New German move, let me know what you think

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

ONLY if you have the Combined Bombardment technology.

Otherwise, ONLY the Battleship fires, and then only once for the entire battle, and then only if it did not engage in combat the same turn as the amphibious landing.

@Craig:

Krieghund- Your sooooo smooth!!! :-D :-D

Get a room!  :wink:

Seriously, though, Kreighund is gettin it on with those answers.

oo imma published author.

Please remember to correct the article as rjclayton mentioned.

thx.

I’d actually go 3 tanks, 3 infantry.  3 Tanks in Russia, 3 Infantry in Caucasus.  Gives you vastly stronger attack/defense then just infantry alone would.

I’d rather not see more tanks then infantry.  Personally, I think a ratio of 1.4 infantry to 1 armor is about as low a ratio as you should have to allow yourself sufficient cannon fodder.

after you launch the program select “load new game” look for the file revised.xml, select it and click  open.  now try starting a game, it should give you the revised version.

Weapons development is a viable option now since you can choose what you get instead of spending a lot of $ and getting super subs.

Even though it’s six times as easy to get the tech you want, the risk associated with it doesn’t translate well into consistent strategies. If you roll 9 die of tech (45 IPCs) you have an almost 20% chance of NOT achieving the tech. That sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Ironically super subs is the only tech that I try for, and only if I’m the US and gunning after Japan. Rockets are pretty good for Germany but I really can’t find space in my economy to throw away 30+ IPCs for an uncertain tech. If you’re a habitual gambler or feel like you’re playing against  superior player so you need to take your chances, then I would say tech. Otherwise, it isn’t going to win you a whole lot of games unless you are already winning.

One part of the game that I have not explored is the option of the US going into the pacific in a big way.  Of course, the pressure off Germany is a huge reason not to do it, and it was hardly ever done in the old game.  But the increased value of the islands make it more attractive.

This is pretty fun to do if you have all the Allies cooperating against Japan. You can really make Japan squirm if the US is dumping all cash into a navy while Russia/UK swipe the Asian territories away. If the US smartly maneuvers the navy and researches super subs right before a big battle, likely Japan is going to be staring at an 8 IPC paycheck and squatting on his capital for the rest of the game. But yeah, taking pressure off Germany is a pretty big no-no. You’re leaving 10 IPCs in Africa alone to Germany (couple more in trans-jordan/persia as well) and letting him hammer Russia with full strength, which is much harder to defend against than a Japanese attempt. I admit I’m not an expert though; I haven’t taken that many games to conclusion in a real bonafide KJF strategy. It’s hard to say if the Allies can recover or not once Germany kills Russia; perhaps taking the Japanese mainland gives the Allies too good of a position to retake, but then again maybe Germany takes too many IPCs and can overrun the UK in short order and then the US.