Can Germany win without Africa?


  • 2007 AAR League

    Just playing my first real game in a while (PBEM with DarthMaximus, in the Play by Forum).

    Anyhow, my assault on Anglo-Egypt was a total flop (lost everything but my fighter) and UK has now unloaded 2 Arm 2 Inf in Algeria, with the US about to send 2 more boatloads. So the odds of maintaining any german presence in africa is slim. The question is, how tough will it be for Germany without ANY african income after UK2? Is it just a matter of hoping Japan is fast enough now, or can Germany put up a good fight without Africa?


  • Moderator

    @froodster:

    The question is, how tough will it be for Germany without ANY african income after UK2?

    Very tough.  😉    😄



  • if you have some people left in Africa and the Ukraine you might be able to transport them to Caucasus and take it.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @DarthMaximus:

    @froodster:

    The question is, how tough will it be for Germany without ANY african income after UK2?

    Very tough.  😉    😄

    Thanks for the unbiased opinion Darth 😛



  • Possible, but it seems unlikely.  You need ttht african income to halt UK’s transport buys and so you can afford losing WRus and Ukraine to the Russians without it seriously hurting you.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Depends.  It’s only Round 2.  Are you really strong on the Russian front?  Can you give up Norway, Karelia, Western and take Caucasus Hard and pound the Kremlin soon?  Africa’s good to have, but it’s not an end all be all situation.  I’ve won games as both Axis and Allies without Africa.  Mainly because my opponents were going heavy Africa instead of heavy main battlelines.

    Likewise, I’ve lost nearly every game where America went heavy Africa. (I have won one game with strong America and only because I somehow managed to work up to 30 armor with Russia in 15 rounds.)


  • 2007 AAR League

    I re-took Ukraine with 6 Inf 1 Art 5 Arm in G1 (which I think now was a mistake, depending what Darth does). He could take these out in a fairly even battle (or he could lose). What may save me is that  Japan had a phenomenal first round (not a single loss) and an IC in Manchuria and 5 Fighters in Frindo and 5 inf in China, so Russia may have to save some strength for the Japanese onslaught.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, or you could have 100% accuracy on defense too, for your Armor.

    Bash it out.  If it gets ridiculous, surrender.  Sorry, but when I play, if it’s hopeless, then I usually just surrender so we can start a replacement game.  Hopeless games are no fun for victor or looser.


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Jennifer:

    Yea, or you could have 100% accuracy on defense too, for your Armor.

    Bash it out.  If it gets ridiculous, surrender.  Sorry, but when I play, if it’s hopeless, then I usually just surrender so we can start a replacement game.  Hopeless games are no fun for victor or looser.

    You mean like your game with Switch?  😉



  • I’d pull out of Africa, save the remaining units there, and add to my forces against Moscow.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. We’ll see how R2 goes.

    I have little experience with actual play - 4 games against other newbies, basically, so I’m just wondering how screwed I am.



  • The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing 🙂



  • 2 inf 2 fig vs 1 inf at Karelia was overkill.  I usually use the German bomber to hit Anglo-Egypt too, with something like:

    1 bomb, 1 fig, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank vs Anglo-Egypt.  With a bid, I run 3 inf 3 tank instead, because I plan on trying to hold Anglo, and tanks are better defenders.

    1 battleship 1 trns 1 fig vs UK destroyer at Anglo.  I MIGHT leave the fighter out if the Ukraine fighter died.  But it’s risky because bad luck on the German side means a lost battleship or lost loaded transport, very bad.

    1 sub 4 fighter vs UK battleship.

    The other way route I run is Med battleship/transport/sub/fighter vs UK battleship and Gibraltar, Anglo as above for attempted unified German fleet on G2.  I’d only attempt that with an African bid; this is my “Ukraine counter” that leaves three German fighters free to counterattack against Ukraine.  Wow, why don’t I just give away all my secrets . . .  :roll:

    IMHO the German build was good, but the combat move off, and for Japan’s build IMHO not optimal.

    I think it looks dicey for froodster.

    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    I kill me.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Yeh - I’m still getting a feel for the actual game. I agree with Switch, I hope the extra few units from Africa, and the fact that I won’t be diverting any production to Africa, offset the loss.

    Anglo- I definitely should have attacked with greater strength. Oh well, now I don’t have to worry about spending money in Africa.

    The Med fleet - I used less strength than NPB suggested but came out unscathed (except losing the BB on UK1 - but on the other hand my TRN shot down his bomber and lived. The BB is of limited use now anyway.)

    Karelia - yes, overkill, but the figs weren’t missed anywhere else (except maybe Anglo E)

    Ukraine - that was a total blunder, but I lucked out on defence - he only killed my Inf, leaving my Arm + Art untouched, and losing more units himself in the attack. So I lost some Inf, but not as many as Darth, and all my expensive offensive units have been withdrawn to a more sensible location.

    I agree, the combat move was off, but I’ve been saved somewhat by lady luck, so IMHO it’s not so dicey now 🙂

    I think with Ger I’ll be able to keep Europe intact, and wait for Japan, which is going to cut through Asia like a hot knife through butter.

    As for Japan, I don’t see how the build was defective. I’ll be landing 9 units on J2, and 11 units on J3.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ajgundam5:

    @Jennifer:

    Yea, or you could have 100% accuracy on defense too, for your Armor.

    Bash it out.  If it gets ridiculous, surrender.  Sorry, but when I play, if it’s hopeless, then I usually just surrender so we can start a replacement game.  Hopeless games are no fun for victor or looser.

    You mean like your game with Switch?  😉

    Switch made it clear after Round 5, when he was still unable to crack Russia when Russia had almost no successes in both attack and defense, that he did not want a surrender.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I follow that logic too.  If you have extra fighters not engaged and you have the movement to still land them where you want, then just add them to whatever battles in range that have the least success potential for added overkill.

    After all, if you don’t use them, then they serve no purpose.  If you do use them, maybe they are the only unit that actually hits something?  I’ve attacked switch with 3 infantry, 2 armor and 1 fighter and the fighter was the only thing to hit, 3 times in a row!


  • 2007 AAR League

    @ncscswitch:

    The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing 🙂

    Japan is doing quite nicely. Not a single Jap unit lost on J1 - Pearl Harbor, the Aussie TRN, China and India all fell, and Bury was a walk-in.

    For J2, Sinkiang is deserted, Sov. Far East is empty, and Persia has 1 sole Inf. I have 5 Inf in China and 5 Fig in FIC, and 3 TRN and an IC in Manchuria mean I will adding 9 more units to the mainland on J2 (mostly Inf/Art)

    So at end of J2 Jap production should be at 40.

    My take though is that units are more important than production. An Inf at your front is worth a lot more than a 3 IPC territory, because those IPCs will only turn into an Inf back at your IC at the end of your next turn - a long way from being of actual use. You accomplish a lot more by strafing the enemy, knocking out perhaps 12 IPCs of active units, and letting them hold the territory, than taking it and then having your own 20 IPCs of units wiped out in the counter. Those are far more important.

    Which is why I think it helps me a lot more that no Inf were lost in taking China (and  that 5 Inf are now one territory closer to Moscow) than the taking of China itself helps me.

    2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.



  • That is true MOST of the time Dan…

    But you do reach the point in some games where just going after dollars is all you have to do… damn the cost!  😄



  • @froodster:

    2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.

    If you leave China alone, though, that’s more units the US will be producing and attacking you with.

    My preference is to take territories if possible, until very late game.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I guess what I’m saying is that IPC income is only part of the picture, and perhaps less important a part than people commonly think. The other part is battle losses, which is much more volatile. Suppose you are generating 40 IPCs/turn, but you lose a lone battleship to a couple of subs, and 1 Inf and 1 Arm that you blitzed into empty territories (your only combat move, adding 4 to income) are wiped out. Your real gain in strength that round is only 12 IPCs: $44 cash at end of round minus $32 in lost units.

    Income only helps because it helps put units in the field. If you lose those units foolishly, you may as well not have had the income in the first place. At the end of the game it’s the player with the most forces that wins the final critical battle.

    I’m not saying I don’t believe in taking territory, just that you have  to consider the full cost. Ie. I will need a ton of infantry to push for Moscow, and it takes me 4 turns to get them there. Do I really want to throw a few Inf into the fire every turn after having waited so long to get them to the front?

    This is especially so because the other side still gets the income if they recapture. It might be different if you could effectively deprive the other side of income with cheap little land grabs.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Well, the whole idea is that those units will get a defensive roll and, on average, take their due on their way back to the parts box. Usually it’s better to trade units and territories than to let your opponent keep territory for free unless it’s clear you will be losing much more than your opponent. Infantry defends better than attacks so you might as well force your opponent to let you get those defensive 2’s.



  • And there is also the issue of pushing the front back, making the enemy have to fight to re-gain territory instead of gain new territory, which in itself can be a critical tactical advantage.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Or just letting them keep territory and moving more units up to the front, so you can conserve infantry.


  • 2007 AAR League

    This is way off topic by now but I don’t mind because I started this thread. Consider this scenario:

    Germany and Russia keep retaking Ukr and leaving 1 inf to occupy. Each turn, both countries earn 3 IPCs, and each loses 3 IPCs when their Inf is killed. Neither gains an advantage.

    If one side stops the swapping, then neither side loses the 3 IPC from the lost Inf. However, the one country stops earning the 3 IPCs. So I guess both sides are forced to keep doing it. It’s a deadlock that neither can leave without giving the other an advantage.

    I wonder if retaking with 2 Inf is smart. With 1 Inf, the other side can get away with retaking with just one Inf. But with 2 Inf, you force them to dedicate more than 2 Inf to guarantee a re-take, thus weakening the main force more than yours was weakened.

    The other issue is which side is hurt more by having their fighter(s) tied up in supporting the attacking Inf, and who has a harder time replacing Inf at the front. On my last German turn, I had almost no Inf at the front, leaving my armor stack without fodder. Not a good tactical situation.

    The one advantage to falling back is that the pursuer is fighting “upstream” - their Inf cannot keep up with the front, while you continuously meet reinforcements coming toward you.



  • You trade it until you have enough forces forward to TAKE AND HOLD.

    Then you repeat trading the NEXT territory in line while you move more forces to the front.

    At least that is what I using trading for 🙂


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 157
  • 15
  • 25
  • 97
  • 2
  • 21
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

67
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts