Yanny, where are you getting that Utopian and Scientific are opposites? Obviously the literal meaning of the words aren’t opposite. College and SAT questions are a 12 year memory for me… does it have something to do with Marxism?
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:28 ]
TM Moses VII:
Although his numbers are off, the transport strategy Anon is talking about is key to understanding why the Allies can win 90% of games without some kind of house rule to fix the imbalance, such as bidding for Axis.
I’ll address your concerns one point at a time:
You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?
Nothing. That’s the point - the key to a swift victory is ignoring Japan as much as possible and focusing completely on transporting troops to Germany. I’ll give you a typical purchasing scenario at the end of this post.
You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions…. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.
‘Merely’ reinforcing Russian positions is how the Allies win 90% of games, and it’s why you can make bold statements such as Germany can NEVER take Karelia against a good Allied player. The key to the whole war is the battle between Germany and Russia on the eastern front, and with the US, UK, and Russia adding troops to Karelia every turn Germany can’t win. The big build up you are talking about will look something like this: Germany has 30 Inf in EE, Russia has 30 Inf in Karelia, the US has 20 Inf in Karelia, and the UK has 20 inf in Karelia. You are right to worry about Japan, though, because it is a race - you have to take Germany before they can take Russia. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Allies can win the race most of the time.
Second is the invasion of Western Europe…
First, let me assure you that nowhere in this strategy are there any risky attacks that don’t make tactical sense. The key to taking Western Europe is the one-two-three punch of UK/US/Russia (landing planes when there is enough infantry) before Germany takes it’s turn. That is the same key to taking EE and then Germany. It doesn’t matter if Germany takes WE back, because you can take it again the next round, repeating the cycle. Germany is forced to fight two fronts and EE will fall shortly thereafter.
Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.
You assume there is no protection for the transports. Defending the transports is easy - the UK and your battleship protect them, see the build below. Launching the German air force into the Allied navy is suicide.
Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant?
You don’t counterattack at Hawaii for the reasons you stated. Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.
The hardest part of playing the US well is dealing with harassments by Japan with minimal interruption of your infantry chain. However, it it still pretty easy to do. How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens. I continue to place them in W-US from then on. You move the infantry to Western Canada, then Eastern Canada. This breaks the chain for one turn only, and from then on you have 10 infantry in W-US and WC every turn, which shuts down any minor Japanese threat.
The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before they reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.
This is a very good point, and why I keep saying it is a race. You don’t have to ‘stop’ Japan, you have to outpace them and knock out Germany, and then it’s 3 on 1 if Japan wants to even play it out. Russia just has to stall Japan until Germany falls. They can do it with the help of the Allies, because once the Allied troops are in Karelia Russia can focus more on Japan. Anything but a minor effort in the Pacific from Japan and Russia will never fall.
Builds vary depending on what rules you are using - here is a rough outline for the CD-ROM game:
US1 - build 2 transports and 3 infantry
US2 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US3 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US4 - build all infantry
The UK protects the US fleet with an Aircraft Carrie and a bunch of transports. Also, the US Battleship from Western USA will be on the US East coast on Turn 2 and in the North Sea on turn 3.
I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!
There’s a good reason why people who haven’t tried this strategy have a hard time accepting it. That is because on paper, a balanced strategy makes more sense, so all of your logic in defending a two theatre war is sound. But in actual practice, Crushing Germany turns out to be a much better strategy.
Think of it as a cheat in a video game, like “hey, watch this - instead of doing what you’re supposed to do, you can do this instead and win every time.”
If you do play the CD-Rom version, I’d be happy to meet with you (or anyone else who wants to learn) in the Zone and help you out. My e-mail address is jg2_ansbach@yahoo.com.
There is also an old set of articles at the website below that will help. They are a bit outdated with some of the new rules changes and stratagies, but the overall concept is still sound.
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:12 ]
LMAO at Desert_Viper! That’s great - no, I hadn’t read your post - sorry to repeat a thread! I was bored at work and playing with P10000… what a waste of time… At least I know now that my math checks out! Also, you are taking ‘paying for bombers’ a little too literally - just think of it as having bought the bombers on turn 0.
Yanny? Your post is confusing, or else you didn’t read my last paragraph: I am saying that you lose money strat bombing but it’s worth it because of the intangibles, and you are saying that you lose money bombing but it’s worth it because of the intangibles. You’re just referencing different intangibles - they’re both there.
Also “you lack a Utopian point of view” is really confusing - it sounds like you were trying to take a shot at me, but a.) you said the same thing I did, and b.) you mis-used the word “utopian”. Maybe it’s just me, but I sure am glad you think I lack an idealistic, impractical viewpoint! :smile:
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-13 18:39 ]
Well, in practice you are somewhat correct. The only spreading out you can really do is sending an extra fighter to Africa - which is not bad at all, but it’s not like you are gobbling up a bunch of extra territories on G1. The big advantage Germany gets is spreading those troops west to defend WE.
Also, don’t forget to look at the big picture. If you just look at Germany, then obviously it’s a bad move. The effect in the German theatre is all negative - you have to factor in the advantage of delaying Japan one turn.
You are right, the whole game pivots around the Eastern Front. But Karelia won’t fall with a good Allied player - EE is the focal point. The theory behind this strategy is two part:
1.) Since Karelia won’t fall if played properly, that means you may have excess infantry that you could use temporarily elsewhere - how many is the key question,
2.) If the 4 infantry taken out of Karelia delay Japan one turn, that means one more turn of buying infantry in Karelia instead of Russia! You are moving four out now to gain eight later.
There is a ‘magic number’ for hitting Karelia on the first turn: 18. Add up the number of Infantry and Armour in Karelia at the end of R1 (assuming that the two fighters are there of course), and if they total 18 or less you should be able to take Karelia and have a few tanks left (two on average). You must use everything (planes too) and it is VERY important that you buy all infantry if you are going to go for it.
However, THIS IS STILL A HORRIBLE IDEA! It is a huge gambit that will only work against inexperienced players. You are speeding up the arrival of allied soldiers in Europe by a turn-and-a-half. Even if you got lucky and killed 2 transports with your German subs, the Allies can have 14 infantry in Norway at the end of turn 2!
The real magic number is 16 - that will allows for one of two things:
1.) pulling the Bomber from Karelia and hitting the North fleet with 2 subs, 1 tran, and the bomber.
2.) hitting Karelia full force will leave you enough tanks to keep it on UK1.
This strategy still won’t work against good Allied players, but good Allied players won’t give you a magic number of 16 anyway so that makes it a decent gambit.
The real point of all this is a new Advanced Strategy for Allied Players I have been developing:
You don’t have to put as much defense into Karelia on the first turn as conventional wisdom states, because it’s actually a good thing to bait the German player into hitting Karelia on G1. Tanks in Novo on R1 are an empty threat (hitting Manchuria full force on R2 is suicide) and it takes pressure off of EE. Next time you are Russia, move 4-5 Inf into Novo on R1 instead and see if Germany bites! The extra infantry will stall Japan a turn (on J2 or sometimes J3).
The reason I say this is an advanced strategy is because you will have little room for error against Germany on Turn 2 if they take the gambit, and if they don’t then Russia can’t afford to take Norway or Karelia will fall on G2, and you have to be sure to push max Infantry towards Karelia as quickly as possible of the missing infantry will hurt you on G3.
I have tried this five games now - on 2 of them, Germany hit on G1 and the game ended early. Germany should not take the gambit, because their real advantage is the missing Russian infantry on G3. Once I lost Karelia on G3, which is why I say you HAVE to get some Inf there on UK2.
Give it a try and let me know what you think!
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-13 15:08 ]
More ideas and stats, also see Desert_Viper’s post “SBR-Revisited”:
Let’s use a single UK bomber bombing Germany every turn as an example:
Technically, a bomber gets shot down once in six runs. The other five runs it hits for an average of 3.5 IPCs (3.5 is the average of a six-sided die btw, not 3).
If you do the math, then every six runs the bomber is hitting Germany for 17.5 IPCs, and the UK is losing 15 IPCs. So bombing statistically favors the attacker, right?
Wrong - in A&A! The problem is that this is where people stop. However, for the UK bomber to come out ahead - or ‘pay for itself’ - the bomber has to hit the first five runs and get shot down on the 6th!
The chance of a bomber living through 5 bombing runs is about 40% - so only about 40% of bombers pay for themselves. However, the bombers that do last past 5 runs start to cover the cost of other bombers. Once you’ve made enough runs, you get back to the original ratio of +17.5/-15. Unfortunately, in an A&A game you won’t even come close to making enough runs to even the odds, much less get to a favorable ratio. What this means is that the short-term statistics - which are all you have in an A&A game - heavily favor the DEFENDER, not the BOMBER!
The reason I brought this up is that people often attack or defend the strategy of strategic bombing with statistics, when it really has little to do with it.
Basically, all this means that the perceived ineffectiveness of bombers during an A&A game is true - they get shot down without paying for themselves. That is why so many people think strategic bombing is a waste.
Actually, strategic bombing is VERY effective - but it comes from abstract losses on the front lines that are a result of the strategic bombing - the loss of troops that were unable to be built and used! The fact that this is an abstract advantage is why some people have a hard time accepting it!
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-13 15:41 ]
That’s a sound strategy as well TM Moses, but I usually give up India and have 1 fighter in Africa and 2 protecting the Russians anyway.
I still prefer 3 UK bombers in Russia for several reasons:
1.) Strategic bombing from 3 bombers is more effective - a lucky run and you can wipe out 15 IPCs. Losing a large amount of IPCs in one turn is more of a disadvantage than losing a little bit over 3 turns,
2.) The Bombers threaten both German and Japanese transports,
3.) They slow down Japan - players that build factories are forced to bring over or build AA guns, and if they aren’t paying attention they get pounded by 3 bombers without an AA (only happens once :smile:!) They also give alot of teeth to UK infantry in Russia.
I do build fighters instead of bombers when I build a factory in India.
A Kill Japan First (KJF) strategy is simply not viable, and it becomes obvious if you zoom out and look at the big picture somewhat abstractly:
The reason Kill Germany First (KGF) works is because all 3 Allied countries can devote 90% or more of their overall capability towards Germany. Ask any German player in a crush Germany game and he’ll be glad to tell you - he’s fighting a 3 on 1 battle and it ain’t fair!
This is simply not possible against Japan. The US can devote 90%, but if Russia devoted even 50% it would fall to Germany in a second, and the UK is too far away for 50% to even be an option - they would have to fight out of factories in India or Australia, severly limiting their capabilities.
A good way to visualize this is to think of a slider that you could adjust to represent your Allied strategy: all the way left is 100% vs. Germany, all the way right is 100% vs. Japan, and the middle is 50/50. The slider moves all the way to the left, but when you push it right you PHYSICALLY can’t move past the 50/50 mark!!
Ansbach
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:08 ]
Bossk - the quandry you have is because everything you said is true! The US making a push towards Japan IS beneficial and it DOES provide relief to Russia. It’s not that going after Japan is a bad strategy - it’s just not nearly as good of a strategy as quickly crushing Germany. The US can split it’s forces in half and significantly harass both Germany and Japan, OR it can provide OVERWHELMING forces in Europe that Germany just can’t handle no matter what they try.
It’s the difference between the Allies winning 50% of the time and 95% of the time, which is why Candyman mentioned that it is actually more fun to send the US into the Pacific, as long as you don’t have to win the game to have fun.
I usually buy 2 Bombers on the first turn with the UK. Keep all 3 based out of Moscow.
The UK troops are spread all over the place, and the range and power of the bombers give the UK alot of flexibility eary: they can be used to support land troops in Africa or Asia, they can hit German and sometimes Japanese navy, and they can be used to strategic bomb Japanese factories or Germany.