Posts made by eatenbyagrue

@a44bigdog:

You are missing the entire point. The Axis specifically Japan needs to be bombing both the Caucasus and Russia. Now Japan may need to increase the number of bombers being sent to Russia due to the increased AA guns, but the goal of the strategy is to choke off Russia’s production ability.

I do not think I am missing the entire point, just because I choose to bomb Caucasus over Moscow.  Well obviously if Moscow is only protected by 1 AA gun, you bomb that while you can, but I am just not going to come over to the idea of bombing through 2 AA guns while Caucasus is still available.  It’s just a bad gamble, and sure, it can pay off sometimes, but I do not like bad gambles as a strategy, unless things are truly desperate.  And I cannot see a situation where getting 16% more SBR damage justifies doubling the risk of getting shot down by AA.  If times are that desperate, 16% more SBR damage is not going to save you.

Also I am curious, have you ever won with this strategy against an opponent of equal skill or better?  In my games, victory seemed a bit out of reach, so I am hesitant to keep trying it.  USSR was losing money to SBR alright, but the extra territories it was able to keep due to the much slower Axis ground build-up seemed to make up for it.  Maybe I did not buy enough bombers with Japan, not sure.  I stayed at about 3 with them.

@a44bigdog:

Axis and Allies is NOT an accounting game.

A bomber in an SBR strategy (Axis or Allied) does not have to do its purchase cost to be effective. It merely has to do enough damage at the appropriate time to strangle your opponents production capability. That last part is the entire purpose of an SBR campaign, shut down your opponents ability to produce and move in and mop up.

OK, but you are only doing .5 IPC less in damage bombing Caucasus.  Surely that little bit of difference is not worth double the AA risk?

@a44bigdog:

eatenbyargue, are you doing it as I lined out in the first post? That is the best way I have found to conduct an Axis SBR campaign through quite a bit of testing. Germany is not that much shorter on land units than normal. Not bombing Moscow because of additional AA fire is a mistake, only bombing Caucasus will not eliminate enough of Russia’s income. Remember that Germany only buys 2 additional bombers and uses these until they are gone.

Surely it is better to bomb Caucasus.  Mathwise:

2AA Moscow:  Average 2 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3.5 IPC damage.  Cost of 2 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber lost.  So you are losing 8 IPC per bomber invested.

1AA Caucasus:  Average 5 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3 IPC damage.  (It is 3, not 2.5, because 5 and 6 also count as 4, so (1+2+3+4+4+4)/6=3.)  Cost of 5 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber.  So you are breaking even on the investment.

I have tried this a couple of times, and I do not know if I am just not pulling it off properly, but I find the shortage of ground units really tough to deal with.  The extra money USSR gets in from being able to better hold some European territories sort of makes up for the bombing.  And shielding Moscow with additional AA guns, forcing the Axis to bomb only Caucasus, also puts a damper on things.

I have never played AA42, but there seem to be some changes that would favor the axis.

1.  The UK battleship off Gibraltar is now a cruiser instead, so this frees up at least 1 German fighter on turn 1 to do something else.  Heck, under certain circumstances, it may even be acceptable to skip this battle (say with bad USSR dice on turn one, making a full eastern assault desirable).

2.  New transport casualty rules seem like they would favor the Axis.  UK and USA have to build more protection for their transports.  Japan is affected by this too somewhat, but usually USSR and UK are not in a position to snipe much at Japan’s, so I think Japan is affected less than than the Allies.  Given a full KJF from the USA, of course this would come into play, but I assume KGF is still the more common strategy.

So it seems in theory, the game should not favor Allies as much, but maybe I am missing something, not having played it yet!

Edit:  Just thought of something - the German Med fleet is affected by the transport casualty rule pretty badly too, so who knows!

@a44bigdog:

Bumping this so newer players can see it.

Thanks for bumping it.  I read it, and looked at a couple of your games when you have used it.  It certainly looks like a viable strategy, but for some reason, I have always been too risk averse to SBRs.  Perhaps it is irrational, but I always seem to find a better, risk free, use for the bomber unit in normal attacks.

Also, there is always something about SBRs that did not sit right with me as a game mechanic.  It is completely luck based, and you cannot really defend against it by stacking forces, etc.  You just have the AA gun, which is such a crapshoot, though I suppose that buffering zones with AA guns could in theory work.

