ruiser round 1 and in 2ne edition setup that isnt possible.
ZS112 is empty in that case.Thanks I compared Alpha+3 with 2.0 and the only big difference are those 2 Cruisers on SZ112 so the rest should be comparable with current edition :)
Better do a complete check for all units, download the new setup would be good. It is easy to miss a unit here or a fighter there and that might make a huge difference.
I did a full check, only SZ111, SZ110 and SZ112 have differences above the minor tweaks already mentioned by you :)
EDIT: I corrected the G1 Build and other suggestions into the strategy so it becomes more battle proof with every single piece of feedback.
You are expecting a lot of moves from the allies
Amur with 9 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mech, Infantry, 8 Fighters, 6 Tacticals -> what will this force attack? 18 inf + 2 AA, or an empty zone.
You really expect russia to stay on the coast round 1? russia isnt stupid.Soviet Far East with 1 Tank from Japan by transport SZ19
Siberia with 1 Infantry from Okinawa by transport SZ19
->> These 2 moves cannot be done, you cannot unload the same transport into 2 different land areas even if they are next to the same SZ.<germany>Yugoslavia with 4 Mech. Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank (Romania) -> Why not take the other 2 tanks with you as well.</germany>
1. I expect 2-4 Infantry but even when empty I will take with full ground forces. Airforce has nothing better to do since JDOW4. Would you also do JDOW4 or consider JDWOW1 with this strategy?
2. Good point, my mistake
3. Great idea!
<germany>1. I expect 2-4 Infantry but even when empty I will take with full ground forces. Airforce has nothing better to do since JDOW4. Would you also do JDOW4 or consider JDWOW1 with this strategy?</germany>
There will be 0, 1 or 18 inf there if you are playing against any decent player.
If you can hit with all that, It will probably be 0.
If there is 18 units + 2 AA you will lose all your landsunits and 1 plane. They will be there if the allied want to draw you away from the south. If they are there and you attack, you can probably expect a DOW from UK and anzak right after.
If you put in all your units and there is 0 units there, you have just given the russians mongolia and a counterattack with 21 infs against 9 inf, 1 art and 1 mech. You will lose everything, and they will lose 10 units.
<germany>1. I expect 2-4 Infantry but even when empty I will take with full ground forces. Airforce has nothing better to do since JDOW4. Would you also do JDOW4 or consider JDWOW1 with this strategy?</germany>
There will be 0, 1 or 18 inf there if you are playing against any decent player.
If you can hit with all that, It will probably be 0.
If there is 18 units + 2 AA you will lose all your landsunits and 1 plane. They will be there if the allied want to draw you away from the south. If they are there and you attack, you can probably expect a DOW from UK and anzak right after.
If you put in all your units and there is 0 units there, you have just given the russians mongolia and a counterattack with 21 infs against 9 inf, 1 art and 1 mech. You will lose everything, and they will lose 10 units.
Will it make the difference if you also use 1 Tank, 2 Infantry and 1 Artillery from Japan? As long as aircraft can reach Yunnan and transports FIC in Turn 3 anything is possible.
If all retreats attacking Mongolia could also be an option as I attack Strict Neutrals in G2 anyway (but might signal intention to the UK + USA)
Great new ideas. Some general observations;
-I’ve seen several different neutral violation gambits, but usually all 3 of the big neutrals get hit on the same turn. Killing infantry isn’t hard, but the timing can be because the pieces have to be staged in advance so they cant do anything else it places some pretty big stacks out of position at a critical time (these frontline forces are off in the hinterlands instead of the front line.
-We have created several of these Axis gambits that reach their novel target on turn 4. War may be declared before that point, but there are a lot of moves you can do while taking advantage of the power of deciding when war will begin and passing at peace, and taking advantage of the fact that the Axis all get to go without Allies in between, except Russia, which cant project air power to stop you/block you very well.
