Posts made by MarineIguana

@Black_Elk:

The move Marine Iguana mentioned is often referred to as hitting Pearl “Light.”

Actually, there’s no “Pearl Heavy” version in this map. The hawaii sz ends up as a deadzone for Japan, even if with maximum forces are projected R1. One option is to trade efficiently, leaving minimal forces in the deadzone. The other realistic option is to not attack at all. attack retreat or trading with a different composition that what I stated earlier are possible, but clearly suboptimal.

Black Elk echoes the point that Japan destroying the US Pearl Harbor limits the United States possible options. More than the raw TUV gain, limiting your opponent’s range of moves makes the opponent’s set of moves more consistent and predictable. Predictable opponent moves are the key to winning consistently. With consistency, you will build experience with the situation. With experience, you’ll be able to visualize outcomes 1 round, 2 rounds, 10 rounds ahead of when they happen.

A move that most A&A players aren’t aware of is attacking pearl with 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 2 fig, and 1 bomber. Japan can guaranteed sink pearl profitably in Low Luck settings. With dice, it’s a 14.92 expected value battle. Take the fighter as a loss, so that Japan doesn’t need to move a carrier to sz53.

Expected losses for US are 1 sub, 1 dest, 1 car, 1 fig
Expected losses for japan are 1 sub, 1 fig, and something like a 70% of cruiser

The important point is the Japan attacks with 2 japan fighters, 1 of which can’t land without a carrier during non-combat. Take that 1 fighter as a loss in the battle. Most casual players aren’t aware fighters need a declared landing point during combat move, but that landing point (carrier) doesn’t need to move there if the fighter is lost.

Japan trades naval with US at an advantage. Japan trades 1 figher for 1 fighter. Japan essentially makes any US play in the Pacific super unrewarding, limiting US options to just committing to the Atlantic.

––
Caveat: This kind of move is expected among experienced players with 500+ games experience. It’s simply the obvious move for expert players; by comparison, it’s as obvious as a beginner knowing that Russia should attack Wrussia in Round 1. In a casual game, pulling a move like this where people need to refer to the rules book can lead to upset experiences.

Egypt is one of the interesting starting territories.

Without any additional allied units in Egypt, it’s questionable whether attacking egypt is actually a positive exchange for Germany. Germany takes on a high volatility profitable trade (on average) in Egypt at the cost of exposing the battleship and transport to UK air R1. The main benefit of taking Egypt is that Egypt is the path towards other africa income. Losing the germany med transport completely stalls this option.

On the net, Germany attacking Egpt destroys UK units in Egypt in return of losing Germany Africa land units and risking germany med fleet.

Any additional unit to Egypt makes attacking Egypt completely unattractive. Allies should do this if the egypt units are important to the strategy, or wants to play a conservative/uninteresting* game.

*By uninteresting game, I mean a game where both players avoid battles with risky outcomes. The usual result is that both sides accumulate units instead of engaging in battles.

@Baron:

@MarineIguana,
Interesting demonstration about trading 1 Infantry or 2 Infantries.

Your Maths are pretty interesting for the operations required to evaluate the cost of trading.
However, it is still an approximate calculation.
And, this doesn’t consider the risk of loosing a plane with a lucky defense score with both Infantries if you only attack with 1 Infantry.

It is quite a good thing to make a 1 Inf for 2 Infantries exchange over a 2 IPCs territory but things get sour if you loose a precious 10 IPCs Fighter because you didn’t bring enough fodder.

(Many times in my games, lucky Russians rolls either a 1 or 2 for defense.)

So, a cautious player will tend to bring at least the same number of fodder than the enemy to back up his planes against such drawback.

I don’t know how to calculate such things, but in game this kind of intuitive rule prevail usually.

Expected value is an exact calculation. By “approximate calculation”, I think you mean variance. The probabilities are known and outcomes deterministic. Since Axis and Allies contains finite pieces, you can simply plot a Bayesian tree in conjunction with the expected value calculations to evaluate whether the battle is an acceptable risk-reward trade-off. For example, maybe a large naval battle has a +20 expected value, but 18 of 216 outcomes lead to unacceptable outcomes. If you are 95+% confident you will win without the battle, there’s no need to risk the battle.

