Can Germany win without Africa?

Just playing my first real game in a while (PBEM with DarthMaximus, in the Play by Forum).

Anyhow, my assault on Anglo-Egypt was a total flop (lost everything but my fighter) and UK has now unloaded 2 Arm 2 Inf in Algeria, with the US about to send 2 more boatloads. So the odds of maintaining any german presence in africa is slim. The question is, how tough will it be for Germany without ANY african income after UK2? Is it just a matter of hoping Japan is fast enough now, or can Germany put up a good fight without Africa?

@DarthMaximus:

@froodster:

The question is, how tough will it be for Germany without ANY african income after UK2?

Very tough.  :wink:    :-D

Thanks for the unbiased opinion Darth :-P

I re-took Ukraine with 6 Inf 1 Art 5 Arm in G1 (which I think now was a mistake, depending what Darth does). He could take these out in a fairly even battle (or he could lose). What may save me is that  Japan had a phenomenal first round (not a single loss) and an IC in Manchuria and 5 Fighters in Frindo and 5 inf in China, so Russia may have to save some strength for the Japanese onslaught.

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. We’ll see how R2 goes.

I have little experience with actual play - 4 games against other newbies, basically, so I’m just wondering how screwed I am.

Yeh - I’m still getting a feel for the actual game. I agree with Switch, I hope the extra few units from Africa, and the fact that I won’t be diverting any production to Africa, offset the loss.

Anglo- I definitely should have attacked with greater strength. Oh well, now I don’t have to worry about spending money in Africa.

The Med fleet - I used less strength than NPB suggested but came out unscathed (except losing the BB on UK1 - but on the other hand my TRN shot down his bomber and lived. The BB is of limited use now anyway.)

Karelia - yes, overkill, but the figs weren’t missed anywhere else (except maybe Anglo E)

Ukraine - that was a total blunder, but I lucked out on defence - he only killed my Inf, leaving my Arm + Art untouched, and losing more units himself in the attack. So I lost some Inf, but not as many as Darth, and all my expensive offensive units have been withdrawn to a more sensible location.

I agree, the combat move was off, but I’ve been saved somewhat by lady luck, so IMHO it’s not so dicey now :)

I think with Ger I’ll be able to keep Europe intact, and wait for Japan, which is going to cut through Asia like a hot knife through butter.

As for Japan, I don’t see how the build was defective. I’ll be landing 9 units on J2, and 11 units on J3.

@ncscswitch:

The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing :-)

Japan is doing quite nicely. Not a single Jap unit lost on J1 - Pearl Harbor, the Aussie TRN, China and India all fell, and Bury was a walk-in.

For J2, Sinkiang is deserted, Sov. Far East is empty, and Persia has 1 sole Inf. I have 5 Inf in China and 5 Fig in FIC, and 3 TRN and an IC in Manchuria mean I will adding 9 more units to the mainland on J2 (mostly Inf/Art)

So at end of J2 Jap production should be at 40.

My take though is that units are more important than production. An Inf at your front is worth a lot more than a 3 IPC territory, because those IPCs will only turn into an Inf back at your IC at the end of your next turn - a long way from being of actual use. You accomplish a lot more by strafing the enemy, knocking out perhaps 12 IPCs of active units, and letting them hold the territory, than taking it and then having your own 20 IPCs of units wiped out in the counter. Those are far more important.

Which is why I think it helps me a lot more that no Inf were lost in taking China (and  that 5 Inf are now one territory closer to Moscow) than the taking of China itself helps me.

2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.

I guess what I’m saying is that IPC income is only part of the picture, and perhaps less important a part than people commonly think. The other part is battle losses, which is much more volatile. Suppose you are generating 40 IPCs/turn, but you lose a lone battleship to a couple of subs, and 1 Inf and 1 Arm that you blitzed into empty territories (your only combat move, adding 4 to income) are wiped out. Your real gain in strength that round is only 12 IPCs: $44 cash at end of round minus $32 in lost units.

Income only helps because it helps put units in the field. If you lose those units foolishly, you may as well not have had the income in the first place. At the end of the game it’s the player with the most forces that wins the final critical battle.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in taking territory, just that you have  to consider the full cost. Ie. I will need a ton of infantry to push for Moscow, and it takes me 4 turns to get them there. Do I really want to throw a few Inf into the fire every turn after having waited so long to get them to the front?

This is especially so because the other side still gets the income if they recapture. It might be different if you could effectively deprive the other side of income with cheap little land grabs.