The Art of Defense

[ncscswitch]

We have had many, many posts over the years with ATTACK strategies.  Everyone who comes here and gets active on these boards has their own ATTACK strategy that they think is a game winner (myself included).

Truth be told... this game is NOT won on attack, but on DEFENSE.

To see the truth in this, just look at the combat value of units.  There is only ONE unit that is better on attack than it is on defense... the BOMBER.  And how often do you see Bombers being bought?

INF:  100% better on D than A
Supported INF:  Equal on D & A
ART:  Equal on D & A
ARM:  Equal on D & A
TRN:  They actually have a D value but not an A value
SUB:  Equal on D&A
DST:  Equal on D&A
AC:  300% better on D than A
BB:  Equal on D&A
FIG:  400% better on D than A
AA:  NO A value of any kind, not even as fodder.

So, the ultimate key to winning is not on attack, but on DEFENSE.

This creates a quandary for the Axis, since they MUST attack early and often lest the Allied economic advantage overwhelm them.

The key then is not the initial attack, but the COUNTER that the Axis must consider...  the total damage from both the advance, and the counter offensive must be the determining factor in any and all moves throughout the game. 

The only problem with DEFENSE is that the ATTACKER chooses where to attack, meaning that they can opt to bypass your defenses.

So the key is in DEFENDING areas where the ATTACKER cannot avoid.

Examples:
Moscow:  This is the territory that is basically the key to Axis Victory.  It MUST eventually be attacked by the Axis, so the Allies KNOW that they get to defend this territory.  Moscow Defense is one of the BEST advantages the Allies have... forcing the Axis to attack the Allied forces (usually INF and FIGs) that are FAR superior on defense than on attack

SZ5:  An Axis Naval strong point that cannot be easily bypassed by the Allies.  SZ5 cannot be "flanked" except with a 2 to 3 turn delay by landing in other areas in Europe; and it secures Berlin from attack by the Allies.

So, while everyone focuses on what to attack and what to attack it with...  ultimate victory comes down more to what you choose to DEFEND with... and WHERE you choose to defend.  As the defender, economics of combat value are on your side... all you need to do is figure out how to coerce the Attacker into combating you at your points of STRENGTH.

[AK_Satchel]

Excellent post, very thought provoking and accurate. Thanks for sharing your insight.

[Complexity]

I've found that games with strong defense mechanics like Chess and A&A have a very strong positional element to them. A&A is like asymmetric chess with the ability to buy new pieces. The two are pretty similar when you look at the underlying mechanics. You have forking maneuvers (most often done with knights in chess) in A&A that can be done with tanks, planes, or even infantry in certain positions. And obtaining even a very slight material advantage can be used to obtain an even greater positional advantage, and vice versa.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

I disagree.

[Nukchebi0]

Do explain.

[Imperious Leader]

AA may be like Chess, but Chess is nothing like AA

Chess is much more complex because material advantage in AA can be lost only by poor dice rolling, while material advantage in Chess is a much harder assessment, because positional advantage must be taken into account. In AA you don't have Poison pawn moves and gambits are generally not a good idea, because in AA such moves can allow a player to regroup much easier than in Chess. Chess also requires much more coordination of pieces to produce winning combinations.

Chess is much more elaborate because it has a NCO and Informats dedicated to 10,000 or more lines of play involving a great number of analysis moves where it can be formulated more accurately, in AA its rolling bucket of dice, so the plan will not be certain and you need to resort to more flexible plans. A plan that is "approximate" is a much less accurate way of doing business and strategy suffers. So the resulting calculations from Chess moves involves more thinking because everything must be exact or you lost the game. In AA its all over the place and you have less types of ideas that are more successful than others. When you have this its easier to calculate because your just making approximations of what most likely will happen in combat. If you pull back you live to fight another day. In Chess you lost the game.

Chess is a tightrope stratagem of making exact calculations and AA is taking odds based on power ratios and narrow field of ideas that will work. Perhaps in game models where both sides have exactly the same territories and pieces and your playing with low luck, THEN perhaps it could be more complex, but IN Chess the pieces can move over the entire board, and AA is only 1,2,4,6... its more like checkers then Chess probably, perhaps even Risk.

I am rated at 1550 before i stopped playing Chess, but i played in many tournaments and more than a few grandmasters ( just for fun). I was even trained by Edward Gufeld ( hes dead now) who beat Fischer once in the 1960's

[Complexity]

Chess also requires much more coordination of pieces to produce winning combinations.

Definitely agreed. The concept of piece range is much reduced in AA for all but a few units like bombers. And the few units that do have large ranges are the ones that are the most critical to position correctly. But imagine trying to balance a game where every unit had a large range, but some units were more lethal than others. In chess the piece lethality is even. If you can arrange the proper positioning, a pawn can take a queen just as easily as another queen can. A&A would probably not be competitive in any sense of the word if the average unit range was increased much--unless the initial setup were made symmetric.

A plan that is "approximate" is a much less accurate way of doing business and strategy suffers. So the resulting calculations from Chess moves involves more thinking because everything must be exact or you lost the game.

Yes, but this does not affect the defensive aspects of A&A. In a way, the uncertainty involved in battles encourages defensive play. I usually play with low luck (mostly) because of this.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

I disagree.

Do explain.

I've found that games with strong defense mechanics like Chess and A&A have a very strong positional element to them. A&A is like asymmetric chess with the ability to buy new pieces. The two are pretty similar when you look at the underlying mechanics. You have forking maneuvers (most often done with knights in chess) in A&A that can be done with tanks, planes, or even infantry in certain positions. And obtaining even a very slight material advantage can be used to obtain an even greater positional advantage, and vice versa.

My response is that Axis and Allies is NOTHING like chess.  I'll add that Axis and Allies is NOTHING like war (unlike a lot of other posters have put forth).

Axis and Allies is like, well, Axis and Allies.  It's a game that is a very limited representation of war.  It is still a fun game in its own right, but call a spade a spade; don't try to say it's all this great of a game or whatever that you can use real-life chess strategies or real-life war strategies to win at, because if you think that way, you're just fooling yourself.  It is NOT chess, it is NOT war, by being good at this game, you are NOT by extension good at chess OR war; all you are good at if you're good at Axis and Allies is risk assessment and cost analysis, and even then only in a limited fashion that does not necessitate a logical approach that would be useful in a real-life situation.  (i.e. if you have someone that's good at Axis and Allies but lacks the ability to analyze why, that ability may not translate to other fields.  It may, but it may not.)

Debate this?

Think about the current status of chess analysis with analysis going anywhere from ten to sixteen or more moves into the game, with deviation from different lines of play losing or gaining tempo or material in very particular analyzed fashions.  There is no chance in chess, so detailed predictions become possible.

Contrast this with the chance found in Axis and Allies, where even slight deviation from "average" results accumulates to creates situations that cannot be predicted with high degrees of accuracy, making detailed predictions impossible.  Novices might think that the chances will "average out" over time so a strategy can be fixed, but the chances DO NOT do so; deviations continue to accumulate and plans must change to accommodate those changes.  I will even go as far as to say that novices may expect the single most likely result to occur in multiple instances, where nothing could be farther from the expected truth with regular dice.  When you have multiple events with independent outcomes, you WILL get deviation.  It is not my THOUGHT that makes this true; it simply IS.

Think about the proper understanding of war.  What about shifting political allies?  What about misinformation tactics?  What about superior technology?  Protecting factories and supply lines?  There are SO MANY factors about war that just aren't taken into account by Axis and Allies that you CANNOT say proper analysis of Axis and Allies is just like proper analysis of war.  Axis and Allies is FAR more limited.

What real war forces the participants to start in, and be locked in, one of two mutually opposed forces?  What real war allows the participants to have PERFECT information?  What real war allows the participants to TOTALLY trust their allies?  None.  And for this and so many other reasons that I will not even start to discuss, trying to use the same strategies to win at Axis and Allies as others use to wage war will result in failure.  They are two DIFFERENT animals.

Excellent post, very thought provoking and accurate. Thanks for sharing your insight.

A proper article about Axis and Allies Revised should address either fundamental concepts like the cost-efficiency of defense in the game (based on the costs and attack values and defense values of the units and unit combinations), or how to use mobile units such as tanks or fighters to shift offense, or any number of other things that are SPECIFIC to the game.  The original post did not purport to be an article, but as the original post of a thread, I still think it should at least attempt to present some material of value.

In reading the original post, I found NOTHING of value that I considered thought provoking, and I even thought it inaccurate on some counts - and I'm not just talking about typos here, I am talking about what I consider to be poor analysis.  I do not MIND this, but I do disagree with the sentiment that the original post was "excellent" and "thought-provoking".

We have had many, many posts over the years with ATTACK strategies.  Everyone who comes here and gets active on these boards has their own ATTACK strategy that they think is a game winner (myself included).

Truth be told... this game is NOT won on attack, but on DEFENSE.

To see the truth in this, just look at the combat value of units.  There is only ONE unit that is better on attack than it is on defense... the BOMBER.  And how often do you see Bombers being bought?

INF:  100% better on D than A
Supported INF:  Equal on D & A
ART:  Equal on D & A
ARM:  Equal on D & A
TRN:  They actually have a D value but not an A value
SUB:  Equal on D&A
DST:  Equal on D&A
AC:  300% better on D than A
BB:  Equal on D&A
FIG:  400% better on D than A
AA:  NO A value of any kind, not even as fodder.

So, the ultimate key to winning is not on attack, but on DEFENSE.

This creates a quandary for the Axis, since they MUST attack early and often lest the Allied economic advantage overwhelm them.

The key then is not the initial attack, but the COUNTER that the Axis must consider...  the total damage from both the advance, and the counter offensive must be the determining factor in any and all moves throughout the game. 

The only problem with DEFENSE is that the ATTACKER chooses where to attack, meaning that they can opt to bypass your defenses.

So the key is in DEFENDING areas where the ATTACKER cannot avoid.

Examples:
Moscow:  This is the territory that is basically the key to Axis Victory.  It MUST eventually be attacked by the Axis, so the Allies KNOW that they get to defend this territory.  Moscow Defense is one of the BEST advantages the Allies have... forcing the Axis to attack the Allied forces (usually INF and FIGs) that are FAR superior on defense than on attack

SZ5:  An Axis Naval strong point that cannot be easily bypassed by the Allies.  SZ5 cannot be "flanked" except with a 2 to 3 turn delay by landing in other areas in Europe; and it secures Berlin from attack by the Allies.

So, while everyone focuses on what to attack and what to attack it with...  ultimate victory comes down more to what you choose to DEFEND with... and WHERE you choose to defend.  As the defender, economics of combat value are on your side... all you need to do is figure out how to coerce the Attacker into combating you at your points of STRENGTH.

Now, what I'm going to write is offensive.  I realize this.  But I am not skilled in diplomacy, and I do not wish to weaken the force of my words by being subtle, so I will just forge ahead.

What does this post do but rub its hands in a self-congratulatory fashion, denigrating and misrepresenting what others think and trumpeting its empty lies as the new salvation?  There is no greater truth to be found here.  If you were a veteran player, you already knew that infantry are cost-effective, you already knew the Axis had to attack, you already knew that stacking Russia with ground units was elementary defense.

(What you probably DIDN'T know was that SZ 5 (Baltic) was a "strong point".  I think it isn't.  I think the Allies can just pick up from the sea zone northeast of London and drop off to Karelia/Archangel, taking a turn out to grab Norway, and if the Germans come out from the Baltic, the Allies smash their fleet with the E. Canada-London transport fleet or the London-Karelia/Archangel fleet.  The Allies need build NO more defense for their fleet than normal against German air, as the E. Canada-London transport fleet is out of range of G. navy and is required to shuttle US troops to London to offload in the first place, and the London-Karelia/Archangel transport fleet is also out of range of G. navy.  That's right, I said it - faulty analysis!

and btw, you should have typed BMB instead of FIG, you know where, and neglected the D value of AA guns)

So, the ultimate key to winning is not on attack, but on DEFENSE.

The ultimate key to winning, eh?  Is that anything like teh ultimate key to secks, or teh ultimate key to wealth, or teh ultimate key to happiness?  Hell, is it even teh ultimate key to great abs with just this plastic and rubber contraption that you use for seven minutes a day?  OH NOES YOU DIDN'T!

Even if I am wrong about SZ5, I am NOT wrong in saying that the post is NOT PRAISE-WORTHY.  I concede it is an effort to start discussion, which is good.  But I do not say it is a GOOD effort.

[Adlertag]

one applaud to IL, one smite to Bunnie

[Bunnies P Wrath]

one applaud to IL, one smite to Bunnie

Yeah baby, hit me.

[DarthMaximus]

Well, that just sucked the fun out of the thread.  

You certainly made some valid points, but I don't think that takes away from the initial post or the importance of Defense.  Certainly from the Allies pov you can play an extremely defensive game and do quite well.  Yet I've seen/read plenty of games here where the Allies are making what I'd consider "risky" attacks in the early rounds when there is no real need to do so.  Perhaps it should have been doubly emphasised that playing good Def is more of an Allied issue than Axis since the Game set up forces the Axis into an Offensive mode to counter the Allies initial IPC and Unit lead.  But then again for the Axis, if you know how to play Defense with Germany you can hold out in Europe for quite a long time if you need to buy time for Japan.

I don't think Switch's intent was to try and create master article on defense, I think he just wanted to start a discussion on it and remind people of its importance.  I think all of us are free to bring up anything related to Defense.  So...

As I mentioned above I've seen good defenses by Germany keep Berlin alive and I've seen good defenses by Russia keep Moscow alive.  For me they revolve around Inf and Arm where vou can swing from WE to EE (as Ger), or Novo/Kaz to Cauc/Wrus/Arch (as Rus).

If I am forced into a defensive position with Germany, I like to maintain a large stack of Inf and keep maybe 10 arm around (if possible), maybe a 4-5:1 ratio.  And I'll rotate from vacating WE to vacating EE, each turn hoping to trap the Allies into sending a decent sized stack for me to whack, then I place in Berlin and swing around on the next turn to and hit the other territory.  Most players will see this and will not move in large stacks but this allows you to deadzone both and buy time for Japan.

[Bunnies P Wrath]

Yeah, I thought maybe Ncscswitch was just going for discussion too - that's why I didn't TOTALLY blast him.   

A worthy man, but his memory is like a lumber-room:
thing wanted always buried.
If he forgets, I shall roast him.

 

Of course, Adlertag's all

. . .Fool of a Took! Throw yourself in next time!

 

[hyogoetophile]

Bunnies' post was rather tactless, but I guess mostly right. In switch's defense (ha!) this isn't a topic that gets much play in the forums. Opinions don't come quite as readily.

In my mind, there are two defense tactics in A&A: deadzoning and defzoning (I just made it up). Deadzoning keeps a territory mostly or completely empty with the threat that whatever goes there will be strafed or killed. Defzoning is just flat out stacking units into a territory. Deadzoning is best achieved through offensive power, whereas defzoning relies on defensive power. Deadzoning can defend quite a few territories, while defzoning holds one. A key to defense is knowing when to blur the two or switch between them. This isn't terribly hard. People usually follow the old rules of infantry picketing and deadzoning, and after adding up some numbers either you can move forward or you just stay put -- or it's time to move back and leave some 1infs lying around.

The tricky part is being able to anticipate such changes through your builds. If you buy infantry now, but a few turns later you're trying to deadzone more territories but are short on tanks, then that's gonna hamper your ability to take ground. You want to anticipate deadzone or defzone moves and have the right units around at the right times.

Unfortunately, I'm still pretty poor at this. Maybe if I'm Russia and Germany just smashed me pretty hard (not necessarily a good attack for them, maybe just a unit-killer for both sides) I'm gonna buy a lot of infantry. But whether I build all inf or inf and some art/arm is a decision that I just sort of feel my way through. There are some general unit-buying approaches (inf for Russia, inf/arm for Germany), but even among those there are plenty of diversions. I keep seeing talk about three large infantry stacks and one tank stack defending WEu/Ger/EEu, and while that sounds like a good idea if Germany is turtling, I can't recall ever being in that situation. I think it's because I'm a very aggressive/offensive-minded player, but my point is that there are a lot of "standard" approaches out there.

Knowing about which round certain standard things tend to happen (UK/US land in WEu or move into EEu, Ger moves on Cau, Jpn takes Novo) can be a big help, but being able to carefully react to the board position during purchasing is really where defenses shine. Anyone have more practical guidelines for defensive purchasing?

[Adlertag]

one applaud to IL, one smite to Bunnie

Yeah baby, hit me.

[Zero Pilot]

I took Switches thoughts as an expansion of Don Rae's philosophy rather than an solitary end-all methodogy. Don's many papers focused primarily on the defense aspect of infantry (IPM) since boots are arguably the most cost effective defense unit for the warbuck. But the premise here is very similar: the oft overlooked power of defense. Switch is simply applying it across the board (get it?)

Even in an abstracted wargame such as A&A, one must admit that much of the thrill of the game is found in the attack, the smash! Not as often well developed a skill is knowing when and where to set up dead zones, when to build in place and allow your opponent to stretch their supply lines thin as you smile and say "come to papa". I still find myself wanting to go for the throat at times instead of playing the probably better, patient defensive game. Why? Cause smash is a lot of fun.

And the damn (hate it but love it) 3/3 tank put a spin on the whole game the likes of a tsunami! Mike Selinker said the 3/3 tank was designed to put more combat fun into the game. Oh, in spades! That and the tank/dude capable transport. Poof! Units revamped for smash play. Completely different game imho actually.

But I digest. So I agree with DM in that I think this was all Switch was really trying to say. Defense is Russia's primary game but the lessons can be applied elsewhere as well. The caveat with any gaming philosophy is that no one single thing works emphatically well in all situations. If we can generalize and agree on no other single thing it's that A&A is a game of balances. ~ZP