Germany first buy: 4 fighters

It’s easier to show it than to say it; basically Russia should push hard on you since you’re low on land units and also push with aa guns to discourage you from trading certain territories. The Allies might have to build another carrier in the Atlantic to keep their shuck safe, but that doesn’t slow them down much and soon you have too many fronts with too little infantry to defend.

Well, don’t forget I said it’s easier to show it than to say it. I didn’t believe for a second that you’d take my word for it, but I had to try.

Here, how’s this for more specific:

UK1 build 2 tp 3 inf 1 arm, kill your Baltic fleet with air. Invade Algeria. US1 build 2 carrier 1 fig, reinforce Algeria. Algeria’s fleet is 4 tran 1 dd 1 bb 1 sub. If you attack that with 5 fig 1 bom you will lose (I usually attack Ukraine so you’re 1 fighter down).

Turn 2, Germany gets their 10 fig 1 bom airforce in W. Europe. UK sends more units to Africa, builds more men. US links off of Algeria for a second time. The fleet is now 2 carrier 4 fig 2 dd 1 bb 1 sub 6 tran. 10 figs 1 bom is going to get their butts kicked - they might get all the transports/destroyers, but lose all the airforce in return, and now Russia is pushing even harder without any fighters to stop them.

In any case, the Allies are safe from the airforce on turn 2.

But let’s say that the Ukraine fighter didn’t die. Oh well, don’t land in Algeria on turn 1. Land there on turn 2. Germany will be in Africa one turn longer but it won’t make enough difference.

@OLver:

However, I played this strategy last game against a guy who beats me 2 times out of 3 and I crushed him hard. It looks like you underestimate the power of 10 fighters and 1 bomber against the starting weak fleat of the allies.

Anyway anyone has real strategy to counter that instead of saying that Germany would not have enough land unit?

Two things worked in your favor to win.

1).  moving a Russian Ftr to Anglo Egypt R1 is not a good move, ESPECIALLY if you do not take out the Ukraine ftr.
2).  You probably caught the Allied player in a situation where the Russians didn’t make the right move.  In this case, Russia should be williing to throw units (even at a loss) against an infantry poor Germany.

What did Japan do in this game that was so effective?  Did Russia fail to fall back strongly to allow a valid second front for the Axis?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5491.msg108567#msg108567

Have it fun =)

@OLver:

Let’s say the axis start with a 7 bid, which is 1 ART and 1 INF in Ukraine.

I don’t know that’s the best place for a German bid.  But we will take that as given for now.

Generally, Russia takes strongly West Russia and leaves Leningrad pretty openend. One russian fighter doesn’t fight and goes to Anglo Egypt.

West Russia yes.  Leningrad open yes.  Fighter to Anglo-Egypt - no, never.  First, the Russian fighter can’t hit any targets on R1.  Second, if Ukraine is not hit, Germany has possible 2 inf 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter, which is favorable for the Germans (Note this assumes Germany keeps back a fighter for the naval battle so there is almost no chance the UK destroyer will KO the German battleship or transport, but it is also reasonable to assume 2 inf 2 tank 2 fighter 1 bomber attack).  Third, it is probable Germany will attack Anglo-Egypt in the face of those odds, especially since the Russian fighter is so valuable for trading territory in Europe and it’s Germany’s golden opportunity to kill the Russian fighter.  The Russian player shouldn’t have done that.

My Germany first buy is 4 fighters.
Combat are: Leningrad strongly, since there is almost nothing there to defend it. The three infantries in Norway stay in Norway.

By the way, there should be NOTHING on Leningrad, not “almost nothing” - another Russian mistake, I think.

About G3, Germany’s forward infantry will be bled dry (figure if you produce infantry at Germany on G2, they march to Eastern Europe on G3 meaning they can only start trading on G4 - and they have to be followed up by more infantry if they’re not to run out of power -, and you will be trading German tanks for Russian infantry on attack AND defense on G2-G3).  (look at the map and see what I mean; if you don’t produce any ground units on G1, you have to use your current forces in Eastern Europe to trade territory for the first few turns, either bleeding you dry if you use 2 ground units and X fighters on each territory trade, or risking the 1/3 chance of the Russian infantry defending and killing your ground unit if you attack with 1 ground unit and X fighters.)

