Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)



  • @AndrewAAGamer Thanks for the reply.


  • 2020

    @AndrewAAGamer could cruisers be worth a little more than 11, maybe 11.5 due to their ability to move marines in BM 3?



  • @WindowWasher said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    @AndrewAAGamer could cruisers be worth a little more than 11, maybe 11.5 due to their ability to move marines in BM 3?

    My article ONLY applies to OOB. It does not include BM3 and is probably not relevant in many aspects except the general warfare principles which are true for any game.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Axis and Allies is like two player Risk, and it has nothing to do with multi-player risk where you want to avoid fighting as much as possible.


  • 2007 AAR League

    This is generally a nice writeup!

    For new players, I’d say the dice simulators are your friends and would totally disagree with this:
    “SIDEBAR: Battle Dice are not your friend!”
    It’s only as a more advanced player that you need to worry about this. Otherwise if you maximize your TUV everywhere, you ought to do well.

    Under strafing, a similar move is to attack at 50/50 odds when you have a good place to retreat in the hope that the first round will go in your favor allowing you to press the advantage. Especially useful for battles with a small number of valuable naval units (assuming you can retreat to a safe spot). Though not a beginner move. So long as your one round strafe simulation looks ok, the attacker often has an advantage when attacking at 50/50. This is less true in land battles that are 50/50 where the attacker is typically losing more units on the first round that the defender is (infantry that attack at 1 and defend at 2).

    Interesting estimations on unit value. We could put this to a test with logistic regression models 😃



  • @akreider2 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    Axis and Allies is like two player Risk, and it has nothing to do with multi-player risk where you want to avoid fighting as much as possible.

    I agree. Which why I said “If you have ever played Risk the board game 1v1


  • 2007 AAR League

    Oops I’m skimming.

    It’s interesting that the old transport (with defense of 1 and 1 usable HP) would be worth an additional $4.5 under these pricing scheme. I used to love mass transports in Revised.



  • @akreider2 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    For new players, I’d say the dice simulators are your friends and would totally disagree with this:
    “SIDEBAR: Battle Dice are not your friend!”
    It’s only as a more advanced player that you need to worry about this.

    I am not sure what you are referring to? When I say Battle Dice it has nothing to do with a simulator and everything with actual rolling of dice. Dice are not your friend. You should not trust them and always assume they will stab you in the back. That is why you always want overwhelming odds.



  • @akreider2 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    Otherwise if you maximize your TUV everywhere, you ought to do well.

    Interesting concept. While not playing that way I would probably agree in general that playing that way would result in more wins than losses. Though there would certainly be battles while the TUV may be in your favor you still would not want to do for overall strategic purposes.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I’d never assume dice to be anything more than natural variance with pure neutrality. Neither friend nor foe. Now I agree that you should be prepared for outliers, sometimes which matter at lot more than others.



  • @akreider2 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    Under strafing, a similar move is to attack at 50/50 odds when you have a good place to retreat in the hope that the first round will go in your favor allowing you to press the advantage. Especially useful for battles with a small number of valuable naval units (assuming you can retreat to a safe spot). Though not a beginner move. So long as your one round strafe simulation looks ok, the attacker often has an advantage when attacking at 50/50. This is less true in land battles that are 50/50 where the attacker is typically losing more units on the first round that the defender is (infantry that attack at 1 and defend at 2).

    Another interesting concept. The attacker does have the advantage of rolling the dice and if things go wrong then retreating where the defender does not have that capability. To be successful that does assume that the dice will go your way; thus that tactic is playing the odds. The entire point of my article was to remove odds from the game as much as possible and base it on fundamental principles that will help any player win more than they lose.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Here we might have another different view point. For me, if you have the choice between a battle with 51% win rate and positive TUV (even +1) vs doing nothing, so long as it doesn’t have a negative impact on your position - you take the battle.

    You take all battles with positive expected outcome. And of course you’d favor the 52% win battle with 0.1 more TUV over the 51% one.

    Unlike some/most gambling (I gamble on politics at PredictIt), there aren’t any “house” fees - so the tiniest imaginable edge is useful.

    Unless you expect to beat your opponent by a large margin, in which case taking fights that are only slightly favorable to you might be detrimental.

    The critical fact about attacking with 50/50 odds, is that with strategic withdrawal the battle simulators might be under-estimating your TUV gain (it’d be interesting if someone were to write a calculator that would handle that!). Admitedly this is a rare situation and you are much better off attacking at 95%+ win odds most of the time.


  • 2020

    @akreider2 TUV isnt the best way (although the easiest) to measure this imo. Two infantry to russia are worth way more than one tank is to germany (4 defence and two HP vs 3 attack) even though they are the same TUV.

    If you want to be taking 50/50, 51/49, 52/48 battles, you’ve got to be gaining more than just TUV. Also for certain countries, TUV isn’t as important as strategic gain. Italy will take negative battles to can open for Germany to get positive ones. Say there is an air battle where there are 3 attacking British fighters and 3 defending Italian tac-bombers (imagine they cost 10) and the TUV change for the British was 0, they’re still in the advantage because the Italians don’t have the same capability to replace those units once they’re lost.

    In conclusion, I don’t think there really is a better way to judge a battle’s worth than simply taking a look at the battle calculator, the units involved, and what will happen afterwards, and deciding for yourself whether or not it is something that is worth doing and, I don’t believe that some formula or calculation can circumvent that unless it is some super complicated and experienced AI.


  • 2019 2018

    @AndrewAAGamer

    It seems you have made a logical fallacy in the way you phrase this. A person might attack the Anzac vessels not because it is necessary for victory, but rather because it is advantageous. Risk, reward tips in your favor. Nothing more. In poker one would raise I think.



  • Hi @crockett36. Thank you for the comment. I assume you are referring to this section of my article.

    Risky Attacks: I see plenty of people do risky attacks to gain an advantage. One example is the J1 attack on the ANZAC SZ62 fleet. The goal is to kill the ANZAC destroyer and transport and thus remove the capability of ANZAC to take Dutch New Guinea on A1. Let’s look at that battle:
    • 40% of the time the Japanese destroyer dies. (-8)
    • 40% of the time the ANZAC destroyer and transport dies (+20)
    • 20% of the time both the ANZAC Destroyer and Japanese destroyer die (0)
    • 13% of the time the Japanese destroyer kills the cruiser on the counter attack (+12)
    • Total Average TUV = $6.3

    So that looks like a pretty good battle. On average for an $8 investment I can get a $6.3 return. Dang good! So, the battle makes sense to conduct. Right? Maybe; it depends. The real question is do you need to win that battle to win the game? Are you the weaker Player, the stronger Player or are you both the same caliber of Player? If you are the weaker Player you may need to take more risks than your opponent. But if you are not then why make the attack? Let’s look at the battle from a different perspective. If you need to kill the transport to win the game than you have already lost the game 60% of the time. And if you can win without killing the transport why risk your overall game 40% of the time when you get nothing out of the attack? What we want to achieve is consistent winning. Not winning only when we get lucky dice; but due to our good play.

    As I mentioned many people will do a Risky Attack to gain an advantage. One normally wants to gain an advantage so they can win. 🙂

    If you perform a risky attack to gain an advantage are you not trying to improve your chances of winning? If the risk fails than have you not reduced your chances of victory because not only did you not gain an advantage you created a disadvantage for yourself?

    The whole overall theme of my article was to try and teach a Player to be better so they do not have to rely on the dice. In fact, alleviate the dice as much as possible because dice are random. While trying to gain an advantage by making what is a reasonable risky attack on AVERAGE you will increase your odds of winning. However you will also harm your chances of winning when the dice are not average. If your style of play requires making good risky attacks than you are limiting your total possible winning percentage.

    Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say we use a strategy that requires average dice to win. That means I will win my games 66.6% of the time. Good dice of 33.3% plus Average dice of 33.3% = 66.6%. I am only losing when I get Bad dice of 33.3% of the time. Now a Player may be happy to win 66.6% of the time but what I want to do is to win 75% or more of my games againsts good players. And to do that you need to remove dice from the game as much as possible.

    So if you need to make reasonable risky attacks to win then do so. I am not saying they are bad I am saying only make them if you need them to win. If you do not need them to win then don’t do them and risk losing. Why take risks you do not need to?

    I remember one face to face game where I was Germany and I had a 98% chance of taking Moscow, to essentially win the game. My partner asked me if I was going to make the attack and I said “No. Why should I? Next Turn I will have a 99% chance and there is nothing that will change on the board forcing me to make the attack now.” I did not need to take that 2% risk so why do it? In another face to face game I only had a 48% chance to take Moscow and end the game. I was not planning on taking it. However, my Partner suffered an excruciating loss of the IJN on his Turn and suddenly we had no choice. It was either attack now at 48% or next Turn it would only be worse odds and things would go downhill for us all over the board. So I made the attack at 48% because I had to; it was a reasonable risk. BTW I won. 🙂 Geez that pissed off our opponents.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @crockett36 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):Risk, reward tips in your favor. Nothing more. In poker one would raise I think.

    Mixing poker and AA – that would be an interesting game!


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    In another face to face game I only had a 48% chance to take Moscow and end the game. I was not planning on taking it. However, my Partner suffered an excruciating loss of the IJN on his Turn and suddenly we had no choice. It was either attack now at 48% or next Turn it would only be worse odds and things would go downhill for us all over the board. So I made the attack at 48% because I had to; it was a reasonable risk. BTW I won. 🙂 Geez that pissed off our opponents.

    Nah, what pissed us off was that we offered the guy playing Russia a UK fighter and he turned it down because he wanted his 5 IPCs.

    No one minds losing a coin flip. What we minded was that it didn’t need to be a coin flip!



  • @Marshmallow-of-War said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    Nah, what pissed us off was that we offered the guy playing Russia a UK fighter and he turned it down because he wanted his 5 IPCs.

    Hey @Marshmallow-of-War! Going to miss our Black Friday game this year. Stupid Covid 19.

    Yes, the UK fighter. I remember that discussion well between the Allied Team. While I disagreed with his reasoning, and agreed with yours, to be fair to him, since we were playing AA50 at that time, the US had not yet overwhelmingly sunk the IJN so he did not know for sure that Germany was going to attack. Just that he was giving us a 48% chance to win the game if he did not take the UK fighter for additional defense. Your point that why give us 48% versus 40% was good advice IMHO.

    Help me out; if I remember correctly we barely took Moscow, like 1-2 units, so that additional fighter probably would have made the difference after all.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @AndrewAAGamer There was not much left of the German stack, but I don’t recall how much. I do recall that there was too much for Russia to counterattack, so probably four or five units. Still, the fighter would have made a difference.



  • @Marshmallow-of-War in poker you would sometimes raise and sometimes call. You don’t want to always be predictable since you can be bluffing. AA is a bit different that your hand is showing at all times. Against opponents who don’t want to play a dicey game, you can force them to be more conservative by establishing that you will do more risky attacks if offered.

    That can be a significant advantage as it delays key moves by a turn, giving big swings of momentum. The allied fleet might wait a turn before invading W Europe, the Germans might take an extra turn before moving next to Moscow, the Japanese might not spread their fleet so thin to take as many islands, etc. Even if you don’t want to be aggressive, sometimes it is necessary to prevent the other person from taking advantage of your inherently conservative play style.


  • 2019 2018

    The bluffing bullying element to poker is very applicable to Ana. Play the player.

    Can I ask about the bid? I’ve mentioned this before but I m not sure why we don’t create a federation of Ana players to determine an adjustment to the set up. This would not accommodate differing skill levels, but would revitalize oob Many of the house rule adaptations are great but like speaking a different language.


  • 2019 2018

    @crockett36 I’ve done videos and written about handicapping mechanics elsewhere


  • 2019 2018

    So could you give me an alternative setup that would balance you playing you?


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    Hi @crockett36. Thank you for the comment. I assume you are referring to this section of my article.

