Please post when (and only when) you finally get your AAE40 home.

Huh.  Thanks Wittman.  Maybe TripleA confused me on that one.  Can’t recall if it actually happened or if I was concerned that it might happen.  Either way, I know now.

I think a very important component to strafing is understanding how it can rapidly move units beyond their normal movement range - which has been displayed in the G1 Yugoslavia to Romania example in prior posts.

It would be impossible to get the units from Greater Southern Germany to Romania on G1 without understanding strafing.

Of course, the units could simply step into Hungary and still be in position to strike at Eastern Poland.  However, you sacrifice the utility of clearing out much of Yugoslavia and thereby helping Italy by not understanding the mechanics of the “Strafe”.

Russia can also employ a Strafing strategy that would trade resources (generally Russian infantry) with Germany in a way that blocks a German blitz or denies the Germans the use of a minor IC.

In example:

Russia withdraws its stack to Bryansk in response to a German stack in Eastern Poland, inviting a German blitz of
Armor and some Mech into the teeth of 30 infantry, and another half dozen armor and artillery supported by Ftr and Tac.

Germany, unwilling to risk its Armor without protection, elects to blitz a single armor to Ukraine, waiting on a stack of Mech to arrive as reinforcements in Eastern Poland.

On the subsequent Russian turn, the Russians strafe into Ukraine, which is currently owned by Germany with 2 Infantry, 2 Ftr and 1 Tac.  Russia prevails, losing 1 Inf.  Effectively, Russia has denied Germany the use of the Ukraine IC, and traded a 3 IPC INF for a 6 IPC ARM.

On the subsequent German turn, Germany claims Ukraine for good, losing 1 Inf in the process.

Total cost for the Russian strafe:  6 IPC for Russia, 9 IPC for Germany + losing a turn of production out of Ukraine that can immediately threaten Moscow.

That, is the value of a strafe from the Russian perspective.

The list goes on, but understanding the strafing technique helps develop the early round strategies to keep pressure or alleviate pressure depending on the nation you play as.

Later in the game, understanding the strafing strategy can completely ruin your opponent and potentially tilt the scales in your favor to an economic stalemate or quickly end a game for a player not cognizant of the strafing applications.  From experience, this becomes a significant strategy to understand in the Pacific theater in application during the mid to late game.

A final input, is a variant of the strafing is a can-opener applied by Italy.  Italian units, due to their turn in a round, can open a door for a German blitz that Russia planned on having blocked.  Italy typically accomplishes this with Mech/Armor and a Bomber whereby opening a flank can ruin Moscow’s day.

The US has a variant of this if Germany leaves Berlin undefended whereby the US seizes Denmark, and the UK sails through the straights to land on Berlin.

Neither of these are true strafes, but they employ the same strategy of taking territory or denying territory in unconventional ways.

Only 10% believe allies have an advantage, maybe I am not so crazy after all for thinking axis advantage.

@Vance:

I always SBR London if I am planning or pretending sea lion.  That turn 1 SBR is a critical piece of sea lion and the threat is not serious without it.  Two Bombers target the IC and two tacticals target the airbase.  They do not intercept because a) the fighters scramble in z110 or z109, or b) if they are taking the sea lion threat seriously they do not want to risk losing a fighter.  About half the time I lose a plane to AA, but its worth it because the sea lion threat forces UK to spend its entire first turn income on repairs and infantry, leaving the med and Africa open for Italy.  Italy’s NO income soon pays for any losses you may have had (unless you get diced and lose 3 or 4 of them).  If both sides have normal losses (i.e. germany loses 1 plane or none; the airbase is inoperable and the IC has something like 10 damage), and they spend in South Africa or Egypt, do a Taranto raid, etc., well then sea lion is on.

Yeah, I didn’t even think of bombing the airbases too. Of course that means that they won’t scramble into an adjacent sea zone, but then they can still intercept the strategic and tactical bombers attacking the IC and airbase, right? If I know that that’s what my opponent intends to do, then I’d use all my fighters exactly for that as they won’t be of any use in an adjacent sz. But yes, you have a point too that if Germany really wants to go for sea lio, the UK will need all the fighters it can get!

I know CJenn’s tactic. � It’s just another variation of what we’ve had since the summer of 2010. �

I think hitting 109, 111, 112, and 106 but not 110 and 91 is more corriganbp’s tactic.  CJenn does it too now, but I think she used to hit SZ110 instead of 109 until corriganbp convinced her 109 was better.

If I had to leave 1 alone, it would be sz111, as those ships can’t get away from you on turn 2.

The only reason to leave one of the UK BBs alone is so you can do 109.  I don’t think you can do both 109 and 110 (along with 112 and 106 heavy) due to UK scramble options.  They, with France, can scramble 3 fighters to 110 or 4 to 109.  They can’t do both scrambles at the same time of course, but as Germany you have to cover for both and I don’t think they have enough air to do so, at least not without skimping a bit in another battle.

@cenator01:

I think this depends on how many new player you have.
If there are 3 veterans and only one new player, give him USSR.
If there are more newbies than veterans, then let them choose, but maybe dont go 150%.
To my experience:
DON’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO! Give them an overview of their possibilities and goals (USSR: survive, UK: harass Italy, Germany and Japan, US: Go by force, and finish them off)
Its easier for new players to play the allies, because of their very clear objectives (Do not loose), whereas the Axis have to figure out a way to win. Much more preparations have to be taken, to get you on the win. Its much easier to loose for the axis, due to stupid mistakes.

the national objectives are handy guide aswell…

By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.

Has anyone tried going hard after Russia with all 3 axis powers? Germany could stall Britain using available subs and air and take the +5 bonus away from Russia. They could do the Romania factory and take Leningrad on turn 3 followed by Stalingrad on turn 4 or 5. Meanwhile, Japan could push into Siberia, building an air base in Manchuria and eliminating the infantry stack on turn 2. They could use their navy to force America into the Pacific while pressing towards Moscow through both Russia and China. By the time America could make landings in Europe, Russia would be penned in and unable to pose a threat, allowing Germany to focus on defending itself with a fairly large economy. If America goes after Japan, Moscow falls earlier.