Best posts made by Argothair

@weddingsinger Sounds good to me! I’ve got the same attitude; it’s a friendly game for learning and fun.

@vodot said in [AA50/Anniversary] Modular Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!:

even more just enjoy the outlet for my creativity in the service of this community.

I’m really glad you’re enjoying it. I’m enjoying your outputs. :)

Sorry, I only enjoy the game with the NOs – good luck finding an opponent!

@Mursilis Britain can manage a sea lion solo if you plan ahead. If Japan attacks J1, and Germany’s opening is compatible with sea lion, Britain builds 8 inf in London, 1 mech in south Africa. Uk2 can build at least another 7 inf in London even against a bombing run, and then if Germany does sea lion, Germany will choke on all those inf – even if Germany takes London, it’s a pyrrhic victory and Russia will eat poland and Romania and never fall. Meanwhile us goes 80% - 100% Pacific theater and eventually catches up to japan.

It sounds like you had a fun first game, maverick_76! It’s not unreasonable to feel like the game is balanced while you’re still learning it; after all, if the imbalances were obvious, they would have caught them during playtesting!

From your description, it sounds like there are two major areas where you could improve your play as the Axis: (1) stockpile the resources you will need to achieve your goals, even if that means letting some of your attacks slow to a halt for a turn or two, and (2) focus on and crush the most important Allied threats, even if that means temporarily ignoring some opportunities in other parts of the board.

You describe Britain pulling troops west from Egypt and the Middle East to harass Italy – but you also say the UK built a factory in India. That means the UK has nothing to reinforce the Indian factory with other than what the UK can build in the factory itself…which means the factory is a huge target for the Axis! You should have been thinking about how you can crush that factory and seize it for yourself at virtually all costs. Instead, you killed every last infantry in China, and occupied a bunch of $1 territories in eastern Russia. That’s fine if Japan has nothing better to do, but the troops you sent up north or into central Asia could have been used against India and gotten you better results. Seizing a British factory is a huge deal. Knocking China down from two infantry to zero infantry is not a huge deal.

You describe running out of troops with Germany, and running out of Japanese men to take over Indonesian territories. That means you need to establish a pipeline ahead of time. Anticipate your losses: how many Axis infantry will die on turn 2? On turn 3? How many infantry will you need to build to replace them? Where will you build them? How will you get them to the front lines? Do you have enough transports to ship them there? Do you have enough factories near the front lines to build them nearby? If not, how will you get some? Germany can often take and hold Leningrad, which is a major source of infantry reinforcements. If you take central Russia but don’t hold Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow, then (much like the real life Germans) you’re vulnerable to attacks from all sides and far away from your supply lines. You need to take and hold either Leningrad or Stalingrad (or both!) early in the game so that you have a way to resupply. For Japan the issue is less about factories (although one new factory can still be useful in French Indochina, Burma, Borneo, or Shanghai) and more about transports and infantry. You need to be building an average of about 4 land units a turn in Tokyo, and you need enough transports to continuously cycle back and forth from Tokyo to Indonesia. That probably means a minimum of 4 living transports in your core sea zones: 2 to return to Tokyo each turn, and 2 to drop off troops in Borneo / East Indies / Indochina. If some of your transports are dying each turn, or moving to far away regions like Persia or Australia, then you need to build new transports to replace them.

The casualties you chose are fine, thanks! Very interesting to see the results of the Italian battle – the British fleet is dead, but so is the Italian fleet and Italian air force, only the Italian transports survived. I don’t think I can send any more reinforcements to Gibraltar on turn 1 without losing London, so maybe Germany invading Southern France on G1 with enough force to stop a British take-back on UK1 means the Gibraltar Stack is a losing play? Time will tell.

@Mursilis No, no, sorry if that’s the impression I left. J1 is fine, but Sea Lion only works as a feint, a surprise, or a punishment for sloppy defense. If Britain puts a reasonable amount of defense into London on UK1, then buying 8 transports on G2 is a losing move.

J1 is fine, though; it’s part of a lot of winning openings.

Corpo24, yeah. Karl7 was there but did not deign to play a house rules game that was not even based off the Global map. :)

I’ve never played the Allies anywhere near this aggressively before in Global – it’s making me a little uncomfortable, but it’s a lot of fun! I think I’d be less happy with it in a full luck game; too many of these battles have razor-thin margins for me.

@M36 Mostly agree, yeah. AldoRaine is right that Italy only gets one turn (Italy 1) to safely unload troops near Egypt before it needs to return to fighter cover near Rome…but that one turn might be all you need if UK is building nothing at all in South Africa / Egypt on UK1 and also evacuating the entire UK Med navy to send it west. You often want to come back to Rome anyhow on Italy 2 so you can reload with fresh infantry – and then you can send one or both of the transports to Egypt, naked, on Italy 3 if you need it to finish Egypt off. You could buy a replacement transport if you like – that way you could start Italy 4 with warships, a transport, Egypt, and some cash. Not too shabby.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable strategy – but keep in mind that you are forfeiting two victory cities as the Axis. The Chinese can attack and occupy Kwangtung, so you’re losing out on both Shanghai and Hong Kong. This makes it very hard for the Axis to get a majority of the victory cities. Even if you completely crush Russia, that only gets you to 9 VC:

Tokyo, Manila, Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Warsaw, Berlin, Rome, Paris.

So then you also have to pick up India (challenging without any factories in China), or Australia (hard to hold if you’re mostly going after Russia), or Honolulu (ditto).

The Japanese share of Russian income is just not that large – dripping wet, you’ve got Buryatia, SFE, Stanovoj, Yakut, Evenki, Urals, Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Stalingrad (15 IPCs total).

Meanwhile, the Japanese income for all of China is Manchuria, Kiangsu, Suiyuan, Ningxia, Chinghai, Sikang, Hupeh, Fukien, Yunnan, Kwangtung, and the NO (18 IPCs total).

So, yeah, given that Russia is a more important target than China, you can see where it would be worth a few bucks to go after Russia instead of China, but there are no VCs in Siberia, so that’s the trade-off. If you actually crush Moscow early, then, great, the gambit worked. If not, then you might gain some very minor economic benefits, but you’re likely to stall out and lose on points in the endgame.

Yeah, I wasn’t sure what you were doing there, especially with low luck – the battle calculator said you were kind of doomed on that one.

Relatedly, this game looks like it is headed somewhere very favorable for the Allies. I don’t mean to pressure you, but anytime you feel like we’ve had enough, we can restart and I’ll take the Axis! I want to see if building a ton of German infantry/artillery can overcome the mechanized Russia strategy. I also want to let you do the Gibraltar stack and try to take Egypt with Italy and see how that goes.

You don’t have to take the Pearl out, @crockett36 – I’m not saying your Axis opening is bad; I’m just saying it’s different from what I’m used to. As you suspect, the TUV for the Allies on the pair of attacks is negative, even including the DD in Hawaii that you can kill for free, but it’s not badly negative, and for some of the reasons @weddingsinger points out, I think losing all that material so early in the game tends to weaken Japan’s momentum enough that it’s worthwhile for the Allies to take the economic loss of 20 IPCs or so in TUV.

If you send the transport to take Wake, then I would not make the attacks – but that means you’re either sending only 1 transport to the Philippines (you could get diced and lose that battle) or you’re skipping the attack on Borneo (India gets rich), and either way, you don’t have a third transport in Indonesia to finish hoovering up the money islands, so that puts you down 9 IPCs on J2 and possibly also on J3.

Anyway, I think your overall plan of attack for the Axis is just fine. I wasn’t trying to criticize your decision, just pointing out what I saw as the pros and cons of a strategy that was different than what I’m used to. :)

@leebear I would suggest that if the extra British ships aren’t making a difference then the British player isn’t using them well. If you send the German bomber to Egypt then Britain either keeps both Atlantic transports, or Britain keeps the destroyer and cruiser near Gibraltar.

With two transports, it is nearly impossible for Germany to protect France; Britain can attack turn 1 with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, and 1 BB bombard. To protect against that you would have to leave almost the entire German starting army in France, meaning that your front against Russia is in danger of collapse from a Russian counterattack; you can lose your tanks or lose control of the NO for Baltics, East Poland, and Ukraine. If you don’t protect against it, then Britain gets $6 for France plus $5 for the NO, plus the US gets $5, and you can’t land planes there on G2. This sets up a cycle where Brian has enough cash to keep retaking France each turn, which is at least as valuable as the Italian NOs. You can somewhat prevent these problems by having Italy retake France, but that means keeping the Italian forces back from the eastern front, and buying mostly army rather than navy for Italy, which kind of defeats the point of having a strong Italy – you can still lose the Italian fleet in the middlegame.

On the other hand, if you leave Britain with the destroyer and cruiser off Gibraltar and the Egyptian fighter survives, then Brian can attack the Italian fleet immediately on turn 1 with 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber; before Italy has a chance to build a carrier. Britain is mildly favored to win that battle. If you play with any kind of bid, Britain can add a sub to that fleet and become strongly favored to win that battle.

None of this is to say that you shouldn’t attack Egypt on G1…it’s fine if that’s where you like to focus the Axis energy. It’s just that you’re not getting a free lunch, because leaving more than the bare minimum of British ships alive ought to give the Allies plenty of counterbalancing advantages.

Yeah, I mostly agree – India will fall at some point, and Germany can pick up a couple more territories before stalling out, but none of that is really enough to flip or even stabilize the game for the Axis.

It was a very interesting playtest! Never seen strategies like that before; totally different style of game. Thanks for exploring this with me. I’ll send you G1 tonight. :)

I’ve never understood why anyone would be even slightly interested in taking Iraq on turn 1 – it’s literally impossible for the Axis to activate it before UK2, you can take Persia from the same sea zone, Persia is worth the same amount to your economy, and Persia comes with 2 free troops instead of opposing you with 3 enemy troops.

Even if you have nothing better to do with your bombards and air power on UK1 (which is almost never the case), you should still prefer Persia to Iraq because Persia strengthens your forces and Iraq weakens your forces.

@thedesertfox I don’t think you’ll get people to agree on a bid, which is why you should have an auction if you’re running a tournament – let one player say "I’ll take the Allies for 10 ipcs (or whatever), and then the other player can either say “Ok, take them” or bid lower and say “I’ll take the Allies for 9 ipcs.” This continues until someone says ok.

There are just so few games in a typical a&a tournament that you can’t afford to have anyone feeling like they lost a coin toss. E.g. if you have 3 rounds and someone plays allies twice and they don’t agree with your fixed bid, that’s a real feel-bad moment.

You know what, it’s a bloody playtest! I ran two G1’s, one with max scramble and one with no scramble. Pick your favorite, and let’s continue from there. :-)

@simon33 I think maybe your preferences are so different from mine on this one that we’re having trouble communicating.

Sure, literally, it is possible for the Allies to make it impossible for Japan to take Yunnan J2 after a normal J1 opening, regardless of whether you hold an Japanese infantry back in Kiangsi. In practice, I think Allied players would very rarely want to fly the entire Russian air force to Yunnan, because holding Yunnan is worth 4 to 7 IPCs of income (depending on whether you’re playing Balanced Mod) and the ability to purchase 3 artillery instead of 4 infantry (useful, but not utterly game-changing; the entire Chinese stack shifts from an attack of about 12 punch to 17 punch, and it is slightly worse at defending).

If you stack Yunnan with literally everything that can reach as the Allies, that exposes you to strategic bombing in Russian factories on G3 and in India on J2, it makes your R3 trades much weaker and might even allow the Germans to stack one space deeper into Eastern Europe, and it makes a Japanese harbor purchase in Formosa on J2 stronger because there are no longer enough units defending India and Burma. In my opinion, these disadvantages outweigh the extra Chinese income and the extra Chinese punch.

I hear you saying that you’re somewhat interested in the question of whether to attack Yunnan with 3 land units or 4 land units on J1, but that you are pretty sure it’s wiser to attack with 4 land units when declaring J1 because without your bombers, 3 land units doesn’t give you a strong enough attack. That’s fine. I mostly agree with you about that specific point, especially if you’re insisting on taking Yunnan, rather than just clearing it.

What I’m interested in is whether it makes sense to try to capture Yunnan at all on J1 during a J1 DoW. I go back and forth on that question. I like attacking with 3 land units and 2 planes and then retreating when you are down to 1 infantry or so – you might get lucky and capture the territory, and on average you will kill more infantry than you lose. Together with a small attack on Hunan, you can bleed the Chinese pretty dry on J1 and keep Kwangsi safe for a while.

It may seem clear to you that a full J1 attack on Yunnan is obviously a good idea, but it’s not clear to me. If you want to explain more about why you’re so passionate about capturing Yunnan on J1, I’m genuinely interested to hear more about your opinions, but just declaring that “it’s one of the least close calls in the game” isn’t helpful to me.

@taamvan I think this says more about the weakness of the tournament design than about the game as a whole. How can you be expected to generate interesting results after only five turns of play? Anything even slightly non-obvious will require longer than that to wear down your opponent’s starting forces in a region. It takes four turns just to travel to some parts of the map from your starting factories – so if you build units in New York on turn 1, they just barely reach Leningrad or Stalingrad on the last turn of the game, even with no opposition. Or if you buy units in Tokyo on turn 1, they just barely reach Rome on the last turn. It’s just not enough time.