Friendly IC

During my last game I had the following situation: I (Japan) conquered Moscow and in the following round UK/US took Berlin.
Germany had still 20 (or more, I don’t remeber exactly) theoretic IPC (because German capital was in enemy hand there was no income and no purchase for her).
The Caucasus IC was in German hand but the only Axis troops around was Japanese units, Geman army was almost obliterated, so defefese of so called German terriotories was on Japanese shoulder.

Reading the rulebook the only way for Japan to build units in Caucasus was to allow Allied to conquest Caucasus then reconquest it placing territory under Japanese control and start to build unit there in the next turn. It is my interpretation correct?
Furthermore, the other German controlled territory (their own grey territory and former russian red territories conquered) may not be converted to japanese control without being conquered by allies and re-conquered by Japan?

I ask these because my smart allied opponent leaves berlin open to counterattack, hoping that I reconquest it for allowing German to collect income and then strike again Berlin to grab away German income. Moreover, they avoid to conquest German territories on estern front, preferring to lands troop in Africa and come to Russia from there.
So IPC from German territories was out of reach for me and I have to allow Allied to conquer them and then hoping to retake. So I was defending economically useless territories.
It seems an asymmetric rule to me! There was 20+ IPC “locked” and useless that I can not grab without making “strange” moves!

Tanks ncscswitch!

I was hoping that my interpretation was wrong, but it seems that things goes as I thought!
Next time I will be Japan I try to push on Moscow at least a turn earlier… and maybe it could be useful to plan a Japanese conquering of Caucasus!

Yes Jennifer, it was the tactic adopted by Allied players, the problem has been … that I was the Axis player on the receiving end of such tactic, not a nice place to stay!

As I said they were a little more subtle and leave Germany open to counterattack, hoping that I liberate Berlin to allow then US/UK counterattack to grab German IPC!
Their build-up were in France and in Algeria, from where their troops advanced on foot onward Africa and Asia.
Finally I chose to concede.

The disaster has became after a succesfull German attack on UK/US fleet aimed to destroy TRN and disrupt landing in Norway, in order to gain tempo to assault Russia. German sank almost all the TRN (4 UK and 4 US), but losing all 4 attacking sub and also three fighter. My German colleague did not rebuilt Baltic Fleet leaving it to 1 AC, 1 DD and 1 TRN and built Panzer to assault Russia assisted by me (Japan). The assault had gone well, after 3 turns Russia fell, but meanwhile US/UK rebuilt fleet and the turn after the fall of Moscow they struck the Baltic Fleet, sank it, and invaded Berlin!

So I have a question. How do you deal with US/UK fleet that lands troop in Norway or Algeria every turn? I am aimed to have a Baltic Fleet with 3 or 4 SUB tu use as fodder in assitance to air attack on the Allied fleet. Or should Germany be more active in Atlantic sending out SUB in order to “occupy” Sea Zone hindering Allied combat moves? Or there is another approach to solve the problem?

Thanks! I will try to switch to a more land based strategy in next matches.  :-D

Summarizing the problem of my collegue was the lack of infantry caused by the money spended for ships and subs! I will try to persuade him to try this strategy!

I understand the needs for a more focused land strategy for German and I will try it for sure in the next matches, maximizing expenses for infantries, panzers and aircrafts. There are a lot of threads on this forum that proposes this as the better strategy for Germany.

However I believe that a minimum consideration for naval power is fundamental also for Germany. And for me finding the right equilibrium is still an open problem.

In my experience in games whit my playgroup, the loss of Baltic Fleet opens always an highway to invade Germany and Eastern Europe, so German defense had to be spread in three territories: Western Europe, Germany and Eastern Europe. This means a more tiny defense or to renounce to defend strong everywhere.

With Baltic fleet intact the Allied could hit directly only Western Europe, so Germany have to place fighters in two places: SZ-5 and France.
Ok, UK/US may always try to sink Baltic fleet and invade in the same turn, but if Sz5 is well defended this is not going to be a walking in the park.

A landing in Western Europe drain German resources to counter-attack.
A landing in Eastern Europe, even if unsuccesfully, disrupts the pipeline of infantry reinforcment on the Eastern Front and this is not a good event, it slows down the assault on Moscow.
A landing in Berlin… ouch!

I am aware that I am still green and inexpert at Axis and Allies but I am a good studious of History (and this is way I like A&A  :-D).
Naval power may not be understimated without the worst consequences in every military conflict. The competitor that have the naval supremacy may lands troops everywhere and at same time is safe from enemy landings.
Napoleon quits all the plans to invade England after defeat at Trafalgar and that was the first step of his final defeat.
Germany have lost two World War, one after the other, also because German Navy has not been able to gain the upper hand (this is not the only reason naturally).
Roman Empire was built not only with the mighty Legions but also with a powerful Fleet that gained the control on Mediterranean Sea (that was called by them “Mare Nostrum”).

I am not saying that I do not believe in German Land Strategies. I am only saying that IMHO having also a complementary naval strategies may help to stay alive a little more time, and also may help in staying alive better.

I see, so the proposed approach is a reactive strategy in which German player focus is to maximize defense in WE, GER e EE.
As I said I am willin to test this strategies!  :-)

Thanks!

@way2slo:

That said, switch is absolutely correct about Germany being a land power.  A&A is a land centric game.  The navy exists only to move land units around or prevent land units from landing.  By that reasoning, you should only have just enough navy to move your land units around as you wish.  Which is why I usually have some transports in the Baltic to aid in shuttling German Infantry to Leningrad.  Their aided defense of Berlin is secondary.

In fact in my next games with German I am going to spend the maximum number of IPC in infantry!

I also agree with you that resources from territories that lays on the other shore of the sea must be transported by merchant ship in homeland to be used and that in A&A this aspect is completely overlooked.
But I will continue to play A&A and I am willing to learn as much as possible about it!

In fact, saying maximum number of IPC in INF should mean that I intend tol spend about 24-30 IPC per turn on INF, and the remaining in FIG and Panzers.

The building of the AC on sz5 seemed to be not a good move as it appeared to me, many discussion on this forum pointed to the weakness of such tactics.
In our games German Batlic Fleet used as “Fleet in Being” (Another concept from Mahan)  has always scared the UK player giving to Germany more tranquillity.
But I am trying to alter my strategy for Germany in one more land based.

I will come back with reasults and impressions as soon as possible. Week end is coming… and we planned two days of A&A playing.