Theroizing an axis strategy

@CheeseWhiz:

I just got this idea for an axis strat and want to know how you guys think it will play out and get ideas on how to optimize it.

The heart of the strategy is to kill the starting brit navy in s2 using 1 sub 1 fighter and 1 bomber and follow this up with building a navy so big on G1 that UK can do nothing to prevent germany from destroying a navy purchase on uk1.  This is followed by Japan setting up for a J2 (preferable) or J3 alaska invasion.

The idea is that the only ally that can challenge the G navy is the U.S. and to make them spend enough ipcs on defending against japan that the UK and US will be essentially helpless or take too long to aid russia, who will have to fight Germany 1on1.

The downside of course is that G will have to cede more territory than normal the first turn or 2 to russia, but the general income and starting unit difference + delayed uk/usa help i think should make up for that.

Some concerns i’d like input on…

I’ve thought about forgoing an invasion of Africa in favor of trying to link the med. battleship w/ the baltic navy.  Not collecting those ipcs will hurt G. but the UK having them shouldnt matter that much because they shouldnt be able to place much of anything anyway.

In gearing up for an alaska assault, and if the angloegypt uk fighter lives, Japan will be weakened on the asia mainland.  What should Japans main objectives other than the alaska assault be. (i think it should be taking over the us/chinese territory in an effort to prevent the us from being able to snipe some ipcs)

What would your response as UK be to this? It seems it might be most effective to sit on the cash or buy some fighters and then place a super huge navy on uk2 but idk.

What do you think the best purchase for G1 is here.  I think 1 carrier in baltic has too high a chance of having critical units sniped by 2ftrs/1bomb on UK1.  I’m thinking G1 needs 2 carriers because that would give it more flexibility to aggressively go after the us fleet if it is too small.  The problem here is that w/ this purchase germany can’t really afford to take many hits, so i was thinking eventually linking with the med bship and maybe building an extra destroyer or something on G1 might be useful.

Obviously this answer depends on how battles go and what happens on Rus1 and Uk1 but i’m not sure what the best purchase for J1 is.  I’d like to place 3-4 transports in the sz that is within range of alaska, but the US will be able to hit it with 1 fighter and 1 sub.  Any ideas on the optimal units to purchase/leave to defend there? or would it be better to place in the other sz and go for a J3 alaska invasion (i dont think this should really be an option since it allows US 2 turns to build a counter to germany navy).

Finally, do you think this is just bad theory or is it actually viable?

Thanks!

I.C. in Western Europe imo.  :-D

Welcome to the board Tragedy,

+1 karma to you!

I.C. in Western Europe imo.  :-D

Is that a serious suggestion?

iker300,

Welcome to the forum!

+1 karma to you to start you off.

Not sure about the IC in WEu.

@gnasape:

Not sure about the IC in WEu.

Not a good idea: you have a nice one in Italy

Is that a serious suggestion?

Yes sir it is.
Do you have any suggestions you can share?

Not a good idea: you have a nice one in Italy

O.P. Objectives:

• Build a Huge German Navy: Why would the O.P. build a huge Navy in S.Z. 14? One of the Goals of the O.P. strat. is to bog down the U.S. on the West Coast.

- Destroy U.K. Navy purchases: How can German Navy in S.Z. 14 destroy U.K. Navy Purchases?

• Considering Linking Fleets/ Considering not even invading Africa: S.Z. 7 >>> S.Z. 14

@Tragedy:

Not a good idea: you have a nice one in Italy

O.P. Objectives:

• Build a Huge German Navy: Why would the O.P. build a huge Navy in S.Z. 14? One of the Goals of the O.P. strat. is to bog down the U.S. on the West Coast.

- Destroy U.K. Navy purchases: How can German Navy in S.Z. 14 destroy U.K. Navy Purchases?

• Considering Linking Fleets/ Considering not even invading Africa: S.Z. 7 >>> S.Z. 14

You could buy boats in z14 and then move to Atlantic. If you buy a IC at WEU, you will still lose a round, the same round you would lose moving. I can, however, see the profits of linking at z7, and I think is a good strat if well done. But a IC is 15 IPCs not spent in fleet or fighters, and you have to fight soviets also. I think buying less than 8 land units as Germany each round is giving too much advantage to USSR

Resuming, I would buy 2 subs at z14, 1 ac at z14, 1 fig to ger & 1 sub to z14 or any other combo rather than buying any IC for Germany, even WEU

Don’t get confused, a early navy strat is good for Germany in this game, and probably will be very deadly when it gets polished. But I think a IC is not the solution to do that

The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.

@jigsaw:

The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.

Unnecessary? In most cases yeah, it seems that way. If you plan on building a large German Navy to dominate U.K.? I think its debatable.
Either way I like to play Devil’s advocate.  :evil:

Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?
If the U.K./U.S. is semi-competent the factory would have a lot of damage on it, if it does get overthrown.
Lets face it, if WEU gets taken and your factory overthrown you failed wayyy before that even happens.

The OP wanted to build a German navy to destroy U.K. navy purchase. The only possible way to do that is to stage a German navy in S.Z. 7. If your going to stage/link their, your way better off just building them their. It takes 3 turns to get their from S.Z. 14.

Btw, their is an upside to that I.C. A German Navy in S.Z. 7 puts an extreme amount of pressure on U.K.
If Japan is going for a large Alaska Invasion on J2, I was considering the possibilities of invading Eastern Canada on the next German turn.
I haven’t had time to experiment with it.

This isn’t my strat…, I’m just bouncing ideas…

I’m not sure what you mean by “it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket”, please elaborate.  :wink:

First, expense is the main reason to be skeptical of the I.C., not the threat of losing it. But since I brought the latter up, I guess I might as well elaborate a little bit in my thinking in response to Tragedy.

In response to your question, losing Western Europe with an I.C. already there would be very much like losing Southern Europe. It might be easier for the Allies to get to Western Europe than Southern Europe, depending on what the board looks like.

I think it may be that part of the reason you don’t see the Allies invading Western Europe until very late is not because it’s impossible for them to take it, but because it’s too costly knowing they’re going to get quickly kicked back out again. (I don’t know; I guess I’ve never played against a really, really good German player and they might do a better job locking it down than I’ve seen players do.) Anyway, if an I.C. is already there, reinforcement is somewhat easier, even though they’d still be vulnerable to a turn of German counterattack. You’re mostly right on this, though; if you’ve been betting on naval superiority but your fleet has broken down and a large-scale invasion of Western Europe is taking place, you’re already in pretty bad shape.

As for Canada, well, I suppose that depends on whether the Americans are asleep at the wheel.

@Tragedy:

@jigsaw:

The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.

Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?

Disagree.  In AA50, I think it’s accurate to say this (that if Germany loses France they are probably doomed to lose the game).  In Revised or this game, trading Western Europe is perfectly acceptable–it is Moscow and Berlin that are essential, not Paris.  The only thing that is vital is that you don’t allow the Allies to hold Paris.

The Western IC has promise in theory and might work if the Allies don’t react and/or focus on Japan.  But it still seems like a waste of IPCs given u already got more than enough factories and that the Western IC is a serious potential liability.

@Zhukov44:

@Tragedy:

@jigsaw:

The other issue with an I.C. in Western Europe, apart from the fact that it is unnecessary and expensive, is that it becomes a catastrophe if the US or UK sneak in and take it. I suppose you’re planning on having sustained naval supremacy to prevent that, but that might not pan out and it seems a lot of eggs to be putting in one metaphorical basket.

Germany should never loose Western Europe(Period) Their is no “sneaking in” against a “good” player. Btw how would it be any different then loosing Southern Europe?

Building factories as Germany is a HORRIBLE idea.
Disagree.  In AA50, I think it’s accurate to say this (that if Germany loses France they are probably doomed to lose the game).  In Revised or this game, trading Western Europe is perfectly acceptable–it is Moscow and Berlin that are essential, not Paris.  The only thing that is vital is that you don’t allow the Allies to hold Paris.

The Western IC has promise in theory and might work if the Allies don’t react and/or focus on Japan.  But it still seems like a waste of IPCs given u already got more than enough factories and that the Western IC is a serious potential liability.

Bombers are much better at this than building your own boats, as are subs themselves until the US can get there.  Instead of that try purchasing 1 Bomb, 2 Subs on G1.  On G2 and on keep purchasing one bomber a turn and keeping them in France, keep your subs spread out and use them as fodder for your attacks.  From france they can hit most of russia, and any SZ the UK drops boats, and any SZ that would be used for a US shuck.  12 IPC bombers make Germany happy.  You can also use Jap bombers flying to Europe to disrupt allied fleets, as japan goes between the UK and the US.

