Can Germany win without Africa?

Well, the whole idea is that those units will get a defensive roll and, on average, take their due on their way back to the parts box. Usually it’s better to trade units and territories than to let your opponent keep territory for free unless it’s clear you will be losing much more than your opponent. Infantry defends better than attacks so you might as well force your opponent to let you get those defensive 2’s.

And there is also the issue of pushing the front back, making the enemy have to fight to re-gain territory instead of gain new territory, which in itself can be a critical tactical advantage.

Or just letting them keep territory and moving more units up to the front, so you can conserve infantry.

You trade it until you have enough forces forward to TAKE AND HOLD.

Then you repeat trading the NEXT territory in line while you move more forces to the front.

At least that is what I using trading for :-)

Sometimes it becomes a free for all where each attacker succeeds in retaking with increasing amounts of units until one side gives up and goes home or the defender manages to hit above average and then the attacker is left with 1-2 infantry and the scrum starts all over again.

And Russia usually comes out on the losing end of the “fighters for trading” (kinda like dollies for froggies. Anybody?) battle because the Axis have more aircraft and the Russians have to also trade with japan as well as Germany. Although, the other Allies can offset the German side with trades of their own. Or Russia can completely abandon eastern Asia to avoid trading with Japan but that presents a problem all it’s own.

Germany can get squeezed for infantry in the middle rounds but once you get a decent sized stack of inf in W Eur all of your infantry builds(which should be your entire income’s worth) will be going east. You can always use some of your armor to help defend W Eur(which I hate because armor is for attacking, not defending) in the short term to keep up the infantry supply moving toward Russia.

@froodster:

This is way off topic by now but I don’t mind because I started this thread . . .

I wonder if retaking with 2 Inf is smart. With 1 Inf, the other side can get away with retaking with just one Inf. But with 2 Inf, you force them to dedicate more than 2 Inf to guarantee a re-take, thus weakening the main force more than yours was weakened.

I prefer a holistic approach to Axis and Allies, actually.  Africa, China . . . it’s all part of the greater whole.  In fact, my approach goes so far as to include scenarios in which my opponent had spinach for lunch, with contingency plans for ham and mustard.

Really, you can’t neglect any aspect of the board, or of the opponent that you face.

The THEORY goes something like this:

I have 2 infantry and a fighter attacking your 1 infantry in a 2-3 IPC territory.

I choose to attack because if I leave you alone, you gain 2-3 IPC.  If I attack and succeed, you must counterattack or leave me with 2-3 IPC gain.

On the first round of attack:

Your defender has 1/3 a chance of killing a 3 IPC unit (net loss 1 IPC for me)

I have a 47/72 or so chance of killing a 3 IPC unit right away (gain of 3 IPC assuming the enemy infantry DOES die) and gaining a territory worth 2-3 IPC (net gain 5-6 IPC for this step)

I commit 2 infantry worth 6 IPC to the attack.  Both of those infantry will die, to the enemy counterattack if nothing else.  (net loss 6 IPC for this step)

However, there is a decent chance that the defending infantry will kill neither attacking infantry, and a chance that only one of my attacking infantry will be killed off on the initial attack.  Each surviving infantry that I have is worth 1 IPC, because that infantry has at least a 1/3 chance of killing a 3 IPC infantry when you counterattack.  (Note that this assumes no battleships; battleships do change the equation).  So net gain 1-2 IPC for this step.

Of course, this risk calculation is far from exact, it makes a few assumptions along the way.  But roughly,

Lose 1, gain 5-6, lose 6, gain 1-2 for ROUGH parity.  I think that if you calculate it all out, the attacker loses a bit.  But if the attacker doesn’t attack, of course, the defender simply gains 2-3 IPC from holding the territory, and you gain nothing, for a net of you lose an infantry and your opponent gains an infantry, which is actually a net pain of 4-6 IPC.

Sure, there’s a logistic problem, but the defender doesn’t have to worry so much (the attacker’s coming right for him/her), and the attacker still needs defense at worst.

Think of Karelia when it is held by 1 UK inf.

Should Germany attack and trade?

I’d argue no.  Why?  B/c in this case you are bleeding 1-2 German inf for a British inf.  It is not worth it to trade, IMO.  Yes, if you don’t attack Russia will be earning the extra 2, but the loss of the 1-2 inf per turn can really cost you against Russia.
Likewise, I think this can occur at Belo as well.

If you have the infantry and you assess that you may have the overall lead then maybe you can spare an attack of 1 inf with 4 ftrs, but in a tightly contested match it is bad to trade German units for UK/US units on peripheral battles.  It could even be bad to take out a Russian inf that is sitting there.

This can also be the case when dealing with WE.

:-D
No Prob.

You can expect both UK and US to move to Kar this rd.  Although I’ll have more than 1 inf in there.

Which is why I didn’t have a problem moving the Russia arm up there.  I knew if you attacked it would probably cost you an rt at the very least.  Yes rt for arm is bad but I think Russia will be able to replenish and will now have UK/US help whereas Germany should remain fairly isolated.

Well at least that was the thinking.

If you had more inf, I probably would have went 3 inf, 2 ftrs with the retreat option if it went bad.

Oh yeah, on topic, I think Germany needs some sort of African income for the first 3 turns at least, and more likely 4.

The games that I’ve done the poorest in as the Axis are the ones where I am kicked out of Afr by rd 3 (usually due to a poor G1 Egy attack or very successful UK counter).  I usually don’t have the income at that point to put a serious threat on Moscow come mid game.

Which happened in the game I just finished with NoMercy.

@froodster:

It’s funny though, I see some posters here saying that the Allies should just leave Africa be.

Who says that?

Off topic- IMO it’s a holistic approach as Newpaintbrush said. Germany and Japan have to work in concert, and there is an ebb and flow. What I’ve found is that if I don’t kill every possible unit in front of me as Germany, those forces pool and the game becomes a stacking match, which generally favors the Allies. In my old age I’ve become (seemingly) absurdly aggressive with Germany, with the object to filet the Russians first, followed by as many British and US forces as possible (with Russian units still a #1 priority). While Germany shrinks the Allies get burned up as they land – Japan grows – and finds in front of it tasty Russian units rather than Allied reinforcements. Japan vs. Russia alone = most likely a scrambling Allied player.

So trading units on the Russian front/ in Norway/ in France may seem like Germany is heading down the tubes, but with solid Japanese play it’s actually serving a purpose. In short, as Germany I never let an Allied unit pass through my wheelhouse unscathed unless it’s strategically necessary to leave it alone (a rare necessity).

On topic- It’s already been answered, but the 2 Inf/ Art/Arm/Ftr/Bmr approach to Egypt is pretty necessary w/o a bid. A solid British player will take back Egypt and land in Algeria on UK1, followed up by US muscle (again, assuming a non-bid situation, or a bid placed in Europe). You can win without much economy in Africa for Germany, but for an even shot at the game you really need to make the Allies play around in Africa for a few turns, with Germany devoting minimal forces to the theater. I often pick up units from Africa G2 and head for the Ukraine to muscle up vs. the Russkies anyhow, even if my G1 Egypt attack went splendidly. Unless faced with an Allied player who makes no effort to retake Africa, cut your losses quickly and hammer on Russia to take the Allied player out of their comfort zone.

“Well if Germany is out of Africa by G2 or G3 then really you are talking about a few IPCs for a few rounds. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the game turns on that. It’s the same effect as losing one more Inf than expected for the first couple rounds - which may happen if your other continental battles in G1 and G2 are deprived of some additional units thus allowing the Russians to fight back longer and kill a few more Inf.”

I don’t think it’s all that simple.

My thinking about Anglo-Egypt goes like this:

As Germany, I want to kill all the units at Anglo-Egypt to prevent the UK from using the Anglo-Egypt forces either to reinforce India very solidly, or to reinforce Africa.  If possible, I want to hold Anglo-Egypt past UK1.  If I have 2 German tanks surviving in Anglo-Egypt, the US can still send 2 inf art tank to Algeria, but if I send the Med fleet west, which is possible with an African bid freeing the Med fleet, then I can destroy the Allied navy at little cost combined with my fighters that landed at Western Europe (usually almost all of them, unless I built a German carrier in the Baltic, but lone transports are still not a problem for various reasons that I will not go into at this time).

The thing is, if UK has not reclaimed Anglo-Egypt on UK1, I stand a good chance to take all of Africa.  AND IF THE ALLIES SEND UNITS TO AFRICA LATE, then I will get IPCs for all the time the Allies didn’t send units there. IF THE ALLIES SEND UNITS TO AFRICA EARLY, they are stuck in Africa, and Germany itself has much less pressure, assuming of course that Germany stops the Allies from entering the Mediterranean in force.

So basically, if Germany holds Anglo-Egypt past UK1, it’s a HUGE pain for the Allies.  It can be overcome, but it is not at all easy.

Luckily, there is a tradeoff.  But before going into text wall mode, I will say that I do NOT think the Germans should necessarily kill every Russian unit they can.  USUALLY, yes, almost always, yes, but Germany must not overextend.

AND NOW!  NPB’s approach to . . . GERMANY IN AFRICA!!!1!

–

If there is an African bid (assume 1 infantry and 1 tank), the Germans are still only attacking with, say, 2 inf, 2 tank, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, against 1 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter; that is, the Libyan forces plus additional units placed in Africa plus German air.  Follow me so far?  This assumes that the Mediterranean forces have NOT been committed (where they go is mentioned next) and that there IS a German bid in Africa.

Then, Germany has a CHOICE of what to do with the Mediterranean fleet.  If the German battleship and transport go west, the Germans threaten a united German fleet on G2, as well as possible invasion of London, and the Allies can’t easily consolidate their fleet in the sea zone west of Algeria, because the Germans can counterattack the united Allied fleet with fighters from Western Europe, the German bomber that landed at Libya, and probably another German fighter that landed at Libya, as well as the German Mediterranean fleet.  BUT if the Germans do that, then there is a good chance that the UK Anglo-Egypt forces will kill 2 German infantry as they die.  This, in turn, means that UK can COUNTERATTACK with the infantry from Trans-Jordan, two infantry transported from India, the UK fighter at India, and the UK bomber.  (Attack 10, count 5, of which 3 are highly dispensable infantry).  Then, Germany loses two PRECIOUS and irreplacable tanks, and instead of blitzing to West Africa and the southern regions of Africa next turn, it has to retake Anglo-Egypt (so instead of being up 6 IPC, it has to commit MORE IPCs just to get 2 IPC).  And even then, does Germany really want to take tanks out of Europe again?  Because once you move a tank out of Europe, it’s probably not going back; that German Mediterranean transport is probably going to be used G3 onwards to transport infantry from Southern Europe to Ukraine or Caucasus.  So Germany is stuck with a somewhat unpalatable situation; the Allies may not have been able to take Algeria, and Germany might control Africa, but the moment the German Med fleet moves east, the Allies can claim Algeria, and Germany can not make a fast run on those African IPCs.

BUT if the German battleship and transport are used to help in the attack on Anglo-Egypt, the German sub in the Atlantic will VERY likely die (if you send the Med fleet west to unite with the Atlantic sub in an attack on the UK battleship, the German Atlantic sub can survive).  Which is not so important in the larger scheme of things, I think - but ALSO, now the only thing that deters the Allies from landing in force at Algeria with 1 Russian sub, 2 UK transports, 1 UK battleship, 2 US transports, and 1 US destroyer is whatever air Germany has left.  Germany CAN kill the combined Allied fleet if the German air was well placed, but there is a good chance that the entire German airforce will be destroyed, and the Allies can rebuild their navy quickly, while Germany cannot afford a mass of new air.  Anyways, a US build of 3 transport 1 inf 3 tank combined with a UK2 naval build means that even if the Allied fleet is destroyed, the Allies start pressing Germany again very quickly (especially since the Allied air hasn’t been slaughtered; it can be used to help attack any naval threats).  And of course, if Germany does NOT destroy that initial Allied landing force, the Allies can use their US1 build to cement their foothold in Africa, using US air and the three tanks produced on US1 to reclaim Africa quickly.  Or at least that’s what I do most of the time if the German Med fleet doesn’t move west.