From what I see, your strategy does nothing to attack Sinkiang, China and India, giving them time to build ICs and making the Japanese road to Russia essentially impossible. Also, what about the U.S./U.K. shuck? If the conveyor belt really gets going, you have to deal with 6-8 Inf a turn, if not more, and that will make Russia impossible to defeat without sacrificing Berlin. Play your strategy with a little more support on WEu and knocking out Southern Asia (which also gives Japan $7 to use, not the Allies), and it will probably work. Just going through Manch is asking for trouble.
I understood perfectly what you trying to point out, but the point I was making, why do you want to play with these rules? If your are relying on luck you should stick to Risk imho. Axis and Allies was designed as a tactical game and not yatzee… And top notch players know how to handle those kind of strats, if Germany goes for tech, the US will do some tech roles as well, because in no RR no bid games Germany is under a lot of pressure from Russia alone and if they spend money on tech the US can easily spend IPC’s on tech as well (and more than Germany)
The risky Japan moves are quite useless, because you need your navy to assist your ground push in the west. Ok say you want to move your fleet to the atlantic, and Russia attacks Manchuria on R1 and the UK attacks kwantung on U1, you really need your navy to assist taking it back and establish a front in the west.
Your Japanese tech rolls on J3 will make Germany crumble! They will be under a lot of pressure and you are nowhere near Moscow, so again the Allies can easily counter your tech rolls with theirs…
I think with top notch players your winning% will drop below the 5% winning rate you might archieve with the Axis.
LOL… I still don’t think you understand my concept:
My post is about discussing the optimum axis strategy in no bids, no rr.
I’m not arguing whether Axis & Allies should be played with these rules or not. It is clear that many people prefer playing with bids - Personally, I think bids is great as it adds a alot of variety and depth to the game
I’m also not arguing whether Axis & Allies should have a strong element of luck or not. I myself play chess at a high level.
I’ll give you another analogy of what I’m proposing - I shall refer a lot to chess as this game doesn’t involve rolls.
Imagine if you had a supercomputer which could somehow calculate the exact probability (at any stage of the game) of whether the Axis or Allies would win. In addition, the supercomputer would suggest moves that maximes the probability of winning.
It is my impression that this supercomputer would play allies almost identical to the standard textbook allies strategy. KGF with US doing shuck shuck. As I mentioned before, there are different tactical points but I believe the overall strategy would be the same.
However, I would think that the supercomputer would play Axis VERY differently to just always following the normal textbook Axis strategy. Let’s look at KwangBang as an example.
Imagine if Japan gets terrible rolls and Russia takes Manchuria and UK takes Kwantung with little or no loss. Also assume USSR has killed the Baltic fleet and strafed Ukraine (with standard results). Also assume Germany destroyed the UK fleet for the loss of 1-2 planes and didn’t do a suicidal attack on Karelia.
What do you think the supercomputer would suggest for the axis? I very much doubt it would follow the textbook Axis strategy. Why? Because even if Axis were to play “properly”, Axis is dead anyway. Set up the board at J1, with Russia already occupying Manchuria and UK already occuping Kwantung (with little loss), plus typical results of other USSR, Germany and UK moves. Try playing Japan using “textbook strategy” against top Allied players (or yourself) and see how many games you win. I would say close to 1%. Ironically, Axis should play even riskier if KwanBang really hurts Japan. My comment about Japan in the Atlantic is if KwangBang fails (or allies chooses not to do KwangBang). If KwangBang succeeds spectacularly, Axis might as well go for tech rolls or hope for a miracle with a G2 attack of Navy (and resign if it fails).
Conversely, if KwangBang/Baltic/Ukraine/Navy goes very badly for the allies, I believe the computer would suggest for Axis to play completely “textbook style” as the optimum play.
In chess, people have managed to program a 6 piece Table base (takes 1.2 terrabytes). This means that a computer implementing a 6 piece Table Base can play such endgames PERFECTLY. For example, if a computer was playing White in a (won) 6 piece endgame like King, Rook and Knight vs King and Two Knights, it may announce eg: White wins in 246 moves. If the opponent plays “PERFECTLY” as well, this number counts down by 1 each turn and the computer wins. If the opponent plays a “poor” move, he/she just loses faster.
What people found was that many Table Base Endgames were completely incomprehensible and broke “strategic” principles of chess (that were developed over hundreds of years). But what was particulary interesting was chess endings that for hundreds of years were considered “dead draws” were actually winnable.
Similarly, I believe if a supercomputer could ever be programmed to play Axis such that it always maximises its probabilitiy of winning (of course not possible), it may play seemingly ridiculously. Buying bombers, tech rolls, suicidal attacks etc. It may even lose games very quickly (and play like a “beginner”). Because the computer wouldn’t care whether it would lose in 5 turn or 20 turns - it would only care about probability.
Of course, I cannot say for certain how the supercomputer would play, but personally, I envisage that the supercomputer would try increase the luck factor if things are going badly, and reduce the luck factor if things are going well. If the supercomputer plays allies, I believe it would try minimise “risky attacks” and simply prolong the game and grind the opponent down. If it is Axis, I believe it would choose different strategies based upon the current situation. If Axis are in a “dead” situation, it would probably go all-out luck, or if going well, it would buy more infantry etc.
In the same way that the Table Base showed how the human chess “textbook” ending strategies were flawed, I believe that the supercomputer would also show that the human axis textbook strategy is flawed. Tim Krabbé wrote about Table bases:
“A grandmaster wouldn’t be better at these endgames than someone who had learned chess yesterday. It’s a sort of chess that has nothing to do with chess, a chess that we could never have imagined without computers. The Stiller moves are awesome, almost scary, because you know they are the truth, God’s Algorithm – it’s like being revealed the Meaning of Life, but you don’t understand one word.”
Secondly, it is my impression that the computer would announce at the start of a no bid, no rr game that the probability of Axis winning would be closer to 10-15%. If a top-notch human player would play against it, perhaps the supercomputer might win up to 20% of its games (as the human won’t be able to determine exactly what maximises probability).
The whole point of my post is that I believe textbook axis strategy maximises the length of the game, and not necessarily the probability of winning. The problem is that people would rather lose in a “hard-fought” but close game than being crushed in a few turns. If you don’t care how you win or lose, then I believe there are more optimum ways to play Axis.
I believe the optimum Axis strategy isn’t just a single strategy, but multiple different strategies. At one end is the textbook Axis strategy, at the other end is buying multiple tech rolls. In between are a mixture of strategies like infantry/tech roll, infantry/bombers, G2 attack on Navy etc. Axis chooses which way to go depending on the current situation. Clearly, if the game is already lost, why bother buying infantry just to hold out another 5 turns? Alternatively, if something miraculous happens like Russia getting crushed in Ukraine, Baltic and Manchuria - Axis should probably play “textbook”.
I wrote this post to see what plausible strategies there are for Axis. Obviously, something like G1 1 battleship + 1 Armor / J1 battleship is rubbish, but G1 5 Infantry + bomber or 7 Infantry + tech / J1 3 inf + 2 trans seems plausible to me.
The trick to screwing over Russia on the first round is to throw everything, literrally everything at Karelia on the very first round, and buying tons tanks so you can reinforce your front on the second turn.
I initially thought so as well. But these folks showed me the implementation of US and UK strategies that I had never seen developed to the level they use them that preclude Germany from HOLDING Karelia to be able to build there in G2.
To take Karelia against the best defensive buildup that Russia can muster requires your Air Force. But if you use your Air Force against Karelia, the UK navy is intact, and does an amphib in Karelia (2 BB’s, 3 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 INF, 1 tank) to kick Germany’s few remaining forces out in UK1.
Even if UK fails to kick Germany out of Karelia, what forces does Germany have left? 2 INF in Western, 4 INF and a tank in Eastern, 1-3 tanks in Karelia, 2 fighters, and a bomber; and their “total tank” build of 6 tanks in Germany. That is a BEST case survival scenario.
Going forward against this, you have Russia building 7 (or more) INF per round, UK with a “full” transport fleet to use against Germany and the US also with a transport fleet that starts hitting Germany in US3.
Believe me, I used to agree whole heartedly with you, but failing to take out the Allied naval forces in the 1st and 2nd rounds is certain quick death for Germany. And without them, you can;t crack Karelia. Even if you can, you can;t crack it with enough force to threaten Russia the following round.
You might want to look into the forum a little bit deeper than the first page and read some topics… Some will be very revealing for you. If you still have questions after reading some topics and then post something new or debatable. Not something that is discussed like 1000x times… Even on this page there is a topic on Russia and also there RJClayton describes how a Russian Turn one should look like…
Straving or either taking Ukr is a necissity! for the obvious reasons rjclayton points out! You want to use your planes and sub as well instead of let them doing nothing…
If you are playing without a bid:
Buy 8 inf
Strafe Ukr with everything, idealy Germany is left with one fight, retreat to Kar.
Take Manchuria, you can even bring a fighter from Moscow.
Attack the baltic and the Spain Seazone.
After this the game is pretty much over, because Germany can’t even expand to the east to trade cau with the russians, because Ukr is a deathtrap. EE will be under heavy pressure and WeU will fall in about 3-4 turns.
Well, don;t congratulate me too much yet. I still need to play-test the consolidation of Japan strategies against various counters and against pre-emptive strikes.
The taking of Manchuria as a pre-emptive by Russia does not bother me (I actually think it is to Japan’s advantage to have Russia take Manchuria in R1). But the Kwangtung Maneuver and the Yakut Consolidation could both create some glitches… Kwangtung requiring a shift of forces to re-take Kwangtung, a shift that splits the capital ship consolidation; and also opens up India to taking in J1. Both of those open up holes in the Japan front leaving them strategically vulnerable, but also represent very significant tactical and economic victories.
I need to evaluate just how much Russia can send land forces to re-inforce Yakut and the K/N/E perimiter, and what counter-attacks may be possible on Sinkiang and how quickly Japan can reinforce Central Asia. Allied land and air force shifts also need to be reviewed; both through Russia and through Africa.
What impact would a US Submarine Wolfpack being built in US2 have on the strategy? Or Hawaii, surrounded by the initial US Pacific Fleet, stacked with 3 INF, and used as a BOMBER BASE would have (bombers to threaten Japan tranny’s if the capital ships fled, or to tilt the scales to allow the US PAC FLT, with strong air support, to sweep in and neutralize Japan’s stream of forces to Asia. Or perhaps staging forward to Wake to allow those same bombers to SBR Japan?
Oviously this Japan strategy is not fool proof. What it is is an example of a counter to a KGF strategy that just MIGHT force the US to pay more attention to the Pacific, or risk Japan and Germany linking up in the Eastern Med.
And preventing all 3 Allies from ganging up on Germany is the idea… Germany can beat Russia 1-on-1, and can stand toe-to-toe with Russia and an economically weakened UK in a defensive war. The US is what tips the scales against Germany, so delaying that 3rd ally joining in Europe and/or moving forward so fast and so strongly that Japan is able to criple UK economically, as well as weaken Russia, are the only ways the Axis can win.
Do any of you find it cheap/annoying when an allied player lands on Spain in order to establish a Western front against Germany? This has been a common tactic of mine, and I had a gamesbyemail player call it cheap just recently. I haven’t seen that strategy criticized before, so I’m curious if others share the opinion.
As a strategy that move is so common it has a nickname: “Spanish Harlem”. I wouldn’t call it cheap, but I can see being annoyed by it if it kept happening to me.
There’s a few ways to defend against it, but most involve either Germany taking Spain first or stacking tons of troops in France for an immediate counter-attack.