MP Strategies - Germany

[unmerged(6935)]

Germany is vastly over-powered, so the question of German strategy is not that pressing. What would interest me is: Which setting do MP-experienced players consider fair in 1939?

Germany against one Allied Major is clearly too strong; against 3 may be a bit too much. So Germany vs. 2 Majors is probably best. But then: Who should the Human Players be, for best balance?

US-Soviet Union?
Soviet Union-France?
Soviet Union-Britain?

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Mazza, I don't know how much MP you play or who you play with, but you need to find some tougher competition. I can't remember the last MP game that I played that resulted in the Axis winning. It's not as easy as you make it seem in your post, which is one of the reasons that I am drawn to MP...

Originally posted by Mazza
...wait until after you conquer Poland to attack France (just like in history).

Playing by history has it's drawbacks: it can make you predictable. If you do this, you have to make sure you get some kind of deal with the USSR first. Even then, a German military mired in France (which is very possible, especially with a decent French player) makes my mouth water when I am playing as the Soviets, and especially if Germany took Poland without warning me.

Blitz through one section of his line and capture Paris with infantry while cutting the supply of the Maginot line with your tanks.

I would consider Paris to be a secondary objective for the Germans with the new 1.03 moving capital. A primary objective (besides encircling the Maginot line, which I agree with you about) should be destroying any British forces that are in France before they can pull a Dunkirk on you.

(the human will probably have almost all his troops on the front-line, which you have previously encircled and denied supply

Any human player worth anything better not have all of his forces on the Maginot line. Everyone and his mother knows that the Germans will try to go though Belgium, and that attacking a level 10 fort in the mountains across a river isn't going to go well.

The UK will not be able to build large a enough army to threaten you in Western Europe for years. Unless you have a human US, you can probably just fortify the beaches, and leave some infantry there and in key points, creating an Atlantic Wall.

A single inf division takes 3 months to finish and costs 5 IC's, so even if UK had its entire army destroyed in France and has nothing in the build list, in 3 months it can have 20-30 infantry divisions. A large scale invasion probably wouldn't occur that fast, but stranger things have happened.

Deal with the Soviet Union...The Soviet player will probably accept the Bitter Peace because it really isn't too bad a deal for them...

Easier said than done. I've never had to be offered bitter peace before, but I'm pretty sure my response would be, "Bitter Peace this!" The bitter peace is an embaressment, I'd rather die gloriously on the battlefield. I'd make the German player march through Siberia, while waiting for the Allies on the other front to take care of business.

 

[unmerged(8869)]

Mazza, i think you didn't play lot of MP.

In 80% of the MP Axis gets his ass kicked. And getting the bitter peace against a SU player is hard.

For starting, when you invade SU, they are prepared. They have forts (around3-4) on all provincies where they decided to create a defensive line.
and they outnumber you or, at best, they have the same number of divisions you have.

I would say that winning in MP as Axis is as hard as it's easy in SP.

Things gets better for Axis only with Japan played by human (expecially if they don't sign non-aggression with Russia)

 

[Minodrin]

Hmm, an SP player giving advice on MP games, bragging about how easy it is to win. With good co-operation between France, the UK and US, I would assume the troops (UK and French) in France being able to be roughly equal to German troops if fortifications have been built up and the war starts later than 1937. Then the Soviet player might get greedy and jump on you, and, well, this might be troublusome.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Germans need the Eastern European IC early to be able to keep up with his enemies.

Ofcourse the Japanese are excellent for weakening the Soviets and Americans, and the Italians good against the French and African-English (Atleast by forcing them to deploy troops away from Europe/The German Front)

 

[Diefledermas]

Looks like my response to Munchkin is a little late re: '39 scenario but here it is.

I've only played '39 once in SP, since then I've always played 36, so...

I have no good answer for you

-

Note RE: "French player probably won't accept Vichy" - have you played as (or against) a human France? It's NOT up to France. Vichy is a German player option which the French player MUST accept.

 

[Minodrin]

Diefledermas, looking at the events, it shows that the Vichy event is triggered for Germany when they take Paris, but selecting the "Put in Vichy Regime" option triggers event 2800, allowing the French to accept the Vichy or not.

 

[Diefledermas]

My mistake. I guess the drugs aren't kicking in yet.

"How do you make God laugh? Tell him your plans."

 

[Minodrin]

One tip about Germany.
Do not leave the westwall undefended. Especially if you attack a democrazy (Well, these tips are for newbies, yes?). Also, defeding northern Germany against a human UK might be smart. Oh, and your eastern border against the Soviets (If Poland is gone) is also very smart to defend...

PS. The reason I am stating these is because in a game I just played as Italy the Germans first got invaded by France (as they took Poland), and then before the Germans pushed the French back to the Magnitot, the Soviets were in Berlin (I was a very unhappy Italy then)

 

[unmerged(6935)]

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
Mazza, I don't know how much MP you play or who you play with, but you need to find some tougher competition. I can't remember the last MP game that I played that resulted in the Axis winning.

I know this has no direct relation to my post, but I suppose 39 is very different from this. Even without MP experience, I find it really hard to imagine the Axis not (in the majority of cases) winning. I have no experience with 36, but am glad to hear it´s better balanced. The 39 scenario is much more my cup of tea, though.

Does no one play 39 MP? I would be interested in player stories and strats.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Munchkin
Even without MP experience, I find it really hard to imagine the Axis not (in the majority of cases) winning. I have no experience with 36, but am glad to hear it´s better balanced. The 39 scenario is much more my cup of tea, though.

Does no one play 39 MP? I would be interested in player stories and strats.

I am the opposite of you, I play '36 only, and one of the reasons is just what you state: Germany is too overpowered in the scenario. Vichy France, take Poland, take Soviet Union, game over. It's fairly easy to do. Try out some '36 games with a regular group to try something different and perhaps a little more balanced.

 

[Mazza]

In my defence, I play a lot of multi - more than single in fact. There has been no game in which Germany hasn't won, whether I was playing with Germany or against them. The post I made is based on observations I have made of what has worked for the German player in my group of players. My observations about dealing with France are probably the only thing I would admit to being based on little experience because I have only played one multi-game in which a human was France.

 

[unmerged(6935)]

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
Try out some '36 games with a regular group to try something different and perhaps a little more balanced.

But I want the game as historical as possible. I am not much into the 1936 scenario, SP or MP. It will always be the 1939 scenario that determines my opinion about HoI.

That said: Even if Germany is over-powered -and we all know it is-, the *game* can still be balanced. What about having Italy ai, Japan ai, Britain, France *and* Russia human? In this case I´d say Germany is at a disadvantage even. It all depends on your setup.

 

[unmerged(13777)]

a bit of roleplaying would balance the game as it bests, for example the soviets really dont like the germs. BUT they dont like the allied capitalists either. the italians are not forced to join the axis, mussoulini only wants to bring italy back to great powers status, not killing jews. the usa is a isolanionist and this shouldnt participate in the war until either the comintern or the axis grows dangerously strong.

 

[Diefledermas]

another suggestion for Germany would be to NOT declare war on everything in site right away so that you can exploit the World Market for much needed resources. This may not seem like a big deal in the beginning but by the time you hit 1937 or so your reserves will be tapped out.

Keep in mind if you have alliances with Italy and/or Japan and they DoW you're in it too.

 

[Minodrin]

Does anyone have a good way of taking Austria in Jan 36? Winter + Mountain provinces. I could try next game by putting one big stack to take it province by province with small stacks in case the Austrians try to attack...

 

[Diefledermas]

since you're not waiting for Anschuss there are two good ways to do it.

one - commit your DIP points and demand, demand, demand - they will give in eventually and avoid WE raises for the allies.

two - forget about Panzers, not that great in the mountains - use the tanks NE corner which is plains and send in your infantry (enmasse) into all the border territories - overwhelming them is the best tactic. Your tac bombers will help a lot too.

If you have the time (say 4 months) - build mountain troops and use them - these guys make good shock troops later so its not a waste.

Also, Germany starts with a Winter Specialist General (or two), use them

 

[unmerged(12742)]

The only problem with the "demand, demand, demand" strategy in Austria is that allied WE goes up with each demand. I have tested this and found that you actually come away with less allied WE by invading Austria (in addition to getting it much sooner).

Ulster

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Ulster
The only problem with the "demand, demand, demand" strategy in Austria is that allied WE goes up with each demand. I have tested this and found that you actually come away with less allied WE by invading Austria (in addition to getting it much sooner).

Ulster

I'm not sure why invade Austria at all. Much better to capture Poland when it turns paternal authoritarian.

And actually, the would be to do absolutely nothing for first year, when SU and USA warentry is still very low and you get more IC than either. Hopefully, SU player will make some aggresive moves, thus lowering it even more.

 

[Minodrin]

Well, by taking Austria you get entrance ti Hungary and Yugoslavia, and trough Yugoslavia to Greece and Bulgaria, and trough those to Turkey, and trough Turkey to Asia + a second front against the Soviets...

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Minodrin
Well, by taking Austria you get entrance ti Hungary and Yugoslavia, and trough Yugoslavia to Greece and Bulgaria, and trough those to Turkey, and trough Turkey to Asia + a second front against the Soviets...

Which you don't need in MP.