Stop the presses: Glemax has Axis and Allies revised… finally!

Hammer,

The main thing Allies are doing wrong is building India without help from USA in the Pacific.

For your next game, forget about India.  Use the MiddleEast units to counter-attack Egypt on UK1.  Spend the money you would have spent on the factory on infantry and transports.  Then start dumping men either in Algeria or in SZ2 (Karelia or Arch).

If Germany is pursuing an all-tank strategy, you can try dumping a large amount of infantry/tanks into Western Europe with UK and USA back-to-back.  This would happen on Uk2-Usa2 or uk3-usa3.  Germany then needs to attack this force, and if they retake it, UK is in position to hit the remaining tanks again.  This manuevor is very costly to Germany and should allow Russia to take the offensive.

Plans are easiest to actualize if you have a clear objective.  Focus on either KGF (all Allies attack Germany) or KJF (all Allies attack Japan).  Ganging up on one Axis or the other enables you to take a capital, which is the key to winning the game (ie get to Berlin before they get to Moscow).  Learn KGF first–save the India factory for another time.

Never buy 6 art r1.  Good buys are 5 inf 1 art 1 tank or 3 inf 3 tanks.  The most popular are probably the most effective R1 attack is Ukraine/West Russia.  Reasonable inf/art ratios are around 5:1, and reasonable inf/tank ratios are around 3:1

@bb82:

Because the med fleet will be blocked by a Russian sub, Germany, at most, can attack UK with the following:

6 infantry, 6 armor, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber.

I like the 2 FTR, 3 INF on UK1 myself so that isn’t that bad a battle to fight really.

7 INF (2 UK Start; 2 US; 3 UK1 buy)
2 RTL (1 UK, 1 US)
2 ARM (1 UK, 1 US assuming SZ1 TRN sunk)
5 FTRS (2 UK, 1 US, 2 UK1 buy)
2 BOM

Take the Bombers as 1st round casulties and you aren’t too bad.

Moving the UK BB and TRN and the R sub to SZ6 will draw off some air power as Frood says it is aprox. 78% for the UK/R in the naval battle with just 2 subs and a Des.

One of those things you shouldn’t feel too bad about losing though.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

Update:

Germany holds most of Africa with 100% of Japanese forces being diverted to Egypt.  England’s putting 6 units a round into Libya (3 infantry, 3 armor) and hitting Germany for 7 IPC in damage every round (taking 5 damage in return.)  America is invading through Norway and W. Europe with 10 units a round with 5 bombers doing 17/18 IPC in damage (alternate rounds) and taking 12/13 IPC in damage (leaving me with plenty of income to keep at least 10 infantry, usually 6 infantry, 3 artillery, 1 armor) going into Asia.

Germany has yet to see a round after 1 with more then 40 IPC income.  They are currently averaging closer to 38 IPC - 25 in SBRs for a net of 13 IPC to Russia’s 20-28 IPCs.  Japan is no threat as they have to move all builds into Egypt to counter English reinforcements.

Germany has no Atlantic fleet.  Their med fleet is augmented with Japanese battleships to prevent American fighters from sinking them.

that is true… Wont argue with the love between a man and a woman. MY girlfriend is actually called Russia  :-D

you may find it more efficient to get 1-3 games in at the same time you would get 1 game in on a actual board.
but I wont argue with you there either. you probably are to much of a die-hard actual board fan :) which is cool. I liek the board a lot to. Glad the new one came out, I only played classic twice and didn’t really like it.

Each side has an equal number of VC’s.  If you add an Allied one, you add an Axis one, otherwise the extra VC is an Allied advantage.