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…
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…
According to the post on VCs, you need either 13/15/18 VCs to win. If J takes all Pacific VCs (Manila, Sidney, Honololu, Hong Kong, Calcutta) that’s 7 for J (with its starting 2). G/I start with a total of 4, so in the lower range of 13, the Axis would have to take 2 more to win.
Thus, the Allies can let J wonder around in the Pacific as much as it wants as they move for a KGF/KIF strategy.
These VC conditions only remove the necessity for Moscow to be conquered by the Axis to win the game: if G/I take Stalingrad/Leningrad and J all the mentioned Pacific VCs, while holding to all original VCs then Axis wins the game.
But it seems that the US is not forced to go Pacific: it will be an option, like going full KGF.
Damn, reading up on all these strategy posts , without being able to play the game -heck , without even knowing the starting setup! - REALLY makes we long for 26th of Oct!!! (the release date , right)
Now, being Swedish I guess I won’t get my hands on the game until November/December … Pity me!
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…
According to the post on VCs, you need either 13/15/18 VCs to win. If J takes all Pacific VCs (Manila, Sidney, Honololu, Hong Kong, Calcutta) that’s 7 for J (with its starting 2). G/I start with a total of 4, so in the lower range of 13, the Axis would have to take 2 more to win.
Thus, the Allies can let J wonder around in the Pacific as much as it wants as they move for a KGF/KIF strategy.
These VC conditions only remove the necessity for Moscow to be conquered by the Axis to win the game: if G/I take Stalingrad/Leningrad and J all the mentioned Pacific VCs, while holding to all original VCs then Axis wins the game.
But it seems that the US is not forced to go Pacific: it will be an option, like going full KGF.
Really will be KGF or KIF a option? A conquered China gives you 7 ipcs, not 4. You have Burma and Hong Kong territories, giving 3 more IPCS to Japan, plus any bonus IPCs they could get. I think Japan can reach 60 ipcs a row if it’s let alone, maybe even more if they attack Africa. It would be very very risky facing a 25-30 ipcs USSR against that monster, and with so many production, Japan could even try attacking american mainland!. I think a global strategy is far better for this game (and even for Revised is still very good, if you ask me), fighting for each inch of territory.
Also, Germany could focus taking Karelia and Japan taking Caucasus (anyway a good strat even in Revised). Maybe it’s not so difficult reach 15 VCs, and now soviets must defend both Caucasus and Moscow. Axis could get a easy sudden death if allies don’t protect Pacific and axis get’s a lucky shot, let’s say, at Stalingrad.
And probably soon or after VCs condition will be changed to 14 (in Revised was changed from 8 or 10 to 9)
