lol no this works Germany can not win a prolonged war that much is certain this tactics work perhaps maybe not against more experienced players but the first is true
lol no this works Germany can not win a prolonged war that much is certain this tactics work perhaps maybe not against more experienced players but the first is true
MR, I think they are saying that 'cause we already know it…. 8)
not trying to stifle you from saying anything just clarifying what you are hearing… yep this is the way to go… :)
GG
GG, I don’t think thats what they are saying. OK, I’m going to have to disagree with points 1, 2, and 4.
Starting with point 1. Germany can keep up a prolonged war on its eastern front for a large number of turns. By purchasing nearly all infantry each turn, Germany can maintain a front at Eastern Europe. A good German player’s understanding what is a favorable opportunity to strafe can keep the allies occupied and honest on this front.
Point 2. From your previous posts in other threads your idea of aggressiveness relies heavily on tanks with a disdain for infantry. A highly aggressive Germany is quickly spread beyond its means. Ample infantry is vital for armies. They absorb hits when attacking sparing more expensive units like tanks. They also are the most cost effective defense to deal with counterattacks. Assuming the allies player is good, even if a highly aggressive Germany has luck+success in the first couple attacks, it would have advanced beyond its supply of infantry and the allies player can now counterattack the infantry depleted force costing Germany a large number of expensive tanks. Successful veteran play for Germany calls for a more conservative aggressive + defensive hybrid stance.
Point 3. Well, yeah.
Point 4. Beyond the first and MAYBE the second turns Germany can do little against the buildup of the British fleet. Again this is assuming a competent allies player. After those first couple turns Germany lacks the naval fodder to attack the British fleet without incurring significant losses to its airforce. Germany’s airforce is far to valuable to be wasted delaying Britain one or two more turns. Without an airforce Germany’s fronts are significantly weakened and the cost of capturing picketed territories is increased. Germany cannot replace lost aircraft without compromising itself in other fronts. Germany weakens itself more than it weakens Britain if it attempts to keep Britain from having a fleet. In addition, point 4 makes no mention of the lovable US fleet. And lastly, how does Germany purposefully destroy British planes? The fate of the British airforce is largely in the hands of the British player.
Finally, there’s no mention of Africa.
There’s another one that I like to use: don’t waste your fighters!
no Germany cannot sustain a longdrugout war with Russia even with ample inf. 2 ways I know this I have defeated Germany with russia with a prolonged war and real life
2. It can continue I agree you must have a strong airforce to hold your borders but Inf is not as nessasary as tanks
3. It can if you focus your attacks
The difference between what I am saying and you are is that I’m assuming that the Allies player is an experienced veteran. About the level of Darth or Kobu if you check out the Games section in the forums. Highly aggressive play as Germany just makes Germany fall faster. Against a noob the aggressive Germany strategy is great.
And if you don’t keep a war with russia, what are you to do? Let them push there way to berlin without a fight? I don’t get it erin!
However, if you want to attack Karelia in force wouldn’t you want to buy six tanks. Please somebody correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks :D .
UKcommander, You could buy six tanks right off the bat and threaten
Karelia but to me it sometimes better to buy a mixture of
tanks and infantry. To counter-attack the Russians and
stay alive while Japan grows stronger.
Soon_U_Die, I agree most of the time it’s better for Germany to trade
land back and forth with Russia while keeping the Wester-
n allies off of France. While Japan goes deep into eastern
Russia and also the mideast.
While Japan goes deep into eastern Russia and also the mideast.
This does not happen with Allied IC’s in India/Persia and/or Ssainking/China
Granted, this takes a very coordinated effort by the allies, especially in occupying Axis waters, MAN, etc. But this is just my experience.
Oh, and hello A&A forums! I’ve been playing this game for a looong time and never even thought to look to the web for communities until today. I am very impressed :D
Yes, British and American IC builds in Asia are a component of the common “Kill Japan First” strategy. However… I have a problem with the IC Persia. It is simply not cost effective for Britain to build an IC on this 1 IPC territory.
Agreed about Persia, however, an Indian IC would be able to throw waves of British tanks at the weakening German line. A stable American factory + controlled waters would starve the Japanese.
i see no problem with a pesia ic, in fact, i am quite fond of the idea.
with this, u dont need to worry about building transports only to have germany take them out before you can use them. persia is very centeral on the board and can feed manny different fronts. it can easily help russia by sending troops into caucasus, it can attack japans land holdings in a few turns, and it can send troops in to retake africa
I can find much better things to do with 15 IPCs than purchasing the ability to place 1 unit per turn in persia.
is that a house rule u play with?
i didnt think there was a linit to the output of ic’s,
if u use this house rule, how does karelia stand up against the germans?
Unlimited production is allowed in original ICs only-the ones you start out with. Any ICs you build beyond that are limited to the IPC total of the territory-ex an Indian IC allows you to build 3 units there.
is that in 2nd or third edition rules, or a house rule?
if i have overlooked this ruke, then a persia ic is worthless
I believe it’s third edition, might possibly be second. I remember a post where it was discussed as being in first edition, and making the game pretty much pointless, because of placing ICs in Persia.
Its second and third edition rules.
