Major IC in Romania

But you can’t mechanize artillery.

A minor IC in W.Ukraine will do the job if you prefer to build an IC.

With a G1 build IC in Romania, your options are really limited.

If i would be the Allied player and it is my UK turn, my Buy will be an AB for Gib. pr Egypt  and an IC for Egypt.
No need to stack London since your Initiative in London is gone.

A mid game IC would be interesting in Romania if i see Russia stacking up like a King and a neutral crush (NC) is in sight but that depends on my income as an Axis player.

As Germany you want to be aggressiv.
“Nicht kleckern sondern klotzen” was Guderians Motto wich means to not come in low, come in massive!

AetV

Ah, the old MIC in Romania…. that used to be an old standby strategy in the early days when G40 first came out…

But the strategy wained with time for all the reasons stated above.  It’s such a heavy investment depriving Germany of early units and telegraphs pretty loudly Germany’s strategy.  (screaming actually)

I think the better move is to buy a couple transports and shuck infantry from Berlin to Leningrad.  You basically get the same result (i.e. infantry 4 moves way from Moscow) and less cost and more benefits:  4 transports (plus 1 on board) for 28 instead of 30 for a MIC that can’t be redeployed like the transports.

Of course there is the issue the Romanian MIC covers the southern flank of the Eastern front, but usually that resolves itself once Germany can stack Bryansk.

But, hey, sometimes old ideas can make a comeback.  Maybe there is something there that can be rejuvenated.  I will think on this…  :lol:

Keep in mind that in the G40 1st edition, Berlin had a minor IC on it (I think). I believe that was the reason that a major or minor IC was often placed on Romania. That would have been done in those days probably whether Sea Lion was going to happen or not.

The answer?

Mechanized Infantry Instead.

You already have 26 production spaces, plus 6 more Russian ones.  After you grab the frontline Russian factories, Romania fades.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the 30+30 (to buy there the 2nd turn) to instead buy 5 bombers to ensure the above occurs?

@taamvan:

The answer?

Mechanized Infantry Instead.

You already have 26 production spaces, plus 6 more Russian ones.   After you grab the frontline Russian factories, Romania fades.   Wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the 30+30 (to buy there the 2nd turn) to instead buy 5 bombers to ensure the above occurs?

Good point, and it’s not like the USSR player is going to stack units on the western flank, s/he can’t defend it.

@aequitas:

A minor IC in W.Ukraine will do the job if you prefer to build an IC.

Quite. The combination of 6 artillery/turn from Ukraine & W Ukraine plus a bunch of Mech inf from Leningrad and Germany is enough. Indeed, German income can’t really support even that, let alone a major IC on Romania.

Ok, you guys have brought me around. I’m going to try the W. Ukraine factory in my next few games.

Germany is the last power who should be thinking about building additional production.  You start with 2 major factories and you acquire 2-3 more minor factories in the early part of the game.

@Zhukov44:

Germany is the last power who should be thinking about building additional production.  You start with 2 major factories and you acquire 2-3 more minor factories in the early part of the game.

Possibly an overstatement? UK starts with 1 major 2 minor and don’t get the same income uplift and you wouldn’t say they don’t need a factory.

Germany have a lot of difficulty in getting artillery to Moscow in large numbers. Using Bombers or tanks to provide attack doesn’t provide the same bang for buck.

If Germany wants extra artillery they should buy it the first 2 rounds.

It’s more efficient for Germany to purchase mechanized units (which are more versatile than inf/art anyway) than buying an extra major or minor IC.  Germany can also capture Karelia and Ukraine and build artillery there if need be.

I’m not a big believer in extra UK ICs either, but at least there are good justifications for buying an Egypt or (on occasion) a Persia IC.

Doesn’t it depend on Germany’s overall strategy?

If Germany is trying to take Moscow as fast as possible, then the starting IC’s are enough.

If something goes wrong or if Germany is just trying to seize and hold income producing territories, they could make use of additional IC’s on the front.

@larrymarx:

Doesn’t it depend on Germany’s overall strategy?

If Germany is trying to take Moscow as fast as possible, then the starting IC’s are enough.

If something goes wrong or if Germany is just trying to seize and hold income producing territories, they could make use of additional IC’s on the front.

Like if Germany has to dig in and build up for a few turns, an extra factory in Russia would be more efficient and cheaper (unit-wise) because it’s more effective and less costly to build 3 infantry in a factory 1 turn away from your army than it is to build those same infantry, or even mechs, back in Germany or Western Germany.  It lets Germany produce a larger amount of cheap cannon fodder, in the form of infantry, than they would be able to if they only had 1-2 factories producing infantry in Russia and the western factories producing more expensive mechanized units that need to get to the front faster.

Right, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Players need to be able to shift strategies rapidly in this game depending on what their opponents do. Aircraft are very powerful because they can be redeployed easily to accomplish this goal. Placing new IC’s is another tool players have available to shift their resource deployment strategies.

I believe that the OP’s suggestion of building a Romania major has been debunked, but the possibility and its effect on the board is something that players should remain aware of.

By the way, I should mention that the “Cobra Kai” opener involves a G1 Romanian minor purchase. The idea is to seize and hold income producing territories rapidly with a tank push. What do you all think of that ploy?

@Elsass-Lorraine:

Like if Germany has to dig in and build up for a few turns, an extra factory in Russia would be more efficient and cheaper (unit-wise) because it’s more effective and less costly to build 3 infantry in a factory 1 turn away from your army than it is to build those same infantry, or even mechs, back in Germany or Western Germany.  It lets Germany produce a larger amount of cheap cannon fodder, in the form of infantry, than they would be able to if they only had 1-2 factories producing infantry in Russia and the western factories producing more expensive mechanized units that need to get to the front faster.

An additional factory in USSR is wasted if you are building infantry. It only really makes any sense if used for artillery and tanks, the latter usually in the turn before the Moscow attack.

Factories develop too slowly to be optimal.  Especially if you are siting them in formerly enemy territory (G2 take G3 build G4 first units G5 first attacks??).  that side of the board is covered in factories already.

Mech Infantry are really weak units when viewed in isolation–weak attack, outrunning the artillery, don’t combo with tacs, expensive.

But on the massive Global board, they are awesome, and it is infantry that is weak.  infantry’s only remaining advantage is that it is easier to load on a transport, so you’ll always need that.  But for the $4, the mech is tossing pairs with artillery where you need it, rushing to the defense, or best;  stacking for the final assault in front of your tanks and airforce.    This last job is where they shine, and every early game dollar that you planned to spend on bases, factories, or slow infantry or artillery would be better as mech infantry.  They can be on the front line as fast or faster than built units;  once the mechs arrive; build artillery in Russia–use those productions slots to pair up.    Instead of bulding so many tanks, more tanks survive.  Similar Japan, though that will require factories for sure.

Yeah, it’s not that the Romanian factory isn’t useful, it’s just that it takes too long to show a return on investment, even in long games. If you spend 30 ipcs in Romania on G1, and then max place infantry there on G2, G3, and G4 (unlikely, but I’ll give it to you anyway), then you have only just then broken even vs. buying mech. infantry in Berlin…except you have a stack of 30 infantry in southeast Europe, instead of a stack of 30 mech ing, so your stack is less able to penetrate deeper into Russia.

If you carry on max placing infantry in Romania on g5 and g6, you could theoretically make a profit of 20 ipcs…but at this point you really should have captured Leningrad and/or Kiev, and those factories are more useful. Plus, a 20 ipc advantage on turn 6 from a 30 ipc investment on turn 1 is pretty shabby. If you had instead spent those 30 ipcs on transports, tanks, bombers, etc., they probably would have helped you capture additional territories worth at least 5 ipcs per turn, and then over the course of five turns, those territories would pay you at least 5 x 5 = 25 ipcs, ie, more than the 20 ipcs you could possibly hope to save with your Romanian factory.

In general, I think factories make sense when you need either extra unit capacity  (too much money and nowhere to drop units) or a way to get any land units into the refion, not just when you want the most efficient possible infantry drop. UK factory in Persia makes sense because Persia is seven turns from south Africa for foot soldiers; without that factory you need expensive planes or transports to contest the region. Mechs are just not expensive enough to justify building a factory to avoid purchasing them.

I am interested in minor factories in Romania to get German boats into the black sea, but that’s different.

@PainState:

It seems based on the feed back that Germany is a take Moscow out by Turn 8 or concede country.

@PainState:

I have to say that makes this game seem, I don’t know, one dimensional and lacking.

I don’t think that’s the takeaway from what everyone has said.

If you put everything into taking Moscow by G8 and then fail, then yes, you should concede because the Allies have probably been eating in to Italy and your other flanks. You’ve sacrificed everything else and made the game one-dimensional by doing so.

You don’t have to do it that way. Germany’s role does not have to be to get Moscow as soon as possible. Certainly it is possible to get it by G8, but you should be willing to call off the G8 assault well in advance if it isn’t looking favorable. You should of course keep pushing, forcing the Allies to continue spending defensively, but also start dealing with the other situations in time so that your entire economy doesn’t fold. In this case there is still an advantage to having all those troops on the eastern front - you can hold the southern Russia territories and maybe advance into the Middle East, strengthening your economy and helping you fight off the Allies.

I think the takeaway is that Germany at least has to put up a credible threat to take Moscow no matter what else they do. Out of the seven VC’s held by the Allies on the European board after G1, Moscow is by far the best path to winning because it is also one of three capitals but easier to take and easier to defend than the other two. For this reason, saying “credible threat to take Moscow” is like saying “credible threat to win the game”. If Germany doesn’t step it up and do something major, the Allies will be able to recover from their defensive posture too soon.

In this light, Sealion can also be viewed as a threat to take Moscow. You aren’t actually going to win by holding on to London and then gathering more VC’s. You’re going to take Britain out of the fight so that you and Italy can fight the Russians unhindered.