Unbeatable Allied Strategy

[squirecam]

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

I dont know a serious top level player at Gencon or Origins that would use this strategy.

I suspect the same of the top PBEM as well, but cant speak to them. I would think though that anyone at GTO or PBEM who plays this way game after game cant win any other way. Its a boring, pathetic “strategy”.

[italiansarecoming]

For the germans, they can enver succed normally but they can take more damage from there oppenents because go all out on g1 then great britian will be weaker then normal and will have an easier time to take russia while the allies do some reapairs.
The western allies will be sending supplies expecially usa and if this all goes well asia is axis land now

[eumaies]

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken… (edit:  pathetic yes, broken no)

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

[italiansarecoming]

I agree operation sealion wait for that was germanies problem not ready thoguht the brits would quite

[Black_Elk]

I’m a pretty laid back player, not nearly as cutthroat as others in my gaming group, so I’ll be a little more flexible with tech rules than some people I know. For example, my house rule OOB is No Tech until round 4 or later, which preserves technology advances more as a feature of the endgame (either for the coup de grace, or as a desperation move to attempt some kind of recovery for the underdog.) Still, its very rare to see tech rolls happening with experienced players, because most of us recognize that rolling for tech essentially breaks the game.

The problem with Tech strategies is that, if you fail to roll properly, then the game is usually over right there; and even if you do succeed, the effect is often the same, forcing a rapid conclusion to the game. So I feel, if you’re rolling for tech in the first three rounds of play, its like a slap in the face to your opponent. Sort of like saying  “I don’t care enough about this game to take it seriously, so here’s a wild gamble to make sure it ends sooner rather than later.”

I have a similar attitude towards the purchase of new Bombers: they’re a slap in the face to your enemy. Its like saying “Hey, I don’t respect you’re abilities as an opponent, so I’m just going to blow these 15 ipcs on another bomber, since I know you won’t be able to counter it properly anyways.”

Tech rolls and SBR strategies are more likely to push the game in an unhappy direction, where one person leaves feeling bitter and probably less inclined to play against you next time. You’re better off treating your opponent the same way you’d want to be treated (e.g. not exploited on account of some broken gameplay mechanic) and not only will you find that your games are more entertaining, but you’ll also learn more about the underlying patterns in the process.

:)

[eumaies]

Yeah I totally agree buying techs early is not something I would ever do in a serious game as a matter of form for the reasons you described.  And that late techs have some redeeming quality because they can be a) something you set up intentionally as a backup option; and b) a chance at a last ditch shot at winning or surviving when you know you’re beat.  To that end, they’re not bad.

[italiansarecoming]

@Black_Elk:

I’m a pretty laid back player, not nearly as cutthroat as others in my gaming group, so I’ll be a little more flexible with tech rules than some people I know. For example, my house rule OOB is No Tech until round 4 or later, which preserves technology advances more as a feature of the endgame (either for the coup de grace, or as a desperation move to attempt some kind of recovery for the underdog.) Still, its very rare to see tech rolls happening with experienced players, because most of us recognize that rolling for tech essentially breaks the game.

The problem with Tech strategies is that, if you fail to roll properly, then the game is usually over right there; and even if you do succeed, the effect is often the same, forcing a rapid conclusion to the game. So I feel, if you’re rolling for tech in the first three rounds of play, its like a slap in the face to your opponent. Sort of like saying  “I don’t care enough about this game to take it seriously, so here’s a wild gamble to make sure it ends sooner rather than later.”

I have a similar attitude towards the purchase of new Bombers: they’re a slap in the face to your enemy. Its like saying “Hey, I don’t respect you’re abilities as an opponent, so I’m just going to blow these 15 ipcs on another bomber, since I know you won’t be able to counter it properly anyways.”