    Risky Attacks: I see plenty of people do risky attacks to gain an advantage. One example is the J1 attack on the ANZAC SZ62 fleet. The goal is to kill the ANZAC destroyer and transport and thus remove the capability of ANZAC to take Dutch New Guinea on A1. Let’s look at that battle:
    • 40% of the time the Japanese destroyer dies. (-8)
    • 40% of the time the ANZAC destroyer and transport dies (+20)
    • 20% of the time both the ANZAC Destroyer and Japanese destroyer die (0)
    • 13% of the time the Japanese destroyer kills the cruiser on the counter attack (+12)
    • Total Average TUV = $6.3

    So that looks like a pretty good battle. On average for an $8 investment I can get a $6.3 return. Dang good! So, the battle makes sense to conduct. Right? Maybe; it depends. The real question is do you need to win that battle to win the game? Are you the weaker Player, the stronger Player or are you both the same caliber of Player? If you are the weaker Player you may need to take more risks than your opponent. But if you are not then why make the attack? Let’s look at the battle from a different perspective. If you need to kill the transport to win the game than you have already lost the game 60% of the time. And if you can win without killing the transport why risk your overall game 40% of the time when you get nothing out of the attack? What we want to achieve is consistent winning. Not winning only when we get lucky dice; but due to our good play.

    As I mentioned many people will do a Risky Attack to gain an advantage. One normally wants to gain an advantage so they can win. 🙂

    If you perform a risky attack to gain an advantage are you not trying to improve your chances of winning? If the risk fails than have you not reduced your chances of victory because not only did you not gain an advantage you created a disadvantage for yourself?

    The whole overall theme of my article was to try and teach a Player to be better so they do not have to rely on the dice. In fact, alleviate the dice as much as possible because dice are random. While trying to gain an advantage by making what is a reasonable risky attack on AVERAGE you will increase your odds of winning. However you will also harm your chances of winning when the dice are not average. If your style of play requires making good risky attacks than you are limiting your total possible winning percentage.

    Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say we use a strategy that requires average dice to win. That means I will win my games 66.6% of the time. Good dice of 33.3% plus Average dice of 33.3% = 66.6%. I am only losing when I get Bad dice of 33.3% of the time. Now a Player may be happy to win 66.6% of the time but what I want to do is to win 75% or more of my games againsts good players. And to do that you need to remove dice from the game as much as possible.

    So if you need to make reasonable risky attacks to win then do so. I am not saying they are bad I am saying only make them if you need them to win. If you do not need them to win then don’t do them and risk losing. Why take risks you do not need to?

    I remember one face to face game where I was Germany and I had a 98% chance of taking Moscow, to essentially win the game. My partner asked me if I was going to make the attack and I said “No. Why should I? Next Turn I will have a 99% chance and there is nothing that will change on the board forcing me to make the attack now.” I did not need to take that 2% risk so why do it? In another face to face game I only had a 48% chance to take Moscow and end the game. I was not planning on taking it. However, my Partner suffered an excruciating loss of the IJN on his Turn and suddenly we had no choice. It was either attack now at 48% or next Turn it would only be worse odds and things would go downhill for us all over the board. So I made the attack at 48% because I had to; it was a reasonable risk. BTW I won. 🙂 Geez that pissed off our opponents.

    Nicely written, BUT!

    In the end, two Things remain.

    A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.

    B) even if you play as much as possible without taking risks, if your opponent makes a risky move, doesn’t this call off your whole riskfree playstyle and awareness??

    I understand what you are saying, but you also have to consider that it will be a Philosophie of each and everybodys playstyle.

    I used tp play taking a lot of risks bc I wanted to make “neccessary” shortcuts.
    Most of the time I lost my games.

    Today, I try to make good calls, but when opportunity arises, I still may consider them in my thinking.

    And when I take a risk now, it will come with a back up plan.

    G1 is a very risky move when you plan on to knock out two sz at once.

    106 is a straight 50/50 gamble when you hit it with one Sub only.
    And you just increase your chance for an additional 50/50 outcome by taking a second Sub with you!

    The best way to engage combat is,
    When you take enough force to combat that you should easily wipe out your opponents units in the very first round.

    So you are right on to wait for another round to get a full 100%-110% of a kill instead of an 86 to 9? % in crucial battles.

    You want to have that, everything else is cold coffee if you ask me.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @aequitas-et-veritas said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

    A.) It will be a 50/50 chance each time, b/c either you won or you lost.

    If you’re referring to the ANZAC attack on J1, it’s far from 50/50. Worst case scenario the ANZAC cruiser does not get a hit and now you HAVE to dispatch a carrier down to fetch your plane. Starting J2 a carrier down is a BFR for Japan!


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

  • 8
  • 8
  • 98
  • 117
  • 7
  • 3
  • 27
  • 35
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

44
Online

14.9k
Users

35.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts