Your best games as Germany?

I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect.

The point is not how much territory you can take with a nation, it’s how much you can hold onto.

It doesn’t matter which nation you play with when you use this principle as your first and foremost strategy.

Taking territory is secondary when confronted with the possibility of losing more territory by attacking than by preparing your defenses for a turn.

But territory, for ANY amount of time, is income.  And income means units.

For example, game I am currently playing, Russia pushed out into Manch, Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine.  Germany pushed back, so did Japan.

BUT…
Russia is about to build $34 worth of units in R3. 
Germany and Japan both lost about the same number of units in their counter attacks as Russia lost
Even after the counter-attacks, and before Russia moves again, Russia STILL has an income of $25, and will probably be at $28 after R3.
Not to mention that US still ahs Sinkiang, and India is going to be liberated by Russia for UK.

That means the Allies are significantly net positive on units.

I did not hold all of that territory, that is true.  But last turn the Axis was fighting to regain their own territory, instead of invading mine.

And, I think, Switch just illistrated the fundamental flaw in the game.  How many times a year do YOU pay your income taxes?  Why should a nation get 100% of a year’s income off a territory by holding it for a month or two before it’s liberated by the other side?

I really think Mr. Harris needs to address this in Axis and Allies Revised 2nd Edition.  Once per cycle you should collect your income and it should come before any other actions.  Meanwhile, SBR’s would just push you negative until you collect income.  Though, I’m also for reducing the cost on bombers to 10 IPC and doing away with SBRs and dropping their defense to 0 or something.

@Sp4nky:

another question (if they get annoying……just don’t read  :lol:) is it possible to PBF or PBEM with 5 people?

Yea, it’s possible.

Also, with respect to SBR, it takes up too much time.  Also it can get extreme after a while.  6 Allied Bombers can equal =32 IPC from Germany every round.  And for some reason that AA gun never hits when you’re the one being SBRed.

Much easier to just reduce the cost of the unit, simplify the game and take SBR out.  (LL basically killed SBR as well…you do 3 dmg, you take 3dmg.)

@Jennifer:

And, I think, Switch just illistrated the fundamental flaw in the game.  How many times a year do YOU pay your income taxes?  Why should a nation get 100% of a year’s income off a territory by holding it for a month or two before it’s liberated by the other side?

I really think Mr. Harris needs to address this in Axis and Allies Revised 2nd Edition.  Once per cycle you should collect your income and it should come before any other actions.  Meanwhile, SBR’s would just push you negative until you collect income.  Though, I’m also for reducing the cost on bombers to 10 IPC and doing away with SBRs and dropping their defense to 0 or something.

Considering the income isn’t money, your point makes no sense.

Edit: Just play that the total number of destroyed IPC can’t exceed the amount of territory for all bombers, not just one. Also allow fighters to intecept the bombers. It is way more realistic, both historically and economically.

The Axis lost industry from the B-17’s, and a significant amount. But they were still able to produce 40,000 airplanes in 1944. Meanwhile, the U.S. lost 33% of all built B-17’s.

I have no problem adding in Cover Air Patrol to shoot down bombers, but it adds more rules to the game, not less.  I was aiming at less.

But we could say max damage of 50% of max production by a capital or 100% of max production of another territory not to exceed 25% of a nations total income per game round.  If that’s better then doing away with it entirely.

@Jennifer:

I have no problem adding in Cover Air Patrol to shoot down bombers, but it adds more rules to the game, not less.  I was aiming at less.

But we could say max damage of 50% of max production by a capital or 100% of max production of another territory not to exceed 25% of a nations total income per game round.  If that’s better then doing away with it entirely.

But it is strategy game. It needs to have many vague, complex rules. Just kidding, though I think it would enhance the game enough. I like the 25% idea, also.

Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying

@ajgundam5:

Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying

Yea, I’ve done it.  England/America need to maintain 3 bombers each.  Odds are you’ll loose 1 every round which is easily replaced by either nation.  Average death: (4 bombers to germany, 2 to s. europe) is about 14dmg to germany, 7 to s. europe or 21 a round.  Meanwhile, you use your extra cash to get land units and reclaim Africa and Russia basically gets a walk into Europe.  Russia 24 + 38 for Europe = 62 IPC a round income to nail Japan with.

My best game as Germany was against the tradition allied strategy of “all forces after germany first”.  Consistantly through the game I bought either 1 bomber or 1 fighter per turn and the rest infantry.  My conquest of Africa was fairly quick and by the time the Americans had enough force to land (second turn) on me the US could not protect its fleet from my AF in Western that could hit both their navy and troops that had landed.  I had taken Africa by the 3rd turn and kept sending 2 pieces a turn into Africa and producing 1 fighter.  This may seem like a lot but it had the function of keeping the entire attention of the US and UK because they had to land on me and not the other way around.  The rest of my $ went to feed the Russian front, and with the additional IPC from Africa I could afford to fight that to a stand still (the bombers in Western could still strike the Russian forces for offensive power, and I was pretty much matching them with infantry buys).

I was taking on all 3 powers by myself for quite some time.  My partner was new at the game and not too good at Japan, but even he was working his way up towards Russia and the allies knew they had to do something.  So the US/UK both landed a huge amount of men in Algeria.  At that time I sacraficed my entire AF and navy and hit his fleet ignoring the land forces there.  The net result was just about total destruction on both sides.  I think they walked away with 2 battleships.  Although the loss of my coveted AF sucked, it bought me a lot of “alone time” with Russia, and with Japan sneaking up from the east and me buying almost comepletly armor/infantry (with no west wall to protect) Russia fell quickly.  I slowed the advance of the allied troops that had landed by placing all of my units 2 spaces from their main force.  This ensured a slow advance because they could not Blitz through all of my holdings (my forces in africa could not be destroyed by their armor alone).

I’ve heard the 100% armor route is good too.  Makes Russia a punching bag, and you really don’t need a navy anyway.

Hmm, Germany getting 8+ tanks a round, Russia making 8- infantry a round….sounds like a good proposition.

And when those waves of 8-14 UK/US divisions start hitting, you have very few pieces between you and lost territory/lost capital…

@Jennifer:

@ajgundam5:

Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying

Yea, I’ve done it.  England/America need to maintain 3 bombers each.  Odds are you’ll loose 1 every round which is easily replaced by either nation.  Average death: (4 bombers to germany, 2 to s. europe) is about 14dmg to germany, 7 to s. europe or 21 a round.  Meanwhile, you use your extra cash to get land units and reclaim Africa and Russia basically gets a walk into Europe.  Russia 24 + 38 for Europe = 62 IPC a round income to nail Japan with.

Yea you would need to conquer Africa first because otherwise the bombers going to Southern from UK have to fly over WEU which has an AA

It also defeats the purpsose of the first 3 BOMs, sicne all they are doing is destroying teh Africa income…

If you’re using lend lease then Russia can use bombers too :evil:

@ncscswitch:

And when those waves of 8-14 UK/US divisions start hitting, you have very few pieces between you and lost territory/lost capital…

Well, yea, but you’d hopefully crush the Russians under the heel of your boot before America’s forces start comming.  It’s going to be at least 3 turns before they can think about landing in force.

A 4 division follow up to a 6-8 division UK landing in Turn 2 is pretty nice force… more than Germany is building…