Subs are amazing units. I argue hacing about 40% of your IPCs in subs as US. Volume is vastly underrated.
Germany playbook: overall strategy guide
-
@Stough said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
followed by mech/tanks in round 2 and then tanks, tanks, tanks? Is G6-G7-G8 too late to take Russia?
It’s maybe not too late, but question is if it’s feasible? By that time there will be potential allied air lending support to the ruskijs. Fast-movers will take 4 turns, including the one when built, to reach Moscow.
On a note Germany should buy more mechs than tanks. Point is that it actually gives a higher combat value since there will be more of them. Tanks would be better if Germany has reached it’s production-limit, but they will be far from that point.
-
@trulpen Again, I’m new so my ideas are probably wonky. After three test plays, all using a Sea Lion Variant (btw, I only think Sea Lion is good if you want to get Italy into the game. Britain has to respond to it in some measure and that gives Italy a chance), I think a G-1 DOW looks pretty good.
You can nuke 7 Russians and start the border squabbles that attrit Russia, while close to home.
Buy 3Art and 6 inf in round 1, (maybe a destroyer or sub) and then a bunch.
Place a sub in Russias convoy zone on rd 1 and keep occupying that thing to deny Russia the 5ipc’s.
I think your advice to buy a crap ton of wagons (mech) in round 2 is very sound. Followed by a mix of fast movers in rd 3-4 and some bombers.It seems fairly simple to leverage Russia with a strong push. Use the Luftwaffe to full advantage and get either Nov or Ukraine or both.
I’m not sure nailing Moscow is even necessary. Just push them back, hurt their economy and anaconda them to death, while dealing with US/UK.
Anyhow, lots of big talk from me. I’ll be play testing Germany without a Sea Lion for the next three games. We’ll see what headaches the Brits can bring without a Sea Lion. The US will be spending about 2/3 of their budget on Germany.
BTW. What fighter is sent to Tobruk?
-
@Stough said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
@trulpen Again, I’m new so my ideas are probably wonky. After three test plays, all using a Sea Lion Variant (btw, I only think Sea Lion is good if you want to get Italy into the game. Britain has to respond to it in some measure and that gives Italy a chance), I think a G-1 DOW looks pretty good.
You can nuke 7 Russians and start the border squabbles that attrit Russia, while close to home.
Buy 3Art and 6 inf in round 1, (maybe a destroyer or sub) and then a bunch.
Place a sub in Russias convoy zone on rd 1 and keep occupying that thing to deny Russia the 5ipc’s.
I think your advice to buy a crap ton of wagons (mech) in round 2 is very sound. Followed by a mix of fast movers in rd 3-4 and some bombers.It seems fairly simple to leverage Russia with a strong push. Use the Luftwaffe to full advantage and get either Nov or Ukraine or both.
I’m not sure nailing Moscow is even necessary. Just push them back, hurt their economy and anaconda them to death, while dealing with US/UK.
Anyhow, lots of big talk from me. I’ll be play testing Germany without a Sea Lion for the next three games. We’ll see what headaches the Brits can bring without a Sea Lion. The US will be spending about 2/3 of their budget on Germany.
BTW. What fighter is sent to Tobruk?
Fig from Slovakia. Going there after hitting Yugo.
I would never support an early Sea Lion, unless something exceptional happened. Early is something like before turn 6.
Conquering Moscow might not be a necessity, but if it can be done it’s a top priority. Getting Russia out of play and all that extra income is worth tons.
-
@stough said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
@trulpen Again, I’m new so my ideas are probably wonky. After three test plays, all using a Sea Lion Variant (btw, I only think Sea Lion is good if you want to get Italy into the game. Britain has to respond to it in some measure and that gives Italy a chance), I think a G-1 DOW looks pretty good.
You can nuke 7 Russians and start the border squabbles that attrit Russia, while close to home.
Buy 3Art and 6 inf in round 1, (maybe a destroyer or sub) and then a bunch.
Place a sub in Russias convoy zone on rd 1 and keep occupying that thing to deny Russia the 5ipc’s.
I think your advice to buy a crap ton of wagons (mech) in round 2 is very sound. Followed by a mix of fast movers in rd 3-4 and some bombers.It seems fairly simple to leverage Russia with a strong push. Use the Luftwaffe to full advantage and get either Nov or Ukraine or both.
I’m not sure nailing Moscow is even necessary. Just push them back, hurt their economy and anaconda them to death, while dealing with US/UK.
Anyhow, lots of big talk from me. I’ll be play testing Germany without a Sea Lion for the next three games. We’ll see what headaches the Brits can bring without a Sea Lion. The US will be spending about 2/3 of their budget on Germany.
BTW. What fighter is sent to Tobruk?
A early sealion no matter what is the certain route to defeat for the Axis. As trulpen stated, a sea lion is a tool that can be utilized in case UK plays carelessly in UK1 or invites it on purpose. However, in case I play my most common UK1 (Gibraltar bastion), a sea lion would most likely be suicide. It will either fail and even if the battle of London is won it will be a pyrrhus victory because the losses will be so heavy that Germany will not be able to push the Russians back anymore.
I suppose you get biased by the fact that the opponent you played sea lion against so far, were not experienced enough to react properly to it.
Many of these strategies find some similarities in chess gambits. In chess gambits are great against less experienced opponents that do not know how to react properly. One misstep and the player that did the gambit gets a big advantage.
However, on grandmaster level, most gambits are not played anymore because they lead to a disadvantage in case the opponent knows how to react.This logic applies to many other strategies, including dark skies (mass bombers with Germany from the beginning) of which many claim it is overpowered or broken and where I disagree and say the strategy is ok, but worse than a classic Barbarossa if the Allies react properly to it.
-
Regarding the G1 DOW, that is a strategy that can be stopped by the UK flying a bunch of planes out of Persia to Moscow. If the UK doesn’t do this, Axis victory normally follows quite rapidly.
I normally buy 2ftr in South Africa UK1 which can also reach. And UK Pacific (India) can also contribute, particularly if there isn’t a J1 DOW.
-
@jdow So, 5 mi (I prefer the term ‘wagon’; because that what they look like and it’s funny) and a tank for g1?
-
@stough said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
@jdow So, 5 mi (I prefer the term ‘wagon’; because that what they look like and it’s funny) and a tank for g1?
This is one of many solid buys for Germany in G1, yes.
-
the correct term is “buggy” Austin Powers: “deploy the boo-gahys”
-
Apologies if this is somewhere above in the thread but could not spot it. Re the opening referred to as “Soulfein’s basic Germany opener” in @Cow’s 2013 post - would it be possible for someone to clarify this line:
b) u can grab morocco and/or gibraltar in g2 (given uk doesnt block sz110 with enough to deny ita can open), getting in range for sending transports to sz98 in g3
What exactly does this mean? If the UK stacks 110, Germany can’t reach Gibraltar on turn 2, but what exactly is the Italy can-opener move being referred to here? Wouldn’t Italy have to take Gibraltar itself to make the strait passable? How can German transports even reach sz98 in G3?
Is this still considered a strong opening almost a decade later?
Many thanks!
-
Hi @puns_and_ships I think the Italy canopener is using there Bmbr against UK blocker. Idk about the rest of it
-
While I can only speculate, before taranto became canon, Italy could easily mount up, either inside the med, or even better, outside the med, threatening the classic Double Sea Lion (germany and italy attack uk together, in waves, and over multiple turns, if necessary) and the US capital at the same time.
If Italy joins Germany with its full navy and transports, stopping sea lion isn’t likely at all. Attempting to block the germans from joining the italian fleet bastion can be can-opened as well, so the german fleet can join them in SZ 98, making the entire atlantic a gigantic mess for the allies.
Today, people understand SL to be less effective because of the high cost of taking it and the low amount of money at stake in taking it (compared to russia). That evolved because Taranto became a 99% move, and buying a proper defense for UK, a 90% move.
In the improperly named META of the early game, this ambush was a quick way to end any game.
-
-
There are alot of good videos. The “Middle Earth” video on yt lays out some interesting ideas for building a South Africa Shuck + Persia Factory early. However, if you committ to this kind of plan 100% you leave UK vulnerable.
Germany (buy 2 bombers save 6. Attack Russia on G2. You can take UK even in the face of a strong build by killing his navy, and stratbombing him starting on turn 1, however, this allows the USA and Russia to run wild and keeps your money low.)
Russia (buy more tanks than would seem prudent. force germany to stack east poland until its forces are able to get together by projecting threat onto his backfield areas. avoid having allies units enter your zone before your bonus SZ is lost)
Japan (if you committ everything, and build air base, you can destroy India on J3, but this is a low money option. Taking Sri Lanka gives you a floating aircraft carrier. Attacking early gives the alies much more income, attacking later keeps the US waiting. The most flexible strategy is to take the money islands, carefully conquest china, and chip away at russian money as they retreat. Attempting to strike early (JDOW J1) used to be very popular and every unit is pretty much accounted for so thats a pat opener–however, attacking early gives the allies maximum money while japan is still trying to align all its forces and value territories. If you use the diplomacy to the maximum by concentrating only on china and russia that is conservative and safe but Germany is likely to have to face a gigantic threat as the USA player builds up turn after turn waiting for war…
USA Buy 2 CV to start. You will need a BB in the Atlantic to ensure control of key SZ 98. The temptation is to focus entirely on one axis or the other, but that plan allows the other axis to run wild and reach 70+ IPC. Japan is the weaker target, which is easier to overwhelm, but taking his money entirely out is difficult. Germany is a more desirable target to reduce pressure on Russia, but the lack of a clean shuck 3 spaces across the atlantic means that you’ll be stuck on the southern path. Germany has factories close to the front, so killing him piecemeal is impossible. Dont waste your precious landing troops on half-measures–built until turn 8 and then execute your plan (enter med, boggle germany, take norway, rescue leningrad–pick one)
UK build 6 inf 1 fighter first turn on UK. Any less risks a capital take. Attack Taranto with everything that can come–note that both fighters and the bomber from london can reach. If anything survives, form a bastion on malta, or syria. The UK is pretty weak but it has the advantage of being able to build a strong rescue force in the center of the board, which could save russia, prevent egypt from ever falling, and block japan. An early persia factory is nice, an iraq backup factory is even better–however your max income is only 40 so you wont be able to power all that and protect your base. Don’t leave the UK bare of figthers, or stop turtling–Germany can kill russia then use the money to build 10 transports to smash the fortified and isolated units you left in UK)
