Map for 1941 axis strategy

@xlome_00 Sea Lion is one of those attacks where the threat is mightier than the execution. If you buy a carrier for the Baltic Fleet on G1, that’s a reasonable purchase anyway to protect your supply lines to Norway/Finland/Leningrad/Baltics. If you move the German Med transport to the central Med, it is protected by the Italian fleet and can reinforce Libya, which is a reasonable move anyway. If you then bring the Italian fleet to take Gibraltar and retake Morocco, that helps score your NOs, so that’s a normal attack. So all of these preparatory moves can be done with minimal cost to the standard Axis war effort.

But then the American bomber cannot sink the German transport without landing in either Egypt (where it will die on a G2 Egypt attack) or Caucasus (where it spoils the Russian NO.)

If they leave your Med transport alive, you move it to Western Med on G2 where Italian fleet protects it again, build a second transport in Baltic on G2 plus an extra plane, and now you are threatening UK with 3 inf, 3 tank, 1 CA, 4 ftr, 1 bmr on a hypothetical G3 sea lion.

UK can of course defend against this, but they will have to build a fat infantry stack in London instead of factories, ships, or air power. This could cost them the Atlantic fleet or at least force them to retreat it back to Canada; if they built a factory in Africa / India, they might lose it because they cannot afford to build units there on a critical turn. Meanwhile those infantry in London will just sit there inefficiently for several turns because there are not enough transports to ship them anywhere, and not enough warships to protect the Atlantic fleet in a forward position.

Your second Baltic transport is reasonably useful for shipping inf/art to Leningrad, and the extra fighter can of course be used for trading on the eastern front, defending France, etc. as usual.

So you never actually attack London in an AA50 game – you just quietly threaten to attack it, thereby forcing the Allies to waste much more money on defense than you spent on creating the threat.

@USS:

I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?

Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep)  theirs.  This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.

Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved.  Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports).  Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.

For purely defensive purposes, buying infantry cannot be beat. When you can swap in an offensive piece (artillery or tank) without decreasing the number of units you’re putting on the board, this is well-advised. The relative cost of units and their defending capability seems to be balanced such that quantity is quality.

For example, Russia starts the '41 version with 30 IPC. For that money you can buy 10 inf OR 8 inf and a tank, etc, etc… OR 3 fighters. If you benchmark every 30IPC purchasing combination against an attacking force of 4inf and 5 tanks (nearly a 50/50 battle with about a 2% chance of mutually assured destruction if you purchased 10 inf), the results are telling:

10 inf - 49% chance of winning [2 * 10 = 20 hit points or 20/6 = 3.3 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 38% chance of winning [2 * 8 + 1 *3 = 19 hit points or 19/6 = 3.2 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter - 16% chance of winning [5 * 2 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 4 = 17 or 17/6 = 2.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 fighters - 0.02% chance of winning [3 * 4 = 12 points or 12/6 = 2 average hits]

No combination of possible purchases perform better than 10 inf in this scenario.

However, when playing against a German Goering that likes to over-extend poorly defended fighters or bombers to gain a couple of IPCs, it’s nice to have the offensive capability to wipe them off the board. I have found this is best accomplished by pushing infantry forward (protecting your offensive pieces from overwhelming counter-attack) and keeping a mix of infantry, artillery and tanks within striking distance of the front line.

For offensive purposes, the best mix of units for the same 30 IPCs, baselined to a 50/50 battle of your 10 infantry against a defending 6inf + 1 artillery (approximately 1% chance of a draw):

10 inf - 50% [10 * 1 = 10 points or 10/6 = 1.7 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 60% [8 * 1 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
6 inf, 3 art - 81% [3 * 1 + (3 + 3) * 2 = 15 points or 15/6 = 2.5 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr - 42% [5 * 1 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 ftr - 0% [3 * 3 = 9 points or 9/6 = 1.5 average hits]

For purely offensive considerations, the optimum combination of units in this scenario is 6 inf and 3 art at 81% chance of victory with 4 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in close second at 80%. No combination of purchases which include a fighter score better than 53% (4 inf, 2 art and 1 fighter happens to be the specific combination in this case). Again, there appears to be a quality in quantity that supersedes just quality. It may go without stating, but if attacking a territory with an AA gun, the numbers will be even worse for the fighter purchases.

For the two scenarios above, the most balanced purchase (averaging the %won for each purchase in its offensive capacity and defensive capacity) is 7 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. This particular purchase is the second best defensive purchase (next to 10 inf) and only 4% less potent than the best offensive purchase (6 inf and 3 art).

I’m not against fighters or bombers, they certainly have their place I just haven’t found justification for purchasing them when playing as Russia (or Germany for that matter) - especially in the early rounds.

Similar conclusion are drawn with respect to naval units - more cost-effective units (subs and especially destroyers) are typically better than fewer high-powered units (battleships and especially cruisers).

Excepting special circumstances (such as no time to get infantry to a developing hot-spot on the map or needing to sandbag funds for a massive naval build against enemies squatting in your sea-zone) a good rule of thumb seems to be to maximize the number of attack/defend points your are bringing to the board, first, and spread over as many units as possible, second.

Hi, all!

Thanks to BigDog for great thinking outside of the box.

I had what was propably the best game so far yesterday. I wanted to apply this strategy, and did so with the US. Unfortunately, my co-player (UK & Russia) wanted to go a little more extreme into India, buying a factory and later 2 Battleships and 1Carrier. Ferrying the 2Fighters from London via Moscow to land on the Carrier. The Japanese player did not se this coming… He did manage the usual and occupy the entire Pacific, but being too spread out caught between the UK and US fleet he had  to retreat towards the mainland for naval reinforcements. Japan did not contribute towards capturing Moscow. The UK fleet was destroyed, with India being captured. But this allowed the US to retake all of the Islands and capture all Jap islands as well. Japan mainland was taken, and the fleet utterly destroyed when racing back to liberate Japan. The best naval battle ever!!  :mrgreen:
Unfortunately this led to Italy and Germany sharing Africa and the Russian territories after Italy had an income of 44 on its peak (34+2 nat obj) and Germany scoring around 60 - objectives included.
This led to a combined effort on London, I believe we held out 4 assaults before Germany finally succeded in occupying London.

So in retrospect i believe that this was a bit too much of an “all out” in the Pacific. Containing Japan led to Italy reaching new heights, and I believe that it is much better for the Allies to secure Africa and contain Italy. Also leaving a strong fleet in the Atlantic to be able to support Russia if need be. Either directly on Russian soil, or maintaining a possibillity to invade France/Italy. The US was not able to liberate Australia, Borneo and East Indies before Africa was totally occupied, leaving UK with a few rounds of very little income. Holding Africa with the intent of liberating India later on seems to me like a stronger option.

Finding the right moment to strike at Japan still eludes me, and I am very much looking forward to the next game where I will certainly try something else than a KGF.

@Flying:

Doing this leaves Africa to the Allies doesn’t it? Can a lower income Italy do this? What do you do, stack up tanks and infantry for 4 rounds then attack Russian territories? I can definately see this working though seems like a more risky strategy than going for africa/middle east.

When I say using Germany to let Italy have a crack at Russia I mean the Caucus not the Russian capital.

You can do both.  You don’t need many italian tanks to open a hole in a wall of inf that is only 1 or 2 inf.

and, yes Germany can can opener the Caucasus for italy, but we find it’s better to have Germany (or even Japan) to take the caucasus over Italy.  They could make better use of the IC with 4 unit capability.

I accept your Challenge!

Go here

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5125.0 go down to where you see A-Battlemap

Download this program.

Once you have it downloaded send me a Private Message, and I will teach you how to play on the forums ;)  Good Luck Challenger.

italy is way cool. here is why:

2 tanks in bulgaria/ epl or 2 inf in EPL with ftr in range will nullify the effect of a 1inf  russian blitzblocker in EUK and BEL. that means whenever theese units are in range, russia cant  press germany with north/south push from KAR,BST / CAU,UKR .  this eases fighting for gerrmany alot imho, as it ristricts the red army.

of course italy will have to get their NOs as often as possible but how you do that really depends on what british / US are doing.

but i prefer italy pumping out ground units as much as possible. maybe a trn+ inf round one is best. this way you get 12 units at end of turn 3 to africa.

apperently, i’m the only not-risky guy :-)
i prefer killing british destroyer east of england with sub and cruiser
2 subs, 1 fighter and 1 bomber to sz 12
take out all 3 eastern europe countries
hold france

doubting wether attack egypt or not.
if you do, sz 12 is more risky without bomber, but perhaps still acceptable?