Germany Basic Strategies, Concepts and Ideas

[Uncle_Joe]

If you are willing to accept a lower odds attack, you can still shoot for both. Assuming saving the Italian fleet is a primary goal, even if a few battles go against you, you should still do enough damage to prevent their destruction.

Send 2 subs + plane from Norway to Sz2 to kill the BB/TR. Thats 2 First Strike 2’s and a 3. That should be enough to get the job done, although it does occasionally cost you the plane as well.

Send 1 plane and the sub from Baltic to kill the DD east of England.

Send 2 planes (France and Germany) to hit the DD/CA off Gibraltar. This is the risky one. A trade is acceptable since it saves the Italians. But even if you roll poorly, you should at least sink the DD which should be enough to save the Italians.

Send bomber and the ‘usual suspects’ to hit Egypt. This is also an opportunity to save the Italians by killing the plane. This battle often results in all English forces destroyed and the German bomber landing in Libya (which is quite acceptable - Italy gets Egypt and saves her fleet).

Obviously if you get zapped by the dice you are going to be in some hurt, but IMO the payoff of killing the BB and still hitting Egypt is worth the risk to the 2 fighters off Gibraltar. And honestly in a competitive game, there are going to be plenty of battles where you have to rely on making the odds and not getting zapped.

[Jennifer]

I would not use any of Germany’s starting money on technologies.  It’s too risky and you need equipment moving into Moscow.

However, I would say hit SZ 2 and Karelia hard.  (Inf, Art, 2 Arm in Karelia, SZ 2 cleared, 4 Inf, 4 fig, bmb, AA gun in Norway)

Attack Egypt with 2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm, retreat an Inf/Arm to Libya if round 1 goes bad, or press and hope to take out the fighter.

England’s going to have some MAJOR league headaches.  They CAN attack Italy with Destroyer, Cruiser, Bomber (possible Fighter from Egypt) but that’s not stellar odds either.  WITH the Fighter from Egypt, you’re looking at 50% odds to survive with just your bomber.  Without the Fighter, they drop to 16% and odds of Italy surviving goes up from 35% to 75%.

Even if you do sink the SZ 14 fleet, life is not over for Italy.

[deadbunny]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but if you use 2 inf 1 rt and 2 arm into Egypt does this not count as an amphib assualt and you can’t retreat?

[a44bigdog]

The 1 infantry 1 artillery and 1 armor that came from Libya can retreat. Only the infantry and armor from France must fight to the death.

[deadbunny]

Sounds to me that the tricky person can just choose the losses from the amphib assualt, although this would be counter intuitive losing a arm before an inf and art.

[a44bigdog]

It is the proper choice to make if the first round goes badly and why Egypt without the bomber is not as big a deal as some here would proclaim.

[allies_fly]

@a44bigdog:

It is the proper choice to make if the first round goes badly and why Egypt without the bomber is not as big a deal as some here would proclaim.

Depends on how many hits Germany gets trying to soften up Egypt.  In a game we just played, Germany rolled over and died and scored NO hits with 2 inf, art and 2 tank as a part of the G1 attack.

This was indeed, quite bad.  UK got 3 hits on retal to top ot off.

An anomoly, yes.  That unlikely?  I can see Germany only getting 1 hit often.

[Bardoly]

@Cmdr:

I would not use any of Germany’s starting money on technologies.  It’s too risky and you need equipment moving into Moscow.

I guess that my play group and I play a little differently than a lot of the people I see posting here, because the players who play Germany almost never go all out against Russsia.  We like to pound UK pretty hard along with hitting Russia, so usually in our games, we follow history pretty well by playing a 2-front war against both UK and Russia.  Maybe this is not the best winning strategy, but it is rather fun to play.

However, I would say hit SZ 2 and Karelia hard.  (Inf, Art, 2 Arm in Karelia, SZ 2 cleared, 4 Inf, 4 fig, bmb, AA gun in Norway)

Please clarify this.  Where are you getting the Inf, Art, and 2 Arm to have in Karelia after you take it?  you may only attack it with 2 Inf from Finland and 1 Transport load, and if you take any losses, are you going to sacrifice Fighters before Infantry?

Also, how are you getting 2 extra Infantry and the AA gun to Norway?  You only have 1 Transport.  And are you taking no Fighter losses?  I am confused.

Attack Egypt with 2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm, retreat an Inf/Arm to Libya if round 1 goes bad, or press and hope to take out the fighter.

I see this, but it seems that ensuring that you take out the Egypt UK Fighter is more important than the emphasis which you are placing on it.  I do agree that it is more useful to Italy to capture Egypt, than for Germany to do so, but if Germany doesn’t take at least 1 of the three (Gibraltar, Egypt, or Trans-Jordan, then it is impossible for Italy to get his second NO on the first turn, and the extra 5 IPCs helps him quite a bit.  Also, if Germany takes either Gibraltar or Egypt, then UK loses his NO.  If Germany takes, Gibraltar, then UK has the ability to take it back, but if Germany takes Egypt, then UK is just plain out of luck.

England’s going to have some MAJOR league headaches.  They CAN attack Italy with Destroyer, Cruiser, Bomber (possible Fighter from Egypt) but that’s not stellar odds either.   WITH the Fighter from Egypt, you’re looking at 50% odds to survive with just your bomber.  Without the Fighter, they drop to 16% and odds of Italy surviving goes up from 35% to 75%.

Exactly my point, you need to kill the Egypt UK Fighter.

Even if you do sink the SZ 14 fleet, life is not over for Italy.

Well, of course Italy is not put out of the game, I mean he can produce a whopping 3 Infantry per turn with which to defend France with.  That is big leage right there. :wink:

[a44bigdog]

Italy producing 3 Infantry a turn to stick into France is just poor play in my opinion. There are Russian territories Italy can take. They can save up their money for fleet. Or what about tech? Both London and Stalingrad are in Range of Italian rockets.

That is even assuming that England takes out the Italian Navy. I can state from experience that the fighter, bomber and sea zone 12 fleet is not an auto kill of the Italian fleet. It also leaves England in a very bad spot as well when that attack fails.

[Bardoly]

Italy producing 3 Infantry a turn to stick into France is just poor play in my opinion. There are Russian territories Italy can take. They can save up their money for fleet. Or what about tech? Both London and Stalingrad are in Range of Italian rockets.

That was just a joke.  I was making the point that if Italy loses his fleet on UK1, then he is pretty much sidelined for several turns and there is a good chance that the Axis will conceed Africa to the Allies for many rounds to come.  Italy will probably only be collecting 9 IPCs for the next few rounds.  That’s where the 3 Infantry units come into play.  Of course, if I were in this situation, I probably would build some other units, not just Infantry.

That is even assuming that England takes out the Italian Navy. I can state from experience that the fighter, bomber and sea zone 12 fleet is not an auto kill of the Italian fleet. It also leaves England in a very bad spot as well when that attack fails.

Also, I was making the assumption that the Egypt UK Fighter would join in the battle, because earlier it was stated that on G1, the Bomber would go to SZ#2 instead of to Egypt.

[a44bigdog]

I was speaking of the battle with the UK fighter included.

The UK has a destroyer at 2, a Cruiser at 3, the Fighter at 3, and the bomber at 4.

Italy has 2 Cruisers at 3, and the Battleship at 4. The battleships ability to  take 1 free hit offsets the destroyers attack at 2 in my mind. Equal hits by either side in the first round leads to a dead even fight.

If Italy looses it’s navy the Axis may or may not gain territory in Africa. They do have 2 infantry in Libya and I have taken Egypt with these before and then covered them with German and Japanese units just so they could wander around Africa while the Allies chased after them.

If England looses the units involved in that same battle they are out some very nice naval and air pieces that they will find hard to replace. After Japan 2 England should solidly be in the 30 or lower IPC range even if they hold all of Africa. Hard to replace bombers and cruisers and buy transports and men to put on them at that level of income.

I have personally experienced both sides of the above outcomes in the game and I would much prefer the Italian position than the English one if something goes wrong.

[Jennifer]

@Bardoly:

@Cmdr:

However, I would say hit SZ 2 and Karelia hard.  (Inf, Art, 2 Arm in Karelia, SZ 2 cleared, 4 Inf, 4 fig, bmb, AA gun in Norway)

Please clarify this.  Where are you getting the Inf, Art, and 2 Arm to have in Karelia after you take it?  you may only attack it with 2 Inf from Finland and 1 Transport load, and if you take any losses, are you going to sacrifice Fighters before Infantry?

Also, how are you getting 2 extra Infantry and the AA gun to Norway?  You only have 1 Transport.  And are you taking no Fighter losses?  I am confused.

2 Infantry from Finland to Karelia
Infantry, Artillery, Fighter from Germany to Karelia
Fighter from Norway to Karelia
Fighter from NW Europe to karelia
Cruiser bombardment of Karelia
Fighter from Poland to Karelia

ODDs:  Infantry, Artillery, 2 or 3 Fighters survive

NCM:  2 Armor form Poland through Baltic States to Karelia (you should have attacked Baltic with 3 Infantry, 2 Armor from Czech which would normally give you 1 or 2 infantry and 2 armor there as well.)

Result:  Karelia has Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor

SZ 2:  2 Submarines, 1 Bomber

Norway would be a great place to land all your planes since it makes life difficult for England when it comes time to build things.

[Bardoly]

NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia

Is this a legal move?  In my gaming group, we have always played that you couldn’t Non-Combat Move into or through a territory which was just captured in the same turn.  Like, if Italy captures Egypt and Transjordan on the same turn, then during his Non-Combat Move Phase, I understand that he can’t move through the Suez, because he wasen’t in control of it at the beginning of his turn.

[Romulus]

@Bardoly:

NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia

Is this a legal move?  In my gaming group, we have always played that you couldn’t Non-Combat Move into or through a territory which was just captured in the same turn.  Like, if Italy captures Egypt and Transjordan on the same turn, then during his Non-Combat Move Phase, I understand that he can’t move through the Suez, because he wasen’t in control of it at the beginning of his turn.

It is a legal move. pag. 21 of the AA50 Manual, Phase 5 Noncombat Move:

Where Units Can Move
Land Units: Land units can move into any friendly territories. They cannot move into hostile territories (not even those that contain no combat units but are enemy-controlled). Note, this the only phase in which antiaircraft guns can move.
…
Air units: an air units must end its move in an eligible landing space. Bombers and fighters may land in any territory that was friendly at the start of your turn.
…
Neither bombers nor fighters may land in any territory that was hostile at the start of your turn, including any territory that was just captured by you this turn.

For air units it is clearly stated that they can not end noncombat move in a space that was hostile at the start of the turn. No similar remarks is done for the land units, so there is no ditinction for friendly territories conquered or owned at the start of the turn. They are friendly in the NCM and then the land units may move in.

Regarding canals, pag. 7 of the AA50 Manual, Canals:

… A canal is not considered a space, so it doesn’t block land movement: Land unit can move freely between Trans-Jordan and Egypt. …

Canal has no influence on the land units movements.

[Bardoly]

The example of the Suez Canal was for ships that want to go through the canal.  I believe that it is stated that your side must control both sides of the canal at the beginning of your turn for your ships to be able to move through it at any point in your turn, including non-combat.  My group and I have always played it this way, but if we are wrong, could someone let me know?  Thanks in advance.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

Yes, you are correct in that notion, ships may not pass unless you’ve control both sides of the Suez Canal. However, I think that you can still pass through even if you just captured both sides on your combat phase. I’m not definite but I’m thinking it’s more than likely. Speaking of which, I meant to propose to people who wish it, that the Dardenelles (between Bulgaria/Romania and Turkey) cannot be passed unless on controls Bulgaria Romania, and that the Straits of Gibraltar (between Gibraltar and Morroco/Algeria) cannot be passed unless one controls Gibraltar. Of course this is nowhere stated in the rules, but it is more realistic historically, as Russian ships could not leave the Black Sea, and Axis ships could not leave the Mediterranean. My friends and I have agreed on this, though it curtails Italian expansion to the West, unless the Axis take Gibraltar. We thought about similiar rules regarding the Sound between Denmark and Southern Sweden, gaining or denying entrance to the Baltic, but found them unfair, as Germany could then build a massive fleet with impunity. Anyway those are simply some house rules we use, to add more historic flavor, if you like the sound of them, use them, if you think it’s a bad idea, don’t use them. Just putting in my 2 cents……

[Romulus]

@Bardoly:

The example of the Suez Canal was for ships that want to go through the canal.  I believe that it is stated that your side must control both sides of the canal at the beginning of your turn for your ships to be able to move through it at any point in your turn, including non-combat.  My group and I have always played it this way, but if we are wrong, could someone let me know?  Thanks in advance.

You are right about the Canal, your side have to control both sides from the start of your turn in order to allow to your naval unit to move through the canal. But this have nothing to do with your original question:

@Bardoly:

NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia

Is this a legal move?  In my gaming group, we have always played that you couldn’t Non-Combat Move into or through a territory which was just captured in the same turn.  Like, if Italy captures Egypt and Transjordan on the same turn, then during his Non-Combat Move Phase, I understand that he can’t move through the Suez, because he wasen’t in control of it at the beginning of his turn.

What I pointed out is that in the rulebook there is no rule that forbids to land units of moving into friendly territories in the NCM. The territory have to be friendly at the start of the NCM there is no other requirements. Canal rule have nothing to do with this.

So the answer to your original question: “NCM:  2 Armor from Poland through Baltic States to Karelia - Is this a legal move?” is Yes, it is a legal move.

[U-505]

@Cmdr:

2 Infantry from Finland to Karelia
Infantry, Artillery, Fighter from Germany to Karelia
Fighter from Norway to Karelia
Fighter from NW Europe to karelia
Cruiser bombardment of Karelia
Fighter from Poland to Karelia

ODDs:  Infantry, Artillery, 2 or 3 Fighters survive

These numbers are slightly incorrect.

With 4 fighters you can pretty much expect to lose 1 to AA.

The remaining units would be [3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 CA] v. [5 inf, 1 art] which means that the attacker averages 3 hits and the defender 2 in the first round.

That leaves roughly [1 inf, 1 art, 3 fig] v. [2 inf, 1 art] with the attacker getting 2 hits to the defender’s 1.

So you end up with [1 art, 3 fig] v. [1 art].

I figure with an extra hit or miss here and there the attacker in this battle would have an expected “window” of between 3 and 5 units remaining. Now, I know that if you had 4 or 5 units remaining you would be able to take Karelia without any moral dilemmas, but suppose that you had [1 art, 3 fig] and you had to take a casualty.

Do you clear Karelia and fly off 3 fighters or do you lose a fighter and take Karelia?

[Jennifer]

My experience, and Frood supports my experienced results, is that you end up with Karelia most of the time with 2 or 3 fighters, Infantry and Artillery.  (Usually 3 fighters.)

Frood is telling me 22% with Infantry, Artillery, 3 Fighters

if you don’t elect to lose another fighter to have that second ground unit, and do take the extra hit, it’s 20% you have Artillery, 3 Fighters (though in the last battle, I’d lose a fighter to keep Karelia in a strong enough position it CANNOT be liberated giving me position, strength and a National Advantage twice.  That’s a trade of 10 IPC for a fighter for +10 IPC in National Objectives, +4 in Territory and +6 in an AA Gun I can walk out over two rounds.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

if you don’t elect to lose another fighter to have that second ground unit, and do take the extra hit, it’s 20% you have Artillery, 3 Fighters (though in the last battle, I’d lose a fighter to keep Karelia in a strong enough position it CANNOT be liberated giving me position, strength and a National Advantage twice.  That’s a trade of 10 IPC for a fighter for +10 IPC in National Objectives, +4 in Territory and +6 in an AA Gun I can walk out over two rounds.)

Hmm.
Let’s assume Germany takes with an art and then NCMs in the 2 tanks.

I see Russia with a 75% chance of countering those three units with 4 inf, tank.

That doesn’t allow the gun to be walked out, and reduces your return on the battle computations  (minus 2 tanks that only defended, not attacked) you are spouting as the reason to do this combat.