Germany Strategy concept…

Ok if i was you i would get at least 5 transports and you can have at the least 2 men or 1 tank or 1 man and 1 tank or 1 man and 1 artillary in a single transport. Anyway you need Russia to pressure Germany in the following places: Belorussia, West Russia, Norway. Also make the UK pressure with only bombing raids the following place: Western Europe. Then while Germany is being attacked in the east and west, you will use your transports and send them to Algeria and Libya. After you take those 2 places and build up those 2 places, BE SURE TO DO THIS, as fast as you can push every single thing (from Algeria and Libya)  to Southern Europe. Then tell UK player to stop bombing raids and buy rockets and steal money from German factorys. Then in at the max of 3 turns there will be no more Germans. Ihave done this strategy 7 or 8 times and every time it was succsesful except once. So try that strategy um… hope if works for you. Thanks and also you can go to morrisongames.com and he will give you strategys that really WORK!! :-D

I agree with the shield and sword statement. It is my experience that Germany on its first turn should buy a transport for Italy and all men. Regroup your tanks and all your infantry into Eastern Europe and plan to take Karelia on turn 3 if possible. Turn 2 can work but can be costly. Germany should buy mostly all men on turn two and three as well and move them into Eastern Europr so as to overwhelm Russia and get ahead of their infantry total. Once Germany has more infantry than Russia attack Karelia with men and tanks only, save your planes. From Italy send two full transports every turn into Egypt and Trans Jordan until you secure the Suez and subsiquently Africa.  Meanwhile Japan hits China, and India and then all out Russia, while still maintaining suppremacy in the Pacific by staying one step ahead of the US and as someone else mentioned take out as many US and UK ships as possible while not over commiting your fleet and only losing the cheap expendable replaceable pieces. An IC is a good idea if you are sure you can hold it: Manchuria is good to go after Russia, but can be reinforced by Japan transports anyway, FIC is safer but India is the best of both if you can capture and hold it, because it is two squares “a tank blitz” away from Caucauscus and Trans-Jordan and you can move fleet through the Suez if needed and assist Germany in conquering Africa as required. Not to mention taking precious money away from the UK. Japan would then purchase three tanks every round for India (or FIC) and keep that up until Russia falls. From India or FIC you can also launch a strike on Australia and New Zealand to further hurt UK. If UK buys an IC on India, Japan MUST capture it at all costs or UK will get the upper hand and its game over. If Germany and Japan hit fast and hard as a unit first at UK to bankrupt and “stall” them and get the valuable money they need and at US to “stall” them, then maintain that stall on both of them and go all out Russia so as to hit Moscow on the 5th or 6th turn from both sides, the Axis will have an IPC victory easily or if using victory cities (AA50 and new) or complete victory rules they will be on their way to world domination. :-)

@mateooo:

and most importantly, the italians are better spaghetti makers than allies.  If you have a choice, pick anyone else.

Only we Italians are able to do spaghetti. Spaghetti made outside of Italy are good for gluing poster on the walls.

@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.)

@Bean:

It’s ok Jen, and it turned out to help you in your game ^^

Yea, well he was a royal prick in the game and got the mod to force that the worst outcome of the two results be applied, even though the first outcome was obviously first.

I had to go back to a previous roll to check and make sure my artillery was applied right, they were not.  So he lost 1 hit, but because my worst of two was like -12 hits, he still came out like a bandit.

Anyway, thanks, because Germany now has +42 IPC for next round and I AM sticking him with it.  18 rounds of illegal rocket fire. (I just took every rocket on S. Europe, figured it was the most fair.  Germany’s a higher value target then S. Europe, so it would probably be the target shot at anyway.  Besides, Germany was the first rocket rolled in every round, S. Europe was the second, Caucasus the third.)

Germany lost 400 IPC in armies (killing only 215 because of that dice fiasco) but she also has 120 to spend and Japan’s going to finish off the enemy anyway!

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@Jennifer:

@Infantry:

Now that you can target tech rolls IT would distort the game. Too much would rely on whether Germany or Russia got IT first.

Well, if they had left it in and not altered Hvy Bombers except to limit then to best of 3 dice on SBR runs, it would have evened out.

I think the reference was to the tech that allowed you to save 1 IPC per unit.

Spend 20 IPC on tech, get a slightly better than 50% chance.

Now you need to buy 20 units to make that back.  20 infantry now cost you 40 IPC.

Simple.

@ajgundam5:

indeed i have read this … very very in depth

I was inspired that night :-)