Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
Regels en richtlijnen voor discussies
Dit bericht rapporteren
Anyway, Russia taking Ukraine and West Russia in round one seems to be standard tactics for most people. To be honest, I don't know why it works but it does. For me - I do it because if successful it takes out the German bomber as well as a fighter and it gives Germany a bit more to think about when deciding how many units to send to attack Karelia and Ukraine, and where to put the ones that can't reach during non-combat. If unsuccessful, sorry to say, for me it usually results in a disaster.
I've not yet seen a US player build an IC in Alaska, and I've played 200 games here, so I can't comment on that one.
The IC in Manchuria is also what I used to do. Not any more as I realised it just doesn't work, it's far more effective to simply build transports and infantry/artillery in Japan - these can go anywhere - an IC in Manchuria can really only build expensive tanks confined to the Asian continent. Transports from Japan can also reach India faster than tanks from Manchuria, and with Japan's starting fleet of fighters (assuming they survive the first of round) can threaten India by R2 or R3.
Another poster, Aardvarkpepper, has gone into great detail on this on other threads - his posts are well worth a read.
Personally, my first build as Axis now is usually:
Germany - 1 bomber, 4 infantry and 4 artillery, or 1 bomber 2 tanks, 2 artillery and 3 infantry depending on how I feel at the time. (It used to be all tanks!)
Japan - usually 2 transports, 3 artillery and 1 infantry. 3 transports may be better if the UK have taken one of yours on their first turn. (It used to be an IC in Manchuria, 2 artillary and 1 transport)
I look forward to other more experienced players giving their opinion....
I really don't like talking about builds. It leads to players not thinking. And in this game, there are consequences for not thinking.
Which I suffer regularly because reasons.
Like this one recent game, I bought a carrier then I did all the wrong moves because I'd forgotten I'd bought a carrier two minutes ago, then on my third combat I realized "hey, I'm playing the wrong moves" and resigned.
c'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est le bon
And it's like yeah, I know, you're thinking "but builds . . . how much trouble could I get in?" yeah okay, a lot. and it's TOTALLY insufficient to know the builds, you have to know HOW TO USE the builds in different situations.
Okay so now I am going to tell you a few things about Germany and Japan in this version of Axis and Allies okay? But remember there are going to be loads of weird stuff, only SOME of which I will mention later.
G1: 11 infantry 2 artillery, do not overextend. If you don't know what I mean by overextend, go read my Steam guide for this game. No seriously. Go.
G2: More infantry and artillery.
G3: Maybe a couple infantry and a buncha tanks. Maybe some tanks. Maybe no tanks. It really depends.
G4: Like G4.
G5: Who knows? Maybe some artillery. Some tanks. Maybe a bunch of infantry.
G6+ Maybe you won by now?
J1: Buy so you have four transports, rest buy cheap ground.
J2: If US put a buncha fleet in Pacific or you let them keep their Pacific stuff and they're getting feisty, build 2 submarines and cheap ground.
J3: Build 2 submarines and cheap ground again.
J4+: Yes, 2 submarines and cheap ground again. Unless you suddenly buy fighters. Or bombers. It depends. And they're not interchangeable oh no.
J5: ?
J6: Did you win?
See how horribly VAGUE that all is? Did that REALLY help? Probably you're like . . . wha? what did I even read? is that even a plan? isn't that even stupid a lot of times?
And let's be clear. In some games it IS very dumb to do all that.
==
Okay um before beginning. I'm gonna say look okay. A lotta players kinda think it's about infantry push logistics and they're right. Some think it's about multiple threat dynamics and they're right too. And other players think it's about income control. And guess what. Yeah. They're also right. All right and all wrong, because really it's all of them, and knowing what's important and when, and when to change emphasis if you do, is fundamental.
And yeah if you read that guide I wrote it's infantry push dynamics. Because that's where most beginning players get killed. It's where you're getting killed too, at least that's my read on it.
I often say yeah okay Axis and Allies not that complicated. Because it's not. There's superficially any number of positions, but most of them collapse into one another. Well I won't get into that here.
==
Okay so I'm reading this, UKR/WRus standard but no mention of the specific outcomes, or what your defensive profile is set at. And you're like "but I just wrote they left a tank" etc. - no. Not enough.
Specifically, W Rus / Ukr opening has multiple points of failure. And knowing the counter to that Russia opening requires at least the following.
1) Can Karelia be claimed without Russia having any good counterattack?
2) Can West Russia be taken, and if so what will the Russians lose and what's the cost to Germany
3) Is there a high percentage attack on Caucasus that will break Russia's attack power?
4) Can most of Russia's attack power be destroyed in general
5) What's Russia's counter if any to any German attack
6) Is there a high probability strafe anywhere? If so what are the cost/benefits?
7) Where are Russian fighters?
8) Where is Russian sub?
9) Did the Russian infantry on Kazakh go to Szechwan, Caucasus, or Russia?
10) Did the Russian infantry stack 5 on Buryatia, or head immediately towards Europe, or pile on Yakut, or what was it?
This is not me trying to be cute "la la hee hee you didn't dot your i's and cross your t's", this is not whatever rationalization to try to get out of giving useful advice. What Germany does depends on these answers and others, what Japan does depends on the outcomes and UK's actions too. Annnd I will explain some.
1) Can Karelia be claimed without any good counterattack? Like yeah okay maybe Russia has a fat stack on West Russia. But maybe you can hit that stack and hurt it a lot. If you hurt that stack it can't threaten Karelia - maybe even if it's just weakened. And nontrivially, the tank from Northwestern Europe can defend better than an infantry. Yes, sometimes it's that close that it makes a real difference what you bring over with the transport, sometimes you just can't wait for that tank to get there an extra turn later.
2) Can West Russia be taken? It's a real question. Because there's two major variations of UKR/W Rus, the 2 tank to UKR and the 3 tank to UKR. If it's 2 tanks to UKR, Russia faces some really nasty outcomes with moderately bad dice. If it's 3 tanks to UKR . . . Russia faces some really nasty outcomes with moderately bad dice. But how that plays out is different.
If Russia hit UKR with 3 tanks, only 1 tank went to West Russia. And with some bad dice, and depending on what Russia did with its AA gun, that may mean Germany is open to a high odds attack from Germany. And if you can do that, depending on what else happened that turn, you may be able to break Russia's back immediately. All of Russia's major attack units went to West Russia and Ukraine. So depending on outcomes, all of those attack units may be vulnerable to German counterattack, and depending on what's on the board, that may be something Russia can't recover from.
If Russia hit UKR with 2 tanks, 2 tanks went to West Russia. And with some bad dice, and depending on what Russia did with its AA guns, you may or may not be able to smash Caucasus. Specifically, if you take the German battleship and evacuate Africa (or just from Southern Europe), and if you take Caucasus, it depends on what Russia did. If Russia failed at UKR, and retreated to Caucasus with only its air units surviving, go see aacalc and figure on the odds of a good German attack. It's good. And if both Russian air dies, Russian ability to trade is crippled, and if Russia put artillery there to try to counter any German take and hold of UKR . . . you see?
And a lot of times Germany gets used to whatever the grind, and doesn't even bother to think about the counters or whatever, woops, Russia has an artillery and three tanks on UKR, there goes the neighborhood! gg! But if you look at the board situation, a lot of times you can break the game open, sometimes just because of dice, sometimes because your opponent didn't play properly, or whatever.
. . . yeah. Anyways the OP was about Japan, yeah yeah I know. But it's like . . . you can't just say blah blah here's what imma do with Japan. No. You have to read the board, what's your best lines of play. It's not this static "no matter what my opponents do imma do X then Y then Z then imma sell my eggs at the market and with those eggs I'll buy a chicken then with that chicken I'll get more eggs then I'll buy a bonnet and a nice new basket and when . . . you've heard that story? Yeah. So let's not. Look around, pay attention.
To close out this post - look, generally you try to kill Russia's attack power with Germany, you do NOT send your fighters and tanks where they can be killed unless you get a FRIGGIN TON of good stuff, like massive massive goodness. And you have this timing. If Russia plays it right, it's something like G3 (Germahy's third turn) push into Ukraine, then G4 West Russia then G5 Caucasus. And it's hard to stop. But if the dice break open then it's German tanks in Moscow by G3 maybe. And dice breaking like that can happen by the end of R1 (Russia's first turn). So yeah you need to watch for that, and if it happens the timings for Japan change too.
Revisiting last post . . . so anyways before getting into Japan, you have to understand. There's a timing to the Axis attacks. You don't just fling whatever at Moscow as fast as you can. That just gets you killed.
"G1: 11 infantry 2 artillery, do not overextend. If you don't know what I mean by overextend, go read my Steam guide for this game. No seriously. Go.
G2: More infantry and artillery.
G3: Maybe a couple infantry and a buncha tanks. Maybe some tanks. Maybe no tanks. It really depends.
G4: Like G4.
G5: Who knows? Maybe some artillery. Some tanks. Maybe a bunch of infantry.
G6+ Maybe you won by now?"
Sounds vague right? Well it is vague. Because you don't know what's going to happen with Germany.
The corresponding German turns maybe look something like this.
G1: Build infantry and artillery, stack Ukraine with loads of units including German fighters BECAUSE RUSSIA CANNOT PUNISH YOU is the assumption. This happens in some games, and when you stack Ukraine, you reduce Russia's income. And it probably seems trivial, what's 2 income, maybe Russia could claim it anyways. But no. It's important. It is.
And also Germany takes Karelia without Russia being able to claim it. Doesn't happen every game, but if Russia pushed WRus/Ukr, there's a chance it captured Ukraine. And if it did, especially with 3 tanks, you can probably kill them all, and that means a big reduction in possible attackers against Karelia on R2. Of course Russia might have built like 4 infantry 2 tanks or more tanks or gone West Russia only, or gotten really good dice, then you can't take and hold Karelia on G1. But you look at it for G2 and certainly G3.
Anyways we're going to assume you looked at the board and the board says (it might not) that Karelia's going to be real nasty for Russia to attack. So we're gonna say okay you take and hold Karelia AND take and fortify Ukraine. This is just a theoretical example again.
G2: G1 infantry push east towards Ukraine, and some towards Karelia if necessary. And you trade with Russia for whatever income you can get if they are GOOD trades. You do NOT commit tanks, you NEED those tanks later. If even a single tank dies, I hit your hand with a ruler. unless you kill at least two Russian tanks or a Russian fighter or something. And then it had better be just one German tank.
G3: German infantry push Ukraine, and this is where it starts getting interesting? I dunno maybe you already do this as standard . . . . anyways the thing is you put all that infantry in, you put German tanks in, and what between those and German fighters, by this point you should be holding Karelia and Ukraine for SURE. And if it's close? Then you fly in some Japanese fighters. Because your Japanese fighters are in range. Because you're reading this.
G4: German Karelia and Ukraine stacks combine at West Russia, Japan flies fighters on again. West Russia is open because Russia stacked Caucasus.
G5: West Russia stack takes Caucasus. Caucasus is open because Russia stacked Russia.
to be continued
But you can see if the Allies are down, it's not like the Allies are locked down only to trying to push infantry. They have options. And if you're too slow about what you're doing, say you go slow infantry, 100%, then by the time those slow infantry catch up to the front line, the fighters already held Germany back for a couple turns maybe, and by then maybe Allied transports and escorts are pressuring.
On the other hand, if the Allies have transports and escorts and pressure, you need a load of infantry so you can put big blocks on Karelia, Germany, and France. Because you really don't want to be trading France back and forth all day (unless the Allies are really bad/dumb about it). Rather, you have a gigantic block of infantry that deters invasions in the first place. Of course if it's really threatened then you can push it onto Germany, then if the Allies shift to France you smash them with massive advantage. But I digress. You see, in one case you go tanks and not infantry, in another case you go infantry not tanks. And yes, tanks are very good, but that doesn't mean you can go buying up a load of them because without numbers you end up trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry and THAT isn't good.
Right. So anyways you're pressuring Russia and if Karelia falls *just* before Moscow falls then it's probably okay; you reverse Germany around and grab Karelia right back with your huge stack of tanks and since you were feeding infantry east from Germany you have infantry plus tanks so it's just really crazy gigantic. It's not unstoppable and maybe you couldn't even grab Russia in the first place but that's the idea. You don't have to protect everything forever, just long enough to get what you need to get done, then you turn around and clean up.
. . . okay. So German timing, that's explained a bit.
Japan's timing is something like J1 build up to four transports, J2 if US dropped Pacific build, buy two subs and ground, consolidate control of the Asian coast, J3 redirect to Yunnan, then from there press Burma. And there's variations where you press Burma immediately which work all right or even much better depending on situation. Though it depends. So by J3 you have six units on Yunnan, J4 you have six more units on Yunnan, and the whole time your main fleet is just sitting on the Yunnan sea zone with air nearby. And if US pushes . . . more on that in a bit.
But anyways by J5 or J6 you do the "India shift" as I call it because I don't have anyone on staff coming up with cooler sounding names. That is, your previous turn's units marched into Burma without UK taking it (there's extra ways to do this and earlier that I mentioned in another thread) from where they pressure India, and you ALSO pick up the units at Yunnan and drop them into India. So Yunnan stack plus Burma stack both hit India along with a chunk of air. And probably that means India gets claimed. Because that is a LOT of stuff. Then from there probably Japan can start grabbing points in Africa - it depends on the situation of course, sometimes Japan should push against Moscow immediately, sometimes it looks like Germany's holding against the Allies but can't really make headway against Russia, then you go after UK's income.
Well this is where timings come in.
Right before Japan smashes India, UK should see it coming and run to Persia. And normally this is pretty safe unless UK screwed up badly, we'll assume they didn't. One thing that sometimes happens though, if UK is smart and is checking what's going on in Russia is, sometimes they'll just run away without India being threatened at all. Because Germany may be about to drop a load of nasty hurt on Russia. Thing is, UK has to understand what's happening and not be greedy trying to stay at India. They need to move to Persia and then into Caucasus ideally before Germany can cement a threat, and that's where a lot of Allied players screw up.
Now - if things go WELL for the Axis, Germany already took Caucasus in force. So when UK pushes to Persia, that's just too bad for them, because Germany is ready to hit them from the front and Japan from behind. That's the ideal. But if not, then maybe you get something like UK stacking Caucasus combined with Russia while Germany is still at Ukraine. Then when Germany pushes to West Russia, UK shifts its stack to Russia. Then you have this nasty combined stack of Russians and UK on Russia. That's bad. But I'm guessing that's not what happened with you.
For reasons.
OK as I wrote - timings. And you have to use what you have properly. Or it's trash. But generally that US / Japan stuff described shouldn't work that way.
Like US. OK it builds 15 IPC on Alaska why? On that turn it does nothing. Next turn it can put out two units. Or last turn it could have built two units then this turn it moved those two units to Alaska. Same thing in terms of raw force. And is there some sort of responsiveness gain? Not really. Because the naval battle for Pacific is raw force. Oh yeah okay maybe some subtlety but really a lot of raw force. Mostly.
Then J1 Manchuria IC no no no gnash teeth stomp stomp throw things. Cruiser and bomber, throw more things, leap out window. No no no no no.
First, remember. With Japan you have to dump ground to Asia. You try to wreck India and Russia, you put pressure on, you steal UK income, you steal Russia income. You build a load of boats, you're useless. It's like you're dead to Germany.
Second, remember. ICs are garbage. There are rare exceptions, but not for Japan and no you haven't just discovered a new way to play or whatever innovation. They mostly suck. There are exceptions like MAYBE in SOME games a Norway IC for UK or US, but those are extremely specific. And in SOME games yes a Manchuria IC. But it's never "ho hum, lol, I think I shall stick an industrial complex in Manchuria, yes I shall, I wonder what is for dinner?" No, it's more like "Russia has 11 units on its front, US and UK have no fighters in range to reinforce or transports, Germany has 9 units on the front, Russia will fall with some extra help, quick, Manchuria IC because a 15 IPC investment puts 3 tanks on the mainland where two transports at 14 IPC only put 2 tanks on mainland!" Yes, it really is that specific, and yes you have to count everything and look at everything and figure it out.
But generally? Manchuria IC doesn't fight. And if US puts pressure on? Then Manchuria IC is a ball and chain. You see, you have to defend the Manchuria IC or when US captures it, US gets an immediate three units next turn after a single turn of control. And if there's no IC and US builds one there's a turn of delay before it can start producing, an extra turn for you to recapture if you want. And either way, you're paying 15 IPC for a IC that ends up in US hands, when you should just let US be producing it. So no. Never Manchuria IC.
Cruiser and bomber no no and no. Cruisers are awful. Japanese air is amazing, but you only get J1 bombers in specific circumstances - I mentioned one such earlier in another thread, basically it's for REAL conditions under which you threaten J2 capture of India - and if Allies defend India heavily, the preconditions for J1 bomber buy were so heavy that the Allies most certainly paid horribly for the privilege of holding India for one more turn which lets Germany put the boot in.
Look yeah? Transports for speed. You like speed. Against India. Every turn you delay at India is another 3 units UK pumps out there that eventually reinforce Russia probably without Germany being able to do anything about it. That is VERY VERY bad. Even if most players don't use India right, you shouldn't get used to leaving India alone. And apart from that you like subs. Then when you don't like subs you like fighters.
J1 build transports. J2 if US1 Pacific fleet build or US pushes into Pacific 2 subs and ground. And you keep dropping to Yunnan. Then you shift onto India. When the UK clump moves to Russia, you move to Caucasus, and keep up economic pressure. Or maybe UK stack gets killed whatever you can manage.
Meanwhile US presses on Japan. At some point they get to where they interdict Japan's waters with destroyers and air. That means if you build new subs, US can kill them for cheap. And you don't want to get involved in trading with US until you break India and spatter Japan's goodness all over the place probably, and you help Germany mess Russia up real bad. Then you reverse out of Asia, chase US out, and outproduce the Allies.
Okay anyways there's this inbetween phase which is the key to anti-KJF. And if you understand it, you'll understand even more why Manchuria IC is so sucky.
OK see, Japan tries to build pressure on Russia see? Dumps infantry in, feeds to Yunnan after India falls, then from there to Szechwan then Kazakh. From Kazakh, simultaneously threatens Russia and Caucasus, it's like Japan's version of Germany's West Russia. And Japan produces at India and grabs Africa. And mostly if Allies want to counter at India or Africa it's costly in time and resources that they ought to be spending in Europe. And if they aren't spending in Europe and are running all over Africa, probably YOU can push in Europe because all those Allies are running around in Africa so aren't in Europe.
And picture the map. All this damage Japan is causing is in the Asia and Africa region. Japan doesn't need to control the waters around Japan. It can grab Australia, New Zealand, Africa, whatever.
But - India is probably producing ground troops to press into Asia. So probably Japan is not buying subs. Because again, if Japan does buy subs when US interdicts waters then those subs die.
And US is also probably threatening Japan.
So what then?
Fighters.
When you stick fighters on a carrier, that's potent defense. So right before you push back against US in Pacific (and you don't necessarily do this for a while), you maybe build a carrier at India, if that's even necessary. So what happened is, US dropped a fleet, Japan dropped subs, US got close, Japan ran away, all its subs and everything, Japan's fighters are in Europe reinforcing Germany or threatening Allied shipping in Atlantic. And US had this invasion threat but Japan has a stack of 8 infantry equivalent 2 fighters and antiaircraft gun, old fighters flying off Japan to help out against Russia and in Europe, new fighters being placed. So Japan has this massive air force. And navy. And US is doing whatever US does, going to Manchuria or Kwangtung. You don't want Us to grab that stuff too cheaply, but until and even if US puts ICs down Japan still has some time. (But if Japan put down a Manchuria IC, there isn't much delay plus Japan's 15 IPCs worse off in terms of units. see?)
And part of it is Japan does not NEED to defend the coast usually. Because if US rushed to build this big navy and air force then it pushes Japan out sooner but it doesn't have the transports even if it does have some ground to drop into Asia, which it may not. And once Japan retreats, then US starts packing in transports maybe. But by that point US infantry needs to slog from Soviet Far East to Yakut to Novosibirsk etc. It's slow. And by that time Axis should be really pressuring Moscow, maybe Moscow fell. And if not? Well Japan can still pull a reversal. Instead of sending its infantry to Russia, the rear ranks turn around and head to the Asian coast instead to repel US. And of course Japan's main navy and air push US out. So that's probably that. US gets temporary gains but it's very difficult for US to maintain control - provided Japan's building the correct stuff like mostly subs for interdiction at the start, so long as Japan has its carriers (hopefully battleships too), and one or two destroyers at least. Subs aren't great at defending, and Japan's pushing into US-controlled waters when the reversal happens, sure. But the Japanese air force is massive, and a destroyer/carrier build at India plus all those fodder subs Japan already has means that force is REALLY nasty to take down.
Then there's a version where US pushes in the south, and Japan needs to handle that differently. But anyways - you get some idea.
Oh yeah, in parting. The core of your fleet is subs, destroyers, carriers, fighters. and whatever else happened to survive like battleships. Do not buy cruisers or battleships. Use what you have but buy no more. They are not efficient. If US builds subs, you need destroyers to hunt them down and to prevent them from getting surprise attack on your fleet when they do attack. If US doesn't build much subs you still need destroyers because they're cheap fodder against air attack. Fighters and carriers provide defensive power but are expensive. If you have a load of fighters/carriers only then the back of that fleet can be broken easily (even by some lone subs, as fighters without destroyers can't hit subs). And you want subs of your own, because you are playing defense. If US gets into range, you should have your fleet and air nearby usually, and you whack them, losing some cheap cheap subs in exchange for expensive nice things. And if you don't have your air nearby, that air should be getting some good stuff done in Europe.
Okay anyways that's my bit.
Going back to first response as far as building Transports rather and Industry. I find my Japanese fleet is completely checked by Allied Fleets. At Gold level my Southern most carrier group is gimped by opponents in just about every game. It is attacked by every British Naval unit. Usually the whole fleet is gone or I have remnants left if anything and there have been multiple games where after this attack the Brits still have their carrier and a fighter. So I have a hard time seeing a transport fleet surviving because a Bomber in India or an American bomber on an island can range far into Pacific. Transports need to be escorted and are expensive in itself. Usually lately I find myself building Naval units just to survive the onslaught. of American and British naval units.
As far as Germany, my build and strategy depends on what I see after Soviet first move. I probe for weakness. If I see an opening in the Caucusus I will use transport to move and Inf and a tank from Africa and focus on Russia and leave Africa to the Allies. Unless I build Naval units in Italy first turn, I find my Med fleet has a very short term shelf life. If I have a fighter left after the Ukraine attack I have tried building a carrier and a destroyer to add to the battleship and transport in the Med with very limited success. Won a few games after building a battleship first turn in the Med. I just find that the Allies have multiple means of biting at your weak spots.
One of the most frustrating things I have seen is on Russia's first turn they attack my Baltic sea fleet with both fighters and destroy my cruiser and transport, and then still take West Russia and Ukraine without the Fighters, both times I saw this, both fighters survived and without that Cruiser any attack on British home sea fleet is doomed unless you have incredible dice luck.
My defense profile. Infantry, Arty,Bomber,Tank,Fighter and so on and so forth. I have Bomber before Tank because of its limited defense roll. Losing that Bomber now that is in Ukraine rather than Germany on the first turn really sucks...... further expanding on my defense profile, debated this for a awhile but I have my subs set to submerge if attacked. DO you think I should have my bomber further up in the food chain?
I started writing a detailed reply, then I went back and deleted the whole thing.
No point.
Adding to my fleet in the Med, my justification. First off I like to see if there are different ways to win, the same strategy every time can be boring. This version of A&A is definitely different as far as strategy than previous versions, not necessarily the concepts of not over extending but the different units and starting military strength of each faction. Strengthening German fleet in the Med,is unexpected from the Germans, but what makes it somewhat viable is it offers some protection of my Western flank. Allies have to think about the the two battleships there before they start their Transport train from the America and Canada. Secondly it makes the British think twice before coming up through the Suez with their carrier thats down by India. If I decide because of circumstances that the Africa corps is a better route to keep IPC up, those two battleships keep that going, as well as offering a threat to the Caucusus should I go that direction. It's going to be different with the skill of each opponent but I cant tell you how many times when I have added to my Med Fleet that I have seen the Allies mistakenly land multiple air units on Gibraltar only to be vaporized by Off Shore bombardment and possibly a minimal loss with an Infantry on the Axis side.
Any build I make is situational depending upon opening moves. I believe depending upon the opening Soviet move and its success the only turn to viably add to the German fleet is turn 1.
I have tried a number of different strategies with the Axis. The reason why I was asking about particular build orders is there have been a few games where the quality of my opponent made getting to Moscow a long term process and the Americans and Brits are nipping at my Western front. I usually almost always build Infantry and Arty on first turn, what I was finding is that it takes too long for them to get to the decisive point. This site if for exchanging ideas I am not dismissive of yours at all.
I did say to read the guide I wrote. There I state battleships are bad, and the basics of how sub/destroyer interdiction work. Also about infantry push dynamics.
Gold doesn't mean anything, nor does platinum or whatever rank. There are players that think it does. I'm not one of them.
Yes, the system is Elo based. But Elo ranks only measure the relative strength of local populations. And A&A 1942 Online has a lot of things outside gameplay that impact game outcomes. For example scheduling. If a player misses the 24 hour mark they lose, doesn't matter if they had a family or work emergency or whatever reason. If another player deliberately drags out their turns trying to get a win on time, then the more skilled player may end up losing.
I do say players shouldn't make the negative assumption that others are dragging out their turns. People's schedules change; if they were moving quickly before and not now, that's as it goes. It's within the rules, let it go. But the scheduling thing *is* a factor in the ranking system, as are other things like players that just can't adjust to the black diamond representation of units on the map (like me), players that dont know about weird gameplay bugs or implementation changes between 1942 Online and the board game (like teleporting transports which was apparently fixed, or subs not being able to be ignored in combat which was KIND of fixed (it's basically a workaround instead of the literal implementation but it's close enough), but things like using allied carriers (supposedly to be implemented) or removing different nationalities for defensive casualties or determining what territories fighters land in if defending carriers are destroyed - those are all differences. There's more to it, but don't put faith in rank.
Back to the quote about Japan's East Indies fleet. You need to understand it's not a problem, you need to understand transports are necessary, you need to understand Japanese naval units are not the answer (they're PART of the answer and sometimes they ARE the answer but they are not THE answer.)
First "it's not a problem". There you are looking at UK sitting on a cruiser, carrier, and two fighters where your East Indies battleship, carrier, and two fighters used to be, and you're thinking "yeah okay this is a problem." It is, but in another real sense it also isn't.
The East Indies attack is slightly favored for the Allies, but even a success carries opportunity costs, and even successes can be expensive. Normally it's not done without putting at least an extra UK submarine there with a preplaced bid. (1942 Online has no preplaced bid system.)
If UK hits East Indies with everything, they don't hit the Kwangtung destroyer / transport. This sets the stage for J1 bomber build into fast push on Burma into J2 capture of India. Japan can also play it conservatively by dumping troops into Soviet Far East and Buryatia - because there is no possible way for Russia to fortify either and/or both with two Japanese transports in the water, unless Russia took ruinous actions in Europe. Normally also the German battleship and transport in the Mediterranean survive, and if it does, normally you're not abandoning Africa to UK either because you're trying to strangle their income.
I haven't written a guide about strangling income yet, but here's how it works basically. Russia can produce 12 units a turn for a while; it loses control of Karelia almost immediately so I don't count that. However Russia's income should remain in the 20-26 region for most of the game. That's not enough income for Russia to produce even the cheapest unit, infantry, to its production capacity.
UK can produce 11 units a turn for a while; eventually it loses control of India but normally it's not immediately contestable. UK starts at 31 income, and probably loses some of that. There's variations where it grabs some stuff in Pacific for temporary income but proper Japan response squashes that, and UK should grab European territory for income (NOT US IF IT CAN BE HELPED, IF US GRABS SOMETIMES IT'S NECESSARY BUT AVOID IF POSSIBLE) - anyways again, UK production capacity exceeds its income.
So let's say you take Egypt. That's 2 less for UK. 2 more for you. Trans-Jordan. Rhodesia. Whatever. It all adds up.
The only time you're *not* engaging in a sharp struggle over income is when the tactical / strategic situation demands otherwise.
Like tactically - suppose Japan's doing whatever, and US puts 140 IPCs worth of fleet in range, and Japan can probably smash it at a cost of 38 IPCs. Instead of Japan doing whatever it was going to do, probably it turns around and smashes US, especially if US has no counter. There's a massive payoff, it's part of the strategy in the sense that Japan had to build up to prepare to smash US if it got close, but it's mostly a tactical opportunistic thing that couldn't be planned around - nobody could say US would overextend.
Strategically - if Russia and Germany roll dice in the first round that REALLY favors Axis. Then Axis just build tanks and shove them at Russia until Russia falls apart.
The difference? As it pertains to Germany in Africa?
Tactically, if Russia does something incredibly incredibly stupid and maybe got bad dice on top, you can punish them horribly in a way that means probably they will never recover. And that's worth Africa, because you're going to take Moscow. But you HAVE to take Moscow. You can't just give up Germany's stakes in Africa unless you're REALLY sure.
And what does that look like? Well let's say Russia attacked Ukraine and failed horribly, Ukraine still has infantry and tank and fighter and bomber, Russia landed its fighters (the only survivors) on Caucasus and put some infantry on. And let's say Russia also hit West Russia. And maybe Russia didn't move its AA guns, AND Russia had horrible luck at West Russia.
Well what Germany does in that case - and it's rare - THEN Germany pulls out of Africa, because it takes Caucasus and kills Russia's fighters (crippling Russia's ability to trade), takes West Russia (killing the rest of Russia's attack units), takes Karelia (securing a forward industrial complex that can pump out two units a turn, don't underestimate the importance of this). And when it does all this, it builds tanks, a load of tanks, on Germany's first turn.
Then Russia's pretty much horribly dead. Even if they recapture Caucasus, they can't prevent its recapture next turn by Germany, and though UK can pull out of India 100% to try to hit Caucasus, Japanese fighters can land on Caucasus to reinforce. So it's very likely that India is lost (it should be, because Russia is horribly pressured and Russia is more important than India in this game), Japan gets a quick leg up there, Germany probably *still* keeps Caucasus, then the game ends very soon thereafter. And it doesn't matter that UK has whatever income because German fighters threaten any earlier undefended transports, so UK has to build escorts, then when UK does build escorts, Germany has a chunk of fighters on Karelia preventing UK from marching reinforcements easily through Karelia or dropping at Archangel etc. That is, Russia's cut off very early before UK/US can develop their fleets and escorts, and that's it. And THAT is what you abandon Africa for, the whole game laid out exactly like that.
You never pull Germany out of Africa because "oh, it would be convenient to have a few more units in Europe". It doesn't work that way. Germany wants to rob UK of all its monies. Letting UK get fat off Africa then building transports and escorts? No no no. Bad.
And again - if UK didn't hit the German battleship / transport then it probably won't be able to. There's that one turn of vulnerability for Germany; if it doesn't hit the UK destroyer then the UK destroyer can hit it; Germany doesn't have good odds on Egypt even with the bomber, and no matter what Germany does apart from a naval buy in Italy (which I won't get into but don't do it unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing and destroyer/carrier is crazy expensive and cripples Germany) - anyways Germany has to risk battleship/transport or valuable air for at least that one turn. But after that Germany grabs Egypt again, Trans-Jordan, can have air in the area to help break any resistance, UK fodder ships are out of range, Germany has loads of options that probably won't leave Germany vulnerable. And if UK hit East Indies fleet, that's exactly what Germany should do; it should scoop up territory in Africa.
I wrote about Russian and UK production and logistics. Germany has the best logistics against Russia of all the Axis. Granted that's only two powers, but seriously. 15 ground units a turn, no need for expensive transports, land territories throughout so tanks can get where they need to go. So if you put money in Japan's hands, it's really inefficient; Japan has to resort to multiple threat dynamics to work it decently. But Germany with money is a different matter. It has big blocks of infantry, it puts tanks then later air behind those infantry, or just pushes even more crazy amounts of infantry, then it just smashes things into ruins. If it has money.
So get that money.
Then stuff like Russia attacking Baltic - please. Baltic attack dooms a Russian fighter that MUST land in Karelia and that dies on the German counter; if Baltic fails it's a total disaster for Russia (even succeeding is pretty disaster-ish), even if Germany can't hold Karelia on G1 because of dice results and not being able to shuttle units over from NW Europe into Karelia, G2 Germany does line up. It shouldn't be that bad. And it's not great, but 3 subs 2 fighters against defending battleship, destroyer, sub, and transport is favorable odds. Sure yeah you leave that annoying UK destroyer at East Canada alive and that's a blow. But then, Russia took some very nasty risks on that, if they paid off, that's how it goes.
Yes, and that is the best sort of play. But even if you try different lines (which you should), you need to understand the fundamentals of why things do or do not work. Absent that, it's not experimentation so much as it is fumbling around in the dark.
Yes, don't tell me. Because those games aren't relevant. Yes, your opponent made a mistake and you capitalized on that mistake and that was the right thing to do. But you can't say your opponent messing up is something you can *count* on. Otherwise you should just buy a transport in Baltic and after UK builds three fighters in India and somehow those transports survive to G2, you should capture UK in every game.
Look. There are a lot of issues with Med fleet and even I can only write so much text. Well it does need context so I'll try to cover at least the basics.
Okay first off. What does Med fleet do? If it survives, then you drop to Africa (you don't pull out), you contest that African income. And if UK drops an industrial complex in South Africa that's bad for UK. They bleed out 15 IPC which delays their Atlantic fleet (yay), they spend more IPCs putting stuff in Africa (yay), stuff in Africa can't get anywhere important in any reasonable timeframe (yay), meanwhile you just sit on the Egypt and Trans-Jordan income and focus Russia. And because UK is messing around in Africa it can't stop you in Europe, which has loads more territory. So yay all around. If the German Med fleet survives, that's money in the bank.
And how does the Med fleet die? How does it survive? G1 if attack on Egypt fails, UK can send its India fleet through Suez (Note if it does do this often it doesn't hit the Kwangtung destroyer / transport which means Japan has faster gains - but it has to USE those gains properly, not waste them.) Germany has a good chance to prevent India fleet from sailing through Suez by taking Trans-Jordan. I forget the exact odds, they're not REALLY great because it depends first on the German battleship not dying to the UK destroyer, then also infantry / artillery destroying an artillery. (You can use a tank for better odds but normally anything Germany puts at Trans-Jordan dies so . . . yeah I like German tanks to survive.)
Anyways at the very least UK can hit Germany's battleship usually with at least 1 fighter 1 bomber, often 2 fighters 1 bomber. And that's a dead battleship. So much for that.
But IF it survives past the first turn, usually anything in its range near the Mediterranean is dead, and it can try to avoid the ranges of fighters. So it can just drop troops to Africa. Doesn't matter if it's at Libya or wherever not on the front lines. The numbers add up and Germany pushes UK out. Then there's less safe landing spaces for fighters, then Germany can push more in if it wants, then Germany escapes through the Suez before any US fleet can arrive. The block of units Germany had pushes into Persia then Caucasus (assuming Japan has India well in hand which isn't necessarily true), or Germany takes some of those units and grabs Madagascar, runs around wherever generating precious German income.
Anyways the danger to Germany's battleship is usually mostly neutralized if it survives to G2 and certainly by G3.
Second off. What are you doing with Med fleet? Literally. Because you just don't provide these necessary details. Which I know, you don't have the context etc. to know what context to provide. But details details, there's a load of relevant details that you habitually don't provide.
For example if you DO take Trans-Jordan you give UK a shot on your battleship/transport, but if UK takes the shot UK increases risk against other targets. But if you DO NOT take Trans-Jordan then is the UK destroyer still alive? what about the UK cruiser? So the destroyer and cruiser and maybe Egypt fighter and India fighter and UK bomber all gang up? Um. You see? Details.
(continued)
Because what else could have happened? Maybe Germany split off a sub and/or the German fighter for high odds against the UK cruiser. Maybe Germany built a carrier for Italy and sent fighters to hit the UK destroyer. So instead of having these blockish battleships that get one shot off, you have a battleship and loaded carrier in the Italy sea zone with no UK destroyer or carrier in range. That's very nasty for Allies to deal with. By the time they can put subs in to defeat that navy cheaply, Germany can control the Suez, then just keep harassing for income - and if the Allies leave the Mediterranean Germany just pops in again.
And you see where a destroyer is not purchased G1? And why not? Because it isn't necessary ever. There's no subs. And maybe your'e thinking yeah but this or that and other thing. But no. Not ever.
Because it's something like this. If you took the odds-on battles (though risking German airto do so) against UK cruiser and destroyer and if you're bulking the German fleet at Italy, then what is UK going to do? Probably they have at best 2 fighters 1 bomber against 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighters. That's bad odds to begin with. And if UK loses, there's no follow-up. Russia probably doesn't want to risk its fighters even against a lone battleship, US certainly doesn't have anything in range. So Germany can lose the carrier first. And that's a load of shots against UK air. I mentioned how UK has an income problem. UK isn't going to be able to easily afford to replace that air. If it buys more air, fine, it's not buying transports or escorts. It slows UK. So it's bad.
