December 17, 2017, 04:11:24 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Help support TripleA software development. Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Poll
Question: When the time comes to evacuate Moscow, what direction do you prefer to go?  (Voting closed: September 14, 2017, 10:34:41 pm)
South, link up with British M. East Wall - 10 (50%)
North, link up with Americans Norway-Novgor - 0 (0%)
No retreat! Perfect time for Allied landing in W. Europe. - 10 (50%)
China? 🤷🏼‍♂️ - 0 (0%)
Other - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 20

Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Moscow retreat  (Read 733 times)
Colt45 554
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1810



View Profile
« on: September 11, 2017, 10:34:41 pm »
0

I'm sure this has been asked but I haven't seen it. I haven't played enough to see this scenario happen sufficiently. Suppose Germany has plus-80 percent odds and projected positive TUV-swing or something better.
Logged
wittmann
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 16307


KIA 8th August 1944


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2017, 10:46:11 pm »
0

Towards the ME, Colt.
Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 650


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 12:05:00 am »
0

Order No. 227
Logged
Ichabod
A&A.org Fighter
*
*****
Posts: 1301


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 05:32:17 am »
+1

I think a retreat south is just as good as dieing in place. For the sake of my post, since Moscow fell, I'm going to assume that the US went at least 90/10 spending or more for a KJF strategy and Japan has been economically knocked out of the game. The Pacific Allies plus whatever US stuff there (no more US builds) can continue to push Japan back and the game is around round 9-11 (typical timeframe of a Moscow fall).

Going south, the Russian stack can continue to be reinforced by the UK along the entire way with more UK fighters and mech infantry once it's closer while the Red Army has the chance to stay one position away from the German infantry/artillery. Another potential plus is that the Stalingrad minor IC could be kept out of German hands which prevents units being purchased and a 2nd order effect of slowing Germany's builds for it's drive to Cairo. Obviously if Germany stacked in Rostov then the Russian stack might not be able to retreat south (can people not point out obvious stuff please). If the Red Army can make it to NW Persia then it's home free to Cairo which I believe will result in an allied victory in the long run. 

If dieing in place instead of evacuating, than I believe that the UK should sacrifice it's huge stack of fighters it placed in Moscow otherwise not enough German tanks or air will be taken as a casualty to make it worth it.

I don't think the US should be focused on Normandy or Norway, ect. in the event Moscow has fallen whether dying in place or evacuating. If for instance the allies do choose to invest a ton of money into getting Norway to hold it, than they better get Leningrad real soon and keep building because the allies must liberate a VC. However, I think those adventures are mostly just irritating for Germany, and don't protect the remaining easiest VC that Germany needs to win which is Cairo. Germany will have more than enough money to spend on 2 factories in the east to keep driving towards Cairo while simultaneously purchasing ground in Leningrad and it's major ICs. I think the US and the UK should be focused on defending Cairo which at times could mean the US purchasing 8 fighter 2x in a row. AFTER Cairo is very secured, then the focus could shift to landings at European weak spot areas.

Who cares about China if the lone remaining VC (Cairo) is secured; if secured, no way the Axis can win the game. If China is overrun than this game is an axis victory anyways which makes this discussion threat a mute point. The Allies have to do good at least on one side of the board.

This is my opinion based upon playing a far superior player who demonstrated this against me in a game.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 05:46:35 am by Ichabod » Logged
PainState
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 145



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 06:05:21 am »
0

Well I disagree with the idea that the USA/UK should ignore Normandy and a Western Front approach.

Lets take Sea lion off the table. That means Germany/Italy needs to take Lenningrad/Stalingrad/Moscow and Cairo to win the game on the euro map.

IF the USA/UK land in Normandy in force, no chance for Germany to knock them off the mainland. Well, USA/UK are next to Paris, another Victory city.

SO

If the USA/UK liberate Paris before Germany can take Cairo and hold for a turn, Germany has to retake France. Also now that the Allies have taken back France they are 2 territories away from Germany, next to W. Germany and N. Italy and all those German units are 2-4 turns away from getting back to the Western Front. The ones in Cairo are most likely out of the war when it comes to the USA/UK romp towards Berlin.

IF Russia falls it is not automatic that the Allies lose, granted they are on a 2-3 turn clock before it is truly over. If the USA/UK have planned properly they can still hit the main land, liberate France and then it is game on once again.
Logged
PainState
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 145



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2017, 06:15:50 am »
0

Now in regards to the Moscow issue.

IF Russia is going to give up on the Capital and Cairo is still in Allies hands. They DO NOT MOVE south. Move East or North East. Germany needs its INF to take losses and not the MECH or ARM. If you move out before the assault, well, Germany takes Moscow and now will need to chase the large Russian stack moving East.

Germany then has to decide.

* Keep following the large Russian stack going East, they cannot allow a large Russian stack to stay on the board so close to Moscow.

OR

*Leave enough in Moscow for defense and move all the rest of the units South.


Russia needs to make Germany make a hard choice. It is not a hard choice if 41 Russian INF / 14 ART / 4 MECH and 3 ARM + what ever Allied air support elect to stand their ground and die in a 85% Chance battle that Germany will win Moscow.

For the Allies time is their best weapon, the axis cannot stop time. So, it is not a hard choice for Russia if their main stack is facing almost certain destruction to retreat, even if it means giving up Moscow. As long as they have a large stack it is a serious threat to Germany and forces them to do something they do not want to do. Chase the large stack, keeping their INF with the MECH/ARM OR Germany goes banzai charge with just MECH/ARM into a large stack and lose most if not all their mobile units.
Logged
Ichabod
A&A.org Fighter
*
*****
Posts: 1301


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2017, 06:20:50 am »
0

That's fine, if the US/UK are doing a Western Front approach. I think that's part of a great Kill Germany First strategy. But then Moscow should have never fallen in the first place. I think that negates the point of this thread.


Recently (after Moscow fell) an Allied opponent liberated Paris...I even let him reduce the minor in W. Germany. Italy took it back the same turn. I already had like 15 infantry / 2 artillery on Berlin and 2 AAA. Then on Germany's turn I purchased 13 tanks and advanced the slow walkers to W. Germany. In two turns, Paris was back in Germany's hands as I was sending 30 ground units plus air. Done. I still had 12 IPCs with which to purchase 3 mechs for the middle east drive.

My point of view is from playing a game with one of the guys who's arguably and probably amongst the best all time players.



« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 06:26:58 am by Ichabod » Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 650


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2017, 12:16:39 pm »
0

Yeah, I feel like if the Wehrmacht is in Moscow and Paris isn't liberated, Germany is doing fantastic.
Logged
Colt45 554
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1810



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2017, 04:13:13 pm »
0

In my ongoing match, Oyst retreated to Vologda. I decided to send inf, art to confront multi-national force led by Brits in M. East while sending mobiles to hunt Russians. I caught up to and attacked the purely Russian force at Nov with 99 percent odds and 14/16 planes and projected 15 TUV difference. I won with a plus-25, 10 tanks, all air(no AAA hits) remaining.

US had landed a token-sized force in Scandinavia. My biggest fear was if he could reach Americans landing en masse in norway/meet in finland. If even just 5 US fighters had been staged in Scotland, he could have reinforced Rus and then I would have been looking at 76 percent odds but with a -54.87 TUV difference.

I could have added my 15th and 16th planes to help the odds but then he would have retained either Denmark(in which case Brit BB, DD, CA would park in 113, hampering a German amphibious counter-attack to next turn's USA Norway re-landing) or Norway(resulting in US MIC, AB, and reinforcement).

This is one such scenario but it doesnt seem like an unlikely or unusual situation so I'm a little surprised I haven't seen some North votes because I certainly think it has merit. No way I would've been able to stop the Americans and continue to Egypt had he linked up in time.

Maybe I just played the attacking Moscow situation poorly and should have sent small force to sack Moscow and rest to Smolensk to anticipate move to Archangel next. BUT, from Vologda, he still has the ability to move east then south and beat my infantry if i moved to smolensk.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39941.165  <-- match link
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 04:57:19 pm by Colt45 554 » Logged
Colt45 554
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1810



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2017, 05:06:44 pm »
0

I think a retreat south is just as good as dieing in place. For the sake of my post, since Moscow fell, I'm going to assume that the US went at least 90/10 spending or more for a KJF strategy and Japan has been economically knocked out of the game. The Pacific Allies plus whatever US stuff there (no more US builds) can continue to push Japan back and the game is around round 9-11 (typical timeframe of a Moscow fall).

Basically was the situation in my match

I don't think the US should be focused on Normandy or Norway, ect. in the event Moscow has fallen whether dying in place or evacuating. If for instance the allies do choose to invest a ton of money into getting Norway to hold it, than they better get Leningrad real soon and keep building because the allies must liberate a VC. However, I think those adventures are mostly just irritating for Germany, and don't protect the remaining easiest VC that Germany needs to win which is Cairo. Germany will have more than enough money to spend on 2 factories in the east to keep driving towards Cairo while simultaneously purchasing ground in Leningrad and it's major ICs. I think the US and the UK should be focused on defending Cairo which at times could mean the US purchasing 8 fighter 2x in a row. AFTER Cairo is very secured, then the focus could shift to landings at European weak spot areas.

Poland must be repeatedly defended/counter-attacked by Axis after Norway falls too

Who cares about China if the lone remaining VC (Cairo) is secured; if secured, no way the Axis can win the game. If China is overrun than this game is an axis victory anyways which makes this discussion threat a mute point. The Allies have to do good at least on one side of the board.

True, I included China b/c poll gave me five options that i could put so figured why not

This is my opinion based upon playing a far superior player who demonstrated this against me in a game.

No disagreement coming from me but have you faced/done a retreat north and the results were poor? I think it is a little more viable than it initially looks
Logged
Cow
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 8008


MOO


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2017, 06:01:03 pm »
+1

Once I Putin I never pull out.
Logged
Caesar Seriona
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 650


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2017, 06:23:11 pm »
0

Once I Putin I never pull out.

I wish I had two more hands so I can give that joke four thumbs down.
Logged
Ichabod
A&A.org Fighter
*
*****
Posts: 1301


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2017, 05:24:25 am »
0

I think a retreat south is just as good as dieing in place. For the sake of my post, since Moscow fell, I'm going to assume that the US went at least 90/10 spending or more for a KJF strategy and Japan has been economically knocked out of the game. The Pacific Allies plus whatever US stuff there (no more US builds) can continue to push Japan back and the game is around round 9-11 (typical timeframe of a Moscow fall).

Basically was the situation in my match

I don't think the US should be focused on Normandy or Norway, ect. in the event Moscow has fallen whether dying in place or evacuating. If for instance the allies do choose to invest a ton of money into getting Norway to hold it, than they better get Leningrad real soon and keep building because the allies must liberate a VC. However, I think those adventures are mostly just irritating for Germany, and don't protect the remaining easiest VC that Germany needs to win which is Cairo. Germany will have more than enough money to spend on 2 factories in the east to keep driving towards Cairo while simultaneously purchasing ground in Leningrad and it's major ICs. I think the US and the UK should be focused on defending Cairo which at times could mean the US purchasing 8 fighter 2x in a row. AFTER Cairo is very secured, then the focus could shift to landings at European weak spot areas.

Poland must be repeatedly defended/counter-attacked by Axis after Norway falls too

Who cares about China if the lone remaining VC (Cairo) is secured; if secured, no way the Axis can win the game. If China is overrun than this game is an axis victory anyways which makes this discussion threat a mute point. The Allies have to do good at least on one side of the board.

True, I included China b/c poll gave me five options that i could put so figured why not

This is my opinion based upon playing a far superior player who demonstrated this against me in a game.

No disagreement coming from me but have you faced/done a retreat north and the results were poor? I think it is a little more viable than it initially looks


I do recognize that I might not be a very good player and most people on the forum do beat me, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt! But I have played probably around 150 now albeit with a bad winning ratio Smiley

When you say Poland is contested every turn, do you mean that the Allies have a secure fleet with transports in the Baltic or the Russian stack made it all the way to Leningrad. At a walking pace that's 3 moves? This sounds like a foregone allies win. My comments are based on the assumption that the Allies went after Japan and pretty much left Germany alone. If the Allies went strong enough to do what's described here, than what the hell did Japan do? If Japan is also trashed and the allies can contest Poland every round, then here again, this discussion is mute. It's an allies victory already.

Yes, I've faced a Russian stack going north. Poland is right next to the Berlin Major IC. 3 turns of straight infantry and some artillery ground builds for defense to get up to about 40+ ground, then start pushing forward with tank/mech builds catching up. As an Axis player, if it was my choice for the Russian stack to evacuate and go north or go south, I would request it go north. I'd rather kill it in place of at Moscow of course, but the debate is which direction is best. Post Moscow, whether or not Norway is taken, usually Germany can fill most relevant factories whereas the UK has to fill the middle east/Cairo factories or spend to keep supporting the Norway/Leningrad route. Can't fully do both.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 07:28:16 am by Ichabod » Logged
Ichabod
A&A.org Fighter
*
*****
Posts: 1301


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2017, 05:27:56 am »
+1

Colt 45,

This song is for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtiEcT9W6M
Logged
Colt45 554
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1810



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2017, 07:23:34 am »
0

Colt 45,

This song is for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNtiEcT9W6M

Oh yes, I get that a lot  grin

Logged
Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!