The added hitting power of fighters when trading territory is good, and the ability to hold the Allied fleet off is good, but you WILL pay for that lack of ground units, particularly given the Mediterranean and Baltic situations.  What does that mean?

You didn’t put a bid in Africa, and you have 1 Mediterranean transport, so the Allies can easily counter Anglo-Egypt on UK1.  This leaves you with infantry and artillery in Anglo-Egypt at the beginning of G2, and no tanks to blitz through Africa.  You can transport a tank to Africa on G2, but Germany’s rampage through Africa is stopped (you really need TWO tanks at end of UK1).  I would REALLY recommend that you put your bid in Africa.  Losing the fighter in Ukraine is not going to be a major deal for you, considering that you can easily smash the Ukraine on G2 and you have already compensated for the fighter loss and that you will be killing Russian tanks.  And if you hold Anglo-Egypt past UK1, you can blitz through Africa, giving you added income that the Allies can’t take from you anytime soon.

As it is, you do NOT control Africa early; you have to transport over tanks from Europe (and remember how awfully few units you have in Europe to begin with considering your first turn buy).

You may attempt to hold Africa midgame with your German fighters, but consider that this requires you hold your fighters at Western Europe which is no good for trading territories with Russia.  If you go half and half with German fighters, putting a few in Western Europe and a few others in territories east, sending the ones in territories east to trade Russian territories and returning to W. Europe and using the ones in W. Europe to trade territories and land in territories east, then the Allies can and will land at Algeria and reclaim Africa.

In brief - I think the US counter is 1 carrier 1 transport 1 fighter 1 tank 1 infantry; if Germany lands its fighters in W. Europe on G2, the US can build another carrier, if Germany goes half and half, the Allies can land at Algeria immediately.

My sub in SZ8 goes fort the english battleship in the Med, so do my norway, france, germany and balkan fighters. I send the two others fighters in anglo egypt with my bomber, plus the art and inf that where already in Africa
The artillery in Africa cannot reach Anglo-Egypt on G1.  The attack is 2 inf 2 tanks plus air on Anglo-Egypt, and that gets killed by the UK counter of 1 inf from TransJordan, 2 inf from Africa, 1 fighter from India and possibly 1 bomber from UK although this last improbable if Germany landed 2 fighter 1 bomber in Africa and I transport an inf and a tank from Italy. My battleship takes the english destroyer. Everything goes perfectly fine for me, Anglo Egypt is taken with a tank and I have zero planes lost.

HOW do you counter that?

Jazz and rock on!

The Allies never really counter until US1.

Russia does something
Germany does something based on Russia’s moves
UK does something based on Germany’s move (this CAN mean attacking Japan)
Japan does something based on UK move
US does something based on Germany and Japan’s move (i.e. only now do the Allies commit to KGF or KJF)

That is to say, it is difficult to say that you “counter” something unless that something was an obvious error.  (That is, you could “counter” if Germany moved all its forces as far west as possible on G1.)  I think, then, that although there is no clear and obvious “counter” to a G1 4 fighter buy, there will still be successful lines of play for the Allies, probably concentrating on the points I mentioned above.

I don’t say German fighter buys are WRONG, but I do think that I would not commit to 4 fighters on G1.

@OLver:

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

There are two approaches to a non-Baltic fleet buy that I’ve seen and use.

1.  Stay put.  If the UK attacks with its air, the Germans kill UK air.  The Germans lose a lot of navy which they weren’t using a lot (they would have used the Baltic transport), and the UK loses its valuable and hard-to-replace air.

