Best Feeling in Round 1

Now, extra German planes in the mid-game can be a good investment against a balanced, slow KGF if Allies don’t have excess escorts. They already defend where they are almost like 2 more inf (6 IPC), also threaten 1-2 fleets that will need extra escorts, and swap easier on land. Combined with the Japanese fleet coming throught the Med, they can paralyze the Allied moves sandwiched between each of them.
But, that’s not ships, but anti-ship build…

My style is more ‘tight’ than ‘wild’, but I’ve done:
R1: 1art 4tnk (all in Moscow and Caucasus empty, if Ukraine doesn’t fall to keep Caucasus defensible)
G1: 4inf 7art, also 8inf 4art and the usual 9inf 2art 1tnk

Guess more frequent ‘reactive’ buys don’t count, like:
UK1: 5inf 3tnk (when a large landing threatens)
UK1: 3ftr +US1: 2bmb 4inf (when Germans fleet comes out)
J1: 2 factories (when scattered UK ships are hard to beat fast)

As I said above I’m not that keen on sea lion myself. and if the conditions are unfavorable (like Russia took Ukr) than to hell with it.

Additionally I want to remind you that I would spend only 1 die on tech so germany can build new troops on G1 for 35 ipc.

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

In order to defeat a defending army worth ~150 IPC, you’d need to spend ~200 IPC.  I generally find this to be the case is for larger battles, say minimum of at least 10 defending units.  Of course it varies by players aggressiveness or risk factor or a couple of other things.

This is true b/c it is extremely easy to defend.  As you both point, Infantry are unmatched it that department.

So attackers need to outspend defenders ~4:3 in order to take.  You need more if it is a combined attack, for example a UK-US 1-2, or perhaps less depending on how much you want to take with, or if you have lots of air, tanks can really move 2 spaces, or something else.

I look at it as simply an easy guideline, like usind a LL method to see if I have “avg” shot at taking, not a hard hitting “must play by” rule.  I think of the same thing with the 3:1:1 army.  It’s a nice guideline but rarely do I ever actually have that in games.

As for my army for 150, I’d probably have something like:

26 inf
8 rt
8 arm

Units:  42
Att:  74
Def:  92

Or

23 inf
9 rt
9 arm

Units:  41
Att:  77
Def:  91

Except that you are forgetting that Japan will have around $40 IPC aimed at Russia also while the UK and US safely bomb Germany and rely on Russia to fight the ground war.  Which would work… except for those 14 divisions per turn coming at Moscow from the east…

The rule for holding VC’s is that at teh end of the US’s move (the complete turn of play) X number of VC’s are controlled by one side or the other.

8 VC’s is basically an Axis win (except in very special cases like a 2 turn limit test game where Russia goes suicidal in defense of the Allied VC’s)

Instead of 8, play for 9 for victory.

When one side or the other controls 9 VC’s at the end of a turn, then there is basically no doubt as to what side won.

@ajgundam5:

indeed i have read this … very very in depth

I was inspired that night :-)