• @Nickwins89:

    But If I was Russia, I would want to keep my forces on the German Front the strongest. I would be very hesitant to send a huge handful of troops out west to face Japan.

    Its only 4 Infantry, plus the guys already in Siberia, plus a Bomber which Germany would assume was meant for it.

    @Nickwins89:

    If I was Germany, and I saw the massive forces being sent towards Japan, I would be working my utmost with Italy to disrupt British operations whilst still pushing against the Russian Front.

    How?  Britain will sink anything you build with their air force unless you build so much in the way of sea units that not even a weakened Russia has problems fighting you.

    If Germany divides their forces between Britain and Russia like that, even as all 3 Allies target Japan, Japan will fall long before either Britain or Russia does.

    @Nickwins89:

    Wouldn’t it be best to build a UK IC on India, so it would be closer to the Action in the Japanese theater of war?

    Did you not read any of my posts, or did you fail to miss the part where the entire reason any non-Siberian Russian forces are being moved East is to guard India from a J2 capture so that an IC can get going?


  • I can see the merits of this strategy and how it will seriously hamper japanese expansion. I also appreciate that an unsuspecting japanese player will have to make some difficult decisions as a result of this strategy. That alone is a very powerful effect.

    What remains to be seen is if japan would be dead g6 as you said. If the japanese player ‘turtles’ as germany usually does it would become costly and difficult to invade them. If for some reason japan is only contained and not destroyed you’ll have a very large and dangerous germany to worry about.

    I like your idea, its novel, but I’m not convinced that this would be as simple as advertised. The key, as stated already, is to create options for the allies to go either way. If Germany is entirely ignored you lose said options.

    Nonetheless its an interesting idea.


  • @Grenadier:

    I can see the merits of this strategy and how it will seriously hamper japanese expansion. I also appreciate that an unsuspecting japanese player will have to make some difficult decisions as a result of this strategy. That alone is a very powerful effect.

    Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.  Sure, if they know exactly what you are going to do, and what permutations you are going to do, they have a better chance, but there is no assurance of that.

    Though the key to any strategy is adaptability.  Every strategy has a counter, and if the opponent knows what your strategy is and you can’t change it, you are screwed.  Hence, you keep your options open.  If Japan is contained but not killed, Britain could simply start massing a fleet, which they can afford thanks to having their eastern assets liberated.  Or if Russia is still alive, you could just make a run for the VC condition with a quick capture of Western Europe and East Poland.

    @Grenadier:

    What remains to be seen is if japan would be dead g6 as you said. If the japanese player ‘turtles’ as germany usually does it would become costly and difficult to invade them. If for some reason japan is only contained and not destroyed you’ll have a very large and dangerous germany to worry about.

    The key to stopping that is SBR.  If Japan lacks territories outside their capital, SBRs will near completely disable their production.

    If Japan turtles early enough, use the UK air force to bombard Germany’s IC while the US bombards the Russian ones, which have probably been captured, then simply attack the Axis where-ever they are weak.  You should have 10 VCs assuming that Japan is not captured but Russia has been lost.  All you need to do is grab 2-5 to win.  Japan can be held in check by a fleet of 3 or 4 Bombers reducing its production to nothing.

    @Grenadier:

    I like your idea, its novel, but I’m not convinced that this would be as simple as advertised. The key, as stated already, is to create options for the allies to go either way. If Germany is entirely ignored you lose said options.

    Hence, I’ve abandoned the more extreme version, instead, Russia sends 4 of its western infantry, 8 of its siberian infantry, and a R1 bomber to help the east, nothing more.

    Once again, Bombers are vital to this strategy, both for their ability to prevent Germany from building a fleet, eliminating the Italian and Japanese fleets, SBRing Japan to the point that it can only make 2 Infantry every other turn as well as participating in the final capture, and SBRing Germany and Italy to reduce their sizeable incomes.

    New Builds:
    [R1: 3 Tank, 1 Infantry, 1 Bomber][R2: 4 Tanks, 3 Infantry][R3+: Tanks/Infantry]
    [B1: 2 Bombers, 1 IC][B2: 1 Bomber, 1 Carrier, 2 Transports/Tanks/Infantry][B3+: 2 Bombers, 3 Tanks/Infantry]
    [A1: 1 Carrier, 2 Transports, 2 Tanks][A2: 4 Bombers][A3+: 4ish Bombers]
    Adapt builds as needed, of course.  On A4, Japan gets nailed by 4 SBRs, on A5, that goes up to 7 or 8, assuming that you don’t simply capture it A5.

    Japan should get about 140 IPCs over the first 4 turns+their starting money.  That’s probably enough to convince them that they can actually fight back, not turtle.  If they turtle, they will end up with even less money and die anyways.


  • WOW!
    While I usually disagree with your stratagies Wodan, I appreciate them as they keep me thinking, creating new strats. and help me develop precious different ideas.

    Cheers,

    Enigmatic_Decay


  • Wodan, I was mostly confused by your original strategy, in which you said Russia would basically sacrifice itself in order to Destroy Japanese colonial ambitions. With more moderate amounts of forces being sent East, I can agree with it more. I just didn’t like the idea of having an ally give up their territories so they could ship them off East.

    You swayed me at least a bit towards your idea of the Japanese gamble. I do enjoy thinking of strategies to do, but I always end up questioning whether they could be used in an actual game.


  • @Funcioneta:

    @atarihuana:

    KGF doesnt ignore Japan :P

    Sure? KGF utterly ignores Japan in the 3-4 first rounds. Enough for lose the game for allies

    i dont think this  game is decided in 4 rounds, unless u play really bad.  there is no kings-way. you can fight the pacific or can go full throttle KGF. both are viable options.


  • Trying KGF is playing really bad. It concedes economic advantage to axis from round 2, 3 as much, menaces facing a Polar Express and cannot crush a well played western axis

    Pacific must be fought if allies want the marginal chance of winning they have in 1941 against a well played axis. Economics are simple, axis will have them pretty soon, and they have starting military advantage and positional advantage with one enemy power killed in 1st round and a 2nd enemy power (USSR) bottled between axis power, and a 3rd power (UK) that loses many of her territories in the first rounds. I still cannot find a way of wining with allies that not involve massive luck for allies or bad axis playing, and this way cannot be KGF. This way only can be bidding for allies or modding China in some way


  • i  disagree :D

  • 2007 AAR League

    @atarihuana:

    i  disagree :D

    I agree with you that I disagree.  :-D

    I think against a good Allied player, the Axis are at a disadvantage. the Allies can easily focus on the Atlantic with only a minimal investment, if any, in the Pacific.


  • @wodan46:

    Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.  Sure, if they know exactly what you are going to do, and what permutations you are going to do, they have a better chance, but there is no assurance of that.

    Though the key to any strategy is adaptability.  Every strategy has a counter, and if the opponent knows what your strategy is and you can’t change it, you are screwed.  Hence, you keep your options open.  If Japan is contained but not killed, Britain could simply start massing a fleet, which they can afford thanks to having their eastern assets liberated.  Or if Russia is still alive, you could just make a run for the VC condition with a quick capture of Western Europe and East Poland.

    a strategy based on the your opponent not knowing what to do is hardly a strategy.  What, are you playing children or something?

    maybe we should look for strategies that involve playing someone of at least equal skill.
    Any strategy stands a good chance against someone who doesn’t know how to respond.  I could build all bombers and plan to parachute into London and Ottawa and someone who didn’t know how to respond could think to build more AA guns because of all my planes rather than see my severe lack of ground forces.
    Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.
    so like what, “exotic” here seems to be more like the kind of dance… ie you playing ‘dirty’ against unknowing players?..

    @wodan46:

    1. Russia moves its forces towards India, Buryatia, and Chinghai, accepting that it will lose its capital on turn 3 or 4.

    @wodan46:

    Germany shouldn’t be able to reach India until G6.  They shouldn’t be able to land Fighters in a Japanese territory until G6 as well, and that’s if they are careful.
    By G6, Japan should be dead.

    –so USSR falls on G3 or 4, Japan only has to hold for 1-2 more turns before Germany can hit India and US/UK have already had to reallocate to deal with a monster Germany/Italy and Japan can expand again “without” any Soviet reinforcements to hold them.  Not only have they not killed Japan, but they have lost USSR and given the Axis one front to fight on each instead of two…

    @wodan46:

    @atarihuana:

    if russia goes down turn 4, what stopping german sending planes to japan to help. or sealion?

    UK should be massing Infantry often.  By Turn 4, they should have 20+ Infantry.

    what about turn 2 if UK spent all it’s money on IC’s… or turn 3 if they are trying to defend a J2 attack on India?  With US/UK merely building ground troops (well, really the UK building ground troops and the US ignoring Germany) in Atlantic a SA IC will not hold Italy and the UK navy will be sunk quickly and give Axis control of the water.

    you have to expect them to respond well and then beat that move.  Giving up USSR, not taking Japan and allowing Germany to pressure India/England, Italy to overrun Africa (even with your 2 IC SA factory and Japan to reemerge by J6 is not a good plan…

    unless you are playing newbs…


  • @LuckyDay:

    a strategy based on the your opponent not knowing what to do is hardly a strategy.  What, are you playing children or something?

    Let’s test that.  Let’s say Japan sends all its transports to Iwo Jima loaded with forces and wipes out the West US units first turn.  They now have all 3 Carriers and 5 Transports within range of WUS.  What do you do?

    Strategies are not as predictable as one might expect.  If the opponent fails to evaluate ALL the possible permutations your strategy could take, they can still get screwed.

    @LuckyDay:

    Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.

    Funny, when playing Revised (No Bid), I crushed an expert player by doing an extremely foolhardy kamikaze rush and taking Russia turn 3.

    The reason why things like beginner’s luck exists is because experts build their strategies around their opponents acting smart, and they do not plan for their opponent doing something stupid.  Furthermore, experts probably can think of countless permutations of common strategies and easily think of the mathematically best response for them, but they are unfamiliar with more exotic strategies because they are almost never used.

    @LuckyDay:

    -so USSR falls on G3 or 4, Japan only has to hold for 1-2 more turns before Germany can hit India and US/UK have already had to reallocate to deal with a monster Germany/Italy and Japan can expand again “without” any Soviet reinforcements to hold them.  Not only have they not killed Japan, but they have lost USSR and given the Axis one front to fight on each instead of two…

    No, my strategy is now built around USSR falling between turns 4 to 6, by which time Japan is dead or near death.  The Axis have to defend on two fronts (Germany and Russia) while attacking on two others (East Asia and the Pacific).  How exactly is Germany going to capture the Philipines or East Indies, while still holding onto all their conquests and all their home territories?

    @LuckyDay:

    what about turn 2 if UK spent all it’s money on IC’s… or turn 3 if they are trying to defend a J2 attack on India?  With US/UK merely building ground troops (well, really the UK building ground troops and the US ignoring Germany) in Atlantic a SA IC will not hold Italy and the UK navy will be sunk quickly and give Axis control of the water.

    There is no longer a SA build, and the UK masses Bombers. The UK navy gets sunk first turn anyways, but the Bombers will SBR the Axis and kill any fleets they put out.

    As for India, by R2, there should be 6-8 units in it, securing it, and by B2 there should be a sizeable fleet in front of it as well.

    @LuckyDay:

    you have to expect them to respond well and then beat that move.  Giving up USSR, not taking Japan and allowing Germany to pressure India/England, Italy to overrun Africa (even with your 2 IC SA factory and Japan to reemerge by J6 is not a good plan…

    Japan is dead.  It doesn’t come back.


  • @wodan46:

    @LuckyDay:

    Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.

    Funny, when playing Revised (No Bid), I crushed an expert player by doing an extremely foolhardy kamikaze rush and taking Russia turn 3.

    The reason why things like beginner’s luck exists is because experts build their strategies around their opponents acting smart, and they do not plan for their opponent doing something stupid.  Furthermore, experts probably can think of countless permutations of common strategies and easily think of the mathematically best response for them, but they are unfamiliar with more exotic strategies because they are almost never used.

    (bold mine, words yours)

    the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

    Experts do build their strategies around their opponents acting smart AND understand what to do when their opponent does something stupid.  An expert player thinks far beyond the move and accounts for permutations of each move.  the ability to see those permutations makes them strong players.  But you are apparently playing weak players who can’t see the next round.  And then you want to throw cheap scenarios out at someone to prove your idea?  Come on, the fact that I’m arguing this is enough for you to know that I can see the permutations.  Save the bubble gum for the fair.

    As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

    and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…  you roll dice, chance comes into it, but you have been talking about poor players as the norm.  when you change your starting point we can discuss tactics.


  • I wouldn’t call it stupid, I would call it brazen. Although many times players do make huge mistakes. Some players try crazy tactics that sometimes work, and other times fail horribly.


  • @LuckyDay:

    the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

    No, I expect them to play well.

    @LuckyDay:

    Experts do build their strategies around their opponents acting smart AND understand what to do when their opponent does something stupid.  An expert player thinks far beyond the move and accounts for permutations of each move.  the ability to see those permutations makes them strong players.  But you are apparently playing weak players who can’t see the next round.  And then you want to throw cheap scenarios out at someone to prove your idea?  Come on, the fact that I’m arguing this is enough for you to know that I can see the permutations.

    And how does what you say prove anything.  Experts account for permutations of common strategies, not uncommon ones.  When the uncommon strategy they are unlikely to have thought about the permutations before actually playing, and as such, don’t have a memorized list of counters, and have to think it over as they go along.  That they have to think at all puts them at a disadvantage.

    Its like going to a math test expecting problems spread out from chapters 4 through 6, only to have all the problems be chapter 6.  You studied for it, but you didn’t focus that hard on it, and as such, you will have to do much of the work the hard way.

    @LuckyDay:

    As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

    I abandoned Africa, Norway, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.  I threw everything I got at Russia.

    @LuckyDay:

    and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…

    And this proves my point quite nicely.  Why didn’t those players see the possible permutation of an attack on UK, and sufficient ground troops to counter?  Because it was unexpected, and because the attack appears to be foolish.


  • @wodan46:

    @LuckyDay:

    the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

    No, I expect them to play well.

    uh, no you don’t.  see what you said earlier was:

    @wodan46:

    Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.

    @LuckyDay:

    As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

    I abandoned Africa, Norway, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.  I threw everything I got at Russia.

    you really gotta read the other people’s posts, man, I said it was not unimaginable to take Moscow by turn 3.  I never asked how, because sure it can be done, against unexperienced players…

    @wodan46:

    @LuckyDay:

    and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…

    And this proves my point quite nicely.  Why didn’t those players see the possible permutation of an attack on UK, and sufficient ground troops to counter?  Because it was unexpected, and because the attack appears to be foolish.

    again, gotta read the posts… here’s the whole statement.:
    @LuckyDay:

    and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…  you roll dice, chance comes into it, but you have been talking about poor players as the norm.  when you change your starting point we can discuss tactics.

    there’s dice involved.  My Sea Lion was 1 transport with 1 art/1 inf and all my airforce.  Not because UK hadn’t prepared, they had built extra inf and they build ships, just on the other side of England.  So I sacrificed almost every plane and the INF and took it.  why?  amazing lucky dice.  it wasn’t a strategy though.

    and see, that’s been my point, that you had a plan-not a strategy. Like a hypothesis before it becomes a scientific law.  Your plan was to focus on Japan.  that’s great, but it wasn’t a strategy, because your plan was only going to work once against an experienced player and only more than once against an inexperienced one…. ie the point.
      Already you have changed your initial post with what you described as major changes.  That screams “not a strategy” -it’s a plan.  So great, you had a plan and you tossed it out for people to discuss, that’s a big part of the whole forum.  and you got feedback and now you’ve sharpened your plan and are heading it towards a strategy.  It may not be a ‘ignore germany’ strat, but it can become a strat. 
      You went from 2 IC’s pumping out ground units, one to focus on Japan and one to focus on Italy in Africa to one IC to focus on Japan and the homeland to amass bomber groups, apparently for Germany.  You went from throwing everything from Russia at Japan and losing Moscow on round 3 or 4 to being more moderate and thinking it could hold until round 6.
      You have to understand that when we discuss things here it is about making play better, so you get a bunch of people discussing your idea and actually helping you.  So don’t go taking it all personal and biting people’s head’s off when they take the time to read your idea and comment or discuss it with you.  Your plan has gone through major overhaul since you first posted it not too long ago because of all the people thinking and writing about it with you.

    Residual thoughts:  you originally mentioned that the Axis player gave up around the time Japan fell.  It might help to play on a bit, as the other 2 Axis nations could have struck back.  I have seen the game ebb and flow quite a bit even when captials fall and the possibility of liberation is not out of hand.  More play-testing will help solidify stuff.
      instead of revising the original post completely, you could also place the revised stuff in a new post and link it or simply add it to the other so the thought process can be seen.  Now you have a completely revised starting point and 3 pages of discussion that no one new understands…


  • The Axis should give up if Japan falls and Japan can’t recapture it.  If they can’t, neither Germany nor Italy is in a position to liberate it, meaning that they instead have to somehow capture 12-15 VCs by themselves, or capture London, which will be hard when they can’t build sea units without simply losing them.


  • What if when Japan falls they are in a position to put a major blow onto one of the allies? What If they are not as spread out and disorganized as one might think. What if they have a very organized defense and a plan to counterattack the allies on the turn Japan falls?

    All valid thoughts. I would keep playing. I would want to see if I could win back the game for the Allies. And as LuckyDay said: It’s all about the dice.


  • this is just ridicoulus. a “strat” killing the strongest nation on the board turn6. furthest away from all allied nations. it will simply fail if u really try it. by turn 2 latest axis know whats going on, and whoops, you die…

    tokyo will never ever be even close to falling  before either moscow or london fall…


  • @atarihuana:

    this is just ridicoulus. a “strat” killing the strongest nation on the board turn6. furthest away from all allied nations. it will simply fail if u really try it. by turn 2 latest axis know whats going on, and whoops, you die…

    tokyo will never ever be even close to falling  before either moscow or london fall…

    Russia falls between Turn 4 and Turn 6.  India is endangered between Turn 6 and Turn 8.  Britain is never in danger.  Any German Fleet will simply get sunk.

    As for Japan, they will be strongest nation for about 1 turn, before their income plummets as fast as it went up.  The only question is which parts go first.

    In the unlikely event that Japan turtles, the plan refocuses around Italy.  American Bombers focus on killing Italy by sinking their fleet, supporting a landing into Africa, and SBRing them into submission.  Britain uses their India IC to advance into Africa or Russia instead


  • About your comment about the German fleet being sunk: the same thing could be said towards the British Fleet. It’s never that cut and dry.

    Also, I would say the British empire is in trouble when Japan takes most of it over J1.

    You seem to be confident that every aspect of this plan will work flawlessly. What if say, the Germans prematurely break through into Moscow before your allotted few turns? What if Japan manages to hold onto it’s newly acquired colonies and fights off or decimates the US fleet? How will that work into your great strategy?

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 7
  • 9
  • 6
  • 7
  • 18
  • 40
  • 62
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts