Posts made by MarineIguana

I skimmed this thread:

1. Japan pressuring Alaska will only work against bad allied players. Fundamentally, US produces 10 in Western US and has shorter supply lines than Japan producing 8. Against bad players, any number of strategies can work.
In reality, there’s only 1 optimal strategy for Japan vs good players. The priorities are to 1. deadzone the US fleet and 2. deploy land to Asia to pressure India, then Russia & Africa.

2. Don’t build factories R1. Transports > any factory build R1. For 14 cost, transports can deploy 4 units a turn into Manchuria or Yunan. East Indies factory is good, but Japan doesn’t have the transports to utilize Japan production AND East Indies. Timing wise for India pressure, R2 or R3 factory is ideal.

3. India falling before R6 represents a huge blunder by the allies. India provides solid income, and Japan capturing the factory accelerates pressure on Africa and Russia.
India can often can be held indefinitely with a little US pressure on Japan. Even if Japan somehow manages to apply enough pressure, Russia has the option to place enough units to defend India.
The current best practice is to buy 3 land in India, and 2 fighters in UK. Fighters UK -> WRussia/Russia -> India. By accumulating fighters, UK can start really deadzoning japan navy off africa by round 10 with ~20 fighters.
To reiterate, holding India is almost completely the ALLIES CHOICE in the first 20 rounds.

4. UK should almost always send 1 fig, 1 cru to sz 61 and kill the dest and transport. UK fighter lands in szechwan + 1 rus inf makes szechwan safe R1.

Let me know and I can clarify any of these points.

Great post CWO Marc

@SubmersedElk:

@Young:

A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

That’s not necessarily a question of balance but of strategic depth. A good game should have both of course.

My fear is that so much of the G40 map is scripted by the particulars of its design that it leaves no room for strategic depth even if it were balanced. For example, some have said that they have seen games go well without UK doing the Taranto raid, but can they do so against quality Axis players? If not, that attack is effectively scripted by design. When I analyze Allied-side choices, many of them are essentially scripted responses to Axis openers, since deviating from those responses can only produce worse results than the script. When you boil it down to optimal openers followed by scripted responses, it becomes a one-player game (all choices on Axis side), and not a terribly fun one at that.

For what it’s worth, It’s my experience that Axis and Allies is inherently scripted on both sides with one optimal strategy that dominates all others. This is my experience on Revised, 1941 v3, Big World, Global 1940, Lord of the Rings, and New World Order.

Then again, the optimum strategy is complex enough to execute that few/nobody humans can actually attain it. It’s similar to Chess, where state of the art computers have nearly solved the game such that the computer can look at each point and evaluate the decision tree of outcomes to select the best one. The parallel I am drawing is that there’s an inherent optimal play in both game structures, not that Axis and Allies has good AI (doesn’t yet.)

Still, Axis and Allies is a fun game that’s certainly captured my attention across over 500+ full games.

I second regular kid. I’m just starting to learn Global and it’s clear that allies should receive a bid. To be clear though, I have played over 500 games, many at the highest levels in Revised, NWO, etc.

patterns I notice in high level play:

• Germany can consistently pressure Russia back to Moscow by turn 7
• Japan normal pattern is to force china to the edges and UK out of india.
• UK needs a bid to neutralize Italy. Otherwise axis can consistently achieve income parity
• Games seem to be short and end within 15 rounds. This is refreshing considering that high level NWO games last ~25 rounds and revised can easily last 40.

I’m always puzzled when people make the suggestion of playing better as the solution for strengthening the weaker side. The purpose of the bid is to an even game among players at the same skill level. Such posts are often followed by bad play suggestion (e.g. keeping russia in Bury, when the territory structure so dramatically favors Japan.

Buy much more navy than land. Purchases should reflect specific goals, rather than nebulous ratios.

The goal is to deadzone/prevent US from advancing onto Japan’s major income islands. Japan can do this with heavy sub purchases and good positioning. Due to the territory structure, allies can’t hope to hold coastal territories, so long as Japan’s navy is alive. Japan at worst trades a couple coastal territories.

By far the most common mistake with KJF is 1. japan doesn’t know how to attack pearl profitably. 2. doesn’t buy/position appropriate such that US can advance.

