Allied Strategy Discussion

I’ll send you a PM about a game.

The reason that I’m opposed to Russia leaving anything more than 1 infantry in Karelia is that anything left there should die. What are you leaving there? Germany can send 9 infantry, 6 tanks, plus planes at their discretion(assuming West Russia was the only R1 attack). Any Soviet unit left there R1 is destined to be killed.

If the deadzone concept is new to you, it’s vital knowledge for any player especially when playing Russia and Germany. This paper was for Classic but the idea holds. The author is a little crazy but he’s right about deadzones. It’s long so definitely skim. http://donsessays.freeservers.com/deadzone.htm

Well, I have just played 2games of AA42. One with my sons yesterday on the deluxe map i downloaded here (the tiny map is just not working, it is like playing chess on an euro coin) and one just now on Triple A. The first one i have won for allies after epic battles and 14 hours of play with Japs taking moscow the same round brits took berlin. Then combined US/UK troops pushed the mighty japs back.

Today I have played in a tripleA one game for axis and won against a decent opponent in 3R with Germany controlling all of the original terriotires, kar, arch, AE, and four other afr. teritories, TJ and stacked in bel.

Jap was in ind, pers, austr, bur, sink.

I had 92 IPCs production and my opponent resigned just before his american third move. He could have played some more but it did not look nice for him.

It is true that in the first game I had some outragousely very bad dice rolls, while in the second game i had some favourable ones (but nothing outrageous). Still it seems to me that compared to the revised the rule changes substantially and quite oviously favour AXIS, at least in a classic KGF game.

If ruskies don’t do Nor (and to be sure of taking it, they must sacrifice there one of their so precious figs), Germany can take all UK boats but the SZ1 tran out of Atlantic R1 and with a sub move to SZ7 even prevent UK from putting anything on sea R1. Isn’t that crazy?

The Nor move would also mean Rus not doing Ukr R1 with a harsh pressure developed on cau from the very R1.

the trannies not having any defensive power give axis too much advantage i think. Because japs need them mostly only in their very own sea while the allies really need to do some difficult shuffles to be effective in Atlantic. It seems to me that for the game to be fair the trannies should have some minimal inherent defence like rolling two dice with both combined having to roll on less then three for a hit.

I do not see how the allied startegy outlined above is dealing with the substantial shift of the balance of the sea battles in favour of axis and i tend to agree with the comments posted by funcioneta. In a typical sea battle in revised the D-count and D-punch was 3-4 higher (trannies) then it is now, which can be on its own equal to the bid of 10 or more.

The one thing i am inclined not to agree with funcioneta yet though is that a KJF strategy is an obvious dead end. Actually, it might be true that the changes playing against the allies in the Atlantic might play for them in a carefully executed Contain Jap first strategy that would possibly include an Australian IC with the goal of getting the US to set up at one of the big 4 point islands as soon as possible.

@Advosan:

Pin down Japan:
Goal one, stay at 40 IPC for as much as possible. Russia must garisson Zingiang, at least for 3 rounds! For the love of Stalin’s mustache they must! And the British must make a suicidal Uk1 against Japan’s soft spots, maybe land ftr in China, sink transport definitely. The USSR/Uk must buy the USA some time.
Goal two, beef up the USN after Pearl Harbor. Attacking fleet (4 sub , 3 DD , 2 BB , 1 AC but since 2 fgt+1 BB survived, cost=82 , 42 from USA1 and 40 from USA2).
Goal three, engage the Japanese!!! Land Bomber to Haway in order to assist your attack. Don t let the Japanese attack you, use a DD as “shield” in front of your fleet and hit the japanese by turn 4 or 5.

This is merely the first “phase” of the game. If the Allies endure the 4-5 first turns, then they must alter their  objectives.

Subs and planes work much better against Japan than Battleships. My tactic is to buy as many subs as possible on rounds 1-2 (plus an AC and a DD). With the 82 IPCs from both turns you can get 10 subs (60) + 1 AC (14) + 1 DD (8), also move the DD and the CA from the Atlantic.
What I do is to move 1 sub to each SZ in range of Japan. This will leave J with 2 options: ignore the subs but they will have to concentrate their fleet to defend it; attack the subs but for each attack they will require a DD. If J destroys the sub then the US can attack the J DD with another sub and planes. This will represent a drain on J’s resources (trading a 8 IPC unit to a 6 IPC one).
Another thing you may want to consider is to submerge the US sub on the Hawaiian SZ during the Japanese attack since it will only defend at 1. Then on US1 you can use it, together with the BB, BMR and 2 FTRs to attack J’s fleet on Hawaii.

@Granada:

Still it seems to me that compared to the revised the rule changes substantially and quite oviously favour AXIS, at least in a classic KGF game.

I’m not certain on game balance having only played two decent length games. Germany is weaker in Africa, Allies are weaker in the Atlantic. Germany is also weaker in Europe because they’ll lose a lot more fighters as compared to Revised. Russia attacks Ukraine r1. Germany’s down to 5 fighters. Germany loses a sub and fighter against the British Battleship. Over half the time, Germany loses a fighter against the cruiser. Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany and they have to lose a fighter to close the Suez Canal. It would be typical to see Germany down to just 3 fighters and a bomber by the end of their turn. You can see how I played the Allies in a LL game I attached to demonstrate a KGF. You’ll need the previous version of TripleA.

@Granada:

If ruskies don’t do Nor (and to be sure of taking it, they must sacrifice there one of their so precious figs), Germany can take all UK boats but the SZ1 tran out of Atlantic R1 and with a sub move to SZ7 even prevent UK from putting anything on sea R1. Isn’t that crazy?

Losing the Battleship is probably a lesser evil than Russia having to take Norway and potentially sacrificing a fighter. My PBEM opponent has been experimenting with German bomber buys and he concluded that Germany needed to buy 2 bombers and lose only one fighter in their G1 attacks to prevent the Allies from merging in z8. Yes, this is accounting for the escaping Baltic subs. Unless the Germans build bombers, the Allies can take z8. If the Germans do build bombers, then the British retreat their Canadian transport to US waters, save their money and build fleet next turn and Germany is short on infantry against the Soviets.

@Granada:

I do not see how the allied startegy outlined above is dealing with the substantial shift of the balance of the sea battles in favour of axis and i tend to agree with the comments posted by funcioneta. In a typical sea battle in revised the D-count and D-punch was 3-4 higher (trannies) then it is now, which can be on its own equal to the bid of 10 or more.

In my opinion, the Allies can’t be given a bid greater than 5 if at all(unless you limit one unit per territory but I’m still not convinced it’s needed). With a bid of 10 as you suggested, I could bid 2 inf to Egypt and an artillery to Caucuses. With a bid of 10-11(depending on bid rules like one per territory), I can set Russia up to deliver a Russian triple, knocking out Norway, West Russia, and Ukraine first turn. With a bid of 8, I can give the UK a destroyer in z2 which makes the battle a lot closer, or in z1 so that the German subs can’t escape to z7 and menace the Allies merging in z8.

Sample KGF 42.tsvg

@Fleetwood:

I’m not certain on game balance having only played two decent length games. Germany is weaker in Africa, Allies are weaker in the Atlantic. Germany is also weaker in Europe because they’ll lose a lot more fighters as compared to Revised. Russia attacks Ukraine r1. Germany’s down to 5 fighters. Germany loses a sub and fighter against the British Battleship. Over half the time, Germany loses a fighter against the cruiser. Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany and they have to lose a fighter to close the Suez Canal. It would be typical to see Germany down to just 3 fighters and a bomber by the end of their turn.

Losing the Battleship is probably a lesser evil than Russia having to take Norway and potentially sacrificing a fighter. My PBEM opponent has been experimenting with German bomber buys and he concluded that Germany needed to buy 2 bombers and lose only one fighter in their G1 attacks to prevent the Allies from merging in z8. Yes, this is accounting for the escaping Baltic subs. Unless the Germans build bombers, the Allies can take z8. If the Germans do build bombers, then the British retreat their Canadian transport to US waters, save their money and build fleet next turn and Germany is short on infantry against the Soviets.

