In multiple recent threads I have argued early Axis moves of an extremely aggressive nature as a potential response to a KGF strategy.
After some play-testing on my own of various moves and counter-moves that have been proposed, here are my results:
For the RR game with Germany ignoring UK navy (except for use of subs) and blasting EVERYTHING on Karelia and an amphib on Caucuses: Those who said Germany would be spent were correct.
I can consistently take Karelia with everything Russia can move to defend it. Germany can simultaneously take Caucuses. I have done so with as much as 2 INF in Caucuses, an armor in Karelia, and 2 fighters and a bomber surviving; and as little as NO AF, 1 INF in Caucuses (Russia held 1 INF there instead of going to Karelia), and 1 tank in Karelia.
UK did of course take Karelia (and Finland when both transports survived the U boats) and flew their air-power to Russia. US usually takes Western using 2 INF and a bomber against 2 INF.
And the folks who said Japan can;t crack Yakut if stacked on J1 are correct. In several tries I NEVER succeeded in taking Yakut against all-available R forces.
Finally, on G2, the best I could muster was Russia empty, but still held by Russia. To achieve that, Russia built exclusively in Karelia on R2 (no reason to with the weak German force in Eastern, but I played it that way to test it) and only the RAF in Russia (ALL of it, including bomber and India fighter). This was also the couple of tries where Germany still had 2 figs and the bomber and 2 INF coming from Caucuses. Anything less and UK usually only lost 1 fighter.
Permutations are not worth testing: Russia putting just 2 INF in Russia on R2 elliminates any thought of the Caucuses force + AF from taking Russia. Using remaining AF plus all available units (incl Caucus INF) would still leave Karelia too weak to be held against a 2nd UK amphib (now with more transports than before). And even using the Japan AF to pre-strike and weaken Russia (2 figs and a bomber against the RAF), would be of no real use: Russia simply builds in Russia instead of Karelia leaving Britain to re-take Karelia in UK2 from a very weak German force of at most 4 INF and 2 tanks; meanwhile Germany is down 8 or more IPC’s in Europe with no navy, no AF, and less than 20 total pieces on the board, mostly INF. Japan can;t get there fast enough to save them, especially with 50% of their AF gone.
I honestly thought an all-out blood-bath against Russia would be enough to counter a “KGF” strategy. Obviously, I was wrong.
Thank you to those who pointed out some new wrinkles I had not considered.
Give me a chance to test a few thoughts, and I’ll get back to you with “modifications” :-)
Look forward to hearing them. You are obviously thinking about the game a lot. Keep in mind that no one has really come up with the a satisfactory counter to the KGF strategy under 2nd edition or 2nd edition RR. That is why bidding was introduced. Are you familiar with it? It sounds like you probably regularly cream your gaming group, so it wouldn’t be necessary there. If you consistently are crushing them as the allies though you may wish to spot them a few inf in africa.
Unfortunately, my A&A gaming has been restricted for several years to the Hasbro PC version.
Anymore I always play “World Domination” for either side, and most of the time I only play ONE nation. If I get to play all of either the Axis or the Allies, I beat the tar out of every level of PC play. If I play only 1 nation, then the PC plays the other 4 about even, and it all comes down to what MY country does as to who wins and who loses (I have yet to lose a game even when playing only 1 country). I still win within 10 moves (maybe not “world dominated”, but within 10 moves, the outcome is obvious and it is only a matter of playing things out)
My BEST nation is Japan. Playing ONLY Japan against the best Hasbro has to offer for the other 4, I take Russia on J4 or J5, Western US around J7 or J8, and UK (as Japan) on J10.
Fastest game is playing both sides of the Axis. My record is 2 capitals in 6 rounds; usually 7.
Now playing against MYSELF ( I play all 5 nations)… well I have had several 30 round games that way…
The PC game is functional, but the AI is severely lacking.
The software co could have hired the IBM design team that programed Deep and Deeper Blue to beat Kasparov, but then each copy would be over $300.
Well, as a result of reading on this board I am bypassing the computer’s AI completely now. Means that the game plays slower, but it allows me to try out some of my ideas, thoughts, etc. against some of the best concepts I have seen posted here.
Of course I am still limited to “no bid” games, but playing as the Axis against some of the strategies posted here in a no-bid scenario seems like an even tougher challenge :-)
To be honest though, playing a single nation instead of all of one side or the other is an rather good way to work out single-side strategies. Not good for working out coordinated ideas, but good for developing stand-alone strategies if for if you play in a group instead of 1 on 1. Also allows you to help identify strengths and weaknesses of each nation.
And believe it or not, mixing up the “skill” of the computer AI leads to interesting results… one nation at 3 or 4 “stars” instead of all at 5 throws some interesting monkey wrenches into the best “traditional” strategies.
You can introduce bids to the CD game.
Go to the edit part, I think it is edit units. Then click behind the unit editting screen and you can Add/Remove units, then Save game. Make sure you put in 5 human players before the editting screen. Then to play just load that game and go from rd 1. You don’t really need all human players, but I do it to test out various bid placements and play against myself.
You’re right about swithcing up stars for variety.
I perfer to play only one nation, but I set all my opponents Inf to 2 IPC cost and trans to 6 IPC cost and tanks to 4. Still not that hard but fun to mess around with. I think I’ve given all my opponents IT before, I think you can do that, but I’m not positive right now.
I’ve also set up maps so Moscow will fall on G1, then I play as UK and/or US. World Domination of course. I perfer to play just one of them.
I have one of the later editions of the Hasbro CD… they removed the add/remove units and now only allow changes to price, strength, and movement rate.
Oh, nevermind then. :)
I, too, play the Hasbro’s version of A&A. I do lose to the AI sometimes, though. Like you, I only play as one nation, which can be a huge cripple in the case of Allies. The AI is simply not smart enough to cooperate with you like they should and the weight of just one Allied nation is not always enough to win if the others mess up. I’ve had, for example, Russia throwing a stupid “counterattack” onto a German territory and burning half of their infantry this way. Naturally, two turns later Germany took their capital and it was game over. As UK in that game, there was little I could do to stop it. I’ve seen the US and UK completely ignore Europe and Africa, instead building a horde of transports and using them to shuffle units between Canada and Britain, while I did my best to hold Russia and smartly counterattack against Japanese when I could, using the space in Asia, but eventually got overwhelmed as well.
The Axis nations are a pleasure to play as though. :) Both of them are isolated and have fairly little interaction except that they both need to make an effort against Russia. Japan especially can become so powerful by itself that short of Germany doing something incredibly stupid it’s hard to lose.
The AI is stupid.
It will take more effort, but you can still manage a win if you lose an allied capital.
Highly dependent on how much of a fleet you have set up by the time Rus falls.
I checked the PC A&A from the library a few years ago.
I recall that in the middle of the game, you can switch a PC player to human, and also the star level of PC players.
There is a certain amount of randomness in the PC player actions and battle results.
Saving the game often and reloading can give you the edge. It may be crucial for the Allies when Rus is out.
One of the other things I noticed about the AI is that regardless of what country they play, a lot of inf will be bought, but the inf is not always moved to the right places.
You should be able to exploit this weakness as you fight your way back from being a capital down.
I haven’t noticed that about infantry. No, I mean, I’ve seen the AI buy a lot of infantry, but it’s usually in situations where I, too, would buy infantry. Russia buys inf; as does Germany and Japan. The US doesn’t, though. Britain does sometimes, but usually they go for a navy, as they should.
The biggest weakness I see is that the AI buys a lot of transports and sometimes leaves them undefended. As Germany I’m often able to keep the Allied navies in disarray for 10+ turns without major aircraft losses, when a human player could’ve made a solid fleet I couldn’t attack (or could, but at a cost of most of my planes) by turn 3 or 4 at the latest.
I’ve also never seen the allies pull off the US planes landing on freshly bought UK carrier.
I haven’t noticed that about infantry.
Do a large transport buy as the US and drop them in the PACIFIC. Japan will then do an all INF build with at least one of the AI star ratings (forget which one). And they buy this INF with or without any tranny’s to be able to send it anywhere. And so long as US maintains tranny presence in the Pacific and moves it around occasionally, taking an island here and there, Japan will keep building INF to the point where they have 25-30 or more INF. Then they start all fighter builds with INF to spend it all…
You can also “trick” the UK AI to buy INF. Once UK IPC’s are down below 18, if Germany is able to sink UK’s fleet at that time AND still has air forces in Germany AND Western (at least 1 fighter in each), UK will stop trying to buy navy completely. They won;t save their money for a year to get enough to drop the carrier & tranny build again, they just give up and start buying INF with the occasional fighter.
The biggest weakness I see is that the AI buys a lot of transports and sometimes leaves them undefended. As Germany I’m often able to keep the Allied navies in disarray for 10+ turns without major aircraft losses, when a human player could’ve made a solid fleet I couldn’t attack (or could, but at a cost of most of my planes) by turn 3 or 4 at the latest.
I’ve also never seen the allies pull off the US planes landing on freshly bought UK carrier.
The computer AI often builds undefended tranny’s as US, relying on UK to build the capital ships to protect them. AI will send US fighters to land on UK carriers, and then they SIT there, unused except in Western Europe. The AI seems to have a strong preference for UK and US to duplicate actual WWII and will attack Western, if given half a chance of winning. Germany can easilly use this to their advantage because the AI does NOT do well at figuring on counter-attacks ANYWHERE. They’ll attack Western with battle odds of 1 or 2 pieces surviving, even with Germany having a score of forces ready to counter-strike. This happens in Africa too where UK or US will land forces that can be immediately counter-attacked and destroyed by German forces
In Asia, it is a strong preference for the US AI to attack Southeast Asia and for Russia to attack Manchuria; both regardless of coutner-attack potential (the AI seems to be programmed to seize those territories if at all possible). Also in Asia, the computer AI WANTS a Japan IC in Southeast Asia, and does all that it can to defend it (navy, fighters, builds). US can really make this work to their advantage and often end up with a free IC in just a few turns while simultaneously taking ALL of the pressure off Russia by keeping Japan focused on that one territory that is very far away from Russia.
One other AI foible I have seen… as UK, the AI builds a lot of SUBS, long after Germany’s navy is toast.
It makes for great cannon fodder against German air raids, but for the same IPC’s, they could get tranny’s that can move forces AND fire back at aircraft.
A very bad AI prefference that should NOT exist.
