After a long absence from A&A, I got together with a bunch of buddies and played 1942.2 recently. We started BS about strategy/tactics and there were two opposing schools of thought. Is it better to spread your forces out to force your opponent to attack each territory with overwhelming force and thus slow him down, or better to put everything in the giant stack and concede the territory you already know you can’t hold?
Eample: leaving a lone infantry somewhere in Africa to prevent blitzing and force your opponent to stop and attack. You know you will lose but it will cost the other side a turn.
Example: The Axis are closing on Moscow. Do the Russians put everything in Moscow to protect at all costs or try to defend Caucasus and West Russia too?
Example: Defend the Soviet far east to slow Japan down or concede it and group your forces together?
I don’t claim to be an expert and don’t consider myself a top player so I appreciate your insight.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, the usual way to win is to consistently win battles at a profit. You do this by attacking enemy units that are out of position, and avoiding placing units in a deadzone yourself.
Lets start with the clear case where 10 tanks are attacking 2 tanks in a 2IPC territory.
The tanks will almost certainly kill 10 IPC (2 tanks) + 2 territories - 2 (33% chance of losing a tank) for a net 10 profit.
The 2 tanks are in a dead zone and should have been retreated by the other player.
Among good players, often you will see two big opposing stacks and 1-2 infantry on the buffer territories that are traded back and forth. This is because if either player advances their stack, it’s likely in a deadzone (because this extends the attacker’s supply line distance and reduces the defender’s. also fighters can’t land on a territory taken the same turn). So, each player attacks the border territories with just enough fighters and infantry to take the territory with 1 inf left to gain the IPC from the territory. This happens until one stack gets strong enough that it can advance forward safely. IF the advancing stack placed the defending stack in a deadzone, the defending stack must retreat.
In general, it’s better to retreat units instead of leaving 1 infantry to die in a dead zone. However, you also can’t be too passive and retreat your stack to the capital. The optimal positioning usually involves big stacks 1 territory from the traded territories to put maximum influence on the traded territories and prevent the advancing opponent from moving forward safely.
I appreciate your thorough and well written response. My friend was correct then which is not a shock but he wasn’t able to give me a clear explanation as to why that is a better strategy. Now I understand.
There are a lot of good articles on Axis&Allies.org unfortunately not many discuss the current editions which while similar in concept have changed the specifics somewhat. I suppose beggars can’t be choosers.
In the example that you put about the Soviets, I find that in the 1942 Edition they do not have other choice than assuming a defensive role. Generally whoever plays the Soviet player concedes Caucasus and focus on defending Leningrad and Moscow. Ultimately, it always come to them stacking up Infantry units in Moscow trying to slow down the Germans.
The only option for them to hold a little bit longer is if the German player decides to go for Sea Lion.
Generally whoever plays the Soviet player concedes Leningrad and focus on defending Caucasus and Moscow.
Fixed