Tech rolls and SBR strategies are more likely to push the game in an unhappy direction, where one person leaves feeling bitter and probably less inclined to play against you next time. You’re better off treating your opponent the same way you’d want to be treated (e.g. not exploited on account of some broken gameplay mechanic) and not only will you find that your games are more entertaining, but you’ll also learn more about the underlying patterns in the process.

:)

Tech after 4 turns wonderful idea (love you)  that is an awesome hous rule right there it stops some countries/ego’s (mostly ego’s) using tech (aka united states of america)

[Lucifer]

Usually, but not always, if you loose a capital in AAR, you lost the game. there are sometimes this rule does not apply, if a capital falls on both sides, other factors will determine the outcome.

So if Germany spends all money on LRA G1 and gets it, Germany still need some luck to capture London, although odds are about 51%?, but if London is taken, and both players are not n00bs, allies will almost certain lose the game.

[eumaies]

Actually, Subotai, that’s not true.

If germany spend $40 to get LRA, then takes UK after losing almost it’s entire air force (which is typical), then you’ve just completely blown your wad and russia is about to kill you.

Meanwhile the british battleship and 1 tank from eastern europe retake the UK capital on their turn, which allows the UK to collect money again.  US can reinforce on their turn.

The only way you get a significant edge is if the UK is unlucky enough to fail to re-take britain.  Otherwise, even with the $30 stolen, germany still hasn’t made really big gains.

[Lucifer]

We can try it if you want, I can host TripleA, we then would have to agree that if I (as axis) fail to get long range G1, then we have to restart the game. Also, if I fail to take London, then I lost the game, obviously. About 50% of such games will be lost.
But the premise for my statements is: all things being equal, so with Germany getting long range, then tech is on, and of course, if US gets heavy bombers pretty soon, then that factor comes into play, and will bring Germany down.

But if we assume a game with only Germany gets any tech, and that is long range, and Germany captures London G1, then allies will lose the game most times, even if it is very easy for UK or US to recapture London.

[eumaies]

yeah i’d be happy to simulate it - i’m “bmaster” on gametableonline.  but the math and situation are pretty obvious.  assuming the UK battleship hits and the uk takes london back, neither germany nor britain produces any troops on turn 1, and on turn 2 germany gets an extra $30 and in return has no air force to speak of (though they did kill the small uk air force).  No reason for it to be that hard for the allies.

[a44bigdog]

A word on SBR campaigns from someone who has actually played them out with both powers.

First off forget all that math junk. Axis and Allies is not won by who lost more or less. In other words 15 IPCs lost for a bomber shot down may not be equal to 15 IPCs spent by your target.

Second. Hoard your bombers. If going an all SBR Allied campaign in US 3 when you could have 3 bombers hit Germany only use 2. I have found it is much more important to keep up sustained pressure than inflicting maximum damage on one round. Always maintain a reserve of bombers even if this means over building.

Third and probably the one everyone misses about SBRs. Just because you have embarked on an SBR campaign you do not have to bomb every round. Note what I said about sustained pressure above. However I have found there will be rounds where your 5 or 6 Bombers can be much more devastating in battles than bombing and knowing when to commit them to such is critical.

[Lucifer]

Unfortunately we cannot try this at gametable, because it doesnt support bids.

[Jennifer]

@Subotai:

We can try it if you want, I can host TripleA, we then would have to agree that if I (as axis) fail to get long range G1, then we have to restart the game. Also, if I fail to take London, then I lost the game, obviously. About 50% of such games will be lost.
But the premise for my statements is: all things being equal, so with Germany getting long range, then tech is on, and of course, if US gets heavy bombers pretty soon, then that factor comes into play, and will bring Germany down.

But if we assume a game with only Germany gets any tech, and that is long range, and Germany captures London G1, then allies will lose the game most times, even if it is very easy for UK or US to recapture London.

You would have to play with out of the box rules, since LHTR stipulates that technology advances take effect after your turn is completed.  It was specifically changed because of the chances that Germany could do Operation Sea Lion with Long Range Aircraft on round 1 forcing Russia to send fighters to England just on the off chance Germany would try it and that was too limiting on Germany.

---

A44, you are correct in that bombers would not HAVE to be sent on SBR campaigns.  I tried to raise the point of their dual use a while ago, it was just ignored (as usual) so that people could focus on the little thread of the argument they wanted to discuss (the chance that attacker loses more money than defender.)

There are a number of instances you would use your bombers elsewhere.

1)  You are going to take Germany/Russia this round so why reduce your phat lewt?
2)  The idiot put his fleet in range of yours and you can take out the Japanese/American/British fleet with minimal losses if you just for go hitting his industry this round
3)  You have a chance to win the game by getting enough victory cities, but you need the bombers to ensure you’ll win (even if that means taking bombers as casualties.)

There are probably more, but those are the three I can think of before coffee (and since it’s BC you know even a n00b could figure those out without any help outside of the rules pamphlet!)

[eumaies]

the fact that the rules were changed to discourage a risky annoying strategy did not make it a net intelligent strategy, statistically.

Germany spends 40 bucks to get long range aircraft = 77% chance
Germany invades england with tank, inf, and your whole air force = 61% chance of win (or 75% if USSR didn’t take ukraine, which I consider foolish)

So that’s a 46% chance of taking england on turn one given a good russian opening, or 57% otherwise.  In both cases, germany is more likely to lose more valuable troops which were already in position and is at net -10 income (+ their production was a turn delayed, which will cost against russia), while britain loses troops that were out of position and ends net -30 income (also a turn delayed).  It’s not a game changer unless UK is unlucky enough to fail to retake london.

re: bombers, i agree they do have multiple uses and i actually enjoy building plenty as US, not just for SBR.  But my calculations in explaining how heavy bombers is not overpowered in attempting to bomb germany involved calculation for expected damage based on losses, not for net-IPC’s that it is costing the US.

[Jennifer]

It’s an awesome strategy if it works. :P  Hell, there are plenty of days I have gone for the 50/50 or even the 30/70 shot at taking a capitol! (30% I win, 70% I lose) just because of the pay off.  It’s not just the +30 IPC for taking England, its’ the +30 IPC, the loss of the Royal Air Force, the two rounds with no builds (first round no builds, no retake, USA liberates, second round you collect but cannot build) maybe even a retake by Germany again!

[eumaies]

it’s not 2 rounds of no builds.  you collect cash on turn one after you retake the capital on britain turn 1

then us reinforces and germany cannot retake by any means.

[Jennifer]

@eumaies:

it’s not 2 rounds of no builds.  you collect cash on turn one after you retake the capital on britain turn 1

then us reinforces and germany cannot retake by any means.

You are assuming you retake England with UK.  Why?

I’m assuming you do not retake England with UK.  You have to best a defending infantry and defending armor with a tank and a battleship.  2/3rds of the time you have a 50/50 battle, the rest of the time you have worse odds.

[eumaies]

ah, well if you don’t choose to lose your infantry than the initial invasion is much less likely to succeed.  because you lose the plane initially which reduces firpower in that invasion battle.  but i agree, if you accept reduced odds of winning the initial attack and greater airpower losses, thanin that circumstance uk is sub-50% of taking back and the risky invasion has paid off.

[Jennifer]

According to Frood, and I think we’ve established his calculator as reliable, if your OOL is Fighters, Bombers, Infantry, Armor on attack, Germany has a 65% chance of winning leaving a fighter or bomber (because of the AA Gun) Infantry, Armor.

That means England has less than a 50% chance to liberate and America will have to do the job.  To me this sounds preferable to the 87% chance of winning if you follow a normal OOL (except the fighters die before the tank so you can take the ground) because you’ve basically stopped England for a full two game turns.

30 IPC will easily replace three of your fighters without digging into your normal income.  You can trim one of his battleships off just by using your SZ 14 fleet to attack it instead of the destroyer.