ALL TANKS EVERY PURCHASE FOR GERMANY

Yes.

and if they build all Battleships too.

anything “Could” happen.

@!ACHTUNG!:

COULD GERMANY BEAT RUSSIA BY BUYING ALL TANKS EVERY PURCHASE EVERY TURN FOR THE WHOLE GAME?

Unlikely. Germany has to be able to trade efficently with Russia while it is building its attack, and will simply run out of infantry before Russia is ready to crumble. Defending France efficently also presents a problem.

I think mostly infantry + 1 art on G1, and then armor on G2, would be more practical and cover more eventualities.

Most of the time, no.

I think posting with CAPS LOCK OFF. if the first step to beat Russia, or even win a game, of Axis and Allies.

@Gargantua:

I think posting with CAPS LOCK OFF. if the first step to beat Russia, or even win a game, of Axis and Allies.

Hahaha, well said.

On the actual topic, I think you could almost get away with it with Germany if you are really agressive on Russia and/or playing a lame-duck UK. You might want to throw a bomber or two in there on G2 just to get something with some power to the front line, but if you’re going for broke in Moscow on G3 then a big/all tank build G1 would be the way to go.

All tanks can work, but you’d need to support it with Italy going all tanks aswell, to punch holes for Germany, through to Moscow.

This isn’t the best way to beat Russia.
The issue for the axis if you have to squeeze Russia, with Japan AND Germany at the same time.  if you stagger it, IE, Germany keeps good pressure to turn 3, and Japan starts good pressure by turn 4, you’ve really missed your chance to pop the Russian stacks like an unwanted Zit.

overall, an ALL tank purchase will most likely fail, simply because you need to have Infantry to trade ad Germany.

I still have not yet abandond this concept entirley, at least G1-G3ish purchases.  It isn’t my “normal” strat, but I still see value in the concept.

I could see where this might could possibly knock out Russia, but what would protect Germany and Italy from the UK and the US?

And even if they did knock out Russia it may leave them in bad shape in the global scheme of things, this is not Revised or Classic ya know.

This seems like a suicide rush strategy where you can grab a victory early before the Allies can support Russia effectively, but if the spearhead gets bogged down for any reason, you’re going to lose because your infantry reserves are non-existant. Also, you can’t switch gears because newly built infantry would be too far away to allow you to maintain any gains your armor makes.

It also encourages the UK, in particular, to make small focused suicide landings against all armor stacks. For example, 1 inf, 1 art supported by 1 CA, 1 BB or 2 CA is almost guaranteed to be profitable as that attack is likely to kill 2 armor in exchange for the infantry and artillery.

The biggest problem I see with it is that the Allies have the benefit of seeing it coming before they even move. The focus of that opening, Russia, is able to react accordingly. You might be better off trying this strategy in AA50-42’ because you can see how well Japan’s opening did and Russia has to move before Germany so they may be less prepared for the all armor build.

from my experience it seems to work best if Japan forgoes the Phil and maybe even Yunnan, positions Everything (except BB) that can land on India T2 to do so.

Germany has to make some attack on EGY (I can’t say if it is better to do so with or without the bomber) and sink all but the Canadian DD. landing all surviving Air units on N Africa, France, and Sweden.  Depending on what survives between Air and Navy the UK can be in a bit of a UK1 bind.  After that it is critical to beeline and stack East Poland, everyother front being secondary.

Japan tries to beeline to India (prime objective), make a path through China (objective 2; it can leave a couple out of the way remote territories such as Yunnan and Hong Kong alone), filter a navy to the Med, tries to build an air pipeline to Europe/Persia, than whateves (most likely the Pacific or Africa).

Italy builds all ground tring to get a small tank stack to double hit russia concentrated in E. Poland as quick as possible or secure the Ukraine.  It only really worries about having Egy secured in Africa and opening up the suez canal for Japanese ships.  The main function though would be to protect France

A funny thing to watch out for is to see if a G2 or 3 all bomber build is tenable to kill russia the following turn.  It is something a blitzing player needs to keep in the back of his mind. And has to know when to position his air power to hit Moscow.

This is the best way I see an all tank German build working, overall a kind of “beeline strat”, I think it is HEAVILY dependant on your G1 breaks in EGY and Naval attacks and how much you lost while taking the Balkans.

I think the most important aspect of the type of “blitz” or “beeline” type move I illustrated, is to see how much you can get away with your T1 Axis purchases that would imply you could perform the strat and still not commit; particularly against an opponent who is used to seeing it.  This way your Allied opponent will be forced to do certain moves to anticipate it (he has to) on his Allied T1.

Ex:

In many cases I think it is safe for:

G1: All tank build
J1: Heavy India bid, forgo Phil J1.
I1: 2 Armour purchas, move existing armour towards russia.

I think you can still be flexible enough in most cases after those purchases, more flexible than your allied opponent anyway; who has to prepare for the blitz (for example, you should get very conservative russian play).  It may be a bonus if people are aware when you build for a blitz, you will build all bombers to finish off russia next turn if allowed.

no its a bad idea. mix and match with a variety of forces to take and hold moscow

I’d say the biggest problem with the ‘beeline’ strategy here is that it’s a total gamble.

It can certainly pay off if the Russian player is rolling badly.  I lost the game within an hour because my brother sent in a ton of tanks and planes into Russia the third turn.  He got in there because he took Belorussia 2nd turn and my forces couldn’t take it back.  (I’m notoriously unlucky.)

However, if it doesn’t pay off then the Germans lose steam really quick.  This is because the axis player cannot hold territories once he takes them.  He sends in 4 or 5 tanks and a bunch of planes to a single territory and loses 1 or two tanks in the process.  Russia simply sends in a bunch of infantry, an artillery, and a fighter to retake it and suffers minimal casualties.  If Germany keeps this up past the 3rd turn then UK and USA will be breathing down its neck in France by then and there are no German infantry to defend with.

This type of tank rush just turns into an expensive troop exchange with Russia that Germany will not win unless extremely lucky.  Germany needs to take it’s time to conquer Russia which means staggering infantry and artillery buys with tanks buys.  And some air force buys interspersed in there as well.  So long as Germany can keep up a lot of pressure on Russia throughout the game then Italy or Japan can move in for the knock out 1 2 to win the game.

How about:
G1: 5 tanks, 2 Inf
G2: 9 tanks (35 ipc’s of territory, + 10 w/ NO’s)
I2-I3: have tanks and /or plane in position to try to open up an adjacent territory to Russia (Moscow), so German tanks can Blitz in. Have other troops to protect/ liberate France.
G3: Inf and tanks to protect/ liberate France, attack other Russian territories.
J3: Should have India, 13+ ipc’s of UK’s money, and most/all of China  by now.
G4: Take Moscow.

Your mileage may vary.

I have yet to try this but: on G1 and I1and I2, ignore Egypt and land troops in Russian territories. As Italy, you’ll be giving up some NO money, but softening up/ reinforcing territories for the Germans.

That was busted on BGG along time ago. In fact i was the guy whom it was first tried against and failed twice, with the guy latter claiming he had an “unstoppable axis move for Germany” and "comments like “didn’t they even playtest this”

Needless to say i put him in his place, but i have no idea why he still clings to that idea. I posted strategy maps on this but admit it’s just one way to do it, but not the best. I favor a more balanced strategy because it is easily countered.

@Imperious:

That was busted on BGG along time ago. In fact i was the guy whom it was first tried against and failed twice, with the guy latter claiming he had an “unstoppable axis move for Germany” and "comments like “didn’t they even playtest this”

Needless to say i put him in his place, but i have no idea why he still clings to that idea. I posted strategy maps on this but admit it’s just one way to do it, but not the best. I favor a more balanced strategy because it is easily countered.

While a blitz shouldn’t usually work when everyone has plaed the game a few times, I think the concept is useful.  Example:  If you think G1 can get by building all tanks, the Allies have to keep an Axis blitz option on the table and prepare for it, or they are toast.  It is useful to show it can be done (with no real expectations of doing it) if the allies ignore it/ get awful dice, in order to limit ally play options.