Conservative Germany

Okay, I have now done a conservative German opening enough times to say the following:

Conservative German play is akin to ripping the testicles off your husband and wondering why he can’t get you pregnant anymore.

due to that analogy, i’d be a killer strat. ppl get killed before born ;)

@atarihuana:

due to that analogy, i’d be a killer strat. ppl get killed before born ;)

Unfortunately they would be the people on YOUR side. hehe.  The enemy would still be pumping out babies like that woman who just gave birth to octuplets.  (She is a personal hero to me. :)  )

OOE says:

USA
Spend everything against Japan.  Russia should have the manpower to hold out for some time on the eastern front.

absolutely and this goes for any scenario really. Japan cannot be allowed to just run rampant in this edition without being threatened somehow and that threat needs to come from the US. To the point though,a conservative Germany in the first couple of rounds isnt a bad idea either. As a matter of fact it, I have done it and it worked out great. The Axis won that game resoundingly in a massive showdown between Germany and Russia…but thats another story.  :roll:

I agree that Japan cannot be ignored.

A good mix of Russians, Britains and Chinamen can really slow down Japan’s progress.

Italy also cannot just be “ignored” without dangerous repercussions.

@Cmdr:

Okay, I have now done a conservative German opening enough times to say the following:

Conservative German play is akin to ripping the testicles off your husband and wondering why he can’t get you pregnant anymore.

Yep.  Jen has declared it’s a dumb move.

End of discussion

lock this thread, there’s no further need to discuss.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

thats a dumb statement…

i’ve been going for the all-infantry buy on G1, just so i can get some infantry up to the front lines to take the losses instead of tanks, and also bolster my shore defences early. worked a treat the last 2 times i tried it

I agree, you need almost exclusively infantry buys with Germany to push into Russia.  By “conservative” or “defensive” it is implied you do not take any risks, you only make a few attacks, you hang back and turtle your country bolstering defenses in France, NW Europe, Poland and Bulgaria.

The alternative (the plan that works) is an all out frontal assault on Russia and grinding them into the dirt under the jack-boot of German infantry at a pace suitable to let Japan take Moscow about the time the allies have a serious ability to invade France (serious as in with more than one survivor.)

Honestly, the Axis has 5 rounds to secure the game.  After that, the allies will be recovered and in position. (Does not mean you will lose if you do not have domination of the board or control of Moscow, so please don’t assume that’s my position.)

As for Axis, well, I guess he’s a bit shell-shocked, he’s lost so many arguments to me in the past he does not even post a realistic response, only a personal attack on me.  I’m a girl, I’m used to men treating me like property and a nobody without a braincell to my name.  It’s okay.  Male chauvinism is alive and well. :)

@Cmdr:

I agree, you need almost exclusively infantry buys with Germany to push into Russia.  By “conservative” or “defensive” it is implied you do not take any risks, you only make a few attacks, you hang back and turtle your country bolstering defenses in France, NW Europe, Poland and Bulgaria.

I think this is a key phase and perhaps where the dispute is.  I don’t think a conservative buy necessarily would equal conservative play.
Germany starts with plenty of air and tanks to maintain a solid offense against Russia so Gemany can afford to go 9 inf, 1 rt (or 7 inf, 2 arm, 7 inf, 1 ftr, etc) then on G2 (with 45 ipc), you can go 1 bom, 8 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm (or 2 ftrs + inf, etc).  Kar either falls on G2 or G3 without much of a fight, why risk ftrs on G1 when you can get it for only a couple of inf and assuming you want to buy another ftr/or bom you probably won’t need the 12 spots for production yet.  That is why I kind of like to maximize on G1 with 10 units, then another 10 units on G2.  After that it is either 12 cause you own Kar or 13 b/c you maybe drop an IC on Pol b/c you can afford 10 inf + IC.

I guess you can consider it a German IPM.  Russia has too much to defend and not enough offense early, so larger G inf stacks is often enough to force the Russians back.

Exactly, but I would maybe go so far as 100% infantry for two rounds before adding fighters and armor.  The later additions of fighters, bombers and armor are to hold France/Germany from Allied assault so that the rest can push into Russia.

But what i see touted much of the time is that Germany has to be very conservative.  Reinforce France and set up a wall on the Eastern Front and that’s just going to end up getting you killed.  As I said, it’s like ripping off your husband’s testicles and wondering why he’s impotent.  You just plain cannot win most games with a turtling Germany from the first round.  You absolutely must (to win most games) go beserk on Russia kicking them in the teeth, groin and knees as fast and as hard as you can in the first two rounds and then think about protecting France and Germany from Allied attacks.

