• This topic comes up from time to time… and after several experiments lately with some attempts at new concepts, it is time to re-state the basics…

    The keys to success with Germany:
    1.  Keep your ships alive as long as possible.  And THAT means an AC build in SZ5 on G1.  I have tried putting a TRN there to reduce naval expenditures, and eventhough the SIM says it is a viable move and should destroy the RAF, you still end up either with no fleet or almost no fleet after UK1.  And that leave Germany WIDE OPEN to the Brits.  Bite the bullet, spend $16 on an AC, land some FIGs on it and make UK go the long way around, or spend several turns on naval build up.  Letting the UK land in Eastern on UK3 is generally a BAD idea, and that is far easier to prevent with a fleet in SZ5.

    2.  Build Infantry.  Germany is going to need infantry throughout the game.  You need it to trade with Russia, to shield your tanks, and to protect your territory from Allies amphibs.  Heavy INF purchases from G1 are ESSENTIAL.

    3.  Preserve your ARM.  Save your tanks, and slowly add more each turn you have the cash for it.  1 or 2 ARM a turn added to your starting total becomes a wall of steel that Russia cannot withstand (if you have enough INF shield for them when you do move forward).  Never risk ARM where it will be lost on counter unless it is a critical battle.  Also, massed ARM in Europe is worth more than 1, 2, or 3 ARM scattered in Africa.  An ARM costs $5 to buy.  FWA is only worth $1, so blitzing an ARM out there to be killed by a US Amphib is a waste of resources.

    4.  Preserve your AF. Those FIGs are needed to augment the threat of your navy while it lives, keeping the US and UK away an extra round or 2.  It also is critical to trading with Russia, especially since you do not want to waste your ARM trading.  And every time you think about trading the Luftwaffe for an Allied Fleet… FORGET IT!  That fleet will invariably be rebuilt in a single turn, 2 at most.  But Germany will NEVER rebuild 6 FIGs and a BOM unless they have already won the game.

    5 losses to remind myself of these truths…  :roll:


  • @ncscswitch:

    This topic comes up from time to time… and after several experiments lately with some attempts at new concepts, it is time to re-state the basics…

    The keys to success with Germany:
    1.  Keep your ships alive as long as possible.  And THAT means an AC build in SZ5 on G1.  I have tried putting a TRN there to reduce naval expenditures, and eventhough the SIM says it is a viable move and should destroy the RAF, you still end up either with no fleet or almost no fleet after UK1.  And that leave Germany WIDE OPEN to the Brits.  Bite the bullet, spend $16 on an AC, land some FIGs on it and make UK go the long way around, or spend several turns on naval build up.  Letting the UK land in Eastern on UK3 is generally a BAD idea, and that is far easier to prevent with a fleet in SZ5.

    Serghis Khan bought no AC on G1 and beat my Allies.  On TripleA ladder, he is the only player so far to beat my Allies by virtue of strong play.  I think it is a perfectly viable move to NOT purchase a Baltic AC on G1.

    2.  Build Infantry.  Germany is going to need infantry throughout the game.  You need it to trade with Russia, to shield your tanks, and to protect your territory from Allies amphibs.  Heavy INF purchases from G1 are ESSENTIAL.

    I disagree to some extent.  Germany infantry buys depend on Japan’s progress in Asia, and in a fair proportion of games, Germany should switch to tanks for a couple turns possibly G3-4 for the serious press on Russia.

    3.  Preserve your ARM.  Save your tanks, and slowly add more each turn you have the cash for it.  1 or 2 ARM a turn added to your starting total becomes a wall of steel that Russia cannot withstand (if you have enough INF shield for them when you do move forward).  Never risk ARM where it will be lost on counter unless it is a critical battle.  Also, massed ARM in Europe is worth more than 1, 2, or 3 ARM scattered in Africa.  An ARM costs $5 to buy.  FWA is only worth $1, so blitzing an ARM out there to be killed by a US Amphib is a waste of resources.

    Generally, yes.

