Hmmm, perhaps next turn it will become more clear.
Hint: The Axis destroyed 152 IPCs worth of Allied equipment this turn, while the Allies destroyed only 56 IPC’s worth.
Big deal, the allies start with 689 IPCs worth, you start with 620. The differential between what was destroyed was 96, the original differential is 69, so you have achieved a 30 IPCs edge. This is pretty standard…
Not only does Germany get an additional fighter to start, it is located in a place that cannot be taken on the first turn (as the Ukraine is in the old version of Axis). To me, it is really starting with 2 extra fighters.
How is it that ukraine cannot be taken on the first turn? You can believe it is a good or bad move, but attacking it with 3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 2 ftr’s yiels a roughly 90% chance of taking it, which is pretty substantial.
This works for this game and the original Axis and Allies.
Yeah, you definitely got the original axis and allies licked. Definitely not imbalanced at all. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that all experienced players are incorrect saying this, and are incredibly poor strategists.
What did japan make it to moscow with? Frankly it doesn’t matter too much if japan is at moscow’s doorstep with 1 inf, “oh no”. The absolute best japan could do if they go the northern route is to be near moscow in round 3. What you should be doing as russia is instead of bleeding your inf in the east for little gain, slowly pull back to novo. If you bought an armor a turn and dedicated an inf a turn to go east, then by the time japan reaches you you have about 10 inf, 3 arm and that’s not including your initial arm. Now, what does japan do? I know japan doesn’t have that much to attack with, which means whatever is near novo is going to get creamed. If there is a counter, then novo strafes that stack making the japanese front forces again, incredibly impotent. If japan goes strong in the south, then you just shift the novo stack to kazakh. I’m playing a game right now (this is a different version than standard revised, but same general principle) where japan pushed hard into persia. They had 2 inf, 3 arm in persia, and were ready to follow that up with 6 arm, courtesy of IC’s. So, as russia, all I did was attack 2 inf, 3 arm with 6 inf, 2 fighters. The tradeoff is in my favor, and next round if japan puts their big bad scary armor in persia, I am just going to kill 90% of it with my stack of 8 or so inf, and 5 or so arm. Trading inf for arm, that’s the key. I can tell from an inf drop in burytia that he will be coming from there soon. Not a big deal because germany is being rolled over landwise due to their naval builds, so my next russian stack of 8 inf, 3 arm will face them. Germany buying navy is bad for japan, and mitigates their role as the pushers.
To answer your initial question, how does the USSR stop Japan? Well, sometimes they don’t. For example, in your game, russia never should have split their stack. With germany devoting their time to naval resources russia should have had a nice solid stack. If I were playing russia and I saw serious naval builds I would have started pulling my troops westward. Yes, japan will make its way to moscow, but the whole time russia will be making substantial IPC gains in the west, and should arrive on germany’s door with a helluva stack.
The other option is to actually get the allies into europe. Even with germany pumping all of their IPCs into navy, the allies should have no problem dealing with it. That is the simple truth. The allied navy being stomped by your german navy was simply poor play, or poor dice. I don’t mean poor play in a bad way, just in a…novice sort of way. I wouldn’t expect perfect play from someone their first few times playing, and really not from anyone (though agentsmith might tell you he plays perfectly :evil:). Typically germany does not spend so much on navy, and even regardless, at some point the allies can drop troops in norway/karelia/archangel/eastern if they choose, and failure to do so is very bad for the allies. Once naval superiority is gained by the allies, most builds go to troop drops which equal germany’s forces. From there the russians can either continue on to berlin, or if they feel the US/UK can handle germany, turn and face japan with all of their forces. If russia can fully turn they can stop japan, but they need a secure backside and that is the UK/US responsibility.
I think the discrepancy between revised and 2nd edition is pretty large, and the axis in 2nd edition really do need a bid. I am more comfortable playing the axis sans bid in revised than 2nd edition, by far. One thing I would like to comment on is that I do not think the axis are harder to play, by any means. I believe it is the allies who must show more coordination and strategy to sucessfully crush the axis. That’s just what I think though.
It is not moot because you can still try it without long range aircraft. It is also valid if bids are placed which involve transports (or planes).
So effectively you reduce all the rules of the game to a poor gamble, and when the gamble fails you quit? I acknowledge I make absolutely dumb replies that make no sense, but I think that somewhat better is that I do not start games by counting on a faroff gamble, and then quitting when it fails. I again ask, what is the point of playing the game this way?
I pretty much always play “total victory”. That is because I play with competent people who are willing to acknowledge when they have been beaten, and willing to convince me when I have been. There is no shame in surrendering and saving yourself hours of your life. This keeps us from drinking beer until 9 am the next morning. Well, at least from drinking beer and playing axis and allies.
