with Battleship strategy after posting to this forum. 1st game opponent made the double mistake of building an atlantic fleet UK1 which was wiped out G2. And attacking africa with US too early which ended with a wiped out fleet in the atlantic. Germany controlled Africa, game over.
2nd game was against a better opponent, but the plan worked in a different way. UK didn’t build a fleet but instead built a factory in South Africa. US held off its African invasion until US3 and invested heavily in a navy. G4 attacked Trans-Jordan. G5 attacked Madascar. G6 Australia. Germany just parked itself with a large force in belorussia and counterattacked any russia advance waiting for Japan to catch up. Because US had to build such a large Atlantic Navy, Pacific was ignored. Once Japan controlled Asia, it moved onto Alaska then Hawaii after dumping off its fighters to help defend Germany. The 2 battleships protected Japan’s backside against any transports that might be built in South Africa. Granted, the dice were with me when US attacked Southern Europe, but other than that dice were pretty even.
So, in summary the battleship payed for itself multiple times over. US had to delay Atlantic advance and build extra naval units which were never used in a battle.
I’ll try the AC + tran. I still think the Battleship might be better as it can take 2 hits. This makes a world of difference if it is in a minor or major naval battle. The AC is also useless without a fighter.
I like the AC+trn buy once in a while to surprise my opponent. I think it’s a better investment than the BB, because you can threaten Caucasus and quickly secure Africa or reinforce Ukraine with those 4 units.
A fully loaded AC gives you 10 attack points or 14 defense points, with 5 hits. Just 1 fighter drops those to 7 attack, 10 defense and 4 hits. If you go for the BB, you have 8 attack/defense points and 4 hits.
The issue is, as mentioned, that those fighters can be critical to defend Europe and bringing too many units to Africa (plus the initial investment) can seriously weaken the Russian front. On the other hand, fighters on an AC on SZ14 can
hit SZ8, forcing the Allies to defend it.
I won twice with Battleship strategy after posting to this forum. 1st game opponent made the double mistake of building an atlantic fleet UK1 which was wiped out G2. And attacking africa with US too early which ended with a wiped out fleet in the atlantic. Germany controlled Africa, game over.
2nd game was against a better opponent, but the plan worked in a different way. UK didn’t build a fleet but instead built a factory in South Africa. US held off its African invasion until US3 and invested heavily in a navy. G4 attacked Trans-Jordan. G5 attacked Madascar. G6 Australia. Germany just parked itself with a large force in belorussia and counterattacked any russia advance waiting for Japan to catch up. Because US had to build such a large Atlantic Navy, Pacific was ignored. Once Japan controlled Asia, it moved onto Alaska then Hawaii after dumping off its fighters to help defend Germany. The 2 battleships protected Japan’s backside against any transports that might be built in South Africa. Granted, the dice were with me when US attacked Southern Europe, but other than that dice were pretty even.
So, in summary the battleship payed for itself multiple times over. US had to delay Atlantic advance and build extra naval units which were never used in a battle.
The best counter to your BB buy (or any G naval buy for the Med) is planes to sink it as quick as possible (unless they escape) and landings on Algeria. The IC on South Africa is a waste of money since it prevents all of Africa from being captured but any units produced there are usually unable to advance past Egypt.
The African IPCs are good for G to have but at some point Germany should advance its units on Africa to threaten Caucasus through Persia and linking up with the Japanese there.
A G1 (Germany first turn) German carrier for the Mediterranean is an old ploy I favor. I haven’t done analysis on it yet, but I think it’s interesting enough to consider.
If the Allies put an industrial complex in south Africa, or build a lot of air and/or subs, that is not a response I fear. I think the response I would least like to see would be a powerful Allied fleet dropping to Algeria, ideally UK1 build 2 destroyer 1 carrier, US1 build fleet, followed by a UK2 drop to Algeria reinforced by a US2 drop to Algeria. The game then becomes very different to a regular KGF (Kill Germany First) assuming Allies stuck to their guns and went KGF, but I don’t think I would say Germany’s position would be definitively superior.
I also favor the med AC over the BB.
Especially if the USSR build a sub with the intention of whiping out the med fleet - this sub will then almost be a waste of money, meaning that the ground unit balance does not tip dramatically in favor of USSR.
Only problem is you have to stay put in Italy unable to land in Egypt G1.
That Russian Sub build killed me for awhile but I think the German Air Craft Carrier buy on it’s first turn is a very good counter.
If I’ve built the russian sub, and Germany responds by staying in 14 and buys more navy, then the sub build has been a huge success. If I want (there’s no need unless G bought a dd) I slip the sub into the Indian Ocean and irritate Japan. Meanwhile UK has the extra units on Egy and gets income from Africa longer. And Germany falls behind on the mainland having build a capital ship G1. UK starts with 5 planes and they don’t need many more to get Germany’s Med fleet.
In my experience the most devastating counter to a sub build is diverting Germany’s energy to Russia, rather than attempting a naval counter.
“Plus, you have to take into account the amount of ICs the US and/or UK has to spend to counter this extra battleship. The Battleship ends up paying for itself.”
I’m not sure I agree with you on that one. I find that the german navy often goes from being a threat (and therefore cost/effective) to being outnumbered and outcornered in just a few rounds. In that sense german battleship build round one is quite expensive and quickly becomes of no value.
In my games (unless UK and US went KJF-kamikaze) the german navy will typically flee into the mediterranean in round two. And if you spend too much ipc to avoid this, you’ll maybe conquer Africa - but on the expense of Eastern Europe, Norway and eventually Berlin…?
1. Germany allows the Allies early progress in Europe in exchange for later African IPCs. Germany fueled by African IPCs and a significant and constant threat to Africa is a major problem for the Allies.
“And if you spend too much ipc to avoid this, you’ll maybe conquer Africa - but on the expense of Eastern Europe, Norway and eventually Berlin…?”
No, not really. UK has less IPCs to fuel its attack; Germany has more to fuel its defense. Norway should always fall quickly anyways.
Besides, the German fleet isn’t dedicated to Africa. The idea is not for Germany to try to load up Africa; that’s just crazy talk. If US loads Africa, great, Germany loads to Europe, and US is stuck walking through Africa. If US doesn’t load Africa, great, Germany maintains control of Africa. If US loads Africa a bit, Germany lets the Allies take a few early gains, and takes back whenever it pleases; with a big threat on the Algeria (west of Africa) sea zone, US can either build a fat fleet (delaying it), or transport via Brazil (also delaying).
2. 5 UK air have a hard time vs 2 battleships 2 carriers 4 fighters. That’s with the Japanese fleet sailing through the Suez on J2, which is hard to prevent with an AC/transport buy for Germany.
3. “I find that the german navy often goes from being a threat . . . to being outnumbered and outcornered in just a few rounds” of course, but I bet you are probably not used to playing a G1 Med carrier (possibly plus) buy strategy, which plays out a lot differently than 5 inf/5 tank or even early Med sub stall buys.
I’m not going to say that G1 Med fleet purchase is the bomb diggity. But it isn’t some stupid noob strategy either. The key is the J2 movement of battleship/carrier through the Suez; how can UK try to stop it, how can Germany and Japan try to make it happen. Everything else comes from that.
:mrgreen:
I didn’t mean that you should completely give up Africa. Germany should almost always try to conquer Africa with the g1 attack on Egypt. My point was that Germany should be very careful about what they spend their money on - and I believe that a battleship in the Mediterranean is just overcommitting. You’ll have to suck up a good deal of IPCs in Africa to balance the expenses on a BB.
And:
“The German fleet isn’t dedicated to Africa”
In my games that is what happens… I’m not a very experienced player, so perhaps you can help me, but usually my G-fleet becomes isolated in the Med leaving it useless for attacks and a sitting duck just waiting to be blown away by the UK/US.
@Bunnies:
1. Germany allows the Allies early progress in Europe in exchange for later African IPCs. Germany fueled by African IPCs and a significant and constant threat to Africa is a major problem for the Allies.
“And if you spend too much ipc to avoid this, you’ll maybe conquer Africa - but on the expense of Eastern Europe, Norway and eventually Berlin…?”
No, not really. UK has less IPCs to fuel its attack; Germany has more to fuel its defense. Norway should always fall quickly anyways.
Besides, the German fleet isn’t dedicated to Africa. The idea is not for Germany to try to load up Africa; that’s just crazy talk. If US loads Africa, great, Germany loads to Europe, and US is stuck walking through Africa. If US doesn’t load Africa, great, Germany maintains control of Africa. If US loads Africa a bit, Germany lets the Allies take a few early gains, and takes back whenever it pleases; with a big threat on the Algeria (west of Africa) sea zone, US can either build a fat fleet (delaying it), or transport via Brazil (also delaying).
2. 5 UK air have a hard time vs 2 battleships 2 carriers 4 fighters. That’s with the Japanese fleet sailing through the Suez on J2, which is hard to prevent with an AC/transport buy for Germany.
3. “I find that the german navy often goes from being a threat . . . to being outnumbered and outcornered in just a few rounds” of course, but I bet you are probably not used to playing a G1 Med carrier (possibly plus) buy strategy, which plays out a lot differently than 5 inf/5 tank or even early Med sub stall buys.
I’m not going to say that G1 Med fleet purchase is the bomb diggity. But it isn’t some stupid noob strategy either. The key is the J2 movement of battleship/carrier through the Suez; how can UK try to stop it, how can Germany and Japan try to make it happen. Everything else comes from that.
Barring dicing, UK should be able to block a J2 sail through, particularly if there was no G1 attack on Egy. That gives UK until UK3 to put together an air attack on the Med fleet. There’s no place the German fleet can run that bombers built UK2 can’t attack.
In Revised there was a very good German fleet/combine strategy that gave above average results unless the Allied opponent knew exactly how to counter it……But in 42 I’m not optimistic about any kind of German surface navy purchases. But please keep trying em–it’s nice to score some Allied wins here and there.
Barring dicing, UK should be able to block a J2 sail through, particularly if there was no G1 attack on Egy. That gives UK until UK3 to put together an air attack on the Med fleet. There’s no place the German fleet can run that bombers built UK2 can’t attack.
In Revised there was a very good German fleet/combine strategy that gave above average results unless the Allied opponent knew exactly how to counter it……But in 42 I’m not optimistic about any kind of German surface navy purchases. But please keep trying em–it’s nice to score some Allied wins here and there.
:roll:
Yes, I can imagine the Axis might win some victories if Russia were to do things like buy multiple navy / air units on R1. Oh wait . . . is that a little personal Zhuk? :?
I’m just busting your chops a little :-D, but I doubt you have ever faced off against a dedicated Axis strat for German-controlled Med. I know I’ve never seen it tried except in my notes.
As far as blocking the J2 sail through - that isn’t the end. That’s the KEY POINT, but it’s not the end. If you must use chess as an analogy, you could say it’s like trading queens in an attack on the king bishop two square. The queen attack is just one aspect of the king bishop two square attack; neutralizing it doesn’t mean the end of the attack, let alone the end of the game.
Chop-busting bunnies . . . I could go in for a nice lamb chop. After which I could do some judo chops, if I knew judo. Do you find judo bunnies sexy baby, yeah?
This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. It can still win. The reason being that Russia usually has a very easy time surviving with low Germany pressure. It has principally 2 “tricks”:
The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)
Japan coming through Suez, merging with Germany fleet and seriously disrupting allies fleets in the Atlantic, giving slightly better “long game” winning chances to axis even against very good players (although quite destroying the “short game” wins, and by a much bigger margin !). This one is tougher to counter and need an overall strategy. I don’t want to discourage people to build German navy against me though so I’ll stay quiet on it :)
As for the extra IPC in Africa, well nobody can deny that, but whenever you gain something somewhere you lose something elsewhere, just a question of balance. From my experience, Russia early peace of mind, staying high on IPC, building more units before Japan arrive, is more then enough compensation for the UK loss.
In a nutshell for this startegy and simple (I think) explanation of why it is suboptimal: Axis is trying to kill Russia. Germany can win IPC early in the game wether from UK (in Africa) or Russia (in Europe). It seems obvious to me that is is better to cut Russia income since your plan is to take Moscow to win, therefore to spend IPC against Russia (ground/air) and not against UK (ships to keep control of Med/Africa).
Just my two cents.
This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. . . . It has principally 2 “tricks”:
The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)
Japan coming through Suez, merging with Germany fleet and seriously disrupting allies fleets in the Atlantic
Just as I wrote; I haven’t seen anything I consider to be a strong Med AC strategy in play yet. Not sure what you think the proper use of Med AC is, but from what you’ve written, I get the impression you have a very different idea of how it’s supposed to be used, so not surprisingly, you think it’s weak.
It’s sort of like using a toaster as a hammer. You would be right in saying that a toaster makes a bad hammer. But what’s the point in trying to make perverted use of toasters? Use a toaster as a toaster, and a hammer as a hammer.
1. Blitz vs London is not possible as I view the “proper” use of the Med AC strategy.
2. Axis control of the Atlantic is not normally “proper” either. The use of the Japanese fleet to bolster the Mediterranean is purely to stall the German Med fleet from being blown up by subs and air. Depending on the situation, the Axis fleet may threaten the sea zone west of Algeria. But venturing into the Atlantic is just a really bad idea for Axis.
Some things are just not good. Like a Russian battleship on R1, or a Japanese carrier and a destroyer on J1. But a G1 Mediterranean AC is not like that.
I’m not going to go as far as saying “German Med AC is superior”. But I will certainly say it’s not one of those fluky silly strategies like Russian 1 battleship or Japan 1 carrier/2 destroyers.
- The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)
Not exactly. If the UK/US can retake London on the following turn then the game is not yet decided. Overall G will come out of it on the winning side, with all the UK income but it will have to use its airforce on the process and the Russians will be able to pressure on the Eastern front.
@Bunnies:
Some things are just not good. Like a Russian battleship on R1, or a Japanese carrier and a destroyer on J1. But a G1 Mediterranean AC is not like that.
I’m not going to go as far as saying “German Med AC is superior”. But I will certainly say it’s not one of those fluky silly strategies like Russian 1 battleship or Japan 1 carrier/2 destroyers.
Exactly what I said at the beginning of my post: This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. It can still win.
On the other hand from my allies play experience I’d say my win% against this strategy is around 90% against players with fair to high experience instead of around 60-70 %, although I have to admit those numbers might be biaised by the fact that I don’t really see high experience players using that strategy :)
I have a question regarding this strategy.
If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?
@Herr:
I have a question regarding this strategy.
If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?
If Russia bought a sub to SZ16 then you need to consolidate the carrier, BB and transport(s) on SZ14, and land 2 units on Libya, giving you 3 inf, 1 art and 2 arm there. Just the land units on Libya should be enough to take most of Africa since the UK will most likely disperse its units rather than to try to defend Egypt. Which allows you to divert those transports to landings on Ukraine/Caucasus.
If there’s no Russian sub then you can and should attack SZ15 and Egypt on G1. The quicker you get rid of that UK armor and fighter the better and the UK either retakes Egypt or goes after Japan.
Thank you! Following up on that, my reasoning would be:
(a) If there’s no Russian sub in SZ16 and Germany does the Egypt attack, I can’t see a very good reason for the AC + transport buy on G1. The AC won’t protect the battleship, and the battleship itself can only be attacked by the UK with one bomber and one fighter, when any surviving UK planes need to land in Transjordan. That’s a risky attack anyway, and if the battleship kills one of the planes, the UK would need to let the bomber go, because if the fighter dies and the bomber lands, Transjordan may be a tempting target for a G2 attack from Egypt supported by a fighter or two. In that case, the only benefit of having an extra German transport in SZ14 would be to further reinforce that attack on Transjordan - so it seems like a costly measure to counter a UK move that doesn’t look very good anyway.
So without the Russian sub I wouldn’t buy any German navy on G1 because it wouldn’t really contribute to the safety of the German med fleet anyway - and if the fleet is still around on G2 and looks like being in danger by then, I can always move it back to SZ14 and do the AC buy on G2.
(b) If there is a Russian sub in SZ16, then I’d be inclined to buy an AC and a destroyer rather than another transport in SZ14, because I don’t understand why I’d need two transports there. In that case, suppose that Russia has taken the Ukraine and killed a German fighter, Germany can still send three fighters after the UK destroyer in SZ15, and land two of them on the new AC. I’d prefer to kill the SZ15 destroyer rather than the SZ13 cruiser, because the cruiser has a bigger chance of downing one of the German planes, and also, if the destroyer lives, the UK may sail its SZ35 fleet to SZ15, and with the Russian sub added, it will be too strong to effectively kill it on G2 - and leaving it there allows the UK to attack the German fleet with the fleet plus land based planes.
So in that case I suppose Germany could take Egypt on G2 overland, and possibly Transjordan amphibiously unless the UK reinforces it heavily, in which it can still be attacked on G3. After the work in the East Mediterranean is done, the German fleet could move to SZ13, reunite with whatever is left of the Baltic fleet if that moves to SZ7 on G1, and be reinforced by Japan. That won’t be enough to match the combined UK/US naval buying power of course, but at least it forces them to pour some money into buying enough capital ships to protect the Atlantic from a German air/naval raid.
Does all of that make any sense?
