Poll: German First Turn Build

@Maddog77:

Started playing w/ my brothers when I was 13 (1976) We actually took a 4’x8’ piece of plywood and painted a blown-up version of the board on it. We spent a few weeks in Dads workshop making little wooden playing pieces and painting them. It was quite fun. We set it up on the ping-pong table and spent weeks battling. We came up w/ a few variations on the rules, map and unit movements. The one I remember quite well is stealth subs! We would start of w/ our subs in the proper starting sz’s, but we would “submerge” the subs when moving them so our opponets did not know where they were until they “surfaced”. We’d plot the moves on paper so we could prove where they moved to and from. It was quite fun to have an opponet move his fleet into a SZ that was occupied by 4 or so submerged subs. The subs would “surface”, in some cases stopping the opponents full movement, take a few hits and watch the subs submerge. Great fun and a nice twist to the game.

That sounds like a great twist, I’ll have to try it sometime.

I was 14ish when I first played a game. All of us were newbies.

My dad was UK and USA and built a ton of bbs to bombard me to pieces. USSR built a ton of infantry and stacked moscow heavily and never moved out of it. I think he had over 60 infantry when the game ended, at least double whatever was left on the board, combined! I was able to conquer all of Africa with one lone Jap infantry which eventually was transported over to europe to help save berlin. Japan also invested in an airforce to bomb the massive allied fleet. Germany quickly spread out due to moscow simply falling back. But I was never able to mount a serious offensive vs moscow. eventually it was all I could do to hold onto europe because of the massive bb fleets both USA and UK sported. And still USSR held to their defenses and never switched to offensive mode. Ahh, that innocence of noobs.

Me thinks that building ger subs is sheer lunacy. Just buy inf, hunker down and wait on the onslaught, and hope that japan has there act together! 8-)

@madscientist:

Thank you for your thorough response.

No problem!

Would not have been worth posting unless it showed all the available info, including the initial negatives of the strategy.

@googie7745:

Well what would you suppose I do with my Indian infantry and fighter? Should I attack Burma with it? Infantry and fighters both defend better. And why not strafe WE? Two fighters against two infantry will win with one fighter gone, and the US can land two infantry and fighter to defend and your bomber goes to the UK. Your Rhodesian infantrywould also attack alongside your Syria-Iraq infantry. And Germany wouldn’t be able to build in Karelia in G2, because Russia would counterattack with four inf, four tanks, and a fighter. And if you would win every time as Axis, the how come I play as Allies and always win?

Several options:

1)  Kwangbang - take Man on R1 and attack Kwang on UK 1 with 2 inf, 1 ftr
2)  Send EGy forces and Ind forces to Per for and army of 4 inf, 1 arm (land ftr wherever)
3)  Counter Egy if germany took on rd 1 you can counter with 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bom
4)  Reinforce Ken/Rho with the 2 inf.
5)  Reinforce Sin with the 2 inf

Do not underestemat a tactical retreat in Asia (for the Allies).  This is often how you will need to play to win once you start introducing bids.

Don’t consider attacking WE rd 3 or later.

Round 1 (allies) - buy set up units (ie AC for UK, and trns for UK/US)
Round 2 - land in afr (buy more trans)
Round 3 - go to Fin
Round 4 - take WE (or continue to ship to Fin then move to Kar)
Round 5 - repeat rd 4, etc.

I prefer just threatening (bluffing at) WE and continuing to send troops to Fin and Kar so you can do a 1-2-3 punch on EE (or reinforce Mos if necessary)

At the same time, consider that the first-turn fighter gives you an “early” defensive bonus.

But the Allies do not need an early defensive purchase. If played right the Germans should not be able to take Karelia until turn 5 or 6 at the earliest, and this is without fighter purchases. So considering this longterm reality the shorterm is of no consequence. In my experience the Allies win by limiting/reducing Germany’s ipc level and then reducing their income. With this in mind I’d say a bomber or a carrier is always a better purchase because of their obvious uses.

Russia’s role is containing the Japanese on the ground… and if the Japanese player knows what it’s doing, E. Russia should be encircled by now. I say let the Americans handle the sea.

@Kantabricus:

The Allied pressence there has to be enough to hold, but not to the extent of making the German player think Africa is lost (ie 4 - 6 US infantry a turn). The Germans have to think every turn, that Africa is retakable, so that they keep on investing in an African Campaign.

First, I seldom put a ftr in Africa against a player who I know is average or better (I don’t want to lose it by skill, insight or luck.) Second, with a 2 inf bid in AES, I rarely put more than 2 inf/1 arm more in Africa (4 inf/1 arm /o a bid.) After 2-3 turns I’m either shipping inf to Ukr, Cau or sunk. :) (just the fleet.) If you have bothered to ship another group of 2-3 inf or 2 inf/1 arm on US3-4 you’ve just slowed the Allied push on Germany! Thank you. :wink:

I like the “Kriegsmarine Pacific ploy.” I had forgotten it. It’s been a long time since I felt threatened enough, as Germany, to try it. I think I’ll try it the next time I’m Gemany anyway, but I’ll have to look at how much it opens up the Eurobelly.

If your British ally forgot to buy a carrier, then you have to do it yourself.