First time playing Germany

Thanks.

Our Japan player elected not to use the J1 attack.  America came into the war on turn 2 though.  That worked out well for Japan overall as he was able to establish himself  better in the money islands before having to deal with America.

Germany elected to keep Russia out of the war the maximum 3 turns (Russia declared on his 4th turn).    He now regrets that and wants to play Germany again when we play our 2nd game and press Russia sooner.

I tend to think the best solution to SBR is making interceptors and escorts roll at 2. Otherwise it’s too difficult to defend against SBR. Sure a large escort force nullifies the defence but it also ties up a lot of planes on SBR.

This fix is also in Balanced Mod.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

What I was talking about is that Russia has more muscle in this set-up then in G40. They can be more aggressive and can help defend the Chinese wall and/or the Middle east against the Japanese once India falls (things they don’t get to do much in G40).

Germany. You get to go first and control how the game goes and you get the most action

With the new alpha 3.9 its not as viable a strategy to assault london on G3 (this was the point of alpha 3.9)

My guess is sealion on G4 or no sealion at all

If you dont do sealion you still need to wipe out UKs fleet (in atlantic) by end of G2 and have subs in convoy zones to maximize IPC loss for UK.

Honestly if UK goes for a (atlantic) fleet build early then he is leaving London open to sealion on G3 or G4

@ronrye:

Was I just playing against someone who wasn’t very good at playing Germany?

Perhaps, but not necessarily.  You might have been a little extra good at playing Russia.  Maybe the dice were a little lucky for you or unlucky for Germany.  I remember a game where Germany went into Russia with four huge thrusts – Finland into Karelia, Poland into Baltic States, Slovakia/Hungary into E. Poland and Romania into Bessarabia.  All four armies smashed the Russian early defenses with a lot of stuff left.  Then strong Russian counter-attacks end up decimating half the German force.  After that it was very slow going for the Germans.  The Russians managed to keep putting up strong defenses and whenever a particular German army was whittled down enough, a Russian counter-attack would wipe it out and the German drive was set back again.  I think the Minor IC in the Ukraine was exchanged between Russia and Germany about 4 or 5 times.
So your German player wasn’t necessarily bad, maybe just inexperienced.  Perhaps he learned his lesson and will take Moscow from you next time.  He seemed to do pretty good at taking London.