Thanks for everyone’s answers. I’ll have to try out the Aircraft Carrier option next time.
I’ll have to read yours in more detail next time I play it (which will be soon hopefully :-D), Darkman.
Nit picky German Economizer
-
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?
-
You give up the chance to get a kill in those territories then. 33% chance to hit in each one. You lose 6, you potentially kill 6 and you can afford 6 more then Russia can.
And, for the record, I never leave Karelia empty. Why? So Germany can blitz to Archangelsk and make me retake BOTH?
-
good topic.
As Germany, it is reasonable to look for the ability to take out considerably more Russian units than one might lose - particularly armor.
Furthermore one can always take a territory and leave it lightly defended - a feint - in order to sucker the Russians/Brits to take a territory that might be easily retaken with a total smackdown of said UK/RU units.
Next consider the luck factor. The Germans may take UKR w/ 2 inf and a couple of fighters. They kill say 1-2 Russian infantry in doing so, gain a 3 ipc territory. The Russians then counter-attack w/ 3 inf/2 ftrs. A couple of hits, and there is an easy economic gain.
Finally one must not forget the objective - particularly if sacking Moscow is the first way to acheiving that objective. A movement into Ukraine may force the Russians to more heavily defend CAU allowing the Japanese to more easily take territory to the east. -
Your going to want to make the Russians pay hard on the eastern front to help the japs make there forward gains.
also Germany has a big air-force to start the game which enables them to counter-attack any Russian holdings and take it with more pieces left making it harder for the russians to re-take because they have to send more units because of the lack of air-units and in most cases they will only barely take it which again enables you to counter hard and force them to pay blood.
The True key is to try and hold of the Brits for as long as possible from invading Norway > Karelia.
Reason being make the Russians attack (Kar, Belo, UKR) for as long as possible. It’s a win-win situation for Germany, Russia can’t keep up on a 3 front territory for long and divert other troops to face the oncoming Japanese onslaught. -
German have more resource and more fig to use in the trading of territories than Russia have.
Forcing Russia to commit more units in the front territories means that they may be killed by German counterattack.
Leaving the territories empty means that also Russia may blitz in and out of front territories gaining the IPC without spending units.
After a couple of turns in such way Russia will have a big stack of infantry in WR and Caucasus, while the Japanese is having a hard time.
Because all the infantry that not die on the German front are going to stack the WR, Caucasus and the Japanese front. -
I have pondered about it a while, and I think I agree. Any thoughts?
I also agree with myself!
I am glad we had this conversation.
:lol:
-
Anyways - I DISAGREE, in at least some instances. I also AGREE in some rare cases. Wow, way to commit, right? Newpaintbrush for prezident! :mrgreen:
Okay - now WHY do I disagree/agree?
I agree that the Germans have to save their units where they can.
However, the Russians ALSO want to do the same. If you don’t leave resources to protect the territories, the Russians will also be able to blitz.
Now - your post mentioned that the 3 IPC infantry has a 1/6 chance of hitting something. This is only really true if the attackers hit with overwhelming force. That means either committing ground units (which means the attackers are leaving a garrison of a lot more than one infantry and can be counterattacked), or committing air units (which Germany has a lot more of than Russia). Of course, German fighters are needed for more than trading territory with Russia. However, the fact remains - if Germany leaves the territory open, Russia also conserves its strength, and depending on the board situation, that may or may not be an acceptable tradeoff.
-
Anyways - I DISAGREE, in at least some instances. I also AGREE in some rare cases. Wow, way to commit, right? Newpaintbrush for prezident! :mrgreen:
Okay - now WHY do I disagree/agree?
I agree that the Germans have to save their units where they can.
However, the Russians ALSO want to do the same. If you don’t leave resources to protect the territories, the Russians will also be able to blitz.
Now - your post mentioned that the 3 IPC infantry has a 1/6 chance of hitting something. This is only really true if the attackers hit with overwhelming force. That means either committing ground units (which means the attackers are leaving a garrison of a lot more than one infantry and can be counterattacked), or committing air units (which Germany has a lot more of than Russia). Of course, German fighters are needed for more than trading territory with Russia. However, the fact remains - if Germany leaves the territory open, Russia also conserves its strength, and depending on the board situation, that may or may not be an acceptable tradeoff.
Totally agree newpaintbrush given also the fact that you totally agree with me!
Indeed, all this agreement are impressive! -
NoMercy:
The problem with stopping an invasion of Norway/Karelia/Archangelsk with England is that they generally just take Africa back then.
Now you have to worry about them building up and invading in the north anyway, and you have lost Africa.
Meanwhile, if you let them land in the north, with the paltry of units they get, it is easier for you and Japan to hold Africa, keeping England’s income in the teens and stopping the Americans or at least forcing the Americans to build twice as many transports so they can join England in the north.
-
I respond to that with if the allies want Africa, they will take it back.
I did not mention anything about Africa meaning all your normal means (Axis) to shuffle troops to Africa are intact still until the allies bring in some air-force to wipe it out.
I think it’s worthwhile to make the Russians pay wherever and whenever possible.
Never let them have “free IPC” NEVER!!
-
What I’m saying is that you are dictating an invasion of Africa by the allies as opposed to keeping all your enemies bottled up in one small spot for you to focus your might on.
-
Axis does not need Africa to win, allies can’t win without Africa, generally speaking.
This is because Jap always gains around 12-15 ipc in Asia mainland.
And there’s the 26 ipc gap equalled out. -
it’s a long walk from Algeria to Cauc… Along the way i’m sure the Japs will take a couple of runs at any stacks marching along the way…
Also the Germans can hide deep into African territory making the allies spend 5-6+ turns to completely rid the Germans and that doesn’t include the Japs saying hello.
So I am Economizing in that The Russians are paying dearly for them front-line IPC’s while the allies got bottle necked in Africa for a while.
-
Axis don’t need Africa to win, it just makes it 10 times easier.
And Mercy, the allies are not bottle necked in Africa. Once they take it from Germany they can ignore it. Just working to ensure England gets credit for kills in Europe to make up for Japan taking Africa back later. The point is to not let Germany have it. 2 Rounds of anything is not going to bottle neck the allies. Russia can usually hold off the Germans and the Japanese for 10 rounds before being in serious danger. So instead of 10 rounds of help from the allies, they have to go with only 6 or 7 rounds of help. Not a big difference in the large scheme of things.
-
As for trading territories on the Eastern Front (or anywhere else…)
1. Vacant Territory: Requires 0 to 3 IPC to take it (ARM blitz in and out, or 1 INF). That leaves enemy FIGs free for other combat.
2. Picket Force (1 INF): Requires 2 INF and a FIG to capture. Reasonable chance of killing an INF on the way down. More importantly, it ties up 3 times the number of units, including a critical air unit.
3. Minimal Force (2 INF): Requires 3 INF, 1 FIG for reasonable change to take. Pretty good odds of significant damage to attacker. More force means he takes it easier, but also leaves more units for you to kill on counter.So, the question is…
Do you tie up (in this discussion) Russian FIGs in trading battles, or do you let the Russians trade for free (or only using a single INF) and use their other INF and the FIG elsewhere? In some cases that MAY be a good idea. In others, it is sheer folly.
The trick is knowing the difference…
-
That’s pretty much my thoughts as well. I was considering the same idea, why trade infantry for territories that arn’t even worth the cost of an infantry???
But it boils down to using up enemy offensive power and the hopes of doing disproportionate damage to the enemy. Ask Switch how many times he’s attacked a picket of mine and lost 2 or 3 units just to get it or, even worse, been forced to retreat.
How many of those battles would he have won if I didn’t put a picket there? (Hint: the answer is 100%! And cost free too!)
-
@ncscswitch:
So, the question is…
Do you tie up (in this discussion) Russian FIGs in trading battles, or do you let the Russians trade for free (or only using a single INF) and use their other INF and the FIG elsewhere? In some cases that MAY be a good idea. In others, it is sheer folly.
The trick is knowing the difference…
Very true.
It’s situational. No blanket statement can be made about this.
One key is opportunity cost: limited resources can only do so much.
If you give the Russians (or Germans) too much to do (ala the 2 inf picket), they might not be able to do it all -
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. -
I agree with Trihero on this one and have made that move frequently.
leaving 1 inf in a 2 or 3 IPC territory that Germany owns is a poor economic move even against the minimum attack of 2 inf, 1 fig. Against KGF, keeping every possible unit centralized is priority for flexible defense and Germany usually has more than enough aircraft to trade the territories the Allies take. I prefer that Russia pull units away from the Japanese front and advance toward me rather than trying to expand against forces that are coming in on all sides. Typically, the result, in the mid game at least, is that one Ally attacks the territory with 1 inf and aircraft and even if they only clear the territory a follow up Ally moves 1 inf in to take it so they will be coming out ahead finacially anyway.
The only times I picket all of my trading territories is during KJF to put maximum trading pressure on Russia, to block an armor blitz, or when Russia has more territories to trade than it has fighters to force them to let me have the territory or expose an offensive ground unit to counterattack.
And I will always leave a territory empty against overwhelming force. The chances of getting a defensive hit with 1 inf are too small to risk it’s sacrifice.
-
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 IPCsIn terms of IPCs, Blitzing Karelia > Blitzing Archangel
Suggested Topics
