Another things I just thought of. If China is ignored for a while, it provides safe haven for Russian units or Allied aircraft to land in Chinese territories and mount attacks (or threaten to attack) in spaces they would not normally be able to use.
China is not like sending forces to Australia (where once they land it takes a while to get back to the front). The forces roll on and take ground (making it a worthy endevour in my opinion).
Do China!
Also consider for a moment you are really discussing probability instead of odds (which are often interchanged despite they are different).
Probaility will give you a percentage of how often the event will occur given infinite rolls (example 16.67%). Odds will deal with possible chances for an event happening versus changes against. (example 1 in 6).
If you have 6 infantry attacking, you can expect 1 to hit for the 6 rolls but only use it as a guide line for you are rolling 6 dice one, not infinite times.
Another point to consider is the possible deviation (something I call the “wild”). It is the possibility of how many additional hits you might achieve. Example: The odds of 6 infantry attacking 2 armor will yield the same odds however, it is far more likely for the infantry to score many (a max possibility of 6) hits versus the armor (a max possibility of 2). This becomes especially poignant in larger battles.
I have played long enough to see the craziest outcomes that could not be repeated in over 100,000 rolls. Also consider it is your roll against their roll so the outcomes increase dramatically.
Going through China is the perfect drain for Russia (almost better than the German front). Russia has to send forces to defend against Japan (meaning they are not going against Germany) and there are many spaces in China to defend so Russia can never go too deep into China. Russia (or the Allies) do not earn income in China so they gain nothing by fighting there.
No where else on the map is the combat more if a total loss for Russia than in China.
It was used against me in the Baltic, and unfortunately hit and sunk a ship.
It can also be used to stop a National Objective in the Western Med if necessary. Chances are good the Italian Fleet (if it is still around) will not enter the Western Med fearing the British and/or American Fleet.
In short, the sub is used to fill in any gaps.
Although I recognize those players who believe it is totally useless and they can start without it at the beginning of the game if they prefer.
Ah, and the India IC means Japanese IC’s on East Indies and Borneo. Which also means Japan doesn’t have to spend for one on India.
Which also means for England to support the India IC, Germany gets a free ride all the way to Moscow.
I personally welcome the India IC, but that is just me.
The G2 smash is a reason why I do not go for the Ukraine on turn 1.
I keep enough armor in play that can get to Karelia if necessary. That move typically forces the Russian player to withdraw his units (from Karelia) leaving only an infantry or two to deal with.
What this does is allows Germany to take Karelia with a minor group that won’t get trapped in the north.
Anytime you can take a territory with minimal force (which also means minimal loss) it is a strategic victory.
ok, I got it.
I didn’t realize you were modifying all nations abilities.
Another possibility is to keep bombers at the price of 12 but you could pay each time a bomber wanted to use their extra hit (say 3 IPC’s). You won’t have to worry about an extra marker for super bombers.
Just pay 3 IPC’s for each usage of the extra die roll you wish to inflict (combat or SBR) purchase during the purchase units phase.
ah, best ball (golf is sometimes played as you suggested with the SBR dice).
I do not like Technology much. I believe it to be game breaking. Broken if you never roll technology, broken if you roll a poor technology, and broken if you get a superior technology (like heavy bombers)
Why not roll dice at the beginning of the game to see who wins(highest roll wins)? After that, play the game without technology.
I don’t mean to be sarcastic but it seems that is what technology is, a gamble hoping to turn the coarse of the game with zero strategy.
The issue I see with such an agressive first turn is the burn rate of infantry and inability to hold ground.
From those first moves I would set the US and British builds to prepare for a big invasion on turn 3. The resources necessary to stop/hold the invasion would eat into the majority of German builds meaning the East would be starved of support. The natural result would be the Russians getting the +10 IPC’s for taking German soil.
In short, I believe the same (well, near same) can be acheived by taking a more conservative approach while not losing as many units and holding back the Red Hoardes.
I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.
The Brazil IC is an economic trap. Consider the complex costs 15 and the transport is 7, making the total is 22 IPC’s. The exact same effect can be achieved shucking from Eastern Canada with 2 tranports (1 transport each way) for only 14 IPC’s. The actual liability issue is up for debate but since the Allies would make a big deal of Brazil, I would make it a big deal as the Axis (in the form of a Bomber threat against the transport). The Allies would then be forced to build more fleet to counter the bombers and the economic mismatch grows further.
Personally, I vote down on the IC in Brazil but I imagine there might be an exception for it eventually.
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.
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.
Good post Bugoo.
One thing you are inching on is how to deal with results (and how to interpret them). I have metioned in the past that far too many people believe that when they win it is good strategy, but when they lose the dice or bad (or the game is inbalanced).
A combat is deeper than a winner and loser, but each side can perform in two manners: rolling above odds, rolling below odds (it is possible to roll exact odds but that is not possible in most combats).
It is possible to roll below odds while your opponent rolls above odds and your combat goes horribly wrong. Does this mean your strategy is poor? no, it just means you have to do things differently to stay in the game.
I feel that far too many people try to do the quick kill and either win or lose on the first turn of the game (Egypt or Naval combat for G1). This distorts the idea that the game is inbalanced or Germany must be even more extreme in order to win (or in some cases the Allies).
This is why I believe that good strategies can win despite rolling below odds.
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.
I have yet to see a single path to victory for either side (so far I think it is pretty good). I also believe there are degrees of depth to strategies for each side. I personally believe the Allies are often underplayed thereby giving the impression the Axis have the advantage. People often struggle with making the US effective which is critical for the Allies effort.
