I have been playing A&A since it came out, and Germany has always been my best country. Although in both games (A&A and revised) the axis have the odds stacked against them, I find victories with them are more rewarding because they are so much harder to come by. Be that as it may, this is what I have found playing Germany.

In short, hit the allies where they are not strong.

Although the first turn buy is important, I see it as being more of a “feeler”. I tend to wait and see where the allies commit themselves before I decide what my exact strategy is going to be. The exception being Russia on t1 (because they are the only ones b4 germany). If Russia does the standard thing on T1 and fully commits to the German front than you should hold off. If however they get “creative” and send more than usual amount of troops to fight the Japs, than you see the weakness and should exploit it with large attacks on Russia. However that rarely happens.

As usual with most people who have some proficiency playing Germany, I knock the hell out of England turn 1 because they are spread so thin. The damage you can inflict on England before they can consolidate is never the same as on turn 1. Use your Air Force and navy to its fullest to exploit this.

Now it is a waiting game to see how the US and UK plan to wage war. If the UK goes all after Navy in the Atlantic, hit Africa hard. Your 1 inf 1 tank a turn will force the British to put large amounts of troops in Africa. If they fully commit to Africa, slam them in the ocean removing the threat of a cross channel invasion. If they go to India, same is true. There are only so many places they can spend $ and be effective. If they try to “do it all” they only accomplish losing on all fronts.

Now the real trick is with the Americans. If all 3 powers go all out against you, you have much fewer options. Thankfully in revised the Atlantic is not a quick jump over to the English sea square. Africa can still be exploited however because the US starts out with next to no navy in the Atlantic. Many games I have seen (if not most) develop into the UK building up an atlantic navy to threaten western Eurupe, and/or feed the Russians troops, while the US goes full force into Africa taking away much needed IPC. If this is the case, you really need to rely heavily on the Japs to do thier job and do it well since they are virtualy uncontested. However, your job turns into a delaying action to the inevitable. Airforce is huge in being able to do this well. 1 fighter or bomber a turn is huge in deturing an over ambitious US. With the threat of a large air reprisal on thier fleet where they land, the US and UK will need to overbuy ships to protect thier transports. Idealy, you never have to attack the allied shipping because they have gone to such a gross extreme over buying ships to protect it would be suicide. You still have your air force, and they have a bunch of ships that will never see combat (unlike your airforce which will see a lot of combat reguardless). This buys you time. If it is apparent that the Americans are going to go whole hog into Eurupe I suggest a very speedy conquest of Africa before the US can land in any force. You may be spread thin, but you get the short term IPC and than make the US chase you. Do not put your forces on the coast, put them one square away and make the Americans chase you. Move back 1 square every turn to stop the quick blitzkrieg. All the while they can never truly take you out because they will not have infantry support. If they try to take you out with only tanks and airforce than you got your $'s worth out of the Africa corp because they will be losing tanks to your infantry when they attack.

Air force is the key to German victory. You must give the Russian front “its due” of men going into the meat grinder. But a plane a turn for Germany will ensure a constant threat to the allied forces on all fronts. If you feel lucky, long range aircraft DOUBLE (in my opinion) the threat your airforce presents, and if you can spare the IPC I suggest you get it.

In my opinion a winning German player does not truly come into the game with a concrete strategy. As the Germans you need to look at it not as what you are able to do, but as what the allies are not able to do.

Create a situation where the allies are trying to stop a damn from bursting. As they plug one hole, open up another one and leave the small crack they have filled for the one you are now trying to exploit. The allies can not cover every “crack”, and you need to use that to your advantage. Sooner or later they will run out of fingers to plug the dam. Above all, do not fight thier fight, meaning a heads up confrontation against an allied concentration is suicide. They will win every time, they can out build you. If they are funneling troops to Russia spend IPC to take Africa away. If they want Africa hit Russia hard. If they are going all out to kill you, make them over spend to protect thier navy while Japan gobbles up the rest of the world.

The key to victory is the German airforce, with it you are a threat on all fronts. Without it you are fighting thier fight, and when that happens you better hope the Japs have thier shiznit together because if they don’t there will be hell to pay.

I am not sure how much they held, but I am sure it is in the 1000s of barrels - not hundreds of gallons.  That aside, oil tankers were the main target for any sub (not an opinion, a fact) and I would be curious to know the other parts of the world that had serious oil dumpage.  Japan attacked us (mostly) because we exported oil to them and threatened to stop exporting exporting.  A lot of oil got dumped into the pacific when our subs sunk their gravy train of oil from borneo.  Last I checked, their is still sea life in the pacific.

Again, I don’t know diddly about this - why I am asking the question.  I can see there being a difference between refined oil and crude.  IF crude is worse, than ya - this is a huge enviormental disaster.  If not than I think this whole thing is being dramatized for politics (on both sides).  I just can not imagine 4 years of intentional sinking of ships that carried oil is less than a few months of one hole spewing oil into the Gulf.

I am a strong believer in the 1 fighter a turn method, at least until it becomes hopeless and you are just defending waiting for the inevitalble conquest of Berlin.

The scope of the effect the fighter or bomber would have is not only limited to an atlantic sea battle, although should the opprotunity arise you should seize it. Also, in your scenerio of having an over-whelming fleet you do not put any pressure on Germany for at least 3 turns. I am guessing you are holding your fleet back NW of Great Britian until more ships arrive. I would almost never attack the fleet you described. But if UK tries to land any troops (whether it be in Eurupe or Africa) before they can consolidate with the US fleet I will attack it (you can no longer hide from my airforce once you land somewhere). Also, you underestimate the power of the threat of an attack in the sea. Lets say that you force the UK or US to buy an extra carrier because they fear a german air attack. They just wasted 18 IPC. Yes, they may have a little bit more manuverability with the extra carrier… but that small perk is hardly worth 16 IPC (or imagine if they wasted 24 IPC on a battleship?). All the while you still have your versatile air force that can just go to another theater to inflict damage.

As to the 10 ICP fighter issue compared to the 3 IPC infantry… A slowly growing German airforce gives you enormous versatility. And in general the German airforce should grow because if the German player is playing smart he will covet his airforce and not squander it foolishly. An end all battle with the atlantic fleet is a once a game thing, that can very easily decide the game. But barring game deciding moves, the german airforce should stay in tact for the most part. Lets say it is turn 3. The Germans have taken Egypt, the UK put a IC in south africa. Pretty standard game situation. Leaving a token air force behind in Eurupe to exchange territories with the Russians, move the rest of it to Africa. Lets say realisticaly that is 4 figheters and a bomber (leaving 2 fighters behind in Eurupe). Now the stalemate going south turns into a route (I feel stupid at the momment and can not remember how to spell that correctly - sorry). You march down Africa and take the IC. You may say the Americans or British will land troops in africa, ok. Now you have your airforce there to destroy any invasion force that lands. Of course they may take thier planes off the carriers to protect thier land forces. I will attack the navy just because I can’t stand empty carriers lol. You can see the versatility of this I am sure. You mentioned rockets… they are nice, but if you go for a developement I say it should be long range aircraft. You at least double the threat posed by your airforce if you are lucky enough to get it. In revised, the map is bigger. The US player usualy uses Canada as its jumping off point to Eurupe now. With long range aircraft they need to put some serious defense there to protect the gravy train of troops that comes. If you get so bold as to get an extra bomber or 2, even the eastern coast of the US is not safe from the German airforce.

Airforce means versatility to the Germans. It has the range and the power to effect any theater of the war. You like infantry with the German, and lord knows you are right by knowing they will need them against the Russians. But you can not instantly transfer troops from one front to another the way you can airforce.

I know that you are going to say that given what I have said the allies going whole hog after Germany can take africa, and have the gravy train of troops coming into eurupe while putting pressure on Western. True, it is inevitable in that situation. But the key to victory than is to make it take as long as possible for them to do it. I never claimed Germany has the ability to defeat all 3 powers by itself. It can’t. But by correctly choosing your fights, and making every advance cost the allies in wasted IPC from fleet, or reconquering taken IPC in africa you delay them long enough for the Japs to run rampid through the rest of the world.

