Posts made by larrymarx

@Afrikakorps:

I just realized the strategic strength of Bryansk again, with just the traditional Russian force of artillery and infantry this is very strong. With mechanized infantry instead of normal one you actually cover all of Russia and only need two stacks: Novgorod + Bryansk. The Bryansk stack can also include some basic infantry as it is able to retreat directly into Moscow.

I am forming a theoretical framework that reduces the dynamics of the board into principles that guide the formation of strategies. I began writing an article on it, but I’m not sure when it will be finished. Here is an excerpt from what I’ve written that I think explains why your dual stack Russian defense isn’t a good idea.

"Still, to help focus the discussion, let us give words to these concepts:

The force principle: powers must have superior force to win engagements
The economy principle: powers must have superior resource production to obtain superior force

Notice that these principles balance each other - the focus of one is always the pursuit of the other. The Allies, with a superior economy, must try to obtain a force advantage, and the Axis, with superior force, must try to obtain an economic advantage. In the actual war, and in many previous iterations of Axis & Allies, the economy principle gave an advantage to the Allies because the Axis had to work to take territory while the Allies could bide their time and build up their force.

Now let us try to quantify this new, less intuitive principle that seems to give an edge to the Axis in the 1940 series of games:

The mobility principle: mobility allows powers to determine where engagements will occur

Mobility in the 1940 games, and especially in Global 1940 (which we will focus on from here forward), is the wild card. It trumps both economy and force. The choice of where to engage enables the power with superior mobility to select only those engagements where it will enjoy the greatest tactical advantage or those that will benefit it the most economically, meaning that mobility can translate either to force or economy."

The argument I make following these observations is that it’s better for the defending force to take two separate and equal positions that will almost, but not quite hold than one position that will definitely hold. One example of equal positions would be London and Moscow. You’d rather make Germany fight for whichever one he wants than pick one to save and let him walk in to the other. Another example would be over on the Pacific side. It’s better to push suicidal Allied stacks at Japan from all sides than to retreat and let him have territory.

The Russian dual stack defense is different, because they aren’t equal positions. Moscow is obviously more important. Defending less important territory will just make your opponent all the more eager to press for your capital.

Right, my ideas for the Allies all hinge on defending Moscow at all costs. I am thinking that 5 American bombers plus most of Britain’s production will be enough but I haven’t tested it thoroughly to really say that with any confidence.

@simon33:

I’ll have to think about the merit of buying the 2 extra bombers G1 rather than G2 outside of a G1 DOW context. What do you see it as?

I actually think it’s the opposite - G1 is the only play that renders the two extra bombers questionable.

As Germany you have the choice of going after Britain or Russia. If you do a G1 you have made your choice. Yes, you can still do Sealion while at war with Russia but I just don’t think it’s a good idea.

If you don’t do a G1, you are giving your play a certain ambiguity that forces the Allies to contend with your potential to go for either. To play up the dual threat, you should buy units on G1 that will help you no matter which way you decide to go. This points towards air and fleet purchases, since more land units won’t help you fight Britain.

Now the only question is which air and fleet units to go with. Bombers, fighters and destroyers are obvious choices, but a sub will work too because you can use it to help blow up the remainder of the British fleet in the Atlantic on G2. A bomber is a unit that will definitely not sit idle since you can stratbomb no matter how the Allies react, so it’s a good choice.

@Gargantua:

@larrymarx:

@Young:

@larrymarx:

YG, given that the Axis are viewed as having an edge, I think you should have done a bid for sides on the medal round.

Thanks for the suggestion, I just felt that the team who scored the most tokens over 2 full day games deserved to choose their side in the medal rounds , and then there’s the fact that I hate bids.

I agree that bids are not an ideal solution. Ideally, since you are already modding the game to your token system, the solution would be to make sure that the two sides actually are balanced within the rule set.

Although I admire your token system, I don’t believe it actually has this effect. I would be happy to be wrong about this, so please let me know if the various teams’ results in the tournament indicate that it actually is balanced.

If it isn’t balanced, the medal round takes on less significance since the teams scoring 1st - 4th are quite likely to maintain that ranking after playing games where the higher ranking team has an edge.

Larry - I have a long list of thoughts and comments on this and am going work with YG on it.  I know exactly what you mean and exactly what you are looking for - and we’re going to get it there.

Give me a few days to post a full review.

What I will say though - the token system as a concept is perfect for tournaments.  Allowing a “Score” and “time” to complete got to the truth of the matter - and the truth of the matter was that the best players won thier games.

