Guam Solo vs crockett36 G40.2 oob
-
I would consider Taranto, Moscow turtle, the Yunnan and London stacks to be orthodoxy. I have a tendency to question the status quo. I have preferred making them attack my ships in the Med, a grab of Scandinavia, liked Shensi better and almost invited a sealion by over investing in the middle east. I have also despised infantry and schemed to get air units into Moscow. I have developed a fade and strike approach tactically, in combination with my operation ricochet strategy which emphasizes the preservation of pieces early on.
-
I was trying to delay Calcutta by making you come out to fight me. I figured it would buy me a round or two or three, you needing to get to Malaya for repairs.
-
Fast movers could work. I think better in China. But, I think I was tooo afraid to lose my Atlantic navy. I think I should have anticipated and provoked a large battle that you could win, but at great cost. With the caveat that I had another wave behind it to replace some of the loses.
-
The airbase allowed the scramble into both seazones and a one move jump to Calcutta. another innovation.
-
a questionable innovation.
-
@crockett36 I think the Indian navy achieved what you wanted. In hindsight though, it may have been smarter for me to ignore and go straight for Calcutta. It dawned on me afterwards that the Indian Navy is powerful in defense only. In attack it would have to go in parts, each of which too weak without the whole.
-
@crockett36 The airbase in the Med became moot once London fell I think
-
@crockett36 Are you talking about a provoking a large battle in China, by using Russians?
-
When do you want to start our next game? At least this time we can use the updated version of Triple A.
-
@GuamSolo yes. Argothair mentioned something about Japan not being able to do it all. So make trouble in China, in Indian Ocean and in Calcutta. And a force in the north.
Can I get your feedback on what you would have done differently or would you like to try to show me? I could employ the same tactics. Sealion and Calcutta crush?
-
@crockett36 The primary thought I have regarding your game strategy would be tied to the Sea Lion invasion. I could be wrong, so correct me if so, but my guess is that losing London hurt your grand strategy. I recall in the A&A forums your discourse on the game being largely about economics and the ability to wage war through maintaining the economic ability to do so. There wasn’t really anything, or enough, purchased on UK1 for the defense of London. When I saw the air base purchase and focus on the middle east UK1 that is when I really thought about Sea Lion. My G1 purchases kept me flexible for either an all out Barbarossa or Sea Lion.
I respect so much your input in the “Allied Playbook” topic of the A&A forums that I carved out notes from it. You wrote in there the order of strategic defensive objectives: 1. London, 2. Atlantic, 3. Moscow, 4. Egypt, 5. India, 6. Pacific. Did my J1 concentration of forces in Kwangsi give away that I was going “all-in” for Calcutta and entice you to think of Egypt and the middle east early? You did say the airbase was an experiment though, so maybe you planned that before we started. In a sense, your UK1 purchases reprioritized your defensive objectives. After London’s fall I kept an eye on how much you could attempt to recapture London with and tried to re-enforce it enough to make it cost something. I remember sacrificing some of my navy as blockers to keep you out of London and give me more time to build it up. In the end, I think I kept you out of London long enough that UK Europe was not able to invest into the middle east which helped Japan vs. Indian Navy and also in taking Moscow. And the battle to liberate London left the Allies fairly depleted for D-Day for a couple of rounds. It would have helped you if the battle to liberate London didn’t cost so many units. But that is what happened to me vs. the Indian navy and it set me back a couple rounds.
You wrote in your essays - Destroy the ability to wage war - (for the allies) the radical dashing of the economic ambitions of the Axis (would lead) to capitulation. It’s hard to know what the ambitions are turn one, but a defensive London purchase on UK1 deters my Axis ambition and probably removes one place of battle. As the Axis I like having the option of Sea Lion or Barbarossa. You also talk about choosing the place of battle. Would your principle apply here if the UK1 purchase can help determine the place of the battle by eliminating an Axis Sea Lion choice?
Also, you mentioned in this thread earlier that you lost the advantage in pieces in Eurasia, and maybe this is in part to the mobility experiment. We were trading pieces pretty heavily on the eastern front. Three tactical air purchases can be 11 infantry. 3 units verses 11 units - so that had to play some role in the end too. But maybe the infantry, taking longer to get to the battle, would’ve allowed me to catch my breath as well and reorganize. Anyways, I think economically the game favored me for most of it. Even when you retook London Japan was already growing fairly large.
I’m really curious how tournament play goes. Do you see a fair bit of experiments or gambits? Or is play fairly standard (orthodox as you put it)? When we reverse sides and play I’d like to try my hand against whatever you consider the most optimal Axis game strategy - without giving way to predictability of course. Thanks!
-
So I forgot that my third experiment with the game was the reprioritizing of London. I was tickled with the notion that London was the easiest place for the Americans to mix it up with the Germans. Ergo, KISS would indicate that removing the logistics of supporting Moscow would make the supply chain more efficient. Sealion should be the easiest way to “switch dance partners”, Us v Ger, Rus, Engl v Jap. So I invited a Sealion.
But, and I saw this in another game, there is a giddiness to pushing the Gerries around. It’s more money, it’s direct punishment, etc that made me abandon the dance card switch and all in on KGF. The math continued to be good for the Allies until the end, but in the wrong places and buying the wrong goods.
Orthodox play would have helped in:
preventing Sealion by investing in London t1. Letting my other experiments play out.-
If the Sealion experiment was attempted, I should have provoked a naval battle (with a replacement fleet in the wings) that destroyed your navy and much of your air power earlier. I might have
-
stranded your army on the Island and gone for the throat as well. The math was working and I could have accomplished something (destroying Europe with a Berlin crush). My obsession with protecting my infrastructure (costly transports) counterbalanced my excellent position.
-
Or If I just wanted to follow the original plan then I should have pushed into China instead of trying to get to Calcutta. This would have invigorated the Chinese, depressed Japanese income, pulled resources from the assault on Calcutta, and protected my Eastern holdings in toto.
These conclusions do not prohibit or even speak to the creation of the Indian Ocean fleet or the use of a more mobile Russian army, except that more of the Russian purchases would need to be infantry and assigned to defend Moscow and slow the advancing Krauts.
Conceptually I admit that three or four experiments in one game are too many. Way too many.
-
-
as to tournament play, i tend to tighten up the ship a little, but I will always a curve ball to play with the enemies head. And aggression. I don’t need odds in the 90s to commit to a move. In a game that is so weighted against the allies, you have to put somethings to chance.
-
so I will probably read this on youtube. and i’m ready to start a game. I will probably echo your moves, which are the orthodox way of doing a g1.
-
I might also playout a game from t3 on, adjusting to these faults
-
@crockett36 Well that makes sense. If you were inviting Sea Lion I certainly walked into that. I think your experiments were good ones, but agree that too many in one game is “A Bridge Too Far” – If I can steal that phrase. One thing is for sure, with multiple experiments going on I had a hard time figuring out your tactics and how to respond.
-
@crockett36 It would be fun to attend a tournament and see how everyone plays. Everyone can’t be too orthodox I imagine. It would be too predictable then.
-
@crockett36 I’ve thought about that too - going back and playing the game vs. AI. But the AI always seems at some point to do something most humans wouldn’t and the results are hard to evaluate. The AI (almost) never takes risks, which is unlike human game play.
-
I need to change my playbook to Modest dashing of Axis ambitions!
-
JDOW '15 '14 8 days ago
@trulpen said in Post League Game Results Here:a) trulpen - JDOW 0-1
b) trulpen - JDOW 0-1
I would like to emphasize that these have been everything but clear wins by me.
My general goal with the Allies is to outplay the Axis strategically and make the giant fall using the strategy of 1000 needle sticks. This did not work in both games and the giant did not stumble and Allies were in the corner in both games.
All I did is showing some qualities to be a slippy eel when cornered, supported by a mental slip (game 1) and a semi-blunder (game 2) from trulpen.
This allowed the Allies to take Berlin twice in game 1 which turned the tide in favor of the Allies.
In game 2, the Allies got a risky shot to take Tokyo. MARTI definitely gave me some horrible dicing early in the games but it showed merci in this all or nothing battle.
I had 75% on Tokyo and I did not just win, I won so good that Japan never had a chance to take Tokyo back. Although Germans were a juggernaut at this time, there wasn’t a chance to secure 9 CV with Japan never earning a single buck for the rest of the game.Trulpen made an, imo, silly statement in one of the game thread, saying “he will only play me again without giving my Allies a bid”. I think I should be the one asking for a higher bid as strategically, it was my Allies that were pushed into the corner twice and I have to rethink my strategy against opponents that play Axis very controlled and risk-averse at modest pace without rushing to force matters quickly.
Suggested Topics