2.  Split into four groups.  If the UK splits its air up, German subs can surrender and German destroyer and/or transport have a better chance of bringing down some UK air.  If the UK doesn’t split its air up, then at least three German units survive.  Note that the US bomber will probably knock out another German naval unit.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Yes, trading territories is - after a fashion - a strength of the German fighter buy, but REALLY, you should have been bled dry, especially with having to transport units to Africa.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

German fighters have nothing to do with a fleet in the Pacific.  Nothing you have yet described prevents the Allies from building a fleet in Atlantic OR Pacific.  (Of course, if they build in the Atlantic, they’ll have to overcome that German air force, but I digress)

The UK can still send their carrier and destroyer against the Japanese transport at Kwangtung - and they should, too, in view of the fact they used the Indian fighter against Anglo-Egypt.  More weak play.  :wink:

I think you spent way too many IPCs on industrial complexes.  If you purchase 16 IPC of transports, you can move up to four units from Japan to the mainland, and vary between anywhere from Soviet Far East to French Indochina; furthermore, those transports can be used as naval fodder and to pick up Japanese infantry from isolated islands where they are doing no good.  Compare with a 15 IPC industrial complex that produces three units, cannot switch where units are placed, cannot be used as naval fodder, and do not solve the problem of wasted Japanese infantry resources sitting on isolated islands.  I know Caspian Sub states 2 transports 1 industrial complex is good, but I think I would prefer 3 transports 1 tank on J1 regardless of bid - if I can claim India and put an IC there with Japan, the positional advantage is huge.

–

In practice, those German fighters have limited range, exactly as I previously mentioned; you will probably end up having to split the German fighters between eastern territories and Western Europe.  This isn’t too bad in practice.  What you will probably see is the Allies building up a fleet off Eastern Canada; when the Allies feel like it, they will unite newly built naval units from Eastern US with the existing fleet off Eastern Canada and land at Algeria, where with no surviving Baltic fleet elements and your German Mediterranean fleet probably not in a position to counter, and insufficient German fighters at Western Europe (considering that you have to split between Western Europe and eastern territories), you can do nothing THAT TURN.

On the next turn, though, you can land 10 fighter 1 bomber (possibly 9 fighter 1 bomber) at Western Europe.  If the Allied navy stay off Algeria, you beat them up, if the Allied navy retreats from Algeria, you may have a problem.  Why a problem?  Because even a pretty tame Allied fleet will land 6 US and 4 UK ground units (2 starting UK transports and 2 starting US transports plus 1 US transport bought on US1); you may easily have to deal with a lot more.  And although you have air at Western Europe that can hit Algeria, you need cheap German ground units to act as fodder; you can get 2 German infantry in with the Mediterranean transport, but otherwise - well, you can see that you might have a problem to deal with.

So let us say that is what happens.  On the German turn, you fly all your fighters to Western Europe, and the Allies respond by pulling their navy back to Eastern Canada and buying another US carrier at Eastern US (I assume they bought one already on US1 after seeing the German fighter build).  Germany does nothing about the Allied forces in Algeria.

Germany’s next turn, you can only trade off Karelia and one other territory easily (that other territory being the one your German bomber can hit).  BUT now what?  If you fly away from Western Europe, the Allies will land MORE units at Algeria.  And if you do NOT fly away from Western Europe, the Allies STILL land at Algeria, with probable 6 transports (up to 7 or 8 easily), 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship.  EVEN with that mighty air force, there is nothing you can do.  So let us say you GIVE UP Algeria and start harassing Russia with your mighty air force.  The Allies have sunk 32 IPC in carriers, and are just making their landing at Africa; they are out of position to help Russia.

So as you can see, what have you gained at best?  Nothing but TIME.  Time for Japan to push on Russia.  Time for the Germans to keep the IPCs they gained in Africa.  And that is EXACTLY why I recommend using African bid units instead of Ukraine.  You need to control Africa early while you still can; you WILL lose Africa eventually.

–

And remember these things too:

1.  The Allies can still go KJF (if they do, Germany has to try to control and keep control of Africa.)

2.  By buying so many fighters early, you lock yourself into a certain line of German play.  You may do better to stagger your fighter buys out (say 1 German fighter a turn or even 2 German fighters on G1) so you can have some early infantry to trade with Russia sooner.

In short - yes, if the Allies go KGF, German fighters are useful - however, I do not think that 4 fighters RIGHT AWAY is necessary or proper; I think 2 fighters is the most that the Germans can afford on G1.