Poll: German First Turn Build

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Phylo,

Yes. Finland was not part of the Percentages Agreement. This easy to check.

I have never heard that Helsinki and Vienna were ever considered together. Their situations were very different. Berlin and Vienna, yes. Have you a source?

Cheers,

Sid.

True, the Allies can’t do “anything” or make outragegous attacks or make strange buys, but you can get away with a lot of bad habits if there is no bid to worry about.

Those who asked WHERE you are talking have it right.

In Africa, Germany can spread thin.  If the UK and US decide to take Africa back, there is littler Germany can do about it (without leaving Russia too strong for it to matter in the long run).  So spread thin, grab IPC’s while you can, and be happy for it.

In the Siberian Russian territories, Japan can spread thin as needed to take IPC’s from Russia.  Every territory Japan can take from Russia is that much less infantry for Germany to blast through.  And if Japan keeps supplying cannon fodder for the slash and burn assaults on Russian territories, being spread thin just means that Russia has to attack small clusters of Jap infantry using their own infantry in less effective attacks.

In Europe, spreading thin can be fatal, unless you spread very far very fast.  As an example of that, the radical German strategy of simultaneous attacks on Karelia, Eastern and Caucuses is an example of spreading thin that MIGHT be worth it.  You make Russia build in Russia (even if they re-take Karelia), and prevent them from massing there again by the threat in the Caucuses; and open up some “enclosed” territories that you can hold with no forces (so long as Russia never holds Karlelia at the start of their turn).

Lastly there is the “apparent” spread thin that is really massed troops.  This would include a strategy I posted elsewhere of Two Japan fleets, one in Japan, the other in Australia, that can both converge to hammer any US assault in the central pacific.  You may look spread thin, but the reality is that you have forces massed for attack.

But when it comes to Karelia and Eastern Europe, there is ONLY one answer:  The more, the better… ALWAYS!

I find that often when all of the players are experienced, one of two things happen:

it is very close for a very long time, and the game may go longer than 10 rounds by round 4 (or so) it is realized by both players that the game will likely go one way (or another) and one might as well save “playing it out to its most likely conclusion”.

Those Russian planes aren’t worth taking risks with… even if you pump UK and USA planes into Russia for defense later, in the beginning those planes can make a big diff on the Eastern Front (vs. Japan) esp if Japan is trying to go all out on Russia and knock on the back door.

I don’t think russia should build 1-2 armor a turn. If they do, that’s 10 ipc’s if russia is earning 21 a turn, they can only build 2 armor and 3 infantry, it’s much better to build all iinfantry. Tanks are offencive but very expensive. If the allies can hold their ground, they will win since they have a better production. Using this logic, russia should go all defence. This is true since for a conventional win, axis has to kill russia. There are numerous explinations of why russia should not build many tanks. If you can hold eastern, and you still have your 4 tanks, and you want to take germany, AND japan doesn’t control the 3 territories around russia, then you can build tanks. Otherwise, 1-2 once might be ok (it might not be either) but 1-2 every turn is a waste of money. germany can just kill your expensive infantry. You can read don’s essay on purchacing. It does the math.

…OK maybe I should’ve said “…1-2 ARM per turn when possible…” if USSR is only making 21 IPCs a turn, then yeah, 1-2 ARM is gonna be a big burden. But with F/N under your belt & trading Ukraine each turn, 1-2 ARM each turn or so (allowing for occasional turns when all INF is necessary) is still a good idea. Without ARM you will have to rely entirely on your 2 FTRs for offensive firepower & will have to load up on a lot more INF to sustain attacks. Using only your original 4 ARM, you will have to preserve them and your ability to trade territory w/ Germany will be limited. I think its a good idea to buy a few ARM units along with your steady diet of INF…

Ozone27

If your British ally forgot to buy a carrier, then you have to do it yourself.

I would probably suggest going against building an IC in Yakrut for Japan. It’s much more economical to just buy two transports instead. Usually when I set up an IC (India or Burma, maybe for both), it’s to produce ARM and not inf. I think that 6 ARM should be more than enough (if you factor in supporting inf) per Japan once it hits critical mass.