Just remember, the UK can drop 2 DDs, 1 AC turn 1.  Not a scary fleet but it will eat up a good chuck of your german airpower if they really want to, esp if they link up with the US cruiser or if you don’t sink there cruiser G1.  And if it survives until UK2 expect at least another loaded up carrier.

One last thing too, don’t forget UK can easily drop 1 DD into SZ 6 to block any builds you have AND any subs in SZ 7 if they wish to park in SZ 3 to start trading norway.  Then all your boats are just, well, pointless.

And I will never understand the german carrier buy.  If you want to sink enemy ships the carrier is the worst unit for that.  Destroyers are much better in that department, and battleships are fun for when the allied air sinks your boats after you sink there boats.  I’d rather buy 2 DDs G1 than an AC, or even 1 BB, 1 DD.  That gives you lots of fodder for your attacking planes.

Good points.  The Baltic AC is a decent strategy in Revised (not the ideal strat imho, but lotsa pros use it effectively), but the rule changes in AA42 probably kill it off.  Without transports as fodder units, its too expensive to defend the fleet against an Allied air build-up.

Much more tempting are sub buys–they can be placed in either SZ5 or SZ14 to deadzone SZ6 or SZ12…but at this point I don’t see a convincing rationale for buying subs instead of aircraft.

I can see always having 1 sub in a SZ to act as fodder for your planes, but no more than 1.  It is also funny to keep trading a sub for a destroyer as the allies try to kill 'em off.

a sub purchase as germany could be turned into 2 infantry
a carrier purchase could be 2 tanks and 1 artillery

if you buy navy as germany, expect russia to become huge and to lose ALL territories east of poland

Depends on how much money you sink into your navy, how aggressive Japan is, and how much your navy slows down the US/UK.  You start with a decent TUV advantage against Russia, and a higher income.  You also don’t have Japan slamming units at you from 3 directions.  Also keep in mind a Japan SBR tactic against Russia in a situation like this is a valid option.  One thing I like about 42 is it seems a bit more freeform than the old revised as there are alot of options (at least till we all learn it).

But, the most versatile build is the bomber.  At 12 IPCs this thing is the bane of the allies, esp as hanging out in France lets it hit almost the entire atlantic AND most of russia.

Might I suggest the bomber sub combo for killing the UK fleet and or US invasion fleet?  The bombers coupled with fighters and subs for fodder is devastating to a fleet made of capital ships. I honestly don’t think you need to worry about the fleets at first. Securing africa poses more of a problem to the allies. It forces the allies to respond sooner than later and keeps them out of europe for a couple of turns. I have had success with a IC in Egypt in the second round but I am not sure it was due to the IC or the opposing players lack of counter moves. I think one  transport with a cruiser is a better buy. If you can link the new cruiser and transport with the original med battleship and transport you then can shuck to Egypt and have the option for amphibious assault on Caucus with two free attacks when the time is right. The advantage of the cruiser/transport buy is that you get a start on a German navy and it makes you money buy helping you take Africa.  I think the key to beating the Allies is to counter them asymmetrically early in the game. Unless the allied player(s) are really good, you should be able to lead them around and destroy there fragmented fronts.

I haven’t tried building a German Navy yet (I think air suffices for deterring landings), but I’d like to explore his notion of not putting troops into Africa.  I tried this in my last game.  I had always hit Egypt.  But, unless you continue to ship units there, the US can ferry a lot of troops to Algeria (and eventually to WU or SU).  The US Navy is pretty weak in the Atlantic to start.  Why not take out the British Battleship, move African troops as far west as possible, and make sure the US doesn’t land in Africa.  It will be very hard for them to land in Europe being 2 turns away.

If you take out Egypt at all costs, US lands in Algeria and you divert troops from hitting Russia.

I think you take out UK navy in S2 and S13 (with right air support and battleship 2 hits you likely only lose a sub).  Move Baltic Navy to S6 (within range of any UK1 build).  S6 and possibly S13 Navy takes out any UK boats on turn 2 for sure.  It also saves half your air for G1 attacks at Russia and all for G2 attacks.  It keeps US out of Europe or Africa for 3+ turns and UK off Norway for at least 3 turns.  That is key because it allows you to use the 3 inf in attacks on Russia.  It also allows you to only leave the  starting infantry behind in WU and roll more tanks into Russia.