Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. larrymarx
    3. Posts
    L
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 7
    • Posts 168
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by larrymarx

    • RE: Mid-game German blitzing Russian south

      @Ichabod:

      Essentially he shoves everything everywhere. I’ve seen other people do it to but not to the extent he does. He even uses planes to kill lone infantry and other ground right away. Doesn’t care about his pilots. It overwhelms Japan which is the weaker link compared to Germany. In my games with him, Japan cannot conduct an “assault in the Pacific.” It is very hard to beat him (and he takes no bid). At best I’m able to pick just one target; but it’s not enough to ever get Japan to the point it could win the game.

      I’ve been mimicking his strategy and it’s starting to pay off. Lately in general, bids are going to China and Russia for use in allied Kill Japan First plans (or without a bid like my nemesis). I think knocking Japan out first is easier for the allies. The US gets Japan to the point that UK Pac / ANZAC / China are good on their own. Then the US switches to building mostly for landings. When I first started learning to play allies, I tried going for Germany first. That’s not a good plan because then Japan can blow up fast because there is no challenge to controlling the islands which fuels it’s drive inland.

      As with your first post, I fully agree with this analysis. I’ve been testing Allied strategy and I’m developing an opening that sounds exactly like what your nemesis is doing. I still don’t think it’s enough to beat the Germans in time (see my plan above), but I hope I’m wrong and the Allies end up having an equal chance to win.

      @Ichabod:

      I’m not that good at this game so my point of view only works for me.

      That’s a valid stance but my opinion is that we should work together to determine objectively what the best strategies to pursue are.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Mid-game German blitzing Russian south

      @Ichabod:

      I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t do a max G6 Moscow build if Germany is left alone and London was properly defended. Perhaps you have to attack on a later round, but why not get the stuff in place if Germany is left alone?
      I’m no expert either but I will give you my take on the Germany turns as well as my justification

      G1: 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry (Fun Fact: this also works for a Sea Lion plan too because Germany needs a tremendous amount of ground to defend and push an aggressive Russia back after sacking London). Of course Sea Lion requires a crap ton of stuff to go right before you drop 9 or 10 transports in the sea which often makes a very short game.
      2 bombers / 1 sub
      At first I was a doubter but Cow brought me over to this build. Although the ground units you mentioned work for Sealion, Germany already starts with enough ground to bring in to London on G3 if the Brits let their guard down. The planes help much more because they can SBR as well as add extra units to the battle. You strafe the Scottish fleet with 2 subs + 1 battleship and also bring the cruiser out for a respectable North Sea navy that Britain should want to do something about. If it’s still there on G2 you can take Scotland, take Gibraltar, blow up the rest of the British Atlantic ships, or just save it for later.

      G2: Mostly Tanks / Some Mechs (My preference is 2 tanks : 1 mech).
      Mostly mechs / some tanks
      It’s very surprising but if you look at battle calculators this mix of ground is almost as good as your mix on the final assault (by about a percent or so), but of course it’s a lot better on defense. Also, when you start to bring in artillery it’s better to have more mech in the stack because a bunch are going to become tanks and you need some left over for fodder.

      Germany’s long term goal is Moscow, but in the mid term they are going to swarm the Caucasus and Middle East or just generally wreak havoc on the Allies with mechanized detachments around G4/G5 when Moscow goes turtle

      G3: 2 tanks : 1 Mech ratio build as much as you can.
      I’m building mechs to tanks at around a 3:1 ratio here

      G4: 3 tanks in Leningrad if you captured it; (I often do the northern march route cause it’s better for Moscow I think); and 3 Tac. Bombers if you have the money because they can catch up to the stack and it saves you 3 IPCs.
      I agree with the tanks but I am probably buying fighters instead of tacs because I am using my 4 strat bombers to reduce Moscow to rubble and the Brits are intent on shooting me out of the sky

      G5: Move into Bryansk and purchase 5 Strategic Bombers.
      Yes, I would make sure to threaten the final assault, but at this point I am already purchasing artillery to pump out of Ukraine and mechs or tanks for Stalingrad and Leningrad.

      All of my comments above assume that the Allies are playing smart and preparing a fighter swarm. If I see that they aren’t, I would change my strategy to be more all-in on Moscow.

      If the Americans are trying to KGF instead of KJF, that also changes things as I would spend more on defense to fend them off.

      Larrymarx, Now is when you can be “Conservative.” If the UK flew 14 fighters into Moscow and it’s obviously not falling, than yeah, build your minor IC in W. Ukraine and prepare for the long siege. Maybe only purchase 2 bombers and all mech (because you’ll build artillery on the forward minor ICs). On G6, move into Rostov/ and work towards holding Stalingrad/Caucasus in the G6-8 timeframe while laying siege.

      Using my plan, the Allies still have to fly so much air into Moscow that what’s leftover doesn’t make much of a difference by itself. I’m still forcing them to prepare to go all in on defense because the option to press the attack fully is always there.

      Lately I’m on triplea live all the time. Same handle. On live triplea, obliterating Japan has currently become in vogue…which is was why I think if at all possible, knocking Moscow out as soon as possible is important.
      Laying seige so they can’t do anything is better than actually taking it because it requires far fewer resources, and you’re using what’s leftover to scoop up income and punish the Allies so much for ignoring you that you make up for Japan’s steady deterioration. You turn it around so that racing to crush Japan as fast as possible becomes important for the Allies as opposed to having that timer over your head.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Mid-game German blitzing Russian south

      @Ichabod:

      If Germany is able to spend max effort Barbarossa, then the odds are most likely Moscow is sacked on G6 unless the allies can get a large amount of units there like US bombers and UK fighters, ect. I’m convinced of that, maybe I’m wrong.

      So, if you managed to get 14 UK fighters to Moscow, you did a good job so far. At a certain point in time, you should be able to fly your air south to Persia at which point what German forces remaining aren’t enough to sack Moscow.

      @Ichabod:

      If Russia during the retreat to Moscow did not use up a lot of blockers along the way and really built up a huge strong healthy 2-3 inf per / 1 artillery ratio with a few fighters mixed in, than Russia should have lots of firepower stored and coiled. So, if Germany sends about 10-15+ mechs/tanks south, Russia should have a chance to come out and threaten German minor IC factories somewhere.

      @Ichabod:

      One player attacked some Italian units on UK3. I was happy thinking now those fighters won’t make it to Moscow. I was wrong. On UK4 he built an air base on Cyprus in order to get the air movement range to Moscow on UK5. I was impressed. I was doing the max G6 Moscow builds and spent no money on boats meanwhile the US was spending 100% towards knocking out Japan. I had to go for Moscow as soon as possible but couldn’t get it quick enough.

      I fully agree with and support this analysis of the board. What I’d like to add is that the “max G6 Moscow builds” probably aren’t optimal play for Germany because the Allies have this ability to defend. Germany should play a slightly slower game and also threaten the UK and gobble up income territories.

      If Germany plays this way combined with a good, fast Japanese assault in the Pacific, the Axis are very hard to beat in this game. I am trying to figure out the best approach for the Allies. As mentioned in the first two quotes above, the ability to use your defending units to come out and threaten the Axis when the time is right is a big part of it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Mid-game German blitzing Russian south

      My opinion is that taking the Caucasus / Middle East region is optimal play for Germany, even if they begin with a strong push for Moscow. It’s like the Sealion feint all over again - they make the Allies waste money spending defensively and then they storm in the other direction, scooping up money.

      I have been studying the problem of how the Allies should counter this move. Undoubtedly, some people on this forum will suggest the Middle Earth strategy to lock down the Middle East before Germany can get there, and others will suggest getting some landings going in Western Europe to take the pressure off.

      I am not convinced that either of these strategies is optimal play, but the Allies have it rough and they are each worth a shot. I am looking at a strategy aimed at strengthening Calcutta early so that they can push westward at the Germans, and I’ll let you know if I decide it could be viable.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Japanese Naval Base on Java

      You’ll lose Shanghai by J7 and quite likely not be able to get it back.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      Ok, the sub works well combined with a strafe, got it. You can use it to hunt down the remnants of the Scottish fleet too. I can see how an extra bomber instead of fighter would help threaten Sealion too due to a deadlier potential SBR.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Pacific Lion–-new crazy german strategy

      That sounds like a better plan. You can also get a factory in Greece if you want your Indian Ocean fleet to have a lot of ships / transports. Maybe this is the real “Pacific Lion”.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      @Cow:

      Not all Germany players buy naval round 1, I am of the 2 bomber 1 sub crew.

      I didn’t know this was considered a good buy. Is the idea to slip the sub over to seazone 125 when the British aren’t looking and take the 5 IPC objective from Russia? If so then what would you do about lurking British destroyers, hit them with bombers? If that isn’t the plan then those 6 IPC’s are just sitting there in the water for most of the game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      I always keep 3 fighters at least one turn away from London, if not in Britain itself unless I’m sure Germany won’t Sealion next turn. Britain starts with 3 plus one French fighter so scrambling isn’t a problem, right? I am assuming you didn’t scramble and lose fighters on turn 1. If you did, then I can see a 6+1 purchase.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Pacific Lion–-new crazy german strategy

      As the U.S. I would counter this move by building a naval base and two factories in Argentina/Chile three turns after you hit the neutrals. At a cost of 39 IPC’s (a little over half a turn of money) I now have the ability to get navy to you a turn sooner and develop a two step shuck to get ground units into Southeast Asia and the money islands. This is why one of my 11 conclusions on the other thread was that the neutral crush would never work as a strategy for the Axis powers.

      I’m afraid to say the Pacific Lion may be doomed as a strategy except against players who haven’t seen or thought about this before.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      I’m not comfortable with 6+1 as Britain unless Japan did a J1 and America built bombers to send to London. Germany has plenty of tactics they can employ to boost their odds in Sealion and it’s not worth the risk IMO.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      @MEANWHILE:

      @larrymarx:

      2. Britain takes both Iraq and Persia in the first round. They are pulling units from the Pacific, meaning that they have more of an advantage in Europe. They must take advantage of that and get control of Africa and the Middle East. The plan is to eventually divert units so that India doesn’t fall. Moscow is in a lot of trouble so the western Allies must keep pressuring Europe. A strong Britain combined with the American fleet attempt to divert German resources away from Moscow to make up for the extra income they aren’t getting from Africa and the Middle East.

      Why are they pulling units from the Pacific? It is possible that Britain Europe takes Iraq T2 with the Inf from Persia, plus the inf dropped by the tranny off of the coast of Egypt T1 and a plane or tank. This is the better course of action. Why would you pull from the Pacific theatre?

      I can explain this but I will start with why Iraq is definitely a good option for Russia. They will immediately make up for the loss of 1-2 infantry in Iraq with 5 IPC’s from the territory. The tank, mech and plane can make it back safely to Moscow and their absence won’t be noticed. You may end up forgoing one possible counterattack but those are really only worth the value of the territory you take plus a 1/3 chance of killing one German infantry when the infantry hits on defense. That’s 2 IPC’s, and it doesn’t matter that much. So you make up for your sacrifices after the first two turns, then you are killing it with an extra 1.66 infantry in Moscow each turn.

      There are two viable counterarguments to this strategy. First, if Moscow falls you are losing hard. Second, Britain might be able to use the 2 IPC’s/turn better attacking Germany’s flanks. Both of these point to a KGF strategy if you let Britain have Iraq. You aren’t going to have those extra Russian troops, so you had better make up for it by using Britain’s extra potential to pressure Germany. This is why you should pull offensive units and the transport out of the Pacific theater and just turtle there, sending units from Persia if you need to.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      @taamvan:

      there is so much to do on G1 that it ends up leaving your attackers open to destruction.

      I came up with a G1 plan that prevents Russian counterattacks. The problem is you have to divert some aircraft so you can’t kill the British Channel fleet. To make up for that you just hit the two seazones that have British destroyers in them and then hope to get a few turns of convoys against Britain and deny Russia’s NO with a sub off of Norway. The Channel fleet ends up linking up with the Cairo fleet and then Italy is forced to throw their entire fleet at them because attacking gives them better odds than defending at that point. However, Russia is hammered into a fully defensive position and Germany will very likely take Moscow on G5 - that is, unless the Allies land 10 fighters and 5 bombers there, which they are more than capable of doing.

      I tested this scenario and I didn’t like the result for the Axis, but if it sounds like something anyone else would like to try I can post the plan. I call it the “convoy gambit”. In general I am not a fan of G1 but if I wanted to try it again I’d use this plan.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      Ok, so let me try and consolidate all of this into two possible courses of action for the Allies

      1. Britain leaves Iraq for Russia and takes Sumatra and Persia. This is better for an early German DOW and late Japan DOW because Russia gets Iraq earlier and the British transport can survive. The British probably devote more resources to holding the line in the Pacific. This effort will make more of a difference if the US also puts pressure on Japan. In this case the British are sacrificing units and initiative in Europe, and the Americans aren’t there, so they are playing defensively. Moscow will require a powerful stack. Russia benefits from the extra income and the British build a bunch of fighters to send over there.

      2. Britain takes both Iraq and Persia in the first round. They are pulling units from the Pacific, meaning that they have more of an advantage in Europe. They must take advantage of that and get control of Africa and the Middle East. The plan is to eventually divert units so that India doesn’t fall. Moscow is in a lot of trouble so the western Allies must keep pressuring Europe. A strong Britain combined with the American fleet attempt to divert German resources away from Moscow to make up for the extra income they aren’t getting from Africa and the Middle East.

      Does that sound about right to everyone?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      @Requester45:

      I suppose all of this is just my opinion based on the games that I have played though. Has anyone ever taken Iraq with Russia and had it go successfully?

      I have, but my strategy was as I described it in my previous post. Admittedly it did leave the UK weaker and losing ground in Africa and the Middle East, but this was more because they were pumping everything into the Moscow defense than because they didn’t have Iraq. Still, I can’t figure out why everyone seems intent on holding all that stuff at the cost of making things easier for Germany in Moscow. If Moscow falls what are you going to do with the Middle East and Africa? Whatever it is I don’t think it’s winning the game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      @taamvan:

      Above all, it goes against the mantra of “don’t try anything fancy with Russia or you lose” but that’s no fun.

      Actually I think it’s the opposite: you have to get fancy with Russia or you lose. Russia is in a good spot to attack Germany and Japan’s flanks while they are busy shielding themselves from the western Allies. If the western Allies sacrifice income and initiative to increase Russia’s income and get more planes to Moscow, then Russia can spare a few units to increase their income in Africa or make a difference on Pacific board. When the Allies come for Germany, the goal should be to divert German resources from the eastern front so that Russia can spare units to attack the flanks again, maybe even going into Scandinavia.

      I believe that people who are voting no in this poll are doing so because they are following the traditional wisdom that holding Africa and the Mediterranean is Britain’s job and they need units and income there to do it. In this game the Axis powers have the potential to push so hard in one direction that the Allies need to be prepared to react to that and drop whatever strategies they had in mind when they started the game. A hard German push for Moscow is so common that Britain’s traditional role seems less important to me than working together with Russia.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      In response to some of Cow’s posts -

      You’ve got some good ideas there. Please keep them coming.

      You mentioned Japan helping with the Europe side. I think this works because the European side is so much harder to contest for the Allies. This was one of my conclusions and it’s why I think the Allies should go KJF. However, if Japan is making plays to impact the European side then the Allies have to put more resources in over there where the resources have less of an impact.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      Taranto raid - I think the best way to support Italy is to present the best possible Sealion threat on G1.

      You overkill the British fleets in seazones 111 and 110, sending everything you can at them except for two subs. Battleship, sub, and three aircraft off Scotland, two subs and 7 aircraft in the channel. The remaining two subs take out the Canadian destroyer and transport. If the British don’t scramble, then you should win all three battles without losing any aircraft in most of your games. Then you build a destroyer and two planes. The Baltic fleet comes out to seazone 112. Of course send the fighter to Rome too.

      If the U.S. is not set up to counter the Sealion and Britain decides to fight the Italians instead of cleaning up your navy, you go through with the plan. You can have Japan hold off a turn. The British are now forced into another Atlantic naval engagement that pulls resources away from Italy. You walk away with one or two subs doing convoys in the Atlantic, fewer British fighters to defend Moscow, and a stronger Italy in the Med.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq

      The assault on Moscow must fail. That is the top priority of the Allies - it’s more important than holding London. For an early German assault, I can see no other path for the Allies on the European board than to get aircraft to Moscow. Britain needs to build mostly fighters after B1. They can swarm the med, but they have to pull out and get to Moscow in time to save it. If the Russians are maxing out their infantry purchases, they will still be one turn behind the Germans when the Germans reach Bryansk. The fighters will give them the odds they need to survive and force the Germans to hold off.

      If the Allies are going KJF, they are just holding on for dear life in Europe, which means keep Moscow and London at all costs. They may need to keep building fighters and infantry. Cairo will fall. The Germans will likely get frustrated with Moscow and spill down into the Middle East. If they do that, the British will be kicking themselves for taking Iraq for 7 turns at 14 IPC’s instead of giving it to Russia for 6 turns at 30 IPC’s. That’s 1.4 British fighters that could have been 10 Russian infantry.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • RE: Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

      @GeneralHandGrenade:

      My philosophy though is that there is only one hard and fast rule of the game, that Germany takes Paris in the first round. After that anything goes.

      I’ve actually heard of players strafing France and giving it to Italy if they can leave it with one or two units  :-)

      @GeneralHandGrenade:

      You need to use your creativity to make it up as you go along. Understanding basic principles such as which units will be more effective against the units that you are facing, or the task that you want to accomplish, will allow you to overcome the best strategies if your opponent knows little more than memorizing that strategy and lacks the ability to react to what you’re doing.

      In fact I agree with you. It is for this very reason that I’ve been doing this research. When I say “strategic framework” I don’t mean a set of memorized moves or ploys - I mean a broader understanding of the dynamics of the board and the units that will assist players in reacting quickly to the circumstances they face, which of course will always be different.

      One example of this kind of thinking is your “floating bridge” strategy. The knowledge that America can get the “four lane highway” going via Southern France is important to have whether or not one uses it in most games.

      In addition, if we can agree on what “should” happen in an average game (optimal openers for the Axis and their appropriate responses), we can spot more easily when our games have deviated from the norm and adjust our play fluidly.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      L
      larrymarx
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
    • 4 / 9