Posts made by larrymarx

@Latro

I couldn’t agree more with your strategy. I attempted to suggest the same thing a few days ago but the people on this forum weren’t having it. Hopefully your explanation will make them take it seriously.

The only differences in Global are going to be that if the Allies really focus on the European theater, they can be even more effective. The US makes an additional 17, Russia makes an additional 9, and Britain has forces in the Pacific theater that they can divert to the defense of Egypt. Of course, Japan would be happy if they did, but they should be waiting until J3 or J4 to attack anyways for a Sealion strat.

@larrymarx:

The extra transports are now as useless as the extra 10 British units would have been.

@SgtBlitz:

Those “useless” transports will probably make you regret your statement after Germany takes out Leningrad on Turn 5.  That’s a whole 20 units that can be mobile in 9 different territories in the Baltic, all in one move.  Per turn.

I feel you’re missing the point. Of course the transports aren’t useless, Germany just wouldn’t have built them unless forced into that course of action by Britain defending itself. Germany would rather have built fewer transports and more tanks. Also, the transports aren’t going to die from the Sealion attack, so they’ll exist to take Leningrad on turn 5 no matter what Britain does. All Britain can do is give itself a small chance of repelling Sealion (I haven’t seen it happen), and they can kill a bunch of German infantry and maybe some artillery that Germany is planning on replacing with reinforcements anyways. So the choice is between setting Germany back a half a turn of production or keeping Italy from ever getting to a decent level of production. Because Russia is much tougher to conquer in this version of the game, I think it’s safe to let the Germans keep all that infantry. Africa needs more Allied presence in the beginning of the game to put up a decent defense.

I’ve played three games as Germany. In two of them, I took Britain on turn three, but in one I was able to pull off a turn 2 Sealion. That was also the only of the three games that I won. The reason it worked is that Britain decided to write off the home island and flew the three fighters out of there, giving me a favorable battle with 4 land units and all my air.

I don’t think writing off Britain was a bad idea, I just think he should have gone about it differently. I think Britain should do Taranto, build 9 inf and keep the fighters, forcing me to build 9 transports turn 2. Then, on their turn 2, they should fly out the fighters and pump all of their money into the South Africa and Canada factories. This way they turn the tables on Germany, making them the ones reacting to a false threat, in this case the threat of a failed Sealion. The extra transports are now as useless as the extra 10 British units would have been. Sure, Germany gets to keep more land units, but I feel its more valuable to hold back Italy’s ipc production than to kill German units. If the Indians also send some fleet, some troops and some air, I’ve found that Italy can’t get past Egypt in any reasonable amount of time, and if they can’t do that, the Axis as a whole is weak.

I just came away from my first axis victory. The crucial factor that led to the win was axis mobility, which allowed us to respond fluidly to Allied decisions and capitalize on their weaknesses.

I like building fleet as Germany on turn 1, because that fleet does several things. First of all, it forces England to pump out 9 infantry on the first turn. Then, you can use the fleet on turn 2 to either assist Barbarossa, enter the Mediterranean and help out Italy, or beef up with 9 transports to take England. If you take England, you can either continue pumping fleet if the Americans don’t seem too concerned about the Atlantic, or run away and throw 22 troops north of Moscow in a flanking maneuver. If the Americans are really stupid and don’t build much of anything in the Atlantic, you can bring your invasion force in range of Washington and take it the turn following, either as an alternative to or after Sealion. If Italy is having a tough time after Sealion, you might still want to consider throwing the troops into the Med if they can make it, crushing Britain and eventually threatening India and Russia’s southern flank. I also like laying down a smattering of minor IC’s as Germany so forces can materialize where they are needed, such as in Norway or Romania. This amounts to mobility as well.

Italy should build an Egypt IC if they can hold it, and if their transports can cross the Suez canal, they should. They can potentially shortcut to South Africa or even help Japan out against India or in re-taking the money islands for them. ICs are important for Japan as well, and transports are of course crucial. You want to plan several turns in advance so you can have a force to take or re-take crucial islands when the time comes. For all of the axis powers, air force is important. Bombers represent the most mobility of any unit, so buy them if you have the money to spare.

Back to the game I won, I admit that some of the “weaknesses” we capitalized on really should be categorized as mistakes. If we didn’t have mobility, however, we never could have taken advantage of those mistakes. Because Britain pulled their fighters out of England turn 1, I did a surprise Sealion on turn 2 and succeeded. On turn 6, I had a lot of tanks threatening Moscow and Russia left only 11 infantry to defend it with a “screen” of 1 infantry to stop the blitz. A squadron of Japanese bombers took him out and landed with the Germans, letting me take Moscow on turn 7. He retook his capital, but it set him back several turns. I dug in to Russia with a couple minor IC’s and kept pumping units for the 2nd battle of Moscow, eventually taking it for good.

