Germany Strategy concept…

@Slip:

WBC Rules

These are the rules my group plays with too.  It gives a much better playing experience than playing normally IMO.

It prevents the typical “stack heavy” style that dominates OOB Revised at the highest levels, although obviously you still need to stack heavily to win.

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

@Bunnies:

(And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)

Because it’s so unrelevant? Or maybe your horse is to slow? ;)

So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded.  Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy.  Of course it’s not.

Not? ;)
Don’t get me wrong, I know that my game will only some dilettantish moving of plastic figures as long I have no planning above the next three moves. Know yourself, know your enemy … all that stuff from all that books.
But I also must take a look on the little decisions I have to make, like that example above. If I make such little things wrong, no strategy can help me. And I think, an strategy must pay attention to the overall board situation (as you said; not a dead horse in my eyes), my own weakenings in gameplay and the player that sits on the other side of the table. To judge that situation right and create the adequate strategy is a thing that I have to do by myself, and all the postings on this board can only help a little. But for that little tactical decisions and tiny precious moves which the game have in store these boards are an eye opener for me. And that’s why I’m looking for such little, delimited solutions for a special problem and hope, I’ ll remember that solution in my next game.

Conclusion:  Germany has superior trading ability.  Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel).  However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.

I’ll try to remember that.

Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.

Known, but noted again. :)

And: thank you for your post.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

triplea.sourceforge.net

Sea Zone 12, Sea Zone 5?  Did you not include them because you don’t want to factor in naval territories, or because they slipped your attention?

Egypt I would definately put in.

Let’s for go listing the Capitals of any nations, they’re a given.

1.  Ukraine
2.  Caucasus
3.  E. Europe
4.  Karelia
5.  SZ 5
6.  W. Europe
7.  SZ 12/13 (You’d be surprised how important it is to prevent America from going in here!)
8.  Egypt
9.  Balkans
10. S. Europe

I listed the last two last because if you are fighting to get either of those back, the game’s pretty much lost.

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

A long term consideration of the S Africa complex- that I’ve gained through experiences both good and bad- a British complex gives you the capacity to produce 10 pieces total. Given competent Axis play, Britain should not be collecting 30 IPCs for very long (sometimes never after the first round). So that means less than 10 Infantry per round. If you’re building anything other than Infantry in S Africa that also means you’re probably getting far less than 10 units- maybe 6 or 7 total.

If I’m the German player the initial 15 IPCs for the complex + the lessened pressure in the north makes me feel more at ease.

On the plus side it will make it more difficult for Japan to get their meathooks into Africa. If you keep your Indian ocean navy lingering in SZ 34 for a time and then move to S Africa with it it’s a potential thorn in Japan’s side.

I’ve definitely tried it and had it work against less experienced players, but even in those situations I could have probably used the IPCs more wisely.

I’m not trying to shoot down the idea, just pointing out the sacrifice that you have to make elsewhere on the game board.