Basically, if you do not kill off 7 to 12 infantry (+artillery) in round 1 and at least 5-10 more in round 2 in Russia you’re asking for the allies to take the initiative and win the game.  That’s of course the damage GERMANY inflicts, it does not count additional damage inflicted by Italy (who should be inflicting on England, but if Germany is turtled up might be forced to attack Russia just out of sheer need to persevere) and Japan (who again, at this time, is attacking China!)

There are ways the allies can still hand you the game, though.

1)  Russia can invade Manchuria with 7 Infantry.  This is a gift of 21 IPC to Japan.
2)  England or America can land something in Russian territories (again, a gift to the Axis of -5 IPC to Russia!)
3)  America can ignore Japan completely allowing them to get up to 70-90 IPC in which case, you don’t need Germany anymore!
4)  The allies can ignore Africa resulting in Italy earning 20-30 IPC in which case, Italy can save Germany from itself.

@Cmdr:

But what i see touted much of the time is that Germany has to be very conservative.  Reinforce France and set up a wall on the Eastern Front and that’s just going to end up getting you killed.

As I said, it’s like ripping off your husband’s testicles and wondering why he’s impotent.  You just plain cannot win most games with a turtling Germany from the first round.  You absolutely must (to win most games) go beserk on Russia kicking them in the teeth, groin and knees as fast and as hard as you can in the first two rounds and then think about protecting France and Germany from Allied attacks.

Not for sure.  Germany can simply take the 2 NOs and 6 IPCs worth of territory (doable with its starting forces), then focus on destroying Britain(if you aren’t killing Russia, you should be annoying Britain at the very least.

Here is a Conservative Strategy
G1: 1 Carrier, 1-2 Transports, Rest Infantry.  Take Eastern Front, sink British Fleet, sacrificing your Subs
G2: 1 Carrier, 3 Transports/Fighters, Rest Infantry/Tanks.  Take Karelia using Transports.  If Britain was stupid, take them instead.
G3+: Build Fighters, Tanks, and Infantry.  Take Britain when possible.  If you can’t, repel Allied forces and sink Allied Fleets, stalling for time while the other Axis Members glut themselves.

Japan should get itself a nice helping of Eurasia, but should make sure to grab Russian territory whenever possible, through the entrances  in Siberia, China, and India.
Italy should should get itself a nice helping of Africa, repel American fleets in the Atlantic, and head up through the Middle East as well.

@Cmdr:

1)  Russia can invade Manchuria with 7 Infantry.  This is a gift of 21 IPC to Japan.
2)  England or America can land something in Russian territories (again, a gift to the Axis of -5 IPC to Russia!)
3)  America can ignore Japan completely allowing them to get up to 70-90 IPC in which case, you don’t need Germany anymore!
4)  The allies can ignore Africa resulting in Italy earning 20-30 IPC in which case, Italy can save Germany from itself.

Also, if they let either Britain be captured period, or East US be captured and then successfully built in.

If your going naval purchase I would grab 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 1 inf.

Reason is this defends your fleet from UK air, allows you to trade kar, and gives you alot of firepower to use against a UK fleet. A carrier grants you no offensive gain.  Turn 2 you can purchase trannies, suicide the fleet, whatever the game desires.  You don’t have the units to transport on turn 2 if you buy heavy navy anyway, nor does russia have the offensive power on turn 1 or 2 to take advantage of your lull.  Not saying its a good idea but you would be surprised how large of a fleet 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, a bomber, and 2-4 figs can kill though  :-)

@Cmdr:

As for Axis, well, I guess he’s a bit shell-shocked, he’s lost so many arguments to me in the past he does not even post a realistic response, only a personal attack on me.  I’m a girl, I’m used to men treating me like property and a nobody without a braincell to my name.  It’s okay.  Male chauvinism is alive and well. :)

LOL.  You’re deluded as usual.  No arguements have been WON by you.
Perhaps you’ve outlasted me in a thread because you post incessantly or over and over.

and over

and over.

Usually, you end up arguing with yourself and prove yourself incorrect.

This post is a PERFECT example:

@Cmdr:

Honestly, the Axis has 5 rounds to secure the game.  After that, the allies will be recovered and in position. (Does not mean you will lose if you do not have domination of the board or control of Moscow, so please don’t assume that’s my position.)

You make one statement, then issue a caveat against yourself.

Jen’s posts are sort of like a car crash… you can’t help but look and …
wonder if anybody got hurt.

@DarthMaximus:

I guess you can consider it a German IPM.  Russia has too much to defend and not enough offense early, so larger G inf stacks is often enough to force the Russians back.

