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.)