People put a lot of weight on the outcome of the Egypt battle to determine the course of the game, but the Allies have quite a bit do deal with the loss of Egypt on turn 1. At the same time, the Axis are far from sunk if they do not take Egypt on turn 1.
The game is designed to be played with national objectives, remove those and you will have a very different game.
Yes, closing SZ 16 is a winner for the Allies.
It is a long walk for the Italians, and closes another invasion point for the Japanese.
As Germany and Italy, I do anything possible to screw up the American shuck. I offer territories for free to try to sucker the transports and get them off schedule for the ultimately means 2 or 3 turns for 1 load of American troops.
I can adjust to defeat that one load, but it becomes really difficult to defeat many consecutive loads.
As the Allies, pick a target and stay focused. If you decide America is going to hit Africa, KEEP DOING IT!
If you decide to pound France, KEEP DOING IT! It is only when you switch targets does your attack become weaker than it should.
Oh, England should focus on distrupting supply to the Eastern Front. Dropping 1 Infantry in Poland will keep German Armor from moving 2 spaces (just an example of slowing down supply).
Good Luck!
Interesting topic (for it goes beyond the obvious).
I just finished a long game as the Axis and the potential to sink the Allied fleet was always on my mind. At one point I did pull it off and sink the British fleet after entering SZ 8. The kicker was the cost benefit of attacking the fleet that made it a no brainer. Fighters are worth 10 while cruisers are worth 12. Going 1 for 1 is a cost benefit. The Allied fleet’s cheapest unit defends the strongest (a fighter at a 4) meaning they will lose their cheapest units last and sacrafice their most expensive units early.
Keep in mind that bombers cost the same as a cruiser while having a higher attack value. The advantage goes to the airforce.
Having a fleet with 2 Cruisers, a battleship, and a carrier (with 2 fighters) is looking to get popped by an airforce that consists of fighters and bombers (assume comparable combat values). Economics demands it (especially if there are 4 juicy transports in tow).
To this end, I think the destroyer (cost of eight) is fantastic as a fighter/bomber eater as it will clearly take the fall for the more expensive ships that need to stay in the fight.
Good Luck!
Excuse me, but according to you the only way to conquer Moscow for the German is by mean of a massive blitz of panzer? One have to use a “can opener” move to win? It is not possible to conquer Moscow in other way?
Unfortunately, in my current case, I am dealing with a competent player who offers only the slimmest of margins to perform a move such as this. And the massive panzer blitz only needed to be 7 or 8 tanks in this case (I used 17 for dramatic effect). Yes, I am breaking Russia another way yet each turn the scene grows more harrowing. (my opponent is barking about the fighter/sub no fire rule so toss out the KISS concept).
I personally do not like the rule (much like taxes) but I follow it (as I do taxes) and have not suggested an errata be submitted for a change nor am I a big fan of house rules.
I should have made a second dumb rule post for subs. Sorry guys, that’s my fault 
There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA. The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed.
Case: Japanese air power wishes to clear a path for the German advance. Sorry, don’t even bother, because an AA stands in the way and will block a blitz and cannot be destroyed. The AA’s intended purpose of shooting aircraft is NOT used because there is no purpose in attacking the space, so the combat never takes place. Second, the unintended use of the AA IS used to block the path of blitzing tanks and Russia loses no units and pays nothing for this strategy.
This is called gaming the system; when unintended uses of the game are employed for purposes other than the intended.
Someone mentioned the idea of capturing the gun….except a solid Russian strategy is to not bother defending both zones that protect Russia (Belorussia and Eastern Ukraine). A single mass of units exist in one zone (along with an AA), while only the AA exists in the other. If the Germans try to capture the gun, they will be taken by the mass in the other zone.
The use of the AA to block the blitz allows the Russians to protect both zones effectively while only occupying 1 zone and risking no units.
yes, house rules are always up for consideration.
I have this wierd habit of finding (what I consider) imperfections in games that break the play. In this case, the best Russian defense might be to possess a large stack in either Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine. What ever territory the stack is not in, put 1 or 2 infantry with the AA gun and the defense of Moscow is impervious to armored blitz.
The industrial complex stopping a blitz I understand. It is most often the target of an attack and complexes don’t move so you can count on going around them.
I would love to know the thought process behind the AA gun stopping a blitz (what led to the decision of making that rule).
aye, that is terribly hokey.
the defending submarine should have the ability to decide if it wishes to participate in combat or not (naturally unless a destroyer is present).
why would a unit be forced to not partake in combat when it has the ability to?
i can only assume the designers do not like submarines much (or worse, don’t want anyone else to like them either).
so let me see if I get this straight……
a submarine cannot stop a defenseless transport, but an AA gun can stop a tank blitz.
wtf?
i am complaining because i can see how this breaks gameplay.
What do you guys think of an AA blocking a tank blitz?
I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport). It becomes a nearly permanent road block. The rule seems to only aid Russia since there are no other places where armor is a factor where AA exists.
Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.
Most unfortunate.
Oh, I think having to own the Suez Canal prior to moving through it is also a sham. Yes, that only hurts the Axis.
I did play a Revised game where I lost Germany the same turn I took Russia (with Japan). Many observers thought I didn’t stand a chance and said the game was over. After 1 turn it was painfully clear Japan was going to stomp the remaining Allies.
I would not say that just because capitals were swapped that anyone side has an advantage, but it was how I took Russia that gave me the ability to stomp the remaining allies.
When you move to take a capital, prepare for what happens after.