• My last opponent Rodg started G1 with a build of 3ftr 4inf (42 IPC). It was shown effective enough, even if delaying a bit pressure on Russia - it delayed Western help even more !

    • If they threaten only one UK+US fleet it itsn’t a big deal; UK or US build 1 carrier, land 2 fighters and the threat of 30 IPC is more than surpassed with 16 IPC.

    • If they threaten 2 fleets (say: Baltic + SW Britain from France) it becomes interesting…

    • In many ordinary cases without Luftwaffe increase, Allies would have moments of 3 fleets too (1. SW Britain; 2. Baltic; 3. N. France to add extra transports to Baltic force…) That becomes impractical.

    • Each fighter also adds to the defence of its base (if not too many) like 2 inf = 6 IPC !
      So only 4 IPC for the extra naval threat is really cheap !

    • Fast defensive reserve to add to areas conquered previous turn.

    And Luftwaffe may even increase with more bombers…


  • I usually buy 1 ftr each rnd with G, until I reach 8 or 10 ftrs.
    What about buying 4 ftrs G1. Tempting isn’t it? For me ftrs is like an addiction.

    I’m not sure if G ftr strat is good in ADS games though.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Germany fighter strat seems to be relatively effective, especially when teamed with Japan fighter strat in ADS games.  It’s nice to send 2 infantry, 5 fighters at a stack of 3 defending infantry and be quasi-sure that you’ll at least kill all the defenders, even if you don’t get the land. (only 3% chance to lose a fighter, 20% chance to lose two infantry in a one round battle)

    I’ve toyed with the idea of 100% navy in Round 1 and Round 2 for Germany.  Subs and carrier in SZ 5 and subs and carrier in SZ 14.  Means you’ll be really weak against Russia militarily, but the allies will be having kittens trying to figure out ways to land in Africa and Europe for a long time.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Read my Germany fig strat.  🙂


  • Also think how Allies may ‘dance’ with their fleet to avoid much of the fighter threat (if no Long-Range and 1 or few bombers). No more than 1 fleet needs to be fully exposed.

    German Fighters in WEU > Fleet north, transports to Archangel. More escort to SW Britain.
    German Fighters in EEU > Fleet north, more escort with it

    Don’t know the answer to the later situation when Germans still hold WEU strongly (fighters+inf+AA) and the front has advanced (say to EEU) and Allies need to stay with fleet in both Baltic and SW Britain… Maybe extra transports to threaten a stronger one-time landing even above sustainable flow from UK factory (8 units) or US shuck chain…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    One of the MAJOR reasons I like tech open in games.  Germany needs to have the options of Rockets or Long Range to keep the allies honest.  They don’t NEED the tech, they NEED the option.  If the allies get insane with transports, but not enough surface ships, it may be worth it for the Germans to lock in four rolls for LRA (I find 4 rolls is normally good enough.  After all, that’s close to 67% odds of success.  5 Rolls if you are paranoid would give you 83% chance of success, allegedly.)

    If you go heavy fighters with Germany, and get LRA, you can force the allies into buying more surface warships to defend their shucking transports.  Just a few destroyer purchases by England/America can give Germany a reprieve and exceed the 20 IPC you spent on getting LRA.  (Assuming you get lucky and get it.)

    Same with Rockets.  If you are having difficulties in Africa, it may well worth it for Germany to throw 20 IPC at Rockets.  A gun from E. Europe at Russia, A gun from Germany to Caucasus and a Gun from S. Europe/W. Europe to England can help ease the work on a Germany no longer in Africa.

    Same in reverse.  Setting up rockets with America with AA guns in Africa/England can help tear down the Germans.  Destroyer Bombard/Super Submarines can make KJF ever so much more simple (As can LRA.)  Jet Power can stop an axis attack on Russia or an allied attack on the Baltic Fleet/Germany.

    I really wish this community would get over it’s hysteria in regards to technologies.  It’s not as ridiculous as it was in classic.  There’s no winning or losing tech.  It’s not perfectly balanced, since no tech is going to counter another tech, but each side has equal access to equal technology and can chose to research the technology that fits their strategy best.

    I’m still calling on Switch to open Tech in the tournaments, and Darth to open them in the league.  Not saying I’m going to use them every game, or any game, but they should be available.


  • @Cmdr:

    I really wish this community would get over it’s hysteria in regards to technologies.

    I wish 99% of all A&A players would use the same rules. Would be much easier.


  • Nix, do you have a link for the fig strat?

  • Moderator

    @lmtdconv:

    Nix, do you have a link for the fig strat?

    Here is a link to some of Nix’s stuff.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=8915.0


  • I really wish this community would get over it’s hysteria in regards to technologies.  It’s not as ridiculous as it was in classic.  There’s no winning or losing tech.  It’s not perfectly balanced, since no tech is going to counter another tech, but each side has equal access to equal technology and can chose to research the technology that fits their strategy best.

    I agree with Jen on this one. Tech sucks, and there’s no reason to ban it. It does however give you some interesting options once in a long while that you may need to beat the opponent, like combined arms or like Jen was saying LRA or rockets. The good players would still never roll for tech, and while the lesser players may win because of it every so often, usually they’re strategically bombing themselves head over heels to try to get the tech.


  • @Bean:

    The good players would still never roll for tech

    I disagree.  I’ve seen many good players tech to break a stalemate, which can happen often between good players playing (gads!) IPM… yes, IPM rules still apply in Revised.


  • I disagree.  I’ve seen many good players tech to break a stalemate, which can happen often between good players playing (gads!) IPM… yes, IPM rules still apply in Revised.

    I need to clarify - good players will not roll tech early on. Rolling tech is very inefficient. If good players do it, it’s only because they’re bored, not because the math agrees with them. For every time you get the tech on roll one, you’re not getting it within 5+ rolls and strategically bombing yourself for 20-30 IPCs with no result early on hurts you quite badly to the point where you can’t recover even if you get the tech after that.

    You may need to roll tech at some point for instance combined arms is the best way hands down to take out island nations.


  • @Cmdr:

    I’ve toyed with the idea of 100% navy in Round 1 and Round 2 for Germany.  Subs and carrier in SZ 5 and subs and carrier in SZ 14.  Means you’ll be really weak against Russia militarily, but the allies will be having kittens trying to figure out ways to land in Africa and Europe for a long time.

    The fighter strat sounds decent, but this one sounds bad IMO. Britain would probably just build a massive fleet of fighters and then eventually decimate your navy with minimal losses. Meanwhile, building 0 ground units the first 2 turns would be giving away a lot of territory to Russia, making it an economically significant force. Heavy US/UK airforce would lock both your fleets in their respective seas, unable to unify…then the baltic fleet would fall, as it’s within two spaces of the UK, and the Med. fleet would be mostly useless ( as if it ever moved to a location where it actually threatened anything, it would be within range of the air force).

    You delay help to Russia, but Russia no longer needs help!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Really, and how are you going to use those fighters against:

    9 Submarines, 2 Transports, Battleship, Destroyer, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters?

    That’s going to get mighty expensive, mighty fast.  Especially with Germany in striking distance of SZ 10 and SZ 2.

    Meanwhile, Russia (Earning 24) is facing Germany (Earning 40) and Japan (Earning 30) all by itself.  That’s almost 3:1 odds for the axis.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    And each Tech has a use.  They’re risky, sure.  You could be throwing money away (then again, stacking 4 infantry in Ukraine could be throwing money away too, none of them could hit on defense and die to a single attacking infantry and 5 fighters) or you could be getting a tech to help you win the war.

    If the allies are building strong in Russia, Rockets may help you keep their stacks down so you can build up faster.  If the Americans need to sink the Japanese fleet faster, Super Submarines are pretty darn cost efficient, especially since you can shoot carriers out from under fighters and retreat.  Need to keep the allies at bay, get LRA with Germany, now you can fly out to their rear transports and threaten them (probably cost the allies 2 or 3 destroyers just to make sure you don’t attack them.) etc.


  • Techs are very inefficient. You’re not even guaranteed to get them after 6 rolls. Those times when you get them at a good cost work fine, but in the other cases you are just asking for a quicker defeat. I’m sure we’ve all seen many situations where 6 figs escape any aa fire, which would be the same as the tech eluding you after spending 30 IPCs on it. You have to consider that happens a lot of the time - so while you may be threatening the Allies for instance as Jen says to build 2-3 dest to protect their rear transports, you at the same time spent 30 IPCs to do it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Correct.  But 20 IPC for the tech is less then the 36 IPC for the destroyers. (Assuming you buy 4 rolls and no more.)

    Sure, tech can be very expensive and not worth it.  That’s part of the gamble.  And, if you are facing a 600 IPC army defending Russia (comprised of Russians, English and Americans) and have your own 500 IPC armies (1 for Germany, 1 for Japan) you might want to take the risk on techs to help cut off the flow of reinforcements or bomb IPCs or make your fighters immune to AA fire, whatever since you have no worries about adding to defense, you just don’t have the offense right now.

    It’s not something you do on Round 1.  It’s something you do when you have time, resources, and position to do it.  Or, when you have nothing to lose.  For instance, if America just lost it’s transports, stranding men in England and North America, why not roll for Jets?  At least those fighters in Russia will defend better this time out.


  • Assuming you buy 4 rolls, there’s a 48% chance you will not achieve the tech. (5/6 is the chance you will miss the tech, raised to the power 4 for 4 rolls give you the chance every single one will miss, 48%). It’s basically a coin toss; heads you maybe gain a little, tails you strategically bombed yourself for 20 IPCs. For every time that you pat yourself on the back for getting it for 4 rolls, you’ll be crying that those 20 IPCs could have been put into infantry or fighters.

    It’s not something you do on Round 1.  It’s something you do when you have time, resources, and position to do it.  Or, when you have nothing to lose.  For instance, if America just lost it’s transports, stranding men in England and North America, why not roll for Jets?  At least those fighters in Russia will defend better this time out.

    I agree…a couple instances where I really want to roll techs is in the uber late game when both Moscow and Japan have fallen and you’re staring at AA guns all over Europe; then you really want Jet Fighters so you can trade territories. The other  is if you need to beat up England after it’s reduced to its capital + canada; then it’s time for combined arms. Also it’s nice to have the option to roll rockets as you abandon your capital so your AA guns can become a huge annoyance.


  • Techs should not be discounted. I have seen many games where effective use of them resulted in an easy win, or a surprise comeback.

    Combined Arms can be utilized to devastating effectiveness against Japan. Nearly any nation (except Russia…but especially Germany)can benefit from Long Range Aircraft or Jets.


  • Who’s discounting them? I correctly said they are inefficient in the early game.


  • Big Luftwaffe gets even nastier when a sizable Japanese fleet gets to Brazil and further into Atlantic.
    German increasing threats force even more UK-US cooperation to defend the 2 fleets. But that’s easier when the position needs to be ‘neat’ only after Russian moves. After UK it can be as ‘messy’ as needed.
    But add a Japanese threat, and any UK-US cooperation gets extremely cumbersome - any ally moving out of position leaves the other easy prey…

    Even wiping/chasing away the Japanese isn’t easy - UK-US being divided to defend transports. And the optimal purchase to protect against Luftwaffe - carriers+(fighters) is not as good as lots of submarines to chase Japan… but subs are of very little use against Germany.

    Two hard dilemmas - of timing, of force composition. Any solutions around ?

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

28
Online

15.7k
Users

37.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts