Seems a lot of axis players G1 are pretty much going all out for WR, pur 5 inf 5 tanks, abandoned WE and head due east! … Then 1 if not 2 J factories, send J fighters to support G for an all out land assault on R.
Well, that is no surprise at all. You don’t see tennis players at Wimbledon trying to hold racquets with their bums (as much as that might improve viewing ratings). Likewise, you shouldn’t see Germany bulking at Western Europe on G1 or Japan leaving its fighters sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on J2.
I know this has already been discussed but, what is the best R1 purchase and comabt play? Seems axis strat to meet in the middle (at any cost sometimes) is becomeing harder and harder to defend without some help of the dice.
It isn’t any harder than it ever was. It’s just that you’re facing different opponents, or maybe your opponents are slacking off less. As far as the best R1, more on that in a bit.
I’ve seen parts of some of your games, Paulzy and I don’t think it’s the lack of a decent script for R1 play that ultimately holds you back. I think it’s your general strategy that you need to think about.
Is Granada right with the Norwegian Gambit ?
Please don’t use this sloppy “Norwegian Gambit” terminology. :roll: It’s a two-fighter-attack against Norway on R1. Calling it anything else just confuses the issue.
Besides, the MACE WINDU FLYING JEDI strategy is CLEARLY superior. :mrgreen:
See what I mean? What the h*** is the MACE WINDU FLYING JEDI strategy?!! Yeah . . .
What about belo and wr ?
No. If you don’t have a very good idea of precisely why you would hit West Russia/Belorussia (and if you’re asking the question, you don’t), you should hit West Russia/Ukraine instead.
Hell, what about buying 6 artys or 4tanks 1 arty pulling everything in to WR/R then blow back up!?!
This is what I mean when I say I think you need to work on your general strategy, Paulzy. I cannot conceive of a scenario in which attacking West Russia only on R1 is a good thing. Unless you’re deliberately handicapping yourself.
As far as buying 6 artillery or 4 tanks 1 artillery, those aren’t new concepts. I say 6 artillery is certainly wrong. 4 tanks 1 artillery are OK, but you won’t get much mileage out of that purchase unless you have some idea of what you’re doing with it.
I realize first 2 maybe 3 rounds can belong to axis, would like some feedback on allied, particualy R defense. When G really gets the ground game goin either stacking kar or kriane with jap air support, russia can get in trouble real quick.
Germany should not be able to stack Karelia. Jap air support to either Karelia or Ukraine are traps for the Axis.
–
1. 6 artillery is wrong because artillery have crap mobility and suck on defense for their cost. Tanks threaten many more territories.
Tanks at Caucasus can threaten India, Ukraine, Balkans, West Russia, Belorussia, Karelia, Archangel, Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Sinkiang, plus I think Evenki. Or something like that, anyways say eleven territories. Now compare to artillery at Caucasus. You threaten Balkans, West Russia, Kazakh, and Persia. WHOOP DE DOO, four territories.
The THEORY is that artillery are more effective on offense, because they’re tactically useful in combination with infantry in that role. But in practice, their power doesn’t make up for the reduction in threat range.
Tanks cost 25% more, but have a 300% threat range. So they’re three times as useful. If Spring 1942 was a map that had four territories - Berlin, Eastern Europe, West Russia, and Moscow, then artillery would be much better. As it is, I say it’s a rule of thumb that Russia should have a maximum of three artillery.
2. The Allies shouldn’t have a hard time setting up transports to Norway or fortifying West Russia (particularly with Allied fighters). Both Norway and West Russia pressure Karelia. So you’re looking at a situation in which UK and US are each increasing their threat by six ground a turn, and Russia four ground a turn. Germany cannot maintain position at Karelia.
Germany can hold at Karelia for a LITTLE while, and can take and hold it early if it completely abandons Norway (which makes a G1 attack on the UK battleship/transport less likely). But in any event, Germany restricting Russian income by grabbing Karelia early is precisely what a R1 tank heavy purchase is all about. The Russian purchase delays an early German grab, giving UK/US a bit more time to get into position to reinforce Norway.
But even if Germany does grab Karelia early, that usually forgoes the German attack against the UK battleship/transport, which allows UK to set up its transport chain into Europe earlier.
3. Germany maintaining a presence on Ukraine is a problem because it cuts Russian income, and this is MUCH MORE the case early in the game. This is PRECISELY why the WR/Ukraine attack is very useful - it isn’t JUST for the German fighter; it also screws with Germany’s front line units and if successful (high percentage) in capturing Ukraine, stops Germany from landing fighters on Ukraine at end of G1 (and stops Japan from putting 2 more on at the end of its turn), plus all sorts of nasty sheanigans that Germany can come up with on G2.
Later in the game, there’s not much the Allies can do to stop Germany from stacking Ukraine and getting Jap fighter support. But by that time if the Allies have established transport chains into Europe, that’s pretty standard.
3. Jap air reinforcing Germany at Karelia or Ukraine is often a trap for the Axis. Suppose Japs reinforce Karelia late game with Jap fighters. Now what? If Japs pull out, Germany gets slaughtered by US/Russia. If Germans pull out, Japan gets slaughtered by UK. So both Germans and Japanese get locked into defending a territory that they don’t really want to defend. Japanese fighters on Berlin and/or Eastern Europe are a different matter, but Karelia (and less so Ukraine) is often not a good spot for Jap air to hang out in.
