Posts made by TM Moses VII

Sorry Xi, I should really went more in depth in explaining ATB and its cousin VATB. Well ATB quite literally means, “Active Time Battle” with VATB representing “Variable Active Time Battle.” The background from ATB stems back from this gaming parlor my brother and I would go to. It is based on the theory of time management. If I am able to perform more actions than my opponent within a given set of time, then my chances of victory increases dramatically. VATB, however, is a much newer design that incorporates ATB into the economy. What it is saying is that if the battlefield changes dramatically than I am able to make the changes appropriately to match the new environment instead managing my economy in a paper-conformist attitude.

It seems the more I play, the less I see Germany taking Karelia, nor should I think they should. No doubt, taking Karelia is great. This gives you a tremendous benefit since Russia is now force to defend its capital and neglect three Southern territories (9 IPCs). However, the amount of self-sacrifice this requires is enormous; often Germany can take Russia but lose out due to its inability to protect Germany itself.

Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.

Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.

This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.

You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion. If I already know that the Germans will not be foolish enough to throw everything they have in a last ditch offensive to take Karelia, which would result in defeat 50% of the time, then I would better use my IPCs on the Pacific or on bombers (read post on Strategic Bombing).

Your Western Europe response is a little vague. But for all matters concerning, lets say for America you have 5 transports and for UK 5 transports with 1 fighter and 1 bomber committed to each battle. Now as the Axis player I can calculate the odds and find out for that if want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry (45 IPCs) and two planes preexisting at the start of the game. For the first invasion I calculate that the Britain will lose 100% of the time with the Axis 83% losing between 2-7 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (21%) as the most likely candidate.

On America’s turn, she makes her invasion. Again the Axis will win 92% of the time. 70% of the time, Germany will lose between 3-8 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (13.3%) again as the most likely candidate. This means for all intensive purposes, the Allies would’ve wasted 60 IPCs on infantry (114 IPCs if you also factor in the aircraft), with the Germans at a scant 30 IPCs. This begs the question, where is Russia to land? On the following turn, I can replace most of my causalities.

#4, “You assume there is no protection for the transports.”

I assume that no protection for transports will be made since none have been mentioned in the previous topic.

#5, “Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.”

How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.

#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”

By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.

#7,

I can only assume with you get Germany first scenario that you’re going straight toward knocking Germany out of the game at all cost. Now if you are the one who also likes to focus a little on Japan (ie moving forces from Karelia to the Far East), then it is a move toward my camp.

#8, “I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!”

I can’t disagree with this. A big problem a see nowadays with veteran Axis and Allies players is the lack of innovation where it should be the other way around. Players seem to forget how powerful surprise is and making your opponent second-guess your actions. I’m sure if I revealed my Allied German-Japan strategy, appropriate countermeasures could also be preformed. However, since concepts of my strategy are based around ATB and VATB, I can always keep my opponent on his toes and unsure where I’ll strike next. :smile:

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:51 ]

First building bombers for the short term is plain useless. If I was Russia, and I had German armies staring me down in the face at the gates of Moscow, what use will bombers do? And if I planned to commit on a major offensive, three tanks would fit in nicely with sufficient infantry. I’m sure I covered that in a previous post.

Second, you mentioned a massive front. I can only think you are referring to the Eastern Front. If so, I can assume the argument holds less bearing. Again, the only Allies I see capable of purchasing bombers are Britain and USA. Russia cannot afford bombers and shouldn’t do so since it’s strength lies in the ability to tie the Germans up in holding Karelia.

Exactly how can Germany reach Britain and Western USA with 3 tanks and supporting infantry? I can only assume that you will be building transports with Germany that I can hit with my bombers. The other logical place is Africa. Again, this requires a capable German transport fleet in the Mediterranean. However, the distance covered by bombers gives a huge advantage to the Allies. From Britain, I can hit any location in the Mediterranean and still land safely in Caucasus.

What about the idea of shrinking fronts? Shrinking fronts would normally mean a declaration for invasion. Upon closer inspection, I would say the game is slighted toward the defenders when it comes to large troop build-ups. Lets say I had 90 IPCs. With the defenders I can buy 30 infantry. However, if I planned on attacking, 30 infantry would do me no good. Instead I must balance my 90 IPCs between tanks and infantry. Though I have not found the perfect combination between tanks and infantry, lets say I use three different combinations: 6 tanks, 20 infantry; 9 tanks, 15 infantry; and 12 tanks, 10 infantry. The ability for the attackers to win is neigh impossible – 3% chance for the first case, 4% chance for the second case, and 3% for the third case.

As you can see, it would seem that the Russians could hold off the Germans indefinitely due to its great numbers of infantry at the beginning of the game. Another problem would be how lopsided the IPC income between Russia and Germany are near the start of the game. With bombing raids I can help balance out a bit of this indifference and even tip it with a large bombing fleet (3-5 bombers). For example, lets say I have two bombers (1 USA and 1 UK) with the income between Germany and Russia standing at 32 and 24. After the two bombers have conducted their raids, the German income would’ve been lowered 7 IPCs, from 32 to 25 IPCs. Not yet equal to the Russian budget, but good enough to stop the German lines from swelling in their tracks.

The possibilities of bombers beside SBRs are also useful. Usually my bombers will be spent bombing, but bombers are the perfect example of ATB. Bombers can hit both land and naval units with the Mediterranean being a prime example. It’s great range makes it able to reach a variety of hotspots. With supporting units, bombers provide the much-needed combat boast and helps to keep the opponent off balance.

There are still some issues I have to resolve at these forums. So I’ll try to stay here on a limited basis until thinks cool over.

I will take this time to test out the your strategy. Since I have seen this tactic used many times, I have come up with the appropriate answer. The problems with these strategies are that they require pinpoint accuracy and investment. You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?

You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. In my previous topic I stated that Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions. By the numbers a defending force of 7 infantry has a 50% of defeating 10 infantry - a net loss of 9 IPCs if both are destroyed. However, since the Eastern Front often amounts to stacks of 30 German infantry of more, this would require 43 infantry at 55% chance of victory. To pull off this maneuver would require 5 turns of IPC investment along with an additional 3 turns for movement purposes. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.

Second is the invasion of Western Europe. Lets say you commit 1 bomber, 2 planes, and 10 infantry (the most you existing transports can handle) to the European invasion. Anticipating your attack, all the German player has to do to stop this is place a stack of 10 infantry, 2 planes with one preexisting AA gun to claim victory 80% of the time assuming you let your aircraft to fend for themselves.

Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.

Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant? By counterattacking at Hawaii, you seriously jeopardize losing 2 ftrs and 1 bomber. The loss of one or more such craft will be a huge blow to your infantry rush due to the lack of high supporting units. On the other hand, not invading Hawaii could end up just as worse. By doing so, you have allowed the Japanese player free access to ATB at Alaska, Hawaii, Australia, Western USA, Western Canada, and New Zealand. Most harmful of all is Alaska and Western USA. These two place an incredible burden on your timetable as it forces you to funnel units in order to stem with the Japanese tide.

The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before the reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.

Actually I think my USA playing skills are adequate. You brought up Eastern Canada as a staging point, which is a great idea considering I use it myself. However, you forget that the pause I’m referring to is after the transports unload, effectively ending their turn. Now a quick review of the game board also shows that the only avenue EC would work in is Algeria.

Algeria is vital to Allied victory in Africa and in the game. It follows the concepts of ATB, meaning that infantry and tanks will be actively battling and liberating territories within the next few turns. This is fundamental since the German player no longer has the advantage of reinforcing Africa a turn earlier. However, Norway offers none of the advantages of ATB. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely done to reinforce Russian positions. In no way can such a small American or British force defeat the single German force, as I rather spend my money on bombers.

By landing at Western Europe I can expect a German counterattack the following turn. Usually I will not commit to a Western Europe assault, as Germany will have large concentrations of troops and planes ready to defend and tanks with more infantry conveniently situated in Germany itself. Factor this in with the limitations of transports in battle (only 2 inf. or 1 arm to a land battle), and the battle becomes particular sided toward the defenders. In order for the Allies to have any hope of reclaiming Western Europe, a large transport fleet must be built with naval escorts, which will in turn cost even more money and turns loss during buildup.

There is another weakness toward the Eastern Canada strategy. That is the fact that it requires US troops to be stationed in Eastern Canada for at least on turn. This takes away from the early game where some players will want to get as many units into Africa or Norway as quickly as possible.

A look at the Pacific presents us with a different opportunity. All of the Japanese islands are weakly defended and hardly reinforced. This fact also takes away somewhat from supply line difficulties. If I can build one transport per turn with supporting infantry (14 IPCs) for the first few turns, then twice each turn, if I am lucky, I can conquer up to two islands before returning to Hawaii to refill. This also means I can use the Eastern Canada transports mode in Hawaii without suffering from lack of ATB.

Probably. :sad:

“When you’re the Allies and are in it for the long haul, bombers are key to any strategy”

Again, I will reaffirm my standing on this issue. Buying infantry and ARM for the short run is a great idea, especially if you plan on mounting them on a next turn attack or counterattack. But as the turns chip away, the potential of maintaining a bomber fleet becomes invaluable.

This gives me a chance to test out the Moses Active Time Battle (ATB). What is more intimidating: a tank on turn one or a tank on turn 7? Most players would choose having a tank on turn one as there are generally less units are on the table and it gives the long range IPC ability of conquering and hold more territories faster.

When a tank is simply used as a deterrent against a possible attack or to reinforce a buildup (better known as the Russo-Prussian Front), some of its effectiveness is detracted. I would much rather have my tank ATBing than idly sitting around doing nothing.

This is where bombers come to hand very quickly to solve this dilemma. Bombers by themselves are good at almost any time in the game, early on in supporting battles and tacking out lone naval and ground units. The disruption factor alone is worth the investment. But their true worth shows up in the mid-game. While my tank is simply starring me down in the face, my bombers will be ATBing in the form of strategic bombing raids. In the mid-turn rounds a bomber will net 14 IPCs over the course of four rounds. This is equal to at least 4 infantry. Meanwhile, a tank’s role in battle is considered great if I can knock out 2 infantry in a battle.

By the numbers, 1 bomber still has a chance of surviving (33% chance) over 4 rounds. How about if I pitch my 3 tanks versus 4 inf. or the amount tanks would have to inflict to even come close to equaling this amount? Battle results show that the tanks would only survive 37% of the time. A 33% chance of surviving or a 37% chance? However, with the 37 percent chance you have to factor in battle damage. Only 5% of the time will all three of your ARM be able to survive. With a bomber, you don’t have to worry about any battle damage as it is either a hit or miss.

The persistent bombing is key to allied victory (see above) as the defensive nature of the Allies will give them the opportunity to bleed the Axis treasury, while giving time to establish themselves.

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:05 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:07 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:36 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:50 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:55 ]

I admit that the Germany first strategy is very sound and holds bearing to it. However, the main fault I see in it is that it requires a lot of wasted time. There is a turn between loading and unload, not to mention extra turns in order to build up. I feel that these forces would be better off spent actively doing something (ATB) – conquering territory, combat movement, ect.

This is where I see the viability of a Germany and Japan strategy that fluctuates depending where money is needed most. It offers the highest degree of versatility while pressuring both countries. If I can harass Japan’s southern flank enough by island hoping, I can entice them to counter attack. This effectively forces Japan to try and outspend the USA, something they can dearly afford near the beginning of the game. However, if the Japanese player ignores me, I can successfully prevent Japanese troop movements penetrating far in the Middle East or Africa. Another added benefit is that it leaves the Japanese merchant marine highly vulnerable; I can reach the Sea of Japan within two turns from Western USA.

Germany? The only real viable option for US and UK against Germany is Africa and less importantly, Western Europe. I base this on the fact that Germany in no ways can acquire Russia quickly. It takes at least three turns for Germany to reach Russia from Germany, and that is through Karelia. These supply lines will destroy Germany much like it did historically. Russia then is in an advantageous position by holding Karelia. If Germany tries to reach Russia through Ukraine and Caucasus, I can just as easily close this salient through Karelia and counterattack.

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:38 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 17:44 ]

With group games, it’s much harder to make mistakes. Plus it relieves the burden placed on a single player.

If USA and UK can skillfully split up their resources between the two fronts, I can definitely see the strategy of going after Japan in the Pacific.

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-11 21:11 ]

The point about protecting your factories is a must. Whenever I set up my factory in India with Great Britain, I get hit around the clock from Japan. Without any threat of retaliation (even with a defense of 1), factories are extremely valunerable to bombing runs.

When you’re the Allies and are in it for the long haul, bombers are key to any strategy.

If you’re looking for more versatility, try going with fighters. They can’t strategic bomb, but their added defensive bonus is a must. Bombing Africa is usually a bad idea since bombers can only reach North Africa before returning to British airfields. However, with fighters, you can land in Africa afterwards without the threat of German counterattacks due to their defensive ability. 2 fighters will also serve as valuable carrier defense and play a huge psychological difference when grouped with Russian forces in Eastern Europe.

I think that heavy bombers are acceptable if you follow one general rule, which is strategic bombing can never inflict more damage then the existing IPC value of the country. How is it possible to have a negative in production hours and capacity?

Also, if you’re sick and tired of bombers and fighters, rolling for technologies in the first two turns serves as a good substitute. It adds an interesting mix with long-term benefits. You’re guaranteed to receive at least one, maybe two technologies if you buy the maximum number of die. The existing tech system could use a face lift, more in the form of progressive technologies.

Well, when you’re girl “war gamer," it’s inherent. :cool:

For those of you who still remember TG Moses VI, I have taken the liberty of typing up one of his letters “urgently sent from the front.” He sends his regards and hopes to return shortly eager to discuss Axis and Allies on a daily basis. This letter was taken from his accounts while stationed at Fort Wayne, 1862 (historically).

4/25/02

As I write, it is near midnight. Confederate scouts have reported large concentrations of Union soldiers moving in our vicinity. It is certain the Union has numbers in an even greater presence since we last met them at Clarks Mill. I still remember the desperate combat in the dead of night, the stench of gunpowder heavy as pillars of artillery igniting the sky. I hope I will never witness such ghastly imagines again. Only a festering breeding ground of panic and disarray. Least I won’t survive the next encounter, my standard bearer will give my condolences.

Regardless, my men are still confident of victory against the North. Talks of spectacular successes fill the morning conversation, drowning out the lack of food or a decent cup of coffee. All the indications are there. We’ve routed the North many times on the battlefields of Newtonia and Independence, disrupted their supply lines, and harassed all sides of their flank. What my fellow comrades do not understand is the inexhaustible might of the North. Our supplies continue to dwindle; the numbers of dead and wounded already surpassing one thousand. I fear that if Lee does not defeat the Yankees soon, we will be doomed to agonizing defeat. Nevertheless, I have made commitment to both myself and the beloved South.

4/26/02

Today we were on the receiving end of the counterblow. The battle occurred around daybreak and lasted two hours of a bloody mess. Pardon my writing, my hand still trembles on account of memories and sleepless nightmares. We tried to hold the Fort as long as we could… reduced to hand to hand fighting when the ammunition had run out. The cannon erupting on all sides of the Fort, the swarm of Bue-Clad uniforms in tanglement with hues of Gray – only the spoken imagines of human faces unable to talk. We were promised reinforcements, but that was a week ago. Henderson’s Combat Brigade was left to hold off the Yankees until we could make our retreat. None of them made it back. Somehow, I have a feeling that they had a better chance of surviving than what is hellish to come. We have in no means shattered the North’s soul, only hardened it.

4/27/02

Today I write in the bog peat of some engraven rock. I don’t know what’s worse, the insects or the damned Yankees! HaHa! Sorry for the dry humor, it’s all I can muster out of such utter helplessness. Our Captain tells us that it’ll have to make due until new orders arrive. Yesterday’s losses were worst than expected. We had abandoned much of the wounded to fend for themselves in the wake of the rout. No graves for the dead, only rotten corpses basking in the sun. My unit was one of the better spared – we only loss five men. It’s a motley assortment of fellows: Texans, ex-slaves, Europeans, Asians, most of them stripped from remnant units no longer existent. I have grown fond of my brothers at arms, how lost their hopes might be. I often find myself reminding my brethren of the glory of desperate battles and lost causes, like Herman’s Ride to Glory and The Last Stand at Spree. Tomorrow we will have another day, destiny awaits!

Signed,
Moses VI “The Great”
“Abandon all hope lest you enter.” – Dante’s Inferno.

Actually I find most habits and antics to be quite cute. It’s a mechanic that makes the game more lively and entertaining. Personally, in team-matches, my bother and I will perform the Clipper’s Sign every time we win a big battle. What I am annoyed most at are opposite players asking, “are you done yet?” To all players beware, this usually means that you’ve missed something the other player doesn’t want you to catch.

I may not be an armchair general, but invading the Suez Canal seems a little off course. Usually I follow general chronology, meaning after taking Hawaii, I then move to Australia, New Zealand, and from there, either to Alaska, Brazil, Madagascar, and finally to the Middle East.

I would go with the Dodge Viper. It’s speed and acceleration is undeniable, especially on straightaways. However, the original Viper did have hard handling characteristics (tendency to over or under steer) that I hope will be corrected in the 2003 version.