@ShadowHAwk Those units are essential to defend your capital, as well as France’s capital. There is no way around having a substantial defensive force if you want to win the game as the axis. Ideally all of those units could attack Moscow, but that is literally not an option. Germany can lose its capital turn 4 if you don’t have enough units to defend, and Paris can be lost to the allies turn 5 if you aren’t deploying enough units to prevent that.
Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls
-
I feel like the options this opens up for the Allies is way more valuable than being able to use the factory. If you don’t have a strong counter-attack force present, it allows UK to start stacking units in normandy supported by aircraft without needing the Americans to take it first. It gives the allies a landing spot that opens a lot more of europe up to bombing attacks including both German Major ICs. The 2 IPCs isn’t much, but it adds up after 4 or 5 turns. As germany, you can’t build subs in SZ 105 and SZ 110 to harass the allies in the atlantic. A think a good Allied player could find uses for the fact that normandy remains Allied and force Germany to take it anyway. Stopping Allies from using the factory is nice, but there are drawbacks.
-
This whole idea is based on the assumption that Germany MUST recapture Normandy to deny the factory building for the Allies.
Why?
So the Allies can produce 3 ground units there. Germany can produce 10 in Western Germany, always out-producing the Allies.
I have landed lots of times in Normandy with the Allies, sometimes amassing huge forces there - with even bigger forces in Western Germany denying any advances. I could not move my stack of 40+ ground troops to France because they would be annhiliated there without the US planes defending. Same with Holland.
Okay, I can move my stack to southern France, but then the German stack can either move to holland or to Northern Italy.
I have lost Normandy in a couple of games, after holding it for 7-10 turns even, for said reasons.
What I’m trying to say is: Giving the Normandy factory to USA is not an automatic loss, far from it (and even less for UK).
-
Yes. When I playtested this strategy this is exactly what happened. Arguably it took more Axis units to defend three territories against an attack force of 11 Allied ground units each than it would’ve took to trade the territory.
The Germans would’ve been finished were it not for Japan’s major success against the Soviets.
-
Its based off ideas from older versions of the game where you could not transport tanks + inf at the same time. There is was cheaper to transport inf and build tanks and then factories where more usefull.
Since the bulk of your forces will come via transport anyway the 3 production doesnt make a huge difference at all.
And its a lot easier to defend against all beachheads if the allies cannot land planes there the initial attack will lack some big defenders so its easier to push back into the sea. -
@MrRoboto said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:
This whole idea is based on the assumption that Germany MUST recapture Normandy to deny the factory building for the Allies.
Why?
So that instead of focusing more on Western Europe, more of those funds instead continue to be used to crush Russia.
By the time the Allies land in Normandy, Germany should have Russia contained and be getting ready for the kill. If the Allies are able to produce units locally, they are absolved of the cost of transporting those units and the costs of providing protection for those transports. The resources that were used for the landing (fleet and transports) are thereafter free to perform other tasks after a brief delay while the Allies build at the IC.
If instead the Allies cannot build in Normandy, then the Allies are forced to maintain fleet protection for transports that must continue to come in to keep pace with Germany’s ability to outproduce Allies.
Giving the US the IC gives the US the option to dictate Germany’s actions, instead of the other way around. The US could build there AND continue landing forces, which forces Germany to spend even more wealth not conquering Russia.
I have landed lots of times in Normandy with the Allies, sometimes amassing huge forces there - with even bigger forces in Western Germany denying any advances. I could not move my stack of 40+ ground troops to France because they would be annhiliated there without the US planes defending. Same with Holland.
<removed>
What I’m trying to say is: Giving the Normandy factory to USA is not an automatic loss, far from it (and even less for UK).
True, but it it does relieve pressure to keep bringing reinforcements in via transport. Those transports are freed up for other tasks, and once the IC has been used for building sufficient ground forces the fleet that would protect those transports also gets freed up to perform other tasks.
