German strategy for building AC

Uh! And why not equip them with a pre-emptive shot and the capabilities to carry a fighter?  :-D

I like Transports also!!!
TRN is the more important unit after the infantry (that is the more important unit overall in the game) because they are able to transport the more important unit of the game, the infantry!

But… my TRN do not difend as Jen TRN do, they insist in scoring between 2 and 4!  :-(

@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)

That is what tanks are for.

and if SZ6 is not working, move to 7.

The point is, if you cede control of the Atlantic by just sitting in the baltic, then you probably ARE wating your money on a Baltic AC.

Build your fleet, then eitehr use it to take out a few units, prevent early landings in Norway and Africa.

But if you are just using it to be just a guardian of Germany and Eastern coasts (which is an acceptible use of that fleet), then don;t complain about the Allies building their fleets up outside your range.  If you go purely defensive with the Baltic Fleet, that is what the allies are going to do.  And when they are done, your fleet is sunk.  That is jsut th way it works.

So…
Either use teh fleet to protect Germany and Eastern while you drive hard on Russia with all you’ve got and deal with the Allied landing swhen they start, or use that fleet and challenge the Atlantic with naval and air.

But don’t complain because the Allies see which way you are going and adjust their strat accordingly.

Have to agree with Grime here…

Germany and Japan have to be able to strike Russia together, preferably at least a 1-2-3 punch, 1-2-3-4 if they can manage it.

Reson being, once Germany starts to go hard on Russia, and has a large stack 2 territories away (about to take Caucuses, West Russia or Arcahngel in FORCE) then suddenly every Allied FIG in existence will make its way to Moscow before the final attack, adding 5-10 FIGs to Russia’s 20 +/- INF means that neither Germany nor Japan can crack Moscow alone.

Without reinforcement, WEU falls to the Allies on Turn 2, and barring a re-direction of those massed ARM that HAD been going to Moscow being turned around and heading for Paris instead, the Allis will KEEP WEU for the remainder of the game.

This discussion has brought a few more things to mind.  If the Axis player can stand to last that long, what do you guys believe is the best way to move in on Japan?  I know tri and nc started discussing it a little bit.  I personally would establish IC’s with UK on Asian mainland as soon as it is obvious that Japan cannot capture them.  Then, if Russia’s economy is still low, I generally use them for SBR’s considering the time and money needed for a tran and troop buildup in the Pacific is simply too much for the Russians; unless they are in control of Berlin and the majority of Europe.  As the US I will generally start building up trannies with inf and arm with air and naval support.  If Allied naval power allows, an island hopping strategy is another good way to put a joke hold on Japan, while also eliminating any reinforcements to Tokyo.

Another question, which could quite possibly be a stupid one considering the good amount of years that I’ve played this game is, “Can a nation have negative income?”  Of course, my initial response is no but this would be an interesting house rule.  For instance, if the nation’s economy is -3, it must take away 1 inf a turn until restored.  This may give the SBR privelage even more power than it already posesses but it could be interesting to try once.

K, thanks very much.  I was a little bit in doubt and didn’t know the background of when that was started.

It was… and he lost :-D