Also of note this game, though certainly not game-changing: Italy took Sumatra back from the Australians. Italy also used their forces to make India stay honest and keep a garrison instead of sending everything out to retake China.

I do tend to think the game is weighted in favor of the Allies, but maybe not so much that the Axis should expect to lose every game. Hopefully they can get 1 out of 3 or 4 with skilled play. The key is keeping your options open and choosing the most effective strategy for the board as it stands.

Do you think building all subs would have worked better had you not gotten within range of those USA bombers?  If you take out London and Scotland, then your fleet is safe from bombers in SZ 109.  I suppose the USA could then try to lure you out by sending some of its fleet out towards you but then you should respond by only sending enough to have slightly better odds.  Of course, Italy and Japan have to be doing their part too to harass the USA.

The bomber strike actually happened after America had reclaimed Britain, and the bombers took off from Gibraltar. My first submarine build was on turn four, and by that time the Americans were already knocking with a huge fleet that I couldn’t have taken on without a few more turns of builds. When I was planning the strategy, I knew I was going to give up Britain, but I failed to realize how easily he could hit my surface fleet, thus preventing any naval blocks. I’m not sure what else I could have done besides invest more into my surface fleet, or devote turn 3 to submarine buys as well as turns 4 and 5.

Ultimately I think the strategy should not have been employed under the set of circumstances I faced this game. America completely ignored Japan and poured everything into Europe. Also, rather than trying to defend Britain, the UK threw 3 fighters, 1 tac, a destroyer and an aircraft carrier at my German Navy of 1 CV, 1 BB (damaged), 1CA, 1SS and 2FIG. I actually set that battle up to tempt him with odds that were only slightly in my favor, and he took the bait, losing everything but killing all my units except the BB. The lack of aircraft made Sealion that much easier, but I should have realized that with virtually no navy, I wasn’t really set up for a naval defense strategy anymore. I should have simply started pumping infantry and artillery from turn 3 onwards. The flanking maneuver against Russia worked, the Italian conquest of Africa worked, and Japan was up to 72 ipc/turn by the time we threw in the towel. If I had done what I should have, I think we could have pulled a win, Norway IC or not.

Russia was about to be reduced to 8 IPC/turn, but they had stacks and stacks in Moscow. Rather than going all in for Moscow, I think Japan could have started cranking out an invasion force, forcing the US to spend IPCs in North America, which was undefended. That would be the natural consequence of ignoring the Pacific theater, and it would also prevent them from getting overly aggressive with the units they pumped from any Norway factory. The idea would have been to force their hand in North America right around the time they were about to have enough land units in Europe to break down the German and Italian stacks. A combined Panama seizure / polar express might have worked for that purpose.

The way to win the game, assuming I still held at least Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw and Leningrad, would have been for Japan to just take care of business and knock out the remaining VCs. They are in position to retake Cairo and Stalingrad if the Axis lose them. The only question is whether Germany or Italy will implode before they do it.

I don’t know yet what an ideal German strategy would be. But a High Seas fleet cannot be the answer.

I think it still could be the answer, but only when the right circumstances present themselves.

I think building all subs on turn 3 (assuming you are very sure that you will take London on turn 3) is the best move that Germany can make.

Building all subs and moving them west might only work if Italy combines it fleet with Germany’s.

Well, I just finished a game where I employed my submarine strategy and it failed miserably. I violated my own rule of not using it if America puts 100% into the Atlantic from turn 1. I arrogantly believed I could hold them off because they began producing straight ground units and transports to follow up their initial fleet. My problem was that he flew four bombers against my surface navy, crushing it and eliminating any chance of blocking him with my destroyers. It swung the naval standoff in his favor. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe continued to dwindle. He was able to make a landing with 22 land units in France after liberating the UK. I might have been able to salvage the naval war, but then I wouldn’t have been doing anything against his invading force. I ended up hurling 19 submarines and a bomber against the US navy in a last ditch effort. I rolled down, and the game was over.

However, I realized something. If the Italians had had an air force, or if the Japanese had flown a bunch of planes to Europe, I could have salvaged the game. Because my subs could only damage naval units, he ended up damaging all five of his carriers and landing his planes in France. His navy was reduced to only about 20 pips defending 11 transports. If the Italians or Japs had had a followup attack, they could have finished the job for the Germans. I still would have had to deal with the French and the American liberators, but at least their reinforcements would have been stalled.

One thing I did well in this game, however, was eliminate the Russian threat with minimal use of force. I used the flanking maneuver discussed elsewhere on these forums, landing north of Moscow. I took Leningrad with 2 units (it was defended by 1 infantry) and put 20 units in Nenetsia. Russia shrank like a frightened turtle. A combined German and Italian offensive shortly cleared the eastern front of all remaining Russians, killing most of their offensive units. Italy and Germany then had respectable economies, especially since Italy had captured all of Africa. The game rested entirely in the hands of the Americans, whose punches were unfortunately just too strong to block.

With better strategic planning, I might have been able to pull off a naval Germany this game. I am considering alternatives to the submarines, such as destroyers and loaded carriers. It could be that this strategy may never work against a pure KGF strategy, but I’m still keeping the possibility open.

A final thought that ties this post back into the forum’s topic: if I had kept my subs in the Baltic, they would have been a fairly effective deterrent to building naval units out of a Norway factory, assuming I could also hold Denmark. It would take a lot of American IPCs to put something in the water that could stand up to 19 submarines. Thoughts?

Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London. In a game I played, I attempted to hold it with land units. I turtled up and it ended up costing me. Russia was able to take my border territories and gain their +6 bonuses, getting +26 for three territories on one turn. Even with huge stacks of infantry, the game was a slow defeat for the axis.

I began to reconsider my turn 4 options. What if instead of buying tons of infantry, I had used UK’s cash to build about 11 submarines and 2 destroyers? Navy is capable of defending multiple territories at once, so I would have been able to pull all remaining land (including turn three purchases) to the Russian front, ideally taking Leningrad for the IPC bonus and to eliminate the Russian national objective. In the Atlantic, the Americans would have to have a sizable navy to hold off my new fleet. The idea is that you send out destroyers as blockers so they can never attack your submarines, then counterattack whatever they send at the destroyers with an appropriate number of subs and air units. You keep building 1 or 2 destroyers per turn, and the rest submarines. Because the Americans need to invest some money in transports and ground units, and because subs provide the best deal on offense for your money, the naval race will be even or at least you’ll be able to hold them off for quite a few turns.

Meanwhile, the Russians are pounding away at you, and this is the biggest problem with this strategy. You only have a few turns of few to no land purchases before they take Berlin. For this reason, the strategy can only work with concerted aid from Japan and Italy. Italy needs to climb quickly in production and start pumping infantry, and Japan needs to climb in production and start hurling tanks at Moscow.

If the Americans put 100% of their money into the Atlantic from turn 1 and pull their Pacific units as well, I doubt this strategy should be attempted, but depending on the setup on turn 4 after a Sealion, I think this strategy should at least be on the table.

I still like to take India on turn three. Here’s the strategy I use:

On turn 1, build three transports and an artillery. Take FIC and the four Chinese territories. Position your entire Navy off the coast of FIC. The most crucial territory to take/hold at this point is Yunnan, so position all available land units to retake this territory if the Chinese decide to counterattack there. You should be able to position 4 or 5 inf, 1 mech and 1 art. Finally, land your entire air force in Kwangsi.

On turn 2, continue sweeping China away. If they let you keep Yunnan, land your air force in that territory in preparation to strike India next turn. If they didn’t, retake it with enough ground to hold it this time and build an air base in Kwangsi so that your planes can make it next turn. Spread your navy evenly between sea zones 37 and 38 so that Britain can’t block you on your way to India next turn. Finally, build a naval base in FIC and bring the three transports you bought last turn down to SZ36. Leave a small defense fleet if they are in range of any Brit/Australian air.

On turn 3, you will be able to hit india with something like 6 inf, 5 art (1 pulled from the Manchurian garrison), 1 arm, 14 ftr, 10 tac, 4 strat. If the Brits throw everything they can into India, they’ll have something like 20 inf, 3 art, 4 ftr, 1 tac. It would take truly freak rolling to lose that battle.

This is diverging from the topic, but I’m beginning to think that if Japan pursues this strategy, Britain should write India off and begin pulling units out to defend Egypt etc. Also, if they build art on turn 1 and withdraw to West India on turn 2, they can have the capability to retake India on turn 3……

EDIT: I just realized that Britain can block you anyways if they’re not at war with you because they can put ships in the same sea zone as yours. So modify this strategy either to include a J2 declaration of war, or forget about the naval base and the three additional transports worth of units.