Round 1:

England, America, Russia to SZ 12/Algeria

If you do, your fleet is finished. 1 bb + 2 tran + 3 subs + 1 dest + 5 fighters + 1 bomber, or some lesser combination thereof, to kill 4 tran 1 bb 1 dest 1 sub 1 car 2 fig.

Round 2:

America to Algeria
England, America, Russia to SZ 6/Norway

With what fleet? If you didn't get Algeria on turn one, then you go there on the second turn, which is extremely likely considering the massive force waiting for you if you try to land on turn one. If you go there on the second turn, I'll simply picket a sub in SZ7 to stop the UK from taking Norway on the third turn, since you didn't bother to pay any attention to the German fleet. Sure you can move noncombat to SZ6, but you can't land anything there with UK since that has to be a combat move.

There must be some detail that you're not explaining that allows you the confidence of trying to land so soon. It simply seems like you feel you can expose so many transports. I'm not even sure what your build is. Any car/dest? Or neither of each? Mind you what Im' doing is running the Baltic and linking it with the one sub from SZ8...you've said you dont' like strafing with planes, and you changed your mind about trying to "counter" with a car/dest build, so now what?

Just focus on Africa for 3 turns and bring the AC, DD, TRN, TRN, SS from the Pacific/Indian oceans to the Atlantic.

From your own post, Jen.

You're hung up on the idea that the allies automatically lose if England isn't landing 4-6 units a round in North Asia by UK 2 with America landing the same by USA 3.

Wrong, I think it's OK for the UK to be in Europe by Round 3. The way I understand your direct quote was that you're focusing with both UK and US on Africa for 3 turns, which means a UK landing on round 4. My mistake if you didn't explain well enough.

The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you'll have to attack it.
The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You've just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

Well, that is why it is nitpicking, it only occurs at the beginning of the game and maybe once or twice later.

But I have to point out that I believe your second statement is incorrect, where you say that "you've just surrendered the initiative."

When you're in trading wars with 1-3 inf in a territory, the advantage goes to the attacker, because 1-3 defending inf don't hit with great accuracy, while the offense containing fighters/art + inf have a great chance of killing the defending units. The offender usually comes out 1-2 units ahead.

Thus, to prostrate yourself in a defensive position in those trading territories is not good. It is, in fact, giving the attacker the initiative. To put a German inf in Karelia is to give Russia the advantage, because your inf will only hit 1/3 of the time, while his 2 inf + fighter will hit almost 100%. Eventually of course you will have to trade once someone takes the territory, which the Russians should be doing, because they want the Germans to commit forces and get them out of their shell. But as the Germans, dont' come out of your shell if you don't have to (i.e. when you already control the territory).

If your goal is as Germany is to fully conserve your forces, then you will not start with the wrong foot by sticking an infantry where it doesn't need to be. Let Russia start the quibble.

And towards Jen's statement about blitzing to Archangel through Karelia with a German tank, that doesn't make any economic sense for the Germans either. Comparing the 2 scenarios:

Blitzing Karelia: +2 IPCs
Blitzing Archangel: +4 IPCs, +1.5 IPC on average for killing an inf (since it's 50/50 to kill a 3 IPC unit), then -5 IPCs for losing your tank. Net = 0.5 IPCs

In terms of IPCs, Blitzing Karelia > Blitzing Archangel

I like keeping Russia limited to inf/art, with some tanks when I predict a big push in the next turn.  Fighters just aren't good for pushing since they can't defend a territory you just knocked out, and you have no turn in between for the allies to reinforce your position since Germany is right after.

Africa's just too convenient a place to unify Allied fleets and prevent any Sea Lion attempts.

I know you like to keep saying this, and it's the correct strategy in many situations, but it's not the point here. The point is, you're spending THREE turns in Africa just because you don't want to lose 1-2 fighters to the Baltic fleet? It will turn into 4 turns because the Baltic will just fly out to stall a landing in Norway after you've been tilting in Algeria for 3 turns. That's too many turns not getting any troops into Europe.

Just focus on Africa for 3 turns and bring the AC, DD, TRN, TRN, SS from the Pacific/Indian oceans to the Atlantic.

