Unable to login to desktop version with appleid

I’ll have to get to catching up on other posts on this forum. Hm.

But in the meantime, short writeup on 2-Ocean.

“Works on platinum level” - my opinion is just about anything works to get to platinum as it’s mostly grinding.

“White whale” - detailed discussion in general is hard to find. I myself skimp on the details a lot.

2-Ocean Principles

What are the principles involved?

The two most important yet opposing principles in Axis and Allies, as I see it, are stack building and bleeding. Both work off local superiority of force.

Suppose Allies have a combined defensive stack. Say Axis want to have a huge stack of their own to smash that defensive stack. The more either power builds that stack, the less they send elsewhere. The less either power builds that stack, the more they send elsewhere.

So what’s the right decision? If a player sends too much elsewhere, the stack position collapses and the opponent gains tactical advantage. If a player sends too much to a stack, other positions collapse and the opponent gains economic advantage. (Roughly speaking.)

2-Ocean Details

How does this apply to 2-Ocean?

Well, you see, Germany should have at least 5 fighters, and Japan 3-6 fighters and 1 bomber at start of turn. Before assuming “oh yeah that sounds normal”, really think about it. Assumptions are unsafe. Keeping this short, so won’t dig in there.

So what happens when US splits fleet? In the Atlantic, the Allies have to get past Germany’s starting forces. In the Pacific, the Allies have to get past Japan’s starting forces. Neither Axis power needs to build anything, they don’t need to pay, each Axis power has a lot of starting units that can be used to fight against oncoming KGF/KJF.

But that is really quite vague. It’s not really “details”, it’s just foundation to set up explanation of details.

So let’s take a couple applications.

Anti-KGF subs/bombers

Well, it really doesn’t work too well in the strict KGF, because UK and US combine defensive fleets and forego dumping ground units through Med. Allied destroyers threaten the Baltic and north-of-Karelia sea zones so Germany can’t build new subs without them being destroyed at expected loss to Germany.

But let’s say the Allies don’t have multiple defensive fleets in Atlantic to combine. Then Germany need only threaten the sea zones around London (which can be done with Baltic subs and German air). If UK builds destroyers then German subs and air attack; German subs are taken as fodder and German air is left unscathed. if Allies tech switch and build pure carriers, Germany attacks with subs only and UK fighters are useless. Again, I am not getting into details, and besides this is just one possibility.

Anti-KJF subs

Similarly Japan sees US drop a Pacific fleet, drops a couple subs in Pacific, then if US comes close, Japan trades cheap subs for expensive stuff. There’s a bunch of KJF variations; sub-heavy, air-heavy, island hopping with transport-heavy and air-heavy, Allies playing to keep Japan off from threatening the India sea zone, hitting the East Indies fleet, etc. etc. Again, no details. But you get the general idea. Allied gains not fast or cheap if Axis competent.

So Where Do You Attack

So where is the actionable advice here? The answer is, players need to understand the environment before they are ready. Real “Art of War” stuff; people read it and think “yeah whatever, this is just really obvious duh”. But then people don’t apply it so much in real life, see? Understanding the field of battle, see?

So if the Axis are advantaged because they have starting units, then what is the solution? Attack the starting units. If the Axis are advantaged because the Allies cannot effectively unite forces, what is the solution? Create conditions where the Axis cannot effectively unite forces, or the Allies can unite forces.

What

Well, let’s spell it out some more.

Pressuring Japan Navy

Japan starts with 2 carriers 2 battleships 6 fighters 1 bomber. Suppose the East Indies fleet is successfully hit so Japan loses battleship carrier 2 fighters. It’s NOT the IPC value that is destroyed that is important. It is the tactical leverage.

Now if Japan wants to defend against air attacks it needs to buy a second carrier. I won’t get into the details but the timing on the purchase can be awkward.

And if Japan wants to defend against air attacks beyond that? Then it needs to buy another carrier and fighters. So you start to see how Japan’s defenses can be broken down quickly against air attacks, say. (I won’t get into how to mount Allied air attacks in KJF, this is just general pointers).

Contrast if Japan has all its starting forces, US is trying to come in with whatever, and Japan just laughs and buys a few cheap subs. Like, come on US. Enjoy the hospitality of Japan!

Then there’s things like cbrownpt and I do, which don’t involve hitting East Indies but involve control of the India sea zone in different ways, then there’s I think it’s Roland Frisky Cow that uses a UK Persia IC. I’ll leave out the details. The general idea is there.

Allied Pressure

A lot of players say take the 85-90% win attacks/defenses. Be safe.

Well, in 2-Ocean you probably shouldn’t. You’ll do things like “Here you go Germany, you have a 60% chance to destroy my Atlantic fleet that only has one transport. You could take the 25% odds of favorable open dice into a favored midgame. But if you try it, what if you lose a chunk of your air, then you have less to threaten Europe with and less to threaten Atlantic with? And if you don’t try it then I’ll just start landing stuff in Europe, bleeding out your push, and my destroyer(s) will interdict your Baltic/Karelia sea zones. Go on, do whatever.”

Or stuff like “sure here’s a 50% win on the combined Europe stack but if you win then probably your air is messed up so UK can start to dump freely”.

Allied Bombers

The problem with Allied bombers is, do you really want to be trading 12 IPC units for 3 IPC infantry or 8 IPC destroyers? Of course not.

But if you can establish a trickle of units, then bombers have a lot more threat range. 4 bombers against 5 enemy infantry isn’t the greatest battle. But if you have 4 bombers 3 infantry then that’s another matter. Not great, but definitely not nearly as bad.

If you’re asking “how do I leverage Allied bombers”, well, if it were that easy and obvious everyone would do it. There are real problems with it, you know! But if you want to simultaneously pressure both Axis players somehow, you can see how Allied bomber range could be a factor.

(I’m not saying Allied bombers are the go-to for 2-Ocean. I’m just saying, think through the basic principles, tactics, applications. What are the different ways to attack? Plenty more than the few examples listed here. Depending on board state, you go for different options.

The reason I think this is a good time to add one destroyer is because Germany will know that their window of opportunity to attack with the sub fodder will be closing quickly. So they may choose to attack at even less favorable odds instead of allowing Allies with that extra destroyer to split off and take out those subs the next turn, or if destroyer already in range why not do that now and have the replacement destroyer take its place?

Germanys options with those subs are very limited if US fleet is in sea zone 8.

Either way you are likely reducing Germanys odds to successfully airstrike the fleet.

I am guessing the counterpoint to this is that the Allied player WANTs Germany to attack their fleet to kill aircraft and if they build an additional escorts maybe Germany won’t do that.

To me this would be fine if they don’t. Its still likely wasted IPC for the sub buy that does not end up doing anything then.

The extra escort puts Allies ahead in the number count (which is close if they have 50% odds) should Germany decide to answer with additional air buy or the extra destroyer after dealing with the German subs can split off to help support another fleet in another sea zone.

Based on the Allied players comment they were already conceding some tempo by not bringing transports forward.

Then final comments of concern about not being able to land in Finland after losing their fleet.

Ships are expensive and take time to rebuild securely and so landings are now further being delayed at a pivotal point of the game. Pressure is off Germany in the meantime. They have a window now to focus ground forces east again.

Allied player says they had follow up, however based on what I see they only have follow up to sea zone 13 not sea zone 3 which their transports are in position to move to but now cannot do so safely.

To me this is following a decision tree too rigidly. The 50% attack offer rather than adjusting that pattern to the board state.

Or you could skip PH attack dead zone sea zone 45 and have a stronger position to attempt J3 India attack, enough force in position to cause Allies continued withdrawal from Asia and secure income Japan desperately needs. Sustained sea battles with US does take Japan away from doing that somewhat and then leads to more expensive ship builds to try to stay ahead of US navy.

I get what you are saying as far as unit count for G4 or G5 timing.

However the bomber can help break Russian lines on G3 sometimes before the reinforcements from the East arrive.

Also can cause Allies to build more escorts or fewer transports and delay landings a round which means fewer units used for trades so more can move east.

There is a gap in follow up reinforcements that occurs as a result of this as you point out, but this is the trade off for higher speed.

The bomber threatens sea zones 3 and 13 that could otherwise be safe moves for Allies without it. It also helps threaten Egypt or Trans Jordan attack without needing to have fighters in range of those territories which puts them out of position in other areas if they are.

So the upshot is, Allies can dump a huge chunk on Paris, but then Germany can smash with Berlin infantry / Baltic tanks. US double-dropped its transports so can’t counter next turn at all. UK can drop 8+, and Germany needs to survive that, but without the US followthrough it’s a lot more survivable. It’s very very bad for the Axis still; even with the Allies having fought a losing mid-stack battle, Germany’s bled pretty dry; even with German tanks surviving, Germany doesn’t really have the unit count to maintain. But though even a FAVORABLE Axis mid-stack battle still LOSES strategically against Allies in Europe in the short term, the Axis do get that much more time for Japan to develop their threat against Moscow, which should be decisive. Well, in theory.

If you’re asking yourself, well, Karelia’s precarious in the first place, so how can Germany possibly put all those tanks on Baltic? Exactly. Germany is digging through the couch for loose change the entire game. So maybe the Karelia position collapses and Germany has a huge Baltic States and/or Belorussia stack, if the difference isn’t too great, Germany can maybe get something out of it.

Worst Case for Germany

Worst case is, Allies are building at Finland/Norway, if Germany doesn’t threaten to block off Allied pressure at Karelia, UK/US get a huge stack of cheap ground units reinforcing Moscow, and that’s just really bad. So let’s say Allies break through at Karelia (theoretically) and also trade France lightly, it’s win-win for Allies . . . .sort of.

But then, Germany only trades lightly at France; it’s definitely “losing” for Germany, but it was losing to begin with, so what more could Axis really get out of that position?

And if Germany retreated from Karelia, then Germany should probably have something at Belorussia and/or Baltic States. Imagine G8 retreats from Karelia, UK8/US8/USSR9 reinforces. Then? Belorussia infantry and Baltic States tanks push Ukraine and trade West Russia. Allies shift their combined stack to West Russia and double-drop to France. But both USSR and US may be out of position to counter Japan push to Caucasus, that’s the problem with the USSR9 (or whatever) reinforcement to Karelia. So that’s Japan’s way to maybe capture and hold Caucasus in the KGF, which solves a lot of Japan’s logistics issues.

And if Axis were losing everywhere to begin with? Well then they were losing, you know?

But you can see if the Allies go all-in, Axis have lines that can play out reasonably; if Allies don’t go all-in, Axis have lines that can play out reasonably, so long as Axis weren’t pretty much losing on all fronts to begin with.

But anyways remember. Stack building and bleeding, okay, tactically seems to me you have a pretty good grip on it, but strategically remember production limits. Germany simply cannot afford to trade on any sort of ongoing basis on western / European coastal fronts with UK/US in the KGF; even fairly advantaged trades can still be a losing proposition. Germany has to be very careful about planning for certain fronts to collapse so others can be maintained/strengthened, that’s the reasonable expectation.

I’ve already got a pretty good idea on how I want to approach the issue of potential cheating in similar games. But you’ve got a Master in Statistics, right? I’d imagine you have some ideas too, if you’d like to share?

@Gunner77 There may be some bugs, but that is how it should and usually does work.

@Gooberlord11 If you go to https://support.aspyr.com/hc/en-us, you’ll be able to open a ticket about Beamdog games.

That said, feel free to send me (via a DM here) your Commander Names and IDs (from PC and Apple), I’ll merge them manually (let me know which of the two is the main account).