• I know it’s probably safer to build up forces and then attack, especially if you have the time. But I think the game is more fun when you use everything, every time, everywhere.

    What do you think?


  • You would die very fast spreading out too much.  Better to focus on defenses first (with expendable infantry).  This is the basic strategy for both Russia and Germany throughout much of the game.  (Russia needing to dump most of its resources in Karelia, Germany needing to re-enforce East Europe and prepare for a British / US invasion of West Europe. )

    Keep in mind that when you attack (as an allied power) anywhere on the European mainland, if you dont have much in the way of numbers, Germany will more than likely be able to counter-attack you right back off the continent (thus forcing you to waste at least 2 turns going back to your respective supply base and back) - while in the meantime, you’re giving Germany 2 full turns to re-enforce his borders.


  • i think the game is more fun when i use sound strategic judgement


  • @billfmsd:

    I know it’s probably safer to build up forces and then attack, especially if you have the time. But I think the game is more fun when you use everything, every time, everywhere.

    What do you think?

    well i think that depends on the circumstances, sometimes i have to spread thin other time i need to build up, depends on each strategy and the oportunities you see on the map


  • @theduke:

    i think the game is more fun when i use sound strategic judgement

    I guess it depends on who you are playing. If the game is too calculated, there is less luck involve. Luck is half the fun.


  • Those who asked WHERE you are talking have it right.

    In Africa, Germany can spread thin.  If the UK and US decide to take Africa back, there is littler Germany can do about it (without leaving Russia too strong for it to matter in the long run).  So spread thin, grab IPC’s while you can, and be happy for it.

    In the Siberian Russian territories, Japan can spread thin as needed to take IPC’s from Russia.  Every territory Japan can take from Russia is that much less infantry for Germany to blast through.  And if Japan keeps supplying cannon fodder for the slash and burn assaults on Russian territories, being spread thin just means that Russia has to attack small clusters of Jap infantry using their own infantry in less effective attacks.

    In Europe, spreading thin can be fatal, unless you spread very far very fast.  As an example of that, the radical German strategy of simultaneous attacks on Karelia, Eastern and Caucuses is an example of spreading thin that MIGHT be worth it.  You make Russia build in Russia (even if they re-take Karelia), and prevent them from massing there again by the threat in the Caucuses; and open up some “enclosed” territories that you can hold with no forces (so long as Russia never holds Karlelia at the start of their turn).

    Lastly there is the “apparent” spread thin that is really massed troops.  This would include a strategy I posted elsewhere of Two Japan fleets, one in Japan, the other in Australia, that can both converge to hammer any US assault in the central pacific.  You may look spread thin, but the reality is that you have forces massed for attack.

    But when it comes to Karelia and Eastern Europe, there is ONLY one answer:  The more, the better… ALWAYS!

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts