Posts made by JamesG

The TripleA program comes with Pacts of Steel, and A&A variant that has Italy as a 3rd Axis power.
http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

@Jennifer:

For instance.  If you do not purchase a navy, England is extremely tempted to hit SZ 5, but all they have are expensive fighters and bombers.  Those are fighters and bombers they will NOT have after the battle and will either have to rebuild (tough if they are down Africa) or do without (more likely, assuming Africa is gone.)

Meanwhile, Germany’s out a couple of submarines and a destroyer they most likely never would have used anyway.  The transport is a shame, since it does add flexibility to your troop movements in Europe.  But even the loss of that vessel isn’t going to make or break you.

The single most common outcome of 2 Fig, 1 BMR vs. an unreinforced Baltic fleet is UK winning with 1 Fig and the bomber surviving.  Though if Germany does not submerge the subs, taking them as casualties instead, he has a pretty good chance of nailing the 2nd fighter.  But in any case, the Bomber survives 65%-70% of the time, so it’s not like the UK is down ALL its planes after the attack in most cases.  And with the Baltic navy sunk, both the US and UK can start strong landings in Europe sooner, which is more valuable to the Allies than a couple of UK fighters.

@Jennifer:

After all, it’s going to take America 3 to 5 rounds to set up her infantry stacks.  It will take England 3 to 5 rounds to get up to optimum production as well, assuming she wants to bring the fleet up from the Indian Ocean.Â

I’m not bringing the Indian Ocean navy up if I’m UK. That navy’s job is to hinder Japan as much as it can until it dies, and/or to help retake Egypt from Germany.Â

In most games where germany does not reinforce the Baltic fleet at all and I sink it on UK1, UK is landing three TRNs of stuff in Norway on UK2, 3-4 TRNs of stuff somewhere in Europe on UK3, and 4 TRNs of stuff from UK4 onward.   And since the UK and US combined dumped 4 TRNs of stuff in Algeria on UK1/US1, Africa generally stays in UK hands.

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

@dezrtfish:

The Africa bid is my first choice, of course I have never been able to get an 8 point bid, thats a guaranteed tranny, for me anyway.

You might want to try some games on the TripleA Warclub Ladder:
http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/

Every game on the ladder gives the Axis a 9 IPC bid, so you can experiment with a tranny.  And for those of you who are thinking in horror "My goodness, 9 is too much of a bid!’ a couple of points:

Only one bid unit can be added to a given territory, so you can’t put 3 INF in the Ukraine or anything like that.  I don’t think the play-by-forum games here have this restriction, which I think is a mistake.  Allowing multiiple bid units in a territory keeps the bid amounts artificially low (IMO).

With over 2000 ladder games played to date, the Axis have won 51% of the time.  That’s darn close to 50/50 and shows that the 9 IPC bid does not turn the Axis into a powerhouse.

@newpaintbrush:

If you attack multiple red territories on the same turn, the first territory you carry out combat in will get the bonus Russian infantry.  The others will not.

You do not have to wait a turn.

Per the official FAQ at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised#advantages, it is Russia that determines where the extra Inf goes, not Japan.

The Nonaggression Treaty allows Russia to place four units in the territory Japan attacks first. What if the Japanese player attacks two or more red territories on the same turn?
In that case, the Soviet player chooses which of the territories being attacked gets the four infantry.

If the goal of this bid is to discourage an attack of the Ukraine on R1, then just put those two Inf in the Ukraine itself.  Sure the Ukraine can still be attacked on R1, but Russia has to commit 3 tanks or the attack is about 50/50.  Even with the 3 tanks, it’s only a 70% attack.

Seems that all that a 2 Inf in WR bid would do is encourage a WR/Belo attack instead of a WR/Ukraine attack on R1.  And as some have argued a WR/Belo attack is generally just as good for the allies as a WR/Ukraine attack anyway.  But in any case those 2 bid units are dead after R1.

2 Inf in the Ukraine however presents Russia with a dilemma.  Attack Ukraine on R1 and make both Ukraine and WR somewhat riskier attacks or leave Ukraine alone and Germany gets two extra Inf on the front lines.

@newpaintbrush:

When I do West Russia/Belorussia, I leave Caucasus pretty much open.  Like 3-4 infantry.  No AA gun.

I had been thinking 5-6 Inf and the AA Gun (but no fighters), thinking that anything less would make it too easy for Germany to take.  But based on your analysis, maybe it is better to tempt Germany into overextenting on G2.

