Don's Famous Infantry Push Mechanic strategies

@Bashir: 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.

What is your game plan. What are your goals. How are you coordinating the 3 allies to achieve those goals? What are your opponents goals? How can you block him/her from achieving those goals? I am not talking about taking a capital as a goal. That is the end goal. I am talking about short term goals. (e.g, take and hold Western Europe. Hold the Yakut Sinkaing line against the Japanese for 4 turns. etc.) What is your overall all strategy? Your goals are steps on the ladder of your strategy to victory. When you can answer these questions, then you will find you will fare better in your games. Lastly, be flexible. You will lose important battles. Plans will be countered. Be ready to adapt to these events. Balance risk of loss versus risk of gain. Retreat is often the best thing to do after a bad roll of the dice in a big battle. Reinforce and try again next turn. If you can’t wait for next turn, then you are being outplayed. Study and learn why. Cheers!

Are you and Djensen the only ones that run this site? Must be kinda tough.

I tend to plan with a bit more involvement than simply “see IPCs, must take”. The chief consideration for me is not the weight of one particular territory or its nationality, but the strategic situation taking it will create. For instance, you mentioned the choice between taking Sinkiang and India. Sure, one is 2 American IPCs and the other 3 British and based on that consideration alone I should strike India, but look at where it will put my forces if I take Sink. Right smack under Russia. Sudenly the Russians will have a few more threatened territories and since I know they don’t usually have infantry to spare, if I have at least one armor in my force, I can blitz some of those IPCs. Even without armor, I can draw some of their forces out. If I have another force working up to Russia’s capital, that’ll be a nice help for them. If I don’t, presumably Germany does. India, on the other hand is a nice choice because it will open the way to mideast territories that are usually ill-protected. It may make strategic sense to take if it is not too heavily defended. If it is, an attack there will be diverting a large force into a very bad position where it will have nothing to do for the next 1-3 turns. In Africa, I don’t see how it matters that much if you hit UK or US territories. Both of them are overseas, so those IPCs would arrive on transports exactly one turn after being built anyway. So, when I do look at nationality, I mostly differentiate between Soviet and non-Soviet.

@shaper why not just develop a strategy to go after England instead of Russia much easier target in my opinion because Russia is to far I have seen England fall before in 1 game I played as the axis I took England with Germany then I took Russia with Germany the following turn had great luck that day probably my greatest game of axis and allies it was the 1986 classic version

Ah, the old fashion black and white Simcity on the computer, that sure brings back memories. I was never really good at that game – I constantly outspent myself even with hefty taxes. I guess Risk 2 is next on the list of things I sure check out hehe. I’m still waiting for Axis and Allies with simultaneous play, but for the time being, I’ll have to stick with using to Axis & Allies with two boards to get any real feeling of surprise.

Usually when I play multiplayer in person, we have a rule of 5-10 minute discussion period at the end of each round.  Each side gets about 5 minutes took look over the board and discuss strat, then the other side.  It allows for a bit more cooperation. Fairer sides may have helped too, but this Axis strat should never work. As Russia, you can afford to be aggressive. Personally, I’ll focus on Germany and hit Ukr and Baltic sz, while falling back in the East.  If possible I’ll never engage the Japanese until they approach Novo  (about rd 3-4). But in those first 3-4 rds you should be able to cripple Germany. If Germany is building ships and planes, you should be able to hold EE as Russia very early (by rd 2-3). My guess is they went after UK, because that guy was new to the game.  Seems kinda cheap to me, but you guys should ask for a rematch and then beat the snot out of them. If you give some specific examples of the Axis early moves I’ll give you counters so you can beat them. Here is a brutal Russia 1 to get started Buy 8 inf Attack Ukr with 8 inf, 3 arm If it goes badly retreat to Kar (while trying to reduce Ger to only a ftr), if it goes well take it with 4-5 inf and 3 arm Attack Baltic sz with 2 ftrs (the G sub cannot shoot at your ftrs) Attack W sp sz with your sub  (sub vs sub) most likely his sub has to retreat Non-Combat All troops to Kar and place there (if Ukr was taken), Kar will have 12 inf, 2 ftrs and fortify Yak with 7 inf and move arm to Novo. and move your trn to the UK sz if you only strafed Ukr, Kar will have about 15-16 inf, 3 arm, 2 ftrs. This moves takes out all German Navy and gives Russia a strong opening position.

yeah i try not to concentrate on russia to much, becuase it dont really matter if russia falls if uk and usa are powerfull enuogh then you cant do much anyway when i take russia i got to much to defend, about that time he has about 30 men both america and uk and about 20 tanks with UK and USA and he also has a big fleet enuogh to wipe japan out instantly but he dont really see them as a fret and he will try alot of tactics am in kerilia after defeating russia , i cant really move from there or he will drop forces on norway and procede to go to russia and take the money from it,if that dont work then he will normally go round to japans water and drop all his men on the other side of the board cant remember the country i dont have the game my uncle does and he attacks japan fleet and takes japan,or sometimes he will come to africa and move up from there or he will come down to southern europe wiith english trnasporters and english fleet and men and drop them there in southern europe but if i split my forces from western europe (france) then he will land there i have to quickly move my forces down there to try and stop him then he drops the americans on kerilia and go’s to russia and moves the rest of the russians that are in asia what are killing japanese men that drop over. he also…… most of the time manages to get a factory with the uk in indua and fly all his planes there to defend it so then i have the ,americas taking russia joining up with the english build up in asia aswell with the remaining russians and then english fleet atackking my men on gibralter and landing and attacking soutern europe only if i havent got my men there in time if i only have tanks defending it he attacks, but he then changes and then drops men on syria iraq and joins the english with the americans and the russia remainders so then he has russia defending moscow with americcans english he is getting alot of money pumping more men out reading 4 the next landing and am still badly damaged with germany to really attack him, or sometimes he just lingers around german waters and waits 4 me to open up then lands in sothern or attacks it, its really hard playing with him, he originally found the game in america some military people was playing the game apparently,said there commander made them play it makes then strategic thinking a guess?