Axis and allies is at its essence a statistical optimization wrapped in a pretty WW2 theme. Sure you can “go by the gut”, but it will consistently lose to someone who actually does the math. I totally understand if people want to play the game casually and don’t want the game to be work. I thought some people might appreciate what play at the highest levels involves.

Dynamics of a near perfect game by both sides:

• Among top players, there are surprisingly few battles. Defense is cheaper than offense in Axis & Allies because infantry are consistently the most overpowered unit in every official Axis and Allies edition.
• Both sides accumulate large stacks and seek to project offensive and defensive power efficiently. Exchanging of valuable border territories will happen where the battles have positive expected values for each side.
• If both sides are accumulating units in the same proportion, axis is favored because concentrating units in 2 powers is better than 3. To maintain balance, allies usually need a 10 income edge over axis.
• The winner will accumulate defensive units until it can move adjacent to the enemy stack. If that enemy stack is forced back, the aggressor gains additional income without any battle. This can happen iteratively up through moscow/Berlin falling. The winner is able to bully the loser into retreating up to the point that the income differential is too large to come back from without a single large battle. I’ve both won and lost games where I had a stack of over 200 infantry and 100 tanks. I think my record was over 200 tanks at one point.

––

Hobbes with respect to if 2 defending infantry. It’s more profitable to send 1 infantry, but just barely. Theres additional consideration such as the opportunity cost of the fighters, the number of enemy fighters to efficiently trade, whether it’s acceptable to risk leaving the territory in enemy control if attack fails to capture it (e.g. enemy could stack with fighters).
send 2 inf to a 2 ipc territory:
2/3: +2 territory, +6 2 enemy 2 inf killed, + 1 (1/3 *3 inf counter) - 6 two of your inf lost = +3
1/3: +2 terr, +6 2 enemy inf, +2 (2/3 * 3 inf counter) - 6 two of your inf lost = + 4
2/3 * 3 + 1/3 * 4 = 3.3333

send 1 inf to a 2 ipc territory:
2/3 +0 territory, +6 2 enemy inf, + 0 counter - 3 your 1 inf = +3
1/3 +2 terr, +6 2 enemy inf, + 1 (1/3 * 3 inf counter ) - 3 your 1 inf  = +6
2/3 * 3 + 1/3 * 6 = 4.000

My point is to describe the framework I use to evaluate the profitability of each attack. Memorizing all the small scale trading situations is useful, but one can always calculate it if the framework is understood.

@Private:

Hi Marine Iguana

As you say you are happy to answer questions can I ask you to explain the bomber 0.92 calculation.

Thanks
PP

5/6 times a bomber avoids AA fire and strategically bombs. The expected value (i.e. average) of a d6 is 3.5. (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6
5/6 * 3.5 = 2.91666

1/6 times a bomber is hit by AA fire, is lost, and fails to bomb. 1/6 * -12 unit loss = -2

2.91666 - 2 = 0.916666

–—
detour into math for intermediate players who want to take Axis & Allies to the next level

Imagine a scenario where Germany and UK is trading Belorussia. Belo is worth 2 IPC, 1 uk inf is currently in belo, and 100+ unit stable stacks are in west russia and eastern europe respectively. Assume UK and Germany has 6 fighters free to trade. Should Germany trade with 1 infantry 2, infantry, or not trade at all?

2 ger inf:
2/3 uk inf fails to hit: +2 territory + 3 uk inf killed + 2 (2/3 * 3 uk inf killed in counter) - 6 (2 ger inf lost in the overall exchange) = +1
1/3 uk inf hits: +2 territory + 3 uk inf + 1 (1/3 * 3 uk inf killed) - 6 ger inf = 0
2/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 0 = 0.666 expected value

Let’s try this with 1 ger inf:
2/3 uk inf fails to hit: +2 territory + 3 uk inf + 1 (1/3 * 3 uk inf) - 3 (only 1 ger inf) = +3
1/3 uk inf hits: +0 territory + 3 uk inf + 0 (0/3 * 3 uk inf) - 3 ger inf lost ) = +0
2/3 * 3 + 1/3 * 0 = 2 expected value

not attacking at all:
0 expected value

The overall conclusion is that fighters allow you to trade territories more profitably, and that you should use a minimal amount of infantry to maximize your expected value. If your opponent trades 2 territories for 10 rounds sub-optimally with 2 infantry while you trade with 1, you will come out with a ~ 30 IPC advantage. This advantage translates to a 10 infantry edge.

A deep understanding of averages calculated for every battle will make you stronger than 90+% of the players I play with. You can analyze the profit from every battle and just vacuum up profit across the board.

*** end math detour ***

To Oddbjoern: By KAF, do you mean US forcing Germany out of Africa? I feel that the default way I play is to do this first, then pressure Germany. This reduces Germany’s income and prepares US to land/trade in the mediterranean territories. A good German player will not allow US to land a stack directly in Europe. Germany must be first weakened through prolonged trading.

I honestly haven’t played enough against top players on 1942 2nd edition to conclude that KJF is materially worse than KGF. I can definitely make such a statement for the Revised map. 1942 2nd edition has added two features that makes KJF potentially more rewarding:

1. India IC. Pressuring Japan to prevent it from taking India is viable and is a +6 net income gain. In revised, India was hopeless to hold. In the Revised edition, the only real income Allies can gain from the Pacific was when Japan naval defense collapses and US can stack East Indies, Borneo. FIC would follow soon after. Against a good Japan, this collapse can take 10-20 rounds to happen, if ever.

2. Subs at 2 attack, 1 defense, 6 cost makes direct naval attack attractive. US by massing subs can force Japan to buy an equal amount of navy. In revised, subs were 2 attack, 2 defense, 8 cost so it was more expensive to amass attack. Japan could use the starting force and spend less in navy than the US for many turns to advance in asia, while US was stuck accumulating navy that provided no immediate profit.

Well written article. It seems that you have a solid grasp of the A&A mechanics. Below are some of my thoughts as an experienced player (800+ games of revised, probably one of the top 10 players on revised, winner of 2014 Kublacon 1942 2nd edition tournament). I’m not saying this out of arrogance, but just to indicate that I’ve thought through this map pretty thoroughly.

Random thoughts:

• The territory structure of India & southeast asia makes it very unrewarding for Allies to push beyond India. Japan can very easily deadzone any stack attempting to move beyond India.
• for similar reasons, Japan can project so much influence on all coastal territories with navy and air that they are essentially japan’s.
• Keeping India is very rewarding for Allies.
• A move that most A&A players aren’t aware of it attacking pearl with 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 2 fig, and 1 bomber. Japan can guaranteed sink pearl profitably in Low Luck settings. With dice, it’s a 14.92 expected value battle. Take the fighter as a loss, so that Japan doesn’t need to move a carrier to sz53. This sets US behind on any all-in attempt to pressure japan through naval.

If i were to pressure Japan:

• Russia places every land unit in reach in Wrus. Seek to deadzone germany off karelia as long as possible.
• either bid 1 inf to egypt or place 1 rus fighter there.
• UK takes out japan dest/trans with cruiser/fig.
• build 3 land in india, 2 fighters in uk. fly uk fighters UK->Wrus-> india. This stack of fighters can become quite scary, accumulating to 20+ by round 10. Fighters achieve the same goal of egypt IC of defending India, but have additional flexibility to deadzone japan navy and landing on US carriers. Egypt IC allows more land units, but this aspect is largely wasted based on the territory structure of india/SE Asia.
• US builds carriers/subs/fig. Goal is to build a navy stack with UK fighters that can overcome Japan’s naval deadzone and take FIC/Borneo. US splitting bombers and navy is a mistake. Navy accumulation is an all or nothing proposition because Japan’s navy can indefinitely deadzone a US navy with only partial investment.
• More generally, I feel that US bombers directed towards japan is suboptimal. It’s more difficult to land bombers in safe places that can consistently hit Japan every turn. There’s a very real risk that Japan with land units pushes allies out of all safe bomber landing locations. In comparison, US bomber towards germany can hit germany production centers safely. Bombers have a 3.5 * 5/6 - 12 * 1/6 = 0.92 expected value gain per bomb run. It’s a high volatility, low profit choice even with complete safety of the bomber landing spot. I’m not saying bombers are terrible, but that a mix of subs/carriers is probably a better choice against solid axis play.

–----
Note, I’m writing this with an advanced A&A player in mind who is also familiar with the 1942 2nd edition map. I’m using a fair amount of jargon. If you have any questions, feel free to reply for clarification or PM me : )

Hi Dave,

This is Andrew, and I participated in last year’s Kublacon tournament.

I agree that the tournament plays very differently, and that Axis has a major edge. 15+ to allies seems like a reasonable range. By far the most important VC is Karelia because it’s the most contestable. France, Phillipines, and India are also considerations.

I’m having a hard time thinking of a tie breaker that i’d feel satisfied with. It seems undesirable to establish tie breakers that alter the immediate game. How about just giving out two prizes without a winner? Short of that, i suggest just rolling a die.

My specific issue with your 4 suggested options is that all favor either the allies or axis.
#1 if both players are strong, the allies will seek to preserve 7 VCs while the axis seeks to capture 1 VC to go from 6 to 7. If one person wins as allies and the other wins as axis, the axis player will come out ahead per this rule.
#2 IPC totals favors Allies heavily, net captured favors Axis heavily
#3 same as #2
#4 heavily favors allies

SZ 37 is definitely not necessary, and it’s a common move I see among weaker players. I would say it compares unfavorably against the range of UK options.

SZ 37 is a major exchange of UK navy for Japan navy/fighters. This has almost no benefit for allies if they intend to pressure Germany. Japan is left with a reduced navy, but even then, it’s enough to accomplish the goal of protecting Japan’s transports, pressuring India, and pressuring Africa. Let’s not even mention that it’s a high volatility battle even with a 1 uk sub bid.

Attacking SZ37 could be worthwhile if allies intend to follow up with USA fully committing to the pacific.

Optimal options in my opinion:

• Attacking SZ61 with a cruiser and fighter. Destroys a critical Japanese transport and slows the Japan deployment.
• retreating the UK trans + cruiser off australia towards africa. Good japan players generally won’t attack because it puts the japan fleet out of position.
• save the 2 uk fighters + bomber to either directly kill Germany med round 1 or threaten to round 2. 2 fighters can also be used to defend India.
• retreating UK carrier off madagascar with the goal of uniting in Europe where it’s actually useful.

My apologies, it’s been a while since i’ve actually played this map since almost nobody plays it on Triplea.

KJF with us naval pressure and no ICs is different and actually competitive vs experienced players.

If you want something nasty, try accumulating battleships. 18 battleships landing with 1 infantry…

The fortress europe strategy works because it is the optimal german strategy for axis to win. Germany retains territory and accepts allied pressure. Japan accumulates units and eventually walks from persia->kaz->cauc->moscow.

The fundamental reason is that infantry are an overpowered unit. 3 cost provides 1att/2def/1mov/1hit. I know it’s a rough measure, but if you sum these stats (5)/3 cost, you’ll see it compares favorably to every other land unit. Note, I’m aware that this is a simplistic measure (e.g. hit points are actually more valuable than att/def/mov); however, the experience from top players is similar. Infantry are the staple of army compositions because they are the all around best unit. It’s been that case through just about every axis and allies iteration. This is speaking from playing something like 800 games of A&A over the past 3 years.

The optimal way for Allies to play is to keep Russia strong.

• UK and US should seek to start landings on germany starting round 4.
• Russia should exchange territories efficiently. E.g. attacking with 1 inf/2fig instead of 2 inf/1fig. seek opportunities to attack and stack that territory to kill the enemy units and deny the enemy income from that territory.
• UK should seek to preserve india. 3 inf/2fig buys maximize india’s defense.

If you buy navy as germany, place it in the med, not Baltic. In my personal view, 1 carrier R1 in the med is effective in saving the battleship and transport.

The territory structure is such that the med is difficult for allies to attack. Any movement past Gibralter is exposed to any Germany navy and air.
In contrast, German navy in the Baltic/north atlantic is exposed to US and UK air and navy. Germany can sometimes project air from western Europe.

Buying german navy units is investing units into a position of weakness.

The dice on Triplea distribution perform consistent very closely to mathematical ideals. An explanation of the algorithm can be found here: http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/OnlineDice
In fact, Triplea dice are even better than real dice which suffer from differences in weight distribution, judging dice on uneven surfaces, and human error.

I attribute people’s perceptions of “unfair dice” to two factors:
A poor understanding of statistics: It’s not particularly surprising to have significant deviations from expected value with such small samples (e.g. 1 fig, 1 inf vs 1 inf). If you run the simulation 10,000 times and I’m confident that the distribution will be centered around the expected value.

Selective human perception: We as humans remember the 3 standard deviation outcomes because they’re unusual. I had a game where one defending transport sank a battleship and survived. You bet that I remember this event; it was a 0.3% probability (3z) event from expected value. Yet, I don’t remember the thousands of events where the outcome was about expectations

Seawolf has it right. The game hugely favors axis at the beginner level because Germany steamrolls Russia. Both players will make major positioning mistakes, but germay starts with more offense to punish the mistakes.

Playing the game at high levels, the map still favors Axis, but not by much.

@seawolf:

Hi,

I think that the game is slightly in favor of the axis. But for new players, the advantage is huge. When we had just started playing this game, our 4 first games ended in axis victory in round 5, 6 or 7. The 2 last games was played with a 15 bid for the allies.

The axis are a lot easier to play. Pushing headless for Moscow with Germany, and India + Moscow with Japan is possible against unexperienced players. The allies require more tactics and map awareness. Transporting troops from US and UK require thinking many turns ahead, and correct position of naval vessels and transports are crucial so you dont get your fleet sunk by the axis airforce. And with Russia, you can’t just stack Moscow with inf only and wait for the “big attack” in round 5-6. You have to play smart, strafe-retreat, trade Karelia/Caucasus from your West Russia stack etc.

-seawolf

Yeah, it’s a strong move that I usually see with experienced players.
Caucasus and West Russia are the two territories where it usually happens.

@guni-kid:

Keeping Moscow Soviet until round eight might be possible, even wihout ANY help from the Allies (which should start coming over the Atlantic by round four-five latest), but keeping the German from producing in Karelia until round five is basically impossible, if the German goes purchasing full land (mostly tanks and fighters) beginning G1. An example:

I largely agree. Russia will be unable to deadzone karelia by around round 5. Germany produces 13 compared to Russia ~7-8.
I want to note it’s counter intuitive, but infantry are actually much stronger than tanks and fighters for offensive pressure. The reason is that with tank and fighter purchases, the stack doesn’t have the defensive power to move adjacent to the opponent’s stack.

@guni-kid:

Soviet turn 1 takes West-Russia and Baltic States, stacking the first with almost everything available.

Agreed

@guni-kid:

German turn 1 could bring up to 7 Inf and 3 tanks to Karelia (using the transport in the Baltic Sea), also taking Baltic States back and keeping his fighters close for defense. Then what? If the Soviet takes Karelia back wih the West-Russian stack and Caucasus with Soviet turn 1 purchase units, Caucasus is quite weakly stacked and Karelia in a heavy German deadzone… So whats left from the attack on the Soviet side is taken by G2: 5-6 tanks, 3-4 Inf, up to 8 figters… And that’s it with the Soviet stack and keeping Germany out of Karelia…

Trading heavily as you’re describing is decisively unfavorable for Russia. For the reason that 1. UK/USA can’t support until round 4 and 2. germany produces 13 vs 7-8 of Russia.

End of Russia R1, zero bid, attacking Baltic with 1inf/1art/1fig and stacking Wrus:
Wrus 9 inf/2art/4tank
Arch: 2 inf
Baltic states: 0 units or 1 art
Russia: 2 inf/2 fig/+purchases

If germany stacks Karelia R1 with 7 inf/3tanks counter stack karelia with 11 inf/2art/4tank/2fig. Attack-retreat for 1 round with expected outcome of 6 germany inf lost and 4 Russia inf lost. Russia has an even better trade if Russia gains an extra 1-2 artillery in the initial bid. If low luck, Russia should attack retreat 2 rounds and leave germany with 1 tank in Karelia.
With Russia R1 purchases moved to Wrus, Russia can continue to deadzone Karelia unless Germany makes some extremely aggressive purchases. Aggressive purchase caveat: I’ve worked out the math and Germany can stack Karleia R2-R3 only with something like 8 tank buys a turn R1 and R2. This makes it immensely weak vs UK/US R4.

@guni-kid:

So to be honest, I would consider opening up a south front with that Soviet stakc against a weakly defended Ukraine then… Or other stuff, but keeping Germany out of Karelia at all costs is taking the valuable Soviet units down too quickly… Why not taking Karelia back with the Allies, landing in Scandinavia turn 4-5 and attacking the German from round 5-6 on…

If properly played, Russia can trade Karelia on attractive terms if Germany attempts to stack (e.g. kill 6 for 4 inf). Preventing Germany from producing in Karelia is essential or else Germany can produce 15 units a turn with the 2 on Karelia immediately applying pressure.
Ukraine is not as important because 1. it doesn’t have a factory 2. Russia can deadzone from either WRus or Cauc. These 2 territories are strong points of Russia due to production proximity and projection of influence across many territories.

Guni-kid, I think you are on the right track with understanding Germany pressure on Russia. My intention is to show the optimal Russia response to demonstrate why it’s not straightforward for Germany to directly kill Russia starting R1. The scenarios I discussed above are why aggressive Germany purchases (e.g. 8 tanks) and movements (e.g. trying to stack karelia or Ukr R1) are almost never seen between top players. These plays have reliable counters that leave the player at a disadvantage.

The Germany optimal line among top players is to buy 13 units a round, stack France with fighters, and stack baltic states with inf and poland with tanks and just enough infantry to trade ukraine. This is done until Karelia can be safely stacked.

The Russia optimal line is to purchase inf/art, stack Wrus, trade efficiently (e.g. trade Ukr/Belo with 2 fig/1 inf instead of 2 inf/1fig), and deadzone Karelia until R4 when UK/US can apply pressure on Germany.

Without any russia bid:
buy 4 inf, 3 art
1 inf/1 art/ 1fig Baltic states
All other land into Wrus
All eastern russia land moves west. leave nothing in bury
sub to sz7
remove cauc AA and place everything in Rus

Result: West russia is stacked, karelia is deadzoned, russia preserves units

My preference if you can get 12 bid. with 11 bid, replace art going to cauc with inf:
bid 3 art in cauc, rus, kar.
3 inf/2art/2tank/2fig ukraine
3 inf/2art belo
6 inf/2 tank/2art wrus
All eastern russia land moves west. leave nothing in bury
sub to sz7
place 4 units in cauc, rest in russia

Result: more aggressive. Karelia is deadzoned, west russia stacked

Yes, fighters are placed in the sea zone over where the carrier will be placed. This is different from Revised where the fighters are placed on the land (italy) adjacent to the sea zone.

I think you’re generally on the right track. I’ve played at least 400 games of Revised and 50 games of 1942 2nd edition, against many top players.

• Bidding and buying in the Indian ocean does not substantially delay Japan’s deployment in Asia. I strongly believe that UK should buy 3 land in india and 2 fig in UK. Fighters go UK->Wrus->India. This maximizes India defense against land and threatens navy. By round 5-8 12+ fighters in india is tough for Japan to handle.

The problem with buying subs instead of land in india is that Japan can safely land in Yunnan and walk into India. A good Japan player is not going to put the navy in a position to be threatened by UK subs. The worst case scenario is that japan buys the necessary naval defense and lands in Manchuria that round.

• Bidding 1 infantry to egypt makes it safe from R1 german landing. Germany has few options to keep the med fleet alive. Most intermediate players will expose their med fleet to get sunk by 2 fig and 1 bomber. A strong German counter move is to purchase 1 carrier, attack UK cruiser with battleship + fig, land 1 inf in gibralter, attack sz15 destroyer with 2 air and end with 2 fig and 1 carrier off italy. The best allied response to this German opening is to hold egypt and land morocco R3.

• The key with Russia is to prevent germany from producing in Karelia. This is best done by stacking Wrus, purchasing something like 6 inf/1art every round, and trading Wrus. With optimal play from both Germany and Russia, Moscow should never fall before round 8 with zero support from UK and US. With UK/US pressure, Moscow can hold indefinitely. If you’re losing Moscow before round 8-10, it’s because 1. Russia actively trades with Germany but Germany has more air to efficiently trade profitably 2. Russia leaves its troops in a bad position that germany can attack at a profit. 3. Russia allows germany to produce in Karelia before round 5.

• A common mistake with intermediate players is wasting forces trading territories against someone with a larger airforce. The general order from most to least profitable: 1. attacking and stacking the territory, 2. attacking with 1 inf/many figthers, 3. attack retreat, 4. attacking with 2 inf/1fig. Intermediate players don’t take advantage of stacking a territory or attack retreat. For example, a russian player attacking 1 germany inf in belorussia with 2 inf/1fig. Even when Russia captures Belo, germany can counter with 1 inf and 4 fighters to recapture belo (if you do the math, it’s more profitable to trade with 1 inf and overwhelming air than 2 inf unless the territory value is >4).

• Your atlantic moves are on the right track, but you only need 2 carriers unless germany buys more fighters. If Germany plays suboptimally and buys more than 2 new fighters, UK or US can buy 1 extra fighter.
  UK: R1 2 art/1inf/2fig, R2 2inf/1art/2fig, R3 3 inf/2fig, R4 3 inf/2fig … continue until india falls.
  US: R1 2 dest/2bomb, R2 2 carrier/trans/land R3 trans/land

Expected optimal deployment is R3 morocco, R4 europe (mostly trading france and Northwest europe)
The reason for these purchases are to defend India and allow for allies to start trading in Europe starting Round 4.

• Short of going full Kill Japan First, the best way to slow Japan is to hold India. Japan would ideally like to land maximum land units and pressure Russia. Since fighters project pressure on both land and sea, a large stack of fighters can force Japan to buy unwanted navy. Making Japan buy an extra carrier is nearly the same as killing 2 inf and 2 art (14 IPC).

I know I brought up a lot of topics and may have used terminology that’s not familiar. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck! : )

@innohub:

Being a non-expert player, one interesting thing to me, when playing AA, is figuring out a way to destroy the opponent’s optimised purchase.  Perhaps sending a Germany bomber to bomb UK is not optimised for Germany, but if this cost UK a less optimised purchase and let them react to what I do later on, it might be worthwhile to do it too.  Without the full bucks in hand, do you want to maximise fighters or land force?  When Japan commits full resource to attack India it is not easy to defend, in particular when UK can’t make optimised purchase as usual.

If you want to try a non-optimal opening, try buying 5 transports. Then try suiciding all your air and 1 transports against UK R1. 99.8% of the time, you’ll lose about 3 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 inf, 1 tank to kill ~ 2 inf, 1 art from UK.

This forces UK to make a less optimized purchase. Instead of buying 2 inf, 1 art, 2 fig, UK might have to buy 5 inf, 1 art, 1 fig to defend against a germany attack on UK. What’s bad about this strategy? It’s about 80-100 IPC worse than the optimal germany R1 move just on the first round. The effect is then amplified in the subsequent rounds as Germany can’t hold its territories against Russia.

–-- Back to serious discussion ----
An optimal set of moves by its nature puts your units in good position and limits your opponents options. If you can buy some unit that forces the opponent to invest an even larger amount to counter, that could very well be an optimal purchase. For example, Germany could accumulate fighter purchases to force UK and US to buy extra carriers in the Atlantic.

The advice i’m giving presumes that the player wants to maximize the chances of winning. This may strike some people as too intense, and then maybe my advice isn’t appropriate. If you want to just to play for random fun, I suggest trying to get a Japan AA gun to greenland : ).

Germany bombing UK is a very suboptimal move for germany. UK should be pretty happy if germany invests bombers to trade with UK. The allies start with a unit and income advantage over Axis. The Axis have a positional advantage where Japan and Germany can pressure Russia for profit. If Germany invests in bombers to strategic bomb UK, this relieves pressure significantly on Russia.

The optimal R1 for germany involves sinking the UK fleet, trading ukr/belo with russia, and positioning the germany land forces to begin threatening karelia R2-4.

There are so many possible options for purchasing, movement, and attacking in Axis and Allies. The problem is that many of these strategies can be directly and brutally punished with the right opponent counter play. What happens with optimal play is a set of purchases, movement, and attacks where you maximize your chances to win even if the opponent responds optimally.

For example, as Germany could go for a kill USA first strategy. Buy 5 transports in germany R1, move to france R3, and take USA capital in round 3-4. This is a simple 4 round victory for axis. The glaring problem is that the UK air can easily sink the transports, or the US could build an overwhelming number of units in the East US. It’s obvious to even a novice player that this strategy won’t work.

Sea Lion and Germany bombing UK are examples of strategies that can be hard countered by allied response. With Sea Lion, UK buys 6-8 infantry R1. With Germany bombing, russia buys land units and bullies Germany.

Applying this explanation to the UK R1 buy topic, the UK fleet is sunk by germany R1 so it’s not safe to build a fleet. India is a major contested territory, and UK can really influence the outcome through purchases. I believe that 2 fighters, 2 inf, and 1 art maximizes this intent.