And what if you didn't bulk the German fleet at Italy? Then you split off to Trans-Jordan. Well then UK can just kill the German battleship and transport at moderate to high odds (though definitely with an element of risk). But then what? What's Germany's followup? It has an aircraft carrier in the Med that protects nothing. And protecting that carrier means putting fighters on it, which are fighters that aren't in range of UK's sea zones to threaten any new naval builds. So it's no good. And if you built a destroyer on top, that's just more doing nothing.
So if you do one thing then the destroyer was overkill, if you do another thing then the destroyer's probably useless.
And what, you're going to use the destroyer to shield the carrier against aggression and to double to hunt subs? Forget it. Germany has great logistics against Russia, income to go with production capacity, but you start throwing submarines and destroyers and carriers into the water, what? You're really going to race US/UK's 70 IPC combined naval / air output with your 40 IPC income, while you're also fighting Russia's 20-some on the ground? 90 against 40, is that a battle you will win? It isn't.
The only way to put that battle on Germany's terms in this version is to either push ground before US/UK can leverage their transports and escorts into serious landings. Or go air, the air threatens UK/US shipping while also threatening and trading Russia so it's good on both fronts.
But NAVY? No. You don't go protracted navy with Germany. Yes, you can do a Baltic carrier or a Med carrier and maybe it works out all right, but you don't start popping down destroyers or whatever, because you just can't match the Allies there. If they get close, you need to get out and come back later maybe.
And by "works out all right maybe" - I mean if you have a very concrete idea, like G1 baltic carrier to threaten capture of London while sending Med fleet to Gibraltar for added invasion threat, G2 unification of fleet off France, G3 retreat into Mediterranean, G4 have a bulky transport fleet that's hard to displace in Mediterranean because Germany can suicide the fleet plus has a load of air. Or Germany drops a Med carrier and maybe transport then makes up for the horrible loss of power for G3's push to Ukraine (so bad it doesn't even happen) with added flexibility towards Africa and/or Ukraine/Caucasus though it's very not clear that it's good at least maybe there's something that can be salvaged. Maybe.
But dropping destroyers, no.
And battleship? Really really no. Carriers have this great defensive power for IPCs spent. Yes, you need fighters to make them good, but fighters are relatively cheap and unlike battleships, fighters can fight in multiple rounds of combat. So what happens when you invade Russia? What, you're going to throw your battleship at Russia? No. You have a carrier, that's useless too against Russia, but maybe the carrier runs to safety while its fighters beat Russia up. Then the fighters maybe go back on the carrier later and you have a fleet again. Anyways fighters can do something, battleships are just these big mostly useless and incredibly expensive things.
I don't know that I wrote it in that Steam guide but if the map and starting setup were massively different then battleships COULD be good. But the map ISN'T different, it is what it is, and battleships are hot garbage.
The only legitimate uses of battleships in this version are 1) you're playing total victory and won everywhere else but you can't take one territory that's giving you problems. You don't want to micromanage attacks, you have a load of strategic bombers already to the point that even if AA happens to kill a load of them you'll still have enough to bomb into maximum negatives every turn. Yet you're still facing this stack of infantry and fighters, like on Japan. Then, you don't want to bother moving units around, you basically won, so you build a load of battleships and launch infantry/artillery combos at the coast to cut down on the big stack until finally you get it into invasion range then you plow them. Or 2) you basically won (again) and your opponent refuses to surrender, so you just start building stuff like Russian battleships then you take screenshots to mock your opponent.
Look I know. If you wanted to say what it was you were doing exactly that would take time. But hey. What kind of discussion is it iif you don't explain what you're doing exactly.
The decisive point? WHERE AND WHEN IS THAT EXACTLY.
It's like . . .I know you don't have the context, and naturally people don't write these gigantic text walls; in normal conversations you try to assume common context so you don't have to talk everything out, and even if there are differences or unclear things or outright disagreements, those things can be ignored because people have to get along etc. So if you're not used to putting out all the details, that's how it is.
But IF we're talking about tactics and strategy, those details are necessary. Otherwise it's "I shove units at opponent until win!" (or lose.) And that's not a real discussion. right? Not going to get anything useful unless there's specifics.
And yes, I know, I was myself vague and *continue* to be vague. But I did also provide some explanation and detail, at least to the point that *hopefully* you would get some idea of the necessary context that things have to be placed in.
Specifically - everything I wrote about the German timing. I guess that did not get through. Well I'll repeat it here, and I'll rephrase.
Remember I wrote it's not just WHAT you buy. It's also how you USE what you buy. It's also how your opponent(s) act, what openings they leave. That impacts your usage.
I explained the general timings before, and . . . well I'll repeat myself. Because I just don't know another way to explain it. So try to think about this. In the context of "it takes too long for them to get to the decisive point".
1. Let's say Germany builds buncha tanks. Russia builds infantry/artillery. UK/US see Germany build a buncha tanks, take appropriate actions. What happens is IF first round dice HEAVILY favored Axis and/or Allies were really dumb, then Germany just drives tanks into Moscow, game over.
But IF dice weren't great for Axis, if Allies didn't lose their heads, if maybe the Allies get just a bit of good dice, what happens is Germany trades out its forwards reserves of infantry, then to hold any position it's using valuable tanks. Russia attacks with infantry and artillery, trades cheap infantry/artillery for valuable tanks. And Germany loses ground, just against Russia. But UK and US also are gearing up to drop into Europe. So what happens is Germany has nothing to work with, UK, US, and Russia are all landing cheap ground in Europe - specifically Finland/Norway to begin with, then rolling Germany up starting at Karelia from the north and Ukraine in the south. And Germany's territory gets smaller and smaller and finally Germany starts producing infantry but by that point UK's dropping 8 units a turn, US is dropping 8 units a turn, Russia's fighting Japan off in the east but sneaking in 2-4 units a turn, and Germany is pretty much restricted to 10 units a turn - not because Italy is in danger (though it might be) but it just doesn't have income. And then Allies do a double landing at France, if Germany pushes them off then it won't stand a triple attack, so it sits on Germany, Allies build an IC in France, put more and more in, then Germany dies. And that's what happens when you go tanks.
2. Let's say Germany builds infantry and artillery. BUT NOT JUST WHATEVER INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY NO NO NO. 11 infantry 2 artillery, for a very specific reason, or some mixture of infantry and tanks and maybe a couple artillery, again for a very specific reason. And if it's tanks, the specific reason needs to be because you have some nasty horrible thing you can do with them REAL quick. You don't necessarily need a load of tanks. Maybe just one or two are enough to shift the odds in your favor for a particular area. But if you do get tanks, it needs to be for a very specifically calculated reason, and you need to understand exactly what you're getting out of it. And normally that doesn't happen because G1 tank build can be followed by R2 counter build. Then if Germany pushes to a forward position then probably Russia can counter. So that only works if Germany held Ukraine in the first place, say, and then it wants a block of tanks to shut down Russian income, and even then it has to be *calculated*, do you understand, *calculated* not for the immediate effect but the effect of later turns. Which I'll get to.
So anyways 11 infantry 2 artillery. And what happens with that? If Russia produces infantry / artillery, the problem with that for Germany is if Germany pushes too early too hard, Germany gets its block knocked off. And that's why you put out a fat load of infantry. Because if you go pure tanks Germany usually gets its ass handed to it by a decent Allied player. It's not about being clever, it's just about numbers and probability and players being moderately competent, that's what's *expected*.
So Germany produces a big block of infantry. G1 it pushes some to Karelia perhaps if Karelia NEEDS it, the rest push towards Ukraine, setting up a G3 take and hold. Maybe.
But even this massive chunky load of infantry may not be enough. And that's why you do G2 infantry as well. Though by G2 maybe you mix in some tanks, maybe not, maybe some artillery or not. But for G1 it's definitely sheer unit count because excess G1 adds to the G2 stack. Every unit is going to matter when that G2 stack hits. The key locations on G2 are often the 10 units from Berlin and perhaps 2 units from Karelia, then if the German Med fleet is still alive another 2 units on Italy. And if the Med fleet is alive, you DO put 2 units on Italy. So that's all very expensive.
Okay. So what happens G3 is something like - you have these big fat blocks of infantry headed east, and those have the killing power of Germany's tanks and fighters to back them up. If you messed up and lost a few German tanks, it's not "oh well it's just one tank". Imagine that each tank is made of solid gold and filled to the brim with hot pizzas. And puppies. Okay? Every tank is special. The reason why you're building so many infantry is to protect those tanks, really. And right about G3, because you've been putting out these massive numbers of units, Russia just can't beat that with numbers.
Remember how I wrote Germany produces perhaps 13 units a turn depending on income, with a bare few IPCs allocated for artillery? But mostly infantry? Remember how I wrote Russia's usually restricted to 7-8 units a turn? Yeah. This is where it all comes together.
Because what with Allies flying in fighters or whatever, you're facing more than 7 units of reinforcements a turn, but every fighter slows the Allies in Atlantic. And you also need numbers to face down whatever UK/US reinforcements land in Europe. And you need numbers for that. Tanks let you redirect force, as do fighters, but if you don't have a big unit count, you're just not going to last.
And - if you built a LOAD of infantry and MOSTLY infantry on G1 and G2, by G3-G4, you MAYBE have enough to take and hold Ukraine and Karelia simultaneously. And even then Japanese fighters are needed to reinforce. That's how powerful the Allied counter is. If you don't have those infantry in most setups, you should not survive the Allied counter. If you don't block the Allies at Karelia and Russian income at Ukraine, you will pay for it.
And ATTACK power? No. I mean sure, if you have the unit count and attack power in the G2 build by sticking artillery in, why not? But you need unit count, big time.
By UK3/US3, the Allies should have on the order of six transports in the Atlantic. UK4/US4 by the latest you should plan on twelve Allied ground dropping in anywhere from Finland, Norway, Karelia, Baltic States, Northwestern Europe, France, or Germany.
And what? If they're going to drop on UK4/US4, then what do you have to fight that with? The G3 buy is what. And that's where you put a fat block of 10 more infantry/artillery on Germany.
Depending on the situation it works out a bit differently. But you can see the timings of it. It's not that "they get there too late". No. They roll out JUST IN TIME.The G1-G2 infantry builds pile up on Ukraine/Karelia, the G3 infantry builds are used defensively. Then you just have these fat blocks of infantry everywhere, with German tanks backing them up. It's a problem for the Allies. If they go in force anywhere there's a fat block of German infantry - but also German fighters - and most annoyingly those German tanks, which are good on defense as well as offense. Though costly.
So you see why, instead of dropping infantry/tank to Trans-Jordan I want infantry/artillery? Because tanks are made of solid gold and filled to the brim with hot pizzas and puppies. If you spend them, even if you think you got good value, probably it was bad because when the situation comes to that endpoint you need the tanks, and you're stretched crazy thin on economy and production, you can't just buy less infantry and buy more tanks and think it all works out because it doesn't. A tank saved is a tank earned. Mind, if you kill like 2 Russian tanks and a fighter in exchange for a single German tank then it's probably worth it. But unless it's a massive clear and obvious gain, often not.
And yes, there are real problems with implementation. Like this one player, he bought 10 artillery on G1 because I don't know, trying to be clever or something. But it was totally useless.
(continued)
Again - what Germany lacks normally isn't KILLING power with infantry push, it has plenty of that what with tanks and fighters and all. What Germany lacks is DEFENSIVE power, the ability to take a forward position without having Russia knock its socks off, or UK/US piling on and breaking the position. It needs unit count, that's where the essential battle is won.
(Killing power is an issue for German tank dash. But then, if you're tank dashing into favorable conditions the dice did the setup already pretty much. So it's tanks and eventually bombers as German bombers can hit Russia provided they can land then that's the end.
But back on German infantry - you go 10 artillery on G1, first, probably the infantry they would boost are dead so you're basically getting 4 IPC 2 attack units - not a great deal considering the cheap defensive infantry that would also be attack-boosted are mostly dead. Secondly, 13 units on G1 maybe players say "oh well the units at Italy are useless because German battleship dies blah blah. No they're not. The three units at Italy from G1 go to German if the German battleship dies, then they add to the unit count on G2's production. That's how much Germany needs units and how the timing works out.
Then after Germany presses and holds Ukraine, then what?
Then the game shifts, as I wrote, and again, the emphasis is staying power. Which transitions to attack power but that does happen as you'll see.
First, Germany shifts off Karelia and Ukraine into West Russia. In so doing maybe UK/US can grab Karelia. Just make sure they can't at reasonable odds, of if they can that Germany doesn't die stupidly to superior numbers losing a lot for a little.
Now here's where the game can end. Allies blast West Russia, break the German stack. This is where you need defense. Infantry, unit count, right?
Okay. So let's say that doesn't happen. Now if Allies put a load of expensive stuff on Karelia, Germany can just blow it apart with its massive stack, then it repeats the process of shifting to West Russia. Germany doesn't HAVE to, but it's an option.
But otherwise - if Allies can't break West Russia (remember Japanese fighters) then what? Well Russia can either fortify Russia or West Caucasus. There's just no way they should have enough to fortify both even if the UK stack on India shifted.
So then what happens? Germany pretty much walks into Caucasus because Russia was defended. There wasn't a need for crazy attack power; and provided Karelia was held and the Allies cut off, there isn't any need for immediate attack power either. Because Germany is putting out a load of units a turn and Russia's income is strangled so Russia's down to 3-4 units a turn.
Then what? Then Germany gets into this awkward position where it's trying to hold Karelia and Caucasus and threaten Russia. But now Germany controls Caucasus so can put four units at the front every turn.
Now in the ideal world, Germany pushes G1 11 infantry 2 artillery (no question) then G2 10 units at Germany maybe mostly artillery plus maybe 2 units at Karelia at least, then on its push into West Russia it threatens Russia even if Russia fortifies with everything. But usually not. Barring weird dice Allies should hold Russia, and Germany's infantry will be depleted by trading. So you get these situations where the defense of Germany might break apart if it was too attack-oriented because it just needed one or two more units (literally even in a 30 unit stack). And the Allies will take the chance if there is one; once Germany is lodged in at Caucasus and Karelia (at both) it's very tough for Allies to pull out of that situation.
So Germany plays it safe on G1 for sure. G2 maybe some more artillery. And when Germany holds Caucasus what does it build to go with all its infantry? Four artillery a turn. Cheap and effective, and it locks Russia's income out of anything west of West Russia, trades Kazakh, etc. etc. It's very tough.
But you see it's not that it should be "too late". The whole thing, from Germany pushing to Ukraine to deny income, to Karelia to cut off UK/US reinforcements, to uniting at West Russia, to pushing into Caucasus, then holding at Caucasus and having Japan bleed off Russia's strength with trades - then once Karelia is pressured switching to German tanks on Karelia, German tanks or artillery at Caucasus, and Germany bomber for the final maximum odds attack on Russia- the whole timing is scripted.
And yes, dice and Allied action try to break out of that script. But fundamentally it's about Germany pushing 13-15 units a turn into Russia's 7, and Japan bleeding off strength from Russia as it can too. UK feeding in from India, flying in fighters, industrial bombing Berlin whatever - whatever variations need to account for that disparity somewhere, and if the Allies go one way then they can't also go another.
