Germany Keys

[DarthMaximus]

I would pretty much agree with Switch, with the exception being the AC buy.  :-)

I think it works and can definitely be used effectively, I’ve just found that I’m not good at it.  Or more accurately it doesn’t usually fit my style of play and I always end up wishing I had the extra inf with Ger.

I will typically play a Pafr bid so even without buying ships for Sz 5 I don’t really have to worry about UK in Nor until about rd 3/4 (and they certainly won’t be landing/threatening EE before rd 5/6 if that) otherwise the Allies don’t have enough inf in Afr to push Germany out or they do and Japan now can swoop in kill off the remaining troops and force the Allies back which could be even more annoying depending on the game situation.

I also like to try and bleed off the UK ftrs, if they do a rd 1 attack on Sz 5, and it could really help in keeping the Med fleet an extra turn or two depending on the US buys.  Otherwise the Allies risk another disaster there if they come in with anything less than 4 planes, and even 4 planes could turn out bad if you get the double trn and BB hits on Def.

And on the flip side, if UK doesn’t attack, you get to use the Baltic trn in Rd 2 without spending anything on Navy.

[Jennifer]

Likewise, I disagree with the carrier buy on Germany 1.  I’ve found that the Med fleet does a pretty good job without help killing off RAF Fighters (when I’m England) and even with a carrier there (if I’m Germany) my fleet ends up getting sunk in short order by the Americans.

So what, exactly am I doing?  Protecting E. Europe?  That’s not really an issue for me.  I usually have a very nice stack of Fighters, Tanks and Infantry in E. Europe as it is.

Though the infantry thing is accurate, in my opinion.  Lately I’ve been buying at least two armor a round with Germany though.  Sometimes I trade that in for another fighter since each fighter necessitates the increase of Allied ships by at least two transports or a destroyer, and my fighters can be used for other conflicts without needing to engage him.

An overly aggressive Russia, no matter WHAT Germany does, is going to end the Axis in a Kill Russia First game.  Unless the dice dictate otherwise.  In fact, I’ve found that the majority of games are decided by bad dice for one side or the other.  It’s extremely rare to see a player make a huge tactical mistake resulting in the loss of his or her side.  (By that I mean someone leaving fighters exposed to the enemy where the enemy has a significantly strong attack position.)  Generally I see battles where the attacker or defender has less then 20% odds of winning, in a LARGE battle, coming out not only in that 20% but significantly in that 20% and that turns the battle.

I think the key to German success, really, is Japan.  If Japan can make a grab for Africa after Germany is removed and distract the British and Americans, or if Japan can make a serious landing in Alaska necessitating that America stop supporting England and Russia, then the Germans can usually hold their own long enough for Japanese invasions of Moscow.

BTW, my definition of SIGNIFICANT and SERIOUS landings in Alaska is AT LEAST 12 ground units.  (Preferably 8 infantry, 4 armor to make a serious invasion attempt, but have some defensive firepower too.)

[Funcioneta]

I’d like try the idea of fighting in mainland America with the japaneses, but I stil must play it, because my ftf opponen likes buy a IC for India in UK2 or UK3 instead UK1, and such tasty present is not for negate, so ever I plan Alaska invasion, finally I end with a classical dash to Moscow  :-P

The bad is he never reckons he is wrong and continue playing that  :|

[Gerbilkit]

Why does it have to be a carrier in the Baltic? Why not two transports? Then the RAF shouldn’t be able to strafe you anymore, and London is going to have to watch it a little bit now.  If you have wolfpacks and/or U-boat interdiction I’d build a sub as well. It activates the wolfpack meaning Britain won’t be getting close to you for a while with her navy, and the Allies often tend to spend an inordinate amount of resources taking out your subs if you have u-boat interdiction.  Especially if you rub it in every time.  :evil:

[Nukchebi0]

Transports can’t hold fighters, unlike a carrier. The 16 IPCs nets you a +11 defensive punch with a carrier, and only +2 defensive punch with the transports. If the goal is to protect the Baltic for as long as possible, then you want to maximize your defensive power.

[Guest]

2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

And the odds are good of doing a lot of damage to the German fleet.  Whatever is left is negligible in terms of defending Berlin/Eastern/Karelia; unless you spend a fortune building navy G2 and later (which is NOT going to happen as Germany).

But an AC…  UK attacking THAT fleet with 2 FIG, 1 BOM is a suicide run that may not even get the SUBs.

And the AC extends the range of Germany’s FIGs, allowing for strikes deep into central Europe from SZ5, while also being able to use those same FIGs in SZ8 or 12 if desired…  Nice flexibility.  And being flexible to adjust to shifts in Allied movements is always a good idea.

[ankmcfly]

What about a BB in the Baltic? Has anyone ever tried it? (I haven’t)
Takes to hits to kill, plus the offense fire power to attack in concert with
some planes means you might be able to move the fleet around a bit.

On the down side, 24 beans gone leaves a G1 purchase with 4 inf and a art.
That may be too little against Russia.

If anyone has tried this, please share your results.

[Jennifer]

Hell, why not 2 Destroyers and 2 Transports in the Baltic then. :P  I mean, if we are going to produce navy for Germany, why go in half-arsed when we can use our FULL ARSE!

3 Destroyers, 2 Submarines, 3 Transports and all your German aircraft in W. Europe with the Battleship/Transport from SZ 14 in SZ 13 (and probably that SZ 8 submarine too, unless England get great defensive rolls or something) and you could have a nice little sea lion set up. :P

Oh yea, weird strat year just got another weird strat to try out!  Hey!  I think I’ll do Battleship, 2 Transports….nah, 2 destroyers are 2 X 3 or less, 1 Battleship is only 1 X 4 or less.  Better stick to the extra units, though the extra bombardment would be nice. :P

[Nukchebi0]

Has anyone ever tried completely eliminating the British navy and ensuring it can’t harass you? Heavy naval purchases the first two turns, obviously.

My friend did this successfully, and Britain was never a problem until round 6. Africa was firmly in German control, and the Axis won.

[Jennifer]

Hard to do, it would almost necessitate a submarine bid in SZ 8 without Russia taking out Norway on R1.

Unless you mean after Germany 1 instead of on Germany 1, and yes, I’ve worked on a few different ways to do it.  The German navy can be quite formidable if you stage right and don’t get hit with subprime dice.

[newpaintbrush]

1.  A German battleship in the Med yields interesting results in that you have more battleship support shots and a stronger hit and run against Allied navy.  But by “interesting”, I do not mean “good”.  The lack of G1 infantry REALLY hurts and the compensation of the battleship is insufficient.  Yarly.

2.  Yeah, there’s a play for the Brit navy that begins with a German sub bid in SZ 8 allowing 2 sub 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 sub 1 trans 1 battleship northwest of UK and German navy and/or air vs Gibraltar.  Problem is, with an Atlantic bid, you don’t get an Africa bid, and the German bomber is already being sent to UK navy instead of Anglo-Egypt.  Also, you can’t control the Russian opening, so you might run into a Ukraine opening with 2 inf 2 art placed in Caucasus and 2 tank in Russia.  So what this means is that Germany potentially has to deal with 2 sub 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 sub 1 trans 1 battleship, plus 3 fighter vs UK battleship, plus 1 battleship 1 transport vs 1 destroyer plus 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank vs 1 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter, with 1 German fighter discretionary which just isn’t enough to cover all the bases.  Germany gets some compensation with strong control of the Atlantic early game (and hence African IPCs and control of European territories, but note a UK recapture of Anglo-Egypt slows German progress in Africa a lot), but the US comes in very fast with up to two ACs, which is just too much for the depleted German airforce to handle and the game transposes into a near-traditional KGF, with less Allied navy but also less German air.

The Germans are not much better off with added IPCs from Atlantic control, and have fewer fighters to shift against Russia later on.

If the Germans do HEAVY naval purchases G1, depending on an Atlantic sub build and Med fleet move, Russia should be able to control a good bit of territory early on that Germany has to fight against later in the form of more Russian infantry.  Another problem is that German navy can’t be used against ground targets.  So the Allies have plenty of time to respond to the German threat.  I would think, Nukchebi, that the German victory in the example you gave was either due to good dice by the Germans/poor dice by the Allies, or poor Allied strategy, rather than a triumph of a superior untried German strategy that the Allies cannot respond to.

[Nukchebi0]

I remember more of that game now, and it was entirely unconventional. The US and Japan were fighting solely in the Pacific (India and China taken, but none of the Far Eastern territories in Russia), and thus just building big navies with lots of battleships. Consequently, it was Britain and Russia vs. Germany, which made the lack of British reinforcements death for Russia, even without Japanese pressure.

Against a traditional KGF with US involvement in Europe, I see how this strategy will fail.

(So yes, it was due to a poor Allied strategy).

[Jennifer]

Well, Bunnies, I don’t agree that Egypt is a necessary attack for Germany.  In fact, I am leaning towards NOT attacking it lately.  This allows England to shoot himself in the foot by invading the Med with his fleet which allows Germany to quickly close the trap by taking Egypt on G2 and hitting it with the German navy on G3. (course it means getting fighters and navy in range on G2 by building or moving it there.  So what?)

And yes, America’s coming in with two fully loaded carriers.  However, that’s less troops and transports that Germany has to deal with.  The idea isn’t to master the Pacific forever, just to recover from using a full round of purchases to sink the British navy if it gets in the way and/or deny England any capitol ships at all at the start of the game.

[Gerbilkit]

So two tran buy demands the UK send in their aircraft?

I like this.  For 16 IPC I get to slaughter the RAF on UK1, and I might not lose more than subs and maybe one tran if I’m lucky.

Maybe I should experiment with 3.  :evil:

[Guest]

3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…

[newpaintbrush]

@ncscswitch:

3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…

So maybe you think the UK should buy an AC and maybe the head of Caspian Sub thinks you shouldn’t buy an AC.  So maybe the UK1 counter doesn’t involve an AC after all.  Dun dun dun.

@Cmdr:

Well, Bunnies, I don’t agree that Egypt is a necessary attack for Germany.  In fact, I am leaning towards NOT attacking it lately.  This allows England to shoot himself in the foot by invading the Med with his fleet which allows Germany to quickly close the trap by taking Egypt on G2 and hitting it with the German navy on G3. (course it means getting fighters and navy in range on G2 by building or moving it there.  So what?)

And yes, America’s coming in with two fully loaded carriers.  However, that’s less troops and transports that Germany has to deal with.  The idea isn’t to master the Pacific forever, just to recover from using a full round of purchases to sink the British navy if it gets in the way and/or deny England any capitol ships at all at the start of the game.

If Germany doesn’t attack Anglo-Egypt at all on G1, UK CAN (doesn’t have to depending on German fleet and air position) put up to 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter in the sea zone, and UK can have up to 5 inf 1 tank in Transjordan plus 1 fighter in Russia and 1 bomber in range to support.  Japan gets a significant boost in Asia with the survival of the Kwangtung transport, but Germany has to contend with a strong UK3 navy and no progress in Africa, and UK has the flexibility to retreat from Transjordan towards India, strongly attacking Japan in spite of that early Japanese transport advantage.

Specifically, German fighters will probably not be in range to hit the waters north of Anglo-Egypt/west of Transjordan at the end of G1, so Germany can at best attack that UK fleet of 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter on G2 with 1 transport 1 battleship 1 bomber (ugly).  I suppose you’re saying Germany can capture Anglo-Egypt on G2 to cut off the UK fleet and move German air east, without attacking the UK fleet, but if Germany doesn’t hit that UK fleet on G2, UK2 sees 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 4 fighter 1 bomber attacking the German fleet of 1 transport 1 battleship which probably means dead German navy and the possibility of the UK STILL controlling a sizable fleet that can survive a German air attack.  (Note that I assume the Allies did NOT unite the fleet off Algeria, because that scenario is just too horrible for the Germans and it can reasonably be prevented with 1 trans 1 battleship 5 fighter 1 bomber threatening an Allied fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 battleship max though the Allied fleet may be decreased by a G1 Atlantic sub bid as described in a previous post for Allied fleet of 3 transport 1 destroyer at Algeria, which is clearly no good at all.)

Still, regardless of the Atlantic scenario, the only way for the Germans to survive the UK2 attack (given no attacks on Anglo-Egypt) is a very expensive Mediterranean fleet buy of minimum 2 carrier which even then isn’t necessarily favorable unless the Germans preserved some additional fleet like the Atlantic sub, and even that may only achieve parity, not superiority (Allied attack of 01333 3334 vs German defense of 01334 444 is still not favorable and requires TWO CARRIERS at S. Europe, so makes for a very possibly horribly ghastly and decisive UK2 attack and in any event horribly slows Germany in Europe.

The two fully loaded US carrier scenario is not in response to a German ignore of Anglo-Egypt, it’s in response to an aggressive German naval strategy that preserves German fleet elements and a good degree of German air.

[DarthMaximus]

@ncscswitch:

2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

I would disagree with this.
I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom.  Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.

I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.

I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending.  3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.

[Weekend Gamer]

@DarthMaximus:

@ncscswitch:

2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

I would disagree with this.
I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom.  Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.

I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.

I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending.  3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.

Well said, and I would also say “Just say no” to heavy Axis naval purchases unless:  (1) you really know what you are doing (most don’t); (2) Russia got TOTALLY SMOKED on R1 dice; or (3) your opponent does something stupid with the Allies and you have IPCs and time to burn.

[Gerbilkit]

@ncscswitch:

3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…

Could you elaborate? I’m failing to see how an AC buy on UK1 is a remotely viable or useful strategy but I could be missing something.

[lmtdconv]

I would say because Germany is massing a navy, even if the transports are used for fodder, they could still easily take out you UK Navy so you have to sure it up with a car and 2 fig.