I look forward to reading through your thoughts and comments, as well as to finally hearing the responses that you’ve been sitting on this past month to the “11 conclusions” I posted.

And yet no one seems to have figured out how to turn those strategies back on you and win as the Allies.

I have nowhere near the level of experience that you do, but I’ve analyzed and tested the board quite thoroughly and everything you keep tossing out here on the forums is clearly insightful. The fact that your ideas keep evolving shows me that you know what you’re talking about too. I wonder why your ideas haven’t taken hold more? I didn’t see any U.S. player at YG’s tournament this weekend cranking out U.S. bombers.

As to the suggestions I made, I know they’re sub-optimal, but I was trying to think what the best moves for Japan would be from the beginning if you knew 100% that the Allies were doing a full KJF. Egypt crush is another one to consider.

So if you already know the person is going to KJF, then the India crush becomes a good play for Japan, and you can consider bypassing the Philippines on J1. I’m not sure how much good it will do having those ships one space to the west, and I’d also like to point out that you can just send two subs and some planes to take out the Philippines fleet and then noncom the DD and CV wherever you want. Surviving subs can hit his convoys.

A better rationale for bypassing the Philippines is simply that you want to conserve your ground troops and concentrate your force where it matters.

Another strategy to consider is the G1/J4 where you throw everything at Moscow (Italy builds straight mechs and tanks too). You can build an airbase on Chahar on turn 2 and bomb Moscow with the Japanese on turn 3 if the Germans have a stack on Ukraine or W. Ukraine.

In either case you are giving up on the hope of Japan becoming an economic force and concentrating your beginning force where it can do some good.

So if the Norwegian garrison is kept happy with gifts, they can fight off the Germans better?

Maybe you meant the presents are for the Germans themselves and then they EXPLODE!

The problem there is on J1, you don’t know if the Allies are going to go full KJF or not. If the Allies do not go full KJF, then going all-in on Calcutta is not optimum play. It’s better to expand your income and choke them out slowly so that they fall on J5 or later as opposed to J3.

If you do J1 without taking Philippines, you are jumping the gun and folding to the pressure of the combined Allied assault before the pressure has even been applied. I would either do J1 as normal with a contingency for an all-in on Calcutta beginning on J2, or I would simply do a J2. At that point taking Philippines or not is an option that would depend on the all-in decision.

@Young:

@larrymarx:

YG, given that the Axis are viewed as having an edge, I think you should have done a bid for sides on the medal round.

Thanks for the suggestion, I just felt that the team who scored the most tokens over 2 full day games deserved to choose their side in the medal rounds , and then there’s the fact that I hate bids.

I agree that bids are not an ideal solution. Ideally, since you are already modding the game to your token system, the solution would be to make sure that the two sides actually are balanced within the rule set.

Although I admire your token system, I don’t believe it actually has this effect. I would be happy to be wrong about this, so please let me know if the various teams’ results in the tournament indicate that it actually is balanced.

If it isn’t balanced, the medal round takes on less significance since the teams scoring 1st - 4th are quite likely to maintain that ranking after playing games where the higher ranking team has an edge.

YG, given that the Axis are viewed as having an edge, I think you should have done a bid for sides on the medal round.

I think most, if not all of the virtual spectators aren’t that familiar with YG’s token system.

So the plan has to be to knock Japan back quickly and actually hold Moscow. I guess what you were saying earlier is that if the Allies eventually fail at this (say round 9-11), then the game isn’t over at that point because they have gained ground in all other areas of the board.

I still think the Allies have it at a worse than 50% chance to win if Moscow falls in that scenario.

@Ichabod:

Getting Moscow is not victory still when Japan is trashed by round 6.

Let’s say Germany and Italy overrun Moscow on turn 6, but the Allies are almost in control of the rest of Asia.

My thinking to this point has been that this scenario is unacceptable and that Moscow must be defended at all costs. What do you think? What are the chances of the Allies converting this board into a win?

@Afrikakorps:

With the Siberians crushed in J1, do you think this will be worth giving Yunnan another turn (more reinforcements) and the Allied efforts to build Fortress Yunnan will be game changing for the Pacific side? After all now Japan can take Siberian countries and focus 100% on Yunnan.

Basically on the Pacific side you have to start out by sacrificing units in order to bleed the Japanese horde until it becomes manageable. The alternative, to continue retreating, doesn’t work because you give the Japanese what they want (territory, income) without any reduction in their force. They are just going to keep getting stronger and eventually they will pick one of your stacks and annihilate it on terms that are favorable to them. So yes, the idea of the dual Yunnan / Amur threat is consistent with good Allied play on that side of the board.

