Serious Game Flaw

i think calling it a game ender is a bit much. getting heavy bombers is a game ender lol

The Karelia G1 attack is not a game ender, not even if NOs are on.

The problem is the game balance when using NOs, axis gets more income and spend it mainly on land units, while allies must spend a lot more on naval units.

And if we’re talking games w/o NOs, then there’s no such thing as game ender moves turn1. Allies have advantage if NOs are off.

I’m not sure if the G1 karelia attack is the best choice for Germany, even with NO and LL. You get 5 ipc extra, but usually loose a fighter in the attack. Germany can take and hold, or attack and trade karelia from G2 and several rnds after that.

@KindWinds:

Karelia G1 Attack

For my own play, I’ve rejected this as an inferior G1 opening.  Big problem I see here is that you’re giving the UK too many IPCs.  This is handing them 27 IPC of ships, and a 11 IPC territory for a turn (using NOs), adding an additional 5 IPC for the US if Italy doesn’t retake it.  The UK is going to be able to have a fully floating fleet on UK1 in SZ7, and can build just transports and men from turn 2 out, with about 40 IPC on UK2 given that they take France.  Also, you’re not at least strafing Egypt… I think Italy needs to have their 2nd NO ASAP if they’re going to be of much use in defending their own fleet from extermination, and also Western Europe later on.  In addition, the US can do things like perch a fleet in SZ12 by US2, shuttling units to Algeria while also threatening Italy’s fleet (which will be small since they didn’t get their 2nd NO quickly) and a one-two against France with the UK.  With all of these threats, Axis is going to get spread thin really quickly, and it has every time I’ve seen this used.

I don’t feel that taking Karelia on G1 is gamebreaking.  As a matter of fact I feel that taking/hurting Egypt is much more important in that it helps Italy stand up on his own 2 feet rather than just being a little “I build 3 inf.  I’m done” kind of guy.

As one who used to do it routinely, I can say there’s a few issues.

1)  Russia can liberate it round 2.

2)  England can liberate it round 1.

3)  Germany’s already stretched thin after round 1.

4)  Germany can only build 10 units a round, most people would want ground units, with 50+ IPC the only way to do that is all tanks and even then, it’s got cash left over.

5)  Since Germany’s spread thing, you have nothing in reserve to maintain your push.

6)  Since Russia’s got nothing of great importance in Karelia, and you have no way of keeping Karelia, England and Russia can easily recover from the loss of Karelia round 1 and push the Germans into the Atlantic.  IMHO

I agree with Jen.  I used to do a G1 attack on Karelia, but I almost never do it anymore.  I’ve had a few games where Germany had some bad rolling in that battle - that alone was enough to turn me off; it crippled Germany for the rest of the game.
Thanks.

Serious game flaw? Really? Maybe you should get a few more games under your belt. I don’t even think this is a good strategy, let alone game-breaking. Cmdr Jennifer outlined the reasons why.

You seem to think it’s a game ender if Karelia falls. I can assure you, it’s not. Maybe you could explain why you think it’s a “serious game flaw” if the Germans can take Karelia G1? I’m not seeing it.

@Cmdr:

As one who used to do it routinely, I can say there’s a few issues.

**1)  Russia can liberate it round 2.

2)  England can liberate it round 1.**

3)  Germany’s already stretched thin after round 1.
4)  Germany can only build 10 units a round, most people would want ground units, with 50+ IPC the only way to do that is all tanks and even then, it’s got cash left over.
5)  Since Germany’s spread thing, you have nothing in reserve to maintain your push.
6)  Since Russia’s got nothing of great importance in Karelia, and you have no way of keeping Karelia, England and Russia can easily recover from the loss of Karelia round 1 and push the Germans into the Atlantic.  IMHO

Again, I don’t advocate a G1 Karelia attack, but I just want to point out that it is possible to stop these two counterattacks as Germany.  On G1 if Germany sends two subs and a bomber to attack the BB and Transport, that would obviously prevent a UK liberation.  Also, when the dust settles from the Karelia attack, Germany SHOULD be left with and art, and can non-combat 2 tanks - which hopefully would fend off 4 inf and an armor.
Thanks.

@captainjack:

Again, I don’t advocate a G1 Karelia attack, but I just want to point out that it is possible to stop these two counterattacks as Germany.  On G1 if Germany sends two subs and a bomber to attack the BB and Transport, that would obviously prevent a UK liberation.  Also, when the dust settles from the Karelia attack, Germany SHOULD be left with and art, and can non-combat 2 tanks - which hopefully would fend off 4 inf and an armor.
Thanks.

Right, it’s just that the Italian navy is then in trouble on UK1.  If they lose that, they get relegated to 3 INF/turn status before they even had a chance to do anything.  But I understand your point was that those two things mentioned weren’t inevitable, strictly speaking.

Wanna grab AAbattlemap, you take the axis, and we run it 3 times?

@captainjack:

@Cmdr:

As one who used to do it routinely, I can say there’s a few issues.

**1)  Russia can liberate it round 2.

2)  England can liberate it round 1.**

Again, I don’t advocate a G1 Karelia attack, but I just want to point out that it is possible to stop these two counterattacks as Germany.  On G1 if Germany sends two subs and a bomber to attack the BB and Transport, that would obviously prevent a UK liberation.  Also, when the dust settles from the Karelia attack, Germany SHOULD be left with and art, and can non-combat 2 tanks - which hopefully would fend off 4 inf and an armor.
Thanks.

Yes, Germany could sink the SZ 2 British Fleet and thus prevent England from liberating Karelia on UK 1.  But that has negatives i’m not entirely happy with either, namely, Egypt is almost certainly a loss instead of potentially cleared.  Yes, you could still win in Egypt with 2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm but the odds are much lower without the bomber.

Also, you cannot just “block” the British Battleship with your SZ 5 cruiser because there’s a good shot that the Russian Submarine can clear your cruiser before England’s turn.

As for liberating, I’ve seen Karelia get liberated too easily.  Yes, you should have 4 ground units (half of which are tanks) but that never seems to be enough, you know?

@KindWinds:

@souL:

Wanna grab AAbattlemap, you take the axis, and we run it 3 times?

Sure but how do I tell which unit is which?  It says it has lager tiles but I cannot get it to that.  I have ran it about 10 times already with NO’s all the same results with axis wins.  Maybe the players were inferior players such as myself at the helm of allies.  Let’s run it!

From left to right:

Flag
Infantry
Artillery
Armor
Fighter
Bomber
Transport
Submarine
Aircraft Carrier
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battleship
AA Gun
Industrial Complex

You’ll get used to the pieces after a game of play.

I don’t see Italy taking Caucasus round 2.  Not if Russia goes 5 Infantry, 3 Armor and puts at least one of those Armor in Caucasus

If Italy does buy a transport, then they are not amphibiously assaulting Round 1 and thus, they will not have 2 National Objectives, they might not even have 1, so that’s half of Italy’s paycheck right there. (23 IPC -1 for not taking Jordan, -2 for not taking Egypt, -10 for not getting National Obejectives.)

Sure, if England liberates it costs Russia 5 IPC for a round, but it’s better than allowing Germany a round to build and reinforce Karelia I think.  It’s only for one round, after that, Russia can reinforce and build up in Karelia.

Yes, Russia can be spread thin too, but Russia has 3 building locations, it’s much harder to get spread thing than Germany who has one and it’s way back behind the scenes.  Not to mention, Russia is not stretched thin immediately on round 2 like Germany is.

Spare IPC is a bad thing because you want to spend all your money on your round.  Extra cash means units you could not buy which means you are weaker than you could potentially be.  It’s not necessarily “bad” to have extra, but it could be “bad” if you don’t want the extra, you wanted the units. (If America saves up for two or three rounds in order to dump a fleet down, that’s not “bad” extra cash; if Germany physically cannot build enough units because of a limit in production, not cash, then that is “bad” extra cash.)

