Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?
The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London.
Uhh If Germany takes London it’s also game over. Another part of the game I don’t believe has been play tested enough with the initial setup. It doesn’t take too much luck for Germany to take out UK since it has literally 3 turns to do so.
It’s not game over. US can easily liberate London unless Germany ignores Russia
Agreed. It most definitely is NOT over. Look at my Sealion thread in the PBF games with jim10.
Still… I am thinking a USA IC in Norway signals the beginning of the end for Deutschland. Even if the US pays only token attention to Japan, if Germany is boxed and kept from advancing… the Axis lose.
If US ignores Japan then Japan should build a ton of tranports and shuck the US - not a wee raid, but a maximum build shuck. Try defending Norway AND San Francisco…
Lets keep some perspective here. US can only take territory on turn 4 if the axis want it that way. So turn 5 they build the factory, turn 6 it starts producing units.
Sorry I’m not seeing it. I can’t see how they can take and hold it by then against a decent german player. And if the allies are throwing the kitchen sink in the north, then Italy gets to roam free in the middle east. It could be a powerful strat, but I don’t see it being overpowered. No more so than gunning for Italy hardcore.
Lets keep some perspective here. US can only take territory on turn 4 if the axis want it that way. So turn 5 they build the factory, turn 6 it starts producing units.
Sorry I’m not seeing it. I can’t see how they can take and hold it by then against a decent german player. And if the allies are throwing the kitchen sink in the north, then Italy gets to roam free in the middle east. It could be a powerful strat, but I don’t see it being overpowered. No more so than gunning for Italy hardcore.
The only person who needs to throw the sink in at Norway is the US. Britain can focus wherever she pleases or wherever is helpful. If the US doesn’t enter the war until turn 4 then that means India will like wise be a fortress and can likely send some help to the Middle East. And even if the US isn’t in the war until turn 4, they’ll be ready to go with a factory in Norway and hit the ground running. Considering that Germany will generally not attack the USSR until turn 3… welll then, there is plenty of time for a factory to be useful. Germany cannot take Moscow by turn 5. They can barely take Leningrad or Stalingrad by that time. The war should be no where near over by turn 5.
I saw the Norway Factory option the first time I looked at the map and read the rules.
It is a powerfull strategy, but I agree with some of the things that are said here even though I don’t think that it’s necessarily a gamebreaker.
It might be best to disallow the US to build a factory there. Or at least only allow them a minor one.
Lets keep some perspective here. US can only take territory on turn 4 if the axis want it that way. So turn 5 they build the factory, turn 6 it starts producing units.
Sorry I’m not seeing it. I can’t see how they can take and hold it by then against a decent german player. And if the allies are throwing the kitchen sink in the north, then Italy gets to roam free in the middle east. It could be a powerful strat, but I don’t see it being overpowered. No more so than gunning for Italy hardcore.
The only person who needs to throw the sink in at Norway is the US. Britain can focus wherever she pleases or wherever is helpful. If the US doesn’t enter the war until turn 4 then that means India will like wise be a fortress and can likely send some help to the Middle East. And even if the US isn’t in the war until turn 4, they’ll be ready to go with a factory in Norway and hit the ground running. Considering that Germany will generally not attack the USSR until turn 3… welll then, there is plenty of time for a factory to be useful. Germany cannot take Moscow by turn 5. They can barely take Leningrad or Stalingrad by that time. The war should be no where near over by turn 5.
Actually the UK is hard pressed to keep Italy honest alone, esp in the face of a G1 carrier buy. Italy will take egypt etc, its just a question of how long they hold it.
As far as India being a ‘fortress’ in the case of a turn 3 war dec? Again not really. They are missing out on 5 IPCs turn 1, and 10 on turn 2 in the case of a J3 war dec from NOs they would get in pacific. Yeah they’ll have a stack of Inf, big deal. Russia will be delt with, china will nearly be dead and Russia will start having to worry about her backdoor from china or get thin against Germany, and Japan still has as many planes as the UK has infantry. Your looking at 16 turn 1 (5 inf) 24 turn 2 (8 inf), and your turn 3 income will go back down to the low teens at the most after you buy 27 (9) inf. Thats what, 5+8+6+9 = 28 inf, +4 from malanya if your lucky. Big deal, Japan has 28 planes.
And I’m saying at earliest turn 5. I typically have a stack of germans in the north for much longer in case of that, not to mention an insane stack of planes so good luck holding it that early. And I’m starting to see the value in a german finland factory.
But, as Jim would say, if your up for a game send me a message and we’ll get one going :evil:
the norway factory eventually finished me as the axis; now i’ve learned that holding norway (and denmark for that matter) is extremely important. next time i’ll either build my own IC there or keep transports and aircraft ready to take it back immediately!!
But, as Jim would say, if your up for a game send me a message and we’ll get one going :evil:
I don’t know who Jim is… But I’d love to play a game with you. I don’t do online games though. Or at least I never have before.
So what turn do you attack USSR with Germany? If you wait until G3, then Russia will at least be defensible, if not well positioned. By turn 3 (providing Japan war declaration) the US can have presence enough to cause Axis problems. They can strike out for Italy, Japan or Germany and make the Axis player recall some of his offense. I just don’t see how, even on turn 3, Germany cannot be everywhere. It cannot have a (respectable) navy, an “insane” stack of planes, a dissuasive presence in Norway, a defensible position in France AND a resolved push into Russia… there is no way to handle all of these competing factors with total zeal. If you can prove me wrong then do it. I would love to see it so that I too can know how it is done. Germany is the hardest balancing act in the entire game. The Axis have a lot of clout, but after turn 4 or 5 the magic is gone and it really becomes a hard and dirty war for them, at least for Germany.
If the US can get a factory in Norway and the other Allies are still breathing (and Japan doesn’t have all Asia and Africa)… The Axis will lose. That is my prediction.
Germany starts with 2 guys up there, gets 4 for activating Finland, plus can transport 2 first round. Assuming said transport survives until turn 4 lets say, thats another 6 guys for a total of 14 troops up there when the US comes knocking. Those guys normally do not advance in my games unless they are needed, they sit in Finland as a threat to Russia.
A simple carrier buy lets you threaten sea lion to keep UK honest turn 1. Then you simply move back to the baltic if you have too, possibly adding a destroyer and a smattering of subs as you go. In the baltic your boats are pretty difficult to get too.
You start with 8 planes, should loose 2 at most on turn 1. You can easily purchase a plane a turn or so. Combined with a sub or two the UK/US is forced to have a respectable fleet to do landings.
Italy should hit 30 income around turn 2. Thats 10 ground troops to help cover and allows you to make difficult to kill stacks.
Germany has 3 production in france, 3 in Normady, and 10 right next door. It is very easy to place a few troops a turn there to build up and incase of a large threat do a large drop the turn before.
There are two main ways to threaten Russia, either with numbers or mobility and your income allows you to choose. Mech infantry with Italian can openers are extremely deadly, there 4 IPC blitzers in that regard. Ukraine is a great place for a large stack of 'em. Alternately, you can send 15+ inf/art at 'em and simply out produce them. They will start to loose money fast once war is declared between Germany, Italy, and Japan wailing on 'em.
the norway factory eventually finished me as the axis; now i’ve learned that holding norway (and denmark for that matter) is extremely important. next time i’ll either build my own IC there or keep transports and aircraft ready to take it back immediately!!
The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs. Therefore I still believe the Germans are much better off building a (major) IC in Norway themselves. That way they can both be used defensively and if that’s not necessary, you can move them to the Eastern front which is only two turns away in the case of infantry and one in thecase of tanks ans mech. infantry.
the norway factory eventually finished me as the axis; now i’ve learned that holding norway (and denmark for that matter) is extremely important. next time i’ll either build my own IC there or keep transports and aircraft ready to take it back immediately!!
The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs. Therefore I still believe the Germans are much better off building a (major) IC in Norway themselves. That way they can both be used defensively and if that’s not necessary, you can move them to the Eastern front which is only two turns away in the case of infantry and one in thecase of tanks ans mech. infantry.
Building one there yourself can be helpful for sure. But it also just adds more incentive for the Allies to take it. Besides, it will spread your production out even further. Which isn’t good of you are looking to defend the factories themselves.
I wouldn’t be totally against the strategy though. I could see benefits in certain applications.
@Chompers#2:
US spending in Pacific is a viable way to get an allied win. The problem seems to be that spending all in the Atlantic is an even more viable way to win.
If anything, the game is “broken” because the Allies are too strong in general, and hence can gain the upper hand from a variety of strategies and approaches. It the power imbalance, not the specific strategy, which is (potentially) the problem.
If Germany can’t hold USA out of Norway long enought for the Axis to counquer Middle East, India, and Africa, cripple Russia, and gain a favourable economic position, then the game may be imbalanced. But don’t blame the the Norwegian factory - This is a symptom of a (possible) problem.
Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.
Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.
I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway. The carrier helps level some offensive firepower at Norway, but most of your planes can make it there anyway. Although, the carrier is particularly good protection for the transports. Locking up a “fair” German fleet in the Baltic is not a bad idea. Given enough support ships and transports, Norway is defensible. Plus you can move men to the front in Russia more quickly, or threaten Leningrad; which is what I am doing now.
It would be terrible for Germany if the US established a major factory in Norway, because with the British and Americans reinforcing it, there is just no way to hold it. It would be difficult for Germany to mount Eastern front operations and squabble over an IC across the Baltic.
I played as Germany last night, Built a factory in Norway of turn one and built 3 tanks there (plus 1 AA gun) every turn. It worked as a great defense in the north, kept my enemy down in the south near Italy, and also I had 8 tanks to send in with infantry when I attacked Russia on Turn 4. Might not work every time, but It’s not the worst place to build your factory, especially if you don’t want your opponent building his there. P.S. I still lost the game, but it was because of Italy, it was my first time being the Axis, and only my 4th real game. I’ll do better next time.
I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.
In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.
And for those who think they are history buffs who may contrdict me with some obscure example, let me give you one I already now. I don’t remember the exact places or years, but thier was one instance where they did let bombers land in Russian territory. The Russians kept them for safe keeping then gave them back stripped. They were looking for technology they could use.
It gives some realism. They also don’t liberate anything. If the Russians take it from the axis, they keep it. This should help in terms of not allowing the Russians to be reinforced. It also would make it much less advanages to buidling an IC.
Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.
I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway.
Well, that’s how I’ve been opening, but as far as the defense of Norway is concerned a G1 CV will keep the fleet alive - the transports can always come later.
The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs.
A Baltic fleet with three transports can rush six ground units a turn to the Eastern front all the way from West Germany. That’s better than a Norwegian IC, which is no closer tho Russia than West Germany and no closer to Leningrad than Germany is).
A CV + 2trn build G1 forces UK to take defensive measures even if your aren’t pursuing Sea Lion. Your builds keep your starting fleet alive in sz113, allowing a maximal assault on the UK navy. Your fleet keeps the Americans out of Norway, and deters an incursion across the Baltic straight. These things buy a lot of time against the Allies while fighting Russia.
I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.
America don’t really need to go into Russia. USA will build troops in Norway and transport them directly into Europe. It’s a bad scene for Germany
Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.
I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway.
Well, that’s how I’ve been opening, but as far as the defense of Norway is concerned a G1 CV will keep the fleet alive - the transports can always come later.
The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs.
A Baltic fleet with three transports can rush six ground units a turn to the Eastern front all the way from West Germany. That’s better than a Norwegian IC, which is no closer tho Russia than West Germany and no closer to Leningrad than Germany is).
A CV + 2trn build G1 forces UK to take defensive measures even if your aren’t pursuing Sea Lion. Your builds keep your starting fleet alive in sz113, allowing a maximal assault on the UK navy. Your fleet keeps the Americans out of Norway, and deters an incursion across the Baltic straight. These things buy a lot of time against the Allies while fighting Russia.
I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.
America don’t really need to go into Russia. USA will build troops in Norway and transport them directly into Europe. It’s a bad scene for Germany
I built a carrier (landed two fighters on it) and a transport once and the British took it out entirely having a carrier with two fighters on it left over. Agreed the Germans had lousy die rolls whereas those of the Brits were great. The British attacking force consisted of: 1 CV, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters from UK.
To be completely sure your fleet will survive I suggest building a CV (land two fighters), a destroyer and a sub for exactly 30 points.
In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.
Your absolutely right. I can back up your statement, remember the famous Doolittle Raid? This is a quote from the wikipedia article “One of the B-25s landed in the Soviet Union at Vladivostok, where it was confiscated and its crew interned for more than a year” That is an interesting house rule. I also remember in the first AA Europe version, any allied unit that entered Russian Territory became Russian the next turn, but I think this is going the opposite direction and actually helps the allies get an advantage.
So far, playing and fighting against the Soviets, I think its far more important where they position their forces, than what those forces are made up of.
To be completely sure your fleet will survive I suggest building a CV (land two fighters), a destroyer and a sub for exactly 30 points.
I agree with this, its a better buy, especially if your opponent(s) is/are aggressive and knows that they might as well hit your fleet right off the bat and not wait around for sealion. If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game. I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.
I side with you in buying the warships first and the Transports later.
Unless you want to legitimately threaten both Russia and Britain on turn 2. I am beginning to think that turn 2 is the best time to attack Russia, before they get too situated and consolidated. As for Britain, well, even if you aren’t serious about a Sealion, they don’t know that, so they’ll have to prepare anyway. I am on turn 3 and conducting an invasion of Leningrad now. Granted I could have bought my transports on G2 instead of G1, but buying on G1 hasn’t hurt me at all. And I didn’t even do that well against the British fleet. Instead my ships are now holed up in the Baltic. Only British planes can get them now.
The transports may become a bad buy if you fail as Germany to totally smash the British ships near the Baltic/English Channel. Even so, Britain will have only 4 aircraft to attack the Germans with on UK1. I would not make such an attack if I were the British (with only planes). It is far too wasteful. Most assuredly all your planes will be destroyed, while you may destroy the German cruiser and a fighter; easily replaced.
