Beginner looking for feedback on his G1



  • I’ve soloed the game a few times, and I think I’ve come up with a reasonably effective G1 move. Bear in mind I play with no house rules, everything out of the box, NOs and tech included.

    Karelia: To hit Karelia I use the transport in SZ5 to carry 1 infantry and 1 artillery from Germany to Karelia, send the 2 infantry in Finland to Karelia as well, and back them up with 4 fighter planes (from Germany, Norway, Poland, Northwestern Europe).

    Baltic States: 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tanks from Poland.

    East Poland: 2 infantry from Poland, 2 tanks from Czech/Hung.

    Ukraine: 3 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 artillery from Bulgaria.

    Egypt: I use the transport in SZ13 to take the tank from France and drop it into Egypt, also throwing in everything from Libya.

    In terms of naval moves, I usually use the 2 submarines in SZ7 to hit the British battleship and transport. And I do a SBR on the Caucasus.



  • To me those moves are quite aggressive and the risk doesn’t come close to the reward.

    I see the Karelia battle as a the most dangerous move since it has a significant chance of the German player quitting as the result of the battle.

    Let us entertain the idea that Karelia is a success and move on from there.

    My issue would be the attack into Russia has no legs; meaning the Russian player can start his counter operation (by constructing offensive units immediately instead of on turn 2 or 3) since you would be thin on infantry in most zones and could not protect the German armor.

    Remember: the candle that burns twice as bright, lives half as long.

    To me, Germany is all about the potential to destroy Russia and not actually doing it.



  • Hi there, thanks for the feedback.

    I agree that it leaves the German lines thin, but I don’t see how Russia could mount an effective retaliation on the first turn. There would be a total of only 7 Russian infantry in a position to take back anything on the first turn, none of which would be backed with artillery and only 1 tank.

    However, where I don’t agree are the comments on Karelia. 4 figher planes, 3 infantry and 1 artillery is, in my opinion, more than enough firepower to take out 5 infantry and 1 artillery. The only threat are the AA guns really, but even with 1 or 2 fighters lost there’s a good chance of success.

    The reward would be +15 IPCs in NOs and +6 for the actual territory conquered, which would outweigh whatever losses were made in the first push and significant reinforcements for the 3rd turn.



  • Go to the play by forum section and look on G1 moves in tournament and league play, i dont think anyone uses that opening anymore. Its way to easy to counter for the allies, and even with a clean sheet in Karelia you are most likely setting up a  loss for the Axis.

    1st of all you do a dodgy Egypt attack (myself ive stopped doing it T1 anymore do it T2) IF the fgter in egypt lives youre italian fleet dies UK turn 1 and africa is lost for the rest of the game, IF you are gonna do Egypt turn 1 add in the bomber for better odds. Also almost entire UK navy is alive (the 2ss dont have that good odds vs the bb), that means UK dont have to invest so heavy in navy first round and can start landing 8 ground troops in europe very much faster, IF the bb survives in z2 he can liberate Karelia turn 1.

    Russia as pointed out allready can do a 6arm buil T1 and crush youre army T2. You have to move a lot of T1 buy to France to make sure that UK fleet dont take France turn 2. (he will have 3transport loaded if you dont kill more of his fleet). And France is the last thing you want to start trading so early in the game.



  • Pin is correct. While Russia won’t defeat Germany on the first turn, it will do rather well turn 2 and beyond. I know a lot of this is hard to foresee without experiencing it, but a 1 or 2 turn gain could ultimately be a loss if you cannot hold the territory.

    Consider for a moment that money gained by territories are truly only a net gain if you can hold them for a few turns. It does no good to lose more in units that earned (or for that matter break even) just to earn a few extra IPC’s.

    Recall, the Allies make more money than the Axis so you have to do better than a short term net gain.

    The Germany experiences a drought in units turns 3 and 4 so a good Allied player will exploit this and slam Germany while it is down. No one will debate the strength of Germany for turn 1 and 2.



  • @Octopus:

    To me, Germany is all about the potential to destroy Russia and not actually doing it.

    so who does actually destroy Russia? Japan?
    or nobody does it and the Axis win either by economic victory or by “honorable surrender” option?



  • now you are learning…

    note: this is my personal strategy and others certainly have other points of view but this works well for me (and is currently working well for me in the DAAK tournament for AA50).

    The purpose of Germany is to keep Russia honest and drop the hammer IF they make a mistake. Germany really only gets 1 opportunity to punch Russia so it has to be for the win (and I don’t mean a 66% or 80% chance to win I mean 100% chance and hold the counter attack).

    The Japanese’s job is to nibble away at Russia and kill their infantry. It doesn’t take long to get Russia into a steady state (meaning you are killing as many Russian infantry per turn as Russia is producing). Certainly you will be killing Russian infantry with Germany as well.

    Realistically Russia can only handle an infantry deficit for 2-3 turns before a total collapse on all fronts.

    It is your job to figure out how to do that with Germany and Japan in the most efficient way.

    Hint: trading Axis tanks for Allied infantry is NOT a winning strategy.



  • I disagree.

    Axis can win when taking Karelia G1.

    There is 3 intrumental things that must happen,

    • Germany 1 must hold Karelia trough the whole turn
    • G1 Egypt must fall
    • UK 1 must not be able to land troops there

    It is doable, I’ll post a strat about it, feel free to comment



  • Corbeau Blanc, ofc thats profitable IF all those things happens. BUT that will only happen around 50% of the times. So you will basically be basing youre strategy on everything succeeding when you only have 50% chance of that happening. Meaning you have a small profit 50% of the time, and a huge loss 50% of the time.

    Thats not a winning strategy in the long run in my book at least….



  • Nah, all theses 3 points are at around 80% odds.



  • Yes INDIVIDUAL!!!

    learn statistics plz, even though the battles have 80% INDIVIDUAL, that does NOT mean it have 80% chance of a success in the same game, that odds are around 45% if you add in the 3 attacks on the eastern front for the same game.

    Check youre own thread Corbeau Blanc, i have done the maths for you there for youre option A. If you dont trust it read up on statistic analyzis.



  • You’ve used triple A battle calc… and multiplied odds. I don’t need to learn ‘‘statistics’’ to understand that a bomber + 2 inf will 100% trade a territory defended by 1 inf. The only question is if I lose 1 inf or not…

    Like I wrote in other thread, 1 sub, 1 bomber and 1 jet are at 94% odds versus UK BB/TR… When in practice it’s a 100% win with 1-3 units left.

    Good strats base themselves on low luck.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Speaking as an “old” (relative term since the game is new still) Karelian Banger on Germany Round 1, I can say it’s not really worth it.  You risk losing more in value, position and threat trying to take it than you get.  But that’s just my opinion.



  • I think that put simply, the eastern Europe NO is easier to get and reinforce than the Karelia NO in G1. Why sacrifice taking that NO in favour of Karelia?

    I don’t believe that Germany can effectively:

    Take Egypt.
    Destroy the Royal Navy.
    Take Karelia.
    AND take BS, Ukr, and EP.

    Without desparately overstretching herself and losing a crippling amount of Airforce.

    Especially when - if played well, there is no reason that Karelia cannot be taken G2.

    Statistics is not my strong point. This is just my gut instinct.



  • Yes, creeping deth and Octopus, the true strategy to an effective German Axis player is to hold territory and starve Russia/Britain to death with Japan and Italy’s help.  You can use the starting units you begin the game with to go willy nilly all over the place ganking ipcs, but you’ll never hold anything if you don’t play with a permanent stack.  Which means inf.  Lots and lots of inf, perhaps some tanks later on in the game to finish things if Japan is taking too long.  Your goal as Germany is to provide the defensive buffer that Russia gradually loses its forces against and pushes the Russkies back to the capital.  If you can sandwich Russia between German stacks in the Ukraine/Karelia and Italian/Japanese stacks in the Caus, you have essentially won the game if the Allies cannot use the Russian units to counterattack either of them.  With SBRs and their limited production of 6, Russia’s fall is guaranteed within a few turns.

    Twigley, germany CAN accomplish all those objectives, it just takes some picking and choosing.  You can’t go after all of that at once without consequences, so don’t.  I personally enjoy hammering the British fleet at the game opening with everything I’ve got, taking out ALL the fleet except the destroyer/transport off canada.  Why do I do this G1?  The fleet is easier to pick off at the beginning of the game before it can develop into a monster stack you cannot ever possibly attack later.  I reinforce Libya with the units from France.  Egypt you can take G2 or I2, depending whether Britain reinforces it or abandons it.  Karelia will HAVE to be abandoned later G2-3 if you push inf stacks towards it; Russia simply doesn’t have the production there to hold it.  Free NO, without risking any fighters to AA.  If Russia attempts to hold it; you’ve just destroyed 1/3 to 1/2 their total military force that they desperately need to hold the capital later.

    My current strategy G1 is to build an IC in France and rest inf.  With that IC you can build a total of 16 inf every turn; which is great for defense, plus you can drop fleet in the Mediterranean to help out Italy.  If italy can capture most of Africa, and Japan takes out all of Britain’s Pacific/Asian colonies, its very easy to maintain a joint German/Italian/Japanese fleet stack in the Med that the now truncated 15 ipc Britain/American fleets can’t take.  If you hold the center of the board with the majority of ipcs, its just a matter of time before the Allies throw in the towel.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Bear in mind that Italy can support a German move into Ukraine, it cannot do so as well if you go up into Baltic States. (Though, Russia has a harder time keeping it, remember that England can easily liberate it when they feel like it.)

    Also, an Industrial in Bulgaria along with a Ukraine push by Germany/Italy can really put the Allies into a position of coming to aid Russia before turning to other strategic goals.



  • reading http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14698.15

    3 quarter of the players answering the survey will throw themselves in Egypt round 1.

    YET,

    • Egypt G1 with bomber : 75% odds to win
    • Egypt without bomber : 35% odds to win

    I find it way weird that most Axis players says it is an ‘‘imperative’’ move when my own exemple of an attack of Karelia to hold an IC at higher odds 80% gets flamed down.

    If you gonna take Egypt, do it turn 2 with Japaneses. This will save valuable German troops to defend vs US/UK landings in Moroco. Deal with Transjordan troops asap. This let you slip Italian and/or german transport into Indian Ocean round 2 to grab valuable ipcs before allies can react. You can even bypass India/Australia with japan and let Germany or Italy take it.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t attack Egypt either.

    I understand the rationale of people who attack Egypt and who attack Karelia.  It is my PERSONAL opinion based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and PERSONAL BELIEF that attacking Egypt and/or Karelia are not the best uses of the German pieces on round 1.

    Italy can easily close the Suez by taking Jordan if they want and Germany can reinforce Ukraine and Libya to prevent Russia and England from taking either of those.  Meanwhile, you can sink nearly the entire British fleet between you and Japan before England can go.

    I see the Axis problem as two fold:  1) Take out the British fleet and maintain ownership of the Atlantic as long as possible.  2)  Take out Russia as fast as possible.  Egypt solves neither of those two problems.  Karelia, IMHO, saps your strength more than it does Russia and thus, solves neither of those two problems.



  • @Corbeu blanc,

    There is a big difference in attacking Egypt versus attacking Karelia. Karelia can be retaken by the Russians or, depending on other battles, British. Egypt cannot be reasonably retaken. Egypt is part of two NO’s, one for Italy and one for Britain. Taking that money puts the U.K. in a hole really early, and helps little brother grow up. You can’t start taking African IPC’s soon enough. Finally, it helps clear Japan’s way by preventing those units from joining the Trans-Jordan and Indian units in Persia. Egyptian units can’t be easily replaced, while Karelian units can.

    Most of the time, if I put Egypt off, I end up regretting it. I know there are pros and cons, but that’s just my preference.



  • That seems to be the major dilema for G1: 
    Go after the UK Atlantic shipping or Try for Egypt.

    How to decide?  Well… how does Germany intend to play her game?  She goes first and gets to dictate how the opening few rounds are going to play out.  If a quick rush on Russia is the goal, then tanks are bought, and Germany should eliminate as much shipping in the atlantic as possible.

    If a slower, more defensive style is desired, either all infantry buys, or a mix of ground units (perhaps even an IC in France) with an Egypt attack to secure a strong economic advantage for Germany would work best.  Let Japan be the hammer, Germany can be the anvil.

    Then there’s the middle ground… which is a bit more shakey, IMHO.  If Germany tries to be good at both styles, she will probably be poor at both.  Make a decision and pick one.  Trying to pinch Russia but defend against the Western Allies is what got Germany in trouble in the real war…



  • Butcher, you can take and hold Karelia. Just keep your 2 poland tanks in reserve and move them in non-combat to Karelia once Baltic States is taken. Allies can’t take it back R1 if you know what your doing.