A good japan should be able to deadzone US with 100% us navy buys for at least 15-20 rounds. No joke.

Attacking sz 37 is bad as UK. Even if UK wins the 50/50, Japan can clean up and still completely control the pacific. Only makes sense to attack sz 37 if us is going all-in on Japan. Much better to sink the Japan trans and destroyer with a cruiser and fighter. Retreat everything else.

UK should buy 3 land in India and 2 fighters UK for many rounds. UK fighters fly to wrussia and then India. Fighters provide critical support to these important territories and can threaten Japan fleet eventually.

I’m pretty sure that Russia attacking only wrussia with everything r1 is optimal without a bid. With a bomber bid, Ukraine is attractive. Attacking Ukraine and wrussia risks Germany stacking Karelia r1 which is a disaster for Russia. Russia can do a surprisingly good job preventing Germany from stacking Karelia. They key is to preserve forces and buy tanks as necessary.

UK/us fleet structure is such that landing Africa r3 and Europe r4 is standard. Germany has many territories. It strongly favors allies to trade in as many as possible.

Standard allied path to victory with good play on both sides looks like this. Russia holds wrussia with uk support, UK holds India with buys and fighters. Us and UK fleet trade with Germany for 10-20 rounds until germany is weakened. I imagine a standard game takes about 18-28 rounds to conclude. Games with a large skill diff can be over in 12.

Why should you believe me? I have played over 600 games of revised at the highest levels. New world order as well. There are barely any players of this map so I haven’t actually played this map in a while. I’m not currently aware of any players stronger than me on this map. If you would like to play, please pm me :)

Latest OS, 1.8.0.5 worked with no problems

exact same error for me:
triplea.engine.version.bin:1.8.0.7
Setting memory for new triplea process to: 887m
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Icon file not found
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ProcessRunnerUtil.populateBasicJavaArgs(ProcessRunnerUtil.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ProcessRunnerUtil.populateBasicJavaArgs(ProcessRunnerUtil.java:30)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.TripleAProcessRunner.joinGame(TripleAProcessRunner.java:131)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.TripleAProcessRunner.joinGame(TripleAProcessRunner.java:124)
at games.strategy.engine.lobby.client.ui.LobbyGamePanel.joinGame(LobbyGamePanel.java:414)
at games.strategy.engine.lobby.client.ui.LobbyGamePanel.access$000(LobbyGamePanel.java:46)
at games.strategy.engine.lobby.client.ui.LobbyGamePanel$6.mouseClicked(LobbyGamePanel.java:165)

@craykirk:

Take a look at this save game and help me understand how this is supposed to work…  I even took a bomber bid.  had 8 inf, 2 art, 4 arm, 2 AA in West Russia and lost it all to 7 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 5 fig, 1 bmb.  British navy gone as well.  the only thing that didn’t work out for Germany was 2 sub vs dst, 2 trn which should have been an easy win.  Time for me to use the battle calculator a bit more.

You opening was fine. Your opponent just had a 2 standard deviation outcome on west russia R1. Options are to play low luck or not attack with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 bomber. Play low luck if you want to emphasize skill in determining the outcome. Play dice if you want volatility and risk management.

I understand what Larry Harris was trying to do since revised. For just about every version, the default strategy is to pressure Germany and largely ignore Japan. UK IC, less profitable pearl harbor, and expectation that UK and US atlantic fleet are sunk R1 are consistent with making KGF less rewarding and KJF more viable.

Cow’s suggestions largely accumulate allied units in the germany theater. This would make KGF the default choice again, not to mention that adding a net 40+ IPC worth of units to allies seems excessive. Just play Revised if you want that game.

If I were to make adjustments, I might remove 1 tank, 1 art from germany. I would also add maybe 2 inf and 1 art to US in China and make a China territory worth 2 IPC. This way, US could conceivably pressure Japan from China.

Just drop 4 infantry in ukraine. If the bid is 15, drop 5. If the bid is 30, drop 10. Ukraine is the clear rewarding land territory to place marginal units. It is because:
1. The battle is fairly close
2. The units in that territory are valuable to destroy.
3. The Territory structure doesn’t favor the opponent significantly. As a contrast, Manchuria and Karelia are really unfavorable.

