Attack, Retreat or Advance?



  • Re:  Large Stacks:  You see this a lot in games in which both Axis and Allies are controlled by conservative players of moderate to high skill.  If one or the other player is aggressive, large stacks won’t form, and the game will end quickly as the battles are quickly resolved.  If one or the other player is not at least moderately skilled, that player will make a mistake that the other player can exploit, which makes the game shorter (so large stacks don’t have time to build up).

    Re:  UK/US (and USSR) roles:  This following comment is not directly relevant to earlier posts in this thread.  If Germany holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, UK can attack and fail and retreat, then US can attack and fail and retreat, then Russia can attack.  That is, the Allies have three chances to commit minimal force to attack a German-controlled Russian territory and take control of it by the time Russia collects income.  On the other hand, if Japan holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, there are only two chances.  If Japan holds a territory originally controlled by US, there is usually just one chance that has to be taken by the US.

    If this wasn’t already an indicator that KGF is better for Allies, there’s the additional logistic advantage in going KGF.  UK/US fleets in the north Atlantic can hit any number of territories with cheap infantry (plus support) from amphibious assaults.  Allied forces in east Asia have almost no relative mobility because they’re stuck walking around instead of being offloaded from ships; the Japanese are the ones with the mobility advantage as the Japanese can offload to any number of key points (Buryatia and French Indochina being key), plus have the air power to turn a couple of infantry and a tank or two into a significant attack threat.

    Re:  “conventional wisdom” - the “conventional wisdom” behind KGF is to attack 3 vs 1; the Allies are delayed by having to build the naval infrastructure, but then have a logistic advantage with amphibious assaults that potentially lets them trade off at 1:1 or better.  The delay is usually long enough for Japan to get quite large and nasty, which means the inevitable loss of Moscow.  If the Allies do NOT trade off with Germany early, Germany can potentially have defensive stacks that get reinforced by Japanese fighters.  Japan then tries to either grab Caucasus or Moscow while Berlin holds fast; if Berlin can hold for a few turns while the Japs control Caucasus or Moscow, the Axis probably win.

    Re:  low luck favoring Allies:  Try to quantify that with an Axis bid if you would, please.  3 IPCs worth of units preplaced on the board / added to the bank?  More?



  • I think I see a wabbit… with a machinegun! 😄

    @Bunnies:

    Re:  UK/US (and USSR) roles:  This following comment is not directly relevant to earlier posts in this thread.  If Germany holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, UK can attack and fail and retreat, then US can attack and fail and retreat, then Russia can attack.  That is, the Allies have three chances to commit minimal force to attack a German-controlled Russian territory and take control of it by the time Russia collects income.  On the other hand, if Japan holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, there are only two chances.  If Japan holds a territory originally controlled by US, there is usually just one chance that has to be taken by the US.

    If this wasn’t already an indicator that KGF is better for Allies, there’s the additional logistic advantage in going KGF.  UK/US fleets in the north Atlantic can hit any number of territories with cheap infantry (plus support) from amphibious assaults.  Allied forces in east Asia have almost no relative mobility because they’re stuck walking around instead of being offloaded from ships; the Japanese are the ones with the mobility advantage as the Japanese can offload to any number of key points (Buryatia and French Indochina being key), plus have the air power to turn a couple of infantry and a tank or two into a significant attack threat.

    I completely agree with all the theory you described, although that’s what happens when the ideal conditions are met. With amphibious assaults, in many occasions you’ll be unable to expect any Russian support because they will be more occupied against Japan. But logistically and otherwise the UK+US combo against Germany is the best, even better if you manage to get the Russians involved, even if it’s just to protect the territory.
    However, there are quite a few important factors in deciding to swing against Japan the Russia+UK combo. First, it can be quite unexpected for Japan, if the player has never seen it before, to watch the US+Russia+UK attack unfold and be unable to do anything about it (other than flying some fighters to defend a territory, usually). Second, it can break any coordination by both Axis powers and give the initiative to the Allies. Third, it can be easier to set up (sometimes I find setting the supply chain to W. Eur harder than to Archangel because of all the movement involved due to Axis planes). Fourth, even by landing on Archangel, you’re keeping the pressure on W. Eur, by being able of landing 24 units, while at the same time send 16 units each round, to Moscow.



  • I am not a big fan of tripple attacks, unless for a capital. Tripple attacks almost always means that the allies lost many more men than Germany overall. Unless this totally obliterates 70% or more of germany’s forces I tend to just build up and stack off eastern europe when the situation allows for it.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 5
  • 3
  • 4
  • 3
  • 38
  • 6
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

14.9k
Users

35.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts