sooooo…. I’m not upset that the thread has gone tangential (that’s not a passive aggressive way of saying I am upset) but you guys could at least give me a pat on the back for winning my first human game :(
Here’s a pat on the back and a box of donut holes.
Actual donuts are reserved for players that can inflict permanent psychological scarring at forty paces.
Bunnies……There is no . . . holy grail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
Once you can provide for a general solution ie some ‘metric’ for a given ‘game state’ then and only then do you enhance this with specific opening move sequences.
That is, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the program should be able to look at a board and figure out what to do in a general sense. Only after the program has this general sense can it be effectively refined to carry out specific strategies.
What I am saying, though, is that the program does NOT require the ability to look at a board and figure out what to do in a general sense. I am not thinking about actual intelligence, only a reasonable facsimile. That is, functionally Weizenbaum’s ELIZA approach. Instead of programming a computer that first understands how to speak, then training it to speak as a Rogerian psychotherapist, simply program the computer to speak similarly to a Rogerian psychotherapist in the first place.
–
So before I posted the above, I found two new replies had been posted.
What intrigues me is not hand coding a strategy that is moderately effective but always makes the same ‘mistakes’. I am intrigued with an actual machine learning system whereby it ‘learns’ how to play and perhaps uncovers hidden strategies. Such a system would be a benefit to play testing new games and changes to existing games.
I say whether it intrigues you or not is not the question. The question is what is the best use of available resources? If I am correct that resources are extremely limited, then programming will have to be done in the limited fashion that I describe, precluding a general revolution in the state of AI development.
Two boxes are easier to carry, than five.
Yes, but would you rather have five boxes of donuts or two boxes of donuts?
Discussion about chess v. A&A AI has already been discussed at length, elsewhere.
Let every eye negotiate for itself
And trust no agent; for beauty is a witch
Against whose charms faith melteth in blood.
Much Ado About Nothing (II, i, 178-180)
Like you, I thought A&A AI would be easier, but after reading all the arguments, I changed my mind.
You weak minded fool! He’s using an old Jedi mind trick! - Jabba the Hutt, “The Empire Strikes Back”
I have played thousands of games of chess in the past few years, and I’ve played about 200 A&A games.
If eating M&Ms made me an expert on making them, I would be the mother of all M&Ms. Or the father, as it were.
There are a lot of similarities, and many of the analogies are relevant and worth discussing.
(Bunnies adjusts soapbox stands on it, and opens a notebook titled “Lecture on Programming”)
Let us suppose you are in a room with a tile floor. Any given tile may or may not be trapped to fire a steel dart at anything that touches it. Let us now also suppose that you have a cute furry hamster and a small supply of hallucinogenic drugs.
Now, there are different approaches to programming.
Most people would say “The h*** with this”, leave the room, and go off somewhere nice to use up the supply of hallucinogenic drugs. This explains the great surge in economics majors in recent years.
Of those that remain -
Those that understand how funding committees work know that it isn’t necessarily actual progress that funds research. What is required is the perception that work is being done. So clever budding programmers pump the hamster they have with drugs, and let it loose on the floor. If the hamster is shot, success! A trap has been detected! If the hamster lives, success! A safe square has been detected! Of course, with the hamster staggering around, in time, the hamster will almost certainly be shot, but it is a staggering success all the same! With success comes approval for further funding, which leads to further hamsters and hallucinogens, which feed more test results, which feed more funding, etc. etc. Then comes the inevitable funneling of hamsters and hallucinogens into black market pet stores and pharmaceutical companies, the reaping of profits, the bribes, the intern set up to take the fall, the convenient accident the intern has before being able to testify in court, the trophy wife, the hot intern with whom an affair is messily covered up, and finally retirement from a happy life of programming, pet stores, and pharmaceuticals, into a respectable life of academia and executive board membership in which no one questions or blinks an eye at twenty thousand dollar “consultation fees”.
Which explains rather a lot about how programming is funded. But how does programming work in theory? How do you make it all sound so very impressive to the bright eyed hard bodied young girl or guy who tells you “programming is soooo interesting, why don’t you tell me more about it?” (For such students, I recommend the Barry White “Can’t Get Enough Of Your Programming Baby” album. Worked for me seventeen times, until the headboard on my bed broke off and hit the record player.)
Programming, chess programming. Throw a million hallucinogenic hamsters on a trapped floor, and see which ones survive. The survivors are picked up and thrown into another trapped room, then another, then another. Finally, only a couple of dazed and terrified hamsters are left, which we call “Viable Options”. What is the programming part? Making sure there is one hallucinating hamster for each tile in each room. Tracking each hamster. The ability to tell which hamsters are dead, which are alive, and which are merely passed out / faking dead / apathetic.
There are other methods to programming.
Some programmers attempt to engineer the hallucinogens so they no longer induce random behavior in the hamster. Instead, exposure to the hallucinogen causes a hamster to act predictably - say after a hamster lands, it always walks straight due north. Since the point the hamster is dropped is known, and since its path is known, any tile between the tile the hamster was dropped on and that the hamster ended up on (or met its end on) is safe. With such hallucinogens, there no longer need be a hamster for each tile, so fewer hamsters are needed overall. Thanks to advances in virtual hamster cloning technology, though, it has been pointed out that developing advanced hallucinogens is far more expensive and time consuming than merely whipping up a batch of a couple billion hamsters.
Some programmers attempt to engineer hamsters. Daring hamsters with fedoras and whips that can detect traps safely. Such programmers are almost inevitably sneered at by funding committees that demand to know when the hamster is going to get up off its a** and make them a sandwich. Frustrated programmers that fail to obtain funding often go on to have successful careers writing scripts for movies such as “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, “Terminator”, and “Planet of the Apes”.
–
As far as comparing and contrasting chess AI and Axis and Allies AI -
There are SOME similarities. But NOT so much so that you could easily apply one to the other.
First, I would say - is Axis and Allies different from chess? I think so. Demonstrably very much so. No “light tweak” would allow Fritz or Chessmaster to play Axis and Allies with any degree of real “skill”. Nor would a heavy tweak do. In fact, I am very much persuaded that nothing short of two cases of Jack Daniels would do the trick.
Second, consider funding. Funding is proportional to perceived marketability. Chess is much, much more marketable than Axis and Allies. Chess is the bucket of funding, Axis and Allies the drop of water.
True, programming techniques applicable to Axis and Allies and not to chess could be developed and sold were Axis and Allies AI to be developed. But specific programming techniques could just as easily be developed for other projects entirely - other higher-profitability projects, that is.
So what we have so far is - Axis and Allies AI will require significant unique development, and that funding and resources for such development will be very limited.
That means A&A AI must deliberately be developed to be simple. More complex than is currently available in TripleA, but still very simple. A programming environment will not be created for the purpose of Axis and Allies programming. With calculation abilities limited to piggybacking on existing program shells, the program will not have the resources, and therefore should not be written, to encompass all possibilities from each point, because calculation times will be too long.
So the best direction for Axis and Allies AI, considering the real-world resource limitation, is the writing of a framework through which the AI can efficiently execute several different predefined strategy scripts. With a limited (although still quite wide) number of variables to check, the program can evaluate conditions and select an appropriate stage of an appropriate strategy, and execute a move in a reasonable amount of time. This should give the Axis and Allies AI reasonable efficiency, but should not be anywhere near as difficult as scratch-building an effective chess AI.
To put it in hallucinogenic hamster terms - instead of throwing mass hamsters (calculation power), re-engineering hallucinogens (complex AI scripts), or re-engineering hamsters (giving an AI the ability to understand the concepts behind the game and the ability to derive principles therefrom), we are instead throwing down a lot of sets of unconnected colored tubes (setting predefined strategy sets that transpose into one another). All hamsters start in a tube (the opening position for each power can be predicted, although there are many possibilities so many tubes are needed. From that opening position, the game can be steered along certain “safe” paths). A certain minimal amount of hamster and hallucinogen engineering is needed to get the hamsters to jump from one tube to another (although much less than if there were no tubes). There is always a danger that a hamster may wander out of a tube where it will quickly die, but given our limit on hamsters and limited engineering capability, that can’t be helped.
–
As far as Axis and Allies inherently being harder to program than chess -
Even in the 1950s there existed a literature of tens of thousands of good, solid books on chess. Programmers did not have to figure out how to use rook and king to checkmate a king. It was in the literature. They did not have to figure out how to use bishop and knight and king to checkmate a king. It was in the literature. They did not have to figure out the deviations fourteen steps deep into a Sicilian Dragon, and how to exploit significant deviations from the line. It was in the literature.
To my knowledge, Axis and Allies has nothing like that. Oh, there’s a bit here and a bit there, but it’s mostly fundamentals conceptually equivalent to knowledge of pinning, or the first three moves of the Spanish/Ruy Lopez. There is nothing THERE.
So in practical terms there is groundwork to be laid, and I think (among other factors) that is one of the major contributing factors to why the competitiveness of Axis and Allies AI does not compare to the competitiveness of chess AI.
But is Axis and Allies inherently harder to program?
First, check conditions (ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP). Second, set strategy (X) based on checked conditions. Use tactical database to evaluate best use of available resources. Execute.
That’s all there is.
I’ve heard people say that
Too much of anything is not good for you, baby
Oh no
But I don’t know about that
There’s many times that we’ve programmed
We’ve shared programs and made programs
It doesn’t seem to me like it’s enough
There’s just not enough of it
There’s just not enough
Oh oh, babe
@Gargantua: Say you’re on a diet. So you take five regular boxes of donuts, remove the donuts, then you put the donuts into two large boxes. So far, you’re great. Because all the donuts are still in boxes, see? :roll:
But if you do end up eating all the donuts, it won’t matter if they started out in five boxes or two boxes.
Programming for Axis and Allies is like that.
@Gamerman01: A&A is a lot like chess, in much the same way that a football is like a hamster. Although both fun to kick and squeak a bit when they are hit, there are differences. For example, hamsters can be made into effective infiltration type zombies, while footballs cannot be made into zombies at all, as footballs lack an anima to begin with.
These are subtle points, I know. But important.
I disagree that A&A would be harder to program than chess. Put in a book of openings, midgames, closings, and conditions for when to shift, plus some build constricts so later play isn’t hampered by early poor builds. Because of the dice factor, the game conditions cannot be calculated to a high degree of precision in advance, so it’s not as if you need to calculate sixteen turns in advance. On the other hand, in chess, there are no dice, so moves must be calculated 50 or even 500 moves in advance (the last, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame#Longest_forced_win).
Now if you wanted to program an A&A AI based on a chess algorithm, that WOULD be pretty f***ed up difficult yeah.
When I was a kid, I didn’t have some long complicated creed. :roll:
I’d just hunch over my food protectively and glare. If someone tried to take something from my plate, I’d just interpose my body while glaring.
My momma tells it like it is!
You don’t need EVERYONE to believe. It just takes a few to make a difference.
You think everyone calls psychic hotlines? No, so why do their commercials keep running?
Maybe it’s because . . . there’s something to it? :?
MISS CLEO SAYS CALL NOW!
who WOULDN’T want a stylin’ Hitler T-shirt
I can’t wait for shipping from Bangkok! Imma go get me some magic markers and make my OWN!
In such situations, the attacker should email the defender BEFORE DEFENSIVE ROLLS ARE MADE and ask what the defender wants to allocate as casualties.
This email can be sent after the attacking rolls are made (at latest), or even a couple turns before the attacker makes the move (at earliest).
How could such an email be sent a couple turns before a move is made? Suppose the defender can’t do anything about an upcoming attack; the attacker can then ask about conditions and order of losses without worrying about changing game conditions.
Like suppose me and my opponent both know my fig/bomber will be hit by 2 tanks (nothing more or less). I might email my opponent instructing him/her “If your tanks get 2 hits then that’s clearly that; if your tanks get 1 hit on the first round, I’ll take a chance and take my fighter as a casualty; if your tanks get 0 hit on the first round then we’ll see how it goes; email me with the results.”
If the attacker already rolled the defensive dice, those are discarded. That’s about how it works in a serious recorded league or tournament game.
If an attacker keeps making “wrong assumptions” and tries to discard a lot of dice that just happened to go poorly, obviously the attacker’s a schmoe. Such attackers must wear the Ceremonial Hat of Shame at the annual meetings.
–
If it’s a casual game, clearly people can make their own informal agreements.
–
There is no secret annual meeting/orgy nor is there any actual Ceremonial Hat of Shame. There will not be Belgian Waffles this upcoming Sunday at any alleged secret Officers’ meeting. Bernie, I don’t have your hat from last Sunday.
–
This whole going back and forth with the emails and the checking of dice server rolls is why I prefer live games to PBEM games. TripleA. Weird dice sometimes, but very convenient.
1. “Appropriate” and “Gargantua” cannot properly be used in the same sentence. It’s like a double negative. “Appropriate” and “Bunnies” you may draw your own conclusions on.
2. Gargantua seems to know what he/she/it is talking about. The same is true of many amateur therapists and cooks. “You don’t need pasteurized eggs!” was advice I received just yesterday, at some length. :roll: The lesson is, always beware! You can’t trust in anyone. Especially people that say “trust me”. You can trust me on this. :wink:
3. This passive snowball thing generally does not work. Imagine you are playing Starcraft, and that you have decent micro and your opponent has no micro. Then yeah, you scout a bit, expand a bit, and you eventually just passive snowball right over your opponent. Now imagine you are playing Starcraft, and your opponent has better micro than you. You better have something more than a snowball, or you’ll have a snowball’s chance in h-e- double hockey sticks.
4. Axis start with more power in the right places than Allies do. Say you’re playing Starcraft with two allies (total three), and each of you has a normal base startup. Now say you have only two opponents, but they start with normal base setups plus 20 Marines each. Now yeah, if you’re against a passive computer AI, the Marines won’t attack you until you invade your opponents’ bases. But if you’re up against HUMAN players (that don’t suck)? Hooo ya.
Lo, and in that dream did GUPPERS see a wondrous TITAN made of clay, full three hundred cubits in height, yea, and a small and vicious BUNNIE, the height and weight of a Can of Beer.
Yea, and the world wondered at the Might and Appetite of the TITAN, for LO, as it Stretched forth its Arm, its Shadow was like as unto a Mountain looming over the World, and in that hour did the Kings of Men cry in Despair, with much Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth. And yea, then did the TITAN devour the Countries of Men, with much Smacking of Lips and Burping, and its Shadow did swell and stretch forth until a Pall was cast over the entire Earth.
Yet a light pierced the clouds, and a voice as thunder spake unto GUPPERS, saying “Now see my Pet, with whom I am Well Pleased.” And LO, the Light illumined what the Kings of Men had noticed not in their Despair, that even as the TITAN had devoured the Countries of Men, so had the Small and Vicious BUNNIE devoured the tender bits of the TITAN.
Then did the TITAN crumble, yea, even unto Dust, and the BUNNIE let loose with a thunderous FART that swept the Dust away as if it had never been.
And there was Much Rejoicing.
believe me when I say
I do. :)
I think this all comes down to the fact that well… JMLPORT98 is 13 years old.
Just keep fighting son, hit em with everything you got, everywhere you got, until you’re dead. And try to learn from your mistakes one at a time. Like NOT losing transports, or NOT attacking Norway with enough, etc, etc, etc.
If JMLPORT98 was a 48 year old three star general with 12 years of Axis and Allies experience, I would have said the same. You’re good or you’re not. Age and supposed experience are besides the point.
Intelligence, interest, and ability to benefit from experience are what determine one’s caliber of play. Age has little to do with it. I see no particular reason why a 13 year old cannot play at top caliber.
As far as leaning from “experience” - Take a bright person of any age with zero baking knowledge. Give them eggs, flour, vanilla extract, baking powder, salt, sugar, strawberries, butter, chocolate, and a fully equipped kitchen, and leave them alone for four weeks. You are NOT going to get a nicely baked strawberry and chocolate cake.
In a couple years, maybe.
But if you want whoever it is to be able to bake a cake in, say, a week or so, best thing is to get them a cookbook and someone that can answer some practical questions.
Granted, most people don’t like a structured approach and would rather just have a good time throwing flour around in the kitchen. Which is perfectly fine if that’s how you like to have fun, apart from a few health and safety violations. But if you want to have fun baking a cake (instead of speculating about how to bake a cake while throwing flour around), you need a different approach.
So your dog comes to you with a chewed up and drooled over sock. Then it gives you a cheerful bark. You can almost picture it asking “Are there any major/minor flaws?”
It’s not really that there is a major or minor flaw, per se. It’s just that the whole thing is wrong.
At your skill level, it would be better for you to study some articles, and read the reasons for why other players chose to or chose not to do particular actions, than to try to come up with new stuff on your own.
Even if those other players have faulty reasoning, understanding why their reasoning is flawed will help you become a stronger player. If those players have good reasoning then all the better.
My comments -
1. Don’t build battleships or cruisers, because they are not worth their cost.
For example, 36 PUs buys you a carrier and two fighters (and a bit left over) or three cruisers. The carrier/fighters have stronger defense, the fighters can be sent to help defend key ground territories, and the fighters can be used for repeated rounds of attack against either land or sea territories. Carrier/fighter combinations are even more useful because friendly powers can land fighters on your carriers, so you can get a very impressive combined defense without having to foot the entire PU bill by a single power. On the other hand, if you’re trying to use cruisers, the cruisers can’t be used to help defend ground, the cruisers only fire once on ground territories, and even then only when you are unloading three ground units for your three cruisers, plus you can’t combine friendly forces with the same power and speed that you can as if you built a carrier.
Or 40 PUs buys you a carrier and two fighters (and a submarine or two infantry) or two battleships. The carrier/fighters have all the points listed above, and the battleships all the weaknesses described above. About the only thing the battleships are good for is hitting and running, or hitting and winning a major decisive sea battle. But if you hit and run with a battleship, if your opponent has any sort of skill, that will leave the battleship in range of your opponent’s counterattack, and the expensive battleship will die. As far as winning a major decisive sea battle, your opponent should never let that happen. Why would your opponent stand there and let you punch him / her in the face?
If you’re very skilled, then you may find UNUSUAL circumstances in which building battleships and/or cruisers is correct. But believe me when I say that given your posts so far, I am sure there is no way you are near that level. How do you know when building battleships and/or cruisers is correct? When you KNOW. If you have any question at all about whether or not building a battleship or a cruiser is a good idea, first, it almost certainly isn’t a good idea, and second, you’re probably not skilled enough yet to be qualified to make that sort of decision on your own. When you KNOW, you will KNOW. (What’s funny is some players think they KNOW, when they don’t have a clue.)
For Spring 1942, you had best stick with the basics. That is, one or two destroyers, carriers, fighters, and transports for your navy. Avoid naval battles if at all possible; build subs if you cannot avoid it. For ground, use mostly infantry and tanks, and a FEW artillery, and do NOT let your opponent destroy your tanks if you can at all help it. If you constantly bleed tanks, you will bleed yourself dry.
2. Don’t build industrial complexes with the Allies. Industrial complexes are expensive, and they don’t fight. You need to apply pressure early, and industrial complexes do not help you do that.
There is ONE exception that can come up in a fair number of games, and there are exceptions that can come up in extremely particular situations, but by the time you know how to identify exceptions, you won’t need to ask what those exceptions are. Again, you will KNOW.
–
Last comment - you’re talking about a strategy that applies to a game that you’re already in the middle of
already occupied by US in my game
. You don’t describe any of the important areas of the map in this or your other thread, nor do you describe the exact disposition of forces. It is completely useless to attempt to advise someone with such limited information. It’s like your going to a garage and asking them for advice because “my car doesn’t go”. They ask you if you’ve changed the oil, if you have gas in your car, if there’s air in your tires, but all you have is “my car doesn’t go”. It’s the same thing. If you don’t give someone the information they need to help you, it’s not going to happen.
I’m guessing what happened / is happening is you pretty much trashed your chances in the game you’re playing; you have some vague ideas that you need advice because you feel pretty lost. But really, you’re so lost you can’t even clearly describe exactly what the situation is, nor can you identify the key points that are going badly for you. That doesn’t speak well for your chances, but if you really want advice that might be useful, get a digital picture of the board and post the .jpg, or better yet, recreate it on TripleA and post the .tsvg.
A huge stack of US subs in Sz45 could be prevented from reaching Sz60 during non combat with a hostile DD in Sz45 and a second in Sz51.
Overthinking it, maybe, yes? A stack of US subs in SZ45 can be prevented from reaching SZ60 with a Japanese destroyer in SZ51. That’s all you need.
Insert Quote
Say I non-combat move a destroyer into a sea zone containing a stack of hostile subs, but only subs.Would the entire stack of subs be forced to attack my destroyer and be pinned there?
If not all had to attack then could some of the subs not attacking move out of the sea zone to enter into combat in other sea zones or remain not doing any combat and then non-combat moving out of the SZ?
On your opponent’s combat move phase, your opponent can move all, some, or none of the subs in that sea zone away as your opponent desires. The subs that move away can enter into combat in other combats.
Any subs that remain must fight the destroyer, and none of those subs can move during noncombat movement. (A unit that fights in combat phase cannot move in noncombat phase whether or not that unit moved in combat move phase. Unless it’s air, that is.)
–
One counterintuitive thing is - as far as I can tell, even if the destroyer survives, your opponent can move subs into the destroyer’s sea zone on the noncombat move phase. (Given that such subs did not move in combat movement or fight that turn).
Scripted General Plans - What and Why
There are a few things to keep in mind for a workable KJF, or for that matter, KGF (Kill Germany First) plan, and for their counters.
–
1. Scripted General Plan. A scripted plan for the first four or five turns should be used, which means a pre-planned set of combat and noncombat moves, and unit purchases. The turns after that are not closely scripted, but the general tone of the game has been set by that time.
A scripted general plan is not worth using if it does not branch to account for possible opponent moves and unusual dice outcomes.
It is not 100% proof against dice results, nor is it meant to be. Attempting to make something 100% safe is like dressing up in full hockey protective gear and carrying a submachine gun and rocket propelled grenade launcher when you go out your front door to check your mail. Sure you might be protected against zombies or alien attack for the moment, but continuing that sort of behavior will get you locked up in a lunatic asylum, just see if it doesn’t.
A good plan is superior to improvisation. With a plan, there is a direct and specific line of play being followed, with each unit being used at maximum efficiency. Improvised play tends to just be one player shoving units at another. Failure to plan is a plan for failure &c.
A bad plan is crap. If you think you’ve got a good plan, and you’re continuously surprised by an opponent’s moves in a bad way, or if things just seem to be falling apart over time, surprise! You don’t have a good plan - you have a bad one, or maybe you don’t even have a plan.
–
2. Which Scripted General Plan To Use. A player must use the scripted general plan that is appropriate for the situation. Suppose at the end of Russia’s first turn, the Allies planned to go Kill Germany First with UK’s portion of the plan being building 2 destroyers 1 carrier on UK’s first turn and taking Norway or Western Europe, segueing into repeated trades of territory between UK and Germany to take pressure off Russia. Now suppose on Germany’s turn, Germany builds two bombers, destroys UK’s battleship, cruiser, and destroyer in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, parks 3 fighters each on Western Europe and Norway, has a bomber on Norway, and has three subs in the sea zones around London. That means wherever UK builds navy, it can be hit by 3 subs 3 fighters 3 bombers. (UK can cut the number of subs Germany can attack with by using a destroyer block, but that will also cut the number of defenders UK can put down.)
The biggest fleet the Allies can put down in a UK sea zone is 2 destroyers 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 cruiser (US) 1 sub (Russian), which can be destroyed by Germany very cheaply. So in that case, UK knows the plan is out the window. UK could insist on carrying through with the plan, but it has changed from a projected low to medium risk plan to a high risk plan.
If UK wants to maintain low to medium risk, it would do better to do switch to a different scripted general plan. What is appropriate depends on the board position.
–
3. Scripted General Plans Can (And SHOULD!) Transpose.
Even if you start with one scripted general plan, you can and often should switch to a different scripted general plan as the game develops along unlikely paths. For example, suppose Russia starts with a very lucky West Russia/Ukraine attack open. Suppose Germany takes a big chance and counters both heavily, and further suppose Germany gets very lucky on both counterattacks.
At the end of Russia’s first turn, the Allies’ scripted general plan would have been for a Europe game in which Russia was unusually strong relative to Germany. But at the end of Germany’s first turn, clearly the situation is reversed - Germany is now extremely strong relative to Russia.
Since the game situation has changed so much, the Allies had best switch to a different scripted general plan.
–
4. Know when to switch scripted general plans.
Some players get an idea that they want to use a particular scripted general plan, and stick to it in spite of unfavorable conditions.
A lot of players quickly learn to watch for unfavorable naval conditions. For example, if UK is dropping to Europe with transports and escort fleet, UK typically watches Germany and Japan’s air. If Germany or Japan have enough airpower, they can blow up UK’s entire navy, and UK has to restart from nothing.
But players often do not watch for more subtle, but equally important conditions. For example, if Russia starts with a West Russia/Ukraine attack, a difference of three or four survivors at West Russia (often easily the case) means the difference between Germany being able to pursue an extremely aggressive strategy (hitting West Russia and pressuring Russia hard and fast) and Germany having to stand off for a gradual build of pressure.
Similarly, units that are not anywhere near combat make a big difference. If Russia consolidated 6 infantry to Buryatia and 4 infantry to Sinkiang at the end of Russia’s first turn, that will leave the door far more open for Germany to press hard and fast, than if those units had moved west towards Moscow / Caucasus. In fact, Germany almost has to pressure Europe harder in that case, to compensate to some degree for the anticipated slowdown Japan will experience in Asia.
Players of some experience will keep an eye on things like the above listed conditions; it’s all there to see when a player starts his or her turn.
But players with more experience will keep an eye on things as they develop, and will perform actions in a specific order so more information is available for later steps.
For example, in a Russian West Russia/Ukraine open, Russia should always do the West Russia combat first. West Russia’s results can greatly affect whether Russia should decide to press in Ukraine or not.
A player needs to adjust not just after each combat, but actually at each possible decision making step in combat. For example, suppose Russia hits Ukraine, loses 2 infantry, and kills all of Germany’s ground forces. At that point, Russia may choose to retreat to set up a stronger attack against a possible German strongpoint in Karelia; with so many German attackers lost and so many Russians surviving, Germany will have an expensive time pressing an attack on Caucasus. On the other hand, if Russia hits Ukraine, kills 3 German infantry, and loses 3 Russian infantry, Russia may choose to continue the attack.
–
For example, think of this -
Suppose Japan’s turn starts. UK’s London fighters landed in West Russia, UK’s sub is at East Indies, UK’s bomber is on Novosibirsk, UK’s cruiser is at Kwangtung sea zone, and UK’s India fighter is on Persia. Russia has left 1 infantry on Buryatia. UK has built 2 destroyers and a carrier and has landed in an empty Norway. UK has sent its Australia sub to New Guinea, and UK’s Australia transport has picked up infantry and is heading east towards Africa. UK has left India empty, used its India transport and a couple infantry to retake Anglo-Egypt.
Let’s suppose Japan plans the following attacks - Japan transport takes infantry from Okinawa and artillery from Japan, drops to Buryatia, along with battleship support shot. Sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber to hit Hawaiian Islands fleet (fighter can land on Wake). 1 infantry from French Indochina into India. The remainder of Jap’s forces hit China. The East Indies battleship/carrier may attack UK cruiser at Kwangtung or hit the transport off Anglo-Egypt.
With a battleship, carrier, and fighter at the sea zone east of Japan, Japan should probably be safe from attack unless the Hawaiian Islands sea zone attack fails.
So Japan builds 1 destroyer 3 transports. The plan is on Japan’s second turn, it can take the infantry from Wake, 5 ground from Japan, and 2 from Phillipines to offload 8 ground into Buryatia and French Indochina. The destroyer provides additional safety from attack and chases Allied subs away, freeing Japan’s transports and escorts to move with more freedom. Japan should keep an eye on Germany’s development; if Germany purchased 5+ tanks, for example, it may be able to push into Ukraine on Germany’s next turn. If Japan lands fighters on French Indochina, those can fortify Germany’s position. Five fighters make a HUGE difference; what would typically be completely idiotic for Germany’s second move (retaking Ukraine from Russia heavily) could become a strong pressuring move with Japan’s help.
How is Japan set for subsequent turns?
Japan’s moves and purchases on the second turn set up Japan’s third turn. If Japan unloads to French Indochina at all on Japan’s second turn, it can pick up and drop off two infantry from East Indies on Japan’s third turn. That means Japan need only build six ground units on Japan’s second turn to fill the remaining three transports for Japan’s third turn movement. Alternatively, Japan could build four or even two ground units, using its transports at French Indochina to hit Africa on Japan’s third turn, or perhaps building early subs or fighters, or an industrial complex on French Indochina.
What Japan does on its second turn must lead into its third turn, but what it does will depend heavily on US’s purchase and placement (Pacific or Atlantic?) and Germany’s second turn (push or stay?) If US stays out of Pacific, Japan can either push infantry into Asia and build more transports to harass Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/New Zealand/Africa if Germany is keeping back in Europe, or it can go for a faster tank push to pressure Russia if Germany is pressuring Russia. If US goes Pacific, Japan can push infantry into Asia while keeping navy/air near the coast to keep US off.
One example of how to look ahead properly - suppose US drops an Atlantic fleet, and suppose Japan purchases 2 subs on J2. The Japan subs on J2 threaten the US2 move to Solomons. But even so, there is a decent chance that US can move to Solomons without Japan being able to press. In that case, Japan can move its J2 built subs to French Indochina on J3 to hit the sea zones around Borneo and East Indies on J4. It is not “proper” to look at the immediate situation that results from a unit build. It is normal to look at LEAST two turns ahead, and often MORE, thinking not only of one particular opponent’s moves, but also possible moves by allies that will need support or that can lend support, or other opponent moves besides one’s main adversary that could bolster their lines.
But now, the Bunnies’ twist! (like the dance step, but with bunny ears)
A player may think that I’ve been thinking about Japan’s development all this time. What does JAPAN build? What is JAPAN’s plan? What is the speed of JAPAN’s development? Where does JAPAN move its fighters? What is JAPAN’s move on the second turn, third turn, fourth turn?
But NO! What I’ve REALLY been thinking about this ENTIRE time has been - Germany’s development in Europe! (surprise!) I mean yeah, you look back, and there’s just the one weeee reference to Jap fighters going to Ukraine on J2. But really, Japan’s ENTIRE PLAN should NOT be based just on the Asian coast and Pacific, and say “oh, here is what I am going to do here, here is where I can be countered, blah blah blah”. That is how you FAIL TO PLAN! DONKEY! (been watching Hell’s Kitchen . . . :wink:) You must think about the ENTIRE picture!
For example -
PICTURE 1:
Suppose Russia has completely awful luck on some sort of triple attack, and tries to reinforce Caucasus, placing a build of 1 artillery 3 tanks there, plus its fighters, and its fourth tank at Moscow. Also suppose Russia moved 6 infantry to Buryatia and both Novosibirsk and Kazakh infantry to Sinkiang. (I mean, really bad play by Moscow, trying a risky triple attack and making bad noncombat move decisions. But say that’s the case.) Now suppose Germany built 8 tanks, took West Russia and Caucasus, and that UK didn’t destroy Japan’s East Indies fleet or recapture Caucasus. What you are looking at is no longer a “normal” game. Germany has broken Russia’s back. All that remains is for Germany to seal the deal.
If Japan hems and haws and doesn’t push hard and fast, that gives Russia time to recover. What Japan SHOULD do is build 2 industrial complexes to push tanks towards Moscow at super speed, break Buryatia and China, and push, push, push! If Japan says “Oh, Germany is doing “well”, so I can screw around and attack Hawaii and Alaska and Australia and Africa”, Japan is completely missing the f*ing point! Ram tanks down Russia’s throat and finish the game!
PICTURE 2:
Or suppose Germany has built nothing but infantry and artillery, and has consolidated at Eastern Europe. Now Germany’s playing a very passive game in Europe, which will NOT pressure Russia. If Japan builds 2 ICs and pushes tanks like mad now, it’s just flinging expensive tanks away to trade for cheap infantry! In this case, Japan would do far better to go 3 transports/destroyer to start pushing infantry in on Europe, and should go additional transports if Allies do not go KJF, to hit Australia/Hawaii/Alaska/Africa for income, while Germany develops its slow push in Europe!
Japan’s development depends NOT only on the situation in Asia, but ALSO the position in Europe! How big is the Allied fleet? Where is Germany threatened? How fast is Germany developing? Where will Germany need to pull back? What will the pace of the game be, and how should Japan best play?
PICTURE 3:
This is in particular one of my favorite Axis plans, even though it is very risky. It’s the “G2 Ukraine hardpoint / G3-4 Caucasus capture plan”, which I think is fairly descriptive and to the point. I could call it something pretentious like “Bunniepanzerzero”, or “Padawan-cuts-grass-with-purple-lightsaber” but eh.
Germany plans to push to Ukraine on Germany’s second turn, anticipates that Russia can reinforce Caucasus, so plans to push into West Russia on Germany’s third turn, backed by Japanese fighters. This forces Russia to retreat to Moscow, allowing Germany to capture Caucasus on Germany’s fourth turn. At that point, though, Germany has to anticipate a huge possible Russian counterattack to Caucasus. On the other hand, a J2 move of three transports to French Indochina could be followed by a J3 move to Persia, allowing Japan to heavily reinforce a German-held Caucasus on J4, preventing the R5 recapture.
In the meantime, though, US could be pressing Japan in the Pacific. If Japan has used its fighters to help Germany in Europe, US can press that much harder and faster, particularly threatening Borneo/East Indies/Japan quite seriously on US4. Also, UK can be reinforcing Europe via Karelia/Archangel, plus the Allies will be outproducing the Axis. If America has pushed KGF, then Germany may be facing serious serious pressure in the west.
The balance here is that Germany must be careful to look at the relative balance of power between Germany and Russia at the beginning of Germany’s turn. A couple infantry one way or another means the difference between this plan either working decently or failing utterly.
–
In particular, the last picture (Bunniespanzerzero) :roll: illustrates the importance of a coordinated plan that combines forces of different powers, and how such a plan can and (in this case MUST) often extend five or more turns from the point that it’s started at, with the purchases and movement for each of the following five turns largely set ahead of time.
Wow, vehement disagreement with Hobbes. Smexy.
Considering that with the Axis I’d rather have US destroyer blockers (kill them with subs, +2 IPC gain for J and less 1 unit to defend against the Japanese AF) and keep the entire Luftwaffe in Europe for the UK/Soviets then this point to me isn’t really an issue.
You don’t build Jap subs so you don’t care about US destroyer blocks. I do build Jap subs, so I do care about US destroyer blocks.
As far as killing destroyer with sub, I know better than to think you’re seriously trying to base major grounds on the miniscule IPC gain. The point of the US destroyer block is to basically screw the attack power of the entire Japanese fleet so US can move into a key position. You use a single German fighter to free up the attack power of two battleships, four or five subs, and probably destroyer/2 carriers as well.
You can go both ways - Japan builds subs, US builds subs - again the trick is to keep a fleet capable of defending against the Japanese AF - if that happens, then US can go subs all the way.
Theory, theory. But WHEN are you going to actually start pumping out those US subs? You push destr/carrier/fighter/transport with US! You know it, I know it. You don’t build US subs early because that’s not what you need for the early phase. You don’t build them in the mid because those don’t develop the position in the face of the Japanese threat (if Japan is handling its end properly). You don’t do them late because once you establish pseudo-dominance of Pacific, subs catch up way too slowly - you build fighters on a carrier based at Western US that immediately threaten Japan’s naval position, or you build transports to consolidate and dominate the islands.
Now, yeah, if you went KGF, you can use a couple subs for interference to stop Japan from running unescorted transports around. But in KJF, Japan isn’t leaving anything unescorted.
Japan can always strike first but it needs to set up its navy and AF to properly stop the US from advancing. The question here isn’t ‘range’ (which I don’t understand your definition of shorter) since the range is the same for all units, regardless of their country. (also Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a basketball player for the LA Lakers, not a boxer)
The key issue for J is the ability to mass enough naval and airforce to stop any US naval stack from advancing while at the same time defend its fleet/newly builds from US attacks. Failure to do any of both concedes position to the US and ultimately the Pacific is decided upon these conditions.
The movie “Game of Death” stars Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (among others). It’s not boxing, but the principle is that guy had this huge f*ing range. Yeah, you know, Kareem loses because he’s up against the star (Bruce Lee), but jesus. In boxing, the difference in reach is usually in inches, so it’s a lot harder to see the effect that a difference in reach has. But if you watch “Game of Death”, well, wow.
What I don’t understand is why you would consider that Japan can mass enough naval/airforce to deter US naval stack without Jap subs. I think it’s so much easier to deter US from making an attack when you’re going to dump 6 IPC Jap subs per US hit as opposed to 10 IPC Jap fighters. You preserve your attack power, you have preemptive attack when US runs out of destroyers.
Yes, yes, absolutely correct about Japan massing navy/airforce to push US. But if you know you are going to fight, or at least threaten to fight, do you want subs or fighters? Yes, fighters can push in Asia. Yes, fighters are more flexible. But subs are much cheaper, and you need to pump them early to get them into position in the midgame. The way I figure it, you go sub production early and use your existing airforce in Asia/Europe, then you switch to fighter production midgame. The newly built fighters protect Tokyo on unit placement, and have range to hit the US fleet that’s moving around.
Again, subs don’t defend against planes. Try holding SZ60 with mostly subs against an armada of US fighters and bombers.
Oh come on. Why BOTHER holding sea zone 60 (east of Japan) against a chunk of US air? The whole idea of the Jap sub defense, you shift, shift, shift. If US comes in fast and hard, you smash them with cheap subs. If US hovers outside sub range, that’s fine because by definition they’re not close enough to do anything problematic. I’ve never played a KJF defense in which my Japan fleet stayed in one place, ever. If US backs off, you push. If they come forward, you smash them or (more likely) reposition. Move, move, move! Don’t build industrial complexes that lock your defense down, flow like water, reflect like mirror, etc.
US buying subs on US1 is not a good idea unless Japan badly messed up and lost capital ships on J1. You need destroyers, fighters, cruisers and carriers - the goal is Solomon Islands landing on US2.
Yes, of course. But I thought part of my whole point was that Japan can use subs far more effectively than US can.
Faced it on Revised quite a few times - it’s only a gigantic pain in the a** the first time, turns into a nuisance afterwards: the US will still be limited on advancing on the Pacific, German units in Egypt survive (making Africa harder/impossible for solely the UK to retake) and J’s transport off SZ59 gets out alive.
Unless the UK fighter on Egypt survives G1 to join the UK fleet Japan can sink it, and if it joins the UK fleet, Japan can still sink SZ52 first and then scare the UK fleet to the Indian to prevent it from joining the US Pacific fleet.
One of the Axis bids in Revised that I’m used to is inf/tank in Africa, making for 4-5 survivors at Anglo-Egypt. You don’t counter Anglo-Egypt in those circumstances. You just give up on it, because it’s already gone. If Allies go KGF, you use US tanks to blaze through Africa for the quick reclaim. If Allies go KJF, though, you do something else - usually unification. But in either event, there’s no Anglo-Egypt counter.
If Germany went Euro bid, then you use UK to counter Anglo. But then you’re going KGF to offset the quick German pressure in Europe, not KJF.
Unless Germany moves a plane to kill the US destroyer blockers the subs can be rendered useless . . .
The US also benefits from the cheap subs, the distance factor applies to the whole fleet rather than just the subs. And subs are worse in defense both for Japan and the US.
Of course Germany should be moving a fighter to the Jap fleet to kill off US destroyer blocks. So the Jap subs are NOT rendered useless. It’s like saying cars are useless if you don’t have gas. So true! But just bring some gas, and it’s not a problem, yes?
As far as cheap subs - I don’t see US building subs. You build destro/carrier/fighter/transport. That is what you need. You need destroyer to hunt sub; if you don’t have it, Japan can throttle you with subs. You build carriers because you need to protect your fleet against air. You build fighters to press the attack quickly. You build transports to pose at least SOME sort of invasion threat.
As far as subs being worse on defense for both Japan and US, I say so what? Think of it this way. Suppose you are in a boxing match in which the first punch ends the match. One boxer has huge range (say it’s Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who had HUGE range). The other doesn’t (say a pygmy). Now yeah, you know, if you ignore the difference in range, then it’s anyone’s game. But there IS a difference in range.
So what happens if the short range boxer concentrates on offense (subs)? He (or she) gets punched out! The boxer with shorter range needs to slip or block the punch on the way in, or “small chance” becomes “zero chance”.
US has to press the attack to make it mean anything, so US effectively has shorter range. It has to come in punching range of Japan first. Japan has the ability to hit first.
So when you have subs that are pretty decent on offense but not so much on defense, who does that benefit? I say Japan, with its ability to hit first!
What about clever tricks? You know, like US building mass subs on US1 and splitting sea zones? It doesn’t matter! US can make zero progress in KJF until it can threaten landings, and that isn’t going to happen without carriers. Even if you build flocks of transports, they will die long before they get into range unless you build the destro/carrier/fighter escorts that you need!
–
Re: other points:
Yes, Japan can sink a unified Aus fleet in Revised. Of course. But the point is, it’s a gigantic pain in the a** for Japan in Revised. In Spring 1942, Japan just blows the hell out of the fleet without blinking.
“Japan spending money mainly on subs to stop KJF is not best move . . . subs contribute zero to defense of Jap fleet against US planes”. You already addressed the first by mentioning the German fighter stopping US destroyer block. The second I don’t consider too much of a problem. Even keeping 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighters (I often have a destroyer too) at the sea zone east of Japan at the end of Japan’s second turn will almost certainly stop anything the Allies have coming, and that’s without Japan even building anything. Pretty soon that changes to 2 battleships 2 carriers plus air and probable destroyer as Japan should certainly be able to reunite its fleet on J3. That is no joke to kill with air alone. It’s like, yes, if you have Jap destroyers, then what is merely a stupid US move becomes a retarded US move. But if you have Jap subs, the US move is still stupid, and you have a much harder punch for PUs spent with Japan.
–
Re: early subs vs early fighters &c
Well yeah, I’m a big advocate of ground push. So maybe fighters instead of subs eh. But once US has the threat control against the sea zones around Japan, it’s too late to build sea units; you have to make do with what you’ve already built. Hm.
It’s at least worth thinking again about early fighters, though - yeah.
The new sub and transport rules can also work against Japan but only the US goes on KJF - they make it a better possibility than it was on Revised but you still need to be lucky on the first game turn.
My thought is KJF (Kill Japan First) is more possible in Revised than in Spring 1942.
First, in Revised, UK can unify its fleet northwest of Australia; given the Revised rules, the transports make the UK fleet much more durable.
Second, in Spring 1942, subs are 6 PUs each, which helps Japan’s “keep away” game. That is, Japan pumps cheap subs early; if the US sails into range, Japan can smash them using its huge starting navy and air plus the fodder subs; if US stays away, Japan continues to progress in Asia.
True, in Revised, Japan can use transports for combat fodder. But that’s a temporary one-time advantage that only applies early against the KJF.
The fact that subs cost 6 instead of 8 in Spring 1942 means Japan can spend less while still maintaining local superiority of forces. The longer the game goes on, the more Japan benefits from having cheap subs.
US does not similarly benefit from cheap subs. First, the onus is on US to advance into the Pacific, which means US must first move into range where Japan can hit them; only then can any US survivors do anything useful. That means Japan benefits greatly from having subs, which are cheap and have a decent attack, while US does not benefit from having subs, which although cheap have a poor defense.
Second, Japan has much more power to begin with. Third, the map favors Japan’s logistics against a KJF. All these factors make subs immensely useful on an ongoing basis, which I consider more than compensates for the effective loss of transports as combat fodder. Particularly, the cheapness of subs is key. Japan can build subs but still pump out some ground to press in Asia. In Revised, where subs are more expensive, early expenditure on subs really hurts Japan in its ability to press in Asia a lot.
In Revised, it became pretty clear pretty fast that Axis needed a bid. I would say the Axis bid should be 9 IPCs worth of pre-placed units or banked, with the ladder stipulation limiting one unit placed per territory or sea zone in which a player already controlled units. (Not “7 to 11”, but actually a clear “9”). The most common uses were 3 Ger infantry in Europe for an early Karelia push, or inf/tank in Libya/Algeria with 1 IPC left over to Japan so it could purchase 2 transports 1 IC if so desired.
Why this was needed - in Revised, transports were used as ablative armor for Allied navies, so Germany hitting an Allied fleet meant losing expensive fighters for cheap transports. So Germany could hardly kill Allied fleet, and the Allies came on fast and hard in Europe; Germany would get plowed under very fast, especially since Germany couldn’t normally take any decent Africa income for a while (without a bid)
The Revised bid allowed Germany to push hard in Europe early (which it often couldn’t take a chance on without the bid) for positional advantage; alternatively to use a bid for an early push in Africa for an economic game.
In Spring 1942, it isn’t so clear that there’s an imbalance.
If I’m assuming it correctly, the point is that if the fleet is trapped then there’s no need to destroy it since Allied control of Suez implies Allied control of Africa and zero possibility of German landings.
However the best use of the Med fleet, imho, is to help contesting Ukraine and Caucasus, so it doesn’t really matter if Africa is blocked to German landings - plus the Allies will also have to keep sending units through Africa (waste of units), otherwise the Germans will eventually start contesting it again.
Yes. But also I (examined paw carefully) because often the Suez does NOT close with a German Med fleet - or at least, it closes after Germany’s already thoroughly milked the hell out of the Mediterranean fleet.
German Med Carrier Strategy (Bunnies’ abbreviated version)
First off, if you even try this, Germany has retarded progress in Europe. Buying early navy means less early infantry and tanks. A Mediterranean carrier has zero effect on UK’s progression in northern Europe. If anything, UK’s progression is only even easier. It’s my opinion that the absolute best thing that can happen to the Axis is the Allies trying to sink the Axis Med fleet. It’s like when your four year old cousin starts to try to beat you up with a foam noodle. It just ain’t happening, and meanwhile you’re taking all his candy.
When you build a Med carrier, you don’t f*ing just throw one down and say “look at me, i’m a master of med carriers!” (which is what some players I’ve seen do.) You look for favorable conditions first. Ideally Germany can claim Karelia without Russia being able to pose a real strafe (i.e. attack then retreat). This gives the Germans position to grab Archangel and maintain Norway income on G2, plus restricts Russia’s income so it has less to press Germany with. Ideally Russia doesn’t have a whole god-awful chunk of units ready to move into Ukraine either, because counterplay there can more than compensate Russia for the loss of Karelia.
If the Allies pre-emptively set up to screw with a Med carrier buy, you just do something else. Russia sent all its Caucasus and Kazakh units to Persia on R1? Fine, don’t buy a Med carrier, just punch Russia in the nuts with tanks.
Even given favorable conditions for a Med carrier, it isn’t enough to just buy the thing. You have to follow through with Germany and Japan, or it just becomes an expensive disaster for Germany.
So you’re looking at one of two situations, either Germany hit Anglo-Egypt or it didn’t, which really changes the game up, but we will ignore that for now and pretend UK doesn’t whack either Japan’s East Indies fleet or an isolated German battleship at Anglo-Egypt. So you’re looking at a G2 in which Germany is really grabbing the hell out of the Suez, which allows a J2 move of battleship/carrier into the Mediterranean. There’s a few counterplays by the Allies, but the Japs have their own book of counter-counters, which includes Jap fighters, which really basically says “f. u. counterplay”. Anyways, the Axis almost certainly control the Suez long enough that the Axis can reinforce the German fleet with Japs if they so choose. After that happens, the Allies have a hell of a time trying to beat down that Mediterranean fleet.
Early, the Germans must push into southern Africa, with multiple tanks backed with the German bomber (probably starts with G2 inf/tank drop to Anglo-Egypt). UK loses income fast, and Germany gains it fast.
If Germany has dominated Africa and there’s no Allied reinforcements en route to Africa, then I’d say sure head to Ukr/Cauc with the German Med fleet. But with a small to moderate number of US units dropped in, I would drop to Trans-Jordan and/or Anglo-Egypt instead.
Suppose US drops from East Canada to Algeria with a transport. Every turn, US can move the transport back and forth; every turn a transport load gets unloaded to Algeria. But from there, US can only proceed to Libya then Anglo-Egypt. It is very easy to predict and counter the US line of advance, and anywhere along the line, Germany can cut the US reinforcement line with its transports and air, plus any units already in Africa.
The alternative is for US to drop to southwest Africa, but that takes a transport out of action for two turns (one turn there, one turn back). Only on the NEXT turn can it pick up and drop to Africa again. Which is really very impractical if the Allies can at all avoid it.
Normally, US can race through Africa, but steady two transports worth of Axis reinforcement into Africa REALLY screws the normal progression. Suddenly, US has to go much slower, or it gets completely wiped out at almost no cost to Germany. Imagine like this - Germany has 2 tanks and 2 infantry on Anglo-Egypt. It moves one tank to French West Africa, one to Italian East Africa via Belgian Congo, and the infantry to Italian East Africa. Then Germany drops four ground to Trans-Jordan. Whatever comes to Anglo-Egypt on the Allies turn can be hit by eight Germans on the ground plus German air. That’s quite nasty. Even after the Germans lose casualties, there will probably still be enough German survivors to deter a sizable Allied attack on Anglo-Egypt.
Eventually, though, if the Allies are determined to drop loads and loads into Africa, they do push the Germans out. But then, the Germans just march into Persia where they meet up with Japanese reinforcements. Then the fat stack of Allies in Africa is cut off from the Russians, on the wrong side of a combined German-Japanese force. Further, the Ger/Japan combined force at Persia allows Germany to set up for a serious threat to Caucasus. If Germany pushes to Ukraine, Russia can strafe, but a combined Ger/Jap ground force at Persia lets Jap take all the cheap casualties - or Germany, whichever is worse for Russia.
So in this setup, if the Allies insist on dropping to Africa, it’s not easy for them. But then again, NOT dropping to Africa is still not easy.
–
I’m not saying “med carierz ownz j00”; there’s plenty of Allied counterplay. But I would say attempting to kill the Med fleet with air should not work until it’s far too late.