But if G1 infantry buy is fundamentally in question - you saw the mechanic, it's all spelled out right there. But if Germany is buying battleship, that's 8 less infantry, if Germany is losing tanks piecemeal it bleeds off its strength for the decisive attack (and German tank stack is essential to German DEFENSE as well), if Germany bleeds off air then it can't threaten Allied shipping. All the parts need to work together, and if they don't, then yeah of course German infantry seem to be pointless, because if all the other stuff that's supposed to make it work aren't there then it'll just fall flat on its face.
. . . and again. Some games you just don't go German infantry. You go for the immediate Moscow break, IF the board favors it. Or if you know your opponent and you know they're good at a certain line, then you use a different line. Like Baltic carrier maybe. If you were going to lose with German infantry push mechanics then maybe learn that line of play too. Etc. etc.
Forgot to emphasize that strafes (attacking then retreating) is part of Russia's defensive arsenal too.
So if you have "just the right mix of infantry and artillery" with Germany, maybe Russia hits the stack then a lot of the infantry get killed. Russia retreats, reinforces, then Germany's left with "not the right mix"
Also to emphasize - Germany's attacking power isn't the issue it's the defense *because* Germany doesn't lack for attack power *because* Russia always needs to defend two territories once the pressure's really on. When Germany pushes to Ukraine, it threatens West Russia (especially as Germany can use its Karelia stack against West Russia too) and Cacuasus simultaneously. If Russia can't break Ukaine or at least pull a gigantic strafe off, Russia has to choose to defend EITHER West Russia OR Caucasus. Even if Germany's attack power isn't the greatest, Russia still can't afford to defend both.
Then after Germany's at West Russia, Russia again has to choose, defend Caucasus or Russia? Because again sure Russia can likely have at least good odds of defense on one, but again not both. And note how G2 produced infantry hit Ukraine on G4 then West Russia on G5? And how G3 tanks hit Ukraine on G4 and West Russia on G5? Not a coincidence. Timing.
So then Germany sits at Caucasus. Probably once it does, you get a bunch of Japanese and German fighters moving around; sometimes Allied Atlantic can be pressured away, sometimes not, sometimes German fighters are necessary to defend Caucasus and Japan fighters need to go back to Asian coast (remember the reversals I wrote about with Japan play). At THAT point then Russia and Germany are sitting on one another's doorstep with no place to go, THEN it's a question of breaking Russia directly; raw strength against raw strength. But with Caucasus secured, Germany can put four artillery a turn there. Plus it can produce at Karelia, and though late tanks from Germany probably won't be coming as Germany may be producing infantry for defense which are slow, there's still maybe a German bomber build which can help, or maybe a *couple* tanks. And Russia's down on income. So *having established its defensive position at Caucasus and Karelia*, only then does Germany really switch to offense, and what with four artillery a turn it's not long before Germany really doesn't have that much excess infantry after all. They all get used. And it builds unit count faster than Russia.
Of course UK/US have something to say about the matter, and they do. So, the last part of this mutli-part post.
When Germany is about to break Russia, most of its infantry and artillery get killed off, but the bulk of the tanks remain. And here's what happens. If Japan has also built up pressure and has gigantic odds to capture Russia, Germany *retreats* from Russia before capturing, moving to West Russia or Archangel to begin its pressure against UK/US reinforcements. Japan finishes taking Moscow. And that's a mistake some Axis players make when things get close. They try to grab everything with Germany but they shouldn't. They need to think about Japanese control of Russia and Caucasus - not always, because sometimes Germany SHOULD get those. But sometimes.
Again it comes to unit production. If Germany was horribly pressed then Russia and Caucasus amount to 12 IPC a turn, or 4 infantry. But what if Japan controls those territories? Japan has a very difficult time getting units to the mainland, there's a load of wasted time while they walk through Asia - and if Japan buys tanks that's expensive.
So imagine if Japan controls Russia and Cauacsus. That's not 4 infantry a turn. That's 12 infantry a turn. Maybe artillery and tanks thrown in for good measure. And yes that means Japan produces less at home but that stuff wasn't going to get there anytime soon anyways.
Now imagine what happens when Germany's pushing 12-15 unit a turn at Germany, Italy, and Karelia, and Japan's pushing 15 units a turn at Russia and Caucasus and India, while UK is pushing 8 units a turn from UK and US is perhaps doing 12 units a turn from East US transport chain (and if doing so probably suffering in quality of units). Though the Allies have the edge on mobility with transports that can redirect, they're still fighting an uphill battle of 20 units a turn (if that) against 24-30 units a turn.
So in the endgame, if you're going to break Russia with Germany, sometimes you can't take the chance of Japan failing, or maybe Japan doesn't have enough, or whatever. And maybe you can't get Caucasus in Japan's hands. But be aware that Germany doesn't need to capture Russia. It only needs to weaken it enough for Japan to capture.
Oh, and of course once again the whole thing loops around. Remember what I wrote about Japanese transports? See how the whole thing goes around in a circle? If you go navy with Japan, yeah okay whatever push US off whoopee. But if you're not in Asia, if you're not pressing either India or Moscow, it's that much harder because (as I wrote earlier) UK and Russia have income problems, not production problems. So every bit of income gets turned into defense against Germany. And if Germany does manage to somehow survive Russia's gigantic counters without Japanese fighters to help (it shouldn't normally) if Germany somehow manages to break Russia even, what then? UK/US dropping into Karelia, threatening France, and now Germany has to run to clean up after Japan, because Japan is crippled.
It's like sure okay, maybe UK breaks Japan at East Indies, maybe there's dice, maybe whatever lucky scenario. But the bottom line is if you try to play it too "safe" then you're going to get whacked.
If Germany tries to be "safe" for its early attacks by building a load of tanks, normally it gets better attack timing against Russia early, but in the end Russia counters with infantry and artillery then Germany has no offense left. Either Germany retreats to wait for infantry and in the meantime Russia counterpushes and gets fat. Or Germany attacks, bleeds out, then Russia counterpushes and Germany can't even push back.
If Japan tries to be "safe' in early game by building a load of navy or whatever to fight naval/air battles with US, then it doesn't push in Asia, and Japan's starting forces in Asia can get pushed back. If Japan tries to be "safe" in northeast Asia by building a Manchuria IC, it gets locked to that area and once it loses it (it will), US has an immediate placement advantage that Japan paid for. (And how do I know Japan loses? Because either Japan helps Germany and loses position. Or Japan doesn't help Germany, Germany gets pushed back, then Allies come after Japan. Or Allies went hard KJF and Japan's doing pretty well at keeping them off near Alaska, but oh look UK seems to be pressuring at Burma and French Indochina Thailand and feeding infantry to Persia then Cauacsus to boot. Why not? They don't have to worry about transports dropping in and saying "hi" and mass invading India do they? And Japan's fleet is way up near Alaska, they're not threatening India. So pushed back.
So yeah it's not like you have to play "dangerously" but you have to know what's supposed to happen, especially with specific timings. If you understand that the German push needs Japanese fighters to prevent the Russian counter (it does), that that means Japan can lose out in Asia at least temporarily (it can), that Japan can do a reversal against a KJF push by moving its air back towards the Asian coast once Germany has secured Caucasus - by which time manybe Manchuria and Kwangtung are lost against a decent US player - but after that it all reverses - then yeah. And again, it's about Japan landing that stuff in Asia; if Japan doesn't have that backup and pressure to bleed Russia out some, then Russia has more income to challenge Germany, has more units to challenge Germany (as those units weren't traded with Japan).
All the parts have to work together.
almost 15 page ....