Axis and Allies 2nd ed without bids, Axis Advantage, or RR


  • Nc,

    Do you honestly believe that the general assumption of everyone who has played axis and allies for years that the game is unbalanced towards the allies is wrong? Or do you believe that your strategy is unique? It is not a bad strategy, but you are making what I believe to be poor assumptions of what good and bad play is. For example, manchuria is NOT a bad move. I may agree that it’s not the best move, but you are kidding yourself if you believe it hasn’t been used frequently by very good players, to great affect.

    Your detailing of what the allies does is also generally incorrect for an allied team that wants to win. You assume that russia will attack eastern europe, whereas the more likely first move is a strafe against ukraine. The caucus is a simple retaking the next round with whatever you put into it, by using air power. Your attack relies on the UK and US attacking germany proactively, whereas I very rarely do that. Lets say I do shuck shuck (because i’m unoriginal) on you. As the allies by round 3 I will have finland norway stacked with a couple of tanks and about 12 infantry. My fighters from the UK and the US would also have been sitting in karelia for quite awhile.

    Ugh, actually I am pretty tired of arguing this, so I’m sure I will let you go on believing what you will. I would just say that I have very different ideas of what “GOOD” play is. In my mind, good allies would be helping karelia, not playing around with western and eastern europe. In my mind, a good russia will not just let you storm across their continent. In my mind, even when you take moscow if as you say the allies hold western and eastern the game is certainly not over if berlin is taken that round.

    I would suggest you test your strategy on http://www.tripleawarclub.org/, as actions always speak louder than words.


  • @aaFiendish:

    Your attack relies on the UK and US attacking germany proactively, whereas I very rarely do that. Lets say I do shuck shuck (because i’m unoriginal) on you. As the allies by round 3 I will have finland norway stacked with a couple of tanks and about 12 infantry. My fighters from the UK and the US would also have been sitting in karelia for quite awhile.

    Ugh, actually I am pretty tired of arguing this, so I’m sure I will let you go on believing what you will. I would just say that I have very different ideas of what “GOOD” play is. In my mind, good allies would be helping karelia, not playing around with western and eastern europe. In my mind, a good russia will not just let you storm across their continent. In my mind, even when you take moscow if as you say the allies hold western and eastern the game is certainly not over if berlin is taken that round.

    OK, so UK and USA pour everything into Karelia, making it one tough nut to crack.  Lots of Russian infatry, and lots of UK and US forces there and nearby in Norway as well.  So you are pouring it all on to save Karelia and thereby the Russians.  And a build up of that magnitude is kind-of obvious no matter how you try to hide it by the end of round 2 (either the units are there, or they are not, and if not, I attack Karelia as planned, with Japan heading west).

    All those allied forces in Northern Europe… all that money poured to defend essentially ONE territory.

    Strategy is fluid.  Anyone bound to a set pattern at the start of a game deserves to lose.

    That transport fleet can just as easilly shift to the Indian ocean and grab IPC’s from India, Persia, Syria, and Africa very quickly, as well as move on Australia (if I did not already take it), New Zealand, and perhaps Hawaii.  Maybe even a transport bound for Brazil.  Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska.  Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany.  And I just pull back and send those forces elsewhere, like back against Russia leaving you with idle forces in Western US…

    The point is, if you overload THAT heavy on a Karelia defense, I simply change plans, pump Japan up to about 45-50 IPC’s production while knocking UK down to the mid teens or less, keepign Russia in the 4-5 INF range, and dropping the US into the upper 20’s.  All Germany has to do then is HOLD while Japan builds whatever it wants… like 10 tanks a round to be poured against Russia’s back door, or into Alaska heading for Western US.

    And an economic victory is in easy reach if Germany managed to hold onto much of anything against your overload in northern Europe…

    Just please remember, my original post was as a potential counter that the Axis can use to thwart a “kill Germany first” strategy:  a way of upping the ante and forcing the Allied hand by a concerted push on Russia.  It is an option, a different way of looking at available moves and strategies… and one that has worked for me on more than one occasion.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska.  Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany.

    Actually, each and every built in a shuck-shuck is going towards Germany, while defending both parts of the US. I have the feeling you have not seen it being played properly.


  • @ncscswitch:

    All those allied forces in Northern Europe… all that money poured to defend essentially ONE territory.

    Strategy is fluid.  Anyone bound to a set pattern at the start of a game deserves to lose.

    That transport fleet can just as easilly shift to the Indian ocean and grab IPC’s from India, Persia, Syria, and Africa very quickly, as well as move on Australia (if I did not already take it), New Zealand, and perhaps Hawaii.  Maybe even a transport bound for Brazil.  Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska.  Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany.  And I just pull back and send those forces elsewhere, like back against Russia leaving you with idle forces in Western US…

    The point is, if you overload THAT heavy on a Karelia defense, I simply change plans, pump Japan up to about 45-50 IPC’s production while knocking UK down to the mid teens or less, keepign Russia in the 4-5 INF range, and dropping the US into the upper 20’s.  All Germany has to do then is HOLD while Japan builds whatever it wants… like 10 tanks a round to be poured against Russia’s back door, or into Alaska heading for Western US.

    And an economic victory is in easy reach if Germany managed to hold onto much of anything against your overload in northern Europe…

    Just please remember, my original post was as a potential counter that the Axis can use to thwart a “kill Germany first” strategy:  a way of upping the ante and forcing the Allied hand by a concerted push on Russia.  It is an option, a different way of looking at available moves and strategies… and one that has worked for me on more than one occasion.

    Falk and aaf sound like veterans to me.  I use nearly the same allied KGF strategy.  The overloaded KAR becomes a UK/US launchpad for the double amphib attack on EEur.  The US follows, so the USSR can leisurely march in to support the defense.  Rus also has the blitz option into a lightly or undefended SE if there are arm in Kar.  The other option is to park the allied transport fleet off of Spain.  $3 by the UK lands a full boatload followed by the US marines and air defense. before Ger can counter.  This sets up the amphib attack vector to SE and the joint ground + amphib attack on WE.  The UK has a choice of which to take it in the following turn.

    The well defended allied transport fleet is a severe menace and the key to KGF.  UK can set it up even G1 sank all her ships.  UK1 buy AC +trn.  US lands ftrs from E & W US on the UK AC.  US also moves in trn from EUS.  US buys 3 trn and some inf.  By US2 troops are flowing into F/N reaching Kar on US3.  UK ftrs on Kar make it hard for Ger to win an attack.  While they defend Kar, the allies are free to attack Cauc and Ukr as needed.  This becomes attritional to Ger.  So US/UK will spend 2 rounds to build up the fleet, 1-2 rounds supporting Rus, and then stage either
    1.  the immediate EE amphib w/ground sppt from Kar, or
    2.  Stage on Spain.
    3.  WE being poorly defended would invite immediate attack.

    This starts the Ger collapse by round 6 at the latest, given average dice.  They should be able to get Berlin by round 9, so if Jpn plays well, they may take Rus by then.

    The added UK/US forces allow Rus to maintain EVO, Novo, and Kaz against whatever  Jpn has.  The main objective is to prevent Jpn from landing ftrs right next door to the capital.

    The idea of KGF is also meant to preserve Rus.  Defense often costs less than offense.  In Europe, I would favor attacks when my net offensive dice force is 40+% more than the net dice strength of the defenders.  For capital attacks I would allow 25% overstrength and allow the other allies to mop it up… when I am desperate.  Otherwise, I will wait and outbuild until the attack odds are sufficient.  There are other leisurely means, such as Battleship amphib attrition and SBR’s when an opponent is stubbornly stacked on a capital.

    You should search the web sites for Don Rae’s essays about infantry push and especially strafable dead-zones.  There is also some math and art to strafing, which most A&A veteran’s are familiar with.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Strategy is fluid.  Anyone bound to a set pattern at the start of a game deserves to lose.

    See, you are assuming that because I have told you what my initial strategy is that I cannot shift. Your sentiment is also mistaken. I assure you I can never lose a game of tic-tac-toe games sticking to one particular strategy.

