Check my game with AJ
I needed my equipment to pulverise the Russian/British/American defense and now have a 200 IPC army with Berlin in British hands. The Japanese have a 300 IPC army and the British and Americans each have about 150 IPC
I do not know the detail of your game, and I am not referring to a game in particular.
I am speaking generally.
Maybe in your case you having made all the necessary evaluation have decided for such move, basing on the game specific situation.
Moreover, coming back on topic.
How do you manage to plan such a move?
How do you evaluate the situation?
I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.
In A&A I may think of an analogy with chess.
But in this case is the Germany that place herself in a “bad position” (state on the board) and is forced to commit her forces in a series of forced move, losing unit that cannot be replaced, being Germany not allowed to buy.
I do not think that is a good example for correct planning.
It is a speculative case.
You have experienced it in a game but the result is still to be achieved.
The trick, I think, is planning what the allied nations are going to do in support of what you want to do.
Hopefully in the loss of Berlin/Capture of Moscow my ally the Japanese can support me in reclaiming Berlin, which shouldn’t be hard, just costly.
Likewise, you need to always to endeavor to make your nations work together in harmony to wring destruction and pain on your targets.
Also, focus on a goal, not on peripherals. The devil is in the details, best to leave him there.
Ok.
My question in this thread has been which kind of evaluation must make in order to plan defensive strategies, tactics and movements.
IT seems to me that planning offensive moves is more analyzed than planning defensive ones. Moreover it is more simpel to me planning to attack than organize a correct defense. As I said I often end employng in defense more units than needed. So I am trying to improve this part of my gameplay.
I mean defense is often made basing on overall strategy.
Other evalution are made considering each territory, starting from the Capital, and continuing with the list of the remaining territories.
However, capital ha to be considered in first place only if it is in danger, otherwise garrisono units may be sent to the front.
Your analisys added another pint of view.
Possibilities or necessity of offensive movements may overcome defending needs, to the point that leaving a Capiton open is a viable option.
How to identify such situation?
All depends on the board. As I said, you have to plan to mesh. You cover your allies weak points, they cover yours.
For instance, you can withstand an assault on Berlin by England, but will need help against the follow up American assault. Why not land the Japanese fighters?
You need ABattleMap - check http://frood.net/aacalc/maps/
I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.
One thing that may be similar to a sacrifice in chess is the 1-2 punch that is often needed to crack a capitol.
For example, both Japan and Germany might have 80% as big a force each as Russia has defending it. Neither one can take Russia down on their own. However, Germany can launch a suicide attack in which it loses all of its forces, and reduces Russia’s strength by 50%. Now Japan has more than enough to wipe out Russia, because of Germany’s sacrifice.
Not a perfect analogy.
On the topic of defending the capital at all costs - I have played some Russian players who just keep a huge stack in Russia, even though no major axis force is bordering Russia. The result is that the front is weakly defended, and a bunch of units are sitting where they can’t kill anything - you may as well not have them!
Ok Frood it is clear.
I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.
Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.
I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.
At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.
Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.
My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.
As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.
So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.
Romulus,
Something to think about in terms of your defensive planning…
Always having an “anchor” for an INF stack. By an anchor I mean a high value defensive point piece (or more than 1) with any medium or large stack of INF.
And I like to use FIGs for it because of their range… I can use Western FIGs to hammer Norway or Karelia, and still fly back to defend Western.
Or hammer Eastern/Balkans, too Switch.
but it’s nice to be able to go out to Ukraine, Belorussia, W. Russia or Archangelsk with them and fly the other half back to W. Europe. Normally why I keep the German air force split. After all, your odds of sinking the Allied fleets is almost nil anyway. So you’re only using them to prevent Western from falling too early, if ever.
Ok, sure thing!
I and my friends use to place the fighters in WE, Ger and EE and use them to support territory trading, Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine.
Then in NCM the fighters are redeployed.
Moreover, we rarely attack the Allied fleet with aircrafts alone.
We do that only if we have ships as cannon fodder still available.
Whoever of us is German… we love our Stuka!
Normally your fighters won’t be needed in Germany. E. Europe or W. Europe (50/50 is how i like it) usually suffices.
Mmm… but after the loss of the Baltic fleet and with English landing in Norway the British may try to attack Germany. They will be rejected for sure but may inflict more infantry losses if Berlin is defended only by infantries.
I feel more comfortable having at least 1-2 fig and some panzers in Berlin (if bought, otherwise they are in EE, ususally).
But if there is no probability of attack in Berlin it is also possible to have fig in WE and EE.
Sure, if they go to SZ 5. Honestly, I prefer that. No help for Russia then.
Mmm… but after the loss of the Baltic fleet and with English landing in Norway the British may try to attack Germany. They will be rejected for sure but may inflict more infantry losses if Berlin is defended only by infantries.
I feel more comfortable having at least 1-2 fig and some panzers in Berlin (if bought, otherwise they are in EE, ususally).
But if there is no probability of attack in Berlin it is also possible to have fig in WE and EE.
It is cost-effective to have both tanks and fighters among infantry in TT’s that you stack to hold.
Then it is bad TUV-trade to attack Berlin, unless allies can weaken it to a degree that the cap itselft may fall.
Ok Frood it is clear.
I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.
Good grammar.
Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.
“In the Last 5 player games, the Russian player was trading Ukraine and Belorussia with German each turn, while Uk traded Karelia, from Norway.” Remember to use past tense since you’re talking about a past game.
I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.
“I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming FOR Persia.” You usually don’t say you aim to a noun, you aim for a noun. You aim to become something, but you aim for the target.
At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.
…counter the Japanese advance.
Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.
…part of the purchased units. The correct tense of “buyed” is “bought”, but generally you want to say purchased since it sounds smoother.
My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.
My more important problem is really with Germany. Keeping the right balancing…
As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.
usually arrive with
So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.
Good grammar.
Now in regards to your content, I don’t have a whole lot to say because I’m already tired from this grammar lesson and because there’s already lots of good advice! I will just tell you that the “Lurch” technique generally means to move a large stack of units towards the opponent’s capital in an attempt to draw attention to it, but you will retreat if you have to. You’re lurching forward, but you withdraw at a moment’s notice.