Last thing, a strategy I have used with my airforce towards the “end game” (meaning a dash to moscow) is upon making my big push to moscow I start it with a suicide charge into the atlantic with my airforce (suicide is relative, I mean going into the battle knowing I will lose my airforce to achieve time. Insane odds I won’t do this - but insane odds also means that I have made the allies over buy thier navy). If I can do an exchange, my airforce for thier navy I will do it (and buy 2 fighters that turn to keep a minimal threat to naked transports being placed). My airforce of course would be a great help in a russian offensive, but I will gladly trade them for 2 or 3 turns of “alone time” with the ruskies.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating the first turn buy being 4 fighters or something insane like that. Just 1 fighter or bomber a turn (and if you feel lucky go for long range aircraft). Germany can afford that, and it will play hell with the allies ability to move troops. A short coming of the game is that subs play nowhere near the role they did in WW2. A German airforce can play that historical role, if done correctly.

@Robert:

I like your idea on the germans key to victory.  I have found it very effective to buy a bomber a turn and use all of them to bomb the IPC’s right out of the russians.  I also buy bombers with the japenese and bomb the russians with that.  I really find now need for africa but if possible I could use the IPC’s.  I really need some tips in africa because I find it hard to hold of the russians for the first few turns and I don’t have enough money for Africa.

I understand the pressure that the Russians can put on you.  More than likely they will go after you with 90% of their forces.  However, to put pressure in africa only really takes 1 inf 1 armor a turn.  With my proposed plane a turn that adds up to 18 IPC which means that 22 IPC can go after Russia.  The Russians will have to do something about the Japs encroaching on their territories, they make 24 IPC and I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that they will spend more than 2 IPC (not even an infantry) a turn to fight the japs.  At worst you see a stalemate on the eastern front.  I am basing this on the starting out $ each country recieves because there is no way to know exactly how the game will evolve turns into it (the game is a dice rolling game, and things change).  However, any $ the Russians gain against the Germans, will be lost to $ lost to the japs.  Conversely, any $ lost in Eurupe will be gained in Africa.  So for simplicity sake I am using the starting out IPC.

As to how to stop the Russians, the game has not changed so much as to not have the same “territory swap” that was in the original game.  The Germans or Russians will only move up when they have an overwhelming force to hold the territory taken.  To go 1/2 a$$ed means that the forces spent there will be destroyed at great cost to the original attacker.

In most of my games 90% of allied forces go against Germany.  The people I play against do not really spend any IPC in the pacific, or against the Japs in general barring the few Infantry the Russians buy to delay the Japs.  So playing Germany most times I have to be able to fight all 3 allied powers, and hold out for the Japs to gain enough power to make their move.

That was the way to play in the old game, and the people I play against refuse to adapt to the new game thinking that is the only way to play.  I have played the other countries and showed how diff. strategies can be effective, but they just chalk it up to me being lucky or what not, and never really consider doing these things themselves.

Suffice to say, I am used to having the whole burden of the allied attack come on me when I play Germany.  I know I can’t win against those odds, but it has taught me to pick and chose my fights (which is why I like a strong German airforce so much - versatility).

I would love play a game (online, or whatever) with someone who has a different strategy other than kill germany first, and pay little attention to Japan.  That is my biggest shortcoming in the game.

Any takers?

I have always held some fascination with this man. He poses a philosophical question, that while uncomfortable should be addressed. “Is justice more important than advancement?”

Braun was a war criminal, there is no doubt of that. The estimates I have seen is that he was responsible for at least 10k deaths building his rockets. Whether he believed the whole Nazi dogma is not important. He may have thought that killing ‘inferior’ races was a great thing, or if he would have liked to have a beer with Einstein and talk science isn’t really the point. He was a murderer.

That being said, he was also the most scientifically influential of his generation (I would argue multiple generations). Einstein is great, but other than building a bomb he had no practical application for his work. Braun brought the first human made thing to space (albeit for the Nazis), and the first person on the moon. Some of you reading this may be doing it on your phone. Whatever your opinion is on the matter the reason you can do it is because of Von Braun (I am speaking of the satellites that we have in space now would be about 20 years behind if not for this man).

This man ran the rocket program in Germany in his TWENTIES. He was 33 when the war ended, and we snatched him up and made him as American as apple pie. Was that the right thing to do? Should he have been swinging from a rope at Nuremberg at the cost of the rest of us just now getting our first flip phones?

And even if you back not delivering justice to Braun for his war crimes, where do you draw the line? Imagine if Hitler was the one who had this knowledge. Do we as a society say to Hitler “You have been naughty, but we forgive you - now go build us a rocket”. The only difference I see between the two is that of degree. Hitler killed around 50 million, Braun 10k of that. If you equate all human life being equal than the difference between 50 million and 10k is just semantics.

I honestly don’t have an opinion on this. I can see the argument from both sides and both sides are compelling. If I had to choose one I would side on not delivering justice to Braun (he is probably roasting in hell now anyway). The reason I say that is because of his advancements he has probably saved more lives than he took.

Anyhow, food for thought.

I am going to be slightly political about this by stating an obvious fact. Liberals and SJWs dominate Hollywood. The only reason I mention it is because with so many movies that have a left leaning agenda I am mystified that a movie about the Nisei has never been done. It has all the elements that Hollywood would love to push. A racist America that threw Americans into internment camps based off of their race, but the brave minority loves America so much that they fight for her anyway. They eventually become the most highly decorated Americans in US history.

Why has this movie not been made? You can’t watch a mainstream movie any more w/o not so subtle left wing politics coming into it. This story line matches that agenda, and has the added benefit of being true; so why has it not been written? Are they just plain ignorant that it ever happened?

Other than ignorance the only thing I can come up with is that the Nisei didn’t ‘fight the system’, they adapted to it and that is where their heroism comes in. A story on Rosa Parks or Malcolm X is about how they had to fight the system and that is what makes them historic figures. Hell, Joe Frasier was a better boxer than Cashus Clay… but he was called an Uncle Tom, and Mohamad Ali was ‘the greatest of all time’ for evading the draft. They call him a hero for refusing to fight for his country.

I would love to see a movie made about the Nisei, and I think it is an injustice that their story is not better known. Outside boards like this I would guess 99% of Americans don’t even know who they were, and that is tragic when you consider those were the finest Americans this country has ever produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFbgmayQ-E

I just got the HTC vive and picked up this game, and I must say it really is amazing (esp. for us WW2 geeks).  You are in a U-boat during WW2.  It can be single or multiplayer up to 4 people (some ship features like loading torps. can be put on auto if you don’t have a full crew).  I must say the realism is amazing.  The game does not assign you a role, but to be efficient the people playing need to split up resp. to complete the mission.  You are talking to these people, and running all over the ship to get the job done.  It is so realistic the other day when I was playing I had a bit of flatulence and my first thought was “can’t do that here, will stink up the ship”, just to remember a couple seconds later “uh, I am in my living room!”.

It is not just the underwater stuff.  You can go above deck and fire the 88 to take down merchant shipping, or fire the AA to knock down enemy aircraft.  When the boat is getting depth charged you have to seal the leaks and pump out the excess water.

I am not big into gaming systems.  XBOX and the playstation were not a big deal, and although I owned an xbox I almost never played it.  VR is different.  20 years from now people are going to look at the present gaming systems the same we look at 1970s ‘Pong’.

While devastating I don’t think Stalingrad was the final nail in the Nazi coffin.  It was over after Kursk, about 6 months later.

Something that I think people forget about the Soviet Union under Stalin is that it was as bad, if not worse than Hitler.  I can not remember his name, but there was an admiral in the British navy who said (after he found out that Germany invaded the U.S.S.R.) “It is a pity they both can’t lose”.

Many more people died in gulags than in concentration camps; but the winners write the history books.

Do you think the A-bombs did it?  The U.S.S.R. joining the war?  Or a combination of both?

For my part I lean towards Russian invasion.  The Germans would have given anything at the later stage of the European war to have been able to surrender to the west.  In terms of WW2, A-bombs are horrible, but in the long term Nagasaki and Hiroshima are first world cities now.  Everything that the former U.S.S.R. has ever touched has turned into garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1aGH6NbbyE

At 12:50 during this video it gives a translation of what the German soldiers were saying to the American soldiers who shot them (or murdered them) at Normandy.

The whole “Look, I washed for supper” line.

While what was portrayed in the movie was a war crime, when you hear the translation it is even worse.

Stalin would not have surrendered, and while the psychological impact of losing the capital sucks… that would not have won the Germans the war.  The biggest impact from losing Moscow would be that it was the central hub of the railways for the USSR.  That in and of itself may have caused Russia to collapse.  It would be like the U.S. losing Chicago.  While Chicago is an important US industrial city, the biggest ramification of its loss would be to cut the US in 2.

I think it would have taken a one, two punch from losing Moscow and Stalingrad to force a Russian surrender.  Loss of its major rail hub and the Volga would have split up the Russians too much and Germany could have divided and conquered.

http://www.beyondbandofbrothers.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhbOhjKTN2AIVF79PCh3tpQotEAEYASAAEgIed_D_BwE

Stumbled onto this and thought you guys would find it interesting.  It scares me to think how much some of these would cost (32 day tour?), but when I retire and crack open the 401k it may be something worth looking into.

There was no way for Japan to win the war, but there was a way for Germany to win it… and hence Japan would win as well.

I think the only way they could have gotten a victory would have been to attack the USSR.  I know many on this board disagree with that, but most would agree that a major turning point in the German/Russian war was Stalingrad.  If the USSR had not been able to drain troops from the East they would not have had the men to counter-attack at Stalingrad and thee major German defeat there could have been avoided.  Would a German win at Stalingrad changed the war?  No one can say for sure, but if a win there led to the fall of the Caucus and a huge influx of oil to the German war machine an argument can def. be made.

Despite the vast numerical and manufacturing advantages the Americans had the biggest factor to me is a cultural one.  I read a story where a platoon of Japanese soldiers were told to man their machine gun at a certain point to hold off the American’s charge.  Once the machine gun was set up (and the Jap machine guns sucked, they made a huge target of the person firing) the first guy went to man it and was shot by a sniper.  They moved his body and the next guy manned it and was shot by the same sniper.  This went on until the entire platoon was dead.  You can’t win a war like that.

Now if you look at the Japanese Americans who fought you see a completely different kind of soldier.  The same bravery and willingness to die for their country was there, but they did not behave like… well idiots.  Sacrificing your life for your country is the ultimate expression of patriotism.  Throwing your life away for no good reason is the ultimate expression of stupidity.

@Caesar:

@CWO:

The British landings at Gallipoli in WWI and the British landings in Norway in WWII were botched operations with uncomfortable similarities.  Both were advocated by Churchill; both reflected Churchill’s inclinations (which were also demonstrated in other places, such as Italy) to hit the enemy in distant secondary areas rather than head-on at the front; and both failed because they were improvised and poorly planned.  More specifically, they reflected the simplistic view that a successful amphibious landing on a hostile shore merely required Britain to send in its fleet and disembark its troops.  This may have worked fine back in the eighteenth century, against light or nonexistent opposition, but the concept was already looking questionable at the time of the Crimean War in the mid-19th century when relatively modern industrial-age weapons were becoming the norm, and it had become dangerously obsolescent in 1940, when air power had become a major factor in warfare.

I never understood the point of the allied landings in Norway anyways? Was it simply to just remove possible bombing threats against UK? Norway was always a weakness for Germany anyway and I am not surprised the allies never again invaded Norway after 40.

Because of a planned English/French invasion of Norway.  Norway itself was not a big deal, but it bordered Sweden and the Germans got most of their Iron Ore from Sweden.  The thought process is that if they could stop Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany than Germany would have to capitulate.  So instead of fighting a long protracted war against Germany they figured they could win a couple of quick wars against Norway and Sweden and end the war.  The Altmark incident showed that England had no intention of honoring Norway’s neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmark_Incident

And the quick response to the German invasion with the French and British own “rescue” attempt shows that they were planning the same thing.  Germany just beat them to the punch.  I think Germany should have let them invade to get Norway on their side, but either way the result would have been the same.  Norway was doomed one way or another.