I’m not going to comment on if I think a German navy is a good or bad idea, because frankly I’m not sure.  But I will comment on this

@froodster:

instead of all this talking, let’s see this played out in practice… I’d like to see this discussions carried out in actual play, as in “here’s my play, how do you counter THAT”.

and this

@Imperious:

you play germany and follow the script. Ill post the counters or others can do it instead. Remember you have to follow the plan to its logical conclusion. Buy the 3 AP and 1 CV on turn one, and goto sz 6 and attack on G2

Also your medd fleet has to take gibralter and post at west medd. on G2 it has to come out together at #7

This exercise would prove nothing.  The game isn’t played that way in reality.  The German player does not say to the Allied player “This is exactly my plan, and I’m going through with it no matter what, try and stop me!” in actual play.

In actual play, the German player makes his G1 move, and then does his G2 move based on the Allied counter moves.  If the Allied counter moves makes the fleet unification a bad move, the German player does something else on G2.  Does that mean setting up on G1 for a unification that never happens on G2 was bad a G1 move?  Not necessarily, it all depends on what the Allies gave up doing in order to stop the G2 unification.

newpaintbrush,

When you do a WR/Bel opening, what do you leave in Caucasus at the end of R1?

Well 88, I would not say I’m completely off the WR/Ukraine opening.  But I’m more willing to consider the WR/Bel alternative now.

@88:

JamesG- I love the 3 inf/ 3arm combo, but I’ve slowly moved away from it toward inf/ art on an approximate 5-1 basis, and here’s why. I hate leaving Russian armor on the front to die (but I do enjoy it as Germany…), therefore I always find myself hoarding armor when I play Russia. It’s a personal problem I have. For me Russian armor tends to stack as mobile defense or be used in a single decisive battle- not bad ideas in and of themselves but counter to my need for continuous Russian aggression vs. Germany. Russian artillery, on the other hand, I have no problem leaving to die. Cheap offense to complement the small Russian air force, and expendable.

Overall I agree with this, and remember I said 3Inf/3Arm is my R1 purchase, to replace the 3 Arm I’m going to lose in the Ukraine during R1 and G1.  After that my Russian purchases are generally “What’s the max Inf I can buy?  Plan to buy that.  Do I have one or two IPC left over?  If so, convert one or two Inf to Art and spend all IPCs.”

Though I do have to say newpaintbrush has convinced me to reconsider the WR/Bel attack as a safer alternative.  I too think the Allies have an advantage overall in a long game, so why be too risky R1?  Since usually I commit 3 tanks to the Ukraine, I generally do win that pretty decisively.  But I’ve seen my WR attack go badly…  I still win it, but at the cost of a LOT of Inf.  If/When I start playing TripleA ladder games again, maybe I’ll try the West Russia/Belorussia opening sometimes, just to see the difference.

I favor the WR/Ukraine attack, even if Germany places an Inf from the bid in the Ukraine.  I want to kill that Fighter.

I buy 3 Arm, 3 Inf on R1 to replace the tanks I lose in the Ukraine on R1 and G1.  After that it’s mostly Inf with an occasional Art for the rest of the game.

Yes this may tip off that I’m doing a KGF, but since I come pretty hard at Germany in any case my opponent would know that pretty soon anyway.

@ncscswitch:

66% to clear Norway, but only 52% to take it.

But remember if you only clear Norway, Germany can still bring the bomber to attack the UK fleet.  1 BMBer, 2 Subs vs. Sub, BB, TRN will kill the BB about 40% of the time.  Not great odds, but doable for some players.

@ncscswitch:

Staging in SZ7 was posted only as an option for blocking the merge, not for stopping Sea Lion.

Except it utterly fails to BLOCK the merge.  The merged fleet may be toast to a US counter, but that is a different argument.  You’ve been saying it BLOCKS the merge.  It does not.  Now if you are saying it renders the merged fleet largely ineffectual, you MAY have a point on that one.

@JamesG:

 If you combined your third version with the US DD and TRNs moving to SZ12 in US1, THAT would prevent a merge. Â

BUT that would be a real bad idea if Germany bought Baltic transports on G1.  With UK buying an AC and TRN on UK1 and the US sending only air to the UK on US1, that invites a UK capital grab by Germany on G2.

@ncscswitch:

A third version…
UK consolidates their fleet in SZ7 on UK1.  USSR places their Sub in SZ6 on R2.  Now you cannot NCM your Baltic Fleet for the link-up, since the link-up has to occur in a combat zone (unless you win in SZ7).  Baltic fleet can’t reach because of the SUB.  And to even attempt the link, either an offensive ship from the Baltic or a FIG has to be used to kill or submerge the sub, reducing your combat power in the SZ7 strike.  Med fleet has to fight the UK navy alone (with Luftwaffe assistance) in SZ7.  Then of course, the US gets to counter with AF and their initial SZ10 fleet against whatever MIGHT have lived from the German Med Fleet in USA2, again before the link-up can be attempted.  And UK can still drop their new naval builds in SZ7 on UK2, meaning ANOTHER round of combat before the remnants, if any, of the German fleets can link up.

That isn’t going to block the merge, assuming Germany really wants to do it.  Don’t forget, the Russian screening sub will NOT block the Baltic subs from attacking SZ7.

Let’s assume Germany is down one fighter from the start, and staged their fighters in range on SZ7 (both reasonable assumptions) you have this in G2:

Germany:
Med BB, Sub, and TRN to SZ7
2 Subs from baltic to SZ7
4 Fighters and 1 Bomber to SZ7

1 Fighter to SZ6

Battles
SZ7: 1 TRN, 3 Subs, 1 BB, 4 Fighters, 1 Bombers VS. 3 TRNs, 1 AC, 1 BB, 2 Fighters
About a 97% chance of Axis win with most common result being the BB and all air survive.  About a 37-40% chance at least one sub survives too.  Germany can sacrifice some fighters if they really want some subs to survive.

SZ6: 1 Fighter VS. 1 Sub
100% chance the sub is dead or submerged at the end of combat, and the Fighter will always survive.

So in Noncombat the Germans can move the rest of Baltic fleet to merge in SZ7.  That’s either 1 DD, 1 AC, 1 TRN or 1 DD,  3-4 TRNs depending on which Naval strat Germany is going for.

So at the end of G2, SZ7 contains 1 BB, 1 DD, 1 TRN plus either (1 AC, 2 Fighters) or (plus 2-3 TRNs).  In either case a decent shot of plus one Sub as well.

In the first case that’s a dPunch of 19, count of 7 (21/8 with a sub).  The second (let’s assume Germany bought 2 TRNs for the Baltic in G1) is dPunch 10, count 6.  (Higher with more TRNs purchased G1 and/or with surviving subs).

The TRN force will get decimated by the US counter, assuming the US staged enough air in range on US1.  The AC force will probably defeat the US counter.  But if the Germans went for TRNs on G1, it may be better for them to attack the UK capital on G2 instead of attempting to merge.

But in any case this “third version” does NOT prevent the merge.  If you combined your third version with the US DD and TRNs moving to SZ12 in US1, THAT would prevent a merge.  Though it might also result in a lot of dead allied navy in G2.  To be fair, a lot of German navy and/or air would die as well if Germany did attack in G2.  I guess the question would then be, could Germany and Japan put enough pressure on Russia to crack them while the US and UK rebuild their infrastructure?

@Amon-Sul:

Germany has a sub in the North Sea and AC with two figters in Baltic
UK has 1 bat and 5 subs in North Atlantic Seazone

is it possible for UK to attack German sub in North Sea with its 2 subs,  and then attack German fleet i Baltic with 1 bat and 3 subs

No, you can’t do that for the reasons stated already.  But note that the UK subs can sail right through (or rather, under) the German sub in the North Sea to attack the Baltic.

So the UK could attack the Baltic with up to 5 subs (plus air if available) and attack the North Sea sub with the BB (plus any subs not attacking the Baltic, plus air if available).

@squirecam:

Of the top 10, only ONE player has an axis win% under 50. Of the rest, the lowest is 64 % (1 guy). The rest are 70% or higher. Again, some evidence that axis +8 might be too much.

Look at the stats again, at http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/standings.php

Of the top 10 players, 7 of them have a higher winning percentage as the Allies than as the Axis.  Yes, their Axis winning percentage is high, but their Allied winning percentage is even higher.  This implies that at the highest level of play, that a 9 bid to the Axis (which is what all these games used) might be a little too LOW.

@ncscswitch:

And believe it or not, you can do this even if your own carrier can;t reach but an allied carrier can before the end of the turn (completion of US’s move).

So, UK can fly out 4 spaces to attack at sea, with no UK carrier even in existence… so long as the US comits to sending THEIR carrier that is 2 spaces away in to retrieve those planes in the US’s move.
.
.
It is a variable interpretation of the OM rules from page 21.

There was some discussion regarding it a few months ago, but no “official” ruling.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5690.0
.
.
But… it is an OM rule interpretation that has come up before, so I figured I would mention it :-)

Looking at that thread it was an interpretation of an OM rule that one guy had, and pretty much nobody agreed it was the correct interpretation.  At the very least you should have presented it as a highly questionable interpretation from the outset, instead of presenting it as THE RULE.

And further reading of the OM would show that it is NOT the correct interpretation:

@OM:

Your aircraft carrier can move to a sea zone where one of your fighters has ended its move (and in fact, it must do so) but cannot move any farther that turn.

The wording on page 27 makes it clear that it is YOUR carrier that MUST pick up YOUR fighters, despite the ambiguous wording on page 21.

Doh, now I feel stupid.  Of course you are right.  Though it only further lends support to my contention (which you support) that leaving behind a “blocker” in Kar on R1 is a bad move for Russia.

And thank you Tri (and DM), for championing my cause here.  You’ve done a much more eloquent and thourough job than I could have.