Strafing is tricky business, if you roll well and get a 1st round sweep, you’re right where I want you. The rest is standard, meaning I would expect a 3>4 round attrition battle that Germany should win.
With my luck I would roll a bunch of 1s :-)
I see something now that I would change too. Bombers and tanks could hit Bryansk and Italian bomber could can opener any blockers so I guess I would have to leave inf/art/AA in Moscow and the tanks/mechs/fighter/tac go to Ukraine.
SZ#110 - 2 Submarines, 1 Battleship, 2 Fighters, 2 T.Bombers, 1 S.Bomber
Scramble=tempting. 13% chance of victory. Tough call.
SZ#111 - 2 Submarines, 2 Fighters, 1 T.Bomber, 1 S.Bomber
Scramble alot less controversial here. 17% chance of victory.
France - 7 Infantry, 4 M.Infantry, 3 Artillery, 3 Tanks
93% chance of victory is alot. But 100% (with the 6 tanks) is alot better. On average, not having the 3 extra tanks will cost Germany an extra 2-3 art or mech to take it. And then there’s the issue that 7% of the time you won’t win and it’s tough coming back from that.
I choose to leave Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Greece for Italy, to ensure their financial stability in future rounds.
What is the justification for giving the Bulgarian army to Italy?
This G1 does kill the 7 Russian inf. But you lose an average of 3 inf in the process. You lose the 2-3 art or mech in France. You’re exposed to risk in 110/111 and in France. Russia gets +5 and Germany doesn’t get +5. There is no German fig on S. Italy. Russia has an opportunity to make up to +7 per turn in the Middle East by R3. And your G1 buy (which seems basically defensive) isn’t a great threat to the Soviets.
Great food for thought but I’m not seeing sufficient incentive to war with the Soviets early on.
Sounds like a lot of tough decisions for the allies…. Germany is in balls deep.
We are going to test Vance’s strategy with a league game against me (first game online). We’ll see how it goes.
Hey guys, I just saw a third kind of G1 that has element of my G1 and grasshopper’s G1. It is in the XDAP tournament in the game between wewin versus headless neds. Pretty interesting combination of ideas in it and worth a look.
@Vance:
Hey guys, I just saw a third kind of G1 that has element of my G1 and grasshopper’s G1. It is in the XDAP tournament in the game between wewin versus headless neds. Pretty interesting combination of ideas in it and worth a look.
Very cool! he must have that same deep down instinct that we do, the one that suggests that it’s a bold, but calculated axis strategy for long term population control of Russian troops. I would love to know how it turned out, and to hear both their views on their game. I appreciate him trying to take out the Cruiser off Gibraltar, but I wouldn’t have left SZ#110 alone. I’m also conflicted about the purchase phase, If there is a scramble in my plan, I will need to replace planes fast to take out the British ships after Toranto.
I started my first online game with Vance to test G1 and he unfortunately left the board / discontinued his account…
Anyone interested to take the Axis and trying on his strategy as described in this thread?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29231.30
I would be up for another game with a G1 / J1 (or at least J1). It seems like the Axis must be getting some success because this strategy has become popular (Frankly I’m having trouble to see why, I think J1 increases Allies’s chances)
I only play table top, however, ksmckay might oblige you considering that he has attempted a G1 attack on Russia before. Tell him you want a game if he does it, and then please provide the link to the game here.
@Young:
Purchase New Units
1 Strategic Bomber
1 Fighter
1 DestroyerCombat Movement
SZ#106 - 1 Submarine
SZ#110 - 2 Submarines, 1 Battleship, 2 Fighters, 2 T.Bombers, 1 S.Bomber
SZ#111 - 2 Submarines, 2 Fighters, 1 T.Bomber, 1 S.Bomber
France - 7 Infantry, 4 M.Infantry, 3 Artillery, 3 Tanks
Baltic States - 3 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 1 T.Bomber
Eastern Poland - 2 Infantry. 3 Tanks
Bessarabia - 2 Infantry, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 T.Bomber
The tank in Bessarabia is unnessessary to achieving the desired result, and is simply a juicy target for Russia. Better to leave it out.
