I retry my Romanian IC theory
First, I really think it’s not in Axis interest to try take out Egypt turn 1. There is no UK reinforcement going there outside of Jordan 2 infantry if Japan does it’s job sinking the UK Indian fleet. The way i see it, Germans should prep themselves for Africa and take it rnd 2.
–---------------------------
G1 Build - IC in Romania, 1 CV in baltic landing 2 planes end of turn ( CV is optional if you feel you need that infantry for Russia. I don’t. )
Move Med transport with France infantry/tank, unload in lybia. Add Algeria infantry. Makes for german 3 infantry, 2 tanks and 1 artillery in lybia.
Move 1 infantry and 1 arti in balkans from Germany.
Mass every tanks and infantry in range to take out Ukraine. That makes 2 ( counting one loss ) infantry, 6 tanks and 1 art. Russia can’t take it back R1
Swap Poland and Baltic states with aviation and infantry landing at least one fighter in balkans. Make use of the cruiser shore bombard using transport for baltic states.
At sea:
Take out the 2 UK destroyers in med. 2 fighter and 1 bomber. It’s risky business but do it anyways. Assume one fighter loss.
Take out UK destroyer in front of baltic, 1 baltic sub and 1 fighter.
Take out UK destroyer and transport with 2 france subs.
Italy1 Build ground troops. I’d go with 2 tanks.
G2 Build 1 transport in romania. Mass infantry.
Move transport from italy sea zone loading the 2 units in balkans and unload in Egypt. Attack with every lybia unit plus air force in range:
1 bomber, 1 fighter , 4 infantry, 2 tanks and 2 artillery against worst case scenario: 4 inf, 1 arti, 1 tank and 1fighter.
Other moves are as you will. Probably some swapping of poland and baltic states, etc.
I2 should see a second transport to make full use of it’s fleet. Take persia with inf and egypt sudan with tank through egypt.
G3 should see a cruiser being built in romania. etc.
This allows to strangle slowly caucasus, Africa units moving toward persia, amphibious bridge and shore bombard available while holding on Ukraine.
Allies can’T do much by Rd 2 in africa in thoses conditions. The real threat will come from Russia since Germany did not used ressource rnd 1 but for ground troops. But at least Italy can muster most of it’s force in Europe to take advantage of “can openers” whenever Russia goes too light swapping a frontline territory.
Isn’t Romania worth 2?
Even if it were 3, I cant see building an IC as a worthy goal.
Germany will have IPC somewhere in the 30’s.
Buying some tanks (or art or sea units) will mean you wont exceed the 10 build limit (and with allied bombing you may need IPC to repair anyway).
Unless you are going to build in France (and thus play out a turtle) I cant see buying an IC as worth it. You should be conquering a Russian IC instead.
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
Romania is not a good plan if its 2 IPC. Its a waste IMO.
But i really think that Egypt is a G2 goal with build up on G1 and possible Italian attack on Jordan only on I1.
Germany does not have enough stuff in 1941 to get everything out risk minimal loses.
I also advise a bomber purchase on G1 and Japan is looking good for one as well on J1
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
1 IC, 1 AC G1 and 1 tra G2 … 36 ipcs on fleet and logistics in 2 turns… I think soviets will be happy with this. Even in Revised, when someone buys many fleet for Germany, soviets usually reach 30-33 ipcs in my games. Go figure now that soviets have more buffer land…
I based it on 3 ipc value. Even 2 is still ok. You should not have to build more than 2-3 boats per turn in any cases. The main goal is not to pop land units out of it. It is to give germans a naval base deep in mediteranee where USA and UK cannot interfer while also giving the option to send forces in Indian Ocean.
Contrary to revised, i am convinced naval warfare is a more viable solution to germany in this edition than waiting for allies to land. Thoses allies transports won’t be soaking damage anymore and will be vulnerable to submarines.
So yes, you might start with 36 ipc short in units facing Russia but consider that italy will use most of it’s income in Europe instead of Africa. Italy only need one tank collecting a bit of ipc in Africa once germans opened the door.
Besides, the CV for 14 ipcs in baltic fleet is really optional, build 6 infantry if you prefer or whatever. Myself prefer defend it but the strat here is about the IC and getting a German med fleet operational.
@Corbeau:
So yes, you might start with 36 ipc short in units facing Russia but consider that italy will use most of it’s income in Europe instead of Africa. Italy only need one tank collecting a bit of ipc in Africa once germans opened the door.
IC at South Africa means Italy should send at least 2 units a turn if they want contest Africa, and at least 3 if they want conquer it. If they don’t send anything, Italy will struggle for increasing income…
I don’t see any IC in south africa. If UK spend 15 ipc there, i’d be even more glad to spend the same amount as Germany and have the means to build transports to take it out.
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
That’s part of the risk. However, with an IC producing units on turn 2 without wasting a turn to move those units to W. Europe can be a bonus to the Germans.
@Corbeau:
I don’t see any IC in south africa. If UK spend 15 ipc there, i’d be even more glad to spend the same amount as Germany and have the means to build transports to take it out.
Good luck conserving Africa now that the obsesive ferry from USA to Algeria (Revised trademark) is reduced by the necesity of USA to fight both Europe and Pacific.
And for Germany, you should buy a IC at Romania G1, then G2 buy 2 trannies here and hope UK fleet don’t toast them. You’ll aid soviets with that move. As much, Italians should buy another trannie, but then the saf IC is even more necesary
I think 2 ICs for UK is now a must, one for India, other for SAF. If at least the chineses could put a semi-decent fight … :roll:
IC in India + IC in SAf means UK isn’t doing crap in Europe. They won’t have the money to build up any type of navy if they’re spending it all in SAf and India, which means they can’t land in Europe because of German air/navy. So, wish Russia luck holding Germany off on its own?
IC in India + IC in SAf means UK isn’t doing crap in Europe. They won’t have the money to build up any type of navy if they’re spending it all in SAf and India, which means they can’t land in Europe because of German air/navy. So, wish Russia luck holding Germany off on its own?
If Germany is buying a Romania IC 2 transports for it, Germany doesnt have sufficient ground forces to just roll over the USSR.
Russia wont be fallling anytime soon…
/03321
Not sure about your analysis of UK. They have 43 IPCs at start in '41 scenario, so even with 2 ICs they have 13 left to buy a DD or CA. Even later they will be at around 30 IPCs/turn, and 5 inf for South Africa and India leaves 15 IPCs for Europe. They will be flexible if they have those two ICs and build where they need to.
However: a German offensive naval strategy, such as the one discussed on my (somewhat failed) thread “GUARD”, would be able to put UK on the defensive though, and this might be a good counter if UK builds two ICs.
If Germany is buying a Romania IC 2 transports for it, Germany doesnt have sufficient ground forces to just roll over the USSR.
Russia wont be fallling anytime soon…
Yes, but are you taking that German IC as a given most games? Func seems to be saying UK has to build an IC in both India and SAf every game, which is what I was responding to because I completely disagree. If he meant they need both ICs if Germany goes Med, then I guess I misunderstood.
And Lynxes I don’t find building 2 ICs to deploy nothing but inf because you’ll otherwise be unable to build in UK very effective. /shrug
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
That’s part of the risk. However, with an IC producing units on turn 2 without wasting a turn to move those units to W. Europe can be a bonus to the Germans.
How do you waste a turn? You only need to move units already built on G to W. Eur.
The mechanics might be different on Anniversary, but on Revised building an IC on W. Eur for G is to limit yourself: G is forced to defend it (and/or Germany, when the Allied fleet moves to the Baltic) and that relieves a lot of pressure on the Russians.
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
That’s part of the risk. However, with an IC producing units on turn 2 without wasting a turn to move those units to W. Europe can be a bonus to the Germans.
How do you waste a turn? You only need to move units already built on G to W. Eur.
The mechanics might be different on Anniversary, but on Revised building an IC on W. Eur for G is to limit yourself: G is forced to defend it (and/or Germany, when the Allied fleet moves to the Baltic) and that relieves a lot of pressure on the Russians.
Because in Revised, Germany can build 16 units. In AAAv, Germany can build only 10. Building an IC (or taking a Russian one) is a necessity.
yes but perhaaaps not on turn one and though i aaagre it should be out of most bomber raaanges.
But id rather reverse straaategy from essentuaaally a defensive to offensive, by raaather investing IPC in Bombers and bomb Moscow so they dont get a good shot at my Faaactory. :-D
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
That’s part of the risk. However, with an IC producing units on turn 2 without wasting a turn to move those units to W. Europe can be a bonus to the Germans.
How do you waste a turn? You only need to move units already built on G to W. Eur.
The mechanics might be different on Anniversary, but on Revised building an IC on W. Eur for G is to limit yourself: G is forced to defend it (and/or Germany, when the Allied fleet moves to the Baltic) and that relieves a lot of pressure on the Russians.
Because in Revised, Germany can build 16 units. In AAAv, Germany can build only 10. Building an IC (or taking a Russian one) is a necessity.
I wasn’t arguing against the necessity of building/capture an extra IC for G on Anniversary. When I meant the mechanics I was referring to the fact that on Revised (and according to the map, it looks as if Anniversary as well) that an IC on W. Eur is a liability: when the US/UK fleet moves to the Baltic and threatens to offload 8+8 land units at the time, defending W. Eur and Germany is very hard to achieve. Italy might be able to counterattack an UK landing but if W. Eur (and the IC) remain on the Allies hands after G counterattacks, then Italy will most likely be dead in 1-2 turns.
If Rom/Bulg is worth 3 then it is the best option to place the IC, IMO. Of course, if E. Poland was worth 3 then it could be also a very nice option for an IC buy on G2…
Romania is NOT a good German IC buy. Build one in W. Europe. You get more units and you prevent D-Day from being a threat (at least for a while.)
But if the Allies take and hold W. Europe then the IC turns into a big liability…
That’s part of the risk. However, with an IC producing units on turn 2 without wasting a turn to move those units to W. Europe can be a bonus to the Germans.
How do you waste a turn? You only need to move units already built on G to W. Eur.
The mechanics might be different on Anniversary, but on Revised building an IC on W. Eur for G is to limit yourself: G is forced to defend it (and/or Germany, when the Allied fleet moves to the Baltic) and that relieves a lot of pressure on the Russians.
Because in Revised, Germany can build 16 units. In AAAv, Germany can build only 10. Building an IC (or taking a Russian one) is a necessity.
I wasn’t arguing against the necessity of building/capture an extra IC for G on Anniversary. When I meant the mechanics I was referring to the fact that on Revised (and according to the map, it looks as if Anniversary as well) that an IC on W. Eur is a liability: when the US/UK fleet moves to the Baltic and threatens to offload 8+8 land units at the time, defending W. Eur and Germany is very hard to achieve. Italy might be able to counterattack an UK landing but if W. Eur (and the IC) remain on the Allies hands after G counterattacks, then Italy will most likely be dead in 1-2 turns.
If Rom/Bulg is worth 3 then it is the best option to place the IC, IMO. Of course, if E. Poland was worth 3 then it could be also a very nice option for an IC buy on G2…
In revised, you are correct. In AAAv, perhaps not.
Remember that USA must engage in a pacific war. No more all out KGF. At least, this is the intent of the VC. Should USA allow Japan to run wild, the Axis will hit the VC win conditions, and the game will end. And an unchecked Japan with bonuses will be a monster…