    4.  Preserve your AF. Those FIGs are needed to augment the threat of your navy while it lives, keeping the US and UK away an extra round or 2.  It also is critical to trading with Russia, especially since you do not want to waste your ARM trading.  And every time you think about trading the Luftwaffe for an Allied Fleet… FORGET IT!  That fleet will invariably be rebuilt in a single turn, 2 at most.  But Germany will NEVER rebuild 6 FIGs and a BOM unless they have already won the game.

    There are times to trade German air for Allied transports; I would really not go so far as to put out a blanket statement prohibiting a trade.  In general, it is true that I would prefer to use German air late game to trade territories rather than attack the Allied fleet, but this is not ALWAYS the case.

    5 losses to remind myself of these truths…  :roll:

    If you use blanket strategies without responding to board position, you’ll just get more losses.  There are going to be times when you want midgame tanks for Germany, there will be times when it will be advantageous to lose a good deal of the German air in exchange for a portion of the Allied fleet.

    Have you forgotten the hobo’s ebil grin?


  • I used to always buy a G1 carrier, but against strong players I found that I pretty much always got pwned by an aggressive Russia.  In particular, it becomes hard to prevent Russia from pushing its stack up from West Russia to the Ukraine on R3.  When that happens it’s generally a Bad Thing for Germany because Russia gets richer than it has any right to be.

    My German strategy is sort of in flux right now.  I’ve been playing matches on the TripleA ladder against players who are significantly better than I am, and noticing some things about how they do Germany. 
    –-First, I noticed (much to my shock) that they are often willing to stop stacking WE after a couple turns and turn it into a trading zone.  They always have enough tanks+planes+Berlin stack to prevent a permanent Allied foothold there, so it ends up just getting traded back and forth with a couple inf and some planes each round.  Basically, in exchange for giving America or Britain an extra 6 IPC, you can free up a dozen infantry to pressure Russia with. 
    —Second, I noticed that they all buy more tanks than I do.  Often not that many on G1, but frequently some significant tank purchases on G2-G4.
    —Third, I noticed that they really like to stack Karelia early, i.e. on G1 if I let them.  This makes life with the British rather frustrating as you may have plenty of transports and plenty of ground troops, yet nowhere to land without getting massacred.  I’ve switched to a 3 inf/3 tank R1 buy for the sole reason that it helps avoid a G1 Karelia stack.

    Now I’m sure that some of this has to do with weaknesses in my Allied strategy (of which there are many), i.e. these might not be things that work in general but only things that work against me.  I tend to work toward a slow-building steamroller with the Allies, which can make me susceptible to quick and aggressive expansionism.  Still though, something to think about.

    FWIW I haven’t seen a G1 carrier build in a ladder game in a looong time…probably the last person I saw do that (besides me) was rated at something like 1200.

    BTW Bunnies, how long has it been since you played over on the ladder?  Only losing to Serghis (besides dice disasters) is pretty impressive!  There are some other folks who are darned good with the Axis…


  • I was thinking the Germany infantry rule is a pretty solid one, but I’ve definitely seen games where Germany went very tank heavy and still whomped on me. Granted, it was probably because of Caucasus falling early or me being too stubborn to vacate WRus/Kar for a turn, but yeah, board position is king.

    Even if we just throw that all out the window and say that for beginners – or as a very general guideline – that such-and-such rules are a good idea, I still don’t think G1 Baltic ac should necessarily be included. I was always a very strong proponent of the Baltic ac, but UnBaltic seems to do other wondrous things. As long as you’re doing one or the other (and not just, say, leaving the fleet to die).

    One basic that wasn’t mentioned: Africa. It’s kinda vital. While others go ga-ga over the 1inf in Belo/Ukr/WRus bid or some inf against Russia and some unit in Africa, a bid of 1inf Lib and 1arm Alg combined with the transport and battleship coming over almost assuredly means Germany will have at least 3arm in AE come G2, even if you factor in a 1bmb 1ftr 3inf counterattack (I play Low Luck, calc LL, and think LL – but the numbers can’t be that far off for regular dice).

    Or if you don’t go full boar into Africa, see if you can’t deter the round 1 Allied landing in Alg (UnBaltic does this rather beautifully). Or land lots of troops in Africa, blitz a few tanks south, and contest Alg/Lib if there isn’t a huge UK/US stack on them.

