Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
We need an allied playbook.
-
The question gets a little weird because if you send the entire starting Allied air force directly to Moscow, then you could wind up losing some of London, Gibraltar, Cairo, etc. in ways that make it harder to build more fighters or get them to Moscow before G5 / G6.
You can also lose the game on victory cities with Germany controlling London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Warsaw, Cairo, Leningrad, and Stalingrad – no Moscow conquest required.
I still think it’s an interesting question, but the answer isn’t as simple as just saying “fly every fighter on the map to Moscow and then Moscow won’t fall and then the Allies win.”
-
@Argothair Precisely my point earlier. If UK commits every plane to Moscow immediately then the Germans have a leg up taking London and the Italians can take Cairo.
-
@M36 Well, while I was accepting the absurd premise, its actually not as ridiculous as all that.
UK’s planes don’t need to head to Russia til UK2 or UK3. So if UK puts its fighters on Scotland on UK1 they can reach Novgorod UK2 after the Sea Lion threat is gone. Similarly, the planes in the Med don’t have to head up until UK3 (if they were in Cairo) to be in place in Moscow for G5 and they can bring 1 U.S. fighter along (via Gibraltor, Malta, then Cairo).
On the other side, the U.S. can land 3 planes and troops in Soviet Far East US1.
That gives the Allies 6-12 fighters/tacticals that can reach by G5 without committing until round 2 when initial Axis threats like Sea Lion are done. Of course, UK might prefer its planes in the Med head to India. Japan might keep the U.S. out of things until US3… etc, etc.
-
@weddingsinger Okay, so In practice you can do something useful with your aircraft before parking them in Moscow.
-
Good discussion. Well done. We have established that Moscow could theoretically always be saved if we were willing to sacrifice the other cities.
For your next assignment, pick two of the five cities to save. Which other one is it, making sure, of course, that you can still save Moscow with a certainty of 75 percent. Go!
-
Remember to suspend disbelief for the sake of the discussion. It is my firm belief that we must consider the crazy, the dream or the absurd and then dial it back one notch at a time until we find that we’re on the other side of a problem.
-
So the problem I’m having with this “pick x of 5 cities to save” discussion is that it matters a lot when the cities fall. London falls on turn 3? Not a problem if you’ve done the Taranto raid and killed some German planes; Russia can just swoop in and occupy eastern Europe, America can liberate London at its leisure, and you’re looking at an Allied win.
London falls on turn 7? You’re pretty much screwed in most cases.
Flipping that around, if Calcutta falls on turn 3? That’s pretty bad; the Japanese have enough time to pivot over to Australia or Honolulu and force America to ignore the Atlantic, or they might even be able to build a factory in West India and crank out 6 fast movers a turn (9 if they get Persia, 12 if they get Iraq, etc.) to seize the middle east and mess up moscow’s southern front.
On the other hand, if Calcutta falls on turn 7? That’s totally fine; in most cases, if Japan is only reaching Calcutta by turn 7 that means Japan is more-or-less contained, and by the time Japan can use the Indian bases to seriously threaten Cairo or Moscow, the game will be over.
So, taking the question as seriously as I can:
In the opening, hold Moscow and Calcutta.
From the middlegame on, hold Moscow and London. -
@Argothair A very good point, so we should put time tables on victory cities. London can fall before turn three but not after, Moscow after turn 7 but not before etc. etc.
-
Of course this is a WAR game so objectives and scenarios are constantly evolving. It would have been silly for the Russians to reinforce Stalingrad in November of 41 when Moscow was the clear objective.
-
BTW, I choose Egypt. (based on timetables) That doesn’t kick us back to pages of debate, does it?
-
Russian playbook illustrated. pretty good German one too. allied playbook turn 1r.tsvg not a sealion guy.
-
@crockett36 So you would reinforce Egypt from the start then?
-
If only two cities of the five cities could be saved, I would save Moscow and Cairo. Yes, from the beginning.
-
Pacific win for the Axis, yeah.
We should play a game crocket. 🤣
-
That would be great start it up please. In the car. I go really slow BTW.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas so you didn’t answer my question, which two cities would you save of the five? I’m inferring Bombay and Moscow is that correct?
-
Japan needs what, six victory cities? Even if they get Calcutta they still need Sydney or Honolulu. With enough focus poured into taking Calcutta the Aussies probably have Sydney well defended, and Honolulu gets harder and harder to take if you don’t strike it early.
-
My point being that axis victory is easier to achieve in the European theatre, at least in my experience. It’s easier for the Allies to stagnate Japan once America is involved.
-
We should play. Thanks for offering. I’m slow. I’m going to regret this because your a top tier player, but can we war college the game?
-
@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:
We should play. Thanks for offering. I’m slow. I’m going to regret this because your a top tier player, but can we war college the game?
War college?
What is that?
Suggested Topics
