The Raw Luck theorum. (How to make luck, like you make Units)

@edfactor:

Your theory fails.

First, simply put there are areas that you must defend. Like Moscow, spreading out too much guarentees that Moscow falls and Moscow falling is a disaster.

I believe you missed Gargantua’s point entirely.

The argument is that spreading out is the best option AFTER you’ve reach the point where you have a ZERO percent chance of surviving an imminent attack.

In doomed situations, defenders can sometimes inflict more casualties on the attacker by spreading out than they can by remaining massed together.

He’s using exaggerated numbers to illustrate the principle, that does not make the principle flawed.

@edfactor:

Third if your forces are split you risk defeat in detail. That is an overwhelming amount of enemy forces crushing a small portion of your forces thus greatly reducing your enemies casualties. For instance if your 80 cruisers were split into 8 areas (a much more realistic figure). Then you would almost certainly see 50 fighters in each of 2 of those areas. at 50 to 10 your cruisers die in 1 round and the fighters only suffer 1 round of strike back. The result is the next turn you have only 60 cruisers to their 90 fighters and your powers of defense have been made weaker.

If those 60 cruisers can then move out of range of the 90 fighters, attack somewhere with favorable odds, or regroup with friendly units, then defeat in detail could be better than guaranteed total annihilation.

Here’s some small scale math to consider using http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html for averages

Scenario:
10 enemy fighter attacking
5 cruiser defending

Possibility A: 1 battle, holding your ground when doomed
Cruisers mass in one SZ, fighters win with average enemy IPC loss of 28.2 IPC (essentially 0% chance of any cruisers surviving)
average enemy NET gain 31.8 IPC

Possibility B: 5 battles
Cruisers spread out over five SZ [enemy responds by attacking all five SZ with 2 fighters each]
fighters win with average enemy IPC loss of 33 IPC
average enemy NET gain 27 IPC
(that does not factor in the 5% chance per battle that a cruiser lives, because I am not good enough at math to do so)

Possibility C: 3 battles
Cruisers spread out over five SZ [enemy selects three SZ to attack with groups of 3 and 4 fighters each]
fighters win with average enemy IPC loss of 17 IPC
average enemy NET gain 19 IPC
2 cruisers guaranteed to be alive

The other thing to consider is the Germans not playing along.  They could just drive to Leningrad, then down to Bry, park and then start building up sitting in Bry and clearing up the areas behind them at their leisure.

The piece meal battle only will work if the Germans engage.  If they drive straight to Moscow, I think the USSR player would have some problems.

Now that im thinking about it, this is the outcome i have experienced many times over. exellent observation and strategy if out numbered.

@Gargantua:

Fair enough Karl,

But I never see that happen, the germans always try to take as many reasonable places as possible. � And I’d WAY rather let them have the north, than the south, if they wanted to play with a strict focus (which in my opinion is to German detriment)

And if the Germans aren’t going to defend romania with anything, then the possibility of limited offensive operations from southern urkaine is possible.

you have seen it happen as you have commented on my tournament game. did not take ussr territories unless it was in a direct path to moscow.

^

I do that for the first 5 rounds. Stack up on bryansk then worry about taking stuff, even more so if I am doing the japan bomb russia thing.

Gargantua,

Excellent article.  I don’t know why Jensen doesn’t have you writing some articles under the “Strategy” section of the website.  (Even the house rules section which is very outdated)

I agree with the smaller battles theory but have a couple questions/thoughts:

1. In these smaller battles you are advocating for there isn’t anything mentioned regarding the use of attacking pieces along with the russian infantry.  A small stack of only russian infantry inflicts limited damage (rolling at 1) and may not yield as effective a “whittling process” on the German infantry stacks as hoped for.  Bringing in Russian fighters helps and they can then return to safety, but I am thinking about the use of armor in these battles and either losing them or exposing them to counter-attack.  Killing German infantry at a loss of armor (maybe artillery?) seems too high a risk?  The Russian player would have to be quite crafty at both engaging the Germans approaching AND not lose more expensive pieces.

