Its second and third edition rules.

I can find much better things to do with 15 IPCs than purchasing the ability to place 1 unit per turn in persia.

Yes, British and American IC builds in Asia are a component of the common “Kill Japan First” strategy. However… I have a problem with the IC Persia. It is simply not cost effective for Britain to build an IC on this 1 IPC territory.

Also in your strategy, you should take into account the standard bid of 18-24 when playing non-RR.

The difference between what I am saying and you are is that I’m assuming that the Allies player is an experienced veteran. About the level of Darth or Kobu if you check out the Games section in the forums. Highly aggressive play as Germany just makes Germany fall faster. Against a noob the aggressive Germany strategy is great.

GG, I don’t think thats what they are saying. OK, I’m going to have to disagree with points 1, 2, and 4.

Starting with point 1. Germany can keep up a prolonged war on its eastern front for a large number of turns. By purchasing nearly all infantry each turn, Germany can maintain a front at Eastern Europe. A good German player’s understanding what is a favorable opportunity to strafe can keep the allies occupied and honest on this front.

Point 2. From your previous posts in other threads your idea of aggressiveness relies heavily on tanks with a disdain for infantry. A highly aggressive Germany is quickly spread beyond its means. Ample infantry is vital for armies. They absorb hits when attacking sparing more expensive units like tanks. They also are the most cost effective defense to deal with counterattacks. Assuming the allies player is good, even if a highly aggressive Germany has luck+success in the first couple attacks, it would have advanced beyond its supply of infantry and the allies player can now counterattack the infantry depleted force costing Germany a large number of expensive tanks. Successful veteran play for Germany calls for a more conservative aggressive + defensive hybrid stance.

Point 3. Well, yeah.

Point 4. Beyond the first and MAYBE the second turns Germany can do little against the buildup of the British fleet. Again this is assuming a competent allies player. After those first couple turns Germany lacks the naval fodder to attack the British fleet without incurring significant losses to its airforce. Germany’s airforce is far to valuable to be wasted delaying Britain one or two more turns. Without an airforce Germany’s fronts are significantly weakened and the cost of capturing picketed territories is increased. Germany cannot replace lost aircraft without compromising itself in other fronts. Germany weakens itself more than it weakens Britain if it attempts to keep Britain from having a fleet. In addition, point 4 makes no mention of the lovable US fleet. And lastly, how does Germany purposefully destroy British planes? The fate of the British airforce is largely in the hands of the British player.

Finally, there’s no mention of Africa.

A Brazil IC makes fora nice target for Japan. So, not only do you waste IPCs buying it, you have to waste IPCs defending it. Not to mention if Germany is strong in Africa, which is likely given that the US wasted time/IPCs building the IC, Germany can reach it with a bomber forcing the US to build an AA or face free bombing runs.

It’s a load of disadvantages for the ability for slighty quicker transport to the southern part of Africa. All in all its a good build only if you can 1) Hold it and 2) Happen to be playing as Japan.

Usually, people play to win. And giving the game up to 7.1% chance (assuming the naval battle goes completely your way) isn’t a good bet, nor does it lead to a fun game.

I think he’s asking if an inf/arm can walk from egypt to syria. In that case, yes.

Well… it isn’t a strategy at all. It’s basically saying open like everyone else, then win. Kinda falls short of an ultimate strategy.