Russia starts with plenty of offense. Without any bid, Russia can just about attack any 2 territories and destroy all opposing units in 2 rounds of rolls. The benefit of additional offense seems small, unless Russia really wants to attack 3 territories. If you run the calculations, attacking 3 territories is less profitable, unless you truly get a huge 15+ ipc bid dedicated to russia. Russia simple starts with enough offense to efficiently destroy 2 territories of units. Spreading units to a 3rd makes each individual territory less profitable, such that the net is less profitable.

Just like every preceding axis and allies game, infantry are overpowered. If you want to maximize the likelihood to win, just buy and utilize the overpowered units, and avoid the underpowered ones.

The territory structure around Karelia makes stacking it unrewarding for Russia. Germany can project force very easily from bordering infantry, all fighters and all tanks.

I find that placing multiple units in the same territory distorts initial starting conditions.

One example is ukraine, where I would bid.
1. Just drop 3 infantry in cauc
2. attack ukraine with 6 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig and everything else to Wrussia.
3. move the AA to ukraine

Now Germany has to initiate expensive trading of ukraine (expected that 2 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 1 aa remain in ukraine R1). Germany needs to commit at least 7 inf, 2 tanks to even get a positive TUV counter. The result is that Russia deadzones Karelia R1, and Germany is unable to stack Karelia for many rounds because the infantry east of Germany were largely used to counter attack ukraine. Russia can use Cauc placed units to trade back Ukraine R2, while maintaining a deadzone of Karelia from WRussia.

@Horus40k:

Hi a&a forums!
     
      Im new to posting so I apologize in advance if I go against any policies, rules or ediquite. Anyways, I have only played 2 games with a&a 1942 second edition; both of which I played the axis and have grown to love them. I’ve never finished a game due to time and things seemed pretty balanced at the end of turn 7 which we’ve ended on both times. I play with my friend and he is completely new to a&a like I am so it gives us both room to improve and grow.
     
      Im not here to talk about strategies him or I have, or want to discuss, but Id like some insight on ‘dead zoning’ and ‘light trading’. I have a rough idea about what they are but Id like a more detailed explanation on it because those two tactics seem to very strong and advantageous. Like how much of your force to commit to a dead zone and how much you should leave, there if any. This goes for land and navy too as both are just as important.

Thanks in advance.

Horus, you’re asking a fantastic question. By understanding the fundamental mechanics, you’re setting yourself up for success.

Terminology
Deadzone: a territory that the opponent can attack for a profit
Stack: a big pile of units
Stacking: moving a the stack of units into a new territory
Trading: The act of exchanging a territory back and forth in the same turn. Each player attacks with just enough land units (plus fighters)
to take the territory.
IPC: the “money” in Axis and Allies
Strafing: attacking and retreating. The attacker has the option of retreating at the end of every round of battle.

Over thousands of games played, top players in Axis and Allies have noticed consistent battle patterns emerge.

1. One very common pattern is two opposing stacks separated by deadzone territories. The classic position is Germany in Eastern Europe, and Russia in West Russia. The deadzones are Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine. As Private Panic mentioned, neither side has the defensive strength to move forward without placing that stack in a deadzone (i.e. the opponent could attack for a big profit).

2. Eventually, the side with more income or more efficient trading will accumulate units at a faster rate. At this point, that person’s stack can move forward. The opponent can not attack that stack for a profit.

2a. Scenario one is that the stack advancing forward doesn’t have the OFFENSIVE power to force the opponent’s stack back. In this case, both stacks are in adjacent territories.
2b. Scenario two is that the advancing stack has sufficient offensive power, and forces the opponent’s stack to retreat. If the opponent’s stack stay’s, it is in a deadzone.

3. The player who advances forward gains additional income.

It is very common for newer players not to recognize deadzones. These players retreat when not necessary, or fail to retreat when a stack is threatened. These result in short, bloodbath type games.

Argothair’s post is excellent. He goes into the detailed calculations showing how Russia can deadzone Karelia if Russia buy a little offense.
Below, I’d like to approach the issue at a broader strategic level.

