I might have said this before, but most allied players might not be using the best strategies. They typically take the allies at too low of a bid. And then they win by either extremely good luck or they are playing a newer player who can’t take and hold the two key non-capital points on the map by round 4 or 5. I’ve won probably 90%+ of my games as axis lately by a simple strategy: use an odds calc to determine the ipc value gained by destroying allied units +2 *(times) territory value gained by these attacks + national objectives gained by axis + national objectives lost by allies. If a player does this math for the first two rounds, they will have a very strong opening strat as axis.
Revisiting G2 Barbarossa
-
@kyle47 said in Revisiting G2 Barbarossa:
@MarshmallowofWar Oops. My mistake! I missed an artillery :flushed:
Again, bringing two aircraft @4 carries the odds into the 99% range. And in those edge cases, the Italians could clean up if they had too.
No worries at all. It’s quite easy to do!
Marsh
-
@MarshmallowofWar Good thoughts. I have run this attack quite a bit now. I disagree with the “profound weakness in Europe”. I’m certainly much stronger in Europe than I would be on a G3 Sealion (and on optimal lines, those odds are ok at best). The sealion feint benefits from a stronger Italy, and a German Navy presence in the Med. However, on the G2, I am pouring resources into Infantry quite early on. The Americans often contend with 30+ German infantry and a similar count of Italians. It has been exceptionally difficult for them to make serious gains in time to be worth it.
As for the potential infantry losses, yes. At some point, unit trades can get inefficient. If the odds, and trades, are bad on the G5 Moscow (more likely due to British support rather than bad rolls), don’t do it. The Germans can simply consolidate their position, bomb the factory, reinforce from recently captured factories (a small investment), and watch as Japan ramps up pressure on Calcutta.
Between the two, Britain can’t stop both. The benefit of the early pressure is that the Allies don’t have enough time to build a sufficient defense, and the tradeoffs of units don’t wither the German forces enough to be any issue. Your IPC counts for Germany will be pushing 75 (if not 80) by this point, and Japan should be hot on their heels.
-
@kyle47
Do you use bids in the play group? -
@MarshmallowofWar I actually started conducting this attack because the Allies were more able to slow a G3. We found it was often petering out, falling victim to Soviet counter attack. The G2 slimmed some of that early Soviet income and material enough, that the opportunities for counter attack got cut down to almost nothing. My concerns were much like your own, but after trying it (and I am not known for being lucky with the dice), the U.S.S.R. crumbled, and the income swing gave me the resources to grind down every U.S. landing.
-
@mainah we do not, and this could swing some key odds in key battles. I would re-evaluate depending on where the Allies use the bid. Is 18-22 still the average bid size?
-
@kyle47
BM4 is 16-22. I think. Some one mentioned it’s been creeping up a bit, might be a bit higher.OOB - 45-60.
-
@mainah Yes, that could totally change the map. My group can’t beat me when I play the Allies without one, so I don’t get bids. :)
-
@kyle47 said in Revisiting G2 Barbarossa:
@MarshmallowofWar Good thoughts. I have run this attack quite a bit now. I disagree with the “profound weakness in Europe”.
By “profound weakness”, I’m making a couple of assumptions. First, that every available ground force that can make Bransk by G5 is there (including the Romanian infantry) and second, that all your builds for G2, G3, and G4 (probably strat bombers) have first priority of eliminating Russia as opposition. That doesn’t leave a lot of ground forces in Europe proper, hence the phrasing. While it’s true that your air force and limited ground forces can hold off the US/UK for a bit, on G4 it’ll be ground forces by itself but most of that has been shipped off to Russia at that point.
You might ask why the US would go Europe-first. The answer is because your G1 build telegraphs your intentions.
It would be interesting to see this in play.
Marsh
-
@MarshmallowofWar ah I see, that would make a weak Europe. However my G3, G4, and G5 purchases are almost entirely infantry in order to defend Europe. Depending on the amount of reinforcement Moscow gets from the British, Germany may opt for a few tanks out of Ukraine/Novgorod. Ukraine is preferable because of it’s position, but mech units of any kind can be helpful out of Novgorod at this point.
I am also assuming a Middle Earth style British player (factory in Persia, naval base, 2-1 alternating transport shuck from South Africa) and haven’t play tested this against a U.S./U.K. D-day. That would be an interesting stress test, since you are committed to the G2 post purchase. I think the U.S.S.R. and Calcutta would ultimately be more vulnerable in the D-day scenario… but I’m biased.
Appreciate the feedback!
-
@kyle47 if you are spending most of your G3-G5 income on defending Western Europe, the Allies should be able to hold Moscow and the Middle East as you don’t have enough forces to overcome the final defense lines. Get a few bombers during G3 and G4 as they are so versatile. You can buy units at the front lines from G4 and onwards.
I like having a dozen or more German bombers by the mid-game. That makes it challenging to simultaneously protect Moscow, Middle East / Egypt, a Western European foothold, and the Atlantic fleet. Dark Skies is unfair!
Axis should be able to win 90% of the time for an OOB game with no bid when the players have experience. Join the League so you can go against stronger opponents and find flaws in your game plans for matches which are more balanced.
The evolving strategies have allowed the Allied bid to creep up to the 50-ish range. One key evolution I saw recently was leaving Normandy in French control. That prevents the Allies from using that territory as a pivotal foothold. Very annoying.
-
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Revisiting G2 Barbarossa:
One key evolution I saw recently was leaving Normandy in French control. That prevents the Allies from using that territory as a pivotal foothold. Very annoying.
You’re welcome :-) I take full credit for this.
Marsh
-
The aircraft in Poland and Slovakia Hungary cannot reach any ships, so they’ll have to attack Paris.
-
Curious strategy. I might try it.
Do you think it would work if the Italian and Japanese players are ineffective?
As in, no serious Japanese pressure and KGF?
I’ve been trying a game on TripleA (low luck) where all the Allies are Hard AI and Japan and Italy are Fast AI (inferior), while I play as Germany.
So I need to carry the Axis, and that requires a strategy that doesn’t heavily depend on Italy or Japan.
This strategy doesn’t require Italy, but how much does it not require Japan? Thank you!
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato almost any strategy will work against the AI or yourself.
Against a skilled opponent, Japan needs to grab the money islands and Malaysia by turn 3, and then capture India not too long afterwards. That will force the United States to split spending on the two theaters or risk defeat when Hawaii or Australia fall.
-
I know, but as I said, Japan is ineffective due to being run against an AI.
It’s just Germany (side note, I actually did do one where everyone was an AI except Japan, and they won by turn 4 using @The_Good_Captain ’s J1 attack).
-
@kyle47 here’s your issue max attack Vs max defense for a G5 assault doesn’t capture Moscow. A G6 attack on Moscow is a much better plan which gets more German units to Moscow than soviet .
-
@TheVeteran perhaps I don’t understand some of the more intricate parts of the game, but if you attack Moscow on turn 6 instead of turn 5, the Russians can add an additional 10 units to defend Moscow.
What will the Germans add to the fight by waiting an extra turn?
Is it really worth it when 10 more Russian units show up?
-
@Radar how do you figure 10 more units for Russia ? I’ve played this through myself. G6 was the better option.
-
@TheVeteran
Russian starting IPC is 37, they certainly lost some from German attack, at least -3 maybe -10 depending on how far from Moscow the Germans march. The Russians might have taken Finland and Norway +5, with an additional set of bonuses +6, they may have got the +5 sea zone 125 bonus. (*And that’s assuming Russians didn’t sneak into Romania, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, or Yugoslavia each worth 4-6 after bonuses.)Russian IPC could range from 27-50 (or more*) if I’m doing the math right here.
On the low end, that’s 9 troops, but likely 10 units including some infantry & tanks.
Not only that, but that’s an extra turn the UK has to land fighters in Moscow.
I ask respectfully, but am I missing something?
It seems like the extra units the Germans can bring on turn 6 isn’t worth the extra units the Russians can produce, or the UK can fly over.
-
If Russia is taking Finland, let alone Norway, than the Axis player is not playing properly. Russia should never get the $3 NO bonus for any territory in Europe. That is why they usually send troops to the Middle East to get the NO down there.
If you are playing with no Bid then really anything you are experiencing is irrelevant. The Bid should be in the 50-60 range.
Suggested Topics
