Q: General strategies for Germany

@ericwool:

Do any of you find it cheap/annoying when an allied player lands on Spain in order to establish a Western front against Germany?  This has been a common tactic of mine, and I had a gamesbyemail player call it cheap just recently.  I haven’t seen that strategy criticized before, so I’m curious if others share the opinion.

As a strategy that move is so common it has a nickname: “Spanish Harlem”. I wouldn’t call it cheap, but I can see being annoyed by it if it kept happening to me.

There’s a few ways to defend against it, but most involve either Germany taking Spain first or stacking tons of troops in France for an immediate counter-attack.

-Midnight_Reaper

Well I think the likelyhood of Japan taking both China and Sinkiang is very low in fact.  If you think about it Japan starts with only 7inf on the ground and 3ftrs bmb for offense.  China with 2inf ftr is more dangerous than one would expect and because of this it is my feeling that you must send at least 3inf ftr bmb just to guarantee a good shot at clearing it.  Additionally, Sink can only be attacked with 2inf + some air and is a lesser priority so in fact it is safe to assume that one of these will go badly.  Further Japan spreading out its offensive ability on turn 1 is a high risk high reward move as you could also lose all these battles which will really slow down Japan.  Losing say 6inf just to kill an irrelevent 2inf ftr or an extra 2inf is not a good idea.  Further, if the Brits pull just 1 Indian guy or 1 Syrian back to Persia they will have an opportunity to attack the infantry put in India by Japan.  If the Brits can nibble at these forces while spread out, and the Japanese hurt themselves by spreading out then it is far easier to slow Japan down than if you play defense where Japan will maintain its relative strength by virtue of not attacking.

Secondly, what gain is there to moving 2inf from India to Sink anyway?  If the Japanese want to risk it they can still attack it, and if they do you risk losing more of what little strength in Asia you do have.  Additionally, Japan can still take India, and Britain is still left attacking with 1inf + air to clear it so what’s the difference?

Finally, your primary reason against abandoning India is that the IPC swing is too great but in fact even with a defense of India or Sink Japan can still attack one or the other, and for that reason the IPC swing is almost as great so in fact the vacating of India actually costs the Brits very little.  Whether the British are in India or not the Japanese should be able to take China and India or Sink which is a 10ipcs swing.  The difference is but only 1guy which is more than worth it for the British.

it all depends on the country in question. no one unit is best for all of them. but here’s my picks :) :

Russia: INF, sheer numbers can overwhelm the german war machine on a relentles march to berlin

Germany: Tanks/Armor, blitzkrieg, thats all there is to it

UK: trannies, i know it sounds stupid, but without them the UK can’t do much of anything

Japan: anything, japan needs all the help she can get on the mainland, it doesnt really matter what it is, just get units there quick

USA: Carrier w/ 2 Fighters, can we say smackdown?? they can obliterate japan’s navy while also serving to protect units in an amphib assault

now these are just my picks, they might not work for all your strats, so feel free to tweak them to work for you.

I think the best strategy is to divide Germany. The U.K. can purchase enough units to invade the capital, but it would: 1. Take at least three rounds to build the force, 2. Come at the expense of Africa, 3. Rely on wise Russian and U.S. players.

Either way, you are going to experience massive casualties. You can take them in the form of infantry in the west, or fighters and bombers through the air.

-Strike that-, I am not looking at my map, but isn’t it true that the fourth fighter move from the U.K. would take either an aircraft carrier or violating neutrality in Switzerland? Either way, they’ll have to get past A.A. and survive battle at the expense of infantry, and remain sitting ducks if they land in Switzerland…OR…cost you way too many IPC’s for an aircraft carrier.

I suppose you could take Finland/Norway in R1, and use that as a base for your fighters, but that would preclude attack until R4.

Okay…suppose you scratch the fighter strategy & go “All-Bomber”. You blow 15 IPC/rd on a bomber and say…minus 3-5 IPC in Africa, you now have 11 IPC/rd to spend on one infantry & a transport (R1), three infantry (R2), and a transport and an armor (R3). Round four would be the attack round. You go in with four bombers, amphibious assault, (considering the BB survives), two armor, four infantry, (considering the Luftwaffe hasn’t taken out that “spare” transport), and two “throwaway fighters”. A nice force, indeed. Germany has their average six infantry, four armor, three fighters…or maybe not, thinking you are coming after W. Europe. Let’s compromise & say two fighters, one bomber and the all important A.A. guns.

This would be the best-case scenario. The best I might ever see. You’ll usually lose almost all of your sea units as the U.K. before you even purchase a unit, but if you have what you can consider a “navy” remaining after R1, it is feasable, but definitely not probable. If you are looking to “save time”…this probably is not the best way to do it, unless the German player is ignorant enough to leave his capital under-fortified amid a building U.K. force.

Summary: Possible, but not probable. Feasable, but not likely.

@Zakes:

The trick to screwing over Russia on the first round is to throw everything, literrally everything at Karelia on the very first round, and buying tons tanks so you can reinforce your front on the second turn.

I initially thought so as well.  But these folks showed me the implementation of US and UK strategies that I had never seen developed to the level they use them that preclude Germany from HOLDING Karelia to be able to build there in G2.

To take Karelia against the best defensive buildup that Russia can muster requires your Air Force.  But if you use your Air Force against Karelia, the UK navy is intact, and does an amphib in Karelia (2 BB’s, 3 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 INF, 1 tank) to kick Germany’s few remaining forces out in UK1.

Even if UK fails to kick Germany out of Karelia, what forces does Germany have left?  2 INF in Western, 4 INF and a tank in Eastern, 1-3 tanks in Karelia, 2 fighters, and a bomber; and their “total tank” build of 6 tanks in Germany.  That is a BEST case survival scenario.

Going forward against this, you have Russia building 7 (or more) INF per round, UK with a “full” transport fleet to use against Germany and the US also with a transport fleet that starts hitting Germany in US3.

Believe me, I used to agree whole heartedly with you, but failing to take out the Allied naval forces in the 1st and 2nd rounds is certain quick death for Germany.  And without them, you can;t crack Karelia.  Even if you can, you can;t crack it with enough force to threaten Russia the following round.

Hmmm… yeah, the finding the perfect balance is always key. However, I think the best case for a two pronged offensive is if the Pearl Harbor invasion is based on sea, leaving the 1 CV (w/ 1 ftr) free to support Germany’s role in the Suez. By doing so, I suggest to sending 2 BB’s, 1 sub, 1 ftr (launched off the CV, lands back at Wake) under these conditions, I will win 96% of the time. Though I will probably lose the sub and trns (35% chance). I will probably lose the counterattack, though I won’t think the American will press his luck by then shifting to a Japan first strat (which will actually be helpful to you :wink:)

“I want to eat your children” - Now that’s the Mike Tyson I know and hate! :smile:

Of course I like this one by heavyweight boxer Tony Galento

“I’ll moider da bum.”

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
The ends DO often justify the means