The Broad Idea
Your friend’s 2 biggest mistakes are 1. all infantry purchases fail to deadzone Karelia 2. Russia easily concedes West Russia, the strongest defensive territory for Russia. All infantry buys are too passive and allows Germany advance a stack adjacent to Russia because Russia doesn’t project enough offensive power. Based on these mistakes, it’s no surprise to me that your friend is crushed consistently.

The counter
The main counter to mass tank purchases is for Russia to stack West Russia, preserve forces, and deadzone adjacent territories as long as possible.

R1: Buy 4 inf, 3 art. Attack only West russia and stack with all forces that can reach it. Place 1 inf in cauc and rest in russia.
R2: Buy inf and enough tanks to deadzone Karelia. Make sure ukraine and karelia are deadzoned and that Germany can’t produce from Karelia.
R3+ do the same. Try to keep trading Karelia. If Germany is able to produce from Karelia, it’s only 1-2 more rounds before Russia is forced off West Russia.

In low luck settings, it’s pretty much an automatic loss if Germany purchases 6 tanks R1 and allies respond well. Germany’s stack is defensively weak and can’t advance to threaten Russia. Eventually, Germany is forced to trade using tanks. As such, the purchase is considered a gimmick, and relies on the opponent to make a big mistake. I personally prefer to assume that my opponent is strong and play strategies that have a good probability of winning against good opponents.

Some food for thought (a digression)

Axis and Allies is inherently a zero sum game. If a major battle happens, one player has probably made a mistake.

If the offensive player advances into a territory that the opponent can attack for a profit, it’s a mistake.
If the offensive player advances, and the defending player doesn’t appropriately retreat, it’s a mistake.
It’s not unusual at high level play for a 25 round game to end in resignation without a single major battle.

Black Elk pretty much nails it.

It’s counter-intuitive, but artillery is most effective defensively in attempting to deadzone adjacent territories. The offensive player will prefer to mass infantry to build defense stats for a stack that can move adjacent to the defensive player.

This is all assuming that both players recognize and respond to deadzones.

I’ll play if black elk does

I think US fighters buy could work if Germany tries to hold France and/or NW Europe without recognizing that Allies can attack for a profit. If Germany recognizes the situation and withdraws, allies would take an unreasonably large loss trying to land in the early (<10 rounds).

You’re right on about the need to alleviate pressure. It’s not that fighters can’t work, but there are better alternatives.
3 bomber US R1 buy or a standard navy & land accumulation comes to mind.

If you want to pressure Germany ASAP, purchasing all bombers R1 and 2 is viable. Bombers strategic bombing trade at a slight profit.

Air units generally don’t trade profitably against other units without land units to take losses.

A good player isn’t going to park units in Paris, and allow the allies to initiate a profitable exchange. The best axis move is to either hold paris with enough units, or cede the territory for trading. Trading Paris is a very reasonable Axis response to Allied pressure.

The real reason that mostly land & naval purchases is preferable is that it allows US to start trading territories at even cost or at a profit. Compared to revised, there are additional territories available to trade (e.g. northwestern europe) and less germany production (13 compared to revised 16). US can realistically start trading with Germany starting round 4.

In summary, a direct attack (especially with air) isn’t going to work against solid axis play. Consistent good play in KGF has 3 stages:
1. a long series of small, profitable trading exchanges
2. landing/advancing a stack that can hold a major territory in Europe, further reducing axis income
3. Accumulating units until Germany’s capital is deadzoned.

Air units do have a purpose in enabling efficient US trading.

@DarthMaximus:

I think you can use a US AC/ftr strat for the Pac.  This relies on almost exclusive US Ac/ftr buys for Sz 56 early on.  Depending on how aggressive you want to be with your buys early you can force IJN north given the reach of Ftrs from Carriers.

Even with a Pearl attack the US can have the remaining fleet move to Sz 56 (including Cruiser in Sz 19) and buy 2 AC, 1 ftr (save 4).  If I’m not mistaken that’s 1 trn, 1 dd, 1 cru, 1 bb, 2 ac, 4 ftrs plus a bomber lurking.  On US 2 you can add another AC/2 ftrs and a dd.  Etc.

Depending on what you do with the UK Pacific ships (particularly the UK AC) you can have quite a reach in the Pac fairly quickly.

The big question is how much of the early buying power of the US do you want to divert to the Atlantic.  You can adjust your US 1 buy and get some token units the Atlantic, but you’ll still want to buy at least 1 AC for sz 56 on US 1.

US needs to commit 100% of income to pacific. Otherwise, a good Japan can deadzone the US fleet from all money islands for 10+ rounds easily with buying 6 subs a turn. Japan has comparable income to US, but needs to devote at least 5-10 IPC into infantry. The only way US stacks borneo/phillipines/east indies is by investing more than Japan consistently.

–—
Argothair, historical accuracy is irrelevant in this game in my opinion. It’s also ahistorical that axis have a fighting chance, that dice accurately capture combat, that there were only 5 nations, etc.

Honestly, there’s a fair bit of misinformation.

Examples:

• Russia has no hope of holding siberia and other northeast terriotories. China and sinkiang are also questionable. Russia can guaranteed stack sinkiang R1, but japan can deadzone both territories by R3.
• UK has zero chance of securing income in Asia. Nor is it Uk’s responsibility.
• US doesn’t need an alaska IC. Alaska IC positions production one turn closer to japan capital, but 1. places it in a territorially problematic position. Japan production can immediately pressure alaska with no additional movement. 2. US defending alaska is at odds with the general desire to stack east indies/borneo for income in the south.

Good KJF play:
Rus: Russia should seek to delay Germany. Without any UK or US support, Russia is expected to hold west russia at least 7 rounds and Moscow for ~12 rounds. With some UK fighter support, this can be significantly extended. Attack and stack west russia R1. The single most important tip is to deadzone Karelia as long as possible. Avoid trading territories with Germany and seek to preserve units. As a tangible example, avoid trading 2-3 border territories (e.g. belo, ukr, kar) with Germany. Choose to attack 1 territory with 1 inf/2fig instead.

**UK:**UK’s role is to hold India and prevent an early capture of Moscow. UK fighter buys are well positioned to defend west russia, moscow, and india. The fighters also have the option of landing on US carriers positioned in borneo/East Indies.

**US:**US role is to reduce Japan income. The best way is to build a naval defensive stack of carriers, fighters, and subs and seek to stack borneo or east indies. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but the best aggression in Axis & allies to build a stack with the defense to advance forwards. It’s the defender that should purchase offensive units to deadzone territories (I can elaborate if people want). An ideal move is to have ~6 carriers by round 5 and seek to move into Borneo/East Indies with uk fighters landing at round 6.

Gotchas and things to avoid:

• Building ICs. These are expensive and aren’t consistent with building naval pressure that will reduce Japan income. The territory structure of Asia favors Japan, so it’s relatively unattractive for allies to invest ICs in egypt or china.
• US Buying too many subs. Japan can deadzone a sub heavy composition through heavy sub purchases.
• Attacking SZ37 unless allies bid at least 1 sub. It’s simply too risky. I like to win every time, and I choose not to rely on luck to win.

I’m targeting my advice at intermediate/reasonably experienced players that want to take their play to the next level. I’m fairly confident that my template is close to the optimal Allied play. There are probably refinements that I’m doing sub-optimally because honestly there are few/no top players regularly playing this map online.

Some of my terminology and assumptions can be confusing if you’re new to A&A. Please let me know if anything I said is confusing, and I can elaborate. I realize that the vast majority of players are casual and aren’t interested in playing 300 games at a high level to master the game. That’s totally fine : )

Good tips Argothair.

Personally I just enjoy winning consistently.

The game of Axis and Allies at its essence is simply probabilities, statistics, and solving systems of equations wrapped in a pretty World War 2 wrapper. Infantry, tanks, fighters, whatever, are objects that contain attributes. These objects, along with other parameters are used to maximize some f(x) which outputs the probability of winning. It would be neat to solve axis and allies, much the same way that tic tac toe or checkers has been solved. Probably won’t happen in the next 5 years.

Somehow i’ve taken a casual strategy board game and turned it into work :-/
Maybe i’m taking my board games too seriously.