-These strategies are fun and let you do some creative new things, but they also let the 4 smaller allied powers grow their economies undisturbed for a long time, which becomes very difficult to defeat. The advantage gained by waiting is not usually offset by the gains in comparison to a more vanilla J1 or J2+kill Russia.
-Also, these gambits require you to hit specific targets in sequence without failing to take one of them. This isn’t impossible considering how much mobility navy and power the Axis get OOB, but the problem becomes that you MUST hit your objectives regardless of losses and luck (the turkey part of this strat, for example). The effect of this is that you must take greater and greater risks as the game goes on in order to make your strategy develop and this is susceptible to attrition…the critical battles will occur but you will have to take very high losses and the risks and uncertainties grow with each turn.
Good luck!
Thanks! I will soon test it out! Also, no battle plan survives combat as Erwin Rommel wisely said.
It is still a race against the clock but in a wealthy and often regarded as secondary theater of the war (Middle East and Africa). If it fails I could easily adjust to Barbarossa because of the armour being build (I hope).
This has been a very interesting gameplan. Let me know if you ever want to test it out in a friendly game.
@Arthur:
This has been a very interesting gameplan. Let me know if you ever want to test it out in a friendly game.
I would love you only I have only played offline so far!
I would also like to add the Grand Philisophy to this strategy. As noted before, a lot of point are to be gained in Africa and the Middle East, 52 IPC, this is an 104 IPC swing into the Axis favour, most notibly for Italy (Axis) and UK (Allies). It is also a real possibility most of the IPC’ are taken before 5-6.
You also don’t leave Russia with its 38 IPC as Japan will play extremely agressive in the East and Germany at three different flanks, south combined with Italy. This is another 25 IPC gained for the the Axis and thus 50 IPC swing before turn 5. Yes you delay the capture of Moscow with 2-4 turns but you make a 154 IPC swing before turn 5 while the USA has just started to cash 70 IPC. This is just Russia, Africa and Middle East. Add the IPC swing of a broken China and the UK Pacific gets taken in J4.
After Turn 4 the economies will look like this
Axis: 210+
Germany: 90+
Japan: 80+
Italy: 40+
Allies: 135+
USA: 75+
UK Atlantic: 15+
UK Pacific: 0
Russia: 15+
Anzac: 25+
China: 5+
While the Axis are still advancing, Japan will get Money Islands, Germany rest of Russia and Italy some more Africa.
A more tactical benefit of using your initial German armour to push through the Middle East (therefore creating Afrika Korps) is that no matter what, the Axis are in control of the Middle East, there is nothing that could stop that since you force the UK to play defensive with your G1 buy (otherwise it could send all its airforce to the Middle East). By just giving Italy some of the oil nations (I prefer both Persian countries) they are really close to making 40 IPC combined with the other NO’s. Even when Egypt or Stalingrad gets somehow blocked, you could build Axis ME factories and start pumping armour.
Another tactical move of Japan underlined. In J2 you send a big part of your fleet and 3 full transports to Caroline Islands. This forces ANZAC to turtle or you could take sydney. They will still be together wih India invasion force in J3 and take India in J4 but you delayed ANZAC 2-3 turns from expansion.
Oke some new ideas possibly improving the strategy some more.
In my G1 build 2 Transports are actually too much as with just 2 Transports, 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery I can take Gibraltar, Morocco just fine same as dropping off a German land unit in Egypt (or actually take it after Italian strafe). It was also another 2 Infantry less on the Russian frontier which is already missing the Bulgaria and Greater South Germany Infantry (12 total).
As I needed some Submarines in my G2 anyway I build 1 Submarine instead of the Transport. This gives me +6 IPC in G2 and even better can start convoy raiding the UK in Turn 2 instead of Turn 3. Still Sea Lion feint and if UK really screws up I can take London.
G2 buy actually just needs 1 Sub for SZ125 as soon war starts with Russia. Also, the Baltic Fleet has been reassigned to the Africa Korps therefore leaving the Baltic empty so actually I also do not really need that Destroyer. Insteas of those 2 Submarines and 1 Destroyer I now buy 8 Tanks for Russia instead of 5. I keep the 1 Bomber buy in G2 as Bombers provide a lot of things the Tanks can not.
While my initial plan for the Afrika Krops was three waves of armour, the buy of an German Africa Fleet in G1 has lifted the task for taking Egypt, combined with the 5 Third Wave Tanks this would be overkill and inefficient. More efficiently I use them directly in frontal assault against Russia. With a G3 buy of 7 Tanks and 1 Bomber I made the diversion of the 6 Infantry towards Spain no problem at all at sending 15 Tanks instead. This means I can take Leningrad also in G4!
Therefore in G4 I am really able to get all (besides Moscow) National Objectives!
If I can somehow get one more 1 IPC somewhere I can build 8 Bombers in G5 netting me 14 Bombers. Another 8 In G6 already gives me 22 Bombers to either kill the USA fleet or take Moscow in G7-8. Also don’t forgot that Italy is earning 40 IPC from I3 onwards easily capable of defending Europe while helping Germany in Russia.
How about you sign up to play and you can test this strategy against the allies. :-D
Therefore in G4 I am really able to get all (besides Moscow) National Objectives!
- NO for Sweden
- NO for Iraq
- NO for Egypt
- NO for Caucasus
- NO for Leningrad
- NO for Stalingrad
it seems like you assume that the russians and the UK does to build any troops, or place them where you can easily take them
You are planning to
Take Egypt with 2 Artillery, 2 Infantry, 2 Tactical
while UK at setup as 5 inf 1 mech 2 art and 1 tank in Egypt + alexandria + sudan… Any UK player will also land the S africans somewhere, activate iran and kill iraq before G3.
When you attack ussr, your army is so small that it is suicidal. your army going into russia on G3 is the following:
Take Caucasus with 3 Tanks, 3 Mech. Infantry and 2 Bombers
…
Take Bessarabia with 2 Infantry
Take Baltic States with 2 Infantry, 10 Tanks
Take Eastern Poland with 11 Infantry, 1 Artillery
So, in total, 13 tanks, 15 inf and 1 art
while russia should have at that point:
Starts with 28 inf, 2 mech, 3 art, 2 tank
Builds: about 10 art, 10 inf + about 35 ipc in planes/art/Mech/tank.
This means that he can have a big enough army in belo/novogord/Ukraine to just murder all of your army without too big losses, while you are still not strong enough to take cauc and he is outproducing you.
I would guess you might lose berlin on USSR8 with your plan.
Thank you all for pointing out possible loopholes or possibly critical weaknesses of the Afrika Korps strategy! Before I can actually test it out in a real battle it remains theory crafting and you may all be right.
However,
I want Taranto to happen as this gives me the UK Med fleet on a silver plait for the Luftwaffe in G2. This also mean the Royal Airforce out of position to threaten the German Tropical Fleet. As long as I can attack Greece with 1 transport and Turkey with at least 1 Transport I am confident I can take Turkey with Italy.
Yes Russia can buy 10 Infantry and then 9 Artillery in R1 and R2 and has more troops at the frontier then Germany they have to defend four flanks (Scandinavia, Leningrad, Ukraine, Stalingrad) and with all that Infantry and Artillery a lot less flexibility than Germany with it Tanks, Transports and Luftwaffe. As soon Italy captures Turkey a fifth flank opens through the Black Sea.
You do make an excellent point about the UK expeditionary forces in the Middle East before G3. Those will need attention as both the UK and Russia at same time would mean suicide. Then just delay the South attack.
Germany has actually 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery in Scandinavia (Army North), 16 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 11 Tanks, 4 Mech. Infantry at western border (Army West) and 9 Tanks in Turkey (Afrika Korps) assuming 2 Infantry died in the capture of Sweden and the 6 Infantry + 4 Mech. Infantry died in the battle of the Middle East against the UK expeditionary forces.