Well, I cannot tell, neither, having played also only two games. And I am still quite new so you must be much more experienced player. But in most games I have played or tested in Triple A, Germany was not under four figs and a bomber R1. As you say “Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany”, but Maybe it will not. So typically, when G is doing Ukraine, British BB, AE, and the SZ 13 cruiser, one of the battles goes really bad. You are less then 50 % losing a fig against the BB (precisely 4/9th, unless the russian sub hits), you have definitely less then 25 % losing the fig at AE, you have less then 10 % losing the one at ukr (only a fanatic would push the attack if it does not look well after the first round of rolls), and you have just 50 % losing the one against cr in SZ 13. This I think gives you definitey more then 50 % germany is with 4 figs after R1, but i have not done the precise maths.

I cannot see Germany weaker in Africa either. Is it the russian black sea sub R1 or the Bomber and fighter UK R1 gamble on the batlleship that makes them weaker or what? Let us not forget that both moves are not without a price in that they leave Japan virtually uncontested from R1 which may prove lethal R7 in Moscow.

Now, if I would buy one Bmb, 3arm, 4tnk R1, and atack the SZ 8 with 3figs, 2 bmbs and 2 subs R2 if the allies really dare to set up there, I would be very happy Germany player indeed. Against AC, dd, cr and 2 figs (assuming UK has not lost one sinking my dd) i would have 2 subs, 3 figs and a bmb and it gives me 94 % win, with 3,26 units left (if i have only 2figs and 2 bmbs as you suggest, it gives me 76 % a 2 units alive). In case you have build AC and 2DD UK R1, the math is 78%, 2,25 units with 3fig/ 50% 1,05 units left with 2figs.

Since I would keep building a bomb or a fig a round, the danger would be omnipresent, while allies have lost 100+ IPCs worth of units on the sea and i would be in a position of sinking them once again while japan would be expanding fast, germany would be gaining in africa and keeping balance in the east front with ease.

With Allies not being able to set their foot on European soil before R4-5 and threaten Germany itself effectively before R8-9, with Germany being able to sacrifice their planes for the more dangerous of the convoys for at least one more time and with Japan taking on Moscow R7 with about 18 tanks lots of planes and enough infantry to have a good skew, i cannot really see succesful KGF without extremely lucky dice rolls.

It seems to me that not giving the trannies any minimal defensive power (like 3 or less from two dice rolls) was really a mistake that makes it almost impossible for the allies to set up the convoys in time against a skillful axis player.

@Granada:

I cannot see Germany weaker in Africa either. Is it the russian black sea sub R1 or the Bomber and fighter UK R1 gamble on the batlleship that makes them weaker or what? Let us not forget that both moves are not without a price in that they leave Japan virtually uncontested from R1 which may prove lethal R7 in Moscow.

What makes Germany weaker in Africa than they were in Revised is that in Revised Germany typically got bid units to Libya so that Egypt would be held past UK1. Then the med ships are easier to sink because the transport can’t shoot back or soak a hit. G1 Germany takes Egypt with 1-2 tanks. UK counters with 2-3 inf, cruiser and fighter. Germany counters then their ships are sunk on UK2, they can expect to have 3-4 units in Egypt or split between Egypt and T-J at the end of their turn. The British have 2-3 inf on Persia that they then move to T-J if possible. On US3, the Americans can drop one or two transports down to Congo to clean out the Krauts. Germany can’t expect to make it very far in Africa.

I haven’t had problems leaving Japan uncontested. I’ve let the Kwangtung transport survive and abandoned the Pacific except for the US and UK starting subs which only force Japan to guard their transports and carriers. The only thing the Allies do in the early rounds is position planes in threatening places to Japanese transports, take free SBR’s on Japanese IC’s, or trade territories using the US and UK’s starting units in Asia.