    Don’t spend too much on Africa, especially if you are buying a Baltic ac or fighters, but you’d be amazed what a little German ingenuity along with the Luftwaffe in range of sz12 can do. Every turn that Africa is mostly grey and the Allies are in Alg/Lib/nowhere is a turn Germany is up 10 or so and UK is down the same.


  • @uffishbongo:

    –-Third, I noticed that they really like to stack Karelia early, i.e. on G1 if I let them.  This makes life with the British rather frustrating as you may have plenty of transports and plenty of ground troops, yet nowhere to land without getting massacred.  I’ve switched to a 3 inf/3 tank R1 buy for the sole reason that it helps avoid a G1 Karelia stack.

    I’ve encountered the same thing. I know Karelia is important, but I’ve always been able to kick Germany out on R2/3. I didn’t realize that doing so absolutely hinged on R1 3inf/3arm builds. I just liked the build.

    In one game – where a G2 attack on WRus ruined me – Germany bid I think it was 1arm Lib and 1inf Belo and kept only the transport in the Baltic. This meant instead of 8inf 4arm there was 11inf 4arm in Kar, and I didn’t realize how significant those 3inf can be. I built I think it was 4inf 3arm and, after looking at the Kar stack, stubbornly sat – and died – in WRus. Afterwards I was looking at the numbers for strafing that stack on R2 and I remember them being pretty scary. Unfortunately, Russia almost has to do the strafe and trade inf for inf I think it was, because otherwise they almost have to retreat from WRus, and then it takes a much longer time to unseat Germany from Kar.


  • Yah, technically I should be making moves in a TripleA game right now.

    Uffishbongo, it’s OK for your UK landing force to get creamed by a German Karelia stack.  You bleed out the German forward position infantry, and if Germany decides to hit Norway, you’ve certainly done that.

    The key is timing the Jap run through Asia.  If the Japs are making really slow progress (i.e. they’ve done something wrong or got unlucky), then the Germans can use tanks plus some Karelia infantry to reclaim Norway, and keep pushing German infantry forwards.  The Axis eventually press on Russia on both sides at about the same time.  In such cases, Norway might not be such a great place to land with the Allies.

    On the other hand, if the Japs have made quick progress, Norway is a pain for Germany to take back, as anything Germany sends into Norway is a lot less units sent towards Russia.  So if the Axis do grab for Norway, good, if they don’t, then the Allies can push into Karelia and it’s still good.

    It’s a logistical problem - if the Allies recapture West Europe, they’re gaining IPCs, but Germany’s otherwise little used Southern Europe IC can pump out infantry plus German air based at Germany and E. Europe can trade W. Europe.  If the Allies bleed out Germany at Karelia, though, that’s less German units headed into Karelia.

  • Moderator

    I would pretty much agree with Switch, with the exception being the AC buy.  🙂

    I think it works and can definitely be used effectively, I’ve just found that I’m not good at it.  Or more accurately it doesn’t usually fit my style of play and I always end up wishing I had the extra inf with Ger.

    I will typically play a Pafr bid so even without buying ships for Sz 5 I don’t really have to worry about UK in Nor until about rd 3/4 (and they certainly won’t be landing/threatening EE before rd 5/6 if that) otherwise the Allies don’t have enough inf in Afr to push Germany out or they do and Japan now can swoop in kill off the remaining troops and force the Allies back which could be even more annoying depending on the game situation.

    I also like to try and bleed off the UK ftrs, if they do a rd 1 attack on Sz 5, and it could really help in keeping the Med fleet an extra turn or two depending on the US buys.  Otherwise the Allies risk another disaster there if they come in with anything less than 4 planes, and even 4 planes could turn out bad if you get the double trn and BB hits on Def.

    And on the flip side, if UK doesn’t attack, you get to use the Baltic trn in Rd 2 without spending anything on Navy.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Likewise, I disagree with the carrier buy on Germany 1.  I’ve found that the Med fleet does a pretty good job without help killing off RAF Fighters (when I’m England) and even with a carrier there (if I’m Germany) my fleet ends up getting sunk in short order by the Americans.

    So what, exactly am I doing?  Protecting E. Europe?  That’s not really an issue for me.  I usually have a very nice stack of Fighters, Tanks and Infantry in E. Europe as it is.

    Though the infantry thing is accurate, in my opinion.  Lately I’ve been buying at least two armor a round with Germany though.  Sometimes I trade that in for another fighter since each fighter necessitates the increase of Allied ships by at least two transports or a destroyer, and my fighters can be used for other conflicts without needing to engage him.

    An overly aggressive Russia, no matter WHAT Germany does, is going to end the Axis in a Kill Russia First game.  Unless the dice dictate otherwise.  In fact, I’ve found that the majority of games are decided by bad dice for one side or the other.  It’s extremely rare to see a player make a huge tactical mistake resulting in the loss of his or her side.  (By that I mean someone leaving fighters exposed to the enemy where the enemy has a significantly strong attack position.)  Generally I see battles where the attacker or defender has less then 20% odds of winning, in a LARGE battle, coming out not only in that 20% but significantly in that 20% and that turns the battle.

    I think the key to German success, really, is Japan.  If Japan can make a grab for Africa after Germany is removed and distract the British and Americans, or if Japan can make a serious landing in Alaska necessitating that America stop supporting England and Russia, then the Germans can usually hold their own long enough for Japanese invasions of Moscow.

    BTW, my definition of SIGNIFICANT and SERIOUS landings in Alaska is AT LEAST 12 ground units.  (Preferably 8 infantry, 4 armor to make a serious invasion attempt, but have some defensive firepower too.)


  • I’d like try the idea of fighting in mainland America with the japaneses, but I stil must play it, because my ftf opponen likes buy a IC for India in UK2 or UK3 instead UK1, and such tasty present is not for negate, so ever I plan Alaska invasion, finally I end with a classical dash to Moscow  😛

    The bad is he never reckons he is wrong and continue playing that  😐


  • Why does it have to be a carrier in the Baltic? Why not two transports? Then the RAF shouldn’t be able to strafe you anymore, and London is going to have to watch it a little bit now.  If you have wolfpacks and/or U-boat interdiction I’d build a sub as well. It activates the wolfpack meaning Britain won’t be getting close to you for a while with her navy, and the Allies often tend to spend an inordinate amount of resources taking out your subs if you have u-boat interdiction.  Especially if you rub it in every time.  :evil:


  • Transports can’t hold fighters, unlike a carrier. The 16 IPCs nets you a +11 defensive punch with a carrier, and only +2 defensive punch with the transports. If the goal is to protect the Baltic for as long as possible, then you want to maximize your defensive power.


  • 2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

    And the odds are good of doing a lot of damage to the German fleet.  Whatever is left is negligible in terms of defending Berlin/Eastern/Karelia; unless you spend a fortune building navy G2 and later (which is NOT going to happen as Germany).

    But an AC…  UK attacking THAT fleet with 2 FIG, 1 BOM is a suicide run that may not even get the SUBs.

    And the AC extends the range of Germany’s FIGs, allowing for strikes deep into central Europe from SZ5, while also being able to use those same FIGs in SZ8 or 12 if desired…  Nice flexibility.  And being flexible to adjust to shifts in Allied movements is always a good idea.


  • What about a BB in the Baltic? Has anyone ever tried it? (I haven’t)
    Takes to hits to kill, plus the offense fire power to attack in concert with
    some planes means you might be able to move the fleet around a bit.

    On the down side, 24 beans gone leaves a G1 purchase with 4 inf and a art.
    That may be too little against Russia.

    If anyone has tried this, please share your results.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Hell, why not 2 Destroyers and 2 Transports in the Baltic then. 😛  I mean, if we are going to produce navy for Germany, why go in half-arsed when we can use our FULL ARSE!

    3 Destroyers, 2 Submarines, 3 Transports and all your German aircraft in W. Europe with the Battleship/Transport from SZ 14 in SZ 13 (and probably that SZ 8 submarine too, unless England get great defensive rolls or something) and you could have a nice little sea lion set up. 😛

    Oh yea, weird strat year just got another weird strat to try out!  Hey!  I think I’ll do Battleship, 2 Transports….nah, 2 destroyers are 2 X 3 or less, 1 Battleship is only 1 X 4 or less.  Better stick to the extra units, though the extra bombardment would be nice. 😛


  • Has anyone ever tried completely eliminating the British navy and ensuring it can’t harass you? Heavy naval purchases the first two turns, obviously.