That are 22 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 20 Tanks and 4 Mech. Infantry supported by 4 Bombers, 3 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers (assuming 2 Fighters and 2 Tactical Bombers died against the Royal Navy able to attack of four different flanks. From G4 the amount of Bombers will exponentially grow.
Also, as I leave the Romanian border very weak, a logical response of the Russian might be to concentrate force there and therefore not reinforcing those troops to either Leningrad or Stalingrad.
OK so he really reinforced Leningrad unable to capture? Both Novgorod as Belarus 10 Infantry with 10 Artillery able to kill my stack? Attack Western Ukraine and push through to Moscow going to Belarus or Bryansk, you are always one step ahead of Russia. Yes he might come for Berlin but this is so easy to counter with some defensive builds of your own.
Remember: as long you focused enough on the Middle East oil and African gold you will have money to blow as Axis. That is the whole point of the Afrika Korps strategy, pushing your starting tanks and mechs through the Middle East to provide an early Axis counter-force against the normally easy IPC taken as UK and Russia. I really believe it is possible to take the Middle East from the UK with your Afrika Korps (9 Tanks, 4 Mech. 6 Infantry, 1 Fighter) only.
Even when your Baltic fleet gets destroyed with heavy air losses for the RAF eventually this does not matter, you just need 1 German ground unit to be in Egypt at the end of G4. You could as easily send some Tanks from the Africa Korps (always a good idea) to get the NO. The point of the Baltic Fleet to the Med is just to give the Afrika Korps Tanks the option to go full Russia instead.
I might make tactical mistakes with planning or playing due to inexperience (<20 games) but I am confident that strategically going South (Oil + Gold) instead of West (London) or East (Moscow) in the first four turns gives the Axis something unknown to us: Time. Normally its you either decide Sea Lion or Barbarossa and if it fails, you lose. Not with the Afrika Korps. It might provide the sensation of World Domination instead of capturing enough VC just in time to not be destroyed by the USA the next turn. This would also make the battle of the Middle East and Africa between the UK and Axis so much more intense, giving many old school player a fresh exciting Axis & Allies experience! :-D
In the scenario Russia is just too strongly defended in the Caucasus to push through them with your initial forces, put some Middle Eastern factories there and do it the slow way. You have the luxury to take it slow with the oil and gold income, they don’t.
Germany also do not need to crush Russia in G4 or G5, just several Tanks capturing the NO territories let me break Russia within 1-2 turns.
Actually I would be glad if the Russian wanted to try defend all its flanks and send those defensive troops so far forwards. From J3 I am bombing the hell out the Russia so he will not be given a chance to recover losing his big stacks.
I am also much more willing to face the Russian fast troops in the Caucasus with my German Tanks then in China against my limited Japanese ground forces trying to keep Yunnan closed. With China destroyed after Turn 4 Russia is even more surrounded with 2-3 more flanks to defend as the Japanese reach Russia through the north, China and south by capturing the Russia of the Pacific (India).
I did changed my G1 a little, buying an Aircraft Carrier, Submarine and Destroyer. I can buy the needed transports to take Egypt in G3 in SZ93 and gives the Tropical Fleet protection against the odd Russian or UK Submarine.
Don’t forget the Italian Army: 1 Tank, 1 Mech. Infantry, 2 Artillery, 4 Infantry removing 3-5 Infantry before the German attack on Egypt.
I am not sure if you guys observed the small detail that might give so much more feeling to the battle? Its one those fluffy things like keeping the Bismarck alive or doing something cool with your French fleet (I once finished the Axis fleet with the French after USA and UK failed attacks). Its the creation of Erwin Rommel himself coordinating the Italian Army in Africa and later the Afrika Korps in the form of the Tobruk fighter. It instantly makes the Tobruk fighter have something heroic and you wanting to preserve it at all costs :-D. This ofcourse also applies to actually making an Armoured Afrika Korps instead of a German Infantry shuttled to Egypt by an Italian Transport.
Or what about the scenario Italy horribly fails with Turkey (taken by the French soldier from Syria in F2) and you get to move 5-6 French soldiers into Caucasus to defend Southern Russia or even Moscow? Germany that fails to finish off the French troops in Southern France/Normany and that last soldier creates a French army in Spain? Epic!
You are mostly ignoring what the allies can and will do.
You are just saying the allies will do X and Y and i counter that.Fine but what about those 12 inf + 4 art in the north. Finland and soon sweden and norway will fall giving russia a nice 13 ipc bonus and taking away 12 ipcs from germany.
This ensures the north is secure for russia for a long time those 13 ipcs a round make for a nice 25 ipcs swing in favor for russia.Russia now has to defend what, caucasus and the western front, sure ill stack south of leningrad and you are not getting anywhere. I can stack Ukrain as well as caucasus and your locked out.
Stalinggrad is 2 far off to be threathed by your strategy.
So you dont get leningrad or caucasus or stalinggrad by at least round 4-5 while at the same time russia is getting finland round 4 and norway sweden round 5.
Inf is immobile but so is your inf stack, and really as russia i welcome you attacking with just tanks against my inf stacks.Us will just drop tanks + mech in afrika and put subs in the med so your out of afrika after a few rounds. and the spare space can be inf that can push through spain into france
UK will be pushing from the S-Afrikan factory and take all the neutrals in the area for extra inf bulk.
UK-India can send stuff over as well to help russia with contesting the middle east and turkey because japan is no real threath
How would you propose to do it?
I can leave the Baltic fleet in the Baltic instead of Med.
I can change my Germany Purchases
Japan can JDOW1 and take different approach towards Russia.
I want to make this strategy work and think it can work. But also lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps.
There must be a way :-)
I’m not an A&A rules expert, so this probably won’t be much use, but for whatever it’s worth here are a couple of comments. Your initial post said “This is an alternative strategy that is based on creating the German Afrika Korps in order to make Germany the dominant player in Africa while making Italy much more crucial and fun” and your latest post said, “I want to make this strategy work and think it can work. But also lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps. There must be a way.”
I think it’s important to realize what people usually mean when they propose an A&A strategy. Usually it means proposing a new method by which a player can accomplish the game’s existing objectives, using the game’s existing set-up. What you seem to be proposing doesn’t sound like a “strategy” in that sense of the word; it seems to be an alternate set-up, with alternate objectives, whose primary purpose is to add something new to the game that you’d like to see: the presence of the Afrika Corps. Technically, that’s not a strategy; it’s an A&A house rule, or even arguably an A&A variant, so this thread should probably be in one of those two sections of the forum rather than in the Global 1940 section.
Note that when you say that you “lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps,” you’re essentially making the same point that I just made. A strategy is a method of winning, and what you seem to be saying here is that you’re looking for a method of winning under the modified game conditions that you’ve described. In other words, you’re actually asking for a strategy rather than offering one. Which is perfectly fine; I’m just saying that discussions of this type – which are very interesting – tend to work better when there’s a clear understanding of what the discussion is about and what it’s trying to accomplish.
@CWO:
I’m not an A&A rules expert, so this probably won’t be much use, but for whatever it’s worth here are a couple of comments. Your initial post said “This is an alternative strategy that is based on creating the German Afrika Korps in order to make Germany the dominant player in Africa while making Italy much more crucial and fun” and your latest post said, “I want to make this strategy work and think it can work. But also lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps. There must be a way.”
I think it’s important to realize what people usually mean when they propose an A&A strategy. Usually it means proposing a new method by which a player can accomplish the game’s existing objectives, using the game’s existing set-up. What you seem to be proposing doesn’t sound like a “strategy” in that sense of the word; it seems to be an alternate set-up, with alternate objectives, whose primary purpose is to add something new to the game that you’d like to see: the presence of the Afrika Corps. Technically, that’s not a strategy; it’s an A&A house rule, or even arguably an A&A variant, so this thread should probably be in one of those two sections of the forum rather than in the Global 1940 section.
