• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Check my game with AJ

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I needed my equipment to pulverise the Russian/British/American defense and now have a 200 IPC army with Berlin in British hands.  The Japanese have a 300 IPC army and the British and Americans each have about 150 IPC


  • I do not know the detail of your game, and I am not referring to a game in particular.
    I am speaking generally.
    Maybe in your case you having made all the necessary evaluation have decided for such move, basing on the game specific situation.


  • Moreover, coming back on topic.
    How do you manage to plan such a move?
    How do you evaluate the situation?


  • I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.

    In A&A I may think of an analogy with chess.
    But in this case is the Germany that place herself in a “bad position” (state on the board) and is forced to commit her forces in a series of forced move, losing unit that cannot be replaced, being Germany not allowed to buy.
    I do not think that is a good example for correct planning.
    It is a speculative case.
    You have experienced it in a game but the result is still to be achieved.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The trick, I think, is planning what the allied nations are going to do in support of what you want to do.

    Hopefully in the loss of Berlin/Capture of Moscow my ally the Japanese can support me in reclaiming Berlin, which shouldn’t be hard, just costly.

    Likewise, you need to always to endeavor to make your nations work together in harmony to wring destruction and pain on your targets.

    Also, focus on a goal, not on peripherals.  The devil is in the details, best to leave him there.


  • Ok.
    My question in this thread has been which kind of evaluation must make in order to plan defensive strategies, tactics and movements.
    IT seems to me that planning offensive moves is more analyzed than planning defensive ones. Moreover it is more simpel to me planning to attack than organize a correct defense. As I said I often end employng in defense more units than needed. So I am trying to improve this part of my gameplay.
    I mean defense is often made basing on overall strategy.
    Other evalution are made considering each territory, starting from the Capital, and continuing with the list of the remaining territories.
    However, capital ha to be considered in first place only if it is in danger, otherwise garrisono units may be sent to the front.
    Your analisys added another pint of view.
    Possibilities or necessity of offensive movements may overcome defending needs, to the point that leaving a Capiton open is a viable option.
    How to identify such situation?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    All depends on the board.  As I said, you have to plan to mesh.  You cover your allies weak points, they cover yours.

    For instance, you can withstand an assault on Berlin by England, but will need help against the follow up American assault.  Why not land the Japanese fighters?


  • @Jennifer:

    Check my game with AJ

    Excuse me, but how to I open the .aam file?

  • 2007 AAR League

    You need ABattleMap - check http://frood.net/aacalc/maps/

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Romulus:

    I mean, in chess there is a particular combinatin of move, that is started with the sacrifice of a own piece to force the enemy in a series of forced move or oputting him in a bad position, in order to chekmate the enemy King.

    One thing that may be similar to a sacrifice in chess is the 1-2 punch that is often needed to crack a capitol.

    For example, both Japan and Germany might have 80% as big a force each as Russia has defending it. Neither one can take Russia down on their own. However, Germany can launch a suicide attack in which it loses all of its forces, and reduces Russia’s strength by 50%. Now Japan has more than enough to wipe out Russia, because of Germany’s sacrifice.

    Not a perfect analogy.

    On the topic of defending the capital at all costs - I have played some Russian players who just keep a huge stack in Russia, even though no major axis force is bordering Russia. The result is that the front is weakly defended, and a bunch of units are sitting where they can’t kill anything - you may as well not have them!


  • Ok Frood it is clear.
    I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.
    Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.
    I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.
    At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.
    Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.

    My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.
    As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.
    So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
    I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.


  • Romulus,

    Something to think about in terms of your defensive planning…
    Always having an “anchor” for an INF stack.  By an anchor I mean a high value defensive point piece (or more than 1) with any medium or large stack of INF.

    And I like to use FIGs for it because of their range…  I can use Western FIGs to hammer Norway or Karelia, and still fly back to defend Western.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Or hammer Eastern/Balkans, too Switch.

    but it’s nice to be able to go out to Ukraine, Belorussia, W. Russia or Archangelsk with them and fly the other half back to W. Europe.  Normally why I keep the German air force split.  After all, your odds of sinking the Allied fleets is almost nil anyway.  So you’re only using them to prevent Western from falling too early, if ever.


  • Ok, sure thing!

    I and my friends use to place the fighters in WE, Ger and EE and use them to support territory trading, Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine.
    Then in NCM the fighters are redeployed.
    Moreover, we rarely attack the Allied fleet with aircrafts alone.
    We do that only if we have ships as cannon fodder still available.
    Whoever of us is German… we love our Stuka!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Normally your fighters won’t be needed in Germany.  E. Europe or W. Europe (50/50 is how i like it) usually suffices.


  • Mmm… but after the loss of the Baltic fleet and with English landing in Norway the British may try to attack Germany. They will be rejected for sure but may inflict more infantry losses if Berlin is defended only by infantries.
    I feel more comfortable having at least 1-2 fig and some panzers in Berlin (if bought, otherwise they are in EE, ususally).
    But if there is no probability of attack in Berlin it is also possible to have fig in WE and EE.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Sure, if they go to SZ 5.  Honestly, I prefer that.  No help for Russia then.


  • @Romulus:

    Mmm… but after the loss of the Baltic fleet and with English landing in Norway the British may try to attack Germany. They will be rejected for sure but may inflict more infantry losses if Berlin is defended only by infantries.
    I feel more comfortable having at least 1-2 fig and some panzers in Berlin (if bought, otherwise they are in EE, ususally).
    But if there is no probability of attack in Berlin it is also possible to have fig in WE and EE.

    It is cost-effective to have both tanks and fighters among infantry in TT’s that you stack to hold.
    Then it is bad TUV-trade to attack Berlin, unless allies can weaken it to a degree that the cap itselft may fall.


  • Ok Frood it is clear.
    I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.

    Good grammar.

    Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.

    “In the Last 5 player games, the Russian player was trading Ukraine and Belorussia with German each turn, while Uk traded Karelia, from Norway.” Remember to use past tense since you’re talking about a past game.

    I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.

    “I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming FOR Persia.” You usually don’t say you aim to a noun, you aim for a noun. You aim to become something, but you aim for the target.

    At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.

    …counter the Japanese advance.

    Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.

    …part of the purchased units. The correct tense of “buyed” is “bought”, but generally you want to say purchased since it sounds smoother.

    My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.

    My more important problem is really with Germany. Keeping the right balancing…

    As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.

    usually arrive with

    So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
    I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.

    Good grammar.

    Now in regards to your content, I don’t have a whole lot to say because I’m already tired from this grammar lesson and because there’s already lots of good advice! I will just tell you that the “Lurch” technique generally means to move a large stack of units towards the opponent’s capital in an attempt to draw attention to it, but you will retreat if you have to. You’re lurching forward, but you withdraw at a moment’s notice.

  • Moderator

    @Romulus:

    I have read of the “Lurch” move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.

    Yeah, you are on the right track. 
    IMO, against good Allied play it just isn’t possible for Germany to defend WE, EE, SE, and Ger.  Eventually the UK and US get there trns going and you start to have to worry about too many landing points and the potential for 1-2 attacks, all while trying to maintain a threat on Russia.  This just becomes too overwhelming and could lead Germany into a stacking game which generally isn’t good for the Axis.

    The Lurch is a move that is designed to have you shift (or lurch) your armies east and maintaining the threat on Russia while sacrificing WE.

    In Classic the big sticking point for Germany is taking Kar and the Lurch would be used by Germany to shift everything East one territory and staking both EE and Ukr while vacating WE.  This presents a dilemma for Russia, while they may be able to attack either army in EE or Ukr it mostly will weaken them so much that Germany will be able to take Kar with the other army.  If Russia doesn’t attack either army Germany can then lurch to Cauc.  Now Russia must defend Moscow and the German armies in EE, Ukr, and Cauc can then attack Kar.

    Now, it isn’t quite the same in Revised but it is close enough.  Say you have the following set up for Ger:
    WE:  10 inf, 5 ftrs, aa
    Ger:  12 inf, 1 bom, aa
    SE:  4 inf, aa
    EE:  20 inf, 4 rt, 10 arm

    You can continue to stack the 4 core territories, but what does this gain you?
    If you’ve lost your Baltic and Med fleets it becomes extremely problematic since all the UK and US have to do is box you in and shuttle troops from Kar to Wrus and reinforce Moscow.  Eventually the Allies can pick their spot and either finish off Germany or just push Japan back in Asia, making it clear that Moscow will never fall.

    So,
    by lurching in this case your next German turn could look like this:
    Ukr:  20 inf, 4 rt (Japan will land 3-5 ftrs there on their turn)
    EE:  12 inf, 10 arm, 5 ftrs, aa
    Ger:  20 inf (10 from WE, 10 from purchase), 1 bom, aa
    WE:  empty
    SE: 6 inf (4 from previous turn, 2 from purchase), aa
    – the SE inf can also go to Ger or Balk depending on how the Allies are set up–

    Now, you should only move to Ukr if you know you can land Japan’s ftrs there and that Russia won’t be able to kill your stack.

    At this point the Allies could be in some trouble, they can land in WE but have to worry about a massive counter strike or strafe, or they can land lightly which divides some of their forces, weakens what they can get to Moscow, and allows Germany to then trade with 2-3 inf, 5 ftrs, 1 bom.

    Then next move would then be to lurch to Wrus or Cauc (possibly Belo) depending on the Allied moves.

    The ultimate strength of this move is in the timing and progress of Japan.  You want to Lurch with Germany as Japan approaches Novo or Kaz with its army.  Ideally when Germany moves to Ukr, you’d want Japan to go to Kaz.  Russia should not be able to attack either army without allowing the other one to wipe out the leftovers in Cauc, or in Japan’s case maybe even a strike on Moscow.


  • Thanks Darthmaximus,

    it is really an interesting move.

    In fact one of my big problems with Germany is how to answer to the situation you depict.

    Usually my reaction is to stack WE, GER, SE and EE and trying to dead-zoning Karelia. But with all the infantry needed for stacking the Europe is a problem to be offensive on the eastern front. Lurch may be the right answer!

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 2
  • 2
  • 12
  • 28
  • 2
  • 10
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

41
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts