Best posts made by surfer

The Allied “playbook” thread is here
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32557/we-need-an-allied-playbook?_=1624678622014

I’m sure I’ll get some negative feedback for this…but that thread rambles. It’s long and much of it is counterproductive arguments since as there are often unstated assumptions in each person’s post that cause confusion.

Bottom line: it’s hard to definitively say what is best for allies other than defend initially until you can get your forces mobilized.

Best option is just to play several games and try out some of the strategies. It is just a game…win some …lose some.

Cheers,
Yeah its Friday, I’ll have a beer.

@Franklin_Cain The problem with a 6+5 rule is that the Axis are almost always at or near 11 cities after 6 rounds. Germany with a simple crush Russia assault should have Novgorod (Leningrad), France, Germany, Poland + Italy has Rome = 5 with Volgograd as the relatively easy 6th VC. Japan has Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung, Philippines, and with some effort India = 5.

If the Axis don’t have to get those extra cities (8 Europe or 6 Pacific), then they don’t have to extend themselves to get the “last” VC. India is a stretch for Japan, but not terrible if that is all they need. They can afford to lose a few aircraft if they never have to go get Australia or Hawaii. Similarly, the Germans can easily take Volgograd and leave Moscow alone. The Russians don’t have the flexibility to defend both against the Germans so one of them will fall.

Bumping up the number to 7+5 is still putting a lot of pressure on the Allies. The Germans should be able to takedown Moscow by maintaining a good focus in the East. The Allies might be able to defend Egypt and have a sizeable force in the Middle East, but they may not (probably won’t) initially be in a position to takeback Volgograd immediately after the fall of Moscow. So again the Axis “win” without really having to exert themselves. The magic number of 8 was developed after lots of game testing and is a surprisingly good rule.

That all said, changing the VC count is another way (besides the bid) to level the playing field between players of dissimilar abilities. If you wanted to let the newer player take the Axis and lower the VC count, then you could have a competitive game.

Completely agree with @trulpen. Sure it’s a little complicated, but it really is an effective barrier for both sides. A great compromise = both sides lose equally, and this is in that category.

I find it funny y’all are trying to race to the bottom to con(vince) someone into giving you a game.

@Stucifer @Avner @AldoRaine @mikawagunichi @pacifiersboard
All, just FYI, I’ll be on vacation starting Tues and be back at the end of the week. I’ll gladly play up until then with whoever posts. Otherwise, I’ll talk to y’all in a few days.

So played a few games and in the middle of a few more, so my sample size for PTV is small, but I have a few observations that i’m curious what the group thinks about.

a) Adding the SZ around Malaya really does nerf the Japanese threat on India. Only a prolonged build up can win there–which I think was the idea: to make a longer game, i.e. one that isn’t really decided until T14+…but that leads to my other point
b) Italy must be defended well by the Germans. In OOB or BM4, you can solely focus on Russia as Germany and just use the Italians as can openers. If the Allies nerf Italy, eh, annoying, but not game changing since Russia will fall soon.
–That doesn’t happen in PTV. Russia may fall, but barring bad play by the Russians (or maybe I’m just terrible with the Germans), Moscow will hold for 12 turns. There’s just a lot of territory and the Russians have enough IPCs to stay in the fight for awhile. Thus, the Allies have plenty of time to control the Med and nerf the Italians. Add to the fact that Italy is an extra space away from France and W. Germany–critical to getting defensive troops into place, and Italy becomes indefensible

It seems the Axis got a triple whammy. No quick wins, and the added spaces make the defense of their areas that much harder, and yet the southern spaces are still easy to reach for the Allies. This means that it’s hard to get economic parity, and a long game that favors the Allies.

My point is that unlike OOB or BM4, it seems like there is a “formula” for the Allies to win PTV. Build up Russia, attack the Med, nerf the Italians, pick at the hard to defend Med landing zones, and wait until the money disparity allows you to just win attrition wars, which leads to overwhelming forces.

To stop this, the Germans have to spend Moscow invasion money early on bolstering Italy, which further delays Moscow falling and plays into the Allies hands.

I would say that Japan does ameliorate the above somewhat. They still cannot take India quickly, but they can grow rather large and dominant on the ocean, which could prevent an overwhelming force in the Med. But again, playing for the long game, the Allies just keep enough in the pacific to stay alive, nerf Italy and the game should go their way.

Can openers for Italy and Germany, I can speak to. The concept is as you stated: a teammate, who goes before you, clears out blockers so that the main force can rapidly advance. Italy can “can open” for Germany because (usually) there are no ANZAC or French forces in the Eastern front. Russia can’t put single inf in territories to try and stop the German mobile units from two step advances because the italian force will kill it. The Russians must either put many units as blockers, which Germany will gladly kill since fewer units now protect Moscow, or retreat and turtle, which is also good.
As you get closer to Moscow, having the Italians take a territory may not allow 2 step advance, but the Germans can now reinforce with aircraft, which often prevents a Russian counter, and so the German advance continues.

Incorporating the Italians into your Eastern front is a key enabling tactic for the Axis.

As far as a British “reverse can opener”… as i see it, you are right, this shouldn’t work for helping the Russians, since Germany moves first and would avoid any counter attack. The US can can open for Brits.

Perhaps, a reverse can opener is reblocking what the can opener forces cleared. In which case, you would need ANZAC or French forces to take out the Italians and establish control/ block. The Brits don’t move at the right time to make this happen.

@axis-dominion Agreed. I very much enjoyed my games with @trulpen. Beers tonight in memoriam.

I’m not sure what you plan to gain from the DD that helps the Russians.
Mostly, the first turn the germans attack the Russians they don’t need the fighters, so they are free to sink ships. One more DD doesn’t change that.

The germans can transport men north unimpeded until they attack, so you aren’t stopping any German reinforcements.

Maybe I’m a poor German player, but i don’t focus on the Baltic. Just go overland until Russia is destroyed.

@axis-dominion While we are at it, I think AA should also get a tweak. Either 4 shots, or reduced cost to 3 or 4, possibly both.

It appears that the cost of a AA unit was set to 5 so that after buying 2 AA, one would likely kill 1 ftr, if attacked by 6 ftrs, and the battle would be a wash TUV. But that does not account for the rapid movement of ftrs vs AA so that one almost never buy AA.
Increasing their lethality would make for more tactical unit buys on defense. Especially in the late game where everyone seems to rely on massive air fleets to dominate a region.

@randomcat There are no limits to the number of units that can be produced in G40. If you want to buy only tac bombers, go ahead you can buy to your hearts content.

@gamerman01
Perhaps it nerfs certain units, but I think changing the values helps make the game into more of a rock paper scissors decision rather than always picking rock.

Currently, optimal buys involve inf, ftrs, DD, CV. SS, mech, and tanks are good for offensive punch. I see small value in AA, and none for cruisers and BB–RELATIVE to the main units.

My point is that why have the other units? Or they are underpowered relative to cost. By changing value, you bring in more of a mix of units, which changes strategies. Add to that the differences in goals for the different countries, and IMHO you will have a richer game experience.

@hengst Well, normally the sb from London comes as well. The choice 1-2 ftrs depends upon your comfort level with attack. +1 ftr (assuming 3 ftr scramble) = 80/20, +2 = 95/5. Since a scramble +loss for the Italians means they will be non factors for quite awhile (if ever), most would not take a 4:1 dog as a gamble and thus the Taranto raid will work, and 1 ftr is all you need.

BTW the ftr from Gibraltar is usually sent to SZ 96 to help sink the DD + trans–don’t want to forget about that one, and lands in Malta. I assumed that in the above calculation.

@simon33 I think @Arthur-Bomber-Harris would have something to say about this…He’s a big proponent of dark skies and having played against him, it’s not so easy to dismiss. The reach of bombers in the European map is quite effective. And yes the Allies can buy more CVs + ftrs, but that slows down their invasion time tables and allows the Germans to advance.

@Krameleon Hello, and welcome to the forum! There are two very good strategy guides that have been sticky’ed related to German and Japanese strategies. They are somewhat old, but the basic battle plans and strategies explain much of what the Axis needs to do in the first several rounds. Italy is mostly a minor player, and so gets wrapped into the overall German strategy, i.e., its goals are designed to support rapid German advance.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19929/germany-playbook-overall-strategy-guide/237
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17005/the-japan-playbook/354

Good luck.

@Axis_Powers_r_Better Let’s try it this way:

1. Can subs attack other subs?
   Ans: Yes, but it is the defender’s option to fight(assuming no destroyers are present). The attacker can declare an naval attack in a SZ with other subs present (like in the scenario above). The defender then gets to decide if the subs wish to fight or submerge.

In fact, at the beginning of each combat round (even if destroyers were present at the start of the battle), if there are no more destroyers present, any subs in the battle have the option of submerging and avoiding the remainder of the battle. At the conclusion of the battle regardless of the winner, the submerged subs will remain in the SZ.

2. Convoy rule: Certain SZ have convoy markers in them, e.g., SZ105 in G40. If you own shore territory adjacent to a convoy marker, that territory can be convoyed (lose income). At the end of your turn, any SZ’s that have enemy (not neutral or friendly) warships (CVs do not count) or planes in them will attempt to disrupt your income. For each enemy warship, roll 1 die. For each plane or sub, roll 2 dice. Rolls of 1-3, you lose 1-3 IPCs from that territory. Rolls of 4-6 do nothing. You can only lose as much IPCs as the territory has value.

If a SZ has multiple territories around it, you can lose upto the sum of all the territories you own, e.g., SZ97, the Italians own S. Italy, N. Italy, Albania, and Greece. Total IPCs= 10IPCs. If the Allies have CV + 2 ftrs + 2 subs that lived at the end of the Italians turn in SZ97, then you would roll 8 dice, summing up all 1-3s and subtracting from 10 to determine the total loss of income due to convoys. Assume in this example, the Germans own Yugoslavia, which doesn’t affect the Italian rolls. But if the fleet remained at the end of the German turn, you would again roll 8 dice, but only subtract from upto 2 IPCs.

Of note, at the end of the Allies turns, the fleet in SZ97 doesn’t do anything to Italians or German income, i.e., it is not offensive attack, but only an aspect of the end of turn income determination.

@Panther I just tried with v2.5.22294
Worked correctly with BM4 and PTV ~ 25 ftrs remain
OOB still has 30 ftrs and 10 AA remaining at end of fight.

I don’t have a copy of 2.7

But I did try v.2.6.14394. It worked fine for all 3 versions.

Not sure what is wrong v.2.6.14526…but some kind of regression occurred. And apparently was fixed in 2.7. I’ll try updating my game engine to latest 2.6…I have several games running with others so not want to upgrade to 2.7.

Cheers,
–surfer

No. I agree with you!! Especially the Japanese war. Sure, I messed up with the Chinese, but honestly I thought I could slow you down with the vast space of territory China had. But as you mentioned, after J3 you were making more than the US!! I had to ignore Germany most of the first 8 turns just to keep up with Japan, much less take it down a notch–I don’t see that I’ll ever be in a position to do that.

Of course, I made mistakes that a better player would avoid. China and recently the Russian Siberian army are good examples, but I feel that 2 aspects of the game are essentially forcing the game towards the Axis:
a) carriers and lesser extent airfields controlling much larger areas in PtV
b) mech inf = 5 IPCs!

A lot of talk has been said on carriers, and not much to add except this–the Axis start the game with many more aircraft than the Allies, and buffs like these are just that much more important in the early game when you are trying to build your forces.

The mech inf is probably the single biggest reason (besides the size of Russia) in my mind the Axis don’t just wipe the Allies. The added expense is just about always too much to justify, and forces each side to slow down their expansion. Since the Axis are doing most of that expansion, this disproportionately affects them. It is also probably a big contributor to why the Axis did not just overwhelm the Allies early on and why this game is still “competitive” this late in the game. Where competitive = Allies TUV > Axis TUV and production approximately equal. Of course the result of building more inf vice mechs is that the front lines are more static with the Allies having more difficulty because they have to transport their forces into these front lines. And need more than usual because the number of forces involved. Your German transports being a particular counter-example, but since I can’t build in the Atlantic essentially they become fast movers for your already superior numbers of land troops.

This actually isn’t much different than the normal games with the exception that I cannot see how to defeat Japan. The long supply lines for the Atlantic are counterbalanced by the spread of battlefields to attack. And they aren’t that long 2 moves to attack sometimes just 1. The Pacific is ridiculous. The interior lines of communication afford the Japanese the ability to hold everything. The added territory of China gives added $$s and Japan can just play a slow game and develop. That is not how the Pacific war has been fought previously. The last thing Japan wanted to do was build slowly because the Allies could build faster. They can still do so as the UK Pacific + ANZAC help the US. But in this game, it requires almost all of the US build since UK is minimally producing–just to match Japan, which of course means the Germans will roll. This is offset by the Russian horde so the game is not completely out of balance.

There is also this feature of the game: Since few land mobile units are produced and the land map is larger–Russian and China, the front lines are more separated from each other. No ability to move fighters from one front to help the other. Not sure how this changes the Axis / Allied balance, but I would think it helps the Axis since it is a large part of my previous Allied defense to use fighters as quick reaction forces. However, it does force the Axis to truly separate their units up without easy re-enforcement. Makes defending easier.

It gets destroyed. Same as if US attacked a lone Japanese transport with a single sub and the Japanese could “scramble” to defend. The basic battle of sub vs. fighter + transport is not a fight. The fighter will not hit, and the sub gets to torpedo the transport.

Got it. But I’ll be delayed a day…sick kid. Should be better tomorrow.