Posts made by larrymarx

@variance:

The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?
I did look up that cobra kai video on youtube and checked it out.  With respect to the person who made video, I must say it seems not likely to end well for the axis. It is not clear to me how the Germans would handle a soviet stack at Bryansk while they are building infantry back home… but I might be wrong of course.

Sired (the guy behind it all) says the plan is to push tanks out of the minor IC in Romania and then infantry and artillery out of Ukraine and Volgograd once you capture them. He also suggests building an airbase in Romania and 2 Black Sea transports to get more ground over there faster. I guess the idea is that you’ve outflanked the Russians by focusing on the South.

On turn 2 you’re supposed to build 21 infantry to defend against an Allied invasion if you decided not to do Sealion. That does make it a little puzzling how Germany will sustain the eastern front.

@variance:

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?
I do like the dark skies thing, but just don;t assume that if the allies are building fleet that they intend to actually send it to Gibraltar/Iceland. They may be simply enticing you into blowing money on your fancy bombers instead of more efficient ground units for the Moscow assault. At some point you may calculate that you need to use those bombers on Russia. Such a waste.

So in this case Germany decided to defend themselves when they didn’t have to - they miscalculated. But if they are going to choose to defend, whether rightly or wrongly, I would still say bombers are usually better than naval or ground. If a land invasion becomes certain you can buy mech, or if you really have to push their fleet back you can build subs in the Baltic.

When answering this question, assume Japan is busy taking territories in the Pacific and not threatening Cairo, the Middle East or India.

Arguments in favor:

-In a Moscow push scenario, it’s better to have 5 IPC’s a turn in infantry coming out of Moscow than 2 IPC’s a turn in Britain’s hands

-The Allies overall have +3 IPC’s per turn for as long as Russia holds Iraq, which is good for the long game

-The possibility is open to use the units to bolster Cairo’s defense and/or turn Russia into a beast with 4 Italian territories in Africa at +3 each

Arguments against:

-Russia can also profit by just using all 5 units in counterattacks and the final Moscow battle

-If Moscow falls, Germany gets +5 and Britain won’t have income or an IC there

-Britain needs every territory it can get so that it can project power across the board

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1
Yes, I agree if you are going to throw everything at Russia you should buy artillery on G1. However, based on conclusion #3 (below), I believe that land units aren’t a good purchase on G1.

2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
G1 DOW rarely works out well.
A G1 focused push on Moscow that more or less ignores Britain doesn’t work out well, that’s true. This conclusion is more about the Allied response to this tactic and about why Germany needs units that threaten Britain at the very least on turn 1.

Some players favor the G1 DOW even when they are still focusing on Britain somewhat. The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?

3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
usually, but this is counter to points 1 and 2 above

Actually it goes hand in hand with point 2. Point 2 indicates that Allies can defeat the G1 Moscow push strategy. Point 1 is more of a general observation. At any stage in the game, even if Germany is playing defensively or conservatively, when they decide they want to go hard for Moscow they should buy this unit mix.

4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
How does Japan force this?

It’s not an optimal move for them. They have to bring their air force up north and move infantry in or buy a major in Korea. I don’t think they should do this except in certain late game scenarios, but if they did it would be better for the Russians to retreat than let themselves be annihilated.

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
No

So far I’ve got 4 people against this one and only 1 supporting it. I’m going to have to look at this some more.

6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
Sealion is NEVER an empty threat, and it is ALWAYS on the table

Yes, I agree. Should I reword this conclusion to make that clearer?

7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
Why is J1 better than J2?

You can take out the American fleet at Pearl and the Philippines and the British battleship off Malaya, take other territories early (especially FIC for a factory J2) and prevent the British and ANZAC from making progress in the Dutch East Indies. All of these things together offset the loss of the +10 bonus to Japan and the +20 that the Americans get.

That being said, J2 or even J3 can be a better strategy depending on what the long term goals of the Axis powers are, and in this game you must plan holistically. That’s why I added “merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific”. The J1 doesn’t take Europe, the Middle East or Africa into account.

8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
sometimes

Of course everything is subject to change. Once we agree on some basic rules we can figure out when exceptions apply.

