AA50 on Steroids!

@Panther

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

@Azimuth yeah, I understand the challenge, I’m a graphic designer and I was playing around with a circular map design when I stumbled upon yours. I still might finish my design as I was incorporating some map changes I found interesting. But so far I think I’ll need some blow up boxes or something to make it work at a reasonable size.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

Okay, but how do you get to Karelia to hold it? It can only buy two units a turn to place there as Russia, and to get from Moscow to Karelia requires going through either Belorussia (a dreaded “$1 territory” that, according to you, should not be fought for) or Archangel. I suppose you could do the later, but if you’re willing to fight for Archangel, why not Belorussia, which directly borders Moscow and is on the German’s critical path from Berlin -> Moscow?

As I mentioned you stack Archangel on R1 and buy two armor. You could buy three if you drop the two artillery down to infantry but personally I like the artillery for Caucasus for the southern defense/push.

Also why TANKs? ART are the more economical purchase for offense because they boost the firepower of paired INF.
2 INF/2 ART = 14 IPC, 4 HP, 8 Punch (offense and defense)
compare with 3 TANK = 15 IPC, 3 HP, 9 Punch (offense and defense)
I understand mixing in TANKs if you’ve hit > 35 IPC (the point you’d be able to build 5 INF/5 ART), but for the bulk of the game I don’t see your income getting that high. If USSR is consistently getting over 35 IPC then you’re “winning” (which lines up with my original post that says USSR should start adding TANKs once they’ve reached a winning position.

Yes, the two INF/ART pair are a better offensive buy but the two armor is a better defensive buy AND more importantly the mobility gets the armor to Karelia on R2.

Going purely by the numbers, INF/ART are better than TANKs odds-wise because they have more punch and more HP for less money. However, when you start factoring in your limited deployment spots for USSR (10-12), things start getting different. At that point, since USSR can generally count on getting their 10 IPC bonus for no foreign units + hold Archangel, it might be feasible to mix in a TANK or two. To me, it’s all about whether USSR’s income is over that 35 IPC level (since at 35 IPC exactly, you can buy 5 INF/5 ART).

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

As you say, rather than defending Karelia directly, USSR can stack a neighboring territory and go for a counterattack on R2 (when the German Air Force won’t be present). Let’s look into this scenario:
USSR can stack either Belorussia or Archangel to try setting up a dead-zone on Archangel. If they stack Belorussia, you can dive on their stack with extremely variable odds depending how G1 went + how USSR distributed its forces. Assuming that they either stacked Archangel or you just don’t like the odds at Belorussia, you can walk into Karelia here no problem. Using your R1 build, the biggest Russian response I was able to get was 12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. the German force of 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK. Of course, the German INF number is variable based on G1, but lets break down the calcs:
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 9 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 14% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 6 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 26% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 5 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 7 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 40% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 2 USSR Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 6 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 56% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 3 USSR Tanks survive
So, if Germany had particularly poor luck in the opening, then USSR can block an advance into Karelia on G2, but even in the scenarios where USSR wins, the odds are effectively a coin flip.
Germany can likely hold Karelia for G2 and G3, but by G4 they may need to withdraw in the face of UK’s naval buildup + how the rest of the game is going. At that point we’re way too far out to make concrete calculations.

Well that is a very interesting opening. Do you vacate Norway completely? What about the fighter that attacked the SZ2 BB? Do you leave it undefended?

Conditionally. It depends on how many INF Germany loses in the Baltic States fight in-particular. If things go absolutely sideways and they lose 2 INF then Norway needs to be 100% evacuated. I understand that this risks losing the SZ2 FTR to a British air attack but they’d need to send either 1 FTR/1 BOMB or send in a loaded transport from Canada + 1-2 FTR). If UK sends forces to Norway it (hopefully) means they’re missing out on either sinking the Baltic Fleet or are delayed a turn in sending their BOMB towards the center of the map (which is a more optimal position for it). Ideally, no INF are lost and you only need to send 1 of the 2 INF to Finland.

If you were to push that many infantry against Karelia than yes, it would take a bit for Russia to take it back. Also, your 4 armor + 1 infantry against East Poland is interesting. I guess you don’t worry about the 16% chance you lose an armor there?

Not particularly. That’s like saying don’t try for Egypt G1 because you only have a ~76% chance to actually take the territory (my math might be bad on that calc because I don’t have the setup in front of me right now), If that chance actually occurred taking/holding Karelia would probably be a bust and you’d have to shift to a different game plan.

Of course, if you are sending that much firepower north than as Russia I would push south to get to Bulgaria and the Russian $10 NO.

That possibility is part of while 4 of the TANKs go to East Poland instead of 100% all-in at Baltic States. If on R1 USSR positions its forces in either a balanced position or with a disposition towards the south, Germany is free to adjust how many troops its sending to Caucasus. Some of Italy’s started forces can also be used to plug the gap, as you don’t need to start spending 100% of their income on defending Rome/France until ~Round 3.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

You know AA50’s game flow very well (as demonstrated earlier in this thread in a post I didn’t respond to). Japan is the one who ultimately takes Moscow in most games rather than Germany. The role of Germany/Italy is to make as much money as possible during the early game and then turtle until Japan wins the game. My main gripe with NOs (and your Russian strategy of not actively fighting for space on the board) is that the easy money Germany gets makes this task much too easy.

I think we are in agreement the Allies definitely don’t want Germany taking and holding Karelia and/or Caucasus for any length of time; that is bad news. Our styles are different. I want lots of ground troops to eventually knock them out and your style seems to push for a faster more aggressive strategy that does not have as much firepower in the long run but has more in the short run.

Pretty much. The way I see it is that if USSR can punch Germany in the nose enough times during the opening turns, then their income will be stunted enough that UK/US have an easier time winning the war on their side of the map. Even if this causes USSR to lose enough units over time that Japan has an easier time taking Moscow, the Allies can usually still win as long as they take Berlin on or before the round that Japan takes Moscow.

I just tried to addressed to the one of the main complaint about Japan’s power in Anniversary and claimed that having Japan with that power is not a must for maintaining balance but happy to see different income distirbutions with No’s or not.

ammend the NO’s
give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

Let me clarify my reasoning on point number 2:

Submarines defend at a zero because they are not firing back, they are battening the hatches, flooding the ballast tanks and adjusting the dive planes hoping to get below depth charge depth before being sunk. (Which is silly, I guess you should say destroyed not sunk, since they sink on purpose…)

Meanwhile, they attack at three because they quietly slip into range, hide in the waves, line up their shot just right and fire.  Since there is resistance to giving them called shot abilities (where they tell us who they aim for before firing, like Kaitens and Kamikazees did in AARe) I figure this is a solution that would work.

Also, it should be mentioned that I am assuming Super Submarines has been changed to Super Destroyers which would increase Destroyer Attack Power = to Submarine Power.

Submarines do not defend with a surface fleet, they travel solo usually way out ahead as scouts or raiding enemy shipping.  Treat them like transports if they are detected and defenseless.