Note that when you say that you “lack the experience with playing as Russia to understand how I can best take them out even when crushing the neutrals and while I transform the initial armour into the Afrika Korps,” you’re essentially making the same point that I just made. A strategy is a method of winning, and what you seem to be saying here is that you’re looking for a method of winning under the modified game conditions that you’ve described. In other words, you’re actually asking for a strategy rather than offering one. Which is perfectly fine; I’m just saying that discussions of this type – which are very interesting – tend to work better when there’s a clear understanding of what the discussion is about and what it’s trying to accomplish.
Great observation! I am indeed looking for a overall Axis strategy to make this Afrika Korps method under the normal Global 1940 rules. In the meantime I am trying to do this myself but are open for all suggestions. I also might have been a little too enthudiastic in all the National Objectives after Turn 4. So now the question is: what is realistic and could be a winning strategy?
So now the question is: what is realistic and could be a winning strategy?
Conceptually, what may not be realistic is having a pre-planned detailed list of all the exact moves and precise purchases and dollar-figure incomes that apply to the three Axis powers going all the way up to (and including) Turn 4. The list seems to assume that you will successfully accomplish every single task on the list, including the capture of certain territories, which may be a dangerous assumption to make because it ignores two potential complicating factors: the dice and your opponents. The dice might not obligingly let you check off every item on your list (given the fact that dice are my nature unpredictable), and your opponents will be actively trying to defeat you (given the fact that this is their job).
I would even argue that it would be highly dangerous to follow a predetermined 4-turn 3-power game plan, regardless of what your opponents do, because this complete lack of flexibility would put you at a disadvantage: your opponents would be able to observe what you do and react to it accordingly, while your side would ignore (and thus fail to take advantage of) any unanticipated mistakes by the enemy, and would ignore (and thus fail to deal with) any unanticipated threats by the enemy. This sounds to me like a recipe for disater rather than victory.
To quote the line delivered by Admiral Nagumo in the movie Midway, “We can achieve a great victory, provided that Halsey and Nimitz do exactly what you expect.” Unfortunately for Japan, the Americans followed their own plan at Midway, not Yamamoto’s plan, and Japan suffered a defeat from which the never recovered. The Japanese were so convinced that the Americans would do everything that was expected of them that they didn’t bother to consider the question, “What will we do if we run into such-and-such a situation?” As a result, the single rigid Japanese plan fell apart when it ran into unexpected developments. It’s a basic principle of military strategy that plans have to take into account enemy capabilities, not just enemy intentions, because intentions (which are intangible thought processes) can change much faster than capabilities (which depend largely on quantifiable hardware), and because intelligence estimates of probable enemy intentions are not always correct.
Mr. Marc,
I don’t see where Mr. Korps has modified any set ups or rules. I think when he inventories the “Afrika Corps” at the beginning of the post, he is optimistically predicting how many units will end up down there via Turkey on turn 4, not that there are any new special pieces added…just a new name for some existing stacks.
You and I both agree about some of the predictions made during the playout; many of these gambits or battle plans submitted on the boards are totally unrealistic in their assumptions about what the other players will do and read as if every battle is a total success without any causalities and that the enemy is off playing Mario Brothers instead of trying to stop the Axis. I don’t think that the prediction of 100+ for Germany AND 40+ for Italy is much more than puff but it seemed like he was sketching some optimistic outcomes…
However, these “4-turn-gambits” actually are pretty easy to pull off without having to do much reacting to what your opponents do anyways. That is a testament to how powerful the Axis are from game start they just have a ton of mobility pieces and a great board position.
Its actually quite easy to lay out a dozen or so of these gambits…as the Axis! The problem is that the Allies are like the Black Player in Chess, they don’t call the songs but they have to dance nonetheless. If someone can come up with an overarching but nonreactive Allied gambit, I’d love to hear it. The problem is, that except in G41, the Allies are so anemic and take so long to develop that all they could possibly do is react. Also, unlike the 1985/42.2 editions, they all go last!
None of this takes the bid into account either; if you are playing with a bid then it makes killing your way to the milestones even more difficult, and instead of ending up with an Afrika Corps of 9 armor 1 fighter 6 mechs 4 infantry and a pile of tactical bombers, what happens in real life is that after a series of do-or-die battles in which the initial predictions of $$ and megastax went out the window, you have 1 armor left that barely takes Egypt. This is the difference between wishful thinking and real outcomes.
I’ll be going on vacation later today, taamvan, so I won’t be able to follow this debate until sometime in the new year, so I’ll just add a couple of other thoughts. One of them is along the lines of what you said about optimistic outcomes; basically, it’s just the observation that if an A&A Global 1940 game – especially one involving a full slate of players, not just two people – could be accurately plotted and predicted up to four rounds in advance, nobody would bother playing it because everything would be too predictable.
My other comment relates to a broader issue. Maybe it’s just a question of personal taste (in which case no attention needs to be paid to the following point), but it seems to me as if what’s being proposed here operates in the reverse direction of the normal relationship between strategy and unit purchases. I’ll try to explain what I mean:
Normally, unit purchases serve strategy. In other words, the sequence of the decision-making process goes in this order:
Decide on what general strategy to follow in order to win the game.
Decide on the specific unit purchases that will be made in order to implement this general strategy.
What I think has been described in this thread is a reversed situation in which strategy serves units purchases. The sequence of the decision-making process seems to be:
Afrikakorps has decided what units he wants to purchase (specifically, the units that will allow him to recreeate the Afrika Korps).
Afrikakorps is trying to develop a strategy that will allow him to win the game on the basis of these unit purchases.
Arguably, that’s putting the cart before the horse. If recreating the Afrika Korps was an inherently advantageous thing to do in an A&A game, there wouldn’t be any need to create a special strategy (let along a long and complicated one) to justify this purchasing decision; the advantages would automatically provide that justification, and they would apply in a broad range of circumstances rather than in a very specific game scenario. The fact that Afrikakorps is trying to find a scenario in which recreating the Afrika Korps produces a game victory suggests to me that there are no such inherent advantages to recreating the Afrika Korps. If there are no such inherent advantages, then this means that recreating the Afrika Korps is either harmless or conterproductive. If it’s harmless, then that’s not a problem. If it’s counterproductive, then that is a problem because we’d be facing the conclusion that Afrikakorps is trying to find a scenario that will let him win despite the fact that he’s recreated the Afrika Korps. In other words, the implication would be that this purchasing strategy was being pursued for its own sake, not for its usefulness as a tool for achieving victory. Conversely, if it’s being pursued simply for fun because it’s a cool idea, then the way to solve the problem is to simply focus on the fun and ignore the issue of whether or not it will produce an Axis win.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to simultaeously achieve both objectives (recreating the Akrika Korps and winning the game as the Axis). Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. All I’m saying is that the more hoops have to be jumped through to produce an Axis victory as part of a game plan that’s built around the concept of recreating the Afrika Korps, the more this suggests that this concept isn’t the ideal basis on which to try to win the game.
Great to see the discussion! I would like to say that I do not purchase units for the Afrika Korps, rather I use the German units to something they are currently not used for (Middle East / Africa) and this leads to German Armour taking Africa thus the name Afrika Korps.
My strategy is to make Germany the richest player on the map, therefore aiming at collecting Middle Eastern oil and African gold, the Afrika Korps is a means to achiece that goal, not the other way around. This wealth could create a strategic advantage: time, as it compete with both USA and Russia. Although thats the theory.
