Conservative Germany

As usual Axis doesn’t even READ the posts and then claims some sort of intelligence superiority…

My recommendation to the community is to ignore him.  Maybe he’ll disappear like the advertisements did in that Treehouse of Horror episode in the Simpsons?

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.  Neither is mass attacking the British fleet and sacrificing your navy and some of your air force to clear the waters.  Both of those are aggressive tactics.

PASSIVE or CONSERVATIVE is when you ONLY focus on trading Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine until Japan brings up units to threaten Moscow and then, and only then, when you’ve made France, NW Europe and Germany completely impenetrable, do you advance deeper into Russia.

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.

Wow.  Infantry are agressive.  My whole basis of knowledge of this game is wrong.  Soon you’ll post that bombers are defensive.  :roll:

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

@Cmdr:

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

Again, we’re talking DEGREES of conservative play as Darth pointed out.

See, I do read the real posts

One players ‘conservative’ approach may equal anothers aggressive approach.
You said so yourself.  A players style can be hard to categorize.

I have seen many Revised games where Germany plays what many players would consider ‘turtle-like’ and wait for Japan to win the game.  I think this tactic can work in AA50 as well.

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.  Neither is mass attacking the British fleet and sacrificing your navy and some of your air force to clear the waters.  Both of those are aggressive tactics.

PASSIVE or CONSERVATIVE is when you ONLY focus on trading Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine until Japan brings up units to threaten Moscow and then, and only then, when you’ve made France, NW Europe and Germany completely impenetrable, do you advance deeper into Russia.

I interpret anything that doesn’t involve shrieking LEEROY JENKINS and making an all or nothing charge that captures Moscow on Turn 3 to be conservative.

Granted, my “conservative” strategy is oriented towards a London capture on Turn 3 as well, but it isn’t an all or nothing.  Even if it can’t capture Great Britain, it can stall Britain, Russia, and anything America throws at it long enough for its Axis buddies to conquer everything else before taking Russia down from below and behind.

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

If one seriously wanted to do a Turtle, Germany should take the 2 NOs, build an IC in France, then start pumping 16 Infantry out a turn.  This strategy will work if the Allies, convinced that Germany is insane for building an IC in France, go into KGF, which in this case is like running into a brick wall made out of hate.

The main think that makes such strategies reasonable is that if Germany believes it can’t take Moscow or London quickly enough, its expansion is probably limited to 9 IPCs on the first turn, 9 IPCs on the second, and it peters out.  In comparison, Italy can go up by 12 IPCs the first turn, then spend the next few turns working through Africa, the Middle East, and maybe even the Caucasus or Brazil.  Japan can pull off something like +27 IPCs the first turn, +13 the second turn.  However, by that point, the Axis have a significant IPC edge over the Allies, and they have a better position tactically as well, holding the Eurasian landmass.

Then you play a lot of really stupid people, Axis.

If Germany goes turtle, even in revised, then the Allies just stomp the crap out of them before Japan can even get to Moscow.  Or, if the allies chose, they crush Japan like an egg between the rock of England and the hammer of America.

I’ve seen many players who thought they were all that and went defensive with Germany get crushed by some really, REALLY bad players.  And it’s even worse in Anniversary.

Hell, even the TripleA AI is smart enough to not go 100% defensive!  Someone who is sitting down to the game for the first time EVER is smart enough to know they have to make moderate to aggressive moves in order to win!  You cannot just “sit there” and “wait for Japan” especially not in this game when it takes more than 6 rounds to get a serious Japanese invasion force to Moscow and you know it!

Anyway, I should let you just sit in your little black hole and leave you in your ignorance.  It’ll make it far easier to crush you like a bug in the tournament I suppose.  I guess I’m too ethical for that and at least attempt to show you where you are wrong.  Honestly, I don’t need to deal with the flaming though.

@wodan46:

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

If one seriously wanted to do a Turtle, Germany should take the 2 NOs, build an IC in France, then start pumping 16 Infantry out a turn.  This strategy will work if the Allies, convinced that Germany is insane for building an IC in France, go into KGF, which in this case is like running into a brick wall made out of hate.

That’s a very aggressive move.  It requires you to perform at least three attacks, potentially more since Russia will most likely have a very nice stack in Ukraine so they can trade Bulgaria for their 10 IPC NO. (That results in a 50 IPC + Russia each round, btw.  But axis wants to be conservative with Germany, so he has a miracle plan to defend against a Russia with an army twice the size of Germany.)

BTW, the France IC does not seem to help.  For one, it’s very hard to hold France if the allies really want it.  Especally with a conservative Germany (which would be earning in the mid 30s to low 40s tops and facing a Russia earning 50+, England earning 30+ and America earning 50+.)  Other problems:

1)  SZ 7 and 13 can shell France.  That means you will have to spend a minimum of 16 IPC to block the British from shelling France each round. (2 destroyers.  Submarines are impotent in this game, they can’t stop shelling, amphibious assaults or spit wads.  They can annoy your opponent however.)

2)  Germany is now capable of taking 32 IPC in damage and, as the allies, I will see too it that Germany does take that much damage EACH AND EVERY ROUND!  So you’ll have England pounding you with 3-8 Cruisers and 4 transports full of equipment and America pounding you with 10 bombers give or take.  (Obviously it takes a few rounds to get to that point, but you’re putting an IC in France, so I know my efforts will at least be usable no matter what.)

3)  When you finally surrender France, you’ve given England or America (probably England since America is working on keeping a bomber fleet up on Europe and putting some boats in the Pacific to annoy Japan so not a lot is going towards Europe) a valuable staging area.

Now you are saying, well I can put an AA Gun there.  Yes you can.  So?  It’ll cost you 6 IPC (if you move the one from Italy, just figure Italy will take 12 IPC of damage a round, since now there’s no gun there and the French gun cannot protect Italy from SBR raids.  This is anniversary, not revised, guns only fire if you attack that specific territory.)  So on top of taking 32 IPC in damage to Germany and France you’ll ALSO be out 6 IPC for the gun! (BTW, America can easily afford to put two bombers on the board every round without ignoring Japan, they can afford 4 Bombers a round if they do ignore Japan.  So Round 3, you have 10 Bombers.  2 Starting +4 Round 2 +4 Round 3 and maintenance bombers thereafter.)

In case you wonder:

10 Bombers = 6 bombers to Germany, 4 Bombers to France.  3.5 IPC damage on average each that’s 21 IPC to Germany (20 Cap) and 14 IPC to France (12 cap).  Both should cap damage to Europe each round.  Perhaps a few IPC will be spared on the off chance you actually hit one or two bombers.

@Cmdr:

That’s a very aggressive move.  It requires you to perform at least three attacks, potentially more since Russia will most likely have a very nice stack in Ukraine so they can trade Bulgaria for their 10 IPC NO. (That results in a 50 IPC + Russia each round, btw.  But axis wants to be conservative with Germany, so he has a miracle plan to defend against a Russia with an army twice the size of Germany.)

Um, the assumption remains that you take the 4 front territories of the Russians, increasing Germany’s production to 53 while decreasing Russia’s to 24.

@Cmdr:

1)  SZ 7 and 13 can shell France.  That means you will have to spend a minimum of 16 IPC to block the British from shelling France each round. (2 destroyers.  Submarines are impotent in this game, they can’t stop shelling, amphibious assaults or spit wads.  They can annoy your opponent however.)

You can’t shell unless you throw a ground force as well.  While its true that shelling will suck, Cruisers cost 12, which means that it will take them about 8 shots before they’ve paid off their costs.

@Cmdr:

2)  Germany is now capable of taking 32 IPC in damage and, as the allies, I will see too it that Germany does take that much damage EACH AND EVERY ROUND!  So you’ll have England pounding you with 3-8 Cruisers and 4 transports full of equipment and America pounding you with 10 bombers give or take.  (Obviously it takes a few rounds to get to that point, but you’re putting an IC in France, so I know my efforts will at least be usable no matter what.)

And if you do that strategy, you’ve just lost, because you’ve just spent several turns and 200-300 IPCs worth of money to pound the infantry stacks to oblivion, while in the mean time Japan and Italy conquer everything forever.

Remember, by Turn 2’s end, Germany and Japan have 50 Income and Italy has 25, roughly.

@Cmdr:

3)  When you finally surrender France, you’ve given England or America (probably England since America is working on keeping a bomber fleet up on Europe and putting some boats in the Pacific to annoy Japan so not a lot is going towards Europe) a valuable staging area.

Before the territory is immediately recaptured by 10 Infantry and the Luftwaffe?

@Cmdr:

Now you are saying, well I can put an AA Gun there.  Yes you can.  So?  It’ll cost you 6 IPC (if you move the one from Italy, just figure Italy will take 12 IPC of damage a round, since now there’s no gun there and the French gun cannot protect Italy from SBR raids.  This is anniversary, not revised, guns only fire if you attack that specific territory.)  So on top of taking 32 IPC in damage to Germany and France you’ll ALSO be out 6 IPC for the gun!

Or Germany could use 6 of its income to build an AA gun in Germany, while moving the other to Western Europe.  Or they can build the AA with the Industrial Complex on turn 2 along with 5 Infantry.

@Cmdr:

(BTW, America can easily afford to put two bombers on the board every round without ignoring Japan, they can afford 4 Bombers a round if they do ignore Japan.  So Round 3, you have 10 Bombers.  2 Starting +4 Round 2 +4 Round 3 and maintenance bombers thereafter.)

10 Bombers = 6 bombers to Germany, 4 Bombers to France.  3.5 IPC damage on average each that’s 21 IPC to Germany (20 Cap) and 14 IPC to France (12 cap).  Both should cap damage to Europe each round.  Perhaps a few IPC will be spared on the off chance you actually hit one or two bombers.

The Bombers are the primary reason that this strategy sucks.  Even so, there is a good chance that the Allies will focus on killing the newb Germany to such an extent that Italy and Japan pulverize them to the point of it not mattering.

Remember, any strategy that involves Germany being conservative will have Italy and Japan being aggressive, though Japan is pretty much always aggressive, the only question being the order in its aggressions.

Hypothetical Dumb Germany Build:
G1: 1 IC, 5 Infantry
G2: 15 Infantry, 1 AA
G3+: 17 Infantry (2 in Karelia, 6 in France, 9 in Germany)

Hypothetical Dumb Germany Alternate Build:
G1: 1 IC, 1 Carrier
G2: 11 Infantry, 1 AA, 1 Carrier
G3+: 17 Infantry (2 in Karelia, 6 in France, 9 in Germany)

We’re talking CONSERVATIVE Germany, that means you do not take the Russian territories, especially not 4 of them, that’s VERY high risk and VERY aggressive (and the plan I am arguing for to be exact.)

That means Germany is trading East Poland (Russian) and Bulgaria (German) and possibly Baltic States (Russian) which will NOT get you a national objective (so you only have 1, and that’s if you don’t flub the liberation of Bulgaria) while Russia has +15 in NOs.

Cruisers are expensive, but they more than pay for themselves by keeping the luftwaffe away.  8 Cruisers is not unheard of if the starting BB was sunk (7 if you did not lose the starting one) added to 4 transports that’s 8 shore bombardments.  And yes, it is very realistic to have that by the time you plan to invade France.  No use in rushing, you’re already decimating Germany by -32 IPC a round (out of the 30ish IPC they will be earning) so there is no need to run to Russia’s aid.  (if anything, Russia might be in a position now to go liberate China and kick Japan off the mainland again.)

PS: 8 Bombers are not 200-300 IPC.  It’s 96 IPC, barely two rounds for America.  And America starts with 2 bombers so there’s the first ten.  If you figure 1.8 bombers are lost a round, that’s 21.6 IPC lost to America, 32 IPC lost to Germany.  You might actually end up OVER building bombers, in which case, there’s 12 more IPC you can destroy in Italy. (Italy of course will be reduced to 9 IPC a round after getting kicked out of Africa since Germany’s being all conservative and stuff.)

@Cmdr:

We’re talking CONSERVATIVE Germany, that means you do not take the Russian territories, especially not 4 of them, that’s VERY high risk and VERY aggressive (and the plan I am arguing for to be exact.)

You are interpreting conservative as meaning “Do absolutely nothing except building Infantry”.  I’m interpreting it as “don’t launch attacks that would result in expensive units being lost”.  Capturing three territories turn 1 and one territory turn 2 is not very aggressive, when Germany could take five territories turn 1 and four territories turn 2 if it really wanted to.

Here is the most conservative non-insane strategy I see:
G1: Take Baltic States, East Poland, and Ukraine.  Use Luftwaffe to kill Destroyer in Sea Zone 6, so that the 2 Subs can retreat to Baltic Sea.  Build Carrier and land Luftwaffe on it.  Spend remainder on Infantry and possible a Transport.

@Cmdr:

Cruisers are expensive, but they more than pay for themselves by keeping the luftwaffe away.

Except that Fighters cost less than them anyways.

@Cmdr:

8 Cruisers is not unheard of if the starting BB was sunk (7 if you did not lose the starting one) added to 4 transports that’s 8 shore bombardments.

8 Cruisers and 4 Transports cost you 124 IPCs, plus 24-32 IPCs per wave of ground fodder.  Britain has 43 Income first turn, their income drops by 10-15 over the course of the next two turns.  It will take them about 4 Turns to build that forces, hitting on the fifth.  By that time, Japan should have reached or be about to reach Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Ural,

@Cmdr:

And yes, it is very realistic to have that by the time you plan to invade France.  No use in rushing, you’re already decimating Germany by -32 IPC a round (out of the 30ish IPC they will be earning) so there is no need to run to Russia’s aid.  (if anything, Russia might be in a position now to go liberate China and kick Japan off the mainland again.)

They will be earning 52 IPCs, and if America is sending that kind of forces of Bombers over, Japan will probably be milling around the Great Plains with a tank divisions.  If America goes 2 Bombers a turn, once again, it takes them about 4 turns to build up the fleet, and the fifth to land the -32 Volley

Germany going the dumb conservative plan (always repairs damage, of course)
G1: 1 IC, 5 Infantry
G2: 15 Infantry, 1 AA (7 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G3: 15 Infantry (14 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G4: 12 Infantry (18 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G5: 11 Infantry

So, Germany has built 58 Infantry by the time that Britain launches a full scale invasion.  We’ll assume that of those produced, 15 go to West Europe, 10 in Germany, 8 to each of the 3 front territories against Russia, and 8 in Karelia, on top of the majority of Germany’s starting force of 18 Infantry, 4 Artilley, 8 Tanks, 4 Fighters, and 1 Bomber.  If Allies hit Norway and Finland, Germany loses an Infantry or two a turn, but Karelia will probably hold for a bit.

Of course, I’m not claiming that this is a good strategy.  I indicated above what I considered to be the most Conservative strategy I could think of that was not suicidally passive.

The central concept of Conservative Germany is that Germany can only grab about 18 IPCs worth of territory, whereupon they can’t go further without taking either London or Moscow, both of which are hard nuts to crack.  In the mean time, Japan gains that much on the first turn of the game, and Japan’s second turn lumped with Italy’s first does it again, and they together continue to expand by about 2-4 IPCs apiece a turn thereafter.  So Germany can take its conquest, then focus on stalling Britain, Russia, and possibly America long enough for Italy and Japan to finish absorbing Eurasia/Africa/Oceania, which by the fifth turn, they probably have.

Thanks for clarifying the definition of ‘conservative’ for this thread.

I can see how this is a good way to play for Germany, especially in games that use N.O.s.

France is an 11 IPC territory.  That’s a significant enough number to cause a strategy to be built around holding it and not trading it with the allies.

@axis_roll:

Thanks for clarifying the definition of ‘conservative’ for this thread.

I can see how this is a good way to play for Germany, especially in games that use N.O.s.

France is an 11 IPC territory.  That’s a significant enough number to cause a strategy to be built around holding it and not trading it with the allies.

If Britain captures France, it results in a 16 IPC gain by the Allies even if Germany recaptures it.

Of which, if you really wish to protect France, you can play Conservative Italy instead.  Italy grabs Egypt and its NOs, but beyond that, it protects France and Algeria from allied incursions by dumping Infantry into them relentlessly.

Then my standard opening is “conservative” since all battles have an 80% chance or better to win for Germany

That is: 
2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Ukraine
2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to East Poland
3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Baltic States
3 Inf, Art, 4 Fig to Karelia
2 Sub, Bmb to SZ 2
3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Egypt (retreat all but the Inf/Arm by transport when you want too, or duke it out forever.)

No undue risks there and it nets you all 3 National Objectives and a seriously weakened English Empire in Africa/North Atlantic. (PS: Sub to SZ 6 is a good idea too, but it’s 50/50 and might be classified as an undue risk.)

@Cmdr:

Then my standard opening is “conservative” since all battles have an 80% chance or better to win for Germany

That is: 
2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Ukraine
2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to East Poland
3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Baltic States
3 Inf, Art, 4 Fig to Karelia
2 Sub, Bmb to SZ 2
3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm to Egypt (retreat all but the Inf/Arm by transport when you want too, or duke it out forever.)

No undue risks there and it nets you all 3 National Objectives and a seriously weakened English Empire in Africa/North Atlantic. (PS: Sub to SZ 6 is a good idea too, but it’s 50/50 and might be classified as an undue risk.)

The only attacks in that Plan which aren’t conservative are the ones on Karelia and Egypt.  Karelia will probably cost you 1, maybe even 2 Fighters, and you will not have enough survivors to hold it. Egypt would also qualify, seeing  as you have a mere 30% chance of actually winning, though you will whittle down the forces enough that Italy will finish them even if it is reinforced by Jordan.

Here is an example of a more Conservative approach:
3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fighter to Ukraine
1 Inf, 6 Arm to East Poland
5 Inf, 2 Art, to Baltic States
2 Fighter,1 Sub to SZ 2
3 Inf, Art, 2 Arm, 1 Bmb to Egypt
1 Sub retreats to Baltic Sea to join up with other.

The following turn, you hit Karelia with enough force to capture it and keep it, then trade East Poland, Baltic States, and Ukraine as you see fit.

yeah karelia can be taken but not held ing G2 anyway ( with odds that allow a bad first round of rolling ;) whereas G1 Karleia if the first round goes bad, Germany is in real bad shape…

high risk high gain move ;)

About Karelia, I have already proven a year ago that you can take and hold it from G1.

The trick is to keep the 2 tanks in poland in reserve so that when you break the baltic states, you can move the 2 tanks trough to Karelia as reinforcement in the non-combat phase.

A44 -

I tried this strategy for my most recent game with a few variations.  I liked it a lot, but Germany still starts on mostly the back foot.  The difficulty is that UK brings a naval landing (doable since you leave two transports alive) at the same time Russia takes one or more territories in UK1 and Rus1.  I used the bombers and fighters to destroy the UK navy (so they couldn’t reinforce NWE) but had to leave NWE and Russia alone. Russia was able to shore up EPoland and Baltic States, eventually punching through to Bul with a stack of infantry and artillery.  This has made things increasingly difficult.  They take Norway/Finland and trade one of my states for their NO.

On the plus side, the UK navy (specifically the transports) is gone, so you’re able to focus on Russia, but there just aren’t quite enough infantry as Russia’s income matches/exceeds yours with their start.

As the game hasn’t finished yet, we’ll see how it turns out, heavy bombing has also put a dent in Germany’s infantry making  machine, but that has left Japan and Italy to grow big.  That may be the deciding factor.

I often like the idea of keeping the german transport, if for no other reason than to use it as an extra for Italy.  Problem is logistics…