Germany Strategy concept…

Generally, especially in the early game, ceding the territory is the way to go.

Rome landings realy arent much of a problem for Germany, as the opportunity cost of those units not punching thru Cairo are enormous.

Personally, I love to see USA extend his shuck in the early game, defending both SZ 12 and SZ 14 is very difficult without spending a bunch of (unnecessary) money on capital ships (BS and AC), and having enough trannies to do so efficiently is very expensive as well.  Every dollar USA spends on non-ground units is a boon to the Axis.

In Revised USA doesnt have an enormous monetary advantage, and so there is only so many things they can accomplish.

Keeping Paris stacked tall is far more important for keeping the Allies out of Europe for as long as possible.  A stack of Ftrs tere make USA extending past 12 very difficult.

See other thread about Russia strategy… overall I can just say: DO NOT PLAY WITH NAs. In my opinion they are very unbalanced and can shift the game into certain directions very much. Just as examples: Lend-Lease for Russia is a lot stronger than e.g. Trans-Siberian railway; Luftwaffe Dive Bombers are strong; Joint strike or Colonial Garrison are sick; same are Superfortresses which are just stupid especially with heavy bombers.

Utz, the nice thing about KGF in Revised is it can be deployed flexibly.  Some opponents will stack Western and won’t allow the Western stack tactics I’m talking about, forcing a long game.

The conventional winning strategy for Allies against an expert level Axis is UK shucks to Arch/4, USA shucks to Africa/12.  Russia first focuses on dead-zoning Karelia by getting as many units to Western Russia as it can, then it gets men to Persia in conjunction with UK air/armor that landed in Arch.  From there, the Americans reinforce Persia.  Hold Persia and Allies can win the economic war.

If Axis is skilled, this makes for a long game.  If at all possible, it’s nice to shake things up with more aggressive strategies, and that’s where mass landings on Western along with aggressive Russian attacks come in.  From SZ 4 or SZ 12, the Allies can hit Western, so there’s a lot of room for flexibility.

Re USA1 ACs, it’s not strictly necessary to buy one if UK will land in 12, but it can be useful if UK will drop stuff in Europe immediately.

If you’re going to use the US as your trading country, then make sure you have a good transport system in place. Get a 4x4 going on. Four transports from Ecan to UK, and UK to EEU (preferably) or Kar. And buy a fighter EVERY round so you can fly it to Russia. Do the same with the UK. Buy a fighter every round and fly it to Russia. Get a good fighter cover going, have Russia buy infantry out the wazoo (and an armour every now and then) and continually wear Germany down.

A further complication on calculating the required German defense of France vs the UK 1 - US 2. Do Germans need to count the ‘US 2’ as one normal transport wave (say 4 transports), or two cumulated waves (if US redirects the ‘shuck’ from Africa) with a pause next turn ? It resumes to the question: would US dare that ? or have interest ?

Also, if US shuttles to Africa, is it well for Germany to defend Italy with full force to hold it, or a similar wait and counterattack policy ?

:-D
This game is all about trying something different, may not always work, but it keeps it interresting :wink:
  It is my experience that no matter how great a strategy may be, the dice will still make you lose  :cry:
Or win  :lol:
So try anything, and just have fun  :-D

On the Japan 1 move…

First off, add a bid of 5-9 for the Axis to even the odds.

Then build 1 IC, 2 TRN as Japan on J1.  That gets you SEVEN units to Asia on J2, 9 if the SZ59 TRN miraculously survives…

Also, if you can take India, FIC is a better place for your first IC, if not then MANCHURIA, not KWANG.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.