As its new it could be really not working that way, first go for Russia, then to Egypt. However things like Dark Sky, Taranto has also needed to be invented. This could be just the same case with Afrika Korps. This is what the initiative can offer you (Axis) in a situation only the UK can react. Therefore I am finding out how to prevent the UK from preventing this battleplan to work.
I think I got distracted with the Russian oil and expectations rose to unreal. However its just another puzzle to fix. Yes Midway might have been lost because of a rigid plan, the Germans blitzed through France because of a rigid plan, twice! (under Bismarck 1891 and Hitler 1940). I can create a realistic battle plan that the opponent does not expect, I might do the same in the game.
I try to find a new way to expand Italy, after it gets crippled by Taranto. I still think going through Turkey might provide this. However by crushing the neutrals I lose Infanty at the frontier against Allies and I am trying to find if there is a way to minimize this disasvantage while maximizing the advantages of controlling the neutrals might give.
I don’t mean to be a jerk, CWO, but your reasoning has some severe flaws. The Axis can control many vital decisions in the game and force the Allies to respond. For example Sea Lion can be executed with little ability for the Allies to prevent a G3 invasion of London. The sequence of events is very scripted and bar bad dice rolling, London will be captured. Russia will counter attack, trying to push into Germany before they are inevitably repelled. US will push heavily in the Atlantic. Essentially the first 4 rounds become very scripted. There is a general consensus that Sea Lion is sub-optimal strategy if the Allies follow a good gameplan during the first couple of rounds.
We haven’t tested out the Afrika Korps game plan. I am sure that Germany can follow a script for the first few rounds, deviating only if bad die rolls force them into Plan B. It might be an overpowered strategy, or it might have a few critical flaws. I am sure that we will find out over the next few months if it is a great plan (like Dark Skies), or a sub-optimal plan like Sea Lion.
Wow, that’s pretty deep Marc, you just sucked all the fun out of it lol.
Anyway, I think AK has an interesting strategy, and he is using both the existing units and purchases to achieve it. He did say it was an untested theory that he was working through. He may have named it Afrikorps, but in actuality it is more of an Axis neutral crush. Taking Turkey will allow him to use his axis mechanized force to pressure/capture the Middle East, Egypt and Southern Russia($$$).
Building up the German fleet on G1 is a common tool used to get the UK to buy mostly ground units on the first turn. I have mixed feelings about sailing it into the Med though. The Baltic fleet in conjunction with other resources can force the Russian to evacuate Leningrad, and help to def/counter attack Norway if needed. I do however like the Germans taking Gib to help get the Italian NO, and it would be interesting to use that fleet to shuffle inf through the Black Sea.
I think the biggest flaw is under estimating what the UK can/will do in the first few turns, and over estimating what Italy can achieve on It1/It2. For starters you have the Italians attacking Greece with 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank and a couple ftrs (using 2 tpts). That can only happen if the UK didn’t do Taronto (attack sz97). As discussed the UK often does Taronto and takes out sz96 as well. This move will end up with the UK fleet at the bottom of the Med later, but causes logistical problems for Italy. On IT1 the English will occupy sz97 with remainder of the Med fleet, and possibly a cruiser in sz96 (you didn’t attack sz91 on G1). You can have Italy attempt to clean up the UK fleet and attack Greece It1 (w/Albanian units and 1 loaded tpt), but that is a tall order as well. If you fail to take Greece, or take it w/heavy losses then the next step to Turkey on It2 will also suffer. If you ampib Turkey w/Italy on It2, the UK will probably be able to kill your mini Italian fleet in sz99 (only has a destroyer and cruiser protecting it if the UK did Taronto).
So if there is a Taranto on UK1, you will probably need a back up plan. Maybe have Italy attack S France and go for Spain It2. The Germans take Turkey G3 (using the Bulgarians+ whatever else can reach). I think the Germans building up next to Spain or Turkey will be a dead giveaway though.
