In Europe 1940 if the Germans don’t attack on turn 1. I buy a Russian carrier on turn 1, and land the fighter from Leningrad and the tactical bomber from Moscow or 2 fighters and place the carrier in the sea zone 115 or sea zone 127. If the Germans built a battleship or a carrier i place it in 127 I would also buy a destroyer during a global game. This strategy has worked before, making the Germans spend money on subs to destroy it taking tanks away money from Barbarossa. please give me some feedback.
Afternoon and welcome to the forum Sgt Eric.
This is not something I would ever do. As Germany, I would ignore it and be glad I would be facing 5 fewer ground units on my way to Moscow.
I also think that this is a big gift to the axis players. As Russia you should spend all your money for troops on your mainland and focus on slowing the german army.
This idea is not bad, if the Allied strategy is based on the assumption that Moscow fall no matter what, and they want as many Russians alive as possible to fight in west, in that case I would buy a carrier and a tranny in seazone 127, take Finland and Norway, and move the loaded carrier and tranny to UK, and let them be can openers for the western Allies. Lone inf road blocks in every Russian territory would slow down the Huns and when they finally reach Moscow I would simply move the huge Russian stack to the middle east and link up with the Brits. but thats just me, we dont know if this will be the next unbeatable strategy that again will make this game broken, like the all Tanks buy or the all bombers buy etc
Turn 1.
Ignore Germany, buy a carrier and a tranny sz 127, attack Finland. Non-combat move as many units as possible to Novgorod, place lone inf as road-blocks everywhere.
Turn 2.
Buy 3 Tanks in Novgorod, attack Norway, buy fast movers and air in the other places.
Turn 3.
Sail the loaded carrier and tranny to UK and use as can operner for US. Buy fast movers and air the other places and move the huge stack into the Middle East to link up with the Brits.
I dont see how Germany can counter this in any rational way. I figure Germany will have a hard time this game, man. In fact this looks like what Poland did in WWII, they know they were not strong enough to keep Poland, so they simply moved their navy and army to UK, to fight another day. Can you imagine the Narvik Campaign, the Battle of Britain and the Monte Cassino without Polish soldiers ? Hey no, man. And if the Poles did, I see no reason the Russians cant neihter
I feel like when I use this strategy the axis player is always tempted to sink the carrier I played a game once with my friend who bought a sack of four subs and used the Bismarck he saved to destroy my fleet it took away money from tanks you could have used for barbassoa the game ended in a tie.
@Sgt:
In Europe 1940 if the Germans don’t attack on turn 1.i buy a Russian carrier on turn 1 and land the fighters from Novgorod and Russia or a fighter with tactical bomber and place the carrier in the sea zone 115 or sea zone 127.If the Germans built a battleship or a carrier i place it in 127 i also buy a destroyer in global.This strategy has worked before the Germans spent money on subs to destroy it reduced money from Barbarossa.please give me some feedback
While it’s certainly a different strategy I feel that it hinges on tempting the other side to play sub-optimally rather than hinging on a way to make your play better or more efficient. As such I think that it might work will against the opponents you are used to but if you were to try it out on the forums here I suspect your carrier would be ignored on the Great German Tank Drive to Moscow by an experienced player.
I guess the best I could say about it is that I think you might have the beginnings of something interesting but I don’t think this strategy is complete as described.
-Midnight_Reaper
Honestly it is not a perfect strat but I think it’s fun to surprise people with a Russian carrier it does not work all the time but when it does it’s a fun game
Sounds definitely like fun! But it decreases the chances of holding back the germans. I like the strategy of mainly building inf + fghters and tacticals so that i am able to make some counterattacks while i retreat.
I feel that it hinges on tempting the other side to play sub-optimally rather than hinging on a way to make your play better or more efficient.
-Midnight_Reaper
Au contraire, this strategy takes resources that the Axis player would expect to be used in the Eastern Front and redirected to the Western Front, and by so makes both fronts unbalanced, and this favors the Allies, since the Axis player was taken by surprise and not ready to counter this, and so probably may ignore it and continue with his narrowminded Tankrush to Moscow, because that is the only way he know to play Germany. It is what a chess player call a gambit, you trade away Moscow for a stronger presens in the West. Its efficiency depends on the other players counter move. Like in chess, all moves are equal, and the only way to win is if your opponent makes a mistake. To ignore the Russian carrier is a mistake.
I feel that it hinges on tempting the other side to play sub-optimally rather than hinging on a way to make your play better or more efficient.
-Midnight_Reaper
Au contraire, this strategy takes resources that the Axis player would expect to be used in the Eastern Front and redirected to the Western Front, and by so makes both fronts unbalanced, and this favors the Allies, since the Axis player was taken by surprise and not ready to counter this, and so probably may ignore it and continue with his narrowminded Tankrush to Moscow, because that is the only way he know to play Germany. It is what a chess player call a gambit, you trade away Moscow for a stronger presens in the West. Its efficiency depends on the other players counter move. Like in chess, all moves are equal, and the only way to win is if your opponent makes a mistake. To ignore the Russian carrier is a mistake.
To ignore the Red Army is a mistake. This strategy calls for Russia to build a carrier (16 IPCs) (plus a sometimes purchase of a destroyer (8 IPCs, total cost 24 IPCs), place it/them in either the Baltic or the White sea, and then land either two fighters or a fighter and a tac bomber on said carrier - all so that you can taunt Germany to build subs to sink it/them. Now, if you had a transport and some troops (even air transports and paratroops, via tech or house rules), then you could do something with this - can open for UK or US, seize lightly-held territory, something. But just a carrier and planes and maybe a destroyer? You’ve built a bomb magnet for the cost of 6 to 8 infantry or 4 to 6 mech infantry. You have two attacking units, attack of two 3s or a 3 and a 4. You have three or four defending units, defense of two 4s or a 3 and a 4 and one or two 2s. At the cost of 16 to 24 IPCs and stripping away from the Red Army two of the three aircraft they start with.
Is it an interesting move for face-to-face play? Sure, I bet it would be quite interesting to see the German response to that. But I reiterate my opinion - it’s a interesting thought, but I wouldn’t call it a full fledged opening move yet. Needs something more.
But hey, I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again.
-Midnight_Reaper
In a non-league I would try it out for fun. The US and Aliies are all in to get Germany hopefully in time to save the final victory city in the Pacific.
If the Axis opponents first purchase is like 2 bombers and not ground. It makes up for the navy purchase. If Germany attacks the fleet in sz 125, they lose expensive bombers, so I guess its then even? Myself, I would waste precious bombers against it…I am kind of a narrowed minded towards Moscow when playing Germany.
Could a russian carrier be used as an early leap frog for allied planes to Moscow?
I mean, there are other better methods I’m sure (Persia) but it could prove interesting.
Even better, the russians could move the carrier to boost British fighter range and open additional landing zones.