Why buy the bomber and fighter? Why not tanks and guys?
 You’re exposed to risk in 110/111 and in France. Â
this is a very important point. in fact, the odds that Germany will win all three battles should UK choose to scramble is only: 67%. (8.18.89.4/100)
Unacceptable risk imo. If the opening led to some obviously dead won position for Axis then maybe or if I was playing a vastly superior opponent and I needed a few breaks to win then perhaps as well.
As it stands, I wouldn’t dream of trying this approach against an equal opponent.
� You’re exposed to risk in 110/111 and in France. �
this is a very important point. in fact, the odds that Germany will win all three battles should UK choose to scramble is only: 67%. (8.18.89.4/100)
Unacceptable risk imo. If the opening led to some obviously dead won position for Axis then maybe or if I was playing a vastly superior opponent and I needed a few breaks to win then perhaps as well.
As it stands, I wouldn’t dream of trying this approach against an equal opponent.
To wit: from an odds standpoint, if all three attacks were successful (and ignoring that it could be “successful” and still very very painful for you), and we’re assuming that a failure at any one is a huge problem that probably results in a loss, then you would have to be able to reasonably assume that you need to win over 75% of the games where all three are successful in order to reach a 50/50 break even of losses and wins.
Do you feel that this strategy, when it works, gives you a 75% chance to win the game?
from rockrobinoff
The tank in Bessarabia is unnessessary to achieving the desired result, and is simply a juicy target for Russia. Better to leave it out.
Why buy the bomber and fighter? Why not tanks and guys?
To rockrobinoff
Because if the UK scrambles, I need to replace any lost air units right away so that I can send an air attack into SZ# 97 during round two. Â
To me, unless you are playing LL, the SZ 111 battle is too risky from Germany’s perspective. A scramble by the UK gives them the ability to take 5 hits to your 6.
When you engage in air battles like such, you gotta expect some loses… That’s why I bought air units to replenish those casualties. I understand that this strategy is not for everyone, but I endorse it… Seems like all the opposition is centered around quesionable dice odds, I had a game where I (Germany) was on the side of great dice in the first round, and I sailed toward victory during the rest of the game… You don’t need 90%+ odds in every battle, as long as you want to apply some pressure. One sub against one destroyer in SZ#106 is a 50% battle, but most of us do it in order to apply pressure. Also, Axis powers are about aggression, and I truly believe that Larry made the setup to allow a move like this.
Can someone link me to the J1 strategy that Cow developed? Would like to see the Pacific compliment to this G1 strat.
Thanks in advance!
Look up the Japan Playbook thread in this forum.
@Young:
Seems like all the opposition is centered around quesionable dice odds, I had a game where I (Germany) was on the side of great dice in the first round, and I sailed toward victory during the rest of the game… You don’t need 90%+ odds in every battle, as long as you want to apply some pressure. One sub against one destroyer in SZ#106 is a 50% battle, but most of us do it in order to apply pressure. Also, Axis powers are about aggression, and I truly believe that Larry made the setup to allow a move like this.
The reason to experiment with a more risky G1 than normal is that you would gain something from it–pressure would be applied. The problem with the G1 outlined above is Germany doesn’t seem to gain any benefit compared to waiting till G3, and indeed there is a good chance of losing the game on G1.
This particular map and ruleset is notable for its strong attachment to historical realism. Just as in real history, Germany does not possess the resources to take on both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union in 1940.
I’m glad you are experimenting with it though and I’ll keep my mind open about it.
@Young:
Seems like all the opposition is centered around quesionable dice odds, I had a game where I (Germany) was on the side of great dice in the first round, and I sailed toward victory during the rest of the game… You don’t need 90%+ odds in every battle, as long as you want to apply some pressure. One sub against one destroyer in SZ#106 is a 50% battle, but most of us do it in order to apply pressure. Also, Axis powers are about aggression, and I truly believe that Larry made the setup to allow a move like this.
