Posts made by JimmyHat

Leningrad is always safe from the Baltic invasion when Germany attacks because you have placed your bb to block right?  So the only invasion threat would be from the Arctic.  If UK is still alive they should be able to help defend this route, and at the very least could throw in ftrs to help in defense.  Its only after that bb dies that Russia has to worry about the Baltic coast.

I like this one:

http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

it works for every version of A&A, but does not let you enter in an OOL(order of loss)

here’s frood:

http://frood.net/aacalc/

Frood lets you enter in an OOL but requires a bit more thought to read the results.  For tough battles, go frood, for run of the mill battles use the first one.

I also don’t buy CA’s at all, if I want fleet defense I pay another 4ipcs for a carrier.  If I want a blocking ship I go dd and if I want a bombard I go bb.  Gamermans’ point about them being the most cost effective bombardment vessel makes me think they may be valuable to a country like UK who is trying to crack the Atlantic wall with reduced income(less than US at least)

Like ed factor I buy a dd or 2 subs and save the remainder.

ugh, I wish it were this easy.  I am constantly being harassed as Italy, impossible to gain any traction because UK will sacrifice his fleet to stop me.

He doesn’t attack, he splits the UK fleet and blockades the Italians.  So on Italy’s turn all I can attack are usually a carrier off Malta and perhaps a dd off greece or Tunisia.  Then he uses his French and remaining ships to blockade me in again.  There is no getting Gib in this strat, all I can do is try and keep my troops in Africa supplied and take out his blocking ships.

I think what they are saying to do in this situation is to leave your ground army near moscow, but try and also surround it while trading territories with attrition battles.  Russia won’t be able to lunge because your army will still be very near, but meanwhile you are still cutting at Russian ipcs.  10 inf a round is 30ipcs, and if Germany has all of Eastern Europe then Russia shouldn’t be near that total, even with Korea and possibly some middle east territories.

Yes this forum has got a heavy handed moderator staff.  /LOTS/ of censorship and most of it seems to be done on a whim, no rhyme or reason.  Don’t think its only you though Mantlefan, we’re all having to take a taste of dictatorship.  Still, I don’t see that playing a game vs Jen is going to be much of a test for her Pacific only strat.  I think it’d be better tested by having many games between many opponents to see if it works.  Rest assured all games I play as allies in the future will be using this rubric to see if it is effective.

had a game tonight but I drew axis and had a hard time convincing my opponent to try a strategy he wasn’t prepared for.  :cry:  As is we are at the beginning of G4 with germany having 13 trns, an army in Scotland and the hammer poised.  Italy has taken the Med and is fighting in the middle east, and US has moved to Gib with a large fleet but very small army.

Largest aberration in this game was Russia stacking Amur with 18 inf 1 aa gun R1.  After my J1 attack on Russia it postponed my attack on the allies until J3.  Still the value in killing those infantry and the few dollars earned from Russia have made up for the 12ipcs and lost round.  That being said, round 4 is when the real fighting will start and I will have to update after the next time we play.

my odds calc says a bit different too, it has the attacker at 35%, and that includes clearing the zone.  I have 3 inf 3 arm 5 ftr 5 tac 1 bmb vs the 15 inf 5ftrs 1 aa.  Not sure what the best load of forces is, 3 inf 3 arm or 3 inf 1 art 2 arm.

excellent, sounds quite effective to me.  I would try and pull the allies away from the pacific, hoping to team up with the Italians/Germans and help them.  I know sz6 is going to be convoy raided to death, in fact you would do that if you killed the fleet.  So losing the fleet or saving it Japan will be convoyed….

dude, she could have posted that link 20 pages ago!!!  She’s not going to do it.  Page after page and I am starting to think Jen is not all she’s cracked up to be.  These set in concrete strategies she employs result in this situation of US beating Japan like a small child.  When I chime in with possible solutions for the axis, they are mostly ignored.  All I can say is her results are far different than the ones I’ve had in Global.  Now in my games Italy takes no losses UK1 and Japan attacks the allies J2 or at latest J3.(usually J2 tho)

Also, have you tried fleeing with the Jap navy?  So you’re going to lose sz6 and be convoy raided, why bottle up your Jap fleet, why not instead dominate the Indian ocean or move into the Med?  Why put the Jap fleet in a position it can die in sz6? (I keep my fleet fast and lose, it never anchors somewhere to die)

@Cmdr:

ghr2:

Russian strategies very based on Italian and German strategies.  It is very hard to detail all possible strategies for Russia when all Russia needs to do is hold two victory cities to prevent the Axis from winning.

In the example that Germany ignores England:

Russia builds primarily infantry in forward positions until they cannot be held any longer.  Russian units slowely retreat to Moscow (Muskva) over 8 rounds.  Losing Leningrad and/or Stalingrad is not such an issue, as London has not fallen and therefore, Germany essentially needs both Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as potentially Moscow.

With Germany ignoring England, Egypt is no longer a certain event.  Neither is the German NO for having a ground unit in Egypt, as England can readily put 6 units a round into the holding of Egypt if needed.  3 from Central Persia/Iraq and 3 from S. Africa.  One might even go so far as to put a complex in Iraq and Persia to augment the one in S. Africa (and the transports needed to get them up to Egypt) and thus have 9 units a round.  After all, once London is secure from attack, it is SECURE from attack.  There’s no second chance at Sea Lion, you miss your chance, you’ve missed it permanently.  It will only be under-defended so long, after all, and then it becomes cost prohibitive.

Should Germany go Sea Lion, this is at least 4 transports and 20/30 ground units lost or trapped in England the water.  That’s at least 100 IPC probably closer to 180 IPC worth of units that Russia now does not have to face.  That alone gives Russia the advantage in stalling the Germans and Italians.  (Again, I look at a strong British open, going for the throat whereever possible against Italy on Round 1 to neuter it.  If Germany augments, this will probably make England that much more secure, if Germany does not augment, then British forces should win more decisively.  Essentially, I want to kill every German plane I can with England on round 1.  If I cannot kill any German planes, then I can have a much easier time sinking Italian ships and killing Italian soldiers.)

In regards to “back dooring” Russia, as I have said, I invite it.  Many have claimed, erroneously, that this is 48 IPC for Japan. (6 IPC a round for 8 rounds.)  That is blatantly untrue!  First off, you cannot take 6 IPC worth of Russia in one round!  Secondly, you are not just walking in, you have to send something!  And you have to send something to protect that something.  And you have to send something to reinforce that something.

So as I said:

Japanese Gains:

• +14 IPC in conquered land
• -69 IPC worth of units (lost due to position on the board.)

Russian Gains:

• +60 IPC worth of units
• +9 IPC in land not conquered yet
• +12 IPC National Objective of getting Japan to declare war on them

Benefits:  Japan 55 IPC loss, Russia 81 IPC gain

I do not see invading Russia as a winning proposition, unless you can convince Russia to send units to go fight you.  However, I do not feel a good Russian strategy is to go fight Japan.  You don’t really need too.  It is 4 rounds minimum before they can get units to trade for TIM, and 5 or 6 before they can send enough units there to hold TIM.  By then, the Japanese should be completely strangulated with Chinese forces making strong pushes into Jehol, British units from India (the ones I detailed that could be sent to China to help, less the aircraft which should go back to the Middle East long before now) in Kansu holding the Japanese out of China’s back door and what I will detail about naval position now:

Japan is also losing at least 24 IPC in warships a round.  It is probably an even trade with Australia, who is putting 24 IPC worth of warships in the water each round.  This is to prevent the Americans from attacking SZ 6 by blocking (with picket ships) SZ 16, 17 and 18.  Australia then counters with Destroyer, Fighter to SZ 16, SZ 17 and SZ 18.  (If both destroyers are lost, then it’s an allied gain, if only the Japanese one is lost, then it is an allied gain, if only the Australian one was lost, then it’s neither a gain nor loss for the Allies.  Yes, this means the Allies cannot lose here.)  This means that America loses nothing in position, war materials or strength, rather only gains in the latter two while Japan at best stays even, at worst starts to lose strength.

Thus, if Japan invades Russia you have:

24 IPC a round into replacing lost destroyers to Australia (does not include anything to counter American builds.)

Probably another 18 IPC a round into China to hold your own.

69 IPC in units lost in the Russian hinterland giving you virtually no benefit.

---

But what about Germany and Italy?

Well, with Russia building and retreating (and keeping in mind that if Russia earns less than 30 IPC, they can build it all in Moscow still) and with 6 rounds to walk someone from N. Italy to Russia and 5 rounds to walk someone from Germany to Moscow, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine it taking the Axis 9 or 10 rounds just to get in position to trade territories around Moscow.

That can be cut down with transports, but not significantly, since transports would negate much of the gains in movement speed by cost of the transports and the opportunity cost to divert units to protect said transports.

A tank dash is another option, but you quickly find yourself trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry.  That means you need 2 IPC for every 1 IPC Russia earns to break even.  Worse yet, since it takes roughly 3:1 odds to win a battle, you are risking at least 2 armored units (with airpower to assist) to kill 1 Russian infantry, whereas Russia is risking 2 or 3 infantry to kill 1 or 2 armored units.  This is a trade deficit and will eventually lead to Russia overpowering the Germans.  This is why virtually every tank dash in the game has been defeated.  Assuming the person being dashed against has seen the solution before (either by trying him/herself or just reading someone’s game who has done it.  It is how I learned.)

---

Parting thought, in regard to Russia:  Russia is not the weak kitten it is made out to be.  Granted, it does not have nearly the offensive capabilities of Germany, but then, we are not asking it to march to Berlin, we are asking it to stop Germany from marching to Moscow.  It does not need the offensive capabilities, it needs the defensive, and it has the defensive.

But but but…I need: {Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Egypt, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow} to win!  I don’t need London.  Of course you do not need London!  No one said you did!  But you are going to need Moscow!  I can stop you from taking Moscow with Russia!  I can stop you with planes from England to help!  yes, it takes 2 turns, but if you are not going for London, I have all these extra planes (and a French one, the hell else am I going to do with a French fighter???) to fly over to Moscow to stop you!

I think it might be a good idea for you to try and figure out an Axis strategy that can defeat this allied strategy.  It might take some radical changes to the beginning of your games, plus a few changes to the time tables.  For instance, I have already mentioned how easy it is for the axis to save the Italian army in Africa, you yourself said that in that case UK would vacate the Med and save the fleet too!  Really this move is a no-brainer.  Secondly, because you wait until J4 to attack,(or is it J3?)  You are actually beefing up ANZAC enough that they /can/ afford to swap 24 ipcs of production with Japan.  In my games(attack J2) ANZAC is lucky to be making 20ipcs 1 turn, after that they struggle to make 15, I think a more realistic ANZAC support consists of 1 sub 1 dd or maybe 2 subs.  Thirdly, I don’t see much value to Japan staging their fleet outside Carolines unless they plan on invading Australia/Hawaii.  As you’ve said, thats a fools errand for Japan because of the huge American fleet.  So why not do the smart thing and drag that American fleet all over the Pacific?  Stage in Philippines, or build a minor/NB/AB in Celebres(an awesome location to maintain your naval empire).  By forming up your fleet more west you can support the coast(where the money is)  and the money islands and forget about Carolines and other moneyless islands.

Lastly it appears you have yet to find out about one of the new units added to this version of the game.  The Mechanized infantry is great for adding to the Tank Dash strategy.  It now means that if you take a casualty, its only 4ipcs instead of the 6 you have been losing.  Try adding a few to your tank dashes……especially for Germany.  For 1 ipc more you can now move twice as fast in vast russia.  This also might be a reason Germany is stalling.

I won a game as allies when UK fell.  I ended up taking back africa as America and convoy raided Europe for 12ipcs.  America was making around 100 ipcs, enough to contain Japan and recapture Africa and halt the Italians.  This left Russia to take on Germany alone, which they were able to do with judicious purchases.

I’m sorry for my confusion, but can UK move into China territories prior to war with Japan because they are both at war with Germ/Italy.

Not to mention that SItaly is the captial…I think its pretty important that the allies hold there over NItaly.(although NITaly is closer to Moscow)

Well I agree with Geist that a london NO for US is a mistake, but that’s because in my axis games I have yet to capture UK, although I have won one and lost one.  I agree this discussion is going in circles, at first it was a discussion that US was too strong, now it has switched to a way to make Germ go after UK more.

Best fix for the US is to put a NO in North Africa.  This gets their attention at least and might at a minimum keep US involved in Atlantic to hold Africa.

ugh, got my joke censored by IL:(

I think the edge is slightly in the allies favor, I would think the dice and possibly an unforseen/unplanned offensive could tip the scales in the axis favor.  Because they have the initiative they do have options, you don’t /have/ to attack UK if you plan on hitting Russia G3 right?

I have a further question on that fleet battle situation, would it be legal to retreat the attacking sub if it didn’t get hit, or are you forced to continue attacking to try and clear the sz and get the ftr a landing zone?

Seriously though, I can tell from my limited experience that there are lots of options for all powers, definitive statements aren’t going to work on this larger board with more spaces.  That being said, I have found a slight balance edge towards the Allies, but then the Axis have initiative.  So it is still too early to tell if this slight advantage means the allies will win more.

interesting, this is what my opponent did as well, this move of bringing aircraft to Tobruk not only saves the Ialian army, but also the Italian fleet.

@Cmdr:

General way England goes about Africa, with a full Africa campaign, IMHO and as I have seen:

3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter to Tobruk

Odds: 88.2%
Result: 3 Infantry, MI Lost 20% of the time

3 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier to SZ 97

Odds: Calculators cannot handle 2 hit carriers or change in ool, done by LL
Result: 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber Remaining

2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Cruiser to Ethiopia

Odds: 40%
Result: Nothing left

So I wouldn’t say a British campaign in Africa is so over powering so much as it just kicks Italy in the shin, throws some dust in its eyes and runs away.  If this is removed as an option, we may as well make England a neutral with allied leanings.

I’m not sure the Ethiopia battle is that necessary, those troops in IEA cannot escape and will die to reinforcements moving up from Saf.
In my home games, the Italians are not under duress on the first turn anymore.

Lets look at Tobruk first, 3 inf, 2 art 1 MI 1 arm and 1 ftr vs. 3inf, 1 art, 1 MI, 1 arm and 2 ftrs 1 tac…/these/ odds for the British are 90% to lose…

For the sz 97 battle, if Germany can get 2 ftrs to SItaly, that lets you scramble 3 ftrs to defend the Italian ships and the UK player has a 87% chance of clearing the sz.

So germany actually has an easier time defending Tobruk than the sz, I still prefer both moves to give me the option of scrambling as the axis.

I still feel that the game could be totally balanced with very minor changes.  Make Italy neutral until their first turn.  This would mean Germ cannot hit SFrance on G1, but would also lend to the historical accuracy of the game(because Germ wasn’t able to attack SFrance until they took NFrance anyways)  The only other chance I would suggest is adding 1 more trn to Japan.  This lets them take the DEI on J2 if they want.

I can think of other changes I would like, for instance a Germ dd in Baltic and Russian dd in Archangel, but that is more to represent the fleets in those areas than balancing the game, therefore they are not suggested.