Map for 1941 axis strategy

@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.

@taamvan Can you say a bit more about what Japan is doing in your games? It’s true that with a well-executed KGF Germany will be contained to the core territories of France, NW Europe, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania – but that’s still worth $30 a turn and it takes the Allies a very long time to build and load enough transports to crack it.

Meanwhile, a pure KGF usually leaves Japan free to take India, then the Caucasuses, then Moscow – the Allies can certainly rush a few fighters to Moscow, but sending even one ruins the only practical Russian national objective, and if you build too many then you never get enough Allied ground troops to crack the German turtle – fighters in Moscow can’t reach to support an attack on France.

In my experience, without a bid and with NOs on, the Japanese attack on Moscow is much faster than the American attack on Paris, let alone Berlin. How does the Pacific play out in your games?

I think you can do it, but the problem is, if you can justify building the Aus IC then you probably don’t need it.

In recent months I’ve seen more and more US all Pacific (or 90% Pac) strats and with strong US play in the Pacific you don’t really need the Aus IC.  It would help, but the US can protect Aus and take EI.  Bor is a little harder, but once those islands are taken there really isn’t much need for UK support.  It’d be nice to have a little more UK support but its not necessary and certainly not at the expense of letting Russia get crushed by Germany.

I’d consider it under a few circumstances but never in rd 1.  I’d wait until UK can get at least one of its NOs.  And in this case probably the Pac NO.  With the initial UK trn and Aus troops, if you time your taking of Car Is correctly then the US can reinforce with Naval protection.  At this point if you are guaranteed to be able to count on that NO for 2-3 turns.  You might be able to afford the investment.  This would replace the potential IC in Norway.  UK can usually afford an IC in rd 3 or so.  Most cases it probably gets put in Nor, but with a strong Pacific game you can substitute it in for Aus instead.
But again if it looks that good to potentially place in Aus, you might be able to do an Indian IC instead, which is probably better.  And finally if the US was able to take EI, you might be able to place it there.  It really depends on how patient you are and what the overall board looks like as well as your overall strategy.

@Veqryn:

@cts17:

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

bids generally don’t allow more than 1 unit to a territory….

at least, that is what i’ve always been told

(a max of 1 unit to a territory, and you must have units in that territory already)

That’s a ‘house rule’ from the Triple A lobby, from what I understand.  Usually bid limits are listed with how the bidding works (i.e.  all cash (no immediate units), 1 unit per territory, etc).

In other words, bid rules are all over the board.

I will usually only build extra naval units with Germany if there is some sort of core to build them around. Be that a surviving cruiser or battleship. If I still have one of these in turn two or three I might build some subs or even a destroyer. Also the casualty rate on the Eastern Front cant be too high, because then I will buy extra land units instead.

So basically, it depends on how well the Allies play and how well my navy holds up. Its a opportunistic investment at best and I never considered it a feasible strategy for Germany really.

This thread has what you are looking for.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12873.0

There’s an easy solution, move the RAF fighters onto Karelia.  Problem solved.

It’s one turn of 5 less production for Russia… well, 3 really, since losing Karelia is 2.  It’s not a big deal.  That 5 bonus is for when Russia’s strong enough, which they aren’t at the beginning as everyone has shown.

Remember Germany also gets 7 (2 for the territory and 5 bonus) production from Karelia, and can start producing armies there.  That’s a huge negative, because without that factory the German line gets stretched out and weak on infantry.  The negatives from losing it are steep, very steep.

Lynxes, you are so right, bombers are such a tremendous force now that they only cost 12.
with the new system you can seriously cripple an economy with 3 bombers.

And by experience, I think it is important to invest in the pacific as USA if the japanese go for a mitghy naval force. You gotta give them a decoy to go after, and maybe try to get it to China/India to keep the huge japanese navy busy.
It will be actually expensive but might save you from a japanese invasion.

but I disagree though about the Indian IC. I guess it’s important to prevent japan from becoming too strong. with the uk fighter in Africa and the russian tanks they might spare on turn 2-3, you can possibly keep it alive if the japanese player went with some conquests in China.