@Granada:

Now, if I would buy one Bmb, 3arm, 4tnk R1, and atack the SZ 8 with 3figs, 2 bmbs and 2 subs R2 if the allies really dare to set up there, I would be very happy Germany player indeed. Against AC, dd, cr and 2 figs (assuming UK has not lost one sinking my dd) i would have 2 subs, 3 figs and a bmb and it gives me 94 % win, with 3,26 units left (if i have only 2figs and 2 bmbs as you suggest, it gives me 76 % a 2 units alive). In case you have build AC and 2DD UK R1, the math is 78%, 2,25 units with 3fig/ 50% 1,05 units left with 2figs.

I got lazy earlier and went with what I had heard from someone else on the G2 potential naval battle and bomber builds. So if Russia takes Ukraine and a Ukraine or Karelia stack isn’t an option, then here’s what I think Germany will/should do with their planes and we can evaluate from there. To attack z2, they need the Norway fighter and the bomber from Germany(as well as the Atlantic sub). To counter Ukraine, they will likely use their Eastern Europe fighter. To assist in taking Egypt, they will use the Balkans fighter. The Ukraine fighter is dead. That leaves two fighters to kill the British cruiser. 47% of the time the Germans lose one fighter, 9% of the time they lose both fighters. Being down to 3 fighters was a slight exaggeration but could happen about a quarter of the time between the battleship and cruiser. More likely the Germans will be at 4 fighters and a bomber plus any purchase.

Here’s the scene in the Atlantic.
Norway - 0-1 fighters, 1 bomber, assorted land units for protection
Western Europe - 2-3 fighters
Libya - 1 fighter
Germany - 1 bomber
z7 - 2 subs, destroyer

If the Germans have only 2 fighters on WE and builds a bomber, then the Allies can safely merge in z8 with a British build of carrier, 2 destroyers. If Germany attacks with 2 subs, 2 fighters, 2 bombers against my sub, 2 destroyers, cruiser, carrier, 2 fighters, and 3 transports the Axis will win only 30% of the time by TripleA’s calculator and 36% of the time by this calculator http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html.

If Germany has 2 subs plus 5 planes in range of z8, then the Allies can’t safely merge in 8 because 65% the Germans would sink them. In this case the UK can build a transport and carrier for z2 and a destroyer to block z8 if there are only 2 bombers in range of z2. If the Germans didn’t lose the Norway fighter, then the UK can build a carrier and destroyer in z2 and a destroyer in z8 to block with. Alternatively, the UK can save income and retreat the Canadian transport into American waters.

I’m curious where you’re getting your probabilities because I don’t think that the battles are as lopsided towards Germany as you say. I’ve been using the TripleA calculator and the one I linked above.

There’s no need to worry about the British losing a fighter killing the German destroyer because the Wus and Eus American fighters can reach sz8 to land on the carrier in the British fighters’ place. In fact, I prefer to send my British fighters to West Russia and my British bomber to Novo on UK1. The British bomber threatens Japanese transports and then on UK 2, if the Med fleet is in either the Egypt seazone or the Black Sea, it can be attacked by 4 planes. This move involves gambling the US bomber against the German destroyer but in my opinion, that’s an acceptable risk. 85% of the time the destroyer goes down and the USA bomber lives 55-60% of the time.

@Granada:

Since I would keep building a bomb or a fig a round, the danger would be omnipresent, while allies have lost 100+ IPCs worth of units on the sea and i would be in a position of sinking them once again while japan would be expanding fast, germany would be gaining in africa and keeping balance in the east front with ease.

Protecting convoys shouldn’t be that difficult as long as the Allies keep Germany’s odds to win around 40% or under. If Germany wipes the Allied navy out, starting from scratch is a real pain. The US will have a cruiser, destroyer, battleship, and will build a carrier. The UK will build a carrier and whatever else is necessary, two destroyers for sure if they can start in z8. If the Indian Ocean carrier is saved, that’s a “free” defensive ship and is a big addition when loaded with fighters.

@Granada:

With Allies not being able to set their foot on European soil before R4-5 and threaten Germany itself effectively before R8-9, with Germany being able to sacrifice their planes for the more dangerous of the convoys for at least one more time and with Japan taking on Moscow R7 with about 18 tanks lots of planes and enough infantry to have a good skew, i cannot really see succesful KGF without extremely lucky dice rolls.