The reason to experiment with a more risky G1 than normal is that you would gain something from it–pressure would be applied.� � The problem with the G1 outlined above is Germany doesn’t seem to gain any benefit compared to waiting till G3, and indeed there is a good chance of losing the game on G1.
This particular map and ruleset is notable for its strong attachment to historical realism.� � Just as in real history, Germany does not possess the resources to take on both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union in 1940.
I’m glad you are experimenting with it though and I’ll keep my mind open about it.
To be honest, I have found that my blueprint has given a different kind of advantage to the Germans. What has been happening in my games is an immediate war of attrition with the Russians on the front line closest to me. Yes, I could wait and stack while Russia turtles, in which case we have a huge battle for Moscow 12 hours after we started the game, and thats usually a battle that gives the Germans less than favorable odds.
I’m not saying that that’s what happens in most games (massive battle for Moscow), but I’m saying that that’s what happens in our games. The past couple of months since I started consistantly attacking Russia G1, Germany and Russia have been hammering each other in territories close to the German complexes. Also, without spreading to thin across Russia, and by preventing any kind of significant buildup by the Russians, Germany has the odds in all counter attacks.
It’s not fool proof by any means, but it’s definitly fun…. and I have yet to lose a game in which I did a G1 attack on Russia, due to the G1 attacks alone, in fact my opponents claim that my strategy is very anoying, and hard to handle for Russia. That said, I have yet to experience a disasterous first round with the dice… which could very well happen any time you make a risk like this. However, I remember getting below average dice rolls one game and I lost a lot of units. I remember saying to myself… with these rolls, I’m gonna find out fast if this stategy is dead, I won that game on the Europe board against a very competant player. Needless to say, every game I play where I’m all the Axis powers… I’m attacking Russia G1.
Thanks Z44 for participating in the conversation and keeping an open mind, I appreciate your sensibility about the idea. For those PMing, challenging me to prove my strategy in an online game with them… please stop. I don’t play online and I don’t wish too. I play 3 to 6 table top games per month, and I don’t need to be an online player to discuss my strategies here.
Cheers.
Young Grasshopper,
We tried out a game just last week with a G1 attack on Russia. It turned out pretty good for Germany and I think worked out like you said. Lots of somewhat smaller battles all along the line from Baltic States to Bessarabia with the Germans gradually gaining ground. The battle for Moscow ended up much smaller than normal. Instead of a huge stack of German tanks, mech and air against 30+ Russian infantry, it ended up being something like this:
Germany: 4 infantry, 3 artillery, 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 4 fighter, 3 Stuka, and 2 bombers
Russia: 14 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 AA guns and 1 tac bomber
Germany won this battle in round 7.
Because of Germany’s relatively thin spots on the front line, Russia got bold and led several counter attacks, often successful, which led to them buying more offensive units (tanks, artillery) and not simply buying a ton of infantry and turtling on Moscow. Russia actually did well in wiping out some advancing German forces, but it cost them units and usually what was left over was easily wiped out by German reinforcements. Russia even managed to take Romania one round, but tanks and mechs from Berlin took care of that. I think the key was Germany keeping a relatively strong force in the center while letting the north and south get slightly weak. So while Russia was able to make some small gains north and south, they couldn’t link up to really exploit it because of the heavy German presence in the center splitting the Russians. Once Leningrad and Ukraine were captured and held, the last couple of rounds before Moscow Russia started buying all infantry, but by then it just wasn’t enough.
By the way, UK had it’s hands full with Italy and German U Boats, plus Germany got lucky on SBR and bombed the crap out of UKs IC (15 points of damage one turn). The US went on a KJF and was 100% committed in the Pacific. It took a few rounds but Japan lost almost everything outside of Japan itself, but still had a lot of men + a few fighters in Tokyo, so the US managed to neuter Japan but never actually captured it.