The problem, of course, is whether giving up those Russian units is good play on the Europe side. Unlike in the Pacific, you can’t really set up a “dual threat” that forces Germany to choose a path. By the time you can get the Western Allies into France, the Germans are already about to sack Moscow and you’re just too late to make a difference. You really have to make sure you can put up a solid Moscow defense as the Allies, and any strategy you propose that doesn’t involve the Russians building almost all infantry from turn one needs to compensate with some kind of plan to get more units over there eventually.

Ideas that the community have on the table now mostly involve massive Allied air support.

If I were the Japan player I would just go for Yunnan anyways. I think the only thing you can do to divert them is to actually stack Amur on R1. If the Japanese ignore that threat, you can actually punish them for it. If they crush Amur, they can’t crush Yunnan, especially if you keep reinforcing it.

Let me throw down some numbers just for perspective.

Japan starts the game with:

11 fighters
8 tactical bombers
2 bombers

Your proposed force is:

12-14 infantry
1 mech
1 tank
7 fighters
2 tactical bombers

For this battle to be better than break even in TUV terms, Japan needs to bring 6-8 ground units depending on the number of infantry you have in your stack. There is a significant possibility that Japan will already have this force available on J2 (4 from Kiangsi and 4 from transports that send troops to Kwangsi).

I find it striking that an all-out Allied defense of Yunnan vs. an early Japanese thrust would be so evenly matched. Perhaps this was an intentional feature of the global 1940 setup?

In any case, I’m not so sure this is a good move. Let’s say that Japan “takes the bait” and crushes the stack on J2. They will lose half their air force, but they won’t really need it as much either now that China and UK pacific have the wind knocked out of them. Also, Russia has given up a turn of builds and then some considering the starting units that they have diverted, and America can’t rush to Calcutta’s aid.

As the Axis, I would immediately change my delayed war strategy and focus my efforts on Southern China and Calcutta over on the Pacific side and on Russia over in Europe. I would be happy with this outcome as the Axis.

I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two sides you all have presented here.

The Russian stack is important and it works well when combined with the Chinese, but it won’t matter much in the end unless there is a strong American presence in the Pacific. All they will do is stall the Japanese for a couple of turns.

American bombers are powerful but the realities of the board need to be confronted and they won’t win the game all by themselves.

Europe rulebook, page 9, paragraph 2, sentence 3:

“You can’t move sea units through a canal or narrow strait that is controlled by a neutral territory or by a power with which you are at war.”

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You might remember my “11 conclusions” thread from a few weeks back, where I explained I thought we should develop a “strategic framework”. My thought is essentially that we should push the meta-game to a final state of maturity by determining what the best Allied response is to the rapid Axis push, and use our conclusions to help support a theory of the board.

The strategy I described earlier (combining the Russians in Africa, the Canadian / U.S. push for the money islands and concentrated British support of Moscow) is the best I can come up with for an Allied response. I am interested to see if you agree or would be willing to test it in your games as well, or if you have any objections that I should consider.

I am buying the following units as part of this strategy:

Russia:
7 artillery, 4 mech on turn 1 followed by straight infantry unless special circumstances demand a fighter or some artillery. I am sending 6 mech, 2 tanks to Africa. Remember the idea is that these forces will be replaced by the British in short order.

America:
4 bombers turn 1 (for Europe) followed by fleet for the foreseeable future (carrier, loaded transports, assorted warships but very few aircraft as ANZAC will provide these).

UK Europe:
6 infantry, 1 fighter turn 1; minor IC’s in Persia and Egypt turn 2; mech infantry turn 3 followed by fighters and mechs 4+

UK Pacific:
3 infantry, 2 artillery turn 1; continue building infantry and artillery until Japan is thrown back, then switch to mechs and fighters to support the defense of Moscow.

ANZAC:
Straight fighters unless Japan is doing some crazy kill Australia first move. These fighters will land on American carriers and/or journey to Moscow.

The general strategy begins by coordinating Russian, Chinese, British and American stacks so they are all hurtling towards China and the money islands at once. Japan can annihilate one or maybe two of them, but then they’re stuck just trying to hold on to their gains. At that point Second Russia is born and the tan blob can begin to move on the Germans. America sends fleet to blockade Italy and/or provide cover for a Grecian beachhead using Egyptians and Brazilian-American forces, who have been marching across Sub-Saharan Africa this whole time.

Right. You can only ask if you aren’t at war.

That’s why wittmann intimated that the mere asking of such a question might provoke the fuhrer to rain fire and fury upon your lands.