@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:
Its based off ideas from older versions of the game where you could not transport tanks + inf at the same time.
Absolutely not true. It’s based off the idea that giving the Allies a free IC allows them to establish beachhead and then build reinforcements on site rather than continue to the pay increased costs of bringing in reinforcements. It frees the US player to use that naval force elsewhere more quickly.
It’s based off my observations in many games as both the Allies when I was able to exploit the Normandy IC to put extreme pressure on Germany and as Germany when I was forced to react to the Allies using the Normandy IC.
@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:
Since the bulk of your forces will come via transport anyway the 3 production doesnt make a huge difference at all.
And its a lot easier to defend against all beachheads if the allies cannot land planes there the initial attack will lack some big defenders so its easier to push back into the sea.If the Allies land in unconquered Normandy and the US chooses to land planes there, then the US has to either build extra planes or take planes from fleet coverage.
If the US player chooses to build extra planes, it takes longer for him to land in Europe. If he leaves his fleet uncovered, that provides an opportunity for Germany to destroy his fleet. If he lands a weak force with planes, he must then land more forces before he can take those planes away.
Either way, that’s planes not bound for the Pacific. Those planes have to come from somewhere – if he builds them, he’s not building something else. If he pulls them from somewhere else, it creates opportunities for you there.
As you say, he still needs more troops in via transport. That means he has to be able to protect those transports that are bringing in those troops.
Finally, there’s this:
- When you make the turn more complicated for your opponent, you increase the chance that your opponent will make errors that are to your advantage.
- Everything you do that causes your opponent to spend extra time to achieve his objectives is to your advantage. A gain of even one turn is to your advantage as the Axis.
Happy gaming all, and Merry Christmas!
Marsh
-
Ha! Funny that in this game time is with the Axis. Ah, Axis and Allies historical inaccuracies, am I right?
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:
Ha! Funny that in this game time is with the Axis. Ah, Axis and Allies historical inaccuracies, am I right?
Very true.
-
-
It makes little difference if the US can produce in normandy or not. Its 1.5 transports worth of units. And only if you can keep it. On the other hand its also 10-12ipcs extra income that could have gone towards russia.
Those 3 units dont make the difference of not having to protect transports, the protection of transports requires the same fleet if its it 5 or 6 transports.
Being able to land planes there to protect your beachhead might be usefull. True those planes dont protect your fleet but it depends on where your airforce is at that time. It cannot be everywhere at once and you being forced to keep more planes against the fleet just in case you can pounce the fleet takes them away from russia.
Also those 2 land units can be a pain in the ass. Since you dont attack normandy you cannot kill them off and they can at any inconvenient time take over S-france, holland, paris or any 2 of those. So you always need a big enough force to protect against that. Would i take paris with just 2 units if germany and italy dont have a counter in place, hell yea. If you dont take it quick it will be reinforced and if you do that means 1-2 more rounds for russia.
-
I usually stack a sizable Italian force in Paris to attack anything that lands in Normandy,S.France,or Holland.That way I’m sending as many Germans as possible to crush the Soviets.
If doing a sealion ,I need to take Normandy G2 so I can build 1 or 2 carriers in sz 110 . -
A lot of Axis players do this, but I see it as a good development if I’m allies. Any left over French units could be annoying in the early rounds. You have to be sure you can counter France if they take it and get the bonus infantry.
Axis won’t get the +2. Just holding Normandy for 3 turns is 2 more infantry. Axis will need a larger force in France than otherwise to prevent Allies from getting a foothold because USA will be able land their planes in Normandy right off the bat. If you don’t contest the allied landing in Normandy, Allies will be able to trade for Southern France.
A combined Italian-German stack in Normandy is strategically preferable to a stack in France, provided you have the manpower.
If USA could concentrate all its resources on the Atlantic front it would be a different story. But dual victory conditions means that if USA invests enough to make Germany pay for taking Normandy, then they likely didn’t invest enough in the Pacific to stop Japan.
Suggested Topics