    Anyhow, I want to get your strategy right because I don’t want to make assumptions. I think you have come to good strategic assumptions on your own, but I think you need to play online. Lets say I play a “typical” R1 and things go about average, maybe even slightly well. I kill your baltic fleet, throw a transport into UK seas, land my fighters on karelia, leave one inf in caucus. I strafe ukraine with 7 inf and 3 arm. Ukraine has one fighter left, you kill 3 inf. Retreat to Karelia. I also attack manchuria but that’s another discussion methinks.

    Karelia now has 8 inf + 3 arm + 2 fighters + 8inf build. You have previously said that you go all out against russia, I wonder if this means that if eastern europe is not taken if this is what you do?


  • @aaFiendish:

    Karelia now has 8 inf + 3 arm + 2 fighters + 8inf build. You have previously said that you go all out against russia, I wonder if this means that if eastern europe is not taken if this is what you do?

    Actually at that point I would try a slight shift… crack the “free” nuts south of Karelia, taking IPC’s equivalent to 1 INF from Russia, and posting land forces on Russia’s border, as many as I can get there:  all of my tanks, infantry including Med transport and a support shot to kill that lone Caucus INF).  If I read your post right on number of forces in Karelia, there will be nothing in Russia proper (unless moved in from the Japan front).  If I still hold Eastern, then the INF flows forward giving Russia and equally ugly nut to try to crack.

    And since I am looking at small-scale attacks against Russia, my AF is currently out of a job.  Oh, is that UK navy there?  Not for long.

    Then a rather interesting move after that land-forces build by Germany, a large number of fighters coming from Japan.  Let’s see, Manchuria can reach (probably still exists if Russia sent it’s fighter to Karelia instead of to help with Manchuria),  Southeast Asia fighter can reach.  Bomber can reach.  The other 3 fighters will be there next round unless you take Caucuses back; something you HAVE to do unless you want to build in Russia proper instead of Karelia.

    So let’s see, that makes R2’s move re-taking Caucuses against 3 tanks, 2-5INF, 2 fighters and a bomber.  Not an easy fight, but certainly winnable using those Karelia forces.  Good, use them.  Against that force, you are going to need a pretty sizable chunk of those Karelia forces… a sizable chunk that will not be IN Karelia when Germany hits you in Round 2… before UK has even re-built that navy (since so many advocate building in UK2), let alone started using it to Transport, ditto for US transports.

    Sure, as Germany I have skeletal forces throughout Europe (except my G2 buy in Germany proper, enough to stand up against the 1 UK transport that can reach, IF UK built navy in UK1).  But Finalnd/Norway still exists (if Russia attacks Finland so much the better, my fighter is a 4 then and my INF 2s, even more Russia forces spent), Eastern Europe looks like Karelia, a large protion of my fighters and my bomber survived killing UK’s navy.  And you either have my previously mentioned force on Russia’s doorstep with nothing in Russia to stop it, or you attacked Caucuses pulling about a third to half of your strength from Karelia to do it, or you built in Russia not adding to your Karelia forces.

    If you attacked Caucuses or built in Russia, I fall on a Karelia held with 15 or so INF and a few fighters, and repeat the Caucuses amphib landing if my Med fleet is still alive.  Or I’ll take that Caucuses strike force and walk into Russia taking 20-some IPC’s (even if I can;t hold it, the monetary boost blows the game for the Allies)  I’ll take those odds, every time you want to give them to me.

    So yes, I am still “all against Russia”, but with the caveat of blowing the UK fleet out of the water so I need not worry about it in G2.  One way or another, Russia is going to have to attack me, in force in R2, otherwise Russia falls in round TWO, or at worst Karelia falls; and those 3 Japan fighters that moved to the continent in J1 that could not reach Caucuses, well they are landing in Karelia (or Russia) now.

    UK, USA, your 2nd move?


  • As Russia I wouldn’t be afraid to retake Cauc with everything and leave 1 inf in Karelia, building the rest in Moscow and landing my planes there.

    So would you as Germany attack Cauc, Karelia or both? Cauc will be difficult for you to take as there will be a large amount of forces there, and your infantry reinforcements are out of position in E. Europe.  If you take Karelia only, I will probably have sufficient forces in Moscow/Cauc to retake this.  I will leave 1 inf in Cauc  leaving that a killzone.  If you try to take both, I’ll probably have sufficient force to retake both from Moscow IF I WANT TO (and I might not  :evil: ).

    Any way you slice it, Germany on G3 or G4 will now be out of tanks, with few planes after the sinking of the UK navy, and still two moves away from Russia.  Japan will still be far away in the East.  But now, the Allies will have rebuilt their fleet and Germany must try to defend all of Europe against a 1-2 US/UK punch or a 1-2-3 UK/US/USSR punch in the East.  In my experience, its best for Germany to wait for Japan.


  • Why does talking/playing about this game never get old?

    Okay, so lets say you follow your advice…

    @ncscswitch:

    Actually at that point I would try a slight shift… crack the “free” nuts south of Karelia, taking IPC’s equivalent to 1 INF from Russia, and posting land forces on Russia’s border, as many as I can get there: all of my tanks, infantry including Med transport and a support shot to kill that lone Caucus INF). If I read your post right on number of forces in Karelia, there will be nothing in Russia proper (unless moved in from the Japan front). If I still hold Eastern, then the INF flows forward giving Russia and equally ugly nut to try to crack.

    You move everything you can get into the caucus. Assuming my strafe that I mentioned, that’s…oh MY! 2 inf and an armor. You fly in your fodder, I mean japanese airforce and it lands. I am not sure what you plan to do with ukraine, so I won’t make assumptions. If you left it light, I’d consider attacking there too.

    So lets see about this caucus attack. 221 pointed out that you could just shift the stack, which would be perfectly nice. If ukraine was left lightly defended(?) then could the caucus/ukraine be attacked without a reputable counter in karelia? Caucus battle (using nowluck) - G: 3 * 2 + 2 * 4 + 1 * 1 vs. R: 5 * 1 + 5 * 3 -> G: 1 * 2 + 2 * 4 vs. R: 3 * 1 + 5 * 3 -> G: Kaput vs. R: 1 * 1 + 5 * 3

    That leaves 11 inf to do your bidding in karelia. Of course if there was a strong contigent in ukraine like a 2 fighters, 3 inf, 3 arm, the caucus would have something to worry about on the counterside and might just shift. Of course, that also makes ukraine a tasty target though a much harder one to chew off. Lets say that ukraine is left lightly defended (though i am guessing nc wouldn’t do that). That leaves 11 inf + 8 inf build in karelia = 19inf + 4 ftrs. Assuming the G1 you mentioned, germany could next round bring 10 inf + 4 ftrs + 1 bmb + 6 arm. That’s a less than 20% chance at taking karelia. Not to mention you just weakened the japanese front substantially.


  • ncsc,

    Keep in mind that the PC version you play against was not programmed by the IBM staffers who coded Deep Blue to beat Kasparov.  The 5 star generals there can beat the 4 and 3 stars.  I think anyone who has read through enough of this and other heavy-duty A&A strategy boards starts out at about 8 stars.  You sound like you’ve beaten the PC.  Your postings are worth about 6 stars.

    221B and others posting on this thread talk about killzones, which is highlighted by Don Rae in his essays.  A&A plays well for this due to the lack of stacking limits.  Killzones are too advanced for the latest PC versions of A&A.  There is some rudimentary math to it, but to do it well (say, to the last 1-2 defending pieces after 3 rolls of combat) is more art.

    Likewise, your post about getting everything Ger can muster to Cauc sets up a kill zone… one of the worst kinds, where the Ger arm get caught on defense, and the surviving Ger forces will be too weak to counter.

    The main idea of kill zones is that a partial bulk of attackers will become defending units without benefit of ftr cover when the opposing player gets to attack.  Also if the defense is overwhelmed, they hit disproportionally fewer, resulting in an economic battle gain to the attacker.  Note that Ger must always guard against this.  The Rus usu only lose inf on their attacks.

    So when you attack on the ground, go big only if the ground forces you leave behind in the newly acquired territory will be large enough to survive on defense against all allied attacks.  Otherwise, try to leave the smallest footprint.  Save the Ger arm for the eventual big attack.


  • Rus can easily afford to lose a few inf if it kills Ger arm.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 2
  • 12
  • 3
  • 10
  • 9
  • 4
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts