Best posts made by DoManMacgee

@Panther I disagree. The rule changes are not major enough to call them different games in the slightest. It’s just OOL being predetermined, and no shared carriers/transports.

TripleA has a 42SE scenario that I can play online, and dozens of other scenarios that I can also play online. TripleA also has a built-in forum poster.

A&A Online has a 42SE scenario that I can play online, with shiny graphics. Other than tutorials to help new players get up to speed, that’s about all the game has to offer.

One is clearly superior to the other here, at least initially.

I’m not very good at Classic, but I’ll throw my two cents in.

Typically, I commit 1-2 rounds of shucking INF from South Europe -> Africa to try to rack up some IPCs. After the first two rounds or so you’re going to need 100% of your IPCs to commit to the stack war in Eastern Europe Vs. USSR/UK.

If UK wastes their money on a South Africa/India IC I’d punish them by committing the Germans to a Egypt -> Syria -> Persia -> India trajectory, while also sending as much of Japan’s navy as possible towards India to take the free factory. If Japan/Germany can break a hypothetical India Factory early on, it can give Japan some real momentum in gobbling up IPCs in Africa + putting pressure on Russia.

Remember: In Classic, Germany has to play defensively, as they stand no chance of breaking Karelia unless your opponent is really weak. Japan has to be the main breadwinner for the Axis, abusing the weak starting setup for the Allies in Asia and the typical hyper-KGF Allied strategy to try to either take Moscow or win an “economic victory” before the Allies manage to break Germany.

@Xlome_00 An India Factory is possible, but you need to commit to its defense pretty hard. Especially in the 41 Scenario, where Japan starts with a massive advantage in terms of available units.

If you’re going to commit to an India Factory, you basically need to be going full KJF (or like an 80-20 Pacific-Atlantic split) with USA to keep Japan’s navy tied down/away from India. Additionally, you’d need to be keeping a handful of Soviet TANKs stacked in Caucasus until India is 100% secured, so you can charge in and retake the Factory if it falls to Japan.

An India Factory in Japanese hands is basically game-over for USSR if they’re allowed to start mass-producing TANKs from it. However, if you can hold the Factory past the initial Japanese assault, you’ll clear out mainland Asia extremely quickly and have a Factory 2-tiles away from Caucasus (3 from Moscow), making the task of reinforcing Russia in the late game much easier than usual.

So, to answer your question, building a Factory in India is a viable option, just not in the way you want. It requires 100% dedication to work, it can’t be a sideshow.

A better way to “slow down” Japan is to:

• Concentrate as much of UK’s starting forces in India as possible in a mini-stack. Don’t be afraid to abandon Egypt early, you’re not going to hold it against Germany/Italy anyway. Also don’t be afraid to temporarily retreat the India stack to Persia if you think Japan is going to attempt to strike India with all its planes. Trading India is perfectly acceptable because it slows Japan down (from their end-goal of building an India Factory + spamming Tanks) by a full turn every time you trade it.

• Build 60:40 Atlantic:Pacific with USA instead of 100:0 or 90:10. An extra Carrier + an extra 2 subs or so every round pumped into the Pacific forces Japan to spend money on Navy to keep up their advantage. This is money they’re not spending on land units, which slows Japan’s march East down.

I don’t see why we necessarily have to pit AAO and TripleA against each other like you can’t just play both (or just ignore the one you don’t like). AAO is a casual, easy-to-access platform that’s in its infancy whereas TripleA has been built from the ground up over several years and caters to a more hardcore audience.

Obviously pretty much everyone here is going to favor TripleA, seeing as this is literally the community for Competitive A&A.

I think this thread’s gotten pretty off topic though, and it’s partially my fault for bringing up AAO in the first place. Sorry.

@Xlome_00 If America goes 100% KGF Japan wins on the Pacific board in 5-6 rounds. I can’t go into specifics because I don’t play G40 competitively but this is the typical experience from everything I’ve seen regarding the game.

@djensen said in Q&A with Axis & Allies Online Developers, Beamdog:

@DoManMacgee said in Q&A with Axis & Allies Online Developers, Beamdog:

Support for additional games (G40, Revised, AA50, etc.) down the line.

@redrum said

I’m interested to see if they eventually try to tackle say Global 40, how they would try to adjust that to fit the vision of make asynchronous play easier and faster.

As the article mentioned, they’re putting all of their focus on 1942 Second Edition. However, you should take a look at Beamdog’s track record. If A&A Online is successful, the sky could be the limit.

Hence the “down the line” comment from me. I understand fully that A&A Online is just going to be 42SE at-launch. That’s not really anything I care about, since 42SE kind of sucks. But I will still be buying/supporting the game with the hope that A&A Online can be fleshed out into a better TripleA. Who wouldn’t want a better, official/legal TripleA? Why shouldn’t we want that?

Agree with @cds. The original game is not meant to be historically accurate. It’s just a strategy game with a World War 2 can-of-paint that’s one or two steps above Risk in terms of complexity. I would highly suggest looking into newer editions, like Axis and Allies: Anniversary Edition, Axis and Allies: Europe 1940 and Axis and Allies: Pacific 1940 (the latter two games can be combined to form one, extremely large game called “Global 1940” (G40 for short)).

I would recommend looking into the Anniversary Edition first before diving into the “1940” series of games. There have been many new unit types, playable countries, and rules since the original version and Anniversary is a happy medium between the original game you’re familiar with and the much more complex 1940 games. However, based on the nature of your complaints, I do think you’ll end up liking the 1940 games the most, as they (to an extent) accurately portray the political situation of 1939-1940 (US Neutrality, Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc.), and had a very large and detailed map (to cite your key complaint here, in Classic Egypt is 4 tiles away from Indochina (Indochina -> India -> Persia -> Trans-Jordan -> Egypt), in G40 Egypt is 9 tiles away (Indochina -> Shan State -> Burma -> India -> West India -> East Persia -> Persia -> Iraq -> Trans-Jordan -> Egypt)).

EDIT: Cited an example to show just how much bigger in scale A&A games have gotten over the years.

I think you’re putting words in my mouth by implying that this is a great strategy. Personally, I believe it’s sub-optimal, and prefer to just use the starting Indian troops to hold out for as long as possible before eventually dying or retreating up to Caucasus until the European Axis are contained/defeated.

@Xlome_00 said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

It sounds like the taking back and forth of India by the UK is actually a really great strategy to halt the Japanese spamming of tanks, and will hold off their ability to really open an effective new front against the USSR. Because they never get to establish a full turn with the IC.

In reality, trading India repeatedly is sub-optimal, as you have no other source of unit production from UK and using Russians to do it is unsustainable long-term because of how strong Germany’s starting position is. Having to tie down Soviet TANKs to ensure India holds is a desperation move more than anything, and if you have to send them to liberate India more than once you’re opening the very “effective new front” between Japan-USSR that you’re trying to avoid.

And if you take the 60-40 spending ratio for the US which @DoManMacgee was mentioning, and buy one bomber a turn to send to UK and SBR Germany every turn…I don’t see how the Axis can win.

I do not recommend SBRs, or buying Bombers with USA. It’s too slow of a strategy if you’re being faced with an effective Axis player and if NOs are enabled Germany will be making far too much money by G3 for your ~6-8 IPCs of damage/turn to be more than a speed bump on Germany/Italy’s way to can-opener’ing their way to Moscow. You need either a Fighter Conga line via Carriers or a dedicated naval force to threaten multiple points in Europe simultaneously.

…and if Japan then gives up on India realizing how much money is has wasted, US can flip the ratio and spend more on the Atlantic to start landing forces in western europe or add even more bombers and just go after Italy.

I don’t see Japan “giving up on India”. If Japan cannot secure India then they’ve failed their objective (i.e. they’ve failed to accomplish one of their NOs, failed to significantly reduce UK’s income, and failed to establish a base of operations from which they can strike at Russia and link up with the European Axis).

So I guess the real question is what can the Axis do against this? Roll for a Radar Tech and hope for the best with the Can Openers into the USSR?

Tech Rolling is a bad habit to get into in general. Assuming US is spending its income on Bombers and UK is spending a fair amount of its income on keeping the India Factory up, by round 3, Germany/Italy are going to either be stacked in East Ukraine (if the Allies are employing the “do nothing and turtle in Moscow” strategy that’s favored on this site), or will have destroyed/significantly reduced the main Soviet Army (if they tried to stack East Ukraine). Both are losing positions because either Germany/Italy will have compromised the Russian position (by being able to threaten Moscow/Caucasus simultaneously), or they will have crushed the main Soviet army, which cannot be rebuilt due to how frail USSR’s economy is compared with Germany+Italy’s in this version, doubly so when you’re playing with NOs turned on.

ONE LAST THING: If you’re building UK Naval Units to trade with Germany, put them in SZ7 (the one that’s just kind of a box to the Northwest of UK, not touching France/Northwestern Europe/Norway). That way, Germany can only hit you with Bombers, or FTRs based out of Norway/France (if Germany’s basing their FTRs in Norway/France, it means they’re mostly out of range of Russia, which makes life easier for them anyway). Only step up to the Baltic Sea or the English Channel SZs when you’re positive that Germany would lose if it tried engaging your fleet.

@Xlome_00 That’s blatantly untrue in high-level play. There’s a reason Allies need a ~30 bid to compete on this map OOB. Maybe in BM what you’re saying has more weight to it but this thread isn’t about BM.

EDIT: I only brought up USA going 100% KGF because you said the following:

@Xlome_00 said in How do you win with Axis? SERIOUSLY NEED HELP:

@DoManMacgee If Japan kills Calcutta and/or the Phillipines and Money islands as soon as possible than that is a J1 Attack, which will bring America into the war on turn one thereby your first point about Germany is likely to fail because America is going to use all that money to go full KGF.

I’m not going to challenge you to a game or anything to prove my point because, again, I don’t play G40 competitively. So you’d probably win whatever game we played easily even without a bid. But I think the existence of BM and high bids for Allies in virtually all games of G40 is more than enough evidence that Axis have the blatant advantage in this game.

@crockett36 said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

argothair,

Is there a map you like, one that you are thinking of?

To be fair, Revised is a more-balanced and less-nuanced 42SE, and AA50 is a slightly-more complex but infinitely superior 42SE. Either of those would have been preferable as a starting point in my mind.

I understand Beamdog’s choice though, as 42SE is the most “modern” edition the developers are most familiar with (Revised is like 15 years old at this point, Classic is over 30).

Here’s an interesting but possibly off-topic thought I had. According to the interview Beamdog gave djensen, development has been going on for >2 years, from a time before the reissue of AA50. Is it possible that 42SE was chosen over AA50 because no one from Beamdog was aware the game even existed?

@cds I was more trying to make the point that there’s tons of Axis & Allies maps out there beyond Classic in this day and age, so there has to be at least one game that will scratch your particular itch.

Some people still prefer Classic despite being aware of all the other scenarios. Even I prefer Revised and Anniversary over G40 (which is most peoples’ favorite).

@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.

@theskeindhu For the Pacific, what I like to do it bait out elements of the IJN by sending loaded transports at Borneo/DEI/Philippines on suicide missions. The TTs are going to die in all likelihood, but if the opponent overextends you can punish them for it, and if they lack TTs they won’t get the islands back right away, which gives you some healthy income/slows Japan down for a few turns. Even if they have TTs, you can usually sink them with your Carrier FTRs + 1-2 SUBs. This forces them to buy a few more TTs/spend effort cleaning up your SUBs, which distracts them from India/Moscow. Every small distraction helps. 1-2 INF can swing a battle’s odds dramatically in the favor of one side over the other.

The thread in this board that’s directly under yours already has lots of people commenting on it. It probably has what you’re looking for.

Link: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34797/current-2020-global-1940-2nd-edition-bid/13

@Argothair said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

I also think that the interviews from Beamdog so far don’t admit that they’re focusing on casual players – the marketing pitch says that people like me are supposed to enjoy this game. So, that’s part of why I’m pushing back

Agreed with this. If Beamdog was more honest with their/WoTC’s intentions I imagine all of us would be on the same page.

For example, WoTC pretended Zombies was going to be accessible to “long time fans” and it’s mostly turned out to be 41 but with a tiny extra pinch of depth from the play-testing myself and others have done.

I think bidding for turn order could be useful in the A&A system. More often than not the static turn order is what enables a lot of the dumber strategies out there (Italy-Germany can-openers against Russia, UK/US can-openers against Germany, etc., sinking entire fleets on the first turn of the game, etc.).

EDIT: In future A&A games, I mean.

@AndrewAAGamer One other thing I should note is that I don’t advocate swapping every single territory. Only the absolutely critical ones, namely:

• Karelia (as long as possible, to deny the German NO + use of your factory)

• Archangel (if playing with NOs, since you need it for their main bonus)

• Belorussia/East Ukraine (for as long as possible, as you don’t want a large German stack adjacent to Moscow until you absolutely can’t help it).

• Caucasus (things should never get to this point, but you never know)

The “first tier” of Russian territories (Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine), are not good for trading until later in the game, as they’re either too close to the German production center to be worth it (Baltic States/East Poland) or too far removed from Germany’s critical path to Moscow (Ukraine).

After re-reading the thread, I think I’m in decent-enough alignment with your USSR strategy, differences in build order aside:

Phase 1 (~R1-R3): Stack Belorussia/East Ukraine (based on where Germany’s stack in heading).

Phase 2 (~R3-R5): Fall back to Moscow/Caucasus, start trading Belorussia/East Ukraine/Archangel.

Phase 3 (~R6 onward, or whenever you get big enough that Germany starts pulling back to turtle): Take and hold Belorussia/East Ukraine, generally start counterattacking towards the south (leave Karelia/Scandinavia to UK).

Phase 4 (Whenever Japan reaches Persia/Kazakh/Novosbirisk): Start turtling Moscsow and hold on for dear life. Hope that the money you gained by counterattacking Germany is enough to survive long enough for US/UK to take Berlin/Rome.

EDIT: Grammar.

@Black_Elk Gosh, 40!? I only have like 8 as each side post-placement games. No wonder I can barely stay in the top 100.

I should have mentioned the whole “resolve W. Russia first” thing in my other post, sorry. I thought that was just the standard operating procedure.

Also agree on Ukraine (and the opening turn in general) being very swingy. I’ve had things like the Ukr. Attack, the Attack on SZ2, Egypt, and the India Fleet Vs. IJN in SZ37 go extremely wonky and basically tilt the game in one direction or the other. In F2F tournaments bids usually fix this (either with an extra ART to Caucasus or an extra SUB to the India Fleet), but in AAO we don’t have that luxury.

Honestly, in AAO I haven’t had many games drag out long enough where SBRs would have helped. I’ve steamrolled most of my Axis games by Round 4/5, and as Allies the Axis have only really been getting within one tile of Moscow and sustaining their presence in games they were already going to win anyway.

I’ve never had any issues using the calculator hosted by this very site:

http://calc.axisandallies.org/

It uses the Monte Carlo method of computing probability for complex scenarios (tl;dr run a large amount of trials and take the average of the results to fetch an extremely close approximation of “probability”). This is done because a single A&A battle (especially a huge scale one) would probably take an absolutely absurd amount of time to write-out and solve a 100% accurate probability equation for.

Just make sure you always pick the options “All” rounds of combat and “10,000X” trials for peak accuracy/consistency.

Creds (because you asked, IMO college isn’t as important as IRL experience): M.S. in Software Engineering (Meaning I understand the mathematical theory behind computers am am capable of communicating with other human beings) + B.S. in Computer Science (Meaning I know how to program) + Minor in Mathematics (Meaning I took Calculus-based Probability/Statistics courses, among other things).