2. I have felt that the Russians should be moving with a force to take Norway which swings the economic battle away from Germany since it also negates a NO.  Allocating units for this certainly thins out Russian ability, or at least limits it, to engage in too many smaller conflicts on the approach to Moscow.  In games I am playing, the Russian capture of Norway/Finland (etc.) strips Germany of the ability to outbuild Russia on the Russian battlefront - or at least makes those “superstacks” more even.  Although, you may view the attacking of Norway as the very thing you are talking about?

attacking force to norway… there is about what 7 inf up there? so you would need to bring about 11 inf at the least (Germany has luffewaffe)… assuming he has no transports… you may get some cash flow.

meh I do not worry of these things, usually germany has naval like 3 transports. Those units have to move up each round to make it in time for the G6 attack. Hard to stall it without getting units trapped up there.

hmm… I’d say the north is actually more important that the south for German invasion.  I usually put a miIC in Rom, so I can defend and attack from there.  The advantage to the invasion into north Rus is that you get Len for the 5+ NO, protect the Nor/Den NO, and block the Rus NO in Arch without worrying about naval dominance.

The south has more cash I know, but if you can park in Bry, then you cut off the Ukraine and can take it at your leisure, not to mention take Vol.

I don’t know.  I guess a multi province defense by the USSR with real amounts of units could work depending.  But I would fear the German player would see it, attack only very select groupings and move right on past to bry.

Using math, tanks have a huge defensive advantage against infantry of the same IPC value, making any army tank heavy ironically have better defense.

Usually as the USSR I tend to reinforce 1 or 2 strong points, usually Len and Mur so that the Ger player has to attack me at relatively strong defense points, drawing his infantry off.

I will say a lot depends on the particulars, but just pulling back to Moscow is inviting disaster

I agree.

Most important in when playing Axis and Allies is to be very offencive with the allies and attack whenever possible. Considdering that Allies begin with more units and far better production Axis real advantage lies in best strategic placement of units and ability to focus all their units on one enemy at the time.

Axis units are in some ways more valuable than allied units, and much harder to replace. So generaly you want to trade allied units with Axis units whenever possible. China and Anzac units is to be considderd as the least valuable, best used vs Japan even in a 1 to 2 ratio (dont build inf with Anzac, build fleet and trannies and let US protect you)

In Europe trade british air for luftwaffe is good as well if he is going barbossa. US can make a big bomber stack and use it to defend India,Moscow and Sidney. They can also attack Japanesse fleet or kill expoced Axis ground units by attacking with overwhelming force.

@FM7:

1. In these smaller battles you are advocating for there isn’t anything mentioned regarding the use of attacking pieces along with the russian infantry.  A small stack of only russian infantry inflicts limited damage (rolling at 1) and may not yield as effective a “whittling process” on the German infantry stacks as hoped for.  Bringing in Russian fighters helps and they can then return to safety, but I am thinking about the use of armor in these battles and either losing them or exposing them to counter-attack.  Killing German infantry at a loss of armor (maybe artillery?) seems too high a risk?  The Russian player would have to be quite crafty at both engaging the Germans approaching AND not lose more expensive pieces.

AA guns should be important (for both sides) to get the opponent to use artillery/armor instead of planes, or risk the planes being shot down by AA.

aa guns are important, they don’t attack for germany so yeah you want to lose them if you are the german player.

@Gargantua:

Having a response to allweneedislove’s -Iron Blitz- strategy, would require more specific information. But I think his strategy is quite beatable, even if he doesn’t. :P

i am not familiar with an “iron blitz” strategy, it sounds like some sort of tank maneuver.

if you are referring to the allweneedispush strategy, it is most efficient and unstoppable in taking moscow g7. i am not sure if the strat as a whole is unstoppable but moscow does fall on g7.