Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
A&A Global Concerns
-
Thanks for the kind words Clerc, here and in the other thread. :-D
And concerning the factories, I did say that there are too many variables how have a hard set formula for victory. :wink:
My fault for lumping the Pacific ones in the same vein as the Scandinavian ones. While factories in Korea and/or FIC have worked well for me in the past. It’s definitely a lot more rare for me to lay one down in either spot vs say Norway. The situation has to be right and generally speaking it’s not as big of a game changer as the Norway minor can be. If the US is strong enough to take either terr and then hold it vs a Japanese counter, than Japan’s usually going down anyway.
As far as the Norway one goes, that’s usually one of my early priorities in the Euro theater with the US. I have no problems switching gears if something else opens up. But that IPC swing is one of the larger ones in the game for a single terr. Plus it’s easy to grab and hold early, even without a large US commitment in the Atlantic. I’ll usually lay down an AB and NB on Norway as well. But like you pointed out, that’s always contingent on how the Pacific theater’s looking.
In my play group, people know I like to hit the Norwegian beaches early if possible and they’ll sometimes take steps to stop that. One guy went so far as to stick a minor in Finland because my other MO is large fleets of US air to rain death and destruction on any Axis ships that I can sink. He figured a minor had a lower tendency to sink and it was cheaper to build than a small fleet in the Baltic. He just kept churning dudes out there until he had a pretty decent stack to counter any more there. Which made him weaker elsewhere and ended up costing him about as much money as if he’d just straight up lost that peninsula.
I’m not married to any one strat or idea. I have no qualms switching things up if it doesn’t look like a strat will work out. 8-)
-
A&APlayer - that would be awesome! (PBEM) I am very interested. Thank you for such wonderful insight as well!
After playing a few more times, we have seen Axis 3 wins Allies 3 Wins…lol…
I think being the allies is soooooooooooo much harder simply because of execution. It’s easy to SAY what to do and KNOW what to do…but man, with 3 people all needing to work 100% in sync and not much room for error; that is easier said than done.
That being said, I have now seen Japan play VERY good games, but because of a misplayed Germany, the axis still fall. Kinda stinks for Japan…that they can play near flawless but if Germany collapses or plays bad, it won’t even matter. Lol.
The allies have several advantages over the axis countries, but you hit the nail on the head . . . they have to mesh well together in order to win. And that seems to be a major hurdle for Japan. It’s very rare to see a Pacific win for the axis. I don’t know how much of it’s because the allies usually target Japan first or because there’s just a natural plateau once they get too spread out.
Usually it’s either both axis sides are rocking early and the allies surrender in the first couple of rounds or Germany is the one that gets the win. Japan just seems to reach that point where they just can’t quite get there. Too easy for the allies to stop Japan, even if India falls. A strong Japan might not win the game, but they can do wonders for taking the heat off Germany.
Shoot me a PM and I can help you get started on a PBEM game.
Suggested Topics
