Axis vs Allies Win Ratios

@bakerbei

I think primarily when you want to improve your play as a nation like Germany, you have to analyze and examine where you might have gone wrong, or what battles/moves could have been the deciding factor that tipped the game against you.

For instance, you lost Barbarossa, but why? Where did you prioritize your main push? Novgorod? Ukraine? Did you bring enough units?

Putting a Major IC on Romania is viable, but really you shouldn’t need it. If you’re minimizing your losses and decisively choosing your battles you’ll get to Kiev and Stalingrad in no time.

@tincanofthesea idk. I am going to try it in the Pacific map and see how it goes. Going to do a allied bid game (our first official one lol) because last game, allies didn’t really stand a chance. I wonder if there are “Blockade” markers at HBG, well if the shipping wasn’t so expensive I could buy those-

This will be my last 40 game before I will use the new stuff I got from HBG 🙂 maybe try to learn the G40 Balanced Mod (TheCaptain’s) + some extra stuff

Just finished up a game a couple days ago with some friends, and it always seems to come down to a valiant last stand at Moscow followed by either an admission of defeat or (as is the case with the game we played) Italy is contained and the Allies can still hold Egypt to some extent.

That is an interesting idea that could be considered when the Germans look as though they are a couple turns away from taking Moscow. I’m not sure I’d do it just because of the amount of time to move those infantry would make it totally obvious to the Axis what you were doing. At that point you are completely giving up Russia’s IPC income to the Axis which is not very wise. The advantage to this Alamo battle is that the Axis also lose a lot of units and Germany remains licking it’s proverbial wounds for a turn of the game at least.

So while it’s interesting and I have never considered it, I’m not sure it would be worth it.

The only reasons to get Denmark as Allies is to deny the NO, get a shot at Berlin, or draw German forces west.  The Baltic Sea itself is not a big deal.

There are so many other ways to hurt Germany.  If he has that one so well guarded, hit him where he isn’t.

Attacking the US first, and early, might not be an awful plan;  my buddy maphead did exactly as you describe in one of our recent games he first took out the US fleet, then the next turn took Hawaii, then fortified it.

However, the problem is that while Hono is a VC, focusing all your efforts there as Japan invites a mighty 100% defensive buy from the now at-war US.  Since Japan has not readied for Calcutta, Sydney, or Siberia, there isn’t a way to achieve the other important strategic goals.  Maphead decided to make a play for Sydney via Hawaii, but a stronger player will have fortified ANZAC too much by J4 to make it takeable without 100% japan commit.

As soon as you pivot, America then takes back Hawaii, since they are dedicating everything to it (and so is Japan in the form of defensive planes etc)

Strategies that try to win the game quickly often take gigantic risks.  Strategies that win the game slowly trade time for risk.

@kcdzim:

@Global-commander:

can you change your attack after your opponent declares his intent to scramble? I don’t think so, but am not sure.

No.  Scrambling is declared after combat moves are completed. that’s what I thought.

@Axisplaya:

@theROCmonster:

Possibly even T3 if mistakes were made.

Anything is possible with enough mistakes from one side…

@theROCmonster:

Japs only need Hawaii, hong kong, phillipines, and calcutta. I can see Japan taking all these by T4

I can’t….If Japan can get Hong Kong, Phi, Haw and Ind by T4 when Allies don’t commit huge mistakes, then the game is completely broken.

I’ve not only seen it, I’ve done it.  The game is not completely broken - however.  America just has to keep investing in the Pacific, the allies lose if there is not a HUGE investment by America in the Pacific EARLY.

by that point in the game we couldnt have stopped you… I’m thinking how we could have stopped it from getting to that point in the first place.  A couple of things come to mind… 1) not stockpiling the russian infantry in Amur and 2) when we saw you only bought 2 transports on G1 UK could have taken out the Taranto fleet and just bought infantry.  This might have stopped Italy opening a second front in Russia and stopped a successful sealion.