Italy is more of a liability for germany than a help. The best plan is to pull the armor from africa, add the 2 you start with, build 1 more first turn with a mech, and then have that lance of troops hide among the germans, can opening against blockers, striking where necessary. That’s a 1 shot, though. If italy can get some bonuses and keep part of fleet, that’s good–but once the USA arrives, you have to spend more german resources protecting italy than its worth and its income can be rapidly torn to shreds once control of the med is lost. This also means keeping plenty of italitan units on rome, and alive—the USA can attack you with 20+ units and air, with the ability to follow on with UK forces that will also have a substantial air force and navy by turn UK6
Anzac There are mulitple approaches, but the best one is to build extra carriers with the USA and use those to host ANZAC fighters. Keeping 1 or 2 transports alive, alone with UK units, can lead to a situation where japan has to eat 3 consecutive allied turns of rage and leapfroggoing as the minor allies take advantage of the opening USA makes. Its also easy for Japan to kill this capital and end the game by VC if you are unwary and you can only build 3 units so adding a few units each turn and saving your money to see what happens isnt a bad idea. Japan does have to step far out of position to do this, however.
China try to stay alive. all you can really do is slow japan down, without help. in an unbid game, that isn’t wise.
Among strong players, a bid of 40+ is needed to prevent the barbarossa strategy from kiling russia in 60-80% of games.
Among moderate players, I usually suggest a bid of 12, 16, or 20.
There is also a G42 setup that is more balanced and a faster start.
-
@puns_and_ships Good advice from taamvan. Also, if you have triplea, you can look up past games in https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/65/play-online-axis-allies by some of the more experienced players and see what they do.
-
-
@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
Attack Taranto with everything that can come–note that both fighters and the bomber from london can reach
This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.
-
You’re definitely right, and while the bastion can be destroyed, it forces the Italians to take the risk of screwing up the battle (and moving away from their safe zone) which I like. It also messes up 2 of their bonuses, which makes attacking you at close odds more enticing.
-
@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.
I have not played enough people to know how popular or unpopular Taranto is becoming however on average it does not cost more than it destroys.
Assuming a sub bid for SZ98 the Taranto attack is SS, DD, CL, AC, 3 Ftr, Tac + Bmb. Being the success rate is 98% with a 3 fighter scramble I have never seen anyone scramble. The TUV is +$25 taking the tactical as the average loss first. Since the Italians have a negative counter attack usually they kill the French fleet in SZ93 and any remaining British units in SZ96. Thus they get convoy disrupted for an average of -$8.
The German counter attack, assuming it can go all out and does not have another target off the British Isles or Normandy and/or Holland, is +$29 with an average loss of 2.65 fighters.
Therefore, the overall average, from the Allied perspective is:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2.65 fighter loss -$29
d) Total average TUV is +4Looking at it another way the most likely top two results are:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$36
d) Total average TUV is -3a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$26
d) Total average TUV is +7Destroying half the Italian fleet on UK1 and doing convoy disruption pretty much takes Italy out to the game immediately. Losing 2 UK fighters to 2 or 3 German fighters on a counter attack is a plus as it helps Russia and limits the German air threat everywhere.
From a TUV perspective it is a winner. From a strategy perspective it is even better.
-
That is true, but what is more or less guaranteed is that the UK will lose their fleet, whereas gibastion they are likely to keep it.
Not all games are open bid. There are many situations where is no convoy damage (as the planes fly elsewhere like syria or cyprus), it seems pretty rare in our games. The italians may attack what air lands but after the retaliation they don’t have much left, which is good for the allies.
Italy having money is bad, Italy being broke and having no navy is really good. In that basic dynamic, gibastion may or may not cost them the navy, but it will stop them from getting the money they need. And if the UK navy is there, then it doesnt really matter what the Italian built when the USA arrives, they can smash it.
Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.
-
@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:
Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.
My post really wasn’t about which strategy is better. My post was about replying to the comment “which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.” With a sub bid Taranto is not going to fail, and as I showed, with average dice, it is cost effective. My goal was just to make sure that any information presented is accurate. Let the reader make their own decisions then.
I think both strategies have their pluses and minuses. I have used both and for a while I was a Gibastion fan and now I have come around to liking Taranto better for my own reasons. I don’t think one is a lot better than the other; they are fairly even and both reasonable strategies. I would agree with your post as long as you have a sub build Taranto is the slightly better choice.
Since any bid in OOB or BM3 is going to be at least $16 than I would, as the Allies, always do Taranto.
Suggested Topics
