German IC in Romania strategy ( Naval Base )

@Hobbes:

@squirecam:

@Hobbes:

@shermantank:

@Hobbes:

@shermantank:

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…

@squirecam:

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!

@Hobbes:

@squirecam:

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)

@Corbeau:

Both good comments from Hobbes and Squirecam. I’d rather no talk of VC conditions however, i never played with thoses in any versions.

Fact to consider for Germany IC production:

• Needs an additional IC, captured or built. It has only 10 prod compared to 16 in revised.
• IPC prod value of IC built
• Ennemy Bomber range
• Mediteranee access

France pros:

• Gives 6 prod
• Access to Algeria in med sea
• Acess to Baltic and sea zone 7

France cons:

• In ennemy bomber range
• In ennemy fleet range
• Needs to be absolutely defended
• Algeria sea is in range of ennemy air force, might be tough to get a fleet going in med.

Romania pros

• Safe access to meditaranee out of most ennemy air and fleet range
• Close the front line when infantry is needed.
• Close to indian ocean and caucasus for bridging.

Romania cons

• Lower 2-3 prod value
• Not adjacent to Germany

=====================================

Both options are good i guess. The biggest thing to consider is Romania safer lower prod versus the need to defend France but with a higher output.

I am assuming the Axis will only be able to defend Mediteranee and Baltic seas.  I don’t know yet how the Atlantic battle will go, maybe contrary to revised we won’t see the usual massive UK-USA fleet claim it on turn 2.   Depending on that, if Germany can actually take the offense in atlantic, France access to it might prove the better option. But if not, i’m convinced that if the need to defend it is still there, Romania is a better option.

Something else to consider.

Germany swapping territories in the east used to mean karelia(2) belo(2) UKR(3). That was alot of IPC. Now, Germany is swapping 4 IPC worth of territory vs 7 (assuming a base of Eastern Europe as in AAR).

Unless you can stage into UKR (so that you can move on Caucus) or Baltics/East Poland (to move on Karelia/Moscow) you really dont need that IC for 2 ground units.

It may be more important to keep the 8 (France + NW Europe) than have an easier time trading the 4 IPC.

I think most of the games that extra IC will be Karelia. It should be taken on turn 2 and be held a large part of the game. If you get “Improved production”, Karelia could be a tough one to crack!

The game will probably be decided over the Caucasus territory. Now that Russia only can produce 6 units / turn in Moscow, once Caucasus falls you will probably be dead meat.

Back (to Classic) to the Future(Anniversary) with Karelia being the focus of German aggression in the Eastern front…?
Interesting.

Karelia…. actually archangel right?

Yea i like taking that by building another transport and shucking now 4 men from Baltic. 7 vs. 15 IPC investment and I get other targets too. I can retake Finland, Norway and Id even look at buying a cruiser to protect my Baltic fleet and SB the coast.

The key is the Soviet Archangel factory which denies them Bonus IPC.

If i had to buy another IC It would not be Romania. The only value is to help defend a sitting Italian navy by building ships that play on a different turn and to use the offensively means you need to also buy escorts, so if your looking at this naval base you spend IPC on transports, factory, and escorts, when in the Baltic you just need a few ships to keep your starter fleet.

Ok yea CV is cheaper anyway…

But remember we only got 4 fighters this time. and also the carrier defends at 2 rather than 3

so a cruiser costing 12 IPC and a destroyer at 2/2 might do the trick as well.

/IL

Karelia…. actually archangel right?

No, look at the BGG pics, you see clearly that the IC is in Karelia. I doubt if you could buy a second TRS since your CA+TRS will be bombed to dust on UK1. Only way to have a surface naval presence in the Baltic is to buy a CV, and the question is if you can afford that.

We don’t have the exact IPC values of Poland, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and Romania/Bulgaria, but they are 8 in total and two of them are probably of ‘3’ value. So an IC in Romania/Bulgaria could be a good idea, especially if you would get “Improved production” tech. Then you would get a capacity of 5 units/turn and an IC that is harder to SBR than Germany. But I’d rather have inf, art and tanks to that Russian front than expensive ships! Why buy a TRS when a tank in Romania reaches Caucasus in one turn?

Why buy a TRS when a tank in Romania reaches Caucasus in one turn?

I think its more crucial to attack the north rather than south, so by building a transport and another naval escort, i basically got a floating factory in the Baltic shucking 4 units from Berlin and protecting my starter fleet in Baltic from invasions ( i guess ill add more ships on installment plan)

The north factory is more important to taking Moscow, than Caucasus because holding the Karelia factory protects Finland and Norway from pesky British. If you go against the South i don’t think you can also hold the north, so i am saying to choose the north and get at Moscow from that direction.

If you can take and hold for 1 turn either of the russian factories, the need for a Romanian Factory decreases.

If you senter ALL your tanks in easter poland in turn one,  take ukarine and balkan with air/artellery and infanteri. Then you will have 6 tanks which can strike both north and south forcing Russia to protect both factories, and probable placing max # units on both. This leave very little IC left to place in moscow. So question, is it possible to take one of the russians factories turn 2, AND hold on to it?

Yes indeed. The set up is to take the central territories on G1 and have all your tanks in striking distance to that Factory for G2. I think it can be held provided your bringing in stuff with transport as well.

So hold finland/norway and take the 3 central properties and pile up against that factory. The Soviets only got men and no planes. They wont be dumb enough to buy good stuff and place in it on turn R1 so your basically fighting fodder.

Then Germany do want some protection for their transport first round. Taking out the UK fighter in Egypt is then a big advantage.

If you place all tanks in eastern poland, and keeping both transport till turn 2, Germany is treatening both factories. I dont think it would be wise for russia to attack much turn one, so but they are froced to defend both factories, and placing almost no units in moscow. Which means that russia have a lot harder time striking back. If russia ignores one factory, germany can probably take it quit eaily.

@Lynxes:

We don’t have the exact IPC values of Poland, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and Romania/Bulgaria, but they are 8 in total and two of them are probably of ‘3’ value. So an IC in Romania/Bulgaria could be a good idea, especially if you would get “Improved production” tech. Then you would get a capacity of 5 units/turn and an IC that is harder to SBR than Germany.

Poland is 3. But Romania is only 2.

Purchasing an IC for Romania is really not worth it.

Poland is 3. But Romania is only 2.

Purchasing an IC for Romania is really not worth it.

Yeah, that settles it! So Poland and Czech/Hungary are both 3;

Poland: gets a step closer to the Russian front. No SBR protection.

Czech/Hungary: one step closer to the southern part of Russian front. Double AA possible vs. SBR.

I think the second alternative is a better one! Another IC bordering the Baltic Sea is a bit fragile when you lose your navy. You’ll basically be forced to counter-attack every invasion to stop the Allies from producing next to Germany, and if you build tanks you’ll have to have infantry stationed to protect it. That Czech area is like the Urals of Germany.  :wink:

There is a russian IC right there  :evil:

That is what you should be taking. Not wasting IPC on building one in Romania. Or Poland. Or anywhere outside of France.

There is no economic payoff (For Germany) to buying an IC, when you can only place 2 units, and you can simply move units one territory away.

Its just bad use of limited resources.