@corporalclegg Haven’t repeated ever since, and probably won’t ever either!
Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube
-
Video number three is now up. This is the final preparatory video. The next five will be the strategic videos demonstrating the “Don’s essays” first turn “recommendations” followed immediately by demonstrating my personal first turn strategy.
Axis and Allies series: Video 3, My Board
-
Video number four is now up. This is Russia’s first turn. I lead off with the “Don’s Essay’s” version of how things “must” go and follow up with what I like to do on R1.
-
Interesting suggestions for R1. I found myself wanting to disagree, but then thought further and realized that my gut reaction was probably off based on the fact that I am so used to playing with an Axis bid. With classic rules out of the box, your Persia move is fine, and while I think you are playing things overly cautiously for Russia I don’t doubt that it would work; after all if Allies have the advantage as I still think is the case, there’s no use being risky and throwing away that advantage.
On the other hand I’m looking forward to seeing your suggestions for Germany and Japan to see if you have something new to bring there too!
-
After watching, that Persia move is only valid in Russia Restricted. There is a WORLD of difference between Russia Restricted and non Russia Restricted. That world of difference is (85% at least) the battle of Ukraine. Russia can completely crush Germany there. That’s why the 18 bids are needed – to offset that crushing. Bids in Russia Restricted range from 6-12 (Utah rules, where there is no tech until round 4 and such).
So, there is never a time in a no bid game that Russia shouldn’t hit Ukraine, and, I do like the Persia move in Russia Restricted (I do it slightly differently, but it’s the same in concept).
I now know why I prefer 3rd edition rules – 2 hit BB’s, and no stupid unit restrictions based on the number of pieces in the box. I mean, I can chip bomber stacks up to 100, but if I dare try to break that 100 into 4 stacks then the world ends. Doesn’t make any sense. :)
EDIT: The reason for taking Ukraine in that scenario is killing a German fighter in addition to a lot of other reasons. That fighter loss will compound as Germany progresses, even in the North Sea or other places (one less attacker will mean more losses). Japanese fighters aren’t as important, which is another reason you can leave Manchuria as a strafe. But German fighters are dear.
-
Video number five is now up. This is Germany’s first turn. I lead off with the “Don’s Essay’s” version of how things “must” go and follow up with what I like to do on G1.
-
Video number six is now up. This is Britain’s first turn. I lead off with the “Don’s Essay’s” version of how things “must” go and follow up with what I like to do on B1.
-
All ten parts of my series have been completed and are now published. Please check them out at your convenience!
-
I hadn’t been keeping up with these but I’ll continue now.
Just finished the Germany video. I largely agree with your recommendations with the caveat again that I still think Allies are at a significant advantage so it’s hard to assess one weak position versus another weak position. Don’s recommendations, as you note, have a much higher variance of results due to engaging in riskier battles, but from the perspective of a side that is “behind” then engaging in a riskier battle is often what you need to do in order to have a chance to pull ahead.
One curious omission to your otherwise conservative play though is the fighter against the LAB transport. That’s probably the riskiest battle of them all in my opinion! There’s only a 5/7 chance of the ideal result, which is only slightly better than the bomber versus the sub in the Eastern Med that you wanted to avoid, with a 1/7 chance equally of mutual destruction (which is significant since losing the German fighter is pretty bad) as well as a 1/7 chance of the transport winning. If instead of sending two fighters against Egypt you only sent one, instead sent one of those fighters against the sub along with your battleship in the Eastern Med, then you can spare the bomber to also join the fighter against the LAB transport. I feel like that arrangement much safer overall.
The main omission in this segment that I see is that you don’t really address what to do without Russia Restricted. Without RR, Germany has one fewer fighter to work with as Ukraine is almost certainly lost. Don recommends only a strafe attack on R1 but most people I’ve played with will just do the outright attack against Ukraine as there’s really not much of a risk anymore especially if the Baltic fleet is taken care of too.
-
For the UK video, that does seem like an interesting play but I generally feel like it’s too slow for not enough benefit. In fact even Don’s recommendations are too slow, as it feels like it’s a wasted turn. I always go for building up my UK fleet on turn 1. If somehow my battleship survives in the North sea and it looks feasible, then buying transports should shore that up. If not, then building a carrier and transports on turn 1 should still be sufficient to dissuade the Germany air force from sinking them again. I can’t recall why Don thinks waiting the turn is a good idea - if it’s because he prefers to keep the US fighters to counterattack Pearl Harbor, then I’d say that that’s a bad tradeoff, since the US really doesn’t have any need to do that counterattack; being able to immediately start funneling troops into Europe is well worth giving Japan more freedom in my opinion.
-
Awesome comment and thanks for the reply. I’ve executed your version of G1 before and merely prefer what I demonstrated in the video increasing the risk in the Atlantic to decrease the risk of damage to the afrika Corp and med fleet.
The omission was intentional concerning Russia. I felt the German video was too long and left it out bc it depends on how the R1 battles go. Sometimes it makes sense to counterattack. Sometimes it makes sense to dead zone EU. Sometimes it makes sense to fortify EU. Sometimes the Russians get thrashed.
If I start G1 with one less fighter it usually means I have one less fighter in Egypt.
-
I wouldn’t necessarily describe that as “my” version of G1 since with G1 I typically kill off the North Sea fleet, but I’m also assuming a bid to Germany. I was just assessing the hypothetical of playing by your rules with starting Germany in which I’d agree that there’s not enough material to cover all your bases.
From your J1 video I actually feel like I got the insight into my own bidding patterns: I usually put bid a couple infantry into Manchuria, but then I always end up doing the Pearl Harbor attack because with those extra infantry, the entire Japanese navy is more or less useless on the first round, so I might as well use it to clear the American fleet even though there’s little reward to it. But maybe if I wasn’t bothering to bid anything to Japan then I would have more need of the fleet and therefore can skip Pearl Harbor.
For USA, you mention having up to 10 transports with the US. This is way, way too much unless Germany is already conquered and therefore the game essentially almost over. The cheapest load of units 10 transports can fill up with is 10 tanks, which costs 50 IPCs, which you could never sustain unless you had an income around that level. So unless you are considering two transports in your supply chains that’s a bunch of wasted transports. If you are using two levels of transports, then you’re not correctly shucking: you really should only need one per tank/2 inf to transport your troops to either Europe or Africa.
-
I hate bids and won’t comment much on that.
To clarify, 10 transports is to increase reach and/or create a “wider bridge”, not to shuck. I regret not mentioning that in the video. I will address this in a future video.
-
@Avin said in Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube:
For the UK video, that does seem like an interesting play but I generally feel like it’s too slow for not enough benefit. In fact even Don’s recommendations are too slow, as it feels like it’s a wasted turn. I always go for building up my UK fleet on turn 1. If somehow my battleship survives in the North sea and it looks feasible, then buying transports should shore that up. If not, then building a carrier and transports on turn 1 should still be sufficient to dissuade the Germany air force from sinking them again. I can’t recall why Don thinks waiting the turn is a good idea - if it’s because he prefers to keep the US fighters to counterattack Pearl Harbor, then I’d say that that’s a bad tradeoff, since the US really doesn’t have any need to do that counterattack; being able to immediately start funneling troops into Europe is well worth giving Japan more freedom in my opinion.
“Don’s Essays” do not recommend a US counterattack. Britain definitely has options. I recommend the strat in the video because in my experience (which I hate to say but it was the deciding factor in presenting a strategy on B1) a two industry build is the most frustrating to fight as the axis and creates the highest probability of a “failure to launch” for Japan/Germany.
-
@AcesWild5049 said in Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube:
I hate bids and won’t comment much on that.
Oh, interesting, I didn’t realize. You say you won’t comment on that, but I am very curious why that is. But perhaps that’s addressed in your final video which I haven’t watched yet.
