German Industrial Complexes

@U-505:

:?  Really. Darth and I just made 3 posts illustrating why the Norway IC is a bad idea and they just went straight past you. Well, I guess when you compare me and a cartoon witch in lingerie, everything I say probably sounds like “blah blah blah”.

P.S.- That’s not really her in the picture. The Commander’s hair is brown.  :wink:

Her avatar wins but your arguments are sound.  I would like to try it in a game just to see how it would make the Allies react.

LMAO I like that response 505 it was a funny!
I’m not sure if the idea will 100% work, but I would like to try it as I think it may have potential!

I have tried the norway IC several times.  it is nice to be able to put 3 units there every turn.  once i went with planes and UK had a hard time keeping boats in the water.  But EVERY time, US and UK bombed the hell out of it, and the US just LOVES to take that IC away from Ger.  if US keeps that IC, its bad news for GER.  i hope you have better luck with it than i did.

I’m liking France.  Sure, you don’t necessarily need 16 units a turn.  But all ICs cost the same, and France is the most important territory besides Germany for Germany to hold.  If I can plop down units there at the end of every turn, so much the better.  Unlike Norway, it’s not likely to help the Allies–ie if the Allies take and hold France the game is probably about over for Axis anyway.

That said I’m not convinced Germany should always buy an IC.

France is good for a suprise navel drop as well.  Norway, i don’t see how it can be held.  My typical UK1 build is 1 AC, 3 trannies, 1 inf 1 arm.  Your not gonna stop all 8 units i can drop plus my air on turn 2, plus the US’s trannie and huge air power.

Worst case I get a cruiser instead of the last trannie, that still gives me alot of firepower though.  That build would just scream KGF to me.

I don’t think buying any IC for Germany makes sense, unless it’s in Egypt and you can hold it.

KArelia is basically a German IC on G2-G3. However, Karelia can’t produce enough. That’s why I like Poland. Germany needs infantry in the front. Walking infantry from Germany takes too much time

Robert

Agreed but by the time Germany builds a IC in Poland(Turn 1), builds Inf(Turn 2) and moves them, you could have just built Inf in Germany and moved them to E. Poland, Baltic States or Ukraine. Then, the IC in Poland is useless and you just wasted 15 IPC’s.

Latley, just for kicks I have done a French IC, which seems to be viable if one wantsto try a turtle w/ Germany. You probably won’t be buying anything other than inf and MAYBE an odd sub if you want to get crazy but it seems like an idea with some potential.

I think it all depends on what the US does. If they go for KGF, then I don’t like the IC in France. If they don’t, then maybe. I haven’t seen a good place to put a German IC that makes sense. Why put a German IC in France or Poland, when Germany is only 1 hex away? Why waste the 15 IPC’s and wait a turn to build? In my opinion, Germany has to take out Russia as quick as possible for the Axis to have a chance to win. They have to squeeze Russia along with Japan.

@Commando:

I think it all depends on what the US does. If they go for KGF, then I don’t like the IC in France. If they don’t, then maybe. I haven’t seen a good place to put a German IC that makes sense. Why put a German IC in France or Poland, when Germany is only 1 hex away? Why waste the 15 IPC’s and wait a turn to build? In my opinion, Germany has to take out Russia as quick as possible for the Axis to have a chance to win. They have to squeeze Russia along with Japan.

For the most part I agree with you.  I honestly don’t think a France IC (or any for that matter) is optimal, as far as I can see, but it can be viable.

The point of the French IC though is to do a turtle.  Germany will be building 16 inf per turn (at least thats the goal), other than maybe building 1 AA and MAYBE the odd sub or artillary here or there.  What this does is provide a great supply line, a well fortified Germany, as well as freeing up fighters for the Eastern Front, as France willbe able to defend and send inf towards russia (at least for a little bit).  Remember without an IC Germany is only ltd to 10 units, this can maximize Germany’s production in a fairly safe way.  Like I said, as of now I don’t think it is optimal, but it can yeild interesting results and is fun to try for a few games.

I like to build a German IC in Romania. It helps send unit for the southern area of the eastern front faster and allow Germany to produce 14 units a turn (with the capture of the Karelian IC)!

@U-505:

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.

The big problem with the poland IC is that it splits the defense of germany.  Now Germany has to defend both poland and Germany.  Any player would defend germany and that makes a huge gap in the supply lines to the Russian front.  By turn 2 the Germans are out numbered or at best on par with the soviets.  In games where I have used the poland IC Uk drops on Poland and blam not only did you lose an IC but the whole logistics of the russain front goes out the window.  I do like norway and will give that a try.  I have used Bulgaria.  The argument for Norway is sound.

I think Poland is an ideal location for a G1 IC:

1. It’s closer to the Eastern Front
2. It’s easily defensible (the bulk of your units will march thru there on their way to Moscow)
3. It’s not an auto target for the Allies (like France is)
4. It’s further from the established US/UK sea lanes and therefore less likely to be attacked
5. It’s “safer” from SBR, as it can only take 6 damage
6. You don’t need 16 production capacity (just buying infantry costs 48 IPCs–by that time you’ll have a SU IC)

Further, a good G1 buy would be IC (15), 4xInf (12), Arty (4).  That gives you 5 units to start your push East into Poland on G2.  Assuming about 45 IPCs for G2, you can then place 3xInf in Pol, and 7xInf and 3xTank in Ger.  That means you have 8 ground pounders in Pol on G2 (compared to 10 for the “typical” G1 build of 9xInf, Arty), so you’ve only traded 2 units in the short term for 3 units every turn for the rest of the game.

Also, let’s compare a G2 buy with a Pol IC to one without (and assuming 45 IPCs).

G2 w/ Pol IC: 10xInf, 3xTank
13 units, 19 attack power, 29 defense power

G2 w/o Pol IC: 6xInf, 3xTank, Bmb
10 units (one can’t hold ground), 19 attack power, 21 defense power

A French IC would let you buy 15xInf, but you get 4 less attack power, and only 1 more defense power; plus you will struggle to “max” those production spots, especially once you capture a Russian IC.  I’ve ruled out the Nwy IC as too far off the beaten path to be worth it for Germany, and it would be hugely detrimental if the US could capture it (which they could relatively easily.

Just my $0.02…

Once again, I usually don’t agree with an IC strat for Germany.  My fear with a polish IC is that it will be much easier for the allies to nab for a turn as you would have to be defending poland, w europe, and germany all at the same time.  This in turn would probably slow down any advance.  The point of the French IC is for a slow advance and can only be done if you expect to be pumping out 15 or 16 units per turn (otherwise what’s the point).  If the AA is a concern it can be taken care of T1 by moving the german AA over and purchasing an AA for germany.  But I think this IC would almost have to be built with a turtle in mind.  You would gain punch by not sacrificing any armour T1 as well as utilizing your fighters to be able to be much more active on russia.

Another advantage it has over poland (in very rare cases, most likely) is what a wonderful spot it is in to build naval units (subs could threaten any ungaurded trannys instantly, plus it could show a heavy push for africa maybe)

I suppose Norway isn’t impossible, but a IC purchase G1 doesn’t make sense to me.  G2 is when Germany has the money.  In any case if I were UK I would go after a Norway complex aggressively.

Poland seems reasonable and I will try it–if Poland is low on inf armor can be moved there…  However, I still like France especially if USA is KGF.  Only drawback seems to be the SBRs.

Here are my thoughts on why the FRA IC is the best bet.

1.  It provides ‘soaking’ damage from any early game, non-dedicated SBR over a 3 IPC territory.  If you aren’t maxing out all 16 production spots which you most likely won’t as you’ll be building offensive units), you can let some damage sit on your ICs as I have done in some of my games where I’ve built a FRA IC.  In two games where I’ve had disastrous G1 and G2, I’ve let 7-10 damage sit on my two German ICs and I just built units wherever I could with the sub 30 (20 IPCs at one point) income that Germany was pulling in until the Russian advance stalled out and I was able to push back.  Both FRA and GER were stacked so high with infantry and artillery that they were immune from attack and I was eventually able to hit back into POL and CZE while still keeping GER and FRA safe.

2.  FRA is ‘safe.’  Any Axis player in their right mind will never let FRA fall to the allies.  If the Allies pull an unexpected naval move or position their fleet so that GER can’t be hit (for example, moving everything to Z12), you don’t need to stack units in GER and can pump 6 units directly into FRA to defend against any possible invasion (or position yourself for a counterattack into ITA if the allies go for that)

3.  The extra 3 production spots can be good to use if you are getting all 3 NOs but are not able to keep the CAU/KAR production spot in your hands for longer than a turn to build units there (SU/UK counterattacks).

4.  If Germany suffers a bad first turn or two (not getting the Russian NO, not sinking the BB and losing half your airforce, getting decimated in EGY, etc), POL will be put in serious jeopardy as the Russians strengthen and push into Europe.  With a naval invasion by UK forces into POL backed up by Russian land units not only do the allies avoid losing the 5 IPC NO for allied troops being in SU territory, but the UK now has a direct production spot on the mainland.  Even the more likely scenario of the SU taking it and then getting reinforced by UK/US troops is a big advantage.  I’d gladly trade a 5 IPC NO for a 10 IPC NO, a 6 point territory swing, and a factory on Germany’s doorstep.  Russia would most likely be making 40+ IPCs a turn which would enable 10 inf to be placed in RUS/CAU to defend against the Japanese push while placing 3 offensive units in POL to finish off GER.

The only downside of the FRA IC over POL IC is that it slows down your advance into RUS slightly for one turn.  However, this is mitigated to some extent by the fact that you will most likely have to send some units from GER over to FRA anyways to help defend against a turn 2 UK invasion of FRA.  It must be able to hold off 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 2 fgt, 1 bmb and perhaps another 2 land units, bombardment and/or aircraft depending on how GER conducted it’s first turn attacks and how successful they were.  That would entail defending it with at least 8 infantry if you wanted to be reasonably certain to hold it.  If you defend it with fighters, you cannot push further into the USSR if the SU does not recapture any of the BST, EPL, or CAU.

Another benefit of a FRA IC - you can pop naval units out in Z13.  You can use this to stop a UK invasion of Italy from Z12.  In the games that I have played so far, Italy is usually strong enough that it can hold off one attack but not a 1-2 punch.  Also, by blocking the UK, if the US decides to hit ITA, then both fleets are separate and ripe for an attack by the Luftwaffe (in either zone), or the US fleet by the carrier based fighters from the Jap fleet that is most likely hanging around Z34/Z35 (land in BLK/back in Z34).

@KindWinds:

@U-505:

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.

The big problem with the poland IC is that it splits the defense of germany.  Now Germany has to defend both poland and Germany.  Any player would defend germany and that makes a huge gap in the supply lines to the Russian front.  By turn 2 the Germans are out numbered or at best on par with the soviets.  In games where I have used the poland IC Uk drops on Poland and blam not only did you lose an IC but the whole logistics of the russain front goes out the window.  I do like norway and will give that a try.  I have used Bulgaria.  The argument for Norway is sound.

Are you trying to say that it would be easier to defend the Norway IC than the Poland IC? I think the moral of the story is not that the Norway IC is better(it isn’t), it’s that you don’t defend the Poland IC adequately from Allied amphibious assaults.

And I don’t see how Germany can get away with not splitting their defenses to defend Poland. Poland is the lynchpin of the German Eastern front. It must be securely held for as long as possible to prevent Russia from taking it and the Allies from reinforcing it. It is the logical choice for an IC for that reason on top of the other reasons I’ve detailed.

There are also a few issues with a France IC that I would point out.

First, no matter what, the Allies ALWAYS build an IC in France when they finally secure it whether Germany builds an IC elsewhere or not. Building an IC in France not only provides them with the IPC savings of not building one but also gives them an extra turn of builds since they can eliminate the “build IC” step in: 1) take France 2) build IC 3) produce units.

Second, too many people are making assuptions about Germany being able to sustain maximum production against a KGF for a lengthy period of time. The France IC is overkill. Against a KGF, if Germany is earning enough money that even the Poland IC is overloaded for more than a few turns then the game is already won. More often than not, Germany earns a bunch of money in the first few turns but then starts to shrink and it quickly gets to the point where Germany has a hard enough time maximizing it’s production from the Germany IC let alone a second one. The ability to build 6 units in France versus 3 units in Poland is a negligible advantage at best.

1. The allies ALWAYS building an IC in France is a false statement.  If the UK takes over France (and secures it) it is only preferable to build an IC if there are major production problems, if not it can just ferry 8 units per turn into France with ease.

2. The point I was trying to make, is if you build the French IC, you have to assume you will be building at least 15 units per turn (or to really stretch it 14 units) or there is no point in trying it out, other than maybe some type of naval strat or you are used to super heavy bombardments by the allies.

3. IF the differences between building an IC in France and Poland is negligible, why not play optimisically and build it in France and hope for a few extra units?

4. For whatever reason if you want to go “Africa crazy” or “Fleet crazy” (due to the Italian fleet) France is your spot

5. As far as a march towards Russia, you must play NOT to lose any tanks (you will be building a few ARM/ART, just not in bulk) or air.  Remember, due to the stronger defense in France, your air units can now focus a lot more on the Russian theater, giving Germany a great offensive edge no matter what Russia buys.  If Russia buys 6 tanks, it will soon find out it is trading Russian Tanks for German inf.

6. This probably works best when Japan is going very heavy on the land instead of the Pacific.  More specifically heavy towards India.

4)This is just a strat for those who insist on an IC for Germany (which I seldom find a good idea)