Thank you for clarifying.
Most common T1 Axis buys
-
The Devils Tongue :-o
-
Germany–
1 dd 1 ss 1 cvJapan–
usually 2 ss 2 trans? sometimes 2 trans 1 minor IC?Italy–
really depends on situation after UK1… 1 ftr? 1 dd? 1 inf 1 ss? etc. -
I like the following :
Germany - 1 AC, 1 DD, 1 Sub
Japan - 1 Minor IC, 2 Trans
Italy - 1 FTR -
I like to save my I1 money or at minimum buy 1 art or 1 sub. This way I am guaranteed I2 to be able to afford a CV.
-
so nobody just sets down infantry for Germany?
-
I agree with Gargantua on the German build. J1 I like 1 tr, 1 art, and a naval base for Hainan Island. This keeps your tranny shuttles moving back and forth between the home island and SE Asia effectively.
-
so nobody just sets down infantry for Germany?
Not usually, at least not in our games. Germany can’t afford to lose the North Atlantic, really, and they don’t have the beef at setup to hold against a British counterattack.
-
so nobody just sets down infantry for Germany?
German infantry T1 is probably not the worst buy, but improving the navy is much better. Otherwise the UK might be able to destroy it turn 1, or you lose control of the north Atlantic too fast. UK will not be pressured for 3-4 turns and can harass Italy immediately.
The only things that seem commonish that may be worse are a major IC in Romania, as it offers little advantage as the game progresses and shows your intentions clearly.
-
Germany
I had two different purchase options depending on weather or not I was attempting Sea Lion or Barbarossa. but I have since learned that Sea Lion is the best direction for Germany during the first three turns IMO.
When you consider everything like the added NO for holding the UK, $8 added income ($10 if you include Scotland), taking all of UKs money, and most importantly, taking away Britain’s ability to build units and wage war. Its a no brainer. That said, My first German purchase is an Aircraft Carrier, 1 Destroyer and a Submarine.
The most important element of a Sea Lion operation is a formidable Kriegsmarine. The western Allies may attempt taking out the German ships in round 1 with as many aircraft at their disposal, so it is imperative to protect the startup ships. an aircraft carrier instantly bolsters the fleet by adding a defense of 1@2 and 2@4 (if you land fighters which I recommend) it also gives the aircraft attacking the channel a place to land. All this for $16.
The Submarine purchase prevents the UK collecting bonus money if the Atlantic battles go bad for Germany and they end up losing all their startup subs (can’t allow the UK any extra money to build up a home defense). The Destroyer is fodder in the event that the Germans lose a cruiser and/or have a damaged battleship, its a cheap hit instead of taking off a fighter or something else major if the Allies attempt a suicide mission.
If Germany takes all the available land (France, Normandy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Finland) during the first round, they should have enough $ to buy 10 transports (I suggest buying all ten even if the job can be done with less, they will come in handy during the rest of the game).
Japan
I buy 2 Transports and 1 Cruiser J1. I am currently experimenting with a strategy where I go full out on Calcutta abandoning the China coast for the same money south. eventually I will buy a minor IC in Malaya and after the capture of India I will create an outpost that can threaten ANZAC. The problem I am having is, defending the home sea zone because my attacking fleet in the south (which needs to be as large as possible, especially if the UK diverts its Mediterranean fleet) always gets cut off by a huge US fleet parked in the Caroline Islands.
Italy
My first few rounds, I purchase 1 transport and 1 infantry. I than use the rest of the game landing troops on every coast in every direction. Italy is easy to play because the goal is never in doubt, just collect all the Italian NOs.
-
I agree with Gargantua on the German build. J1 I like 1 tr, 1 art, and a naval base for Hainan Island. This keeps your tranny shuttles moving back and forth between the home island and SE Asia effectively.
I really like this strategy for Japan.
-
so nobody just sets down infantry for Germany?
i would!
i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game. i would suggest 3 artillery, 3 mech, 1 sub.
italy has two options which depend on whether the Uk does a taranto-raid or not. in the first case, maybe a sub, rest saved. in the second case, two mech for supporting germany on the eastern front.
japan is more free, i guess. three options seem worth to be tried:
a) 3 transports, rest saved
b) 2 transports, 2 subs
c) 1 naval base (Hainan) and a transport, rest saved. -
@rock`n:
i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game. i would suggest 3 artillery, 3 mech, 1 sub.
Sealion most definitely is not a dead end.
-
okay, opinion accepted. :-)
but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”
without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)
-
@rock`n:
okay, opinion accepted. :-)
but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”
without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)
I’d much rather why you claim it is a dead end and then back that up, as it is you making claims.
However, I say it isn’t a dead end, because taking London does not cause you to loose the game.
-
i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…
it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?
and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?
now it is your turn… ;)
-
@rock`n:
i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…
it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?
and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?
now it is your turn… ;)
If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.
And if you can only hold England for 2 rounds, USA will land somewhere else after the 2 rounds, and with your troops in Russia, they’ll should do so easily.
And if you can dedicate enough resources to keep England at bay, you should be able to dedicate enough resources to keep Russia at bay.Resources used on taking England are resources which can now be used against Russia, after all transports can be used for assaults on Russia as well, so you can strike over a broader fronts. Or you can use the resources to threaten the USA fast.
Resources that US must now dedicate to Europe are less resources they can use to go after Japan giving them some space. Japan can then grow big and powerful. Possible even allowing Japan to move deep into Russia or participate with Germany on threatening USA, so they’ll care.
Having USA splitting income in turn 3 or 4 between Europe and Pacific is a golden opportunity for the Axis. -
i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:
If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.
thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…
another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!
-
3 turns for sea lion is standard and very possible, if done right it is more than just “optimistic”. I would never try to move all my units from the UK after I take it, I would leave them there to defend against a liberation force and even build on my new London minor IC. This way I can hold off the US because there are zero units being built by the UK, meaning Italy can take Africa and the southern IC (which would be difficult if the UK were building 3 tanks there every round).
All Germany needs to do is Hammer the first 4 buffer zones on the eastern front by taking 2 of the Russian ICs closest to Germany and than wait for the help of a powerful and rich Italy to defend against any American operations like torch or D-day before Germany mops up the rest of the Soviet Union. You say that sea lion takes time and I say sea lion buys time. besides, its not so much the money and time spent taking London but rather the British units you keep off the board by holding their capital.
-
@rock`n:
i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:
If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.
thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.It’s also the Axis keeping Russia at bay. The Italians can play a part, and Japan can play a part. Especially if USA is kept busy by Germany.
@rock`n:
as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…
another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.And when Russia turtles as you say England does, you can easily face the same situation and being bogged down outside Moscow while England and USA pounds on France and/or taking Africa away from Italy.
@rock`n:
and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!
When I play Japan I would love for the USA to only spend fully in pacific for 2 rounds.
That basically allows for taking India/China and possible Anzac pretty fast. Or allows you to push into Russia to keep pressure off the Germans. Or even stage an invasion of mainland USA.
The navy the US puts up in 2 rounds can’t pressure Japan mainland enough to divert many resources away from India/Anzac/China.Now, I’m not saying you can’t win without doing sealion or that you must do it - but it is far form an insta-loss as you seem to indicate. It is a very viable strategy - especially if playing bold with Axis and not just doing a Moscow rush.
-
@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)
another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.
@ grasshopper:
leaving german units in london helps russia even more! taking london is without any doubt a cool maneuver, but, imho, does not help winning this game, which is done holding 8 VCs in Europe OR 6 in the pacific. the latter is more difficult to achieve, i think.and did you realize, that africa is huge? you cannot get it in just three or four turns! i have never seen an allied-free africa in any game! or italy even taking south africa…and therefor you don´t have to buy three tanks a turn as the british, two inf minimum already can do.
what countries do you mean by “buffer zones” to be hammered? and when i am not mistaken, all russian ICs are minimum two steps from germany´s border away.
@both: did you ever win with sealion and etc.? ;)
edit: i refer myself to this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0
originally made for OOB, but still valuable for alpha 2+ since germany and italy have more units than before. please countercheck it first, then post answers. there you will see my “evolution” in german buys…
Suggested Topics
