Please stay on topic or don’t post in this thread. Thanks.
Conservative Germany
-
Between Jenn’s and IL’s strategies I think the aggressive Germany has been well covered. However these are not the only options Germany has in the '41 scenario. I prefer a much more conservative and methodical approach.
Purchase 7 infantry and 1 fighter. Use both subs from sea zone 7 along with the NW. Europe fighter and the bomber to take down sea zone 12. Attack the lone destroyer in sea zone 6 with the Baltic sub and Norway fighter. Transport 1 infantry from Norway and Finland to Baltic States with Cruiser bombardment. Also joining here are 1 infantry from Poland and the 2 remaining fighters. The remaining troops in Poland attack East Poland and the troops in Bulgaria attack Ukraine. Transport 1 infantry and 1 armor from France to Egypt and bring in the Libyan troops. Baltic and Egypt are the only 2 close battles and the Libyan forces can be retreated from Egypt if that goes poorly on round 1.
In non combat land the bomber back in Germany and the two fighters at sea in France. 1 of the fighters from Baltic States goes to France and 1 goes to Germany. Reinforce France with the infantry from NW. Europe, 2 infantry from Germany, and the 2 armor from Czechoslovakia. The 1 infantry and artillery left in Germany go to Poland.
On all following rounds purchase at least 1 bomber per turn. Keep all of your fighters in France and your Bombers in Germany. Bombers and Infantry can be used for trades on the East front. Every turn send 1 infantry from Germany to France. It can be helpful to have Italy bring their AA gun up to France and buy a replacement. They also can contribute some reinforcing troops for France as well. On the second turn Germany will most likely want to pull back and leave out 1 infantry in the 3 western most Russian territories. Do not attack deeper into Russia just because you can. Only attack into Russia if trading territories for the National Objective or making a heavy push for a major objective such as Karelia or the Caucasus.
The general idea behind this strategy is to first secure Germany’s position in central Europe and THEN take the war to the Russians on YOUR terms. France can be kept secure if Germany starts about it on Round one. It is also very easy to over extend into Russia and loose your initial assault forces with no meaningful follow on waves. So just avoid doing so. There are plenty of territories between Germany and Russia, sometimes it is in your best interest to back up and consolidate even if you have to give ground to do so.
-
In most games of A&A, time is on the side of the allies. Defense is cheaper and more efficient, and the Axis has more military pieces to start with then the allies.
In other words, the axis should strike while the iron is hot (As a general rule). However, I think it’s even more of a pressing issues with the advent of the National Objectives in AA50. You are rewarded even more than the territory value by attacking specific areas/territories. Conversely, NOT achieving these could be construed as a penalty.
I am not saying a safe methodical approach for Germany can not work. But you are playing into the allies hands. I also think that this delay allows USA to not have to spend money in the atlanitc if they do not want to. A slowly expanding Germany would probably be relying on Japan to grow agressively. This is much easier to do without any US backdoor pressure. USA can spend cash to keep the japanese navy home…. limiting the Japanese expansion. Now BOTH theatres of war are at a more leisurely pace. Advantage Allies.
These are my humble initial thoughts. I will look into your specific moves next.
Thanks for posting this because I too have thought about this. I have had some success utilizing the heavy push and tank buys with Germany. Tanks are indeed very good for Germany as to cover the vast spaces that are now a part of the AA50 ETO. Also in this sense, you do not need too many inf to support a large force of tanks and planes.
-
I disagree with time being on the side of the Allies in AA50. The income balance can shift quickly to even or to an Axis advantage. Honestly I would say even is an Axis advantage because the Allies have to build the transports to get their units to battle and now they have to increase the number of ships in their navies as transports are no longer cheap fodder.
As far as National Objectives go Germany has 2 of their 3 at the end of G1. Japan has 2 of theirs at the end of J1 with the 3rd coming J2. Also by the end of J2, at least the way I play Japan they have most of the money from the Pacific anyway, before the US can do anything about it. Also the US will spend money in the Pacific either voluntarily or because Japan forces them to. Based on what I have seen in over 20 games played the old ignore Japan is out the window.
This may sound like a turtle from earlier games but I feel it is a bit different. The majority of the defense is set up on round 1. From there it is simply maintained and the actual fighting begins. Granted Germany may forgo some attacks in Russia on round 2 but I have found it is better to just skip these than to throw forces away for 1 or 2 IPC territories that Russia will take back anyway. Again the main thought is not to do anything that jeopardizes your position. There are attack strategies for Germany that will take out all of England’s ships when they work. I have played against some of these and when they fail, Germany can find itself in a bad position quickly.
I have had success with this so I know it will work. It may not work all the time but I know it will work some of the time if nothing else.
-
Can I ask why Germany doesn’t land their bomber in France on G1?
Also why land a ftr in Germany in NCM?
Wouldn’t Poland be better if you would like range out east?What you have is definitely a very solid europe that should hold up for a while.
Although I think you are allowing a quick allied atlantic fleet to be bought and norway and finland to be lost forever after G1. Every thing is a trade off, and you might be comfortable with this trade off. -
Bombers are kept in Germany to be used like fighters were in Revised for trading. From Germany they can protect the sea zones along the cost and still readily reach Russian territories. Yes 1 of the fighters from Baltic could land in Poland but I prefer it in Germany for hitting any Navy that comes to close. Also on round 2 I pull back my forces except a blitz blocker in Baltic States, E. Poland and Ukraine. I don’t have enough infantry or armor to push forward successfully. Petering out with tanks in Belorussia and E. Ukraine is not going to get the job done for Germany.
As far as Norway and Finland I do not think these are realistically defensible by Germany in the long run anyway. Besides they can always be regained after Karelia is taken. Think about it which would you rather give the UK 3 IPCs for Norway or 6 for France plus 5 more for gaining a National Objective. That is 11 IPCs to the UK anytime they take France!
So the Allies build up a big fleet. If they have done so they will not have the troops to invade France with. The UK’s money drops like a rock in AA50. By round 3 they are generally about on par with the Italians and have a lot more to be concerned with. If the US builds towards a large invasion force Japan can always threaten or invade Alaska, W. Canada, or W. US. While I doubt strongly they can take and hold any of these territories due to Naval cost and the logistics involved they can force the US to spend all of its builds on fighting for US soil.
I am not advocating not buying tanks either. I start doing so after round 1 when I can purchase a bomber, some tanks and quite a few infantry. Germany does have a 10 unit cap and this does all work out nicely.
One more thing allies_fly I am wondering if you are not carrying a bit of prior A&A baggage. Bombers are now the go to air unit. They cost what a fighter did in classic and 2 IPCs more than a fighter now. They have greater range and greater hitting power. They can even conduct SBRs if you feel like exposing them to AA for little gain. Remember a bomber is no longer the cost of 3 tanks. If you are playing with techs those same bombers can become airborne transports(paratroopers), heavy bombers, or the longest ranged unit possible. I know I have had to adjust my thinking to a transport being escorted by a destroyer to equal that of an old single transport at 1. While not an exact match they are both easily sunk by air.
-
I honestly do agree that I feel Germany pushing too hard to fast leads to Russia becoming a meat grinder for Germany. Germany has the advantage of air units to trade dirt for a long period of time with little cost, while Russia does not. Also, defending France is something I feel most people neglect, if you think about it with NOs France is the largest IPC territory in the game. Value 6, 2 allied 5 NOs, 2 axis 5 NOs. Even trading it allows UK to rise above 30ish IPCs to 40ish IPCs, not good. Also with the US cashing in around 50ish IPCs if they play even a little in the pacific allows them to build a landing force in one turn.
-
1 of the fighters from Baltic could land in Poland but I prefer it in Germany for hitting any Navy that comes to close.
The ftr in Poland can hit sz6 or 7 since you are going to be holding France. You could also hit E poland or baltic states with that ftr and land in France G2.
As far as Norway and Finland I do not think these are realistically defensible by Germany in the long run anyway. Besides they can always be regained after Karelia is taken. Think about it which would you rather give the UK 3 IPCs for Norway or 6 for France plus 5 more for gaining a National Objective. That is 11 IPCs to the UK anytime they take France!
OK, long range thinking. I can see your point. I still am not 100% agreeing with you that time is not on the allies side. USA buying tech every round has become our defacto standard. Along those lines, <almost>each round brings another tech.
One more thing allies_fly I am wondering if you are not carrying a bit of prior A&A baggage. Bombers are now the go to air unit.
2 things:
1). If what you say is so true, why doesn’t Germany buy the bomber G1?
2). Where did you get the inference that I have a ftr preference? I do not think I ever said this. Bombers are the air piece of choice, I 100% agree.</almost> -
i agree with big dog on 2 points
allies can no longer ignore the pacific theater
it seems like germany hitting a supply line stall is unavoidable in round 2 unless u empty france, just not enough units to cover france adequately and still send some to poland round 2, ive been doing both, attacking like mad with the germans round 1 and reinforcing france, ive just been living with the round 2 stall
-
The fighter in Poland cannot hit Sea zone 8 however.
Buying a bomber on the first turn puts Germany short on infantry.
If the USA is buying tech dice each turn they are not buying units. That may not be a bad thing. Those dice do not always hit.
As far as the baggage bit I was just checking. I see quite a few players trying to play A50 like classic or Revised.
-
If I were to go passive Germany, I think I would make darn sure that destroyer in SZ 6 is dead, DEAD! Murdered with extreme prejudice, I mean, so extreme even the KKK would say “dang man, you don’t have to be THAT mean!”
Then I’d probably put a submarine or two in the water with the fleet. I’d hit Baltic, East Poland and Ukraine because I want the National Objective (no NOs then I’d only hit East Poland and stack the crud out of it.)
Form there, I’d reinforce Libya, Pile 4 fighters and a bomber on France with all the infantry/armor I could muster and my builds would probably include 1 bomber + infantry (so Bomber, 5 Infantry, Artillery)
I might go so far as to put all the aircraft in Norway, bring the one of the infantry from Finland over and bring the AA Gun and Infantry up from Germany.
Then I’d have to change the builds to Bomber, 3 Infantry, Artillery. (Remember, Germany is uninvadable by anyone on the first turn, so you only need a few units there to protect the bomber from the British Bomber.)
-
The fighter in Poland cannot hit Sea zone 8 however.
In Germany, it can not reach SZ8 either.
-
LOL good point. I know I have a reason I put it there, however at the moment it seems to escape me.
-
Ahem, that’s kind of why I mentioned Norway.
It also cannot hit SZ 8, but it can hit NW Russia and the northern parts of England which mostly secures France, NW Europe, Finland, Norway, Baltic States, Germany, Poland and, if you have it, Karelia and Arkangelsk as well.
From France you can’t really secure the north like that. SZ’s 2 and 3 will be out of range, but SZ 8 and 12 are in range. So it’s more a matter of style I think
-
I like the more conservative approach, but that is not to say I don’t go after Russia. I like a 9 inf, 1 rt buy (assume no tech). You can still hit the three boarder ter and be in position for a Kar attack on G2. So far the most logical Russian turn 1 defenses have them deadzoning Kar on R1 anyway so it probably won’t be much of a fight.
You’re early inf buys can help WE while you still send 6-7 units East then you can use the Kar IC for offensive units as you mix in a couple tanks for Ger and look to create a 2nd stack (or your main stack) to Epl, reinforce with Italy and now you have legitmate threats on Cauc and Mos since Italy may be able to open a door for you.
All this can start to really come into place on G3 and you’re looking for Cauc (probably by G5-G6). -
The only problem with being conservative with Germany is that you really only have 5 rounds of play before you get your buttocks handed back to you in small pieces by the allies.
-
The 9 inf/art purchase I agree with, Darth. It sets up a good position to both defend France and start a consistent push. Armor behind it on turn two is your friend.
-
Axis has advantage in 1941. And big. Why risk when you are wining from the begining? A conservative approach is better for Germany, because axis starts with military advantage, and by round 3 or 4 as much they will have also economic advantage. There is no reason for being haste playing Germany.
Japan in the other hand has no way of being conservative. Just start eating all on your sight at pleasure. Yummy :-D
-
I have to say, I’ve done a conservative opening with Germany twice now (yes, out of 70 games twice is not a large sample, sorry, I’m running out of opponents now that high schoolers and college kids are back in school!) and both times it has gone bad for Germany.
I have a 3rd game going with JWW but it’s already going bad for Germany.
I think the problem is that the balance really comes into play when you eliminate a lot of Russian units off the front and then kill off more when they try to retake some of the territories. Without this attrition, you don’t have the wear-with-all to stop the Russians from walking into Warsaw (or worse, Berlin!)
-
I can’t compete! My first game is this weekend… so far I’ve played myself three times… life in rural America. I can only dream of 70 games…
However, I now vote for 7inf/2arm as a nice conservative start, but the addition of the 2 armor provides some relief to the front. I’m a big believer that it’s ok to spend armor on the front in some amount to meet your objectives. As always, with a KGF against you, Germany needs to clean out as many Russians as humanly possible to weaken them for Japan.
-
I think I am gonna have to agree with Bigdog.
Currently I am in 2 games, both as the Axis without bid. (Note that this is Revised, but in AA:50 it might even be better, considering the no’s)
I played a conservative Germany.
Result, in both games I am in control of Karelia, Belo, and UKR. There is even a fleet in the Baltic ( a small one) Japan is ready to take Africa, piss the hell outof USA by invading Vanada, setting up a IC in bRazil.
In both games, the future looks bright. The USA; Yes, they have a gigantic fleet in the Atlantic, but no units that they can put on land. And he needs those units to consolidate Canada.
UKhas some money (+20), jus enough to refuel its transports, which I will reduce in a round or 2 withe Luftwaff
And so on.
Suggested Topics