Looking at it, if you do want to station additional AA guns, you would need 4 or 5 more.  Depending on where Japan puts its bombers, you only need 2 in east, Kazakh and Novo (if Japan puts bombers in Bury, just shift an AA to Evenki).  In the west, you need AAs in Arch and WR.  You can’t protect Cauc because of the sea zone, and it is only 4 damage max anyway.  I don’t know how well USSR and other allies would be able to protect those territories, but it seems like they would have a shot at it due to the heavy air buildup by the Axis resulting in fewer ground forces.

It’s worth trying in a game, if I can put down my aversion to the diceyness of SBRs.

In the future, naybe try not to land in EE if it is deadzoned.  Just take it with minimal forces and stack Karelia if you can hold that.

With what you have in the Pacific, I think you have a real shot at winning.  Japan seems like they will never get a navy to compete, so they won’t be able to ferry troops over.  And if you take out the Indian complex, he is going to have a real issue, having to build even more complexes, and the prime sports, i.e. near the coast, are all in danger from the USA.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

They have to make it past the destroyer though. Sure, the destroyer would have to hit twice but if you’re only using the battleship to fight, this could happen.

I’ve been playing for years and we’ve never needed to use bids. Obviously the allies have an advantage since it’s 3 against 1 but the axis still win the majority of our games.

The battleship alone will likely win against the destroyer, and with a fighter assisting it is almost certain.

I think you meant 3 to 2, but either way, that is not an advantage.  Seeing as you cannot combine attacks, it is actually a disadvantage.  The Allies’ advantage lies in their greater starting income.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@uffishbongo:

Actually, if I was Germany and saw a Russian fighter in Egypt I would start watering at the mouth…anytime I get a chance to kill a Russian fighter I become very happy.  Russia’s fighters are essential to its ability to trade territories and keep its income up, and it generally can’t afford to replace them.

With a bid in Africa the Germans can bring up to 6 ground units and 2-3 planes into Egypt on turn 1.  There’s no way you can withstand that.  Even without the bid they can get 4 ground units and 2 planes for almost a 90% chance of winning.  I would go for that pretty much every time with the Germans.

We never play with bids. Pretty sure they can only get 3 ground units (1 inf + 2 tanks) and two planes plus bomber. But that destroyer has to be taken out as well. It’s a winnable fight but no ones been willing to commit to it yet. Because the allies could very easly get three returns first round and start eating into german planes and the germans could very easily only get a couple hits, delaying them from African money by rounds they can’t afford. The risks aren’t worth the reward since that russian fighter isn’t that big a threat, defensively or offensively.

Germany can get 4 ground units to Egypt (2 from Lybia and 2 via transport), plus a fighter and a bomber.  Odds of winning the battle are 87.5%, with a 5% chance of mutual destruction.  Germany may or may not lose a fighter, but as Germany, I would certainly trade a fighter of my own for a Russian.  So I think your friends are overly cautious.

Also, bids are a fact of life in serious games, as, if you play enough against expert players, you will find out that Allies do start with an advantage.

@blitzkrieg:

Hi,

i’m new, and play A&A since december, so i’m not quite good yet and still discovering new options. we started a game yesterday, and i play axis but japan is getting tricky.

it’s J2 now and this is the situation:
i had unfortunate rolls on china so i couldn’t take it but i got rid of the PH fleet pretty easy. (lost the sub)

-UK fleet: BB is together with the US transports and destroyer on the east coast, no UK transports left in the atlantic so no pressure in the next round for germany. the indian fleet is in SZ33.
-the RAF (5 fig, 1bom) wiped out my baltic fleet and is now located at caucasus.
-manchung is taken by 5 rus inf.
-kwangtung IC, 2 fig
-FIC 3 inf, 2 fig, 1 tank
-india 5 uk inf
-china 1 us inf
-sinkiang i us inf, 2 rus inf, 1 rus tank, 1 rus fig.
-japan 4 inf, 2 art, 1 bomb.

i was thinking of taking china with 2 inf and 3-4 fig from FIC.
then take (non combat moves) 2 inf from manilla to kwangtung 2 fig, and my AA and 1 inf to FIC.and locate 4 fig
locate my FIC fleet next to kwangtung, my other fleet in 60.

then drop an AA and 1 tank at japan, trans at 60 and 3 inf in kwangtung
which leaves to:
FIC 2 inf, AA, 1 tank, 4 fig
china 1 or 2 inf
kwangtung 5 inf, 2 fig.

so now my fleets are pretty save, and only my transport next to FIC will probably be destroyed.

there’s 1 us fig at persia and 1fig/1 bom at alaska. uk can’t reach the fleet but may take FIC with good rolls. but then the raf will be way thinner.

please help me out, is this the best solution?

cheers,

BB

First priority should be to recapture Manchuria, which should be easy with all your air power and BB bombards.  Then China , Sink, India.