That's one too many turns for my liking. Is that all it takes to stall you? If I don't build any German navy, and leave the Baltic there, you will tilt at Africa for 3 turns? O_O?

UK FIGs are more valuable to UK long term than the Baltic fleet is to Germany.  Losing FIGs to kill the Baltic Fleet is a waste of Allied air power.

The Baltic fleet + luftwaffe could be used to take out 3-4 transports, which is a turn's worth of building transports that you must replace. You don't however have to replace British air.

There's nothing inherently wrong with attacking Ukraine along with W. Russia. It is a one time opportunity to take out German offensive gear (art/arm/fig) before it disappears behind a stack of inf. Russia should be leaping at a chance like that. As mentioned many times, the loss of the fig helps the other allies land earlier, and/or makes Germany build another fighter.

Attacking Belo + W. Russia is a safe bet I would say, though. Preserving those 4 Russian tanks and putting them in Moscow allows you strike into Sinkiang and Ukraine, whichever is a juicier target.

It allows you to board much earlier. If you have to dance around building a carrier/destroyer just to deal with all that naval fodder, that's going to set you back a turn or 2, which isn't good. Weren't you of the opinion anyways that UK airforce isn't very useful, since they can't immediately defend territories? I don't mind giving up a fighter or two at all, if it means no more threat of luftwaffe strafing.

Please notice you have almost a 60% chance to get cleaned out of RAF

That's somewhat misleading, since you don't count the bomber as part of the RAF. I would be disturbed if I lost 2 fighters + 1 bomber, but I do kind of like 66% chance of winning with 1 bomber or more.

If I gave up 2 fighters to clean out the Baltic, then I could land on Norway or Karelia on UK2 without breaking a sweat. The baltic can prevent a crucial landing for a turn.

just waiting for you to bring out a battleship and some fodder to sink it with less loss.

How much less loss, versus the amount of time needed to accrue fodder? Fodder still costs money. Naval units aren't cheap, you'd probably overbuild 2 tran which is 16 IPCs worth, not a whole lot less than 20 IPCs, but it also took you longer to assemble this fodder and it also required more care in where you deployed your navy so it doesn't get stung by a massive aistrike with naval fodder.

Also, you never addressed my point - strafing. With strafing, you can limit your losses for the most part. Yes in the 1/12 times you will lose 2 pieces of airforce in one defensive roll, but 1/12 is fairly small (roughly two of these chances equals 1 AA roll). I would point out that there is a 1/6 chance that the UK will strike 3 times, which means it is twice as likely for the UK's strafe to be more damaging than it is for the Germans' defense to be more damaging.

This may or may not be news, but I thought I'd share a small idea that I haven't seen much discussed:

With Germany, in a KGF situation, you should absolutely try to avoid holding any border territory with any men if you already control it or can blitz it.

I think this a small point, but every little bit counts.

For instance, usually Karelia is abandoned by the Russians, and sometimes they will avoid attacking Ukraine.

I think what some people do is take/leave 1+ inf in both territories. But I say, leave nothing there at the end of the German turn.

Why? Because Germany is basically in a fetally defensive position. Every IPC needs to be conserved. If you can collect on a territory without having to spend the unit to defend it, then do so! If you can blitz Karelia and then blitz out, then do it! Don't waste an infantry defending it since you can collect the money without using the infantry. It doesn't make economic sense to leave an infantry there - that's 3 IPCs you spend to defend it, which will likely die in the counterattack; it kills another infantry 1/3 of the time, which means on average it deals 1 IPC damage to Russia, but you spend 3 IPCs to do it. Not a good deal. The same goes for Ukraine.

Of course though, you do have to contest and attack territories if there are small, manageable, amounts of Russians there. You do have to put up some kind of a fight or Russia will just gain free money for many turns. You can usually make a good trade by spending less infantry on offense than the Russians do defending the territory. It's just that for that first turn or whenever it occurs, don't let the Russians start with their foot ahead by putting an infantry where it doesn't need to be to collect the money, because it doesn't make economic sense - the infantry unit costs 3 IPCs, but only does 1 IPC or so on average when it's defending by itself. Your goal as Germany is not to attempt to bleed the Russians out, it is to collect and defend while spending the least resources.

I could very well be wrong, but it is just something I have noticed recently in some games against me. I have pondered about it a while, and I think I agree. Any thoughts?

There isn't much reason not to strafe the Baltic navy at least, thinning out the subs. The odds aren't in favor of the Germans.

That's an interesting point about the Russian sub, but "all" it takes is for one German fighter to go attack it and force it to die or submerge, then the German fleet links up in SZ7 as predicted  It does require for a German fighter to be open, but rarely do I find I can't spare 1 fighter unless Russia was super aggressive and super lucky on their first push.

Superiority in the Med is costly :*( You can spend a lot of IPCs there just to go back and forth with the US over 1-2 IPCs -_-a

I don't think the Germans should buy any navy, either. I did start out thinking that the Germans should always buy a carrier at first, I suppose like anyone else. It's just one of those things you grow out of I guess, like peeing in your bed! 

What would be funny about this situation is that Germany would be making a 4x4 system instead of the US, lmao! Instead of the US shucking into Germany from Canada, Germany shucks into Canada XD

Why buy a Destroyer OR a Carrier with England?

Ah, that's my girl! But you have the idea wrong, you shouldn't stack SZ12, just like U-505 says. The UK can simply drop troops along Karelia's northern border, free from all Luftwaffe, without purchasing any naval defense. Isn't that awesome? And here we were talking about buying a dest/car to counter a running Baltic. 

I believe that the best option is to strafe the Unbaltic fleet. It is no more dangerous to strafe the Unbaltic than it is the normal Baltic fleet because the added sub doesn't add any direct danger to airplanes. It does make it harder to completely triumph there because you have to cut through an extra ship, but I think you do need to do some damage to it before it escapes to the Med. Otherwise it will come out roaring and massively disrupt the US chain.

Total victory has very tepid odds when you're sending 2 fighters 1 bomber against 3 sub 1 tp 1 dest, but you should be able to nail the 3 subs before you're on your way out, which detaches a lot of the threat. Or if the subs submerge, you might want to buy an extra carrier with the US and also remember to strafe them with the bomber. When you take out 1/3-1/2 of the Unbaltic fleet, the UK can simply start with a 3 tran build and hide in SZ2 with 1 bb 4 tran 1 sub. 2-3 subs isn't going to accomplish very much against that, considering it takes more than 2 hits to actually get to a transport.

Leaving the baltic fleet in Sz5, for example, is a better idea, IMHO.
If UK attacks with 2 Fig and 1 Bmb then German have a chance to kill at least one fig, that is also an inreresting gain.
In this way Sub in sz 8 goes to attack Sz13, and so the BB goes to attack the DD in Sz15, followed by the TRN for invading Egypt (if you have also a bid there) or TJ (just to seal the Suez canal).

If the Allies want Africa, they will get it. Even with a bb + tran contesting Africa from the beginning, I somehow do not manage to get very far anyways because of how easily the Allies can reinforce Africa. However, if you make the effort to salvage as much German fleet as possible, it will serve you better as suicide fodder to knock out a round of Allied shipping. Leaving the Baltic navy in SZ5 is just as Jennifer noted in another post - at best annoying, at worst impotent. The UK could even wait a turn to build an extra fighter or two before taking out the static Baltic, but if the Germans actively run it away, it calls for immediate, and IMO risky action.

If the Allies are so passive as to not do anything, the German fleet looks like 3 sub 2 tran 1 bb 1 dest in the Med. That's an incredible amount of fodder which could completely sabotage both US and UK ability to transport things for 1-2 turns, combined with airforce. The UK should strafe the Unbaltic, which would generally mean still losing 1-2 fighters (same as attacking regular Baltic). So again, I don't see how sitting in the Baltic produces better results. If you do that, you usually wind up with a total fleet of 1 bb 1 tp and that's it for the whole game, at the cost of 1-2 UK fighters. The Unbaltic is much scarier! ';..;'

The best, most proper strategy is to roll all one's!