Posts made by newpaintbrush

G1 (Germany’s first turn continued)

The Story So Far:

Our Hero Bunnies decided to try a Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack because he was feeling uppity.  Instead of Lady Luck smacking down Our Hero for even attempting such an audacious attack, Lady Luck smiled on Our Hero and smote the Axis player.  Mightily.  In fact, certain suspicious whispers entertain the possibility of our Lady Luck having certain improper relations with Our Hero Bunnies.  Litigation pending.

Although Bunnies doesn’t know the particulars of what the German player thought, Bunnies feels free to engage in speculation regarding What Might Have Been.  Currently under the magnifying glass is a G3 (Germany’s third turn) attack on Caucasus.  This, because it has been established that Germany’s holding or at least taking Caucasus early on is often a Good Thing, but under the current game, a G2 grab would probably not result in Automatic Game Win.  (although it looks like a West Russia/heavy Ukraine attack could result in a very nasty situation for R2, or Russia’s 2nd turn).

Grabbing Caucasus early is important enough that you should think about it.  Usually if Russia attacks West Russia and Ukraine only, or hits Belorussia, West Russia, and Ukraine and doesn’t have horrible dice, any thoughts of a quick German attack are stifled.  But any Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack leaves the door open to a quick German attack, with a bit of bad luck on the Russians part and good luck on the Germans part, you may even have the opportunity to pull of the Legendary German Turbo Tank Dash, in which German kills West Russia and Caucasus so hard (possibly fortifying Caucasus with Japanese fighters), that Germany starts G2 with Caucasus under its control.  Along with a 8 tank G1 build, the Allies will almost certainly lose.

Having already looked at the R1 Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack, I already knew the Russian Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack was risky.  Considering that Russia was particularly lucky, it’s not hard to imagine that with BAD dice on a Russian triple Norway attack, Germany can quickly smash Russia.

So what is the summary of the G2 attack on Caucasus?  20 units against 23 units and an AA gun is not good odds, but it is a real potential threat that Russia will keep Russia locked to Caucasus.  (Alternatively, 16-17 German units against 18 Russian units if Germany hits West Russia.  Why not the full 20 units available to Russia?  Because some of them, probably 2 infantry and a fighter, will have to be used to recapture West Russia, in case Germany blitzes tanks from Ukraine through West Russia into Moscow)

Germany can move up to 6 infantry/artillery into Eastern Europe/Balkans on G1, but will probably get only 4 infantry in, using infantry and artillery from Southern Europe to hit Anglo-Egypt.  With 8 tanks, that’s 12 additional units to hit Caucasus on G3.

Supposing Russia were to use its 29 IPCs on infantry/tank purchases for 8 infantry 1 tank for R2.  Considering R2 to have built 4 of those units at Caucasus, that would leave 5 units to move to Caucasus on R3 (before the G3 attack), plus 4 new Caucasus units, for a total of 9 units.  However, by that time UK would possibly be able to land up to 2 more fighters on Caucasus, for a total of 11 more defenders to match Germany’s 12 attackers.  Further, US1 could move infantry from Sinkiang to Kazakh, and US2 from Kazakh to Caucasus, for 13 more defenders.

So how to break this deadlock?

Neither the G2 nor G3 attacks so far have accounted for the possibility of a G1 bomber build, or a G2 bomber build.

Bombers are expensive, especially to risk over an AA gun, and since a G2 attack on Caucasus could be crushed before Japan could get into range, a G1 bomber build to support a G2 attack on Caucasus probably would not be a good risk.  But G3 gives Japan a bit more time to get in, further, the G3 attack cannot be thought of in simple numbers any more.  By G3, most of Germany’s attackers would be high-dice-attack tanks and fighters and bombers, while the defenders would be mostly infantry, leaving Germany with an advantage.

Furthermore, for UK to move all its fighters to Caucasus would be difficult, especially given German control of West Russia (another reason to take control of it on G1).  The UK fighters would have to start UK2 on a carrier northwest of Norway, leaving it in range of both German fighters and bombers from Western Europe and/or Norway.  UK could replace up to 1 UK fighter with a US fighter from Eastern US, so Caucasus would be reinforced by up to 2 fighters regardless.  But pinning the Allies to the sea zone northwest of Norway would leave the Allies in a potentially very vulnerable situation.

What would be happening on the rest of the board right before and after a possible G3 attack on Caucasus?  Let’s say that the Germans succeeded.  UK and Russian air would be wiped out, but US air would be fine.  A UK1 defensive fleet and a UK2 transport build would be threatening 6 ground units plus some air support to Europe, and a US1 build would see a US2 landing at Algeria.  J1 could see a strong attack into China, followed by 4-5 infantry and a tank at Sinkiang on J2.  So far it is assumed that Germany went ahead and took Anglo-Egypt on G1, limiting UK options.

So right after G3, say Germany had 2-3 tanks and some air left,  Russia would have perhaps 5 or so units left to retake Caucasus with, but Japan would easily be able to land fighters on Caucasus on J3 to prevent that from happening.  UK3 could see a powerful attack on Berlin, but Germany could use its G3 build for mostly infantry, easily able to fend off any UK attack, especially with Japanese fighters flown to Berlin.  J3 would also see Japan pressing in to Novosibirsk and Kazakh, both high value territories, as well as coming up through the rest of Asia.  Worst for the Allies, a J1 double IC build would see J2 placement for six tanks on Sinkiang at the end of J3, while Japan used its surviving transport to move infantry into Asia for backup, or took islands and/or Africa.

Even were UK3 to forgo trying to hit Berlin, and land units on Archangel, that would probably be too late.  UK could feed Russia with 6-8 ground a turn, but that would ease pressure on Germany, while US was still getting its transport chains in gear, while Japan continued to pump tanks in.  If UK and US both concentrated on Berlin, they would seriously inconvenience Berlin, but Japan would be able to claim Russia, and would come racing to Germany’s rescue.

It’s not QUITE all so cut and dried; there’s the hump of Germany having to win the Caucasus battle on G3 first, which is a dicey proposition (good odds but not great), then there’s a few different tricks the Allies can pull to seriously inconvenience Germany and/or Japan.  But the bones of a plan are there.  Particularly, if Germany decides not to take Karelia, and uses 2 infantry from Western Europe to move to Norway, securing a fighter base, and using 1 infantry 1 tank at Western Europe to secure it as a fighter base as well, against early US landings in Algeria and/or UK fleet northwest of Norway.

But as it turned out . . . all this is exactly what the German player did NOT do.

G1:  (Germany’s first turn)

Wow, can I write a long post or what, eh kiddies?  Again - if you think this stuff is cool, donate to the site.  Check out the right side of the screen near the top, options for donating, major credit cards accepted.

I don’t have anything to do with running or maintaining the site, so don’t ask me administrative sort of stuff, 'cos I can’t help you there.  Why pimp the site if I’m not making a buck on it?  I dunno, maybe I just like selling stuff to people.   :roll:

OK, to sum up the last post - Russian Norway/West Russia/Ukraine triple attack, I was Alies, made out like a bandit, or even the King of Bandits if you’re into some of those Harlequin romance novels. Germany was looking up to a really nasty G1 open.  Here is where Bunnies actual thoughts must stop, for I was not playing against myself.  However, as is so often the case, mere lack of knowledge cannot stand in the way of wild supposition.

Like, why do hot dogs come in packs of eight, and hot dog buns come in packs of six?  Why are they called hot dogs if no dogs are involved in the manufacturing, processing, or even ingredients of hot dogs?  Could there be an alien barbecue conspiracy?  A dog conspiracy?  Who . . . or WHAT . . . sinister force might be reading these words at this very moment, and taking note of them?   :-o

But I digress.

Looking at the German opening position, Russia had 1 inf 1 art 3 tanks on Ukraine, 2 inf 1 art 1 AA gun on West Russia, 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank on Caucasus, 4 infantry 3 tanks 1 fighter on Moscow, and 1 fighter on Kazakh.  Norway had been attacked, and had only a single German fighter on it.

If I had been playing Germany, I would have thought something like this:

The best thing Germany can do is capturing and holding Caucasus early on, so Germany is able to produce units on Moscow’s doorstep.  Looking at the board, Germany can capture Caucasus with a high risk attack.  But this will cost German air, and UK can probably recapture from Persia.  If UK recaptures from Persia, Russia can build 4 units on Caucasus, and any German stack on Ukraine will probably be stalled, particularly with the expensive loss of German air earlier.

So can I take and secure Ukraine, and use that to crack Caucasus next turn?  Russia will get 2 perhaps 3 hits if it’s moderately lucky; I can hit Ukraine with up to 12 units if I ignore everything else.  That’ll leave me with 10 units on Ukraine, possibly joined by up to 1 Japanese fighter, which will leave me fair defense against Russia’s 12 dice counter on R2.  I can move up to 6 infantry/artillery into Eastern Europe or Balkans (where they can move to Ukraine next turn), plus 2 Western Europe tanks, then there’s my build.  G2 can see a large block of infantry/artillery reinforcements from Eastern Europe to Ukraine; the Eastern Europe tanks can then threaten Caucasus or West Russia, and G1 build tanks can move into Ukraine too.

I can use air to hit West Russia; this will lower the number of units I have to secure Ukraine, but it will also lessen the counter Russia can make, and restrict Russia’s income as it won’t be able to capture Belorussia next turn.

Let’s say I decide to hit Russia as hard as possible, so hit Karelia with Baltic transport, West Russia with infantry and air, and Ukraine with almost everything else.  Assuming Russia cannot retake Ukraine because of Japanese fighter reinforcement, and assuming Germany takes West Russia, Russia will be looking at 10 German units on Ukraine and 2 German tanks on Eastern Europe, along with perhaps 4 fighters and a bomber and the German transport and battleship bombard for a 18-21 dice threat on Caucasus on G2.  (The German battleship and transport cannot be counted on because of various ways of killing the German battleship before G2.  The German battleship support shot is counted as a dice of attack).  Moscow and Caucasus currently have a combined 11 ground units, then there’s 2 fighters the UK Persia infantry, the India UK fighter, and the UK bomber that can reach Caucasus.  Then there’s the units on West Russia.  That leaves a defense of 19 units, one a very weak bomber.  Russia can also build up to 4 units on Caucasus, though, bringing the defense to 23 units.  However, Russia will also have an AA gun, so the attack is a bit questionable, considering the great numbers of German aircraft in the attack.  So what is the summary of the G2 attack on Caucasus?  20 units against 23 units and an AA gun is not good odds, but it is a real potential threat that Russia will keep Russia locked to Caucasus.  (Alternatively, 16-17 German units against 18 Russian units if Germany hits West Russia.  Why not the full 20 units available to Russia?  Because some of them, probably 2 infantry and a fighter, will have to be used to recapture West Russia, in case Germany blitzes tanks from Ukraine through West Russia into Moscow)

The fastest Japan attack of weight will likely be 1 Japanese transport to French Indochina, and a double industrial complex build.  But even that cannot possibly help Caucasus in time for a G2 attack, because that means at the end of J2, at best Japan will use its transport that ended J1 at French Indochina to hit Persia for 2 Japanese units on Persia, and 6 tanks at French Indochina and/or Kwangtung and/or Manchuria.  (Even then, Japan’s making serious sacrifices for speed.).  Even on J3, Japanese tanks only hit China and/or Persia and/or India.  It’s only on J4 at the earliest that Japan can really help out.

But this is only newly built and/or newly transported units.  Japan could use its existing forces in Asia to end with perhaps 5 infantry on China, and an infantry and tank in French Indochina.  On J2, that would be able to push into Sinkiang at probably no loss of force.  Still, that would leave Japan too late to help much in a G2 attack on Caucasus.
However, Germany doesn’t have to take Caucasus on G2.  It could take it on G3.

We’ve pretty much established the grounds for securing Ukraine so far.  What if Germany built 8 tanks on G1?  The six infantry/ground on Eastern Europe would enter Ukraine on G2, joined by the G1 tank build, allowing the Germans an additional 14 dice to hit Caucasus with on G3.  Furthermore, the Japanese would have an additional turn to develop.  (But this powerful German attack can only happen with a G1 8 tank build!)  Anyhow, more in the next post.

A teacher told her class that lottery tickets were a bad investment.  To prove this, she went out and bought one.  The ticket won a hundred dollars.  (Or however much it was.)  True story.  (Or so I hear.)

I wanted to play a quick game, so I met up with a nice player on TripleA and hashed it out live online.  When I started, I figured I wanted a quick game, so I decided to do a R1 Russian Triple with artillery/4 tank build.  Either I would succeed and plow him into the ground, or I would fail and maybe die to the mind-bogglingly exciting German Turbo Tank Dash, which is of course so exciting it may actually make young players vomit.  Anyways, I figured it would be an exciting game regardless, with my using what I privately refer to as Russian Roulette - that is, a Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack.

If you don’t know what Russian Roulette is, look it up, but don’t try it at home.

I figured I’d make a commentary on the game too, because . . . well, it might be useful to some players to know how I think as a player, and besides, publishing game reports will make me famous.  You know, book deal, movie deal, money, power, small furry animal protection campaign spokesbunny, that sort of thing.

So begins this exhaustive and exhausting game commentary.  I hope you find it useful.  If you REALLY find it useful, you can support the fine administrators of these here Axis and Allies forums.  Right side of the screen, look for Patron Support Level, all sorts of nice donation options for the fine people that maintain this forum, major credit cards accepted.

I don’t have anything to do with all that, I’m just an independent player that posts on these here forums sometimes.  So if you have a good idea for the forum or what have you, please post to the proper forum group/thread, and don’t contact me.  Because I can’t help you.

DISCLAIMER:  I make a lot of statements, but anything lacking solid statistical backup should be regarded as my opinion.

R1 (Russia 1)

Planned attacks:  3 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway
3 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks to Ukraine
6 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter to West Russia

Why list planned attacks first?  Because that’s how it’s best thought out.  First figure out your attacks, then figure out what you should build to best support those attacks.

3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway, because sending 2 fighters means you will definitely lose 1 fighter on Germany’s turn, and as much as I wanted to check out what was on sale at the grocery store, I wasn’t about to risk a precious fighter.  Besides, a Russian Triple attack spreads forces VERY thin – probably a second fighter really couldn’t be spared.  The Norway attack has a couple good points.  If you claim Norway, then Germany doesn’t have any real attack on the UK battleship.  If you weaken Norway a lot, Germany might get nervous about using Norway as a landing spot for its fighter and bomber after hitting the UK battleship.  Bad points are – you’re sending Russian units to the rear of the German lines.  Germany has a logistic problem getting units to the front lines; by attacking Germany’s rear lines, you’re doing the footslogging for them.  Also, the Norway attack only has a bit better than 60% to do “well”.  I forget what “well” was; I ran the numbers a long time ago.  I think it was at least killing the Norway fighter while keeping the Russian fighter alive.

3 inf 1 artillery 3 tanks to Ukraine.  If you do NOT claim Ukraine, then Germany can blitz Eastern Europe and Balkans tanks into Caucasus.  So all the ground units that could hit there went.

6 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter to West Russia.  If you don’t send at least a Russian fighter to West Russia, the odds of doing even moderately well there plummet.  Whatever Russian units are there form the core of your R2 threat into Karelia and ability to trade Belorussia, plus if you’re pretty weak there, Germany will just run right over you.  What with losing West Russia and Ukraine, that means Russia can potentially be blocked from collecting income from Karelia and Belorussia next turn.  That might seem trivial, just 4 IPCs, but a single unit can easily mean the difference between a 30% chance of success and a 85% chance of success.

Comments on Russian Norway/West Russia/Ukraine Triple – super risky, if you fail to do well, you leave yourself open to an incredibly brutal German counter.  Even if you do moderately well, attacking 2 territories rather than 3 means Russia’s dissipated its attack power, and will take more casualties from the defenders as the attackers don’t overwhelm them with numbers.  On the plus side, doing well at any of the three battles can make things very tough for the Germans, but that’s not really likely.

Purchase:  1 artillery, 4 tank

Supposing a brutal failure at all three; Germany could take West Russia from Belorussia, and smash into Caucasus with 7 ground units.  (Figuring on German units from a Mediterranean transport, Eastern Europe and Balkans tanks for five units, plus two surviving ground from Ukraine).  UK would not be able to retake Caucasus from Persia, then Japan would be able to fly in 2-4 fighters to support Caucasus.  (If UK attacks Japan’s fleet at East Indies, particularly if Germany left Anglo Egypt alone to go after Caucasus, sinking the Japanese carrier would force the Japanese fighters to land on East Indies, out of range to reinforce Caucasus.  But this is probably not good in most situations, so we’re looking at 11 units, mostly high dice, on Caucasus.  To counter, Russia would have 6 infantry (moved in during noncombat) plus 2 fighters, for 8 dice attacking 11 defenders on Caucasus, with 6 of those 8 dice being infantry which are awful on attack.  Horrible.  But this does not account for a Russian build.

So what should Russia build?  Just infantry?  Infantry are lousy on attack, and with only Russia’s fighters providing attack power, the Axis would chew through Russian infantry like mad with all those high-dice tanks and fighters defending.  Mass artillery?  But artillery are poor defenders, and when the infantry they support are destroyed, artillery drop to 2 attack for 4 IPC (1 dice pip for 2 IPC spent, or 50% attack), while tanks stay at 3 attack for 5 IPC (60% attack) regardless of how many infantry there are.  Besides, tanks would be able to reach Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine, depending on how the German turn went.  I decided to go with 1 artillery 4 tanks for maximum mobility and decent counterattack in case Russia lost Caucasus.  The threat would be 13 dice attacking 11 defenders, with perhaps a bit more or less depending on exactly how awfully Russia did (again, assuming Russia DID do awful).

The order you carry out combats is important.  Failing West Russia would mean Germany would have a shot on Moscow, with West Russia survivors, Ukraine tank, Ukraine, Balkans, and Eastern Europe fighters, and German bomber.  That’s 5 units PLUS West Russia survivors; considering West Russia starts with 5 units, potentially 10 dice that could hit Moscow.  Performing poorly at West Russia would also mean an increased threat to Caucasus from the West Russia survivors.  So it was very important to do the West Russia battle first, to see what would happen.  The decision to press attacks or retreat from Ukraine and Norway would depend on results at West Russia.

So I did West Russia first.  There were no unusually high numbers of hits or misses.  The Allies did about as statistically expected, with 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 fighter surviving.  But “statistical expectations” mean little with dice.  It could easily have been that Russia would have to retreat from West Russia with only 1 artillery 1 fighter versus a German artillery and tank surviving (1/6 chance for Germany to kill both artillery and fighter if Russia continued the attack, and Russia losing fighters is awful).  Or, Russia could have ended up with possibly 4 infantry 1 artillery at West Russia.  I actually considered myself quite lucky that in order to counterattack West Russia, Germany would probably want to commit at least a tank (considering that German air have a lot of important naval targets on G1).

The next battle I did was Ukraine.  On the opening round of fire, I got five hits.  This was extremely improbable and very horrible for Germany; Germany obliged Russia even further by getting only two hits in return (two or three is expected, so Russia got a bit lucky).  But a BIT of luck counts for a LOT in the first round of fire.  At this point, I had 1 infantry 1 artillery 3 tanks attacking 1 German fighter.  Retreating would mean preserving 22 IPCs worth of Russian units.  Attacking would only net a 3 IPC territory and a 10 IPC German fighter, plus whatever units Russia managed to kill on Germany’s counterattack, potentially just 2-3 German infantry.  So press the attack and gain 3 IPC in the bank for taking control of Ukraine, kill a 10 IPC German fighter, lose 22 IPC of Russian units, and kill 6-9 IPCs of German infantry?  Well . . . the balance was about the same, but the story goes a little deeper.

First, I knew that Germany had lost its West Russia units, so it didn’t have any units from West Russia (particularly cheap infantry) to hit Ukraine with.  Second, I knew I had built attack units that would be able to take or strafe Ukraine.  Third, I knew West Russia was very weak.  The more units Germany sent to Ukraine, the less would be available for West Russia.  Fourth, I knew that Germany usually wants to take out other valuable targets on G1 (Germany’s first turn) with German air.  If Germany sent air to Ukraine, that would increase the probability of Germany suffering air losses elsewhere.  Fifth, from experience playing Germany, I knew that Germany dealing with 1 Russian unit on Ukraine (having lost West Russia) was slightly inconvenient.  2 units on Ukraine was not fun for Germany to deal with.  3 was a major inconvenience.  4 was like getting kicked in the nuts.  5 was, well, frankly, this is when you start having tantrums and cursing in German, not because you’re mad, but because you sense the hand of God or fate is against you.  Anyways, I decided to press on in light of all this.  So I hit, and the German fighter missed.  Five Russians on Ukraine.  It’s like a miracle, but I felt dirty.

The last battle was Norway.  On the first round, I got two hits, which is frankly fairly lucky for Russia.  Again, the first round of combat means a lot.  Germany fired back, and got one hit.  At this point, I had to admire the Axis player for not cursing or even complaining in the slightest.  Next round, I got no hits, the Axis got one hit.  The third round, I had 1 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter, and got 1 hit, and the Germans got 1 hit with their fighter and infantry.  Again, slightly lucky – if Germany had got two hits, that would mean the next round would be Russian fighter against German fighter, and Russian fighters are too precious to lose.  So I pressed the attack, and got no hits, but the German fighter got a hit.  At that point, the Russian fighter retreated.

Noncombat moves:

In dice games, always save noncombat moves for last.  Regardless of rules technicalities, it’s good practice.  New players will often make noncombat moves during combat because it helps them visualize the board as they want it to be, or because they think they’re going to do something regardless of how the battles go.  But it is always best to wait until after combat to do noncombat moves.  Maybe you will lose that 89% battle and be forced to rethink things.

Russian sub moved to UK battleship.  This would help defend against the German fighter/bomber/sub attack on G1.  The idea is that the Russian sub does NOT submerge.   If the German sub gets a hit, the Russian sub is destroyed.  There’s also a slight possibility of the Russian sub hitting.  If the Russian sub hits, then any hits the UK battleship makes must be against expensive German air.  Even if the Russian sub does not hit, if it is taken as a casualty against a German sub hit, that leaves a decent chance that the UK battleship will survive the German fighter and bomber for another round of fire.  If the UK battleship survives for another round of fire, it may destroy more German air.

The West Russia and Ukraine battles had gone very well (frankly Ukraine was unbelievably lucky), so I did not have place all units in Moscow preparatory to retaking Caucasus.  I moved Kazakh infantry to Caucasus, and Novosibirsk and Evenki infantry to Moscow, leaving Moscow with 4 infantry and Caucasus with 2.  I moved the Moscow AA gun to West Russia, so Germany would not be able to easily capture West Russia.  Either it would have to use valuable tanks that Russia could then destroy on its turn, or it would have to risk valuable air.  If using air, not only would those air be at risk to AA gun fire, those air would not be able to be used for other important targets on G1.

I knew at that point I would place 1 artillery in Caucasus (to help retake Ukraine after Germany countered), and a tank in Caucasus (to help defend it against German invasion; Germany could send infantry/tank/2 fighters/1 bomber to Caucasus.  But more than that; a Russian tank on Caucasus can be useful to hit Trans-Jordan or India.  It seems pretty odd to send a single tank to try to cause trouble, but Japan has a severe logistics problem early on, and Russian tanks on Caucasus are something that can cause a lot of problems for Japan early on.

The remainder of the Russian tanks would go on Moscow.  Russian tanks on Caucasus could be trapped to countering Archangel, West Russia, and Ukraine, if Germany took West Russia.  From Moscow, though, tanks could hit Karelia, or even Belorussia if Russia did not lose control of West Russia.

For those keeping track, I had left Karelia and Archangel empty on the Russian combat move.  The Russian power is stretched so thin on a triple attack, every unit is needed.  Anyways, Germany blitzing a tank to Archangel can be met with Russian infantry and a Russian tank.  Unless Germany stacks Karelia a bit, it cannot kill that valuable Russian tank in return.  Considering the nasty Russian stack on Ukraine and the decently sized Russian stack of survivors on West Russia, I figured a German stack on Karelia could only come at the expense of giving up position on Ukraine and/or West Russia.  At the worst, I would be able to use Moscow infantry and a fighter to kill any German tank blitzing to Archangel; that would mean killing a 5 IPC tank in exchange for maybe a 50-60% chance of Germany’s killing a Russian infantry and getting a 2 IPC territory.  (That’s maybe 4.5 to 4.7 IPC gained by Germany in exchange for its 5 IPC tank, plus some slight logistic pressure against Russia – but very slight – and locking the US bomber out of landing on Archangel on US1.  Not a particularly good deal – not awful, but Germany may well not take Archangel.)

I landed 1 fighter on Moscow and 1 on Kazakh, and moved Yakut and Soviet Far East infantry to Buryatia, so Buryatia had 6 infantry.  These were noncombat movements that were only really worth considering AFTER seeing how combats had turned out.  If things had gone badly, infantry would have been racing back to Moscow.

Kazakh can only be considered a safe landing zone for a Russian fighter if Russia took Ukraine, otherwise Germany can and very possibly will send the Ukraine fighter and/or the German bomber to kill the Russian fighter.  From Kazakh, Russia threatens Trans-Jordan and India (along with the Russian tank on Caucasus), and Manchuria.  (The Manchuria threat is really only credible because of the 6 infantry on Buryatia).

Stacking Buryatia with 6 infantry is a moderate to high risk move.  Even if UK kills the Kwangtung transport, Japan has excellent chances to kill 6 infantry on Buryatia, take China, and destroy the US carrier and fighter at Hawaii, regardless of what the Allies do.  If Japan does hit Buryatia and China, it will take a lot of casualties, but a bit of luck can mean very bad news for the Allies.  Particularly for Russia – after the 6 infantry stack is lost in Asia, Russia is completely helpless against any Japan attack.

However, if Japan does NOT hit Buryatia, Allied air can land on Buryatia, which can be inconvenient to Japan.

Collected 29 IPCs.  Altogether an EXTREMELY lucky turn, no doubt about it, particularly the extremely nasty pressure to Germany at Ukraine, as well as having a very decent number of survivors on West Russia.  Norway did not go particularly well, but I certainly wasn’t even considering that a problem in light of Russia’s massive luck and Germany’s massive unluck at Ukraine.  In fact, I considered it quite lucky that I was not forced into a “2 German defenders vs Russian ground and Russian fighter” situation.  In any such situation, Russia risks air, and only under the most unusual circumstances should Russia ever risk its precious precious fighters.

Tricks that were lined up:  (things that may not be immediately noticeable to new players)

Buryatia stack allowing US fighter from Hawaii to hit sea zone east of Japan if Buryatia not taken.  Buryatia also provides a landing spot for UK air, same idea.  Again – there is some risk involved with this.

Russian reinforcement/counters to Trans-Jordan and India with Caucasus tank and Kazakh/Moscow fighters.

If Germany hit Anglo-Egypt, UK could send India fighter and UK bomber to attack the German battleship, with a Russian fighter following up to hit an unguarded transport (if UK air and the German battleship destroyed each other).  Germany can potentially avoid this problem by hitting Anglo-Egypt AND Trans-Jordan, but that’s very high risk for valuable German air, and likely will mean having to leave the UK battleship alone.

If Germany did NOT take West Russia, Russia would be able to trade Karelia and Belorussia next turn, which would mean increased income.  If Germany did NOT take Ukraine, that would mean extremely valuable Russian tanks would run away; the next time Germany saw those Russian tanks it would be behind a nasty screen of Russian infantry.

Attached is the TripleA .tsvg (saved game file).  This uses TripleA version 1_2_5_5 and may not be compatible with the most recent release verison (1_3_1_0).
Commentary.tsvg

@El:

In all seriousness, the names are useful when you’re typing up a strategy post and need short references like NG. Ukraine Opening will do just as fine, if it sticks (but still less cool than Norwegian Gambit).

Clarity > Coolness.

Although just CHECK out my new profile image and saying.  Yeah.

Try to avoid cute acronyms and abbreviations.  It makes it harder for casual players to understand.  All this stuff about Operation Torch, whatever.  Just say Allies land in Africa, damn!

Not that I’m not guilty of the same, but “G1” refers to Germany’s first turn, “J2” refers to Japan’s first turn . . . I think that’s not TOO awful.  KGF is Kill Germany First.  Pretty common terminology I think.  But . . . well . . . best not fling stones at ya while standing in a glass house eh?

Well, just as you said, it’s a matter of balance.  Neither Axis NOR Allies can grab Africa at the expense of Berlin, Moscow, or Japan’s navy and control of the Pacific islands and Asian coast.

If you’re going KGF, probably on G1, Germany will have gone to Anglo-Egypt.  Buncha cute ways to counter.

1.  UK1 fighter/bomber hits German battleship, Trans-Jordan infantry plus cruiser shot plus 2 India infantry to hit Anglo-Egypt.  Probably only feasible if Germany has 1 unit on Anglo.  If UK fighter/bomber and German battleship mutually wipe, Russian fighter on Caucasus can finish the job.

2.  UK1 counters Anglo-Egypt with fighter and up to three infantry as listed above.  Fighter lands on carrier east of Africa, where only 2 Japanese fighters can hit.  UK flies bomber east, and fighter(s) to West Russia.  (If needed, US fighters can land on a UK carrier for protection).  Germany gets its second drop, then UK fighters hit the German battleship, along with the UK bomber.

3.  UK1 builds carrier, US1 flies 2 fighters to land on it, and flies US bomber to Archangel or London.  R2 reinforces Archangel with infantry to prevent Germany from whacking the US bomber for cheap with German air, and takes Karelia to prevent Germany from using infantry/tanks on Archangel.  UK2 moves carrier to sea zone west of Algeria.  US2 uses 2 US fighters from carrier and US bomber to whack out German fleet, plus moves US1 build to Algeria to support UK navy.

4.  R1 build 1-2 subs and/or 1-2 fighters; if Germany goes to Anglo-Egypt, Russia whacks it on R2.  But this is pretty expensive for Russia, and Germany can exploit Russia’s lack of ground units.

In all of these scenarios, UK leaves 2 infantry and 1 AA gun on Persia.  Along with UK air power in Europe, this stops the Axis from controlling both sides of the Suez Canal (particularly Trans-Jordan) which allows passage from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.  If UK does NOT prevent control of the Suez on UK2, then Japan can move in at least 1 battleship and 1 carrier to the Mediterranean, and it becomes much harder to kill the German battleship/transport.

5.  If all the above fail, US can just land a fat stack at Algeria and start pushing into Libya then Anglo-Egypt.  US can get 6+ units to Africa quickly.  Germany can only get 2.  If Germany buys transports &c, it needs to drain Europe a LOT to fuel the attack on Africa.  If the Allies pressure Germany enough, Germany may not be able to afford the luxury of drops to Africa.

Even if Germany can afford to invest in control of Africa, US can move transports from Algeria to the south of Africa and drop to Africa’s interior.  Doing so breaks US’s transport chain and really lessens its speed towards helping out in Europe.  The Allies may not be able to afford the luxury of south Africa drops.

As far as later Japanese control of Africa - that always happens.  But UK can compensate for that with control of Norway and sometimes trading control of Western Europe.  If Germany stacked Western Europe and Berlin, Germany will be on the defensive, and the Allies should either be setting up for a triple attack on Berlin, or something equivalently nasty.  Allies may or may not be able to trade Africa at that point, but that’s always how it goes - Africa’s important, but it doesn’t stack up to the importance of Berlin or Moscow.

–

The Allies need to do things differently if they’re planning KJF (Kill Japan First).  Germany could invest in a G1 carrier at Southern Europe, even a G1 carrier and transport to lock up control of the Suez on G2.  There’s a lot of things that can switch up the Allied plans in Africa.

Control of Africa is NOT vital.  As I mentioned in another post, if Russia screws up a Norway/West Russia/Ukraine attack, and Germany does a hard counter, Germany may just abandon Africa and its Mediterranean fleet in favor of locking up Caucasus and pressuring Moscow immediately.  Of course this is pretty unusual - usually both Axis and Allies should keep an eye on Africa.  Certainly a Kill Germany First plan should restrict Germany’s income in Africa if at all possible.

@Advosan:

I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.

There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.

Cute name for it Advosan!  (I hate cute names . . .)

I personally would call the Nor/WR/Ukr attack “Stalin’s Nightmare” or perhaps “Three Little Bears Wander Into A Wolf’s Lair” or “Russian Roulette”

The odds are good that at least one of the attacks fails, and depending on dice results, you can set Germany up for TURBO TANK DASH, which is about ten times nastier than a regular German tank dash.  Basically Germany forgoes Africa, lands enough units in Caucasus to hold it against the UK1 fighter/bomber/infantry combo, whacks West Russia with the Belorussia infantry and air, then Japan flies in 4 fighters to reinforce Caucasus, leaving Russia unable to recapture.  G2 sees the G1 tank build rush into Ukraine, while Germany starts popping units out on Moscow’s doorstep, while Germany doesn’t even have to recapture Western Europe from UK - it’s IPCs in UK’s bank, but UK can’t mount any sort of serious threat to Berlin or Rome, while Moscow’s about to break in half.

This whole scenario is pretty much impossible for a WR/Ukr attack, but a Nor/WR/Ukr sets it up.

If you’re talking about playing Low Luck, better mention that.  Low Luck is a house rule.  Dice is the default.

@El:

By the way, is there a short and sexy name for the R1 Ukraine attack? Norway Gambit sounds sweet, but “Standard R1 Ukraine attack” is kinda dull… Ukraine Bash, Ukraine Crush, Ukraine Beats?

Sigh pretentious names . . .
Call it Russian Bear Rampage, or whatever as you please.  Only don’t expect anyone to understand you.

@Granada:

In my last game with a player who is imho one of the best around

who?

@El:

in the right hands and against unprepared opponents it can be a real weapon.

Pretty much exactly how I feel about it.

I use a simple fishing tackle box.  It’s got a lot of different sub-compartments.

The elaborate sort take up a lot of room, but if you shop around, you can get one without all the bulky handles and stuff, but WITH removable dividers; that’s what I use.

It isn’t a question of letting anyone tell anyone anything.

Set up a simple dummy battle of 64 tanks battling 64 tanks.  Under Low Luck, the attacker wins 25% of the time, everything’s destroyed 50% of the time, and defender wins 25% of the time, because second round is 16 vs 16, then 8 vs 8, 4 vs 4, 2 vs 2, then 1 vs 1.

Now try 64 tanks vs 64 tanks in dice and come back and tell me how low luck is a great predictor for dice, and how low luck is a great predictor for dice battles when large numbers of dice are involved on both sides.

I have a funny hat I wear for just such occasions.  :lol:

@Hobbes:

@Bunnies:

There are no fixed “must attacks” for G1.

Hitting the UK battleship/transport is often, but not always, one of the attacks Germany should do G1.

Why not always?  Because something better might present itself.

West Russia…  :evil:

West Russia, Caucasus, and Russia, as opportunity presents.

What is the best this?  What is the best that?  Always without thinking about the situation.  It’s like going to the hospital and having a kidney removed, only you don’t need a kidney removed.  But then people flock around asking “what was the brand of the artificial kidney” and “did the replacement kidney have shiny letters on the side and racing stripes?”  It’s entirely besides the point.

If you want to beat the crap out of the other navy, and are attacking, you buy subs, period.

If you want to beat the other sub-heavy army up before it can even get in range of your fleet, you buy some destroyers and a lot of subs.

If you want a navy that can do stuff besides just screw around on the water, you buy fighters and carriers to put the fighters on.

Battleships, cruisers, and bombers are all hugely situational.  Bombers can’t even compose a part of a navy . . .

@Hobbes:

Guys, please stop treating me like I’m the guru of AA42 or something. :)

No.  :-D

I watched the game, and have comments!

The way I figured it, Granada would eventually make some kind of mistake somewhere, and Hobbes would drive a truck through the opening.  I don’t know why Granada sometimes does silly stuff, but he does.

Hobbes, though, is like a relentless machine.  He might make a small error now and then, but I never see anything that I consider to be glaring errors like I do in other players’ games.

Comments on stuff I would have done differently -

Both Russia and UK had a glaring lack of offensive power around round 12.  I haven’t viewed the game history to see exactly why that was, but it was quite noticeable, particularly given UK"s final few turns.

Specifically, I think it’s fine to have a defensive stack of UK infantry if you’ve prevented Germany from controlling Africa (restricting its income), and are rolling up its territory in Europe.  If I remember right, Germany was out of Africa.  But UK could not roll up Germany.  Once UK got close, Germany could break a large UK stack with its combined infantry, tanks, and air; neither US or Russia were in a position to reinforce.  At one key point in the game, I thought it would be best to move UK’s Karelia stack to Archangel, where it could reinforce Moscow next turn.  Instead, it was moved to Norway.  At least, I hope I remember that all correctly.

At one point, UK and US had a stack on Ukraine, with 2 German infantry on Caucasus, and a stack of German tanks on Balkans.  Had I been playing, I would probably have done the flashy thing and attacked the Ukraine stack, retreating all to Caucasus.  (This would have made any Allied attack on Japan-held Caucasus very costly, considering the board situation; since the Allied Ukraine stack couldn’t hit Caucasus easily, they might have had to go through West Russia, allowing Japanese and Germany to do a two-hit strike to Moscow.

However, Hobbes did NOT do the flashy “tank teleport” trick.  I haven’t had time to consider it yet, but I think that if the German tanks had ended up in Caucasus, that it might not only have given the Axis a quick shot on Moscow, it might also have opened the door up to the Allies moving to Eastern Europe in force while cutting off the German tanks from attacking the stack, allowing Allied pressure of Berlin.  Or it could be that the Allies would have been able to use their stack to reclaim Moscow.  I’ll look at it again sometime.  Probably the former is true to some degree; I’m unsure as to whether the latter would also be the case.

That’s probably the big difference between Hobbes’ gameplay and mine.  I’ll look for an easy cheap flashy victory, Hobbes just sits there and grinds you into paste.

Anyways, Hobbes ended up killing the Allied stack instead of just strafing it, limiting the Allies options.  Japan took Moscow soon after, with 16 Jap tanks plus air surviving.  Berlin was still strong, and the Allies didn’t have a goodly stack in Europe, so that was game.

Now for Bunniez’ Buncha Theoretical Stuff!  It’s the new special here on the forums . . . hosted by yours truly.

I mentioned a G1 Ukraine stack a while ago as one of the possible responses to the R1 2 fighter attack on Norway as described by Granada.  The typical Russian game revolves around control of West Russia, trading Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine.  It’s my opinion that a German Ukraine stack slashes Russia’s power.  Russia is permanently denied the 3 IPCs from Ukraine, and with its stack locked to Caucasus, it cannot maintain control of West Russia.  Meanwhile German reinforcements at Eastern Europe can trade Karelia, and without Russians at either Karelia or West Russia to hit Belorussia, Germany locks in that income too.  So theoretically that puts the Germans up at 5 IPC per turn, and Russia down 5 IPCs per turn.

This seems pretty trivial.  Oo, Germany can afford one more fighter after two turns!  But it is NOT a trivial difference.  A single unit can mean the difference between a 60% battle (reasonable but risky) and a 80% battle (a pretty good shot).  Once you consider that the Germans have perhaps 2 more units a turn, and the Russians 2 less a turn, it becomes VERY nasty very quickly.  The Ukraine stack alone is MUCH nastier than the German Karelia stack.  The German Karelia stack only swings 2, not 5.

That’s one of the big pluses to Russia hitting Ukraine on R1.  If Russia takes Ukraine, Germany can’t land fighters on it.  If Germany can’t land fighters on Ukraine to help defend it, Russia can probably retake Ukraine, and so on and so forth.

@Speusippus:

Thanks for the advice so far.

I always play low-luck. Does this affect your Russia strategy?

Does low luck simulate the average normal dice roll pretty well? Or does it tend to skew in a particular direction relative to the average dice roll?

You might have bothered to mention that.  Low luck completely changes the game.

As far as large battles being pretty well predicted by Low Luck, that’s completely not true.  Dice and low luck are completely different.

How do I justify anything but Russian infantry?

Because when I play Russia, I do not want to sit back and wait for death.

Let’s say you only built infantry, and have a fat infantry stack on West Russia.  OK, I have German infantry and tanks that I push to Ukraine.  Sadly, your infantry stack has very little attack power, so you have to retreat to Caucasus instead of being able to kill my Ukraine stack.  Next turn, I take Karelia, West Russia, and Belorussia, then I proceed to start grabbing Archangel and West Russia.  Now Russia’s income is lower, and Germany’s income is higher, so Russia can produce less infantry, and Germany can produce more tanks.

Then Japan comes in from the east, and Russia is forced to retreat to Moscow.  Caucasus is abandoned, and that’s usually the beginning of the end.

Probably UK and US have some tricks to play, but if Russia starts losing IPCs early while Germany gains them, it’s not good for the Allies.

Suppose Russia just bought a few artillery.  Suddenly, it’s attack power jumps, and Germany has to think twice about leaving its valuable tanks where they can be destroyed.  So Germany has to stay back.  Russia can get more IPCs, which it can use to continue to produce more offensive units instead of just infantry; Russia can use those IPCs to continue to create offensive units to keep Germany and Japan back.

@Sweet:

So I’ve come here to ask what you guys think of the British buying a factory in India on their first turn.

Bunnies is about to bust out with some super wisdom.  Are you ready?

A skilled player should consider NO purchases, attacks, or strategies to be fixed, beyond Russia’s first turn.

Yes, people roll their eyes, because they say they knew that, but it is my experience that players know it with their heads, not with their hearts.  They watch Germany purchase eight tanks on G1, then proceed to do their usual buy a fighter a turn for Moscow plan.  Or something like that.

On the question of a UK India IC -

There are many, many tricks that Russia and UK can pull to secure a UK1 IC.  Most I have not seen for quite a few years.  I have not yet seen a UK India IC as a winning strategy.  That is - I think at best it is all right, but I have not seen anything that makes me think a UK1 India IC is superior to other Allied moves.

I have seen rather a lot of poorly planned and executed UK India ICs, though.  If not well planned, a UK India IC is a gift to the Japanese.

There are no fixed “must attacks” for G1.

Hitting the UK battleship/transport is often, but not always, one of the attacks Germany should do G1.