Regarding your penultimate video, however, I have to say that I thought you were better than that. I respect you and I have gained insights from your videos even though I disagree with you on a number of points. Yes, I agree with you that Don is unreasonably arrogant and his opinions are flawed, but why should you stoop to the same level in dismissing his essays as you do? You have to recognize that he wrote them around 20 years ago, and both the internet culture in gaming communities as well as the broader grasp of Axis and Allies strategy at the time were very different from where they are now. Don may or may not have been the first to write about some of the things he did; I don’t know actually. But I do recognize him as being the first so widely spread to describe such concepts as the general infantry push mechanics, the Shuck-shuck, the value of strafing, and so on. A lot of what Don says you “must” do is definitely obsolete, but the ideas behind them show a valuable progression from what was out there in terms of strategy advice before.
You are right to call Don out on the arrogance of his claims and the outdatedness of the strategy, but not any more so than you would be for calling out a 19th century writer discussing Napoleonic strategy on their casual racism and obsolete tactical analysis. As I think I mentioned in this thread early on I recently started playing Axis and Allies with my kids, and I saw no reason to give them Don’s essays to read because I could give strategic advice directly as we were playing, but if I had, the disclaimer I would give would be more along the lines of, “These are some really old essays on Axis and Allies strategy, but there are some good ideas there that you can still learn from even though you should take all Don’s claims with a grain of salt on what you ‘have’ to do. Most people today have come up with a lot of improved strategy that goes beyond it, but this is a good starting point for you if you want to see how strategy has developed over time.”
-
i read the above waiting to hear what you didn’t like about…what I’m assuming is video 9 and must have missed it.
What didnt you like about video 9?
-
@AcesWild5049
That you are mirroring what you are criticizing: in dismissing Don’s essays because of their flaws and his arrogant tone, you are doing the same thing to him that you accuse him of doing. It makes you sound like you are just getting into a pissing match with someone who isn’t even around anymore to rebut you, and thereby diminishes the otherwise sound reasoning you’ve shown.
-
@Avin
I’ve gone out of my way in the strategic videos and in video 9 itself making statements precisely to the contrary.In video 9 I clearly state, “You’re better off playing your own style, playing against different people and not closing yourself off to other ideas” or words to that affect. So again, I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.
Whatever good comes from those essays can be found out by the players themselves after playing 10-20 games even by players who are starting from 0 experience. I don’t contest that he was the first to put names to so many basic strategies such as shucking and dead zones but that’s not what the point of his essays are nor is it the topic of rebuttal.
If I seem frustrated with his essays, well yes of course, I am. You said it best, its not necessary to have your kids read it. I just take it a step further. Its not necessary for anyone to read it.
-
In video 9 I clearly state, “You’re better off playing your own style, playing against different people and not closing yourself off to other ideas” or words to that affect. So again, I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.
This is a perfect example of why I think the condemnation is hypocritical. You are saying that Don’s essays closes people off to other ideas - but in so doing, you are implicitly closing people who take your recommendation off to Don’s ideas and the positive contributions he made to Axis and Allies strategy historically, even if some things are outdated now. The message that comes across is that you are being just as clear cut as 20-years-ago-Don in your own way, just with a different perspective.
Whatever good comes from those essays can be found out by the players themselves after playing 10-20 games even by players who are starting from 0 experience.
This is certainly not the case; many thousands of people who had been playing Axis and Allies in local playgroups in the 80s and 90s never discovered for themselves some of the ideas on Don’s essays. Even on these forums there’s a reply in the pinned thread that links to Don’s essays from someone in 2014 who seems to have learned a lot.
-
Also, I’m not going to argue the point further; I was just trying to point out that until video 9 your disagreement with Don was mostly in rebutting points that you disagreed with, but that video 9 makes you seem a lot more petty, and I was trying to give you the outsider perspective that I feel like it diminishes the rest of your more reasonable criticism. If you don’t see the need to change that then so be it.
-
@Avin
Me pointing out that his comments are egotistical and braggadocio implicates me in the same?I just dont follow you.
This has become very bizarre to me and I agree we can just disagree here on whatever it is we disagree about.
If you’ve convinced me of anything it’s that I should update the YouTube video 9 with the disclaimer that “this is an opinion piece”.
Suggested Topics