    My friend did this successfully, and Britain was never a problem until round 6. Africa was firmly in German control, and the Axis won.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Hard to do, it would almost necessitate a submarine bid in SZ 8 without Russia taking out Norway on R1.

    Unless you mean after Germany 1 instead of on Germany 1, and yes, I’ve worked on a few different ways to do it.  The German navy can be quite formidable if you stage right and don’t get hit with subprime dice.


  • 1.  A German battleship in the Med yields interesting results in that you have more battleship support shots and a stronger hit and run against Allied navy.  But by “interesting”, I do not mean “good”.  The lack of G1 infantry REALLY hurts and the compensation of the battleship is insufficient.  Yarly.

    2.  Yeah, there’s a play for the Brit navy that begins with a German sub bid in SZ 8 allowing 2 sub 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 sub 1 trans 1 battleship northwest of UK and German navy and/or air vs Gibraltar.  Problem is, with an Atlantic bid, you don’t get an Africa bid, and the German bomber is already being sent to UK navy instead of Anglo-Egypt.  Also, you can’t control the Russian opening, so you might run into a Ukraine opening with 2 inf 2 art placed in Caucasus and 2 tank in Russia.  So what this means is that Germany potentially has to deal with 2 sub 1 fighter 1 bomber vs 1 sub 1 trans 1 battleship, plus 3 fighter vs UK battleship, plus 1 battleship 1 transport vs 1 destroyer plus 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank vs 1 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter, with 1 German fighter discretionary which just isn’t enough to cover all the bases.  Germany gets some compensation with strong control of the Atlantic early game (and hence African IPCs and control of European territories, but note a UK recapture of Anglo-Egypt slows German progress in Africa a lot), but the US comes in very fast with up to two ACs, which is just too much for the depleted German airforce to handle and the game transposes into a near-traditional KGF, with less Allied navy but also less German air.

    The Germans are not much better off with added IPCs from Atlantic control, and have fewer fighters to shift against Russia later on.

    If the Germans do HEAVY naval purchases G1, depending on an Atlantic sub build and Med fleet move, Russia should be able to control a good bit of territory early on that Germany has to fight against later in the form of more Russian infantry.  Another problem is that German navy can’t be used against ground targets.  So the Allies have plenty of time to respond to the German threat.  I would think, Nukchebi, that the German victory in the example you gave was either due to good dice by the Germans/poor dice by the Allies, or poor Allied strategy, rather than a triumph of a superior untried German strategy that the Allies cannot respond to.


  • I remember more of that game now, and it was entirely unconventional. The US and Japan were fighting solely in the Pacific (India and China taken, but none of the Far Eastern territories in Russia), and thus just building big navies with lots of battleships. Consequently, it was Britain and Russia vs. Germany, which made the lack of British reinforcements death for Russia, even without Japanese pressure.

    Against a traditional KGF with US involvement in Europe, I see how this strategy will fail.

    (So yes, it was due to a poor Allied strategy).

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, Bunnies, I don’t agree that Egypt is a necessary attack for Germany.  In fact, I am leaning towards NOT attacking it lately.  This allows England to shoot himself in the foot by invading the Med with his fleet which allows Germany to quickly close the trap by taking Egypt on G2 and hitting it with the German navy on G3. (course it means getting fighters and navy in range on G2 by building or moving it there.  So what?)

    And yes, America’s coming in with two fully loaded carriers.  However, that’s less troops and transports that Germany has to deal with.  The idea isn’t to master the Pacific forever, just to recover from using a full round of purchases to sink the British navy if it gets in the way and/or deny England any capitol ships at all at the start of the game.


  • So two tran buy demands the UK send in their aircraft?

    I like this.  For 16 IPC I get to slaughter the RAF on UK1, and I might not lose more than subs and maybe one tran if I’m lucky.

    Maybe I should experiment with 3.  :evil:


  • 3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…


  • @ncscswitch:

    3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…

    So maybe you think the UK should buy an AC and maybe the head of Caspian Sub thinks you shouldn’t buy an AC.  So maybe the UK1 counter doesn’t involve an AC after all.  Dun dun dun.

    @Cmdr:

    Well, Bunnies, I don’t agree that Egypt is a necessary attack for Germany.  In fact, I am leaning towards NOT attacking it lately.  This allows England to shoot himself in the foot by invading the Med with his fleet which allows Germany to quickly close the trap by taking Egypt on G2 and hitting it with the German navy on G3. (course it means getting fighters and navy in range on G2 by building or moving it there.  So what?)

    And yes, America’s coming in with two fully loaded carriers.  However, that’s less troops and transports that Germany has to deal with.  The idea isn’t to master the Pacific forever, just to recover from using a full round of purchases to sink the British navy if it gets in the way and/or deny England any capitol ships at all at the start of the game.

    If Germany doesn’t attack Anglo-Egypt at all on G1, UK CAN (doesn’t have to depending on German fleet and air position) put up to 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter in the sea zone, and UK can have up to 5 inf 1 tank in Transjordan plus 1 fighter in Russia and 1 bomber in range to support.  Japan gets a significant boost in Asia with the survival of the Kwangtung transport, but Germany has to contend with a strong UK3 navy and no progress in Africa, and UK has the flexibility to retreat from Transjordan towards India, strongly attacking Japan in spite of that early Japanese transport advantage.

    Specifically, German fighters will probably not be in range to hit the waters north of Anglo-Egypt/west of Transjordan at the end of G1, so Germany can at best attack that UK fleet of 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter on G2 with 1 transport 1 battleship 1 bomber (ugly).  I suppose you’re saying Germany can capture Anglo-Egypt on G2 to cut off the UK fleet and move German air east, without attacking the UK fleet, but if Germany doesn’t hit that UK fleet on G2, UK2 sees 1 transport 2 destroyer 1 carrier 4 fighter 1 bomber attacking the German fleet of 1 transport 1 battleship which probably means dead German navy and the possibility of the UK STILL controlling a sizable fleet that can survive a German air attack.  (Note that I assume the Allies did NOT unite the fleet off Algeria, because that scenario is just too horrible for the Germans and it can reasonably be prevented with 1 trans 1 battleship 5 fighter 1 bomber threatening an Allied fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 battleship max though the Allied fleet may be decreased by a G1 Atlantic sub bid as described in a previous post for Allied fleet of 3 transport 1 destroyer at Algeria, which is clearly no good at all.)

    Still, regardless of the Atlantic scenario, the only way for the Germans to survive the UK2 attack (given no attacks on Anglo-Egypt) is a very expensive Mediterranean fleet buy of minimum 2 carrier which even then isn’t necessarily favorable unless the Germans preserved some additional fleet like the Atlantic sub, and even that may only achieve parity, not superiority (Allied attack of 01333 3334 vs German defense of 01334 444 is still not favorable and requires TWO CARRIERS at S. Europe, so makes for a very possibly horribly ghastly and decisive UK2 attack and in any event horribly slows Germany in Europe.

    The two fully loaded US carrier scenario is not in response to a German ignore of Anglo-Egypt, it’s in response to an aggressive German naval strategy that preserves German fleet elements and a good degree of German air.

  • Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

    I would disagree with this.
    I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
    Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
    Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
    Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom.  Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
    Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.

    I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.

    I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending.  3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @DarthMaximus:

    @ncscswitch:

    2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5.  You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.

    I would disagree with this.
    I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
    Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
    Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
    Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom.  Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
    Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.

    I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.

    I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending.  3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.

    Well said, and I would also say “Just say no” to heavy Axis naval purchases unless:  (1) you really know what you are doing (most don’t); (2) Russia got TOTALLY SMOKED on R1 dice; or (3) your opponent does something stupid with the Allies and you have IPCs and time to burn.


  • @ncscswitch:

    3 is a completely different UK1 counter…  It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…

    Could you elaborate? I’m failing to see how an AC buy on UK1 is a remotely viable or useful strategy but I could be missing something.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 4
  • 10
  • 14
  • 43
  • 25
  • 4
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts