Posts made by Granada

@Zhukov44:

My post above was based on 2 aa calcs

http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=9&aArt=2&aArm=3&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=1&dArm=1&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

WR
  5.84% 14: 9 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. no units. : 0 IPCs
  21.34% 13: 8 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
  29.14% 12: 7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
  23.98% 11: 6 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
  12.78% 10: 5 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 4 Inf. : 12 IPCs
  4.96% 9: 4 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 5 Inf. : 15 IPCs
  1.38% 8: 3 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 6 Inf. : 18 IPCs
  0.46% 7: 2 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 7 Inf. : 21 IPCs
  0.08% 6: 1 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm. 8 Inf. : 24 IPCs
  0.02% 5: 2 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf. : 27 IPCs
  0.02% 4: 1 Art, 3 Arm. 9 Inf, 1 Art. : 31 IPCs

http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=&aArm=1&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=3&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=1&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=5000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Nor
  1.98% 6: 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. no units. : 0 IPCs
  12.48% 5: 2 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 1 Inf. : 3 IPCs
  23.46% 4: 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 2 Inf. : 6 IPCs
  25.1% 3: 1 Arm, 2 Fig. 3 Inf. : 9 IPCs
  17.78% 2: 2 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm. : 14 IPCs
  8.12% 1: 1 Fig. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig. : 24 IPCs
  11.08% 0: no units. 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fig. : 34 IPCs

So yeah my numbers for Nor were 8% (1 fig remains) plus 11% (defeat)=19% for Nor, plus 13% (4 inf die) plus 5% (5 inf die) plus 2% (6+ ind die) for WR.

Our definitions of sucess really differ here. For me succes in Norway equals killing the norwegian fig and keeping at least one fig myself. Because the objective of the operation is not to bring the IPCs to Russia (might be handy but not vital), nor to keep their attacking ground units (would die R1 anyway most of the cases) but to preserve the UK BB. This is what i get in 89 % of cases.

As for WR the thing is a bit more complex. While I agree that to have just 9 units is where the real trouble starts (but that is less then 10 %), 10 units plus AA gun of Cauc makes it much more interesting.

I have not seen a German player trying to retake WR with 2 figs. Actually this would be much bigger a gamble then the NG itself. First he has to pray there is no hit of the AA gun. And even if there is no hit he sends all his advanced units (that is 6inf, 3tnk, 1art) to take WR. He will take it with 2-3 ground units surviving. He skips cauc in the process, he will lose WR without being able to retake it R2 and he has less air to use elsewhere R1, precisely 3 fig and the bmb.

It is pretty obvious he needs one if he really wants to be sure taking back norway. If he skips norway it might as well stay russian till the end of the game. But then he really needs the sub to assist in SZ 13. And he has 3 planes remaining to do AE, SZ 13. It is as thight as it can get and preserves the UK second trannie.

The more air you send WR, the more objectives elsewhere you have to skip. To send 3 WR does no change it that much really, because 1/ there is 50 % chance the AA gun will hit, 2/ there will still remain only 2-3 ground units in WR in average after the attack.

So I hope it explains why I believe you can safely call likelihoods of both failures approx. 10 %, which makes it approx. combined likelihood of 20 %.

@Bunnies:

@ Granada:  I already agree on R1 NOT purchasing a fighter - in a close game, it’s best to concentrate on ground units.  But why 3 inf 3 tanks on R1?  Why not, say, 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank?  For battles with 1-3 ground units on each side, artillery are like cheap tanks - for example, inf/art vs 1 inf is about 5% worse overall than inf/tank, but is also 1 IPC less expensive, which adds up pretty quickly.

Is it specifically because you’re trying to avoid a G1 capture and hold of Karelia?

I do buy some arts later on for the trades. But the trick is a tnk is better value for money on defense then an art, so it is better if you intend to really take and hold some western areas early on in the game as Russia, not just Kar. And it is also better if you need to switch attention between the fronts at some point. In general 1inf and 1 tnk is a better skewed unit then 2art. And if I am forced to, I really do trade tnks. It is just 1 IPC difference and 17 % more likelihood it will hit back and X % more likelihood it will take the disputed teritory earlier or at all. So in general I am really a great fan of tnks. Tanks are strong, man!

@Zhukov44:

@Granada:

But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.

The thing is, the chances of something going bad are greater than 20%.  That is, there is the probability of clearing Nor with 1 fig or less or not taking it (approx 20%) in addition to the probability of taking WR but losing 4 or more inf (approx 20%).  So taken together the probability of something going bad in this opening is more like 30%, and the consequences depend on the severity of the dicing.

I do not think our numbers are the same. You have 89 % of taking kar with 1 unit surviving. It sometimes happens that you have the last attacking fig and a tnk on the last German fig. You usually kill the G fig, and get R tnk killed. It does not change that much. You killed that nasty fig. I think this is the worst of the 89% it can get.

Attacking WR with 8inf, 2 art, 3tnk, leaves you winning with 10,54 units, when you are really fine with nine. Cannot tell what is the likelihood you will be on 8 or less, but i guess it should not be much over 10 %. On this acount my estimate is about 20 % the combined likelihood one of the two things goes wrong.

Did I make any mistake in the risk assesment?

Hobbes, thanks for playtesting.  :-D

Two comments:

@Hobbes:

• Russia was a bit low on units at the beginning of R3 since it hadn’t placed any on the Caucasus and had to kill 3 German armor + art on R2 to retake it, plus attacking Kar, BR and Ukr

I think this is the reason why i prefere to leave cauc with just one unit.

@Hobbes:

All of this to say that the sucess of the Gambit also depends on the German response: if G attacks Caucasus and follows with a large armour buy then they may have a shot at controlling Karelia or Ukraine by G3 since there won’t be much Russians left after the 2 initial turns.

And there is another thing: I do not buy the other russian fig R1 but rather have 2 tnks. I know it is counter-intuitive, but you really do not need the other fighter as much as the 2 tnks early on in the game. Thus you can have 7 more units after R2…  :wink:

Many thanks for feedback. I am looking forward to reading Hobbes’ piece on the Russian strategy. His two comments to my article are spot on. I will be keeping just 1 INF on Arch to see whether it is neccassary as reinforcement in WR or it might go to block to KAR. And I have not thought of keeping six units in Cauc yet but I just might start doing this if things go well.

@Zhukov44:

I don’t believe the Norway Gambit is a good move in dice, unless you have reason to gamble.  If elite players are capable of winning consistently with Ukr/Wr, why risk a Norway Gambit unless I’m up against one of those elite players?

I play only dice, I have never tried to play LL. While I accept LL might be good way to test a strategy and might do it myself, I think it ruins the game just because it deprives it of many variants you experience only with good or bad luck. But I know there are LL devotees and I do not want to insult them, it is just that I am a dice stalwart. But while I see the connection Zhuk makes, in general this is an old debate on a different subject.

My point here is different: are there really any players who win consistantly with WR/UKR? If I am Axis, I like to face this opening most. And in general I would say it leaves both sides with the same chances to win. As a German player I think I will never tire of the sinking of the UK BB R1. :wink:

But I see Zhuk’s point. Why should I risk 20 % of an uphill battle (and I have just yesterday saved a game at R23 after a failed Norwegian with both Russian figs killed R1: he needed all 4 hits to do it and he got them)? If I am confident I will trash Axis anyway, no need to take the risk. So maybe I lack Zhuk’s confidence. Or you may just call me an adventurer, but I simply like to live with the risk. For me it is an integral part of the game.

After some posts in other discussions, and after some play testing I would like to share my take on the Allied strategy.

Norwegian gambit: an overview

Norwegian gambit is my way of calling the opening in which Russia on R1 attacks Norway with the support of both figs. Hence I call it the gambit: you sacrifice the fig from Russia in the process of getting Norway.

I. Objectives and characteristics The crucial objective is to develop maximum pressure on Germany early on in the game. This does not necessarily mean strict commitment to the KGF, because in any successful Pacific strategy you need to keep Germany honest only with combined forces of the Russians and the Brits. A successful Norwegian gambit usually creates a situation when Allies can decide before the US1 whether to go for a quick KGF or hunt Japan if it mishandles or gets unlucky R1.

The opening has two clear disadvantages: one is mandatory – Russia loses the precious fig. The other disadvantage is accidental: the gambit might fail. I will deal with that under the point III.

Let us first look on what are the obligatory costs of the other popular openings: in the Ukraine push, Russia ends up usually losing three of it starting tanks, in the “submarine protection” move, Russia risks – and many times loses – a fig anyway, not talking about other risks of being lighter on infs and tnks.

The essential advantage of the Norwegian gambit is that it keeps the UK BB most of the times. The UK BB is really an invaluable asset for it allows UK to get to Europe much earlier then otherwise. Allies might even keep Norway from R1.

The UK BB really is a ship UK cannot afford to buy any later in the game. It allows the UK fleet to operate on its own without US support. And even with heavy German air buys and Japanese air presence in Europe it allows to create an unsinkable allied fleet in time to settle it safely in the SZ 5.

SZ 5 is by far the best place for an allied fleet to offload troops to Europe. The fleet must include 4 Uk trns and 4 US trns because then you can pick up 16 units a round in uk and you threaten KAR, EE, Ger, WEU at the same time. Germany cannot stand the push for very long.

Just to make the picture complete: the other 4 US trns are stationed in the SZ 2 and they ferry the 8 US troops from EC to UK. They might even not need any protection in most of the games, since WEU will not be save place for Axis bombers. I like to produce 4 US tnks in WUS (just to keep japan honest) and 4 inf EUS a round for this chain using the rest of US IPCs usually for contesting africa or buying air.

II. The first Russian turn and the strategy R R1: Buy: 3tnk/3inf, Combat move: sub SZ 2, 3inf, 2 fig, tnk Norway. All units of cauc and russia to WR, 1-2 inf stay in arch, 0-1 arch to WR. Combat: you always do WR first. WR you have 7-8 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk and 100 % win with 9.43–10.55 units remaining.

You should have 5 inf, 2 art, 3 tnk in WR after the combat. If you have less you are going to move the arch inf(s) there to make it safe, if you have 5 or more, you can move it to kar to block, or both of them to combine with the lame fig in kar to make it more expansive for the Germans to take.

You do Norway second. You have 89 % with 2,86 units remaining. Usually you take the last hit on the lame fig and you have 1-2 infs and a tnk in Norway.

So in the average set up you have 5-6 inf, 2 art, 3 tnks WR, 1-2 art, tnk Nor. Germany has to do Cauc, kar, Nor, AE, SZ13, SZ15.

Non-combat: according to the outcomes you do the moves with the asian inf. A standard good move is: 1 inf Cauc, 5inf Russia, 6 inf Bur and cauc AA gun to WR. Place: all Russia. Collects 29 IPCs.

It is difficult to describe in the same detail further moves since they will vary significantly depending on G1 and J1. But generally, UK has these priorities: sink 59trn, retake AE, keep 2 guys and AA gun in India, sink German dd and trn in Baltics. I like to do New Guinea gamble and the Australian sub should go SZ38.

Depending on how strong is Germany’s presence in AE I sink the SZ 59 trn either with cru or with the fig to land in Bur. But lately I really like to have the AC with the fig on SZ 33, bmb in novo and 2 UK figs on WR. This allows me to sink the German med fleet R2 or to threaten Japanese ships SZ 35 and 36 with UK sub in 38.

Most often I build AC and 2 dds with UK, but especially if SZ1 trn lives and Germany is not strong with air, I might go for the AC, dd, trn buy, taking Norway and setting up the fleet at SZ 3. Believe it or not I was able to take Germany by surprise R3 with 6-8 UK units plus air in a few games already.

I also might setup the fleet SZ8 with US sending 2 figs on the AC and bmb to uk, UK2 the fleet moves SZ 12 and the 2 us figs with bmb off UK sink the G med fleet which is a very neat move developed by Hobbes or Bunny I believe.

In general I send some US troops to secure Africa early but my plan with Allies is to have 4 UK trns, 2 sets of 4 US trns moving 16 allied units from UK to Europe a turn as described above.

Once the allies hold EE, trade France and threaten taking SE, they do not need to bother about Japan retaking Africa because Germany days are numbered. But since US spends just 32 IPCs on 4tnks and 4 infs a turn in most games they have something to spare to contest Africa anyway. Alternatively they could buy air.

My favourite Russia R2 buy is 4tnk and 3inf, because I simply love the 10 R tnks stack. It can do good things on both fronts for you. But in general unless Germany really falls apart quick, Russia from R4-6 starts to do what it always does: tries to survive as long as it can. The infantry and some tnks for trades do the trick best.

Another advantage of the SZ5 allied fleet is that if Germany is too tough to crack earlier then Japan really threatens Moscow you can use the allied troops to move against Japan – Hobbes wrote about it many times and I have myself tried the deadly US-R-UK 1-2-3 against Japan a couple of times already. It really can be a game changer.

Forgive me for not going into details of the strategy involving US push against Japan in Pacific. I played very entertaining games based on Russia and UK fighting Germany on their own while providing minor assistance to US in dealing with Japan.

These strategies can really include a US IC in Sinkiang and UK IC in India built in the later early stages of the game (R 2-4). As it is absolutely essential for UK to win Africa on its own it might even include SA IC in some cases. Moreover the SA IC can be later of a use for assisting in the push against the Japanese islands.

III. The failed gambit The statistics say that once in about every five-six games you will fail either in Norway or in WR on the Russian R1. This makes it for the failed Norwegian gambit. In 1 of 100 games both attacks would fail. If this happens you better resign and go to watch a good relaxing movie instead since you know the day was not made for an AAA game.

Of the two possible failures, to be honest, the WR is worse than Norway, since you might have Germans on your back door as early as R1.

You can still win a failed Norwegian gambit but it will really be bloody difficult. I have recently won a game when I have not got a single hit on the Norwegian attack R1 while my opponent got all 4 leaving me with bare 2 figs after the first dice rolls. I was down a fig and a tnk, plus the 3 norwegian IPCs and potentially the UK BB.

Fortunately my opponent did not choose to take out the UK BB and decided to invest into German ships. Still it took me 20 rounds to win. The failed Norwegian attack potentially equals to a bid of 40 (BB, 2-3 INF, 3 IPCs from Norway and the german fig) so it really has to be felt.

Basically the strategy after the failed gambit does not change very much. Unless Japan really screws things completely you go after Germany because it is your best chance. And you have to be from the R1 more defensive, more effective, more cautious and more stubborn player to win. It is winnable, but it is very difficult. Good luck.

IV. Conclusion The Norwegian gambit is a sharp opening, definitely not for anybody who likes to play it safe. But while providing you with broad strategic options and perhaps more secure ways to win than any other Russian opening IF SUCCESFUL, when it fails it makes on the contrary Russian position extremely fragile from R1; thus providing the Allied player with an entertaining and challenging game nevertheless.

Enjoy.

@Bunnies:

@Granada:

But does not the debate evade an essential question: why would someone send troops to africa, when you need them in Europe?

Gez Gran, you know why!

First, let’s say Allies went Kill Germany First.

Germany-controlled Africa means UK has lousy production - it may not be able to produce 8 units a turn, and what it does produce will mostly be infantry that are lousy on attack.  Added to that is Germany producing 3-4 units extra a turn.  End result is UK attack down, Germany defense up, and Allies have a pain in the a** breaking Europe.

Besides that, US can’t just insta-build transports, it needs a defensive fleet first, or its transports get wasted by German air.  So US does NOT have a fat transport fleet to begin with, so it doesn’t have enough to maintain a East Canada-London/London-Europe chain, nor is Germany probably weak enough for US to start a 1-transport chain between East Canada and Western Europe.  So US drops to Algeria while it builds up extra transports.

So much for the basics.  You drop to Africa because you don’t really have any place else to go with US at first, and you need to stop Germany from overrunning it anyways.

“Advanced” stuff - there are things Germany can do to extend its control over the Atlantic and Africa, which I won’t get into at this time, but maintaining drops to Africa can be the right thing to do in SOME games, at least.  Basically, in KGF, you don’t want Germany controlling Africa, period.

Fair enough. As long as it is meant as a provisonal measure to stop any german influence on africa, it is ok. As long as it should be the major strategy to bring the US troops to the war, it is doomed to fail, i think.

@Bunnies:

@Granada:

I really cannot get over my amusement of people whining

Much anger I sense in this one.

Welcome to the dark side of the Force.   :evil:

from now, your name will be . . .

DARTH FURY

!!!

Oh I am really sorry, if this felt insulting. My aim was to be ironic not insulting.

@coorran:

I think the attack on Norway by Rus is overrated because we usually focus on what it saves (UK BB). But you have to remember what it costs: 1 if not 2 Rus FTR. That’s a heavy toll. 10-20 Rus IPC is certainly worth at least 20 UK IPC.

Also, keep in mind that the G sub you usually commit to this attack is freed to take a 50/50 shot at the US fleet. Not a bad tradeoff. The BMB can put its heavy weight in another fight, like AE, to make sure more units survive the attack.

So, I say “No-Way to NorWay”.

And I say go, Norway, go.

I really cannot get over my amusement of people whining over the russian fig (and you really would have to be stupid to lose them both) while at the same time sending their precious russian tanks to be slaughtered in Ukraine (not mentioning willing to risk the very same figs in an advantoures sea battle with the ger bb to preserve something so out of touch with the real Russian early rounds’ need as is the UK Africa income…). You lose a fig, that is the unpleasent certainty, but the rewards are sweet.

The Norwegian attack is not just about Norway. You send all your remaining units to WR, and with you 3tnk, 3inf buy R1 and 4tnk, 3inf buy R2, you suddenly R3 have a Russia with 10 tnks nested in cauc, wrus or even ukr or kar. That is at least what happens in most of my games.

Moreover the UK battleship is not just a battleship, it is an absolutely critical tool in bringing the UK to Europe as a major force early. You will keep norway from UK R1 in most cases or you can send help to russia via archangel. With the standard buy of AC and 2dds it basically gives UK the fleet to operate against germany on its own which is also essential in coping with the Fortress Europe strategy designed by Hobbes. The independence of UK Atlantic fleet is also essential in games when you decide after a suboptimal J1 to go after Japan.

So basically what the Norwegian attack achieves through preserving the precious UK battleship is that it broadens the scope of your strategies.

And as for the german sub used against the US fleet off EUS… well, the mighty sub can do many things: it can kill the unguarded tranny, it can help sink the UK cru sparing you fig or two for other fights, and it can of course try its luck hiting at the US fleet, BUT there is just one thing it cannot do anymore – to assist in sinking the UK BB. And that is all that matters, because who needs the US cru when you have the UK bb.

But does not the debate evade an essential question: why would someone send troops to africa, when you need them in Europe?

What about “@(*&#( dice!”?

@Hobbes:

@Granada:

I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

Except if you conquer India on J1 :)

This is interesting. Do you mean to build an IC on India on J2? I have found that very tricky because so far the Allies really could push hard there. And you even see the terrible triple punch – US inf taking Persia, Rusian tanks storming India and UK fortifiing and producing units there. I think this is the trick you mentioned. I usually tend to keep the southern and central route just balanced and not to expose my limited japanese forces there and march 8 units a round the northern route which is the quickest way to press Russians from east effectively. Only about on R3-4 I build the IC on FIC either to fortify the Central and Southern positions or to support the pressure on Moscow.

The game does not stop to suprise me. Recently I played a game when I had a German IC in Australia on G4. You ask how is that possible. The answer is simple: the Brits have built it there for me.

I took AE G1 in a standard way, the UK did not counter heavy, leaving there only one inf at the end of UK1. He kept four man on India built a bmb and an IC in Aus and started to go pacific with US.

On G2 I took AE with inf and art from Libya and TJ with inf, tnk of Italy. The Suez was mine and the UK bmbs could not hit my fleet since they were denied a landing spot. On G3 I suprised the brits by taking India with the G med fleet. India had russian tank on it after japanese and UK forces decimated each other there. The russian tnk did not hit which was essential.

On G4 the sweet suprise came – my German bb, trn tnk and inf getting to the banks of Australia with an IC guarded only by 3 inf. I knew that he was going to build there on UK 3 which i did not want to allow.

Still it is not the battle you should win according to battle calc, but i knew that if the bb hits that would make all the difference, since tnk and inf against 2 infs slightly favours you. The bb did hit and so did the tnk twice, while he did not get a single hit on his 4 rolls at 2. Sometimes dice can be kind and aid the advanturer.

Daring, you might say, but the view of grey Australia ready to produce German subs or planes was priceless. It should be noted that I could do it without taking too high a risk knowing that my japanese fleet of dd, 2AC, 2bb, 3subs, 4figs and a bmb was about to sink everything the US had on the water including 4 figs on board at the SZ of Wake. Which I did and the game was over.

1. I consider it a mistake if Japanese player does pearl heavy or with everything he has, because almost always it allows for a counter. In case I can sink a jap bb and rest of the boats of Hawaii, i go full speed on Japan with US. And of course it is really risky to send ac with both planes, because you can just straffe the fleet, let the AC sink, retreat and the jap figs would be gone too.

2. If Japan does not do Hawaii, I go full speed on Japan with US too.

These are two Japanese openings that both open the door in Pacific. Hence the middle road is best in this case I would say.

3. Like Hobbes or Bunny have written, I also always do pearl with 4 units. In case i use the sub to sink the UK trn which I often do, I send bmb, 2figs and a cru. Otherwise, in case i can kill the trn with a fig, I send sub, cru, fig and bmb. If there are two hits, I retreat the ac and the plane to SZ east of Japan, if both planes are alive i send them to SZ of Wake. In case the AC is then sunk by US or UK sub the planes just land on wake, kill the sub with a dd i have built J1 and move on to do tasks in Asia or Europe.

4. I really do not expose my BBs and the other AC. If US tries to go after me, I consolidate my fleet BEFORE the US can start to move west from LA, usually R3. I then use the advantage of playing before US and do buy just enough subs to sink the US fleet if it dares to move within the reach of my ships and planes. I would usually have 2 BB, 1-2 AC, dd, 4 fig, bmb and a bunch of subs. My experince is that in this way you can ussually hold of the US long enough before the Japan makes substantial progress on the land and before the German pressure becomes unbearable.

5. Economy of Japan is the key when playing under pressure but even if your oposition is trying to KGF you and you need the Japanese units to reach moscow really fast and espcially as strong as possible. You do not want to put on water more than is absolutely necessary. And you really DO NOT NEED an IC on the land earlier then R4. You can produce 2 subs and 6 land units in japan and use the set of 3 trns (1 starting and 2 you bought J1) to send them on mainland. If you keep the US fleet honest and keep the constant flow of 6 units a round on the mainland you should be safe. The IC is a very common distraction. But it is 3tnks or 5 inf less you could have at the same place and at the same time or even earlier then with the IC. I would say there is a golden rule: never build a Japan IC before your income is too high for the Japan production capacity to cope with.

@Zhukov44:

If you’re saying that Allies are likely to win the game eventually if they hold down Moscow and Africa then I agree.  But in my experience Axis are just as likely to win the long game because there’s plenty of ways for them to get the economic edge without having to take a capital.

Many thanks for your reflections. Given the balance of the game, I guess in a game where both sides are capable of holding the capitals and it really starts to drag, it really should come down to the question of who controlls Africa without spending too much in the the process of controlling it.

@Bunnies:

2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.

Hobbes, Zhuk, Paulzy and other masters of the game, is that really true? The fact is the last game I lost was with Paulzy on 11th round with axis, when I really felt my Axis is fading and I have not much left to do to either break Allies or get superior income.

But if that is true, the strategy of the game could be reduced on Axis trying to break Allies – or Russia more precisely – within first 5-7 rounds and Allies just staying alive before becoming to big a monster for Axis to cope with. Correct?

@Bunnies:

Blow by blow recap of bunnies vs hobbes:

R1 buy 5 inf 1 art 1 tank.  Combat was WR/UKR attack with 2 tanks 1 fighter to Ukraine, 2 tanks 1 fighter to WR (purpose was destruction of German units at Ukraine, not necessarily capture, and more strength at WR to preserve Russian infantry)  Combat results left 7 infantry plus asst. at WR, 1 inf plus asst. at Ukraine. Rather a blowout in dice.  Noncombat, moved units west, left 3 infantry at Yakut, 1 at Buryatia to pressure Japs.

G2 captured Anglo-Egypt with 1 tank remaining.  Other than that, lost fighter in sub/fighter/bomber attack vs UK battleship.  Lost another fighter vs cruiser at W Europe.  Destroyer moved northwest of Norway to stop UK landing, subs split between north and northwest of Western Europe.  Ended with 1 inf at Karelia, 1 inf at Belorussia, 3 tanks at Ukraine.  Slightly bad dice with fighter losses, and with 1 unit left at Anglo-Egypt.

UK1 killed German Baltic transport with bomber, destroyer with fighters.  Send infantry/fighter to Anglo-Egypt, and cruiser, transport, and infantry to Borneo.  AC used vs Kwangtung transport. Used Australia transport against New Guinea.    Failed at New Guinea.  No losses in other places.  Note:  I forgot to unload my Borneo transport, but Hobbes (polite opponent that he is) allowed the turns to cycle and IPCs to be adjusted so we could play as if I had not committed that serious blunder.  Turned out I captured Borneo with both UK infantry surviving.  Landed bomber in Asia, fighters at Moscow; India fighter landed at Persia with consolidated 2 infantry and AA gun, UK sub ended at Solomons.  (This threatens 1 sub 2 fighters 1 bomber 1 AC 1 cruiser to sea zone east of Japan on UK2.  Japan can dodge a lot of this by moving fleet west of Japan, but that slows Japan’s development)

J1 bought 3 transports 1 destroyer, did Pearl Light (sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber), with Jap BB vs UK AC, Jap BB+AC vs UK cruiser, and inf/tank/2 fighter vs 2 infantry at Borneo.  5 inf + 2 fighter vs China.  Japan retook Borneo at the cost of 1 inf 2 fighters.  (kept tank, as tank is 5 IPC unit, Borneo 4 IPC territory, plus logistic advantage of nearby transport).  Lost fighter and cruiser at Pearl.  Destroyed US forces at China, but lost 5 infantry, and did not capture territory.  Sea zone east of Japan had 1 destroyer, 1 AC, and 2 fighters.

US1 bought AC, DD, transport, 2 tanks, 1 infantry.  Attacked Japan fleet with sub/fighter.  Got 1 destroyer 1 fighter out of the deal.  Purpose of this attack to weaken the fleet for the UK followup.  Flew US bomber to Archangel, US fighters to UK carrier northwest of London.

R2 sent 2 inf 1 fighter vs 1 German inf at Karelia, inf/artillery vs 1 German inf at Belorussia, 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 German tanks at Ukraine, 1 inf vs 1 Jap infantry at Manchuria.  Failed at Manchuria.  Took Karelia with 1 inf, Belorussia with 1 artillery, and Ukraine with no casualties.

G2 performed various territory trades and capture of Anglo-Egypt with inf/tank.

UK2 attacked Trans-Jordan with 2 infantry 3 fighter to give US fighters a place to land after anticipated US2 attack (2 fighter 1 bomber) on German Med fleet.  Before trying that attack, though, I attacked sea zone east of Japan with sub and bomber.  Killed carrier, lost UK bomber.  Japanese fighter couldn’t hit UK sub, so Jap fleet lost.

Game called.

Hobbes got diced, no doubt, but it was really a piece of brilliant play by Bunny, it has to be noted. I cannot think of anything I would do differently as Axis but mabye playing more cautious with japan and either buying an extra dd (2dd, 2trn) R1, or setting up the fleet west of japan.

And on a top of that, Hobbes still could play on at the stage when he surrendered I think with a hope that the merciless god of dice would bring some justice at some point soon – like killing all the three US planes at the attack on the Gereman med fleet etc.

But once again, a brilliant piece of play by Bunny.

Playing for seven or eight hours recently at tripleA a game that we decided to interrupt after the 15rd to be finished later, I wondered what experience with those long games people may have. I do not have experience with long games myself because i really like to sort out things quick one way or another.

First let me give you quick summary of the game we had: I played allies and did what i always do – the Norwegian gambit: attack on Norway with both figs and on West Russia with all the rest but one unit to block kar, leaving cauc empty but with one unit. Both of the attacks went really horrible, in West Russia I had only 6 or 7 units left, and i failed on norway completely – losing all my six units including both figs and getting only 2 hits in the process.

This could have been game over already against an agressive axis player. but my oposition was not agressive. He did not press as hard as he could – even did not take cauc, did not take WR and did not sink the uk BB, but rather gambled to sink the cru and 2 trn off the US coast, unfortunately successfully.

This all really had me on the ropes and set the pattern of the game: I had to do everything what i could to hold on to moscow. My opposition is a decent player but still has made several suboptimal moves but was aided with exceptionally kind dice in these early stages – most notably when I attacked his 6tnk at arch with 4inf and 7 tnk and won with only 2 russian tnks remaining. That looked like the final blow, but it wasn’t.

I decided I had to abondon everything else and focus just on developing a route for the allied units to Europe. After a drop of 4 units to africa R2, US had all focus on shuttling the units via UK to NOR and further aiding UK already operating this way. Africa was a site of minor fights in early rounds and settled as a stallmate for many rounds with him taking 6ipcs and me 5ipcs there without anybody of us feeling we want invest in doing anything about it.

His Japan took quickly FIC, Ind, China, sink, Aus, NZ, Hawaii. But although he had build ICs on FIC and Ind he did not send evertyhing avaliable on russia from japan but rather tried to put pressure on Western US which i believe is a major strategic mistake. He eventually took panama which I saw for the first time in my life, but i killed all his 6 units there mercilessly nevertheless.

Although his Axis was earning more than Allies for about 5-6 rounds, the pressure on Russia was never sufficient to break it even if it had eventually to retreat everything to Moscow abondoning cauc. When the allied tide in Europe was really rising and Germans started to be worried about Berlin, he tried to get mosc with a japanese attack that had only 21 % of chance of winning with 7 defenders remaining acoording to battle calc. He failed and after 2-3 rounds of fight when it was obvious russia would hold he retreated. Although most of the 30+ russian inf was gone he payed with almost all of the jap tanks and that was the point when the fortunes of the game really started to change.

At this stage I saw that Allies are still not in posititon to break heavily armoured Berlin any time soon and decided to use the idea of Hobbes i saw somewhere in this forum – and turned my allied forces against weakened japan. This proved to be largely succesful, i even managed to pull out the trick of US clearing persia, Russians taking India and UK producing units there in round 14!

Of course there were some mistakes involved at those later stages of the game as the fatigue on both of us mounted (but still hey, i guess he had nice evening, while it was 4am for me at the end), but as things stand at the end of round 15 Allies pushed Japan out of mainland completely with US taking Man, Kwan, and FIC with the IC there and they are likely to hold it, uk is likely to hold india and japan reduced under 30 in production. Germany is at about 35, with Africa solidly in allied hands again.

It looks like almost game over but of course the immense German forces started to move east perhaps for the last attempt to get moscow. I contemplate two ways forward: 1. cripple Japan permanently, putting it out of water and getting the islands with US, while using UK and russia to hold germany sacrificing everything but london and moscow if necessary or 2. using the all allied might to KGF after all, letting japan to rise again. I think i am inclined to go the first way if i got that far with breaking japan.

My questions are:

1. Is this the common pattern the long games tend to follow?
2. Are there any chances for Axis to win in such a long war of attrition?
3. What you people do when playing for so long to keep yourself alert not to make silly moves like exposing your ships in baltics or forgetting to take africa for a round or two apart of not drinking any wine, while playing, but only tea and guarana which would be a good advice but one i am afraid I am not likely to accept.

@Hobbes:

The best option to me is UK2 - non combat move the UK carrier to the SZ between Madagascar and Africa on UK1, either land the fighter there or somewhere else to protect the bomber, if necessary and move 1 ftr from the UK to either WRussia or French West Africa. The Axis then have to sink the carrier (with Japan) and take both Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2, otherwise the RAF can attack SZ15. Or G can simply park the fleet on SZ14 and offload units to Libya but that will take the Axis pressure away from Egypt.

The R2 attack is a good option since it allows for only 1 shipload of German units to be transported - but it leaves Russia pretty bare to attack Ukr/Belo/Karelia, and you’ll have to use valuable armor in those attacks. Most likely G will be able to move a large stack to  Karelia on G2 since it can adjust its 1st round buy and buy a lot of armor.

Someone use that against me with little succes, since I was buying a trannie a round, I left the BB SZ14 and I was sending the trannie to offload in AE while the bb increased the pressure on sz 12 esspecially with two subs stationed in sz 13. As a German player I am little inclined to let the UK to sink my med fleet R2 like that.

On the other hand I actually dont mind Germans taking the dubious joy of sending some of their units to africa in early rounds, I only try to make sure the Amis are right behind them, killing them all eventually. I do not mind taking the med fleet R3 or R4 I only try to make sure German ships cannot combine with japanese. This ussually means that Germany is pumping 8Ipcs in units for 5 Ipcs income because they never control more at the end of their moves… And that two units are fighting with UK and US not russia which suits me well.

If you do KGF, which most people do most of the times, there are three basic goals.

1. Keep Russia Germany front balanced. You can do that most of the times trading ukr, kar, bel. If the pressure mounts you might retreat to cauc, rus, but you definitely do not want to lose cauc. Most of the times, you would need to send all your starting units west to achive this goal but the far east six ones.

2. Start pressuring germany with western allies ASAP. There are various schools of thought on how this should achieved. Some people would use Africa, which is very easy but really slow, some people would use WEU, some people would operate US and UK convoys seperately. My system of choice is an old idea of caspian sub using the UK, NOR, KAR, EE push which has the advantage of increasing the pressure gradually and both US and UK ships and units operating in synchronicity, the disadvantages might be that it does not allow for much flexibility, it is not esspecially quick and it is not that as easy to master as it is to write about.

3. Secure Africa. Some people use the black sea sub RR1. While I have not decided what is the best way to counter that move yet, my intuition is against it because while Germany may really be pushed of africa it will be able to keep the western allies longer from europe due to sinking of the UK BB while being able to stack ukr G1 most of the times.

So i still rather would go R R1 after norway and start the UK push to Europe on UK1, and use combined efforts of us and UK to secure africa, than using russians for this. But I admit it might just be a matter of taste.

If I try to connect to tripleA lobby and it says “connection reset”, does it mean the lobby is down, or is there something wrong with me?