You did not mention whether the USA was massing a Pacific fleet.  Assuming not, there’s not alot of pressure on Japan, so just try to focus on the best targets where you can take out the most enemy troops with least loss and also balance that against IPC gain per territory.

In this case, you can take out 5 inf with relatively little loss, and the gain is 3 IPC versus 2 in China, so thats your best choice.

@KindWinds:

I have been doing some different buys.  Among them is the 4 Fighter purchase or a 2 bomber and 1 Fighter.  I like fighters over tanks because the fighters have staying power.  Unlike tanks they are very hard to counter attack.    I think the best advantage to buying 4 planes on G1 is the threat level because it both attacks and defends at the same time.  I am debating about what is best to defend aganist UK and USA landing anywhere.  I am trying a few variants.  Which ends up with Germ having 2 fighters in Norway, 2 in WE, 1 in Libya along with 1 Bomber.  Part of the strat is to Take AE with just libya forces backed by a bomber and fighter.  One then push’s SZ 13 with the BS and Trans loaded with 1 inf to unload on Gib.  The placement of fighters still gives me a bit of trouble because the UK can move around a bit.  I will also move the the SZ 5 Fleet around up to SZ 3 or Push 7 to force a response from the US to stop the fleet from combining.  I like SZ 6 to or SZ 5 each have a power all their own.  I have more to say but I am tired.  :mrgreen:

I do not think either 4 fighters or 2 fig / 1 bmb is a good build on G1 for two reasons.  One, you already possess a substantial asset which can be used for the purpose of which you speak, attacking Allied shipping.  This asset is the 4-ship navy that is sitting in the Baltic.  So, to be most efficient, if you want to sink Allied ships, you can spend a little and make sure this fleet does not get sunk on B1, say by buying a destroyer for 12 IPC or carrier for 16 IPC, or hell even a BB for 24 IPC, instead of the 40 or 35 IPC you are talking about spending, which do absolutely nothing to protect your navy from aerial assault on B1.  Yes, fighters are dual purpose, whereas a ship is not, but the difference in cost is so large that I think it is worth it to invest in a ship here.  I would recommend the carrier over the other options.  Now, on subsequent turns, once the navy is set to hold up, you can slowly add to your collection of fighters while investing primarily on ground troops.  A powerful airforce will make sure the Allies fear to get within 2 spaces of your navy, or suffer sure annihilation from the combined air/naval assault that you can bring.

Second, spending so little on ground troops on G1 kinda sets you on the defensive too much against the Russians.  The goal for the Axis is Moscow, and spending 0 to 5 IPC round 1 on ground forces is a serious setback to that goal.  Fighters are support troops, they cannot capture or hold territory on their own.

@Hobbes:

I chose 2 ICs (FIC and India) because most of my games go KFG and I also have 6 transports operating. The thing about the IC/TRN mix is that it allows you to be more flexible taking Africa or serving as fodder if you move the Japanese fleet into the Med.

Against KFJ strategies it really depends on how bad things are going for Japan. 1 IC, either on Manchuria or FIC is nice but the moment the Allies take it will be easier to kick Japan out of Asia and to use it against Japan.

That’s why in those situations, Kwangtung is optimal, as it is the furthest from Allied territories.

@syntaxerror111:

I am of the mindset that building an IC before maxing out Japan’s production capacity is a waste of IPCs. Yes you can produce directly on the mainland, but the transports are more versatile. Generally I wait to build an IC on India or Sinking.

Assuming Japan is left completely unmolested to expand at will, that’s true.  But if you are pressured by the British and American fleets, you may find that (1) you cannot leave any ships next to Japan, as you are forced to fight elsewhere, so you are unable to protect any newly built transports, (2) you are unable to drop off troops as you would like, because of naval battle commitments, and (3) transports just generally tend to die a lot.

So it becomes important to be able to build on the mainland regardless of what your navy is doing, because a good Allied player will pressure you from land while pressuring your navy, and without an IC, you can quickly find yourself barely hanging on to the continent.

@Bonesaw:

I was just curious to see where people generally placed their IC given the choice.  I know it can depend on what the allies have done but I want to hear what people think.

Kwangtung is not a bad first choice because it’s within tank range of India but cannot be taken on the British second turn, as it’s shielded by FI, and also because you end up with a fleet next to it after J1, since you need to kill the British destroyer that killed your lone transport.

For subsequent ICs, India is good because it is close to the front.  I have even built one on Sinkiang before, because it is one tank turn away from Moscow, which makes up for its smaller capacity of 2.

@Bonesaw:

I see a lot of talk on the forum about playing axis and allies revised online.  I was wondering where you go to play and was wondering if anyone would be up for a game so I could get a good feel for it.  The main reason being I would like to play a game with my dad which is kinda hard since we live pretty far apart but this playing online seems like the solution.  Also I am guessing if I played online I would be able to play more often :).

You can play online at www.gametableonline.com.  Revised version only.

@ezto:

I had lots of fun reading this thread. The amount of diversionary (useless) suggestions was too much to bear, so I have to post.
On a KGF, UK and US will go for Germany with every IPC. Russia should build max ground units to threaten an early German advance and a later Japanese thrust. UK should take down the jap transport off of KWA and retake Egypt with 3 inf (2 off tra) and ftr from india and land it on the carrier between MAD and SAF. Take 2 inf 2 arm and invade algeria. Destroy the axis fleet on BAL. The US should have in total 8 trn to provide a 4 inf, 4 arm bridge to the european theatre. The US and UK should land in alegria for 3 turns and push as far as EGY and ocassionally trade Tra-J with Jap player if he advances this far. Doing this you will lock the med from the japanese. Also dont forget to sink med fleet with US fighters. Then the allies should go through NORWAY-Karelia rout. Never go EEU, becasue Germany will just trade it with you. Build up enough forces and go towards Berlin. From this angle you can also aid Russia defense if needed. Keep fighters in russia until you are ready for the final blow on Germany. Dont waste effort on Japan, as it will only keep germany alive longer. All foces should go to KGF. And dont forget to attack Japan if it gets to close to Mos. Dont let them consolidate on Novo.

Dumping troops in Africa for 3 turns is not exactly “going after Germany with every IPC.”  Only in certain situations where Africa is particularly heavily contested would that be a good idea.

That’s alot of troops that could be in Karelia already.

I just played a game against a very good Allies player, and I got some ideas from him, so I will add to my post above.  This person was probably more skilled at this strategy than I could be, but I found what he did effective as far as confronting Japan, so I wanted to relate it.

He mostly executed a KGF, but he did start off with an Indian IC, and on the second turn, a US IC in Siankiang.  Combined with some clever first turn UK ship moves, he stalled Japan pretty well with not alot of resource commitment.  DD, fighter, carrier attacked the Japanese transport.  Later on he managed to block me with a transport to prevent a potential transport attack on India.  USA mostly focused on Germany, except for the IC contribution, and UK sort of went half and half.  He also flew some USA fighters over to Bury, which, combined with the UK figher there, threatened any newly built tranports without escort, limiting somewhat where I could transport troops.

USA and UK both secured Africa pretty early in the game from the Germans.

Both the India and Siankiang ICs eventually fell to Japan, but it took several turns, meanwhile Germany battled a somewhat strong Russia, which was not as concerned about holding the eastern front, and the USA and half of UK’s effort.

I did certainly notice that Germany had an easier time of it than under a full-blown KGF, but it was still very difficult.  No Africa income, and Norway was lost pretty early, and I was left trading Eastern european zones with the Allies.  The game was extremely close, but Japan finally managed to get the upper hand in Asia, and I have to say, that the free India and Siankiang ICs were in pretty good locations, so that speaks against this strategy.

Germany had built a carrier first turn, and I was able to use my preserved fleet to destroy a small combined fleet, stalling the Allies somewhat.

Japan ended up taking Russia, but it was on what I considered a gaffe - a path was inadvertently left open to blitz tanks in.  Otherwise, it is quite possible Germany would have fallen, although the USSR big stack was reduced by a German assault once, and there were not too many Soviet troops around to contend with the 7 tanks/1inf per turn Japan was turning out from its three ICs.

Anyway, it seemed like quite a viable strategy, so I thought I would pass it on.

Oh, and this was a no-bid game.

I usually play KGF with Allies.  I have seen some good KJF from some expert players, but I have never been good at it myself.  Against a good opponent, I always get India IC taken eventually, and that usually spells the end of that, and in the meantime, Germany has gotten wicked strong and there is no coming back.

With KGF, what tends to happen in my games is Germany gets a jump on Africa, then UK and USA send some troops in to start securing it, then, both USA and UK focus solely on Germany.  A Normandy invasion cannot happen for a good while against a good German opponent, so what ends up happening is troops get shuttled up North through Karelia and so forth.

Don’t let Japan get Africa, whatever you do, but just try to stall with existing troops in Asia, retreating slowly, until the Japanase hit the areas around Moscow.  Hopefully, by this point, USA and UK have lots of troops in the East European area, some of which can be used to beat back the Japanese a little to give Russia continuous income in the mid 20s, while also all three countries pressure Germany.

So this is what the game boils down to often, whether the Allies have enough presence in Europe to help Russia and take Germany, or whether Germany is too strong there.  If the Allies can’t get a foothold in Europe by the time Japan is knocking on Russia’s door, the game is over for them.

If someone knows an effective KJF against an expert Japanese opponent, that is certainly a different strategy, but this post is my advice on dealing with Japan from a KGF standpoint.

One last thing that could be done, I suppose, is just threaten Japan with a minor navy, in case he pulled all his ships to go help Germany, but I really prefer to finish off Germany as USA at all costs as quickly as possible.

@ogrebait:

A lot of units are fated to die Round 1 (think US Pacific Fleet). The German Baltic Fleet is just one of them. The difference between the US and Germany is that Germany actually has a chance to do something before the UK blows the fleet out of the water. I think that money spent on saving this fleet is wasted. Use them round 1 to do some damage, and them wave goodbye.

I used to be of your opinion, but I have changed my mind, and I now disagree in most situations.

Probably the best choice is a carrier in the Baltic.  This is only 16 IPC and still allows a build of 8 inf to secure the ground, or 4 inf and 3 art, if you want to be a little more aggressive.  Landing one fighter on the carrier is sufficient on G1, as there is no way UK is going to send 2 fighters and 1 bomber against that.

I am against the 2 or 3 transports idea.  This is a gimmicky move, easily countered by a competent allied player, and what you have left with is some cannon fodder, which is not as good as a carrier.

I have seen a BB in the baltic work too.  It has the added benefit of not having to hold fighters and of course can bombard, but 24 IPS is a little stiff to be spending on G1 on naval, but I have seen it work.  2 destroyers, or a destroyer and transport, are other options which will deter the first turn UK strike.

Really, preserving and reinforcing the Baltic fleet forces the allies to be extremely careful with their naval moves.  They are forced to stay 3 or more spaces away with their fleet from your fleet and airforce for some number of turns.  It almost forces USA to have to build a carrier to match your carrier, as the destroyers in the atlantic are not going to cut it, and the BB will take some time to come over from the pacific, if the USA chooses to go that way.

It also forces UK to build more planes and therefore fewer invading ground forces.

Also, there will be a very real and constant threat of germany combining its fleet off the coast of france, creating a truly formidable force that neither the UK nor USA will ever be able to dislodge, and possibly invading UK with 2 transports and a bombard.  All that Germany needs to do is put the Med BB and transport (and maybe surviving sub) off gibraltar (capturing it, of course, to prevent UK fighters from attacking).  The two fleets can be combined the turn after that, and if the allies do not have decent naval power at that point to strand up to that, they are in serious trouble, because there is no way they can invade Europe or Africa anytime soon with that fleet parked there.

The fleet combine and invade is a move that can surprise even some decent players, because while the buy of 3 transports is a sure telegraph of a UK invasion, the transport move from the med is a little more sneaky.  The UK player may be holding just enough ground to hold off one german transport, but you may surprise him with two.

I do acknowlege a no-naval G1 as still valid, especially if USSR got some bad luck in attacking both WR and Ukr, and it looks like Germany may be able to pressure them hard and early.  In that case, by all means, get some tanks, inf and art and press hard.  But if USSR got good rolls, or simply only took WR and is massing for further attacks, taking some effort to fend off US and UK navies while allowing your troops to build up to push the Russians back on G2 and onward can work very effectively.