@Real:
If you really want to find out,just do it!! This isnt reality.If you lose,you just pack the game up or play again…You dont have to shoot yourself in your “bunker”…I cant stand when people say not to take incredibly risky chances because you may lose.Like I said,you can always play again.Thats part of the fun of this game…Who cares what peole say about the odds :roll:…Just play and see what happens…Stranger things have happened if you play this game long enough…
Yeah, but why bother playing at all? If you are planning a very risky move on round 1 and are going to give up if you lose, then you are basically saying that you are willing to spend 15 minutes setting up a game, letting russia move, and then gamble on your 30% chance (or whatever it is). I have another game for you, it’s called roulette.
I think the idea of a brazillian IC is really useless. Lets compare what is more effective at taking africa, shall we?
IC in brazil method:
US1: Build factory in brazil, move 2 inf, art, armor to brazil with two transports
US2: In brazil, build 1 transport, 1 arm, 1 inf, land two transports wherver
Note - At this point, if the US is contesting africa, they have two boatloads which is tough to counter.
US3: Drop 1 inf, 1 arm from brazilian transport in africa, move other two transports back to pick up newly built X?
So, at the end of round 3, you have dropped 6 troops in africa. You are limited by brazil to drop 3 a round, limiting the use of your original transports. If you want to drop more, you have to shuffle back to eastern to do so.
Transport method:
US1: Build two transports in eastern, build two arm in eastern (and shuffle inf). Move two transports with 2 inf, art, arm to brazil seas.
US2: Bring two transports from eastern to drop troops in brazil, bring two boatloads from brazil to africa
US3: Have two trans that dropped in africa grab brazilian troops and drop in africa.
So, using the IC method at the end of US3 you have spent 31 IPCs on africa. Using the transport method, you have spent 26 IPCs on africa. Troopwise, the IC method gives you 6 troops dropped in africa, while the transport method (for less IPCs!) gives you 8 troops.
Now, if you wanted to keep supply lines going with the transport method, you’d have to build extra transports in US 2 to shuffle with the trans in brazil. However, with 8 troops already in africa it seems unlikely that you would have to, and you could just wait for another drop in US 5. The key, as ncswitch put it, is that at the end of africa, you have 15 IPCs of waste in brazil. Using transports, you have those same IPCs still usable, and necessary for the US. It’s a no brainer for me…
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=3842
This probably belongs in the ‘player help’ forum, but I am such a nice guy.
Yes they can. All three allies can be in the same space even, and they all defend together. So if the UK has 1 inf in karelia, US has 1 inf in karelia, and Russia has 1 inf in karelia, if germany attacks karelia they are attacking ALL units in that space, so in this case, 3 infantry.
http://triplea.sourceforge.net ?
Or were you looking for something with a VAI (very artifical intelligence)?
One thing about the belorussia/west russia attack is that Russia usually has to fortify caucus to keep the germans from taking it. Germany taking caucus is not the end if they cannot hold it, and if they attacked in G1 they would not be able to hold it. But, there is some advantage to taking caucus if it is somewhat weakly held on G1, especially if the fighters are there. It delays 4 troops for 2 turns from reaching the german front, which I view as quite advantageous and will jump on caucus if given the opportunity in G1. I find that typically russia will put up a pretty decent defense in caucus though, which is sort of what I am (slowly) getting to.
If the russian attacks belorussia/west russia, I pay close attention to what the russian takes west russia with. Lets say russia takes it with 4 inf, 4 armor. As Germany I will probably jump all over that from ukraine, with armor support from balkans/eastern europe and fighter/bomber support. In this scenario, the chances of taking out west russia are well in your favor. The tradeoff would probably be something like you lose 4 inf, 2 armor and kill 4 inf, 4 armor. Your armor are dead on a counter, of course, but as germany I will trade german tanks for russian tanks any day of the week. If karelia is left vacant because of the belorussia attack you can also blitz through there, and if the battle goes well for you retreat to karelia when russia has 1-2 armor left.
While this does not solve your dead zone problem, it is a very potent counter. If your opponent is attacking belorussia/westrussia/ukraine, I would be very happy if I were you. His tradeoff on all of those territories will be quite in your favor, and he will lose anything he managed to attack belorussia/ukraine with which will likely be a tasty treat like an armor.
Definitely strafing japan early on is bad news as kyrial pointed out. Personally however I do not mind interspersing armor with infantry, especially when I have the magic 29 IPCs. 8 inf, 1 armor is a frequent buy of mine. It’s slow, but by the end of round 5 if the allies are doing their job, russia has a nice offensive and does not have to do an all-armor bid.
Another thing to note about strafing is that it can be used against germany pretty effectively, in case they take a territory a little too hard. For instance, if germany took something with lets say 4 inf (I don’t know why they would), a good strafe against that might be 2 inf, 3 armor. You are likely to only trade inf, take out more inf, and not take the territory. It’s also an effective strategy when the UK gets their troops into europe to use as (very) minor strafes. Lets say there is a nice stack in karelia of UK/russian troops, and a nice stack in eastern europe of german troops. Germany trades belorussia by attacking with 2 inf and fighters, and takes it with both inf. The UK can take it, but then they may be leaving karelia somewhat exposed. Furthermore, it would be preferable to give the IPCs to russia instead from west russia, as they need them more. Russia taking out two infantry, while they can do it, will require them to use artillery/armor or some fighters. Furthermore, it will be russia trading their inf, and I would rather trade UK inf than russian inf. The odds of russia taking 2 inf 1 fig vs. 2 inf with ground forces is about 60%. The odds of russia taking 1 inf 1 fig vs. 1 inf with ground forces is about 55%. Of course, you can always take belorussia with 2 inf 1 fig vs. 1 inf. So, if UK strafes belorussia down to 1 inf and retreats, they could trade 1 of their inf for one of their opponents. It’s a much more chancy moves than what I would refer to as large-scale strafing, but there is some benefit to it in my mind as you are attempting to even out the loss between russia and the UK, instead of just russia.
Back to the actual question…
Strafing is typically used when you outnumber on offensive pips the defensive pips, and can therefore attack and retreat causing more harm than harm received. It is especially useful for Russia, both on the german front and japanese front, though I find myself using it against the japanese more often. The best example I can think of is when Japan realizes they must hurry to help out germany. Their front lines are then often comprised of lots of armor, and some infantry. Of course, they have a nice chunk of supplies coming from japan to back them up, so if you take out the front line, whatever you attacked with will in turn get taken out. Having a lot of fighters makes things easy, because you can always retreat when things go south, and even if you take it you only lose infantry, which isn’t too bad. But russia usually doesn’t have 6 fighters lying around. Lets take a very basic example of a naive (or hurried, more likely) japan marching towards moscow.
Their front line is 1 infantry, 3 armor, their second line is 4 infantry, 3 armor, and third line is 3 infantry 3 armor. At some time you will learn when to build offense for russia, but lets say that russia has managed to develop a few tanks (or) artilleries and is sitting in novo. Japan is in sinkiang with their inf and armor, and russia has a stack of 4 inf, 4 armor in novo. So, you can either take sinkiang and get slaughtered on the counter, or more optimally, you strafe. I’ll go directly on pips (which is not realistic at all!) and attack the 1 inf, 3 armor with 4 inf and 4 armor. So, russia can expect to hit about 3 times on the first round, and japan will hit about twice. The tradeoff is 2 russian infantry for 1 japanese infantry and 2 armor. So out of this battle russia has gained 7 IPCs. If you can strafe effectively enough and the other allies are doing something besides picking daisies, russia can sometimes hold off japan for about forever. Compare this to if you try and take his territory in sinkiang. You get countered and everything is destroyed, and you are at an IPC loss against japan’s front. Okay, so lets take the above example. Russia takes sinkiang down to 1 armor, and retreats with 2 inf and 2 armor. In moscow they build 3 armor and from the previous turn move in three more inf to novo. Now if japan moves all to sinkiang you have 4 inf, 4 armor vs. 5 inf, 5 armor. So now if russia strafes again it is 20 pips vs. 20. Lets say each gets three hits each round, after the first it is 1 inf, 3 armor vs. 2 inf, 5 armor. Russia stays on and destroys 3 more, and japan gets 2 more, russia retreats with 5 armor (then moves more inf from mos->novo). The key is that russia is trading their infantry (and less of them), for japanese infantry and armor with russian inf. The IPC differential of this battle puts Russia up 12 for that battle alone.
Strafing can be brutal though, and it’s sort of personal preference and how lucky someone is feeling how they strafe. You don’t want to overstrafe because then you lose a lot on the counter, and if you understrafe it is pointless. The general principle is still that you want to produce the capability for you to trade less of your ipcs for more of your opponents.
I am also sure that china was not taken down due to kwangbang. Thus, in the US turn, they hit japan seas with their pearl navy which was left unmolested, and the fighter from western, china, and the bomber since manchuria wasn’t retaken. Thus, it was probably something like 1 sub, 2 fighters, ac, 3 transports, two BB’s vs. 1 sub, 1 carrier, 3 fighters, bomber. The next round the UK might have hit it with a bomber and their china fighter, followed up by the battleship/transport from western US, fighter from eastern, and two newly bought bombers. It was messy, cost the US not much besides its two built bombers, but what price isn’t worth paying to keep the japanese so incredibly weak?
For some reason that game sticks out well in my memory, maybe because I have never seen japan creamed so brutally. That brings up bukake references I really don’t want to think about…
We lost 2 yrs of stuff due to the hack last year.
I wish we had your game with GWS (I think it was that one). You basically killed Japan in rd 1. Classic.
I remember that game clearly. To be fair GWS shot himself in the foot by not taking back manchuria as japan (if I recall), which I don’t think many japan’s would allow. Still, a great example.
AgentSmith: The part you are not acknowledging is that a lot of people, especially those that play at home, do not acknowledge that the axis have an extreme disadvantage. I have spent many a game convincing friends that I play with locally that it is the case. It works, but it usually takes a helluvalot of games to do so. Most people coming from a home environment see no disparity. Maddog certainly does not.