Strategy v. humans

[daringly]

I've played real opponents, and they're (usually) much better than the computer. What things do you all find that work better against humans?

For me... As axis

1. Build 6 air fleets before attacking France

2. Ignore moscow. Hit hard and fast to the southern resources, which hurts Russia more, and won't give them Siberians (a painful lesson I am learning from Bob)

3. When attacking Russia, build lots of HQs, or your attack will fizzle out. You need to build them 2 turns before you need them.

As Allies...

1. Play conservative with England! This means never letting your fleets get hit by German air, unless you are being invaded

2. Don't let your air fleest intercept. Even with an HQ and 100% supply, you'll lose 2-3 times as much as the German air, which is experienced with good HQ backup.

3. Don't buy more than one research point with England until you are SURE Germany has turned west. Also, don't rebuild damaged fleets/air, until England is safe. You need the money to build corps, if Germany invades

4. The english SAC bomber has visibility of 6, versus 5 for German fighters. If you move it slowly, you can watch the German ground forces, and give you a turn's warning for invasions (if you see a lot of ground units near ports)

5. If the Germans invade you, destroy HQ first. If no HQs land, Germany will take too long to conquer England. America and Russia will join the war, and it will be a short game.

6. As Russia, try to have a line of corps. You WILL have gaps against a good player, which is ok. Leave gaps in swamps/forests (which are harder to race through), or gaps furthest from a city.

7. As Russia, don't engage any air fights until your air fleets have "batting practice" against the Finns. Every 2 points of experience will reduce your casualties by 1 for EVERY ENGAGEMENT later against the Germans.

8. As Russia, look for a "concentration" of air/armor. Wherever Germany has its biggest units, try to build 1-2 corps "backfield". You need to build hole-stoppers a turn before you need them if you are not close to a city.

9. Ignore the med. It is useless. Don't move any forces though, until Italy declares war. This will keep Italy from entering the war until France is about to fall.

What other things have you all learned from ugly wars?

[HankWWIIOnline]

With the guy I play against, we have some rules regarding Corp units to prevent the WW1 style battles that happen on the Eastern Front. Plus, it is more realistic.

Corp units are either Garrison-only, or are attached to an Army unit. So our styles of warfare are a bit different with this rule. If the parent Army unit is destroyed, the attached Corp unit must be disbanded. Also, attached Corp units must be within movement range of their parent Army unit.

A strategy I tried, as the Allies, is sending most of the French and English fleet to Italy to destroy the Italian navy once it enters the war. In the long run I lost quite a few ships, but the Axis had absolutely no sea power anywhere. My long term plan was to invade Italy with US forces.

[Flashblade]

Sounds good, have a few tidbits to add though.

First of all, I don't think you need 6 air fleets to take France. You are proably waiting to long to attack. I usually start out with 4 and sometimes by a 5th. If you hit them hard enough this should be plenty. As the Germans you will always conquer France, the trick is to do it without losses, so concentrate on keeping your HQs close!

And don't ignore the Med! ... I think you are missing out on some really great opportunities. As Axis I try and use the Italians to conquer the Med, Greece, Iraq, Alexandria and Vichy France... provide a really nice boost

[HankWWIIOnline]

Yes...the Italians are in a good position to pick up some extra MPP's in the Med. In the long haul, you are gaining lots more and denying that much from the UK.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by daringly:

2. Ignore moscow. Hit hard and fast to the southern resources, which hurts Russia more, and won't give them Siberians (a painful lesson I am learning from Bob)

Hubert: perhaps make Stalingrad a trigger for the

Siberians, in precisely the same way that Moscow

is? It would give the Russkies a fighting chance

if Germany chooses to go south.

John DiFool

[pzgndr]

Hubert: perhaps make Stalingrad a trigger for the Siberians, in precisely the same way that Moscow is?

Not a "trigger," but a factor in the process. Events like Siberian transfer should be variable, with various factors making such events more or less likely. It should not be a case of "If this happens, then that occurs." Little surprises help keep strategies from getting stale.

[Hubert Cater]

Stalingrad is actually one of the triggers for the Siberian Transfer, perhaps it's just not weighted strongly enough. I'll take a look to see if there is a tweak in order!

Hubert

[Jeff Heidman]

Is there a viable Axis strategy to take on the USSR that does not rely on the grossly a-historical power of fighters?

I.E. a strategy that can counter the "Build 3-4 corps this turn and every turn" strategy of the USSR without the German player building an air-heavy force?

Jeff Heidman

[arby]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Is there a viable Axis strategy to take on the USSR that does not rely on the grossly a-historical power of fighters?

I.E. a strategy that can counter the "Build 3-4 corps this turn and every turn" strategy of the USSR without the German player building an air-heavy force?

No, because there's no viable USSR strategy other than to build 3-4 corps every turn.

[Kurt Bullard]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Is there a viable Axis strategy to take on the USSR that does not rely on the grossly a-historical power of fighters?

I.E. a strategy that can counter the "Build 3-4 corps this turn and every turn" strategy of the USSR without the German player building an air-heavy force?

Jeff Heidman

Although there were some errors on my part, I was defeated in the USSR in February 43 by a low-quality, armor-heavy force executing the "Southern Gambit" (drive first to the map edge east of Stalingrad, cutting off the southern USSR resources). Think hordes of Level 1 Tank groups. In fact, I don't think my opponent had a single air fleet in the east until mid-1942.

What made this effective was the range of the armored units and their ability to threaten cities and resources deep in the USSR. The standard 3-4 Corps simply weren't enough to cover everything. Even if you could re-take the resources, their destruction from "Scorched Earth" offered minimal incentive to counterattack. The end result was a slow downward spiral of declining MPPs which even the Siberian Army couldn't stop.

I think I can do better next time, but it was overwhelming the first time (and didn't rely on Tech advances to succeed).

Kurt