9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
neutral crush can also be good for axis, but generally bad for either side

We could invent a scenario where they need to take Turkey or something, but I’m trying to address general strategy at a very high level as opposed to the myriad of tactical situations that are possible. My findings are that if the Axis plan on a neutral crush as their strategy from the beginning, they are doomed. On the other hand, the Allies moving into Spain and Latin America can be a good general counter to certain Axis strategies.

10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
On land, at sea, or both?

On land. China stack, Russian stack, Indian transports and air, ANZAC transports and air. The Allies can’t push navy at them except with America so there’s no multi-pronged naval attack in the beginning.

11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).
Don’t assume you know what the other side is thinking

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?

The way I play the game, Britain usually doesn’t make landings in Europe. In a Moscow push they help defend Moscow, and in other scenarios they fight the Italians and try to hold on to their territories. This all rests on the assumption that KJF is the best way to make gains quickly as the Allies.

I understand that’s different from how you play the Allies, but under the circumstances I described would you agree it’s at least better for Russia to have +5 than Britain +2 for Iraq?

All of those assumptions are fair.

Here is my response to the conclusions:

1. Only one tactical bomber is needed in Iraq. With proper positioning, this plane can participate in a counterattack the turn before (Bessarabia or Eastern Poland) and the turn after (Ukraine or Western Ukraine) the assault on Iraq. The loss of one plane for one turn is worth -3 IPC’s at best.

2. If Moscow actually does fall on G6 or G7 in spite of a concerted Allied defense (10-15 fighters land the turn before the attack), the game is over for them so it doesn’t matter that Germany has an extra 5 IPC’s and Britain 2 less per turn.

The plan is to hold Moscow. There may be games when the Allies fail to do so, but if they do achieve this goal, Germany will be facing a stronger Russia.

@MEANWHILE:

@larrymarx:

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.

This is one which I find highly debatable. In my opinion, the ME is much more valuable and practical in British hands. It is a waste of time for Russia to go down there. The juice is not worth the squeeze me thinks. You may gain the units from Persia, but will loose some taking Iraq. Plus your units are now out of position in the event of a Nazi invasion. Giving the extra income to Russia only deprives Britain.

First of all, I agree that Britain should get Persia. What I’m talking about are the pro-Axis neutral Iraq and Italian territories in Africa. My conclusion is that Russia should always pursue this objective.

Here is my thought process:

Scenario 1: Germany attacks early. Russian units are in a better position than other Allied forces to take Iraq. The 5 IPC’s per turn will more than make up for the 2 infantry you sacrifice taking the territory. An early German assault means the Allies need to be prepared for a joint defense of Moscow (conclusion #2), and it is better to have Russia building an extra 1.66 infantry per turn in Moscow than Britain building an extra .2 fighters per turn in the Middle East.

Scenario 2: Germany attacks late. British forces will be tied up defending themselves and they won’t have the economy to support an IC in Iraq for quite some time. Russia should take the extra 5 per turn and use it to build offensive units and punish Germany for ignoring them, or else defensive units if it turns out Germany is coming for them after all.

In either scenario, I think the tank and mech, and maybe 1 tactical bomber as well should continue onward to Egypt. They can defend Cairo if needed, which means they weren’t needed in Moscow after all, or else take African territories for a major boost that makes up for their absence.

@PainState:

Your conclusions are not wrong or off based, they are just based on conclusions that if you agree that the Axis opening turn gambits as laid out on You Tube or on the forums is the way to go for the Axis.

The Axis plan of attacks as laid out in numerous places is all based on a Turn 1 set piece game, it never changes and is always the same. So, the advice on the Axis plan of attack at the start of the war is based on a set piece. Well why not wait until T2 or T3. Well, it is so close to the point of origin, set piece, you can still game plan to a certain degree. That is why all the opening turn gambits by the Axis have the disclaimer if the Allies do this you do that OR you do this to force the Allies to do that and off we go. ( Sea Lion is an example of this: You fake or go for Sea Lion BUT the idea is you force UK to go 9 or 6-1 on their builds in England. You are forcing their hand and stalling them for a turn. If you do not build even for a fake Sea Lion, well, now the UK is free do as they please in the opening turn.)

Why are there not any Allied Turn 1 game plans? Well, because, they can not do anything in Turn 1, they are just sitting ducks.

Why are there not any Allied Turn 6-8 game plans, when the war can be turned for the Allies? Well, that is to far out from T1 and the set piece nature of the game. Who knows what is going on in Turn 6? I don’t. All we can talk about is in vague terms that you want your Allied forces in position to take advantage of this or that. Well, great, how do I do that? No freaking clue, it is all based on what the Axis do in T1-5.

At the core of all of this is why this game is fun to play. There is no one path to victory. The idea that as long as you do this and the dice do not hose you, YOU WIN is false.

I have found that there is more than one Axis strategy “as laid out on You Tube or on the forums” that is accepted as viable. In other words, the fact that we have all these gambits and plans for the Axis doesn’t contradict your notion that there is no one path to victory. There is more than one path just at the beginning, and then as you say the game can take multiple routes depending on what happens because of the luck factor.

That being said, I would argue that it’s still very important to plan ahead. You need to understand how to react to what happens, and for that you should examine what is likely to happen. You need to have objectives based on what you can realistically achieve, and for that you need to understand the board.

This type of planning and analysis is what I call a “general strategic framework”. You can read a famous example of something like this (“Don’s essays”) at http://donsessays.freeservers.com/. It will be a lot more difficult to write articles like this for Global but someone should get started.

Global 1940.2 has been out and rigorously played for five years now. I think this is roughly the time when the community should start to settle on a general strategic framework - that is, what constitutes optimal play over the long term. What we have are openers for Japan and Germany that work well and have been thoroughly tested. This game is viewed as weighted towards the Axis. It is possible that the game is objectively easier to win as the Axis, but it is also possible that most players are just better at playing the Axis because of how well researched the openings are for those powers.

I have spent a good deal of time reading through posts on this forum and also testing strategies recently trying to discover what optimal play is for both sides. I have a number of conclusions that I would like to propose. If you’d like to help me in this effort, please look these over and tell me if you agree or disagree and why.

These conclusions are not the general strategic framework that I have proposed - they are merely a step towards one. We must agree on some basic facts about the board before such a framework can arise.

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
5. If the Allies choose to go KJF and play defensively in Europe, Russia should send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
   Edited Based on forum contributions
6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
    edit: I am referring to an overall strategy, not to specific tactical situations that may arise
10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).

I hope this will get some good discussions going. We can also set up separate threads if any of the above points seem to generate a lot of discussion.

@PainState:

what happens if Japan goes J1 and brings the USA into the war?

IMO if the Allies play it right it ends any pretense of Sea Lion and stops it dead in its tracks.

I’ve thought about this from the Axis perspective and I still like the idea of a G2/J1 with Sealion threat. If the U.S. responds in the Atlantic even though you went hog wild in the Pacific, then Japan has gotten away with something big.

I have come to the conclusion that the US must spend their first turn on countering whatever Germany appears to be planning no matter what it is. There is too much at stake over there and the Germans have too much of a defensive advantage not to try and do something early.

With 52 IPC’s, I think it’s a good idea to buy 4 bombers and send them over along with the starting bomber if Germany bought all land units G1. If Sealion is possible, I would strongly consider moving the California fleet to sz 89 even if Japan blew up the stuff at Pearl J1. It looks cowardly but it’s practical.

Then you go Pacific for several rounds since it’s harder for Japan to defend against a naval approach.

@PainState:

It seems based on the feed back that Germany is a take Moscow out by Turn 8 or concede country.

@PainState:

I have to say that makes this game seem, I don’t know, one dimensional and lacking.

I don’t think that’s the takeaway from what everyone has said.

If you put everything into taking Moscow by G8 and then fail, then yes, you should concede because the Allies have probably been eating in to Italy and your other flanks. You’ve sacrificed everything else and made the game one-dimensional by doing so.

You don’t have to do it that way. Germany’s role does not have to be to get Moscow as soon as possible. Certainly it is possible to get it by G8, but you should be willing to call off the G8 assault well in advance if it isn’t looking favorable. You should of course keep pushing, forcing the Allies to continue spending defensively, but also start dealing with the other situations in time so that your entire economy doesn’t fold. In this case there is still an advantage to having all those troops on the eastern front - you can hold the southern Russia territories and maybe advance into the Middle East, strengthening your economy and helping you fight off the Allies.

I think the takeaway is that Germany at least has to put up a credible threat to take Moscow no matter what else they do. Out of the seven VC’s held by the Allies on the European board after G1, Moscow is by far the best path to winning because it is also one of three capitals but easier to take and easier to defend than the other two. For this reason, saying “credible threat to take Moscow” is like saying “credible threat to win the game”. If Germany doesn’t step it up and do something major, the Allies will be able to recover from their defensive posture too soon.

In this light, Sealion can also be viewed as a threat to take Moscow. You aren’t actually going to win by holding on to London and then gathering more VC’s. You’re going to take Britain out of the fight so that you and Italy can fight the Russians unhindered.

Right, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Players need to be able to shift strategies rapidly in this game depending on what their opponents do. Aircraft are very powerful because they can be redeployed easily to accomplish this goal. Placing new IC’s is another tool players have available to shift their resource deployment strategies.

I believe that the OP’s suggestion of building a Romania major has been debunked, but the possibility and its effect on the board is something that players should remain aware of.

By the way, I should mention that the “Cobra Kai” opener involves a G1 Romanian minor purchase. The idea is to seize and hold income producing territories rapidly with a tank push. What do you all think of that ploy?

A few observations:

In response to benlessard:

1. In your simulations, you are valuing tanks at 5. Most of the players on this thread work with a cost of 6.

2. In your list of battles vs. 99 infantry, wouldn’t the 60% battle with the most infantry be optimum considering that you want as strong a defense as possible for your stack after you take the territory in question? If the battle will win the game, then obviously this isn’t a consideration. However, most battles don’t win the game and so for general strategy, shouldn’t weigh the stack towards infantry?

You’ve obviously read Don’s essay on the infantry push mechanic. That’s essentially the idea I’m repeating here. In modern A&A, mobility is a lot more important and that is certainly a factor as well, but it’s a complicating factor and our discussion about these calculations hasn’t reached that scope yet. So my question is do you agree with the infantry push mechanic and weighing the stack towards infantry?

In response to Baron Munchhausen:

Your point is taken with regard to having the thread in a place where everyone can see it. The problem is that all of these threads are just going to get moved to player help! I don’t think that’s really the best place for them, do you?

Doesn’t it depend on Germany’s overall strategy?

If Germany is trying to take Moscow as fast as possible, then the starting IC’s are enough.

If something goes wrong or if Germany is just trying to seize and hold income producing territories, they could make use of additional IC’s on the front.

Ok, you guys have brought me around. I’m going to try the W. Ukraine factory in my next few games.

There have been a few dismissive remarks on this thread, and I recall a few more on previous threads that I participated in. Regardless of how well you are able to use them in your games, I say that the ideas on this thread are worthwhile for the simple reasons that they shed new light on mathematical principles that underlie this game and that those mathematical principles are the exact same principles that underlie actual modern warfare.

It may well be that none of this math works as well as just dividing total punch by 6 and running through the rounds in your head. On the other hand, it is possible that going down this path will lead to insights that allow players to assess the situation even more quickly than that. Maybe the insights will not lead to greater speed, but will help players craft their overall strategies better.

I understand that many players (perhaps a majority) will not be swayed by this argument, and don’t want to be troubled with formulas and calculations. Can we be respectful of both sides and create a new section on this forum dedicated to exploring these principles further? Does anyone else think that’s a good idea?

Added benefit: if we had a board devoted to the mathematics of Axis and Allies, then the four threads about the VANN FORMULAS would not currently be clogging up the player help board.

What about building an airbase in Soviet Far East and having the Americans send stacks of fighters through Asia, first threatening Japan and then moving onward to reinforce your troops in or near your capital?

But you can’t mechanize artillery.

Can we steer this discussion into an actual application towards developing strategy?

Take a German push into Russian territory. Germany needs to be concerned with a stack of units in Moscow whose average power is slightly higher than 2. Russia is going to be building a lot of infantry and artillery so there is very little skew - the exception would be if UK / US have landed a bunch of fighters there.

Germany is going to bring a bunch of tanks and its air force to the battle, but it will also have infantry attacking at one. The average power will likely be higher than the Russian stack’s, and there will be a significant skew as well.

It makes intuitive sense that you should just try to match the number of units that they have over there, and your greater power as well as the skew in your favor will win you the battle. Can we use the Lanchester tables to be a little bit more precise in our assessment of this strategic objective?

Sure, enigma works fine as a name.

For the tables you are developing, why don’t we call them Lanchester tables? They are very clearly a derivative of his work.