Nit picky German Economizer

If you build an AC or 2 transports on G1, the allies can both buy air and sink you unified navy in sz7 on UK2 and US2. If you really want to mess with the Allies in the Atlantic, you might want to try one of the following strategies (though they do come at a cost):

bid a sub in sz8 and kill the sz2 navy on G1 (you can combine this with a naval purchase on G1 and foregoing Egypt, sending the sz 14 fleet to sz 13, if you have the nerve) Buy something like bomber, fig, 5 inf or bomber, 8 inf and move your navy to sz 7 (add the sub in sz 8 or a possible bid unit for added effect). Because of the extra bomber, the UK will be hard-pressed to unify in sz 8 and hitting 5+ units in sz 7 is not really attractive either.

Curious Mazer, why only total of 4 transports? Since 2 are pretty much permanently away on pirate business, that means you have 4 spots that you can open up from Japan by purchasing 2 tp. That seems a better deal than buying a complex, which would only open up 3 spots. That’s why I assumed you get 6 tps, so you have 4 tps using up the 8 slots on Japan while the other 2 are raiding IPCs.

I think I’d be happy with 6 tps 2 complexes (78 IPCs infrastructure to open up 14 slots, meaning 10 inf 4 arm per round at 50 IPC income) instead of 4 complexes 4 tps (92 IPCs infrastructure open up 16 slots; you could fill that with 15 inf 1 arm at 50 IPC income). In both cases I know 2 of the tps are off raiding, but it seems like too much infrastructure with the 4 complexes and also you’re opening up slots you can’t even fill with offensive gear anymore.

That’s my portion of the test.  Can I keep England and America out and leave it just me vs Russia?

Also, I put the bid to Japan, instead of Germany to balance not taking out Egypt, which I think is what he said was a death knell for the Axis.

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

:lol: he he you made it funny  :lol:

-LT04

I’m already on your queue.

Besides, I don’t like the 50/50 bid.  On either side of the coin.

My opening German move to attack UK fleet is ussually kinda like this (the availability of my fighters depends on russian player of course…)

Sub z8 attacks z2 along with Bomber from germany, fighter norway.  (a bit risky move i know…)

Battleship z14 to z 13 along fighter from france

Transport z 14 to z 15 along fighter from balkans,

What i buy is situated to the actions of the russian player, but either i go a battle ship and 3 tanks, or 8 tanks or 6 tanks and a transport to put in italy…  Option on 4 tanks and a transport (italy) and a destroyer (baltic sea) have crosed my mind…

Any thoughts?

Mayhem, we too play with NAs. Actually we did two games in a row with all NAs. On the first game, Germany bought 1 AC and 3 subs on G1. That left him with very little ground force but he just held his cocoon and on G2 built just INF and ART to compensate. In the end, Axis won the game and the subs made the Allies loose at least 60 IPC through the course of the game (which wasn’t very long, maybe 7 turns). Plus the allies were always threatened by a mighty fleet of 1 AC, 1 DD, 5 subs (attacking on 3s), and 2 trannies (one of which was built later on) plus all german air force.

In our second game, Germany made a G1 purchase of 1 AC and 8 INF. Every turn thereafter Germany purchased 1-2 subs. The end results was the same, an Axis victory, but it was a lot safer against Russia with the additionnal 8 INF on G1.

No matter if you play with NA or not, a G1 buy of an AC is HIGHLY recommended.