• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ajgundam5:

    I’m not sure I would consider this a flaw though … If Germany attacks UK on G1 they are probably going to lose a lot of Figs which are worth more than the 30 IPCs you are gonna get and America will capture UK on US1 anyway so I think it’s a stupid move in the first place. Not to mentions Britain’s AA Gun.

    Germany looses 4 fighters, for 40 IPCs.  England looses 30 IPC on R1 and cannot build on R2 either.  That’s -60 IPCs in units for the allies, -10 IPCs in units for the Axis (give or take.)


  • And your analyis Jen also does not include the Allied forces that have to be dedicated to re-taking London.

    The financials posted do not include another $8 that Germany gets paid for owning UK at teh end of their move.

    So, if you were to take London on G1, UK can;t build in UK2, even if liberated (they will have no cash), and they did nto build in UK1 either.  So that is -60 Allies.
    Another -8 for teh lost territory, now -68.
    Germany gains $30 from UK’s bank, another 8 for London itself  +38
    US has to liberate london on US1, no forces to Africa (additional Germany IPC gains there now, with UK not being able to send full force to retake Africa, and with US not landing there either).

    Germany will have around $80-$85 to spend on G2, Japan around $35 for a total Axis build in Turn 2 of about $120 (addded to the $70 in Turn 1)
    UK has no buy UK1 or UK2.  Allies build $66 in T1, and about $69 in T2.

    Net Axis Advantage after 2 turns:  +$45
    And since they start out with far more units, and teh Allies need their early economic advnatage to reach parity with the Axis, and that is now completely reversed…

    Lastly, leaving tech immedaietly available to allow for the G1 Sea Lion reduces teh game to the results of a single set of dice rolls.  If you want to play that way, just roll the tech rolls, and the UK invasion.  If Germany wins, game to Axis, if they lose, game to Allies.  It will save you all the time of setting up the game, and still yield accurate results.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, we both forgot to include the damage to Germany’s land units.  So they’re down 1 Infantry, 4 Fighters.  England is down 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor.

    That’s 50 IPCs in units vs 43 IPCs in units lost to Germany.  Germany has +38 IPCs for England.  England is short 60 IPCs (not 68, they’ll get it back.)

    So the Allies are down a total of 110 IPCs and Germany’s down 5 IPCs.  (not including the counter attack.  -8 Germany on counter attack, assuming the tank doesn’t hit the allies and win, and I’ve seen 1 armor shoot down 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 armor before!)

    I’ll take that trade on any given Sunday, twice on Mondays, and just about any day of the week!


  • One other thing…

    The ONLY thing in London on G2 is the US forces used to liberate.  You can potentially RE-TAKE London, and possibly a LOT heavier than before if you built TRNs in G1.

    Or better yet, let UK collect income on UK2 while Germany builds fleet on G2, and strike London AGAIN in G3, taking another $30 ish in bonus revenue

    :mrgreen:


  • Well, ncsswitch, the assumption is that LHTR is NOT being used, nor any of the other common tournament rules, because with delayed tech, a G1 attack on London is just silly.

    I really don’t feel it’s a matter of “game over” for the Allies at all, if Germany spent 25+ IPC on tech.  Even if Germany spent only 5 on tech, if both players know that a G1 attack on London is possible, you run into the possibliity of 2 USSR fighters in London, which is, I admit, horribly costly for the USSR, but also horribly costly for Germany.

    You have infantry, tank, six fighters, and a bomber, going against a bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, two fighters, and a very important AA gun.  Of course, with additional Russian fighters, it looks rather worse for the Germans; I don’t think it should even be attempted in that event.

    Depending on the AA gun, and a few bad rolls, and whether or not USSR fighters are in London, most or all of the German air force will be destroyed, and the Germans will hold London with 1 tank.

    Now, if the Germans spent all their IPC on tech, they can attack London next turn, at best, with one infantry, one tank, and one bomber.  Even if the German Med fleet moved west, it can be blocked from helping in the attack on London by a USSR sub block.  Given that the UK can possibly retake on its turn with battleship bombardment and tank from E. Canada, and US can move in to reinforce with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber, a repeat of Germany taking London will almost certainly not happen.  Either Germany will take Anglo-Egypt with preplaced bid units or not; if it doesn’t, India will be quite strong, if it does not, the UK will very likely be able to retake Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry and fighter.  Germany WILL have 78-82 IPC, but will have next to no air force (if any), which means that the Allied fleet buildup will threaten Germany quite fast.  Germany can build a new airforce, but that will be quite expensive, and because Germany spent no IPCs on ground units, USSR can push early (even if it has to retreat later).  Germany will also have to commit more forces to trading territories with USSR in the east.

    Basically, I think a G1 attack on London is very risky; the initial attack has a decent chance of success, but the Allied counter can easily rock Germany back.

    BUT, if Germany only spent 5 IPC on tech, and bought more transports, or some ground units or air force to counter USSR, I think the Germans would have a signficiant advantage.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ya know what, if you put 2 russian fighters in there, I might be more tempted to come knocking.  Russia with no fighters is just asking to be walked over by Japan and Germany.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The fighters would be the last casualties to be taken so I think rolling 4 4’s would wipe you out before they can be hit


  • Well, if you came knocking with 2 extra Russian fighters in London, that’s

    1 bomber, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 4 fighters, 1 AA gun vs
    1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, 1 bomber.

    Say you’re using Low-Luck (I’m not an advocate of Low-Luck, but I recall that you posted a few posts using those projections), and got about average luck and lost a fighter.

    Now you have attack 23, defense 26.  Assume four casaulties by each side (with slightly favorable Low-Luck dice), then you have attack 10 defense 19, with a tank, fighter, and bomber going against four fighters and a tank. The next round inflict two casaulties for Germany and three for the Allies, and you have a tank going against three fighters, at which point the tank will die with a 50/50 chance of killing a fighter.  Since I would far rather lose UK than USSR fighters, that means that the 2 USSR fighters will both certainly be alive at the end of any Low-Luck battle.

    Basically, Germany needs to have quite good luck to kill those last remaining Russian fighters.  Even a bit of bad luck with rolls, though, will mean that the UK and the USSR will both keep their fighters, and the entire German Luftwaffe will have been destroyed at the cost of a few ground units and a bomber.  Germany will also suffer from not taking Anglo-Egypt, the cost of weapon development research, and early Russian pressure on the German front.  It’s very much all or nothing, in a battle that does not favor Germany by any means.

    ALTHOUGH I have to say that a G1 attack on London is always fun, even if the odds are not favorable.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That G1 attack gives you a 23% chance of killing both Russian fighters, 2 british fighters and 1 bomber.

    It results in 0 Germany luftwaffe anymore…but that’s worth it, I think.

    It’s a bit risky, but then again, you already gambled to get the LRA…so obviously you are not opposed to risk!  And Russia’s probably NOT putting two fighters in England on R1.


  • Putting 2 USSR FIGs in London on R1 just invites Germany to spank the crap out of Russia.

    Russia only has enough punch for ONE good battle (they give up Ukraine completely, and if they try Belo and WR, they will be very weak in both.  Germany can counter with taking Karelia, Belo or West Russia (depending on if Belo was attacked) and Caucuses.  That puts Germany at +4 to +6, plus whatever happens in Africa.  And Russia is under $20 for pretty much the remainder of the game.


  • Tsk, tsk, spankings?  Think of the children!  Won’t someone please think of the children?!

    OK, so the USSR will be spanked.  But if it’s a choice between London or Karelia, Belorussia, AND Ukraine, it’s still an easy decision, isn’t it?  I can’t see any other way to defend against the G1 invasion of London (assuming, of course, that tech is immediately effective and a G1 invasion of London is not barred by the local ruleset, and that Germany didn’t go absolutely mad on tech dice and purchased a couple of transports, I think it’s very possible that the German player can take London and get a lock on London by G3 at the latest with only two or three transports purchased first turn, while Japan pushes on the USSR from the east.)

    If there is a better way than 2 Russian fighters in London to help defend, I can’t think of it.  German infantry, tank, six fighters, and bomber going up against UK bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, two fighters, and AA gun, is favorable for the attackers.

    I suppose you might be saying that if Germany invests minimal IPC on tech, it has a greater chance of failure, and if it invests more IPC on tech, it still has a moderate chance of failure.  For the case of a moderate instead of minimal IPC investment on tech, I can see that the slightly favorable German attack will be outweighed by the fact that a 52% absolute requirement to win (spending 20 IPC on tech dice which must succeed) followed by a 75% absolute requirement to win is overall only a 39% chance of success, meaning Germany will self-destruct if it uses 4 or more tech dice, sure, I can see that, especially since 20 IPC spent on unsuccessful tech is a huge investment.

    What I have in mind, though, is specifically the 16% investment of a single tech dice, or possibly the slightly higher investment of two tech dice, followed byGermany’s purchase cycle dependent on whether or not the weapons development research was successful - and the consequent and straightforward win of Germany in perhaps 31% of its games using an investment of only two tech dice to attack an underdefended London.  If the tech succeeds, Germany builds transports and hopes for a successful attack on London, followed by an almost certain lock on London.  If the tech fails, Germany can still build ten infantry and go either for the KGF stall, or the KGF push on Caucasus if the Allies decide to go KJF.

    In the latter case, isn’t 2 USSR fighters in London a reasonable investment on security?  Maybe not.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Or you just shoot down the baltic fleet with your fighters on USSR1 and get rid of the problem all together :D
    Ok ukraine you might have to forgo in that situation but it is not impossible to counter at all. Although 2 figs VS 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest might not be in your favor but you only need 3 hits to make his invasion near impossible ( put a sub between his fleet and london he has to take it out and if you hit -> end invasion :D)

    No trannies -> No invasion.
    Also invading UK on turn 1 makes the game a lot like gambling imo, gambling on tech dice and then gambling on a pretty hard fight.

    Using the Russian fighters on the Baltic fleet still faces ncsswitch’s problem of leaving the Russian fighters out of any fight.  And I also think that a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic navy is risky, although the additional sub move could be decisive.  Still, the whole Russian operation described is risky (After all, Germany is not locked into having to invade London, and the proposed USSR attacks do mean some pain for the USSR).

    The game is like gambling?  Of  course!  It’s got dice!  The whole thing is about calculated risk.  With a 2 dice investiture, you can get a lock on London, and likely the game, with a 30% chance; even if you fail, you’re only out 10 IPCs . . . 10 very valuable IPCs to be sure, but I’d rather go for that 30% chance plus a stall game in case of failure than for the regular Axis game, which I think is too vulnerable to coordinated Allied attack.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    What if you went with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter and attacked the Baltic Fleet on R1?

    What’re the odds?


  • You are still giving up a win in Ukraine if you pull out a FIG (on average you lose more often than you win with less than maximum punch).

    And 2 FIG vs. the Baltic Fleet is not very great odds of killing a couple of German units.

    And in addition to not being able to count on a win in Ukraine, you are now short 2 FIGs for defense of Caucuses.  That means that you have to weaken the WRS and/or leave Caucuses vulnerable.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, but I routinely leave Caucasus with only a blitz blocker and a factory with Russia.

    The idea was to kill 2 or 3 German ships with Russia and hten sink the rest with England.  Though, if Germany’s down 2 or 3 ships in SZ 5, the odds of her building that carrier are smaller and thus they have more firepower against Russia.


  • But if you kill the German fleet in R1 (or a major portion of it) you get a whole new German strat… probably somethign like  10 INF, 2 ARM on G1.  And Russia is going to be hard pressed to deal with that, especially if the Luftwaffe is used to replace the Kreigsmarine.  And Germany can still be a pain in the butt usign single SUB purchases to restrict Allied landings in Europe.

  • 2007 AAR League

    if you plan on attacking UK on G2 and you build all transports on G1 can you take UK or since UK nd America nd Russia seeing it be able to prevent u assuming they send all available things dn britain builds all infantry or something does germany have enough to stop them? o nd a carrier on G1 so UK doesn’t just attack u


  • Note to ncsswitch:  ASSUMING that OOB (even with FAQs) are used, can you think of a better way than flying 2 Russian fighters to London to stop a 1-2 tech dice for Long Range aircraft and transport buy by Germany to get a lock on London?  I know it leaves the USSR horribly weak.

    Note to ajgundam5:  No, a G1 buy of 5 transports does not guarantee taking of London.  (if you buy THAT many transports, it probably won’t matter if UK sends its airforce at the Baltic fleet, because the air will die without killing ANY transports (if a destroyer is taken as a casualty instead of a transport).

    UK has 1 bom 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 2 fig.  It purchases 5 inf 3 armor, and shuttles the E. Canada tank in.  US transports in two inf, art, tank, fightter, bomber.  Assume the German Mediterranean fleet moved west to threaten 7 transports to London, and that the USSR player countered on USSR2 with sub to the sea zone west of Algeria (blocking the German med fleet).  Also assume that the USSR player can NOT reinforce London with Russian fighters (say the Russian fighters landed in the Caucasus, and that the German player attempted a G2 Sea Lion because he/she knew the Russian fighters could not reach London).

    Now Germany has 6 infantry, 6 tanks, 6 fighters, and a bomber (assume no fighters were killed), against 2 bombers, 9 infantry, 2 artillery, 6 tanks, 3 fighters, and AA gun.  That’s an offensive punch of 46 against an AA gun and a defensive punch of 54.  Germany can kill the US transports that reinforced London with a good chance of sustaining no losses, but any German attack on London is now somewhat unlikely to succeed (even 1 Russian fighter would make it near impossible).  Germany holds Africa for a long time, but USSR pushes from the west like crazy, and those 40 IPC of transports don’t do much good against a good Allied player.


  • Well, OOB is hopelessly broken, which is why they are not used.

    But if you are going to use them, and Gemany wants to try Sea Lion on G1…

    Full AF on G1 gives a 85% chance of a win on Sea lion.
    Losing 1 FIG drops it to 73%
    Losing 2 drops it to a crap shoot.

    Even with the Russian FIGs, it is a crap shoot… 51% to take UK on G1 (with full AF).

    Your BEST defense, using OOB, is to attack the Baltic Fleet with 2 FIGs, and to kill a German FIG in Ukraine.
    It gives you a 25% chance of killing the entire fleet (taking the TRN as final casualty), preventing a Sea lion attempt completely.
    Use the SUB as a blocker in SZ6, which increases the odds that the TRN will nto even get through (if it is the only ship remainign in the Baltic, Germany has to use another FIG to get the TRN to UK, and even tehn a 2 in 6 chance the TRN sinks).  You are now up to only about a 30% chance of a Sea lion battle even occuring.  And if it does, it will be short 2 FIGs by Germany., making it a crap shoot for teh actual battle.

    Final odds, with 3 battles needed to execute Sea Lion:  about 15% chance of success.


  • I know there must have been posts in the past explaining why OOB is broken, and I agree to some extent.  Assuming that NAs are not used, though, why is it that OOB / FAQ is “hopelessly” broken?

    It’s not a question of the initial attack, it’s also a question of holding London.

    I think using 2 tech dice is much less of a “crap shoot” as a calculated risk.  A “crap shoot” is dropping 8 German dice on tech, hoping that the Germans will get really lucky and take London while ALSO not losing more than two or three fighters.  Dropping 2 German dice on tech lets you try to get a lock on London and win the game straightaway; even if you fail, all it’s cost you is a single fighter, a couple tanks, or two infantry and an artillery (in light of the fact that you can still drop 10 infantry, I feel that it’s a reasonable investment.

    If you attack the Baltic fleet with 2 Russian fighters, and attack the Ukraine, that means that you must land at least one Russian fighter in Karelia, and use three tanks against Ukraine (for favorable odds).  So now Germany can choose not to try the G1 Sea Lion at all, kill the USSR fighter, and kill the Russian armor in Ukraine with relatively few losses.

    What I’m saying, or what I meant to say, is that I feel that with OOB rules, 2 Russian fighters to London is the least risky way of defending against G1 Sea Lion.  You will not lose those fighters unless Germany decides to take rather a big chance on London.  If you choose to attack the Baltic fleet and take Ukraine, I feel that Germany can choose to do something else besides G1 Sea Lion (since Germany goes AFTER USSR, and can respond accordingly).

    BTW, I think it’s 72% that Germany takes at least one casualty on six fighters and a bomber from an AA gun, and even then, I don’t think it’s 51% to take UK with infantry, tank, six fighters, and bomber (using the 28% probability that no German air was shot down) against bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, and four fighters.  Germany loses attack power very quickly after the first casualty, but the bulk of the London defense is in fighters, so it loses only the weak bomber, then the moderately effective infantry and artillery, and only finally, the most effective fighters.  Even then, Germany has the problem of actually having to have a ground unit to take London, so cannot take the German tank as a casualty before taking the German bomber as a casualty.

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 72
  • 14
  • 30
  • 31
  • 7
  • 23
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts