They the key is having both sides of the map going at same time. This is no way any knock towards any guys games and such.
I know some have time limits to play a country but if you have battle boards on each end of map plus cut back on strategy talking when both players are discussing 1 country which is fine to a certain point then say Germany plays while Japan plays and other side is defending same time.
German Industrial Complexes
-
Lately I have been playing with German Industrial Complexes, and I was wondering where you think one should be built, if any should be built at all.
This assumes it is early-ish in the game so Russia has not fallen and you do not have a significant advantage on the board, but you are averaging 45-50 IPC a round as Germany.
This also assumes a game with National Objectives and without Technologies.
Here is what I have seen or tried myself:
1) France.
Benefits: At first blush this seems like a great place. France is worth 6 IPC so you can build a lot here! France also allows the Germans to put naval units into the Med to protect Italy. France can also be reinforced directly by Italy and Germany (as in Infantry can move their the round after being built. Infantry being the hardest units to get anywhere on the board in a timely fashion for defense.)
Negatives: The problem with France is that it is worth 6 IPC. Why would America and England not go with an SBR strategy? 11 Bombers between them should reduce France and Germany to a combined total of -32 IPC in damage with the loss of 2 bombers. (Since 11 / 6 = 1 and 5/6 remaining, I rounded up and said 2 bombers lost (24 IPC.) Each surviving bomber does 3.5 IPC in damage a round so 9 surviving bombers should do 30-31 IPC in damage. Since averages are not hard, fast rules, there’s a good chance no bombers are lost, more than 2 bombers are lost, the bombers do more damage or the bombers do less damage. But it should average out correctly with the 1 in 6 chance that the second bomber is not lost making up the missing 1 or 2 IPC in damage from the other 9. -Assumes Germany/Italy put an AA Gun in France, which seems a safe bet given the potential damage taken there.) Also, France is another territory away from Russia, which means longer for the Germans to get to Bulgaria/East Poland/Baltic States.
2. Norway
Okay, the Norway Industrial Complex assumes it was built first round and that 1 Infantry from Finland was moved to Norway as well as 1 Infantry and 1 AA Gun from Germany were moved to Norway. This should give Germany 2 Fighters, 3 Infantry, AA Gun in France (possibly more fighters depending on what moves were done before.) That should hold out against a British round 1 attack, especially if the cruiser was moved to SZ 3 (negating the BB) or the BB/Trn in SZ 2 were sunk (since you are landing a fighter/bomber in Norway anyway, why not?), etc.
Benefits: Allows you easy defense of Norway/Finland. Gives you access to SZ 3 and SZ 4 for building naval units. Gives you the ability to station fighters to attack SZ 2 and gives you the ability to send bombers from Germany to SZ 2 and land safely. Also, a complex in Norway gives the Germans a reliable way to put units into Scandinavia to prevent the Russians from getting 3 German territories and thus the National Objective for them (10 IPC one!). That can make it easier for Germany to win the game.
Negatives: Eventually you will either tie up so much equipment defending Norway or you will leave Norway and let the Allies take it so you can make a grab for Moscow. Not sure how big a negative that is yet. So far this has given me 3 victories and 1, soon to be, loss. Only 4 games, not enough to draw concrete conclusions.
Poland:
Benefits: 3 IPC territory, therefore, maximum SBR damage is only 6 which is not enough for the allies to consider a significant SBR campaign. It’s one space closer to Russia giving you the ability to plant infantry and artillery sufficiently closer to Russia which means your builds can immediately reinforce Bulgaria, attack East Poland and attack Baltic States if needed.
Negatives: Poland can be bombarded by the British fleet easily. Most British fleets end up in SZ’s 5, 6 or 7 when the Allies are attempting to take out Germany. Of course, that same fleet could bombard Germany (or for that matter, NW Europe/Norway or Finland not to mention the Russian states there) but one would expect the British to be bombarding Germany and thus, you would build up the forces to withstand an attack there. But having Poland also vulnerable, from the same sea zone, gives you double jeopardy while not increasing the costs to the allies to threaten both areas.
Bulgaria:
Benefits: Like Poland, Bulgaria is right there on the Russian front giving you the ability to drop units into Ukraine and East Poland as needed and close enough to Poland and the Balkans that they can be used for liberating/reinforcing those areas. Like France, it gives the Germans an ability to put naval units directly into the Med to help Italy’s fleet defend itself.
Negatives: It’s only a 2 IPC territory. It’s harder to reinforce from Germany (2 Turns to walk an Infantry to Bulgaria vs 1 Turn to walk an Infantry from Germany to Poland or France.) It’s easier for Russia to put pressure on (though normally still very hard to conquer if it falls at all.)
No New Industrial Complexes:
Benefits: Cannot SBR a complex that does not exist. No need to worry about the complex falling into enemy hands, it does not exist. Saves 15 IPC (cost of the complex) for other units that round.
Negatives: Germany can only build 10 units. 45-50 IPC a round for a number of rounds will eventually force Germany into sub-optimal purchases (fighters when what Germany wants is tanks, or armor when what Germany wants is more infantry or artillery) or it will cause Germany to bank extra income (thus putting it at risk for capture and reducing Germany’s ability to put maximum pressure on the enemy).
Czeck wasn’t really considered because it’s too far from Russia to be much help and has limited production capacity (proximity would negate the limited production.)
Finland wasn’t really considered because Russia’s right on top of Finland and Norway’s a 3 IPC territory, whereas Finland is a 2 IPC territory. It’s just plain easier to defend Norway than Finland. (ie, anything that could take Norway would also take Finland, but a force able to take Finland may not be enough to take Norway.)
NW Europe just seems like a silly place to put a complex - no offense. It does not allow you to drop units into the Med, it only has a production capacity of 2 and it’s as far from Russia as France is.
So what do you guys think?
-
By turn 3 don’t you usually have Karellia? that’s 2 extra units there. Buying factories with Germany scares me, it feels like I waste a turn, and time is not on Germany’s side. I don’t see how you could build a factory T1 as it would give Russia a turn to breath.
-
No, I have found that Karelia, if it falls, does so only long enough for Germany to get the 7 IPC for it. (2 for the land, 5 for the National Objective) after that either Russia or one of the other two allies liberates it.
-
Hey, you forgot to mention EGY assuming Germany takes it round 1.
I’ve tried some different IC locations for Germany. In most cases I found them to be more trouble than they were worth, mainly because the forces required to defend them outweighed the benefits of being able to build in the new location.
The only one I found to have a marginal benefit is FRA. It’s a nice sweet spot between being too small and too big, and FRA is important to defend in it’s own right above and beyond having an IC.
I’ll echo all your other pros on FRA, but I disagree with your comments on the SBR’s. If the allies go SBR crazy, it is harder to dig the GER out of the hole than FRA (assuming max allowable damage). I guess it sort of depends on how much money Germany has to spend. Having to pay off 10 dmg vs 6 dmg before you can build a single unit can make a big difference sometimes.
-
@Cmdr:
No, I have found that Karelia, if it falls, does so only long enough for Germany to get the 7 IPC for it. (2 for the land, 5 for the National Objective) after that either Russia or one of the other two allies liberates it.
That ^. I agree.
I just started an AAA game, and bought an IC in France.
I did it once before, and won the game. Whether or not that was thanks to that IC, is hard to say.
All the time it felt more as a burden, then a benefit. It was reduced to popping just some inf every time, just enough to make sure it wouldnt fall.Difference this time, is that Japan will go for UK’s IPC hardcore, whereas the other time it was fiddling a bit with china and siberia. Italia is going for another approach as well.
This will reduce UK’s abilities to be a threat to france, and Germany should be able to pop some trannies and ships in the med, for immediate shipping to the eastern front, or other directions. -
@Cmdr:
No, I have found that Karelia, if it falls, does so only long enough for Germany to get the 7 IPC for it. (2 for the land, 5 for the National Objective) after that either Russia or one of the other two allies liberates it.
My bad, I didn’t see you said with NO’s. The couple times I played like that it did seem as if Germany had more money than it knew what to do with (and I think that may have been round 2), if that is the case in a normal NO game, than yes it would be very tempting to build a factory. Egypt (if you are lucky enough to score it) would be the safest and could wreck havok on Russias tail, but still only 2 ipc’s. As far as Francs goes in a game with NO’s can you build 16 units, that seems like quite a bit. Factorin in that it is now a nice bombing target and I don’t know if you will, plus your building troops further away from Russia which can’t be good. It seems like Poland is the best bet (other than maybe EGY) if you really are having supply problems.
However, if you can’t hold Karelia, if you put double (or maybe even triple with the Japs) pressur on the Cauc how quickly can that be secured. It can’t be enforced so easily by the allies (maybe some Brits from Inda) plus you can bombard with Italy and bomb it with germany.
-
Now this is an interesting topic.
The idea of building a factory in Norway is very interesting, but at first glance I don’t see how it would work. You can only build three units a turn, and I would think Russia would set up Finland as a dead zone so you wouldn’t be able to advance easily. And then the UK should set up to take the territory as soon as possible. Has this worked for you in a competitive (tournament) game? If so, could you share a link? I’d love to see how it played out.
To me France seems ideal. After that, spend your first 30 bucks on 10 infantry and any remainder on French armor. That way you can always have a nice stack going East. Or if you’re in the situation that so often happens where Germany is waiting for help from the Japanese, never underestimate the ability to draft 14 or 15 infantry a turn to help hold out.
I would think, though I haven’t played enough to be sure, that building in any 2 IPC territory just isn’t going to be worth it (unless it’s Egypt, maybe, where you’re never going to get stuff there ever again otherwise).
-
I would think, though I haven’t played enough to be sure, that building in any 2 IPC territory just isn’t going to be worth it (unless it’s Egypt, maybe, where you’re never going to get stuff there ever again otherwise).
The one time I placed an IC in EGY, North Africa became a magnet for the Allied invasion force. I spent all my efforts in Africa defending that IC and ultimately lost it. I couldn’t recommend it.
-
i think that norway would be a good place to build a I.C. if germany has the resources to defend it and advance at the same time,
it could be a traget for the u.k. and the u.k. player may focus their attention toward norway and away from france,
however, if germany can keep their navy there is no reason for a I.C. at norway, with transports loading and offloading from germany to norway,the i.c. at france could be troublesome, with the extra moves needed to get to the eastern front,
ukraine could be a useful territory for a I.C. with a value of 2, and 1 move from russia, it could be used as a launch pad for attack’s against the u.k. I.C. at egypt, if italy are not doing well, and to re-inforce the eastern front,
poland is a good option, 3 I.P.C. value, 2 moves from russia, victory city
-
the i.c. at france could be troublesome, with the extra moves needed to get to the eastern front,
The time I used the FRA IC, it was mostly for ground units to help defend FRA, NWE, or ITA or for aircraft builds. Ground units headed east were produced in GER.
-
I did the Norway complex twice so far, it worked out well.
Russia cannot really move large stacks into Scandinavia to threaten Norway because the Germans and Italians are coming in from East Ukraine and Ukraine so they have to mass in Caucasus and Russia and the British cannot get the firepower needed to overwhelm Norway without sacrificing Africa to Italy and/or giving up against the Japanese completely.
The only time the Norway complex was lost, by me, so far, was when I abandoned it to hit Russia with the coup d’gras and then, I came back to liberate Norway before taking England.
Bulgaria’s been somewhat hard to hold, so I don’t think I would go for a Ukraine IC. (Besides, if you are powerful enough to defend an IC in Ukraine, why not just take Caucasus?)
Also, I am not really considering a German complex in Egypt. That’s a far better location for an Italian complex. (That or India.)
-
taking and holding the caucasus would be ideal, although with the possesion of the caucasus usuallly changing between italy, russia and germany from round to round, a I.C. at the caucasus can be used to build units at the front and sustain the advance without the need to retreat and regroup, while deterring a russia advance toward italy,
it can make space for a move toward karelia, with russia keeping units at the caucasus -
If UK focuses on Norway IC, it cannot aim her main target in early game: italian navy. If it lets italians live and grow, can be a good investment, even if finally falls. Egypt is good, can be reinforced by the 3 axis powers (including Japan :-D ) and can be the death sentence for allies in case of Polar Express :wink:
-
If UK focuses on Norway IC, it cannot aim her main target in early game: italian navy. If it lets italians live and grow, can be a good investment, even if finally falls. Egypt is good, can be reinforced by the 3 axis powers (including Japan :-D ) and can be the death sentence for allies in case of Polar Express :wink:
That’s what I was kind of getting at with the Norway Industrial Complex.
It allows Germany to trade Finland with the Russians; It allows Germany to deny the Russian’s their big National Objective; and, if England wants it, they have to dedicate most of their income to taking it and not just for one round, most of their income for a few rounds.
Germany 1: Norway has 4 Infantry, AA Gun, 3 Fighters, Bomber, Industrial Complex
England 1: 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber in Range of Norway. (Really bad odds.) - Destroyer/Transport in SZ 9 cannot reach and the Battleship/Transport in SZ 2 should have been sunk. I’d even let the Destroyer/Cruiser in SZ 12 live if it means Norway stands ultra strong. DD/CA/BMB vs 2 CA/BB is not a great scenario.Germany 2: Norway has 4 Infantry, 3 Armor, AA Gun, 3 Fighters, Industrial Complex (assumes SZ 5 fleet is still alive; else reduce by 1 Infantry, 1 Armor - also assumes 2 infantry attacked Finland to trade with Russia.)
England 2: Still should not have the firepower to take NorwayThis should continue for quite a while.
Of course, with only the ability to build 3 units there each turn and the prospect of losing 1 or 2 of them a round trading with Russia, England will eventually get the firepower to take Norway.
The questions are:
1) -21 IPC out of 31 starting IPC is a lot of cash for Germany! Is it worth it?
A) I think if it keeps Russia from getting the big NO even once, it might be worth it even if it falls to England.
A) But we’re talking -7 Infantry that can be moved towards Russia on Round 2.2) Will it draw America out of the Pacific to help knock down the German IC in Norway earlier (potentially giving America a foothold with a Complex in Scandinavia?)
3) Will England lose Africa or will England ignore the complex in Norway and push into Africa anyway?
-
the I.C. at norway would have 2 advantages,
germany could build 13 unit’s,
norway would be easier to defend,
other that those 2 advantages, i see no reason to build a I.C. at norway,
if germany has lots of I.P.C. and could realistically gather 50 - 55 I.P.C. a round, a I.C. at norway would be a great advantage,
if the u.k. captures norway they get a free I.C. which can then be used to build unit’s to attack the eastern front or re-inforce russia
-
The idea is multi-fold:
1) It gives you +3 Units to build, potentially, each round.
2) It gives you a way to trade Finland instead of losing it forever the instant it falls.
3) It gives you an air base from which to threaten SZ 2 and thus, put pressure on the British fleet no matter where they want to build. (Fighters from France can hit SZ 8, Fighters from Norway can hit SZ 2; between them, all Sea Zones are covered.)
4) It will probably convince the allies to dedicate everything to taking it (meanwhile, Germany is only dedicating 9 to 15 units “trying” to keep it.)
Big thing with Norway is, it’s across the puddle from Germany. That means the Germans either have to walk all the way around (might not happen) or put a navy in the water (probably won’t be floating next round though) or put up a complex to hold it - otherwise it’s gone for good.
I just don’t like giving up 5 IPC a round, every round, until the death of Russia, Germany, Japan or America without at least putting up a little bit of a fight!
-
I like Norway IC, because it don’t let UK attack both Mediterranean sea and northern Europe. They must choose one of two. Even if UK build SAF IC, it can be a real pain. My main issue with this is germans building only 5 inf 1st round and giving too much room to soviets, but maybe it is countered by Scandinavia retained in german hands
The purchase would be IC, 5 inf, save 2 IPCs (you don’t need a 2nd aagun 1st round for defend Germany IC because the bomber is best used against german z6 and z5 separated ships (you need one fig to kill the trannie, and other fig plus bomber to kill the cruiser)). Purchase the aa gun next round :wink:
And Norway would be defended, G1, by:
- 2 inf from nor
- 2 inf from fin
- 1 inf, 1 aa gun from Germany
- Any fighters you can rally
I’d say at least 7 units. Jen has right, it’s better if you kill the UK bb. And for those thinking axis need a bid: one german art bid to lyb can be devastating with this strat - Egypt killed, z2 fleet killed and Scandinavia for axis :-o
And it will be better for allies if germans don’t research Improved Industry tech (5 guys a round, talk about super Quisling) :roll:
-
I can’t see how the Norway IC is better than the Poland IC.
The Poland IC is automatically defended by infantry from Germany moving toward Russia and, as was said before, is one move closer to Russia.
The Norway IC is isolated and, considering the typical naval buildup by the UK, it must be defended by a significant number of units that are in no way a threat to anyone unless Russia or UK aren’t trading Finland and there are armor in Norway.
For the Axis, you want to be able to pile up your builds, not choose to isolate them. The Egypt IC is an exception because it can be supported by the Italians, which is why I have decided that it is best for the UK to counterattack Egypt if there is one German armor left and even sometimes when there are 2 armor. Lose the UK bomber to make sure you take it, too. Italy can retake Egypt and build an IC if it wants, just as long as Germany can’t. That move carries other benefits but that is for another thread.
-
It’s better in the fact that it helps you hold Finland and Norway which is +5 IPC to you a round and -15 IPC to the Allies a round (5 IPC for the territories +10 IPC to Russia for the NO if they can get Poland/Bulgaria as well…which, they probably will if you lose Finland and Norway!)
-
@Cmdr:
It’s better in the fact that it helps you hold Finland and Norway which is +5 IPC to you a round and -15 IPC to the Allies a round (5 IPC for the territories +10 IPC to Russia for the NO if they can get Poland/Bulgaria as well…which, they probably will if you lose Finland and Norway!)
Seems like a lot of effort just to hold on to 3 IPC’s and trade 2 IPC’s. And, as Russia, I never count on the big money NO until Germany starts collapsing. Never in the early game.
Plus, with both Russia and the UK able to trade Finland with you, your need to adequately defend Norway from UK landings, and your ability to only build 3 units per turn, it means that the balance for Germany could get upside down pretty quick unless you are flying aircraft over for defense and then you’re probably going to be forced to trade France which defeats the purpose of the income benefits of holding Norway.
Suggested Topics
