Generally, especially in the early game, ceding the territory is the way to go.
Rome landings realy arent much of a problem for Germany, as the opportunity cost of those units not punching thru Cairo are enormous.
Personally, I love to see USA extend his shuck in the early game, defending both SZ 12 and SZ 14 is very difficult without spending a bunch of (unnecessary) money on capital ships (BS and AC), and having enough trannies to do so efficiently is very expensive as well. Â Every dollar USA spends on non-ground units is a boon to the Axis.
In Revised USA doesnt have an enormous monetary advantage, and so there is only so many things they can accomplish.
Keeping Paris stacked tall is far more important for keeping the Allies out of Europe for as long as possible. A stack of Ftrs tere make USA extending past 12 very difficult.
(And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)
Because it’s so unrelevant? Or maybe your horse is to slow?
So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded. Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy. Of course it’s not.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that my game will only some dilettantish moving of plastic figures as long I have no planning above the next three moves. Know yourself, know your enemy … all that stuff from all that books.
But I also must take a look on the little decisions I have to make, like that example above. If I make such little things wrong, no strategy can help me. And I think, an strategy must pay attention to the overall board situation (as you said; not a dead horse in my eyes), my own weakenings in gameplay and the player that sits on the other side of the table. To judge that situation right and create the adequate strategy is a thing that I have to do by myself, and all the postings on this board can only help a little. But for that little tactical decisions and tiny precious moves which the game have in store these boards are an eye opener for me. And that’s why I’m looking for such little, delimited solutions for a special problem and hope, I’ ll remember that solution in my next game.
Conclusion: Germany has superior trading ability. Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel). However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.
I’ll try to remember that.
Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.
Known, but noted again.
And: thank you for your post.
It sounds like you saw a clip from his old Calin on Campus.
One of his 2 best ever (the other is Carlin at Carnegie).
Baseball and Football is indeed one of my faves!
“… the Quarterback, otherwise known as the Field General…”
lol yea. I have to watch he other ones now. Perhaps theyll show another different one of Comedy Central.
The fugo raid seems a little unrealistic as according to the history you have supplied they did not stop any war production. So 10 and a turn of mobilizing is seriously out of line. Particularly since you get to choose its use, say the turn before a move towards LA? It seems overpowered both in game terms and historical terms. Perhaps if that were changed to some form of SBR? Can’t get shot down and roll a dice minus one (one min) of loss?Â Maybe in some other form but the no mobilization is certainly too much.
Wow, this was an old one! You are right! The Fugo Raid is over powered as is, but I skipped it in my revised NAs!
In response to the KJF Bluff…
NEVER change strats during a game. If you are going KJF, STAY KJF. Otherwise, just go KGF, and STICK WITH IT.
Trying to bluff in the Pacific as the US leaves the Axis with economic dominance, and with USA and UK in NO position to assist a dying Russia.