Thing is, Russia starts the game crippled, they won’t become crippled because of Germany’s first attack.  If anything, Germany faces the dreaded “Cascading Dice Failure” while Russia can sit back and absorb all the hits Germany hits it with.  This is because Russia really has nothing of great power to use Round 1 for attack, but they have a set of nicely stacked defenders to fight Germany round 1.  Normally not enough to actually win, but strong enough that bad dice here or there could really screw up the game for Germany.

Germany, on the other hand, does not have that benefit.  Even if Germany did absolutely nothing round 1, they still wouldn’t be able to set up a situation where Cascading Dice Failure could cost Russia the game, not in Rounds 1 and 2 at least, not like Russia.

13 Dead Russian Units does not tell the whole tale:

12 of those are Infantry (36 IPC)
1 of those is an Artillery (4 IPC)

Germany will lose (in the attack and counter attack)

4 Infantry >> 12 IPC
2 Artillery >> 8 IPC
2 Armor >> 10 IPC
2 Fighters >> 20 IPC

That’s 50 IPC, given normal dice results.

On top of that, Germany is out of position to push back and counter attack Russia’s counter attack.

Russia is on top of their Industrials, so they are in a prime position to dump reinforcements on the lines.  In fact, Russia should have 2 rounds of reinforcements before Germany is in a position to push back again, and with a good possibility of getting their 10 IPC NO as well!

Dunno, Germany’s losing half their fighters and 30% of their armor in exchange for 1 Artillery.  That’s not a good trade, IMHO. (I’m not counting infantry for either side, I don’t view them as “attacking” units.  They’re fodder and defensive units.  Artillery, Armor, Fighter and Bombers are attacking units.)

Nice posts Jen.

To see a <former?>strong advocate of the Germany Karelia 1 attack argue against it makes me think that Germany may be winning the battle, but not winning the war with that attack.

I think Egypt is more key to the Axis chances for a good strong start.</former?>

I agree with Die Flottenmörderin. I don’t say it’s a bad strategy, but I simply don’t dare go north with the Germans, as long as the UK (and US) fleet is intact. I have burned my self to many times up there, with the only result that I lost the game. Nowadays, I seldom gamble with high variance. I rather trust that I will be victorious after 6+ hours of sound gaming.

@axis_roll:

Nice posts Jen.

To see a <former?>strong advocate of the Germany Karelia 1 attack argue against it makes me think that Germany may be winning the battle, but not winning the war with that attack.

I think Egypt is more key to the Axis chances for a good strong start.</former?>

Are you sure someone didn’t hijack the Commander’s screenname. She doesn’t sound anything like the person who fought with me for 2 full pages saying that attacking Karelia on G1 was a good idea.

Any time that Germany risks 4 fighters against AA they had better have a good reason and taking Karelia on G1 just isn’t a good enough reason.

And I think you’re right about Italy and Africa. To this day, I steadfastly maintain that Germany not bringing the bomber to attack Egypt is a HUMONGOUS error. And not attacking Egypt is even worse. In either case, it gives the Allies far too good of a chance to quickly eliminate Italy’s access to Africa’s income when the Italian fleet goes to the bottom of the Med if the UK makes the UK1 bomber build.

@U-505:

@axis_roll:

Nice posts Jen.

To see a <former?>strong advocate of the Germany Karelia 1 attack argue against it makes me think that Germany may be winning the battle, but not winning the war with that attack.

I think Egypt is more key to the Axis chances for a good strong start.</former?>

Are you sure someone didn’t hijack the Commander’s screenname. She doesn’t sound anything like the person who fought with me for 2 full pages saying that attacking Karelia on G1 was a good idea.

LOL  :lol: :lol: :lol:

@U-505:

And I think you’re right about Italy and Africa. To this day, I steadfastly maintain that Germany not bringing the bomber to attack Egypt is a HUMONGOUS error. And not attacking Egypt is even worse. In either case, it gives the Allies far too good of a chance to quickly eliminate Italy’s access to Africa’s income when the Italian fleet goes to the bottom of the Med if the UK makes the UK1 bomber build.

If the allies don’t take proper advantage of no attack on Egypt round1, then it’s ok not to attack it G1.  Most allied players know the importance of that territory.  I like an IC there if not attacked.

And you can’t count on poor play from your opponent……