Why not always?  Because something better might present itself.

Granada comments that he uses what he refers to as the Norwegian Gambit (which is really just saying a 2 Russian fighter attack vs Norway) to preserve the UK battleship.  I personally think it is not necessary to go to such great lengths to preserve UK’s fleet.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Germany can defend WEu without too much trouble in the face of 8 allied transports.  4-6 Jap fighters and 4 german fighters and about a dozen infantry roughly without looking at a battle calc should do it.

That IS a lot of trouble for Germany.

If you have a fat stack of German and Japanese fighters on Western Europe, yes, that will hold it.  But the German infantry used on Western Europe are inevitably taken from the Russian front, and the Japanese fighters can’t lend their attacking power in Asia.  Losing the Japanese fighters in Asia is not a real problem for Japan, as it keeps a steady stream of units pouring in.  But the German units are not so easy to write off.

Assuming a KGF plan (Kill Germany First), the Allies should control Africa, and the Axis keeping so much power back on Western Europe allows UK and US to set up a transport chain from Eastern Canada to London to Karelia/Archangel.

With Africa out of German hands and UK/US ground dropping almost directly into Moscow, the game is definitely still in question.

There are different variations on the game that take some getting used to - for example, the German Mediterranean carrier/transport build, the German Mediterranean sub build, German Baltic carrier, German 2+ bomber build, German fighter build, German G1 Caucasus heavy attack for G2 start with Caucasus (after Japanese fighter reinforcement on J1) with super tank dashing, German West Russia attack for greater IPC control, regular German tank dashing, German tank stack posted on Eastern Europe, and German stack on Western Europe with infantry and German and Japanese fighters, and the German Karelia stack to additionally trade Archangel and lock UK/US out of drops to Europe.  Those are just the ones I can think of offhand.

Axis stacking Western Europe is one of these - if the Axis stack a lot in Western Europe, Allies hit other targets.  If Axis don’t stack enough in Western Europe, Allies can take it.  If the Axis don’t stack in Western Europe at all, that gives the Allies freedom in the Atlantic.

More specifics on hitting other targets?  Something like this - UK drops 8 ground units to Europe, US drops 8 ground units to Europe, Russia reinforces with 1-2 ground units.  That’s 18 Allied ground units piling up each turn, potentially reinforced by US and Russian fighters.  That stack is going to go someplace, and Germany will have to deal with it.  Germany will have more units in Europe to begin with, but it will only be producing 8-10 units a turn (Germany, Southern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Balkans for 28 IPC plus possible trading territories Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine for 34 IPC a turn).  Germany can’t afford to race for long.

Better in my opinion (edit - better IF the Axis think they can break down Russia pretty fast) is  stacking EASTERN Europe, not Western Europe.  From Eastern Europe, the Axis can hit the sea zone drop to Karelia/Archangel, and defend Eastern Europe.  Tanks on Eastern Europe can hit Western Europe along with infantry from Berlin.  Tanks on Eastern Europe can also dash and hit Caucasus or West Russia.

Now, if the Axis don’t think they can break Russia pretty fast, then Western Europe if you like.

@LMD:

All good responses, I appreciate the input.  However, in just about every game I’ve played, the allied navy is usually destroyed by Germany alone or with the assistance of the Japanese airforce, …

This is because either the Allies are screwing up or because Germany is getting lucky.

Since it happens in every game, I’d say the Allies are screwing up.  Badly.  Allies are probably doing something silly like buying battleships and/or cruisers instead of destroyers and/or carriers, and parking fleet where they can be blown up easily.

Even in the event of a German buy that makes a UK1 naval buy vulnerable, the Allies should NOT BE LOSING THEIR FLEET.  It’s like you have a dog that has a problem getting run over by trains.  You know the dog can see the train coming, but the dog just stands on the tracks.  You’re like run dog run, but it stands there with a glazed look in its eyes.  Again and again and again.  Bark, stand, choo choo, eyes glaze, whap, hospital, bark, stand, choo choo, eyes glaze, whap.  Don’t be a dog that stands on the tracks.  If you see a train could hit you, step out of the way.  It’s not like the train is going to suddenly jump off the tracks and whoop your butt.

If you do live in an area in which trains regularly jump off the tracks and whoop butt, though, may I recommend moving?  Same principle.

1.  You probably will not be able to make any transport drops on UK1.  If you get greedy, the Germans can probably punish you.  I certainly would if I could.

2.  Unless Germany bought a carrier, German fighters on Western Europe can’t hit you northwest of London.  German fighters on Norway can’t hit you southwest of London.  Something like that anyways.  Basically German fighters have limited range, keep that in mind to build fleet in a safe zone.  If it’s not safe - don’t build it.

3.  Zhukov’s comments were dangerously incomplete.  You cannot build just aircraft carriers for defense.  If you do, Germany can easily build a couple subs.  Fighters do not defend against enemy subs when a friendly destroyer is not present.  FURTHERMORE, and VERY IMPORTANTLY, if you do NOT build destroyers EARLY, Germany can keep its subs in the Atlantic.

If you DO build destroyers, Germany has to either use its subs in the Atlantic or run them away.  In either event, you will not have to worry about the subs after the next German turn in all likelihood - because after the next German turn, on your turn, you will use your destroyers to kill any subs in range of your fleet, and build whatever new navy you need to replace it.

If you do NOT build destroyers, Germany just hangs out with subs in the Atlantic, waiting for you to bring a nice fat fleet into range.  Then suddenly, German air and subs kill everything.  Germany loses some cheap subs that it doesn’t care about (6 IPC subs are FAR cheaper than 10 IPC fighters).  You lose transports, carriers, big expensive stuff.

So remember.  Destroyers and carriers and fighters.  Destroyers because the destroyers chase or kill enemy destroyers plus let fighters on carriers defend against enemy subs plus are cheap fodder.  Carriers because they carry fighters.  Fighters because they can defend well, and attack both naval and ground targets.

What about cruisers, battleships, bla bla bla?  Forget them.  Too expensive.  You want to race to Europe as fast as safely possible, and if you screw around with expensive cruisers and battleships, your defense will not be nearly as strong for the IPCs spent, so it will take you much longer to get enough fleet to get a credible ground attack force into play.