    As far as Egypt goes, it’s easy to retake from Germany with UK 2 trans-jordan inf and bomber. There is maybe 1 german infantry left down there and 2 italians after such a fiasco.

    OR you can just elect to sink german transport if i drops in Egypt on UK turn before it gets cover from Italians, this cuts german reinforcement right there…

    All in all, you are left with no troops to defend against UK/USA landings in Moroco and possibly no German reinforcement. It’s a popular but bad move. Italy will enjoy it’s NO one turn faster but in most case, it will last for 2 turns while delaying one turn can ensure you keep your Italians NO the whole game.



  • Ultimately, a strong move south is easier to support than a northern attack. If going south, you can have immediate Italian reinforcements, and Japan should be to Persia by turn 4, maybe 5 at the latest.

    Going north means Germany is on her own, while the U.K. can reinforce Russia.
    Only take the northern route mid-game if it will help you.

    Egypt offers more benefits than risks. Even if you don’t take Egypt G1, Italy will have an easier time getting income and being useful.

    And if you set up a G2 attack on Karelia, Russia will either leave it with one infantry and set up a counter, or stack if heavily. If it has only 1 inf, take it with 2 inf and air support. If they stack it, the southern front will be weak, and exploit that.



  • It is also much easier for the Russians to defend in the south and it keeps her units where they can defend against Japan, whereas Karelia is islolated from Russias other factories.

    I feel a strong push at Karelia (not necessarily G1) is required in the early game, atleast until you see the allied game plan.  A German turtle might seem like a great idea G1, till the IC goes up in India or the US boats are built in the pacific.



  • In the end, there is no set way to do anything after G1, and to an extent, J1. You can go into the game with an idea of what you want to do, but you must be responsive to what happens in the game. I’m not saying that going south is always the best move, but that it can be supported by both of the other Axis nations, and is my preference when Germany goes on a large offensive.

    By the way, I normally play a more conservative Germany and let Japan kill Russia. I see Germany’s job as trading territories to maintain a decent income and bleed away Russian troops while Japan gets to Caucuses. That is why I’ve never attacked Karelia G1. It is just an attempt at a quick push to Moscow that will leave German defenses weak.



  • The Karelia G1 , coupled with a full frontal eastern assault, whipes out 50% of Russian troops. One of the goal is to kill thoses russian units right there. That’s their biggest starting stack. You also get all your NO’s.

    Countering the northern sea zone route is possible. First, the northern route for reinforcement is not before UK 2 since you do sink the BB/TR. To prevent UK to drop on UK2 directly in Karelia simply by blocking norway sea zone with the German BC by G2 ( And yes, you did protect your baltic fleet G1 with an AC, the strat depends on it ). UK have to fight the BC to pass trough which prevent any amphibious assault in the next zone. Sure, they can drop non-combat in archangel and remove 5 more ipc from Russia. And it’s not R2 that will be able to overtake the germans.

    Round 1 and round 2, Karelians speaks German if you know a little bit how to play. So tell me how ultimately Egypt is better than 2 rounds of 5 IPCs in NO’s, a 2 units prod IC and an AA gun you really can hold?

    You don’t even need Egypt for the Italians NO. It’s  3 out of  Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, Gibraltar . Also it’s only 5 IPC.

    Just position Japan to drop either in Egypt or Trans-Jordan by J2. With 4 of their planes and anywhere between 2-4 transport full of units, UK troops will get cut down before they even reach Persia. So why on Earth would you sacrifice all your German/Italians units to get one round of 5ipc for Italians? Especially when you just told me 10 IPC worth of German NO, an IC and a free AA gun while whipping out more valuable russian troops is a worst move than Egypt… I’m puzzled out, seriously.

    Egypt G1 will never be a good move in my book UNLESS you are FORCED to hit it to protect the Italian fleet ( exemple, you did not have forces to hit the sea zone 12 Uk BC/DD ). Even then, it’s 53% odds if UK uses BC/DD, bomber + fighter, might as well force UK’s hand in that move. Japan can very well hold on Egypt/TJ for Italy while being shielded by the canal if Allies should venture a fleet in med. More I think of it, more I’d welcome that UK1 attack.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 151
  • 4
  • 4
  • 7
  • 11
  • 10
  • 7
  • 49
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts