Playing with Low Luck dice, 85% of the time
3inf 1art 4ftr 1bmb (1bb)
vs
6inf 1ftr
will leave Japan with an artillery and air, or just its air. Without the UK fighter, Japan will take Bur with 1-3 land units plus air, but I still think attacking 6inf 1ftr works out in Japan’s favor.
Two fighters and infantry from Kwa/FIC can take care of China. And the way to Moscow is suddenly much more clear of Russian infantry.
This just seems like a bad idea for Japan (unless they’re setting up for a Canadian Shield).
Unfortunately, there’s not much choice for the counter. With 4trn in range of WUS, you pretty much have to do a full buy there. And I’d run over some armor from WCan/EUS (this is assuming you don’t already have a nifty setup where units are going WUS>WCan>ECan – in that case you might not have to do anything at all).
With an IC in Alaska, Japan must be intending to base out of there, but that is almost completely useless. The US will just buy units in WUS and/or run them over from ECan/EUS. I’d keep an eye out for a Canadian Shield, but just make sure there aren’t 4ish German transports in the Atlantic and you’re OK.
Perhaps Japan is forcing the WUS build and then will swing the units away from Alaska the following turn and will buy bombers instead of land units that turn? Or is trying to make sure US has to shift its rear troops west to respond to Japan?
I’d just resolve that Japan is being silly and make nice, strong WUS builds (maybe try to keep up 1inf/1arm – or whatever it is you’re shipping – so you can quickly and easily resume shucking) to counter Japan for as long as he decides to…camp Alaska?
Oh, and see if you can’t outbuild him. If Japan doesn’t have units set up in Buryatia or Soviet Far East or have another transport fleet, it will be two turns before the 8 units in Alaska are reinforced. Try to build up in WCan (but remember if his 4trn come back that 8 units can hit WUS) and wipe out his Alaska stack with overwhelming numbers.
If Russia is foolish enough to stack 6inf in Bur (even with the UK ftr), then ignore Pearl (the US just gets a fighter, a carrier that is far away from the Atlantic, and a sub to take a hit – eventually) and decimate Buryatia with a battleship bombardment, units and air power. That is goal one.
And after that make sure you take China, which shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Probably send the western fleet to kill the UK’s des and ac (maybe peeling off some air to help out).
If your bomber or any other air can be spared to pick off the UK sub or transport (especially the trn), do so. But be careful: If there are any other transports in range (such as the US), they could kill the bomber after it lands. East Indies might be a safe bet, if the attack on UK2 would be 2inf vs 2inf 1bmb.
I wouldn’t be too concerned with New Guinea. In this situation, it would be too much hassle to retake on J1. Even if Borneo fell, I’d probably still blast Buryatia. But once again, that can get tricky because the UK could potentially stick a ship off the Philippines and prevent a J2 retake.
Still though, killing 6 Russian infantry on J1 allows Japan to really dash to Moscow.
I miss being able to come back to the AAR forums months later and have at least a page or two of strategy threads to romp through. The forums seem to be a bit thin, and I was wondering if there was some super-secret one that I’m missing:
A&A.org (this one): tends to be the best; currently kinda dead.
TripleA War Club: kind of a ghost town, sadly.
Avalon Hill: was OK before it got rebooted; now it’s a mish-mash of A&A everything.
Harris Game Design: sorta outdated.
IAAPA: very outdated and not the best interface imho.
AAMC: also very outdated.
Not to be ungrateful, but only A&A.org, TripleA and Larry’s are even worth visiting, and none of those are very happening places right now. I’m not looking to turn this thread into an extended whine. I just want to be sure I’m not missing out on some lively strategy discussion.
One thing I have been dying to know over the past few days: How do powers go about repairing IC damage? Is there a limit to how much you can repair per round? Do the ICs repair before you place units? Etc, etc. Anything ya can give me.
I also recommend the Caspian Sub group. They have around 20 or so “policy papers” that range from basic tactics to nifty strategies to abstract (and funny) discussions.
The one you don’t want to miss talks about punch, count and skew – which are how powerful a force is (whether offensive or defensive), how many units are in that force, and how quickly that force loses its power when it takes casualties. That may sound like a lot, but it’s really just some basic math. Those three measurements can go a long way, because while you’re getting games under your belt and learning the normal strategies, purchases, etc., it’s always useful to kinda know when it’s a good idea to attack, fall back or sit still. And you have to make that decision with just about every single unit on the board every turn. So punch, count and skew basically just help you be really efficient with your troops so that when they die, they go down swinging.
Well, it’s definitely a serif font and possibly even slab/Egyptian, but that’s all I got. Maybe someone over at Larry Harris’ forum (or Larry himself) knows the name of it.
I think you can break down which approaches are best for maintaining which territories.
Alg: Alg, Lib, AE (FEq, Con, IEA)
Bra IC: SAf, Con, FEq, WAf (Ken, AE, IEA)
Pan>Bra: WAf, FEq, Con
I gamed out Brazil IC vs just coming from EUS and they’re about the same: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11874.msg318428#msg318428.
Unless you really want to get to SAf. Then the Brazil IC seems better. But what’s your hurry? Both Brazil options are a bigger investment than the normal route (because either you’re buying an IC or having to move troops twice). And though they get to the western/southern African territories faster, the normal route gets to the northern/eastern faster – without the extra IPC/transport/time investment.
I say SAf IC or just retake Africa the old-fashioned way.
TRakes, your Russia and UK sound very good. Yes, Germany’s airforce can be a pain, but you have to dance around it. If German air isn’t putting pressure on Allied landing zones, then don’t invest in any unnecessary naval cover but do invest in some Russian artillery. And if the air is putting pressure on transports, do what you can with Russia to push forward. This gets really tough once you’re trading EEu/Bal (because fighters in WEu can hit those territories and still make it back to WEu), but if you’ve moved the line up that far, that’s a huge swing for Russia anyway.
Back in the day, players would often leave the Baltic fleet in the Baltic – or maybe buy an ac for it. But if there wasn’t an ac, players would send 1bmb 2ftr to clean up the Baltic. Usually you lose 0-2ftrs. And the remaining fly to WRus or land on an ac. You could invest in some extra fighters (especially if Germany does build the Baltic aircraft carrier), but normally I focus on transports and any necessary fleet cover they need.
Sending UK fighters toward Russia – especially early on – is often a great way to bolster WRus/Cau defenses. But you’re right: Make sure they going to a safe place that Russia intends to stay at. It’s no good having to retreat the Russians and lose the fighters just because the Germans move again before they do.
I don’t think it’s anyone’s job to retake Ind/Aus/NZ. Once they go yellow, they never go back. It’s just not worth it. Try fun things like leaving 3inf on Aus or taking 2inf off, running the transport east, and then running it back when Japan only brings, say, 1inf 1arm 1bmb to take Aus. Africa should definitely be retaken, but that’s almost exclusively a job for the US.
A good US1 purchase for accomplishing this (and really just in general) is 3trn 3arm 1inf. This is assuming that sz12 is safe for landing in on US2. It used to be that was something of a given, but now with UnBaltic and fleet unification and all that jazz, sometimes you need to invest in something like an ac. Just make sure you do it early: probably US1. Don’t let Germany slow you down. It’s worth plopping down the money for a capital ship in order to maintain tempo. And later on it could possibly be used to cover landings in WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr or even to ferry troops into Cau/TJ.
With the US, yes, it’s easy to feel disconnected. But you’ve gotta make smart purchases. It’s not that complicated. Just make sure that your transport movements will be guarded (hence why I’d say most players tend to cluster the UK/US landing fleets together so you aren’t spending too much on non-transport ships). And map out what you will need to transport. For the first few turns you probably wanna drop units from EUS into Alg, but keep in mind that at some point you’re gonna have a turn where you go heavy on land units because you want to set up a flow that takes units from EUS and lands them in London (or Alg) and then gets them to mainland Europe. So at some point, your tempo is basically gonna take a one-turn hit.
Back to the board: Let’s say on US1 you dumped the EUS troops in Alg and bought 3trn 3arm 1inf – and the WUS troops went along with the bb/trn to Panama. For US2: 3trn going to Alg. 2trn coming back. 1trn moving 2inf out of Pan. No other land units, except for the AA guns. You probably have 40 IPCs. 2trn will need filled. So 2inf 2arm, that’s 16 IPCs. 24 left. 1trn/inf/arm is 16. 8 left. Another inf/arm? Final build: 1trn 4inf/arm. If you want to get, say, the EUS AA gun over to Africa, then instead of an extra inf/arm buy 3inf – or just buy the units and march them up to ECan early.
Two transports will be coming back from Alg on US2. So on US3 3inf/arm will go straight back to Alg and 1inf/arm can go to ECan. Or you could instead build 5inf/arm on US2 and march 2inf/arm to ECan on US3. But as you can see, the US quickly runs into the point where it needs it’s units to be in ECan so it can set up two fleets of 3-5 transports to ferry units around.
Don’t overbuild your transports. Just build smartly and at some point go into a temporary lull so your units are jumping from ECan instead right out of EUS. This “lull” is a good time to throw one or two transports down into Africa for even faster retaking of those territories. Just make sure they’re back in range when they need to be. Unless Africa is really really hurting (and it shouldn’t be because you dumped 2 or 3 turns of US troops into Alg) don’t do anything that significantly mucks up your transport flow.
If for some reason you are dead set on marching through Africa, then you only need 5trn. The US won’t be making much more than 40 IPCs, which is 5inf/arm per turn. But marching through Africa only works if the Axis are seriously slowed. It doesn’t take much to do this: Last game with Japan I did not react strongly enough against a very aggressive UK and ended up getting basically kicked off the mainland and then being stalled by India and Sinkiang ICs. The US had plenty of time to just one-step through Africa. But as little as it takes to slow down the Axis enough, it is rare. I was stupid.
You can also march units through Africa and then transport them from Lib to Cau. For infantry, this saves them from going through AE>TJ>Per. Absolutely huge. The downside is that the US needs a lot of cover in order to pull this off. If you can get Germany to leave WEu, the sz12 transports are safe. But the Med fleet ferrying units into Cau will be under huge pressure from Germany (and possibly even Japan).
Also, there is a way to establish troop flow through WUS/WCan/ECan that defends against Japanese landings, but someone else will have to explain it to you. I never do that and really don’t know how it’s run. I’m also not very familiar with SJF. I kinda like the idea of a SAf IC, but I’ve never done it. But if Japan doesn’t respond very well to UK ships all over the Pacific and a British Borneo (and then loses it’s J1 transports to the UK bomber hitting the inner sea zone and then landing in a Russian Manchuria!!!), then take a serious look at factories in Ind and Sin. Otherwise, have faith in the Americans. Berlin will burn first!
If both tanks are there, and UK can only bring 2 infantry, their odds of retaking EGY are not great unless they bring the bomber in as well, which means they can’t use it up north for a couple turns.
Big swing here between LL and dice:
LL 2inf 1ftr vs 2arm = 75% chance of killing the armor and keeping your fighter
dice = 64% chance of winning with the fighter
If you’re talking about taking the ground, then the chances are a lot worse. But if TJ’s getting hit and Germany’s got two transports, I’d be grateful just to bomb those tanks so they can’t do a blitzey-blitz of Africa on G2.
I hardly ever see the UK bomber in AE anymore, probably because I UnBaltic a lot. Anyone else seeing this also? The old 1bmb 1ftr 3inf counter is like…gone.
@Crazy:
:x
Hyo, You have expertly explained my strategy, to everybody! Thanks alot bro :-o.
(Darth Vader voice after learning Padme is dead) Noooooooooo!
Well, at least the name is mine. And what a beautiful name it is.
@Corbeau:
I do like that Japan transport bid idea too but myself would prolly place it in range of India/Australia for a J1 take.
I was confusing Jen’s transport bid with a Med transport bid, which I’m rapidly becoming a fan of. I never thought of landing in both AE and TJ. You’re probably gonna be left with 2arm in AE. With just 2inf 1ftr I’d still counter if I was UK. And I hardly ever find that TJ is safe (especially if you land your bomber there). If it comes to the AE fight, it lands in the Belgian Congo with the ftr. Taking TJ opens up the canal, but I don’t think it puts much more pressure on the bomber.
Also, if you bid a transport, it sorta seems like a waste to use them to take India. Japan can take Ind rather quickly anyway. A landing in Madagascar seems pretty nice, but once again, a bit of a waste unless it’s wide open and one lone transport can do the trick. The UK’s Indian fleet would have to be pretty much dead by, though if the ac goes east on UK1, that does pretty much kill that fleet.
Two transports can do a lot to hold Africa, deter Allied landings in Algeria, provide fodder for a major fleet battle and threaten (or even take) Caucasus.
I have a dream. I thought it up during some game while I was looking at my Axis stacks and wondering what else they needed (more inf? more arm? more art? nah, no art) before marching on Caucasus. And it also came out of seeing the raw power of a tank stack. They’re so easy to add up. You take the number, divide by two, and that’s how many hits they’re gonna get, per round, on average. And they account for a lot of the offensive power.
Infantry are the human shield and the great defender, but the game isn’t just defense. Play only defense and I bet you a bajillion dollars that your enemy’s capitals will not fall. No, they have to be wrenched out of your enemy’s cold, dead fingers. You also need a killer offense. And a killer offense is centered around tanks (as well as regular animal sacrifices to the dice gods – can’t forget to keep up with those).
Back to that human shield thing. Infantry are great because when they die, that’s only an infantry. Only 3 IPC (not 4 or 5 – or 10!). But what if in certain circumstances you didn’t need the human shield advantage? What if you had exactly enough infantry to soak up all the hits the enemy scored on you? Well, that would be interesting. What else would you spend all that IPCsies on? Um, tanks? I mean, I’ve heard that they’re strong…
A really neat aspect of Axis and Allies is that, no matter how big two stacks are, when they get into a to-the-death fight, the fight only lasts a few rounds. The infantry/artillery are usually burned off in the first or second round, and after that, a stack’s power starts to plummet. So how about avoiding all that? Why tough out those four or five grueling rounds (especially when your infantry leave you all defenseless by about round three) when you can live to fight another day?
So in case this idea doesn’t absolutely fizzle, I’m calling it (just made the name up a few minutes ago): the tank punch mechanic. Have just enough infantry to guard against what the enemy will throw at you during the first round (or maybe two) of battles that this tankish stack gets in to, and have the rest be tanks tanks tanks. In English: throw this scary stack at stuff, burn off your infantry, then retreat into your infantry reserves. Which brings up another nice feature. Instead of taking territory and getting ahead of your supply lines, you fall back. Next turn, you’re read to punch again.
Part of me is saying “duh” right along with probably many of you who just read all of that; you use throw-away infantry and drive your offensive might with the tank. That’s basic A&A tactics.
But I don’t see that most “duh” of tactics played out very aggressively in games. I seriously don’t. Even when I’m playing Germany (aka probably more aggressive than I should be), I usually end up with a stack of infantry and just as many tanks. I dunno, maybe that’s a lot, but for me it looks like 1:1 inf-arm parity could be improved upon.
Besides, I think what I’m suggesting is more of a defensive setup. If those tanks get ahead of their already smaller infantry groups, they are gonna burn up quickly. Assuming this tank punch idea isn’t some half-baked strategy: Who would need to sit around and throw tanks at approaching enemies?
Maybe Russia. Maybe. To an extent, that’s my goal as Russia. Get Germany into a really good fight where you can burn off his infantry. Now he’ll never make it to Moscow.
I don’t see this happening (sadly) for the US or UK unless they can get mainland ICs. And they’re usually all about the burning Berlin before Moscow gets too charred.
But hey, wait! Berlin! They’re famous for their tanks. And they like their capital! Maybe they could throw Tigers at the Allies until US/UK says forget it, we’re moving to Norway.
I dunno, just something I’ve been thinking about. Somehow ncscswitch’s infantry speech inspired me to make a tank one.
An even more legendary A&A standby: Don’s Axis and Allies Strategic Essays (http://donsessays.freeservers.com/). There is some argument that the new defends-at-a-3 tank has changed the infantry push mechanic, but Don’s tactic still mostly (if not completely) apply.
Don’t let yourself get frustrated. I used to be a rather horrible A&A player, but after playing on-and-off over the years (and reading forums like this one) I’ve become a much better player.
Others may disagree, but I say the artillery is basically crap. For attacking, you want lots of armor; for defending, lots of infantry. And for doing just about anything you also want lots of infantry. Artillery are somewhere in between. They have really bad “skew.” I only buy artillery if I have an extra IPC or I anticipate trading territory without the help of aircraft. With Russia, that usually means 1-2 artillery per turn. But if not, I don’t sweat it.
The easiest way to trip up an opponent is with your airforce, usually by unexpectedly blasting a fleet or transport(s). So keep your air in range of enemy ships (especially transports) and important landing areas whenever you can. Your opponent will either be somewhat slowed or have to be more committed to an area or maybe even slip up. For example: Japan puts transports outside of Japan without any cover. If Buryatia is still red, the US can scramble the Hawaii fighter and US bomber to hit those transports. One game my opponent made this mistake and lost 2trn 1des right off the bat. Those kinds of punches can be huge; you want to be making those punches.
That said, I wouldn’t buy much air. I hear strategies where the US/UK send over part land and part air, but I would warn against that. Maybe it can be a good idea for the US to build the occasional fighter, but the UK needs to be hitting Europe every turn (or the colonies, if it went KJF) with meat-and-potatoes land units. Germany can also benefit from some fighter builds, but those get expensive quick. Unless the US is adamant about pushing into the Med while the UK stays north, I wouldn’t build many fighters at all.
Don’t commit to risky battles unless you have a really good reason. One risky battle goes bad then you do another risky battle and maybe another and suddenly you are down many troops that would at least still be alive if you hadn’t gambled on those fights. Start conservative – but aggressive, I say always be aggressive – and be risky later if you need to be. The exception of course is if a big prize presents itself (trading a few US/UK air for some Axis transports, an Axis fighter is too lightly defended, etc).
In response to your opponent’s gameplay: I’ve never faced UK1 ICs in Ind and SAf, but I am confident that Japan can eventually crush them. Without a Sinkiang IC, the Indian IC will be feeling it. Japan’s navy heads towards Africa anyway, and after a few turns the entire Indian Ocean will be under threat of 2bb 6ftr 1bmb and 1-2trn of units. Don’t change a thing with Japan. Build some transports, take a few UK territories, then build up on the mainland and bring over the aforementioned fleet to terrorize Africa and anything else. Russia can stack in Ind for a while, but eventually they will have to pull out, especially once Germany puts the squeeze on them. Speaking of Germany, if faced with two UK ICs, I’d pull out of Africa really fast. Just use the Med fleet to take Ukr each turn or suicide against the Allied fleets. And by suicide I mean wait until you can throw at least the Med fleet and your German air at something. Make the battleship’s suicide count for something.
Switching sides: An R1 build of 3inf 3arm seems to be popular. I like to do 8inf and build the tanks later. That way those inf get to the line and on R3 Russia is uber-scary – might even be able to take Kar, Bel or Ukr in force. And actually, those two builds are basically Russia’s two building options overall. Either build almost all inf or spend up to half of your money on tanks, the rest on infantry. If you’re going half and half, your goal is probably to kill off German infantry so it takes longer for the Germans to march on you. Try and get Germany to throw his stack at yours. Go on the offensive for a few turns. Don’t do it just to do it. Make sure your stack is stronger before you commit. You’d be surprised how long it takes for the German stack to become stronger than the Russian one.
One more thing and I’ll stop: Check out the Caspian Sub policy paper on punch, count and skew. Count is how many units are in a fight. Skew is how quickly one side will lose it’s power. (If you have only tanks in a battle, they are gonna skew like mad.) And punch is the total power per round of your units. One infantry on offense has a punch of 1. Sixty tanks would have a punch of 180. I don’t mess around too much with count and skew, but know the count of the major stacks (or even minor stacks – really for anything you throw into a battle) before you commit yours.
Ok, I’m done lecturing. Read Don’s essays. Infantry push. Dead zones. Picketing. They will save your life.
@Cmdr:
The only time I let someone take the axis with 8 IPC or more is if I think I’m playing a newbie, or someone who’s playing style I know and have already devised a way to beat them.
The potential to start the game with NO BRITISH FLEET in the Atlantic at all with an 8 IPC bid is too great and I don’t relish the thought of destroying a 10 IPC fighter in Russia if I do not have too.
The extra German sub isn’t as glamorous as it appears.
(Even using Low Luck odds):
2sub 1ftr 1bmb vs 1bb 1sub 1trn has roughly 60% chance for either 1ftr 1bmb or just 1bmb surviving. A bit over 20% that all the Germans will die. And it can be hard to cover Norway so the Brits don’t suicide onto your bmb/ftr.
Meanwhile, you now have 4ftr left over. If you throw one at Africa to ensure at least decent odds of taking AE with a few ground units, then it’s 3ftr flying at the other British battleship.
Odds of survival:
23% 3ftr
55% 2ftr
22% 1ftr
Oh, and the AE landing (2inf 2arm 1ftr) looks like:
14% all
47% 2arm 1ftr
36% 1ftr (no take)
3% none (no take)
And a little over 10% of the time either the battleship or bb and trn will die because they don’t have a ftr or bmb to help kill the destroyer.
You can land in TJ with very good odds (even factoring in the average 1 in 10 times when the destroyer will destroy you), but then what’s to prevent the UK from scrambling 1bmb 2ftr to wipe out the Med fleet, likely at the cost of 1-2 fighters?
Ever since I’ve heard of the 1sub bid I’ve been trying to figure out how to make it work, but even though you take out both British battleships, you must lose half of your airforce or lose Africa. So I tend to just let the battleship be. Do that transport bid, yeah.
@LT04:
It sounds that every one can agree that you should only take the Caucasus if you can hold it. I find it interesting that there are avid players who take both sides. Just goes to show that this game is both a science and an art form to play.
As either Axis player, I’ll generally take Caucasus whenever I can get it, as long as I’m not sacrificing too much to do so. If it’s a pretty equal trade (German or Japanese stack for Russian stack), then go go go!
Having the Russians stage there is huge. As someone pointed out, taking it for even one round means Russia won’t be producing there for at least one – and usually means the German line moves forward, meaning trading Cau/WRus/Arc instead of Kar/Belo/Ukr, which is equally huge. I’ve found that once Caucasus falls, it isn’t quickly retaken. Or if it is, Russia has to throw a lot at it, meaning troops that would instead go to WRus/Nov (some Russian choke point) are stuck in Cau for a turn.
As for the north/south question, I agree that Kar/Arc is good for breaking up early Allied buildups and Cau is good for the late push. I can’t see how anyone can stay in Kar much beyond G3 or so. Even if you do a 3inf bid into Belo/Ukr/WRus, Germany is hardpressed to hold Kar for very long. Similarly, it’s so much easier to take Russia if the Axis take Cau first. That’s 4inf going to the front line each turn. Blitz over some tanks and it’s lights out soon after.
@Bunnies:
But I can pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time.
There’s nothing about that in the rules, so…
Cheater!
[US1]
Bra IC = 15 ipc
–-
EUS 2trn/inf/arm = 32 ipc
[US2]
Bra 1trn/inf/arm = 16 ipc
–-
EUS 1inf/arm = 8 ipc
EUS > Bra 2trn/inf/arm
EUS 1inf/arm = 8
Bra > WAf/FEq/Con 1inf/arm (same as Brazil option)
EUS > Pan 1inf/arm
sz18 > sz19 trn
The EUS option has now also established a 1inf/arm shuck to western African territories, taking until US3, costing 40 IPCs, but establishing a three-turn flow to Africa. If the US stopped building units for Africa, 1inf/arm pairs would go away – Bra, then Pan, then the last EUS pair built.
For 9 more IPCs you get 2inf/arm (16 IPCs), but it’s a larger upfront investment and bigger investment overall. It’s a close call. For consistent landings in SAf, I’d think the Brazil option is better, but I haven’t gamed it out. The Brazil option doesn’t require you to park a trn in sz18 after it drops Pan troops in Bra, thus being in range of a German bomber in WEu or fighters in Alg.
@Mazer:
One other thing to keep in mind is that the concept was generated from FTF tournament venues where initially EVERY player except the CSub guys were playing KJF.
KJF was big in FTF tournaments? You gotta be joshing me. Was it ever big in online play or tourneys? I’ve only played maybe 30 games of AAR (and most of those recently on TripleA) and I’ve only ever seen KJF once or twice. And that one time it was the US buying all air or something – so that was more of a KAF.
You should read the UnBaltic strategy (officially CSub paper #18). Landing in Tunisia (Algeria) round 1 isn’t as safe as it used to be. If the Baltic fleet runs on G1 (and especially if the Med fleet goes west), a UK1/US1 landing at Alg can meet white-hot death in a hurry.