In my two games I set up the Allies for a double landing on Algeria set for round 2. In both games, instead they both landed Europe and the United States landed Africa on the second turn. The Germans gave up WE on G2 and didn’t buy planes right away. My intent was to land Europe on round 3 and I doubt that can be stopped without Germany getting lucky or building more planes than they can afford to. Did you look at the game I attached last post? I think the version it was in was 1110. The game was in Low Luck which would eliminate the “extremely lucky dice rolls” that you claim would be required for a KGF game. The KGF I employed worked beautifully and when Germany was turtled in Russia turned it’s back and pushed Japan out of French Indo and then would have pushed them from India. With strong Allied play, don’t expect to grab Moscow on J7.

@Granada:

It seems to me that not giving the trannies any minimal defensive power (like 3 or less from two dice rolls) was really a mistake that makes it almost impossible for the allies to set up the convoys in time against a skillful axis player.

If it is impossible for the Allies to set up convoys in a veteran game, it’s not the fault of the rules. The rules can be kept, the Allies would just need to start with a destroyer in z2 or something like that and things would be pretty easy in the Atlantic.

Just quick response regarding the maths. Just checked that again at the TripleA battle calculator.

If Germany attacks with 2subs, 2figs, 2bmbs  your set up of 2dd, AC, 2figs and crs the odds are 50 % win,  8 % draw, 42 % lose, attacker units left 1,08.

If you add the one more fig, you would have in most cases, the odds are 78win-5draw-17defender, 2,24 units left.

We may discuss the other ideas like German Africa (there will be no americans in congo R3 if not for a dice luck), and leaving Japan unchecked (i have very little experience with pacific, since i am trying to master the art of killing russia or germany quickly enough) but concerning the Atlantic I really cannot see any way allies get to the SZ2 R2 but with great deal of luck.

UK will have to build what you suggest R2 at SZ2, reinforce it R3 and merge it at the SZ 8 R3 with reinforced US fleet. Only R4 UK now most likely at less then 20 can start building transport, R5 ship the units somewhere, R6 build a real presence at the continent, R7 Japan has 18 tanks, floods of infantry and 6-7 planes attacking Moscow.

In your calculations you aren’t including the Russian sub which in most cases will survive.

The Allies won’t always be able to merge in z8 first turn, we know that. By the end of US2, the Americans can have their starting cruiser, destroyer, and two transports in z8, plus their first turn purchase of as much as 42 IPC’s of defensive navy, plus the British can have as much as 60 IPC’s of defensive navy and you’re telling me that the Allies need to wait until round 3 to even consider a merge in z8?

How about a Play By Forum game to demonstrate this? It doesn’t look like you can be convinced or won’t take the time to look at the game file. We can type the purchase and combat moves then use the forum dice and use Edit Mode to recreate the results in TripleA and then attach the game file to the post. I’ll take Allies. Are you up for it?

Sorry friend, I am here only occationally (vacations etc) and I am really not a frequent player. I do not have time to play-test in any other way then in TripleA. You can find me there from time to time as Granada but I cannot host now.

Regarding the Russian sub, you are correct. I have not inculded it because it survives only if you decide to submerge it during the R1 attack of German sub, fig and bomb on SZ2 before the fight. But it further diminishes the likelihood of the success in this particular battle. You cannot take the potential hit by the sub on it, which is good because it gives your battleship good chance to get at least one plane. If you keep the Russian sub in the fight the likelihood it would survive is about 60 %.

If you include the sub to the R2 battle calculations in the SZ8, you are correct that it changes the odds for the defender in case of 2subs plus four planes on the German side. In case attacker has built a bomber R1 and still has three figs to hit you, the odds for him to win remain 66% with 1,7 units left.

The fact is that the Germans must build a bomber R1 if they want keep the likelihood of Allies merging in SZ 8 with stronger fleet under 50%. R2 you really can prevent them to merge there and R3 you cannot perhaps prevent them to land some troops somewhere. You are perhaps right in that respect.

Still the question whether the Germans will not get their planes to the point when they will sink some of your fleets especially if you decide to split it will be omnipresent and the dynamics of the sea battles in the Atlantic have definitely changed in their favour.