Axis are underpowered.

@squirecam Germany needs to rush towards Moscow and have a credible attack planned for G6. That forces Russia to primarily build infantry to maximize defenses AND the UK to stack fighters in Moscow if they want to hold the Capitol.

If both events occur, Germany pivots to plan B of sending a few fast movers towards Siberia to capture more territory and move the bulk of their tanks/mechs towards the Middle East with some infantry support. The Allies can block the advance somewhere around Iraq, but the Axis will usually win in the long game if this is an out-of-the-box game with no bid. The ability of the German Air Force to project power in so many directions simultaneously is the superpower that allows victory given equal income with the Allies.

There shouldn’t be much luck required beyond the first turn as few battles will have much chance of failure. You always can have the bizarre instance of a lone Russian unit going Rambo against an overwhelming attack, but rarely will a single turn prove totally catastrophic. I would give a 95% chance for an expert Axis player to win an OOB game played by email where it is easier to battle calc and avoid dumbass mistakes. Probably 85% in a face-to-face game.

@arthur-bomber-harris In an OOB Global game with no bid, the Axis are just favored to win, period. It’s the Axis’s game to lose. The Axis can attack Moscow, or London, or Cairo, or focus on winning in the Pacific, and as long as they make reasonable purchases and attacks, the Axis are still going to win most games, regardless of their grand strategy.

In a game with a healthy Allied bid, or in Balanced Mod, the Allies have options – they’re not forced to defend Moscow at all, even if Germany directs 100% of its offense there. The Allies could focus on an early attack on Paris, or Rome, or Tokyo, or the money islands, and just resign themselves to the fact that Moscow will probably fall on turn 6. This means the Siberian Russian infantry can go south to Chinghai and/or Manchuria, and the British air force can focus on supporting landings on the western front. If the Germans have no fleet and send their air force east toward Moscow while building mostly mechs and tanks, that forfeits control of the sea zones around France/Italy early enough in the game for the Allies to make a meaningful attack in the west. If the Allies can take 2+ of France, Italy, and Scandinavia without being in danger of a loss in the Pacific, that’s often better than even compensation for losing Moscow. Germany’s income will be somewhere in the 70s, the British will be earning something in the 30s, and the Americans can send 60 IPC or so a turn to the European front.

I think part of what @squirecam is getting at is that he’d rather have the strategic flexibility as the Axis to choose when and where to attack vs. follow a script that the Allies can easily predict and give the Allies the freedom to choose where they want to attack.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

@squirecam Germany needs to rush towards Moscow and have a credible attack planned for G6. That forces Russia to primarily build infantry to maximize defenses AND the UK to stack fighters in Moscow if they want to hold the Capitol.

If both events occur, Germany pivots to plan B of sending a few fast movers towards Siberia to capture more territory and move the bulk of their tanks/mechs towards the Middle East with some infantry support. The Allies can block the advance somewhere around Iraq, but the Axis will usually win in the long game if this is an out-of-the-box game with no bid. The ability of the German Air Force to project power in so many directions simultaneously is the superpower that allows victory given equal income with the Allies.

There shouldn’t be much luck required beyond the first turn as few battles will have much chance of failure. You always can have the bizarre instance of a lone Russian unit going Rambo against an overwhelming attack, but rarely will a single turn prove totally catastrophic. I would give a 95% chance for an expert Axis player to win an OOB game played by email where it is easier to battle calc and avoid dumbass mistakes. Probably 85% in a face-to-face game.

Germany does not need to do so. It can of course. But it can win in other ways.

I would be bored if every game was G6 moscow attack or bust strategy.

@argothair OP is talking about his challenges winning an OOB game with no bid. Recommending lower-odds gambits is not helpful for people who are struggling with the standard playbook.

In regards to hiding the Axis’ plans, how many places can the Allies choose to attack in W Europe even when they do know the German strategy? There are only a few obvious landing spots that can be held, and it is only a matter of when the Allies have sufficient forces to grab those territories. Normandy… Norway… Greece? Maybe a few more logical choices if the Axis is played poorly.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

@argothair OP is talking about his challenges winning an OOB game with no bid. Recommending lower-odds gambits is not helpful for people who are struggling with the standard playbook.

In regards to hiding the Axis’ plans, how many places can the Allies choose to attack in W Europe even when they do know the German strategy? There are only a few obvious landing spots that can be held, and it is only a matter of when the Allies have sufficient forces to grab those territories. Normandy… Norway… Greece? Maybe a few more logical choices if the Axis is played poorly.

And maybe the German player would be doing better if Japan didnt attack J1. But having them follow a script is a bad idea. It doesn’t teach them to think for themselves. It’s better to learn through options and discussion rather than following a map script.

@squirecam do you recommend a J1 in OOB with no bid?if not, why not?

@cornwallis cow provides an in-depth benefit of J1 over J2 in his pinned playbook. He also outlines the perfect execution for both. On average, attacking on J1 is advantageous to the Axis. However, the battle in Yunnan is slightly dicey and very bad rolling can leave China out of control with minimal Japanese land forces to counter it on the second turn.

If matched against an opponent of equal or superior skill, J1 DoW is clearly the best option. If facing a significantly inferior opponent and you want to minimize variance, J2 becomes a better strategy. Those advocating J3 DoW make me question why they are playing a strategy game and posting strategy tips on this forum.

@cornwallis said in Axis are underpowered.:

@squirecam do you recommend a J1 in OOB with no bid?if not, why not?

Well, first of all I would not play OOB without some bid to the allies, at least a fighter scotland and med sub.

That said, no I dont use a J1 for the reasons I mentioned earlier. It takes away German and Italian options.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

@cornwallis cow provides an in-depth benefit of J1 over J2 in his pinned playbook. He also outlines the perfect execution for both. On average, attacking on J1 is advantageous to the Axis. However, the battle in Yunnan is slightly dicey and very bad rolling can leave China out of control with minimal Japanese land forces to counter it on the second turn.

If matched against an opponent of equal or superior skill, J1 DoW is clearly the best option. If facing a significantly inferior opponent and you want to minimize variance, J2 becomes a better strategy. Those advocating J3 DoW make me question why they are playing a strategy game and posting strategy tips on this forum.

Yeah, the fact that I’ve played every version of A&A winning tournaments at Gencon, Origins, the WBC etcetera probably means I’m very poor at strategy games and shouldn’t post any tips whatsoever.

Sorry.

You should only listen to those masters of the game who advocate a J1 apparently.

@arthur-bomber-harris I know you’re good at this game, but you’ve got to at least partly back up your claims when you’re throwing that much shade – otherwise it’s just rude. It’s not obvious why J3 DoW is a bad strategy; either tell us why you think it’s shit, or link to someone who did.

@argothair The Axis starts out with less than half the income of the Allies. Even with excellent tactics, it is difficult for a player to find battles with better than 1.2 : 1 exchange of unit value over the long run. The Axis must catch up with income and it cannot be just in the European theater. Find a top League player who consistently waits until J3 for DoW… you won’t. Easy to get away with it in face-to-face games where you can wait for dumb mistakes but not a reliable strategy in games where the opponent will battle calc every possible response to moves.

Most inexperienced players, like the OP, focus on defensive strategies and fail to expand economically. Eventually the opponent will have superior forces that inevitably will find a weak spot to successfully attack. The trend towards more aggressive Axis strategies has pushed the needle from the game being almost balanced, into a point where Allies need a 40+ point bid to achieve parity.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

@argothair The Axis starts out with less than half the income of the Allies. Even with excellent tactics, it is difficult for a player to find battles with better than 1.2 : 1 exchange of unit value over the long run. The Axis must catch up with income and it cannot be just in the European theater. Find a top League player who consistently waits until J3 for DoW… you won’t. Easy to get away with it in face-to-face games where you can wait for dumb mistakes but not a reliable strategy in games where the opponent will battle calc every possible response to moves.

I could just as easily say the following then:

If you need to rely upon battle calculators to tell you what to do then how good are you? If you need four hours between moves then stay online because you may risk losing in a ftf game when you must play without the crutch.

@squirecam I can battle calc just fine in my own head, getting the odds on critical battles with plenty of accuracy. I have no problem playing f2f matches and making the right choices. My opponents, on the other hand, are quite bad in such situations and I can quite reliably wait until they goof in live games.

League matches is where you go if you want to really test your strategy since you can’t count on them doing something stupid. It is such a higher level of competition. Top guys like Axis Dominion or Adam or Cow will take advantage of your minor mistakes and give you few openings to catch back up.

I suspect that we can learn from both sides here. The benefits of a J1 and J2 DOW have been clearly and repeatedly examined by many well-established players. In that I agree with arthur-bomber-harris. However, I am curious to know (perhaps in a new thread so as to not be too far off topic) what squirecam’s thoughts are on why a J3 is the way to go. If we give up seeking new strategies and the willingness to learn, then we are sad Axis and Allies players indeed.

@tamer-of-beasts Don’t see it as off topic myself. i kinda remember there was a G4 J4 kick going for a while.

@arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

@squirecam I can battle calc just fine in my own head, getting the odds on critical battles with plenty of accuracy. I have no problem playing f2f matches and making the right choices. My opponents, on the other hand, are quite bad in such situations and I can quite reliably wait until they goof in live games.

League matches is where you go if you want to really test your strategy since you can’t count on them doing something stupid. It is such a higher level of competition. Top guys like Axis Dominion or Adam or Cow will take advantage of your minor mistakes and give you few openings to catch back up.

Taking advantage of mistakes is part of the game. Having more time doesnt mean a mistake free game, as you know. I’ve seen many players ask for do overs in both types for moves they have forgotten.

I disagree though as to a higher level of competition. Making the wrong move is part of a strategy game. This is a beer and pretzel game. Moreover, Larry made this version for the people he saw playing at Gencon, who he thought wanted a day long game. It still didnt come with a battle calculator.

People who play online are good no doubt. But using the calculator is a crutch. An example of better skills is to play without it and still win. As you say you have no issue doing.

@tamer-of-beasts said in Axis are underpowered.:

I suspect that we can learn from both sides here. The benefits of a J1 and J2 DOW have been clearly and repeatedly examined by many well-established players. In that I agree with arthur-bomber-harris. However, I am curious to know (perhaps in a new thread so as to not be too far off topic) what squirecam’s thoughts are on why a J3 is the way to go. If we give up seeking new strategies and the willingness to learn, then we are sad Axis and Allies players indeed.

I stated why a few posts ago. I want options and a J1 limits German and Italian options. I want to know where US is going, what its builds have been, and an idea of its strategy while I am planning my opening strike. I like being in Caroline Islands so that I can strike almost anywhere J2 or J3, and not be married to a India crush strategy.

it’s hell being the King of the Nerds!

@squirecam @argothair @Arthur-Bomber-Harris

Howdy friends, been a while.

The OP seems to finally have found the unlock–there is indeed a way for the allies to win! Fancy that…it only took us a decade.

Those, including myself, who argue that the game is imbalanced can attempt to find innumerable workarounds (being forced to play both teams, bidding, reverse bidding, modding etc.) A static and unchanging game with a fixed setup will always have critical paths and good better best moves at each juncture.

J1JDOW is a good move. It leaves Japan weaker against the USA though, and allows the early usa cross that stops the gibraltar block.

In BBR, there is no reason at all IMO to declare war early because it gives the allies bonuses–so tweaking other aspects of the game will affect which strategy is optimal and when it is optimal.

At this point, I think the G40 META is to wait for war to keep the USA contained. That changes because our discussions and opinions keep changing. That’s why we keep working on them.

G42 has no diplomacy, and while the diplomacy was novel and rich when it was introduced, I would favor removing it from all 1 day formats (mods and tournments). Its too easy to game conditions that place articfical limits on the allies movements, the allies are already weaker and more constrained in the early/short game, and it makes the game much slower as you spend 3 hours buidling up and then 3 hours fighting. I’d favor just dumping it and reducing USA income or making its NO easier to interfere with.

G42 is a timed game, I will likely see you all in person at Gencon or another travel tournament later this year. It does require that you build ships with Germany to complete the opener. BBR uses team time and chess clocks, but its not necessary in G42Gencon because those of us who play that tourney are pretty focused on the game and come with a full game plan and contingencies in mind.

As far as ABHs point–I don’t like computer aids. They are an unfair crutch. However, our in-the-head or thumbnail glance odds calculations are often totally incorrect and as intuitions, must be taken as such. I do not rely on either calculators OR my intuitions.