Field Marshall7 - I enjoy your analysis, points, counterpoints, and questions.
Yes to what you said about Italian land forces making up for German naval builds… I hadn’t conceptualized it - it was sort of an organic process, probably based on need, and probably as a reaction to my opponent’s style. He’s adapted well as the Allies after a couple games of Russian annhilation. He’s flexible and smart in that after Mosow falls (basically a given), he makes attacks of opportunity on former Russian territories to gain and hold Allied IPCs. In one game we’re playing, he showed up in the Caucasus in so much multinational force that he’s been able to build a US IC and airbase in the Caucasus, even as Germany owns Volgograd and all points north. That game is in the balance.
I’ve been thinking about the ratio of naval/air builds to land units. I don’t feel at this point I could go away from the overarching strategy of getting the jump on defensive naval/air superiority in the Atlantic and Med (in particular, SZs 112 and 95) in the early rounds, and then adding to it religiously. What those units buy for you is the isolation of Russia. Of course, eventually one navy or the other (Baltic or Med) will be overcome, and that’s why a regular purchase of defensive infantry with both Germany and Italy is a must. When the sea lanes are finally opened, there’s nowhere for the Allies to gain a foothold. That’s the hope!
I’d like to reemphasize that I commit to land units - meat and potatoes - as much as humanly possible. In my games, a German purchase of 54 IPCs will be eight infantry, an artillery, a mech, an armor, a fighter, and a sub, for example. A heavy dose of infantry, a small sprinkling of mechanized units, an air unit, and a naval unit. G1 gives the foundation with a Carrier… G2 gives an opportunity to add a couple destroyers and a fighter with help from French cash… then after that it becomes a regular commitment… the point being that you try for as long as possible to stay just ahead of the US/Britain, and keep the initiative. Dictate terms to them instead of being dictated to.
At the end of the day, that’s what the commitment to regular additions of air and sea units represents… the maintaining of initiative. Being proactive instead of reactive. Once the European Axis has to start reacting to the Allies, in my opinion the writing is on the wall. Credible navies and air forces give Germany and Italy options, and at the very least force the Allies to have to deal with more contingencies, and defend more fronts. As soon as Germany and Italy have the appearance of being landlocked, the Allies get to begin to apply focused pressure precisely where they choose. That’s bad!
Yes to what you said about buying time by raiding Africa. I like the thinking behind it, and I want to figure out how to take and hold Egypt with Italy and still take Moscow with Germany alone.
Yes to what you said about becoming predictable. A good opponent will find the antidote, and then you’re forced to change what you’re up to… that’s where I’m at. I look forward to trying new stuff.
I look forward to your game report - try the Spiky Shield/Armored Fist version of Barbarossa with Germany, and let me know how to run a better Italy!