Sevastpol controlled by the Central Powers?

Anyone out there given this a crack after DoMan and I put it together?

From a simple math min/max perspective which some are intersested in, a naval strat is extremly unwise. Simple plus/minus math will tell you you need to add appr. 81 IPC worth of naval as CP in total accross the board (using the starting naval as ref) to even break even which means if you wanna “controll” something you will need to add more than the competition.
As CP you cant ever get into a building race with the allies as your starting income is so much less, but rather you need to as fast as possible close the incomecap.

Consider sz17. (I will assume the ottoman and russian navy cancel each out). Allies can after turn1 have 2 BS (France+Italy)+3Cruisers(UK+Italy+France which means AH wont be able to break even, even if the go all out navy. After turn2 the allies will have additional 1BS+Crusie (UK) in the zone and again AH wont be able to break even, even if they spent all during 2 turns. After this france plus Italy can with great ease together spend equal to AH for each turn.
So I have to ask how in hell are AH suppose to get controll over sz17?=)

I suppose you can counter and say “the allies dont counter my moves in my games” but then what is the point of argue the value of strats. I can  ask what do you think about my “attack-AH-first-as-Italy strat”, assuming AH dont defend their borders?=)

Reading the rules again, I begin to get a bit fussy about the RR rule. We have always run with that Moscow have to be contested in order to RR to occur. I now realize that perhaps thats wrong and that for example  holding Ukraine, Polen, Belarus and Livonia is enough?
IN our games AH have to put enough units in AH% in order for Russia not to be able to kill them all in R5. However if we have been wrong about RR, the 4-7 remaining Germans from G4 is enough since Russia cant advance untill they have been destroyed… And in that scenario AH can have its entire stack moved from Ukraine to Sevastopol in round 5, very much changing Britians advance.

In the west Germany usually have to tactically retreat in r2-r3. However since all buys from G1 and forward will be moved into the west they wont need to retreat further. And even with Belgium and perhaps an orginal German territory gone they will have an income advantage against France alone and therefore push them back r4 and forward.

Same goes for Italy really. AH will use all its income towards Italy (exept 5 planes in r1-3 = 30 IPC). And by r4-5 AH will push Italy out of Trieste/Tyrole for good.

Austria was a little risky and only left 6 inf and 2 art in tyrolia to defend against italy well sending the 6 inf and 2 art in Trieste into serbia. MY first turn buy as Austria was 5 art and one plane. I left one inf in the capital for that.  I as Austria was hopeing that the 6 inf and 2 art sent into serbia would be enough to take it out. I knew that the the Italian player was very conservative. so he would either turn 1 be attacking 6 inf and 2 art vs. the same force in tyrolia or walking into trieste with that force to be counterattacked by Vienna, serbia, and Tyrolia forces. This would buy me the time to get the serb force back to triests turn 2. Thus giveing me parity with the italians again. The problem was going to be I3 because Italy could then get the Rome group to venice. thus on turn 3 Germany and Austria went into Switzerland, flanking ITaly makeing Italy commit to attacking the swiss group I3 and away from Austrian land thus giveing Austria a couple more turns to pump troops into Russia. This game was some what of an outlier because CP got very good dice rolls in Africa and were still walking around it turn 6. Against an italy player that was aggressive this strat may not have worked. I think the CPs would have won this game because even though it may have been hard for Germany to take Paris with Austrias IPCs it was in a position to begin a move on Rome turn 6 and it had such a massive stack the italians probobly would have died next and then brit french U.S. would be in trouble.

The ones with two flags stand up troops.  For example, Portugal has a French and Portuguese flag.  For the true neutrals, only the ones with larger flags, for example Ethiopia will stand up troops, Sp. Morocco will not.

Wove’s rules above are pretty much exactly as I’ve always though rail movement should be.

I might be a little more generous to Turkey and allow it to rail anywhere within its original tt; they did have a railway all the way to Medina, and were building one to Baghdad.

Preventing the CPS moving units from Berlin to Baghdad would be a vital strategic goal for the Allies, definitely spicing up the battles in the Balkans.

Also consider how big some of the SZs are on this map: you can ship from Canada to Marseille in one turn. This is how the Allies can move units, the CPs have to march overland one space at a time, when in reality the trains would get them to just behind any front line in no more than a week or so.

@toblerone77:

Lets play what if and let the US enter early…I’m all abouf that!

Then boy will we have the map for you  :wink:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30390.0

@Flashman:

Germany did a lot of trade with adjacent neutrals, especially the Netherlands and Sweden, so maybe Germany gets a certain ammount of IPCs from these without having to invade.Â

That will be interesting. It seems like a Norway-Denmark NO-type rule would be good, except supposedly the game was said not to be complex enough for NO’s. Maybe to avoid confusion one of the German seaside territories will have a larger than expected income. I’m not sure if the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare phase will be for more than just Germany, but if it were, then the allies could take out the “convoy” between Scandinavia and Germany.