Germany Strategy concept…

@wittmann:

Hi Xan. Check your Rulebook(I do not own this one),but you will probably find you can attack over the Canal. (In  all the A&A games I have,  you can do.)
It is Naval movement that is stopped if you do not own both sides.

Oh my. THAT changes things. I just checked the PDF version of the manual, and you are right.

That drastically changes several (previously) working strategies. Oh man, my buddies are going to hate my guts when I pull this out on them. I’m tempted to give them a heads up, just so the game isn’t won by that rule change alone… but the looks on their faces will be so priceless, I just can’t warn them. :evil:

@Blitz:

Allies will attempt to counter this by blocking your Baltic and med. fleet for a turn. This however proves futile most of the time because your fleet can simply meet off France’s coast in your noncombat where you can place the fresh AC you built for your G2 Purchases.

UK buys 1 AC and 1 DD on UK1, and moves the BB and the 2 TRNs to SZ7. UK places the CV on SZ7 (landing the 2 fighters on the AC). and the DD on SZ6 to block German Baltic Fleet.
US moves to land on Algeria and block German Med fleet (move the DD if there’s a SUB there)
R moves sub to SZ7.

On G’s turn it will only be able to attack the allied fleet on SZ7 with 5 ftrs and 1 bmr (against 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 FTRs, 2 TRN, 1 SUB = 20% chance of sinking all ships), thus preventing any unification of both German fleets.

@Granada:

oh well, i have just tried the strategy against an experienced player and i was destroyed terribly. SZ 12 IS NOT A SAFE PLACE R1. You would not have 2 UK trans in most cases. I played against bid 9 so there was one sub more from the start and an AC on G1. Any kind of convoying system is necessary for US but next time i am going to make sure that i control the atlantic solidly first. I made some childish mistakes too, but if the germans put an effort to contesting the atlantic you cannot just build trannies. You have to sink their ships first and you have to do it quick and as cheap as possible.

Btw if the convoying system is to work smoothly you need for US actually three sets of transport ships, two wount do.

Early allied shipping losses can really hamper your game plan. It is always vital to protect not only the transports, but that British battleship! If Germany invests 24 ipcs in the water, you will have to wait a round or two to be safe, however, thats all right, as Germany took away 24 ipcs from the Russian campaign, you have time to get going.

In a good KJF, Germany will be stopped before getting 50 IPC, Switch.  Any layman player who puts some thought into it can easily slow Germany enough to prevent them from being at the doorstep of Moscow before Round 10, at which point, Japan should be castrated.

The trick is to put 2-3 transports of troops into Africa a turn.  Easy to do without building a single extra transport.  Actually, odds are, you’re putting 4 transports in a round.  Maybe more, if England is focused on Africa and fighters for Russia.  America can take Japan without England’s help.  Just use the English fleet to make it near impossible to sink the American fleet and let America take the islands.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

I’ve been building primarily Inf with 1 or 2 tanks each round on avg. Rushing headlong for Mos got me solidly into Caucasus but Mos is too fortified to crack, and US/UK are starting to land serious units in Norway / Karelia / E. Europe so Germany will have to concentrate on the homefront.

Fortunately the IC in Caucasus (and Jap ICs in India and FIC) mean the supply line is less vital. Also, Japan just recaptured 8 IPCs of land in Africa for the Axis.

I think a rush for Moscow is a risky strategy no matter what, but esp. without extra income from Africa. If you can get Caucasus though and Japan is already nearby that’s decent.

it is hard to slow JPN in the intial rounds. they are the axis “ace in the hole”. I would not sack 2 RUS tanks.