German Starting IPC Count Wrong

My friend and I were discussing Argothair’s strategy. He says that if he could easily counter a giant W. Russia stack by attacking Karelia and Caucasus at the same time. Especially Caucasus, attacking with everything in range. Would a good counter-strategy be the Russian Ukraine opener? I’m talking about attacking Ukraine, but not taking it on the first turn.

If the allies go full tilt KGF its not really possible for the Germans to keep up pressure on Russia for ever. However the dont have to as Japan will do that instead.
One thing I find helpfull as Germany is to switch from light to medium trading against Russia. Seems to me that Russia have to sacrifice much more IPC each trade as they have much less air.

@drsnidely:

Hi everyone. I’m just curious what everyone uses to track your IPC since the newer editions no longer have paper money. My group has always just written it down but I never liked that. It feels like math, and I’m always forgetting to carry over the 1 or 2 IPC i didn’t spend.  Recently my girlfriend got me a set of poker chips. We tried using them in our last game and it worked great. Really easy to keep track, and I like having something tangible instead of just numbers on a piece of paper.  Plus it was quite satisfying when the Russian player handed me a stack of chips after Moscow fell.  :evil:

Just curious if anyone ever tried this and what your thoughts were.

Still have my first A&A game from 1986, so we simply use the money from that version.  We also use the white/red chips as well.  We use the grey/green/red for industrial complex damage.  That way there is enough to go around and it doesn’t get confused with each other.

The carrier in the med is an interesting idea as it allows Germany to hold Africa for a lot longer. I wonder if this is worth it in the long run though because the men you send to Africa aren’t threatening West Russia or Caucus… This is always the problem I’ve seen with navy buys in the med. That and the fact you have to keep 2 fighters on your carrier, which means those fighters aren’t defending mainland Europe.

I’ve given this a few runs since posting.  The baltic is a lost cause, speaking naval.  1st round German Purchased Carrier, Transport, 2 Art, 4 Inf.  (Ive also dabbled in grabbing another sub instead of the trans just to help lock down the Atlantic).  Take Gibraltar, and prep for taking Egypt round 2 (as long as The US Trans/Destroyer were taken out G1).  G2 attack egypt.  G3 Split surviving German forces between blitzing through Africa or Middle East and use your transports to take additional infantry/Art to black sea.  Add a bombardment from your battleship and your 2 planes to attacking the Caucasus.  As long as you can, use that Med Navy to take Caucasus.  Africa, will most likely be taken back, but at that point, it shouldn’t matter.  You are using your extra IPC to INF stack the Western Front/ Capital and by turn 5 - 7 (with a little pressure from Japan) Russia falls!

In regards to your planes, you still have a bomber and 3 fighters to help hold off the Atlantic with your subs.  If it’s not enough…buy 1 a turn after you take most of Africa.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

And the transport never ends up on a territory.  Just in the seazone adjacent to the territory you’re dumping units into.

Don’t forget the political situation at the time is totally screwed up to… Turkey did, in the end declare war, on Germany, Italy did too and declared war on Japan, Russia and Japan agreed not to attack each other till 1946, Japan recruited troops from Allied control India.