If you do that, I’ve heard you’ll lose your testicles, or something like that
:-P

:lol:

@bugoo:

If your going naval purchase I would grab 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 1 inf.

Your Fleet: 1 Transport, 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Cruisers (12 Attack, 11 Defense, 5 HP, 2 Carry, costs 28 of start money
My Fleet: 2 Transports, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 2 Fighters, 1 Cruiser (12 Attack, 14 Defense, 5 HP, 4 Carry, costs 21 of start money

My fleet is better than your fleet, and cheaper as well.

Here is a sample build for first 3 turns:
G1: 1 Carrier, 1 Transport, 1 Fighter
G2: 1 Carrier, 2 Transports, 1 Fighter, remainder (14ish) on Ground Units (19 Attack, 22 Defense, 8 HP, 8 Carry)
G3: 2 Bombers, 4 Infantry, 4 Tanks, (this is useful regardless of capturing Britain on turn 3)

As usual Axis doesn’t even READ the posts and then claims some sort of intelligence superiority…

My recommendation to the community is to ignore him.  Maybe he’ll disappear like the advertisements did in that Treehouse of Horror episode in the Simpsons?

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.  Neither is mass attacking the British fleet and sacrificing your navy and some of your air force to clear the waters.  Both of those are aggressive tactics.

PASSIVE or CONSERVATIVE is when you ONLY focus on trading Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine until Japan brings up units to threaten Moscow and then, and only then, when you’ve made France, NW Europe and Germany completely impenetrable, do you advance deeper into Russia.

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.

Wow.  Infantry are agressive.  My whole basis of knowledge of this game is wrong.  Soon you’ll post that bombers are defensive.  :roll:

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

@Cmdr:

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

Again, we’re talking DEGREES of conservative play as Darth pointed out.

See, I do read the real posts

One players ‘conservative’ approach may equal anothers aggressive approach.
You said so yourself.  A players style can be hard to categorize.

I have seen many Revised games where Germany plays what many players would consider ‘turtle-like’ and wait for Japan to win the game.  I think this tactic can work in AA50 as well.

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.  Neither is mass attacking the British fleet and sacrificing your navy and some of your air force to clear the waters.  Both of those are aggressive tactics.

PASSIVE or CONSERVATIVE is when you ONLY focus on trading Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine until Japan brings up units to threaten Moscow and then, and only then, when you’ve made France, NW Europe and Germany completely impenetrable, do you advance deeper into Russia.

I interpret anything that doesn’t involve shrieking LEEROY JENKINS and making an all or nothing charge that captures Moscow on Turn 3 to be conservative.

Granted, my “conservative” strategy is oriented towards a London capture on Turn 3 as well, but it isn’t an all or nothing.  Even if it can’t capture Great Britain, it can stall Britain, Russia, and anything America throws at it long enough for its Axis buddies to conquer everything else before taking Russia down from below and behind.

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

If one seriously wanted to do a Turtle, Germany should take the 2 NOs, build an IC in France, then start pumping 16 Infantry out a turn.  This strategy will work if the Allies, convinced that Germany is insane for building an IC in France, go into KGF, which in this case is like running into a brick wall made out of hate.

The main think that makes such strategies reasonable is that if Germany believes it can’t take Moscow or London quickly enough, its expansion is probably limited to 9 IPCs on the first turn, 9 IPCs on the second, and it peters out.  In comparison, Italy can go up by 12 IPCs the first turn, then spend the next few turns working through Africa, the Middle East, and maybe even the Caucasus or Brazil.  Japan can pull off something like +27 IPCs the first turn, +13 the second turn.  However, by that point, the Axis have a significant IPC edge over the Allies, and they have a better position tactically as well, holding the Eurasian landmass.

Then you play a lot of really stupid people, Axis.

If Germany goes turtle, even in revised, then the Allies just stomp the crap out of them before Japan can even get to Moscow.  Or, if the allies chose, they crush Japan like an egg between the rock of England and the hammer of America.

I’ve seen many players who thought they were all that and went defensive with Germany get crushed by some really, REALLY bad players.  And it’s even worse in Anniversary.

Hell, even the TripleA AI is smart enough to not go 100% defensive!  Someone who is sitting down to the game for the first time EVER is smart enough to know they have to make moderate to aggressive moves in order to win!  You cannot just “sit there” and “wait for Japan” especially not in this game when it takes more than 6 rounds to get a serious Japanese invasion force to Moscow and you know it!

Anyway, I should let you just sit in your little black hole and leave you in your ignorance.  It’ll make it far easier to crush you like a bug in the tournament I suppose.  I guess I’m too ethical for that and at least attempt to show you where you are wrong.  Honestly, I don’t need to deal with the flaming though.