German strategy for building AC

@Romulus:

IC in India may fall in Japanese hands if it is not backed up by an Allied Pacific strategy, at least an SJF. If UK place IC in India and goes after Germany it will have less IPCs to spend in UK, this means less quantity and less quality in the UK forces that face Germany.

The same reasoning applies to German CV. Building German CV means less ground units to press on Russia.

I think the better move to avoid India IC is to build all ground units with Germany and increase the pressure on Russia. If UK builds the IC in India then Russia will receive less help from the British.

I see your point… 
I’m not sure that some of my F2F opponents are smart enough to realize that!!    :lol: :lol:

lol… :-D

I bet he was a fantastic dance instructor, when not making plans for world domination.

@rjclayton:

I think he was talking about trading 2 IPC territories with Japan (Novisibirsk and Kazakh)

Yeah, come to think of it, those are 2 IPC territories.  I wasn’t paying attention.

However, I do not think that Russia TRADES Novo or Kazakh for long.  Japanese forces build up pretty fast; once Novosibirsk falls, I don’t see Russia reclaiming it more than once or perhaps twice.  (My guess is that by the time Novosibirsk falls, one of two will be true; either Russia will still be holding Germany at West Russia, so won’t have enough to counterattack a moderately held Novosibirsk (note that if Russia DID have a lot in Russia instead of West Russia, I don’t think Japan would commit to Novosibirsk).  OR, Russia will be holed up in Moscow, while Japan builds up.

Also, most of what I’ve been writing recently in this thread has been OT.

tee heez.

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

@yamamato456:

I like that idea of a KBF in the sense that your not trying to take the capital itself only trying to wipe out its colonial IPCs.  Germany and japan help each other to take Africa and mideast.  Japan takes india, australia, and new zealand.  Depending on the situation Japan could invade canada and alaska.  All of this and maybe a G1 AC buy could put Britain nearly at the single digits.  Anyone else have some thoughts on this?  Will this leave Russia too strong?  What naval strategy (naval units bought, joining fleets or not,etc…) would you have to have in order to take out almost all of Britains colonys excluding eastern canada and britain itself?

think somewhere similar as you do :mrgreen:

In reality, did UK had naval industries in the north? If the answer is yes, it must be allowed. If no, it shouldn’t be allowed.

Hi Hannibal (ante portas),

In fact, I agree with pretty much you said. Surely I couldn’t keep up with your tactical understanding when A&A was new to me. So congratulations at first.
Nevertheless there’s some more input. Just my humble opinion:

Except of the Baltic AC in your first round, ships usually don’t buy for Germany. If you really want to build 1-2 Subs/Trans in the Baltic each turn you’ll have to stay there with your own navy or they’ll be sunk immediately with british airforce. UK and US can together close you up in the Baltic and wait for your attack, of course it will be costly for them, but usually more expensive for you.

You are quite right about going through the north is a superior strategy. Karelia is a very strong position for both sides. As the axis you should take and hold it in the first round. UK has different options to support Russia. His support in NWY can be strafed to death by your forces in Karelia. Better to cut of your supply lines in EEU after your Baltic fleet is removed. Or, most likely, he can support Archangel, so you’ll meet the main UK/Rus forces in ARC.
If you wanna go south through UKR, Russia will concentrate it’s forces in CAU and the UK can take a lot of your income away from you. You won’t be able to trade more than one territory with Russia (WRU), but it’s harder for Russia to trade a lot of countries (due to the max. of 3 Ftrs)
In fact, I most likely wait in KAR until the japanese player puts preassure on Russia which forces the allies to retreat on my front, then I take a step into WRU.

Don’t underestimate a US counterattack on Pearl Harbour. Especially if the go KJF it’s very hard to replace your lost navy again. An aggressive british opening in the Pacific and a Pearl counter, 2 ICs in IND and SIN and Japan is in big trouble.

You are quite lucky that your Russian player is rather predictable. Maybe he should be more aggressive, attack UKR, build some tanks or even a Ftr, etc.

These are just my opinions and can, of course, vary in different games and against different ways to play. I hope this gives you some input.