Basic Philosphy Question; Which is better?



  • Do you believe that the way to win is through battle? and therefore the strategy is to position your troops such that the outcome of a battle favors your side.

    OR

    Do you believe that this is basically a game of economic advantage?  and therefore the strategy should be to place your units to derive maximum economic value from each turn (or to deny your opponent the ability to derive maximum economic value from his turn).

    I am not a noobie to the game, but this is my first post.  I really welcome any comments even if you think I am a total ignorant bastard (lol).



  • IMHO, it is both.

    For the Axis, it is through Battle.  Time is against you, therefore you must knock out one of your enemies sooner rather than later.  When you fight, you must win.  The economy, while still important, is not as necessary as marching to Moscow or sailing to London.

    For the Allies, it is through Economic Advantage.  You need to build up.  You need to coordinate.  Winning all your battles is not as important as the constant flow of troops and material to the front.



  • Not sure I agree with you here.  I think you’ve got it reversed.  The allies start the game with such a huge over all economic advantage that I feel Germany and Japan must alter that basic dynamic.  This is very difficult to do on a “Game-Wide” basis. However, Germany and Japan definitely can quickly put USSR on the economic disadvantage with two moves:

    1. Strategic Bombing coupled with rocket development.  Germany maintains a bomber in Eastern Europe and conducts Strategic Bombing Run (SBR) against Russia proper from round one on.  They also commit 15 IPC’s to develop rockets until successful and move the Southern Europe AA gun to the Balkans.This should give you 3 turns of denying Russia and average of ~9 IPC’s/round (I rounded down to be conservative and the bomber has less than a 50/50 chance of lasting beyond 3 rounds) for a net gain of 8 IPCs in the Eastern Front (also a gain of 10 IPCs on the Western front with no net loss because I allocated the entire value of development to the East.) providing you get the rockets in turn one (about a 40/60chance).

    2. Japan opens with an Industrial Center to be built in French Indo-China and a bomber.  They use their existing bomber in the attack on China and land it in French Indo-China.  Japan also moves its AA gun from Japan to Manchuria, and pushes north to capture Buryatia and West to Capture China.  By the second round Japan is launching its own industrial bombing run on Russia proper out of FIC.  They now develop rockets on their own and if successful buy another AA gun and two tanks for FIC.  The AA gun is moved from Manchuria to China and now can attack Russia proper.  Japan continues to press the northern route out of Japan pushing USSR out of Sov Far East and Yakut and threatening both Novosibirsk and Evenki in round 3.  Thus By round three Japan is also hitting Russia with a loss of ~9 IPC’s plus denying the earning of 3 IPC from Siberia (Bury, SFE, and Yak) for a potential loss of 12+ IPC’s

    Since the USSR only starts with 24 IPC and really only gain 6 IPC’s back by pushing on the dead zones of West Russia and Belorussia or Ukraine, they are looking at a situation of only earning a net 8-10 IPC’s a turn. I haven’t actually tried this, but have been toying around with the idea in playing myself.  I just don’t see how they can resist Japan with only being able to add 3 INF or so to the board a turn.

    What do you think?


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    It is a game of attrition.

    You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

    It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

    Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?



  • I would liken the struggle to a comparrison of kinetic and potential energy.  The Axis start with more kinetic energy (Combat Units in position to be used) but less potential energy (immediate IPC income levels).

    Under normal circumstances, the game hinges on whether the Axis can convert their kinetic energy into a greater share of the available potential energy, before the Allies accumulate adequate kinetic energy of their own to prevent the Axis from accomplishing their goal.

    Remember, in this description kinetic energy is defined as combat units in a position to be used.  Not only do the Allies have to build more fighting units, they have to build transports and defend them adequately to get the fighting units into the fight.



  • In answer to your question, yes. Pick smart economical battles where you can kill more of them than they can kill of you.

    I think if Germany pours 15/turn into Rockets, they run a big risk of seeing a Soviet stack in Ukraine even if they get the tech within the first 3 rounds. There are few things better for the Allies than a Russian stack in Ukraine. If it’s developed on G3, the cost is the equivalent of 15 infantry. As the Allies, I’m more afraid of 15 German infantry complimenting Germany’s tank stack in Ukraine than Germany bombing and rocketing Russia if my comrades are stacked in Ukraine and trading Balkans with the Reich. Germany then has to protect EE from a UK amphibious assault with a Russian follow up(maybe America too?), they have to consider a UK/US amphibious on Berlin and a canopener on Balkans allowing Soviet tanks to rush in to grab the German capital. If the Germans are forced to pull from EE, then they cannot send rockets to Moscow or their bomber(if it’s still around) unless it lands in Japanese territory.

    I haven’t tried either of these ideas. I’m not crazy about tech, I don’t play with it. As someone who hasn’t tried this, I think that Japan’s focus should be to get more units to the front and to hold off on the bombers until later on. My thing with bombers is that I’ve had bombers go down in the first few raids and bombers that last all game, you don’t know what return you’ll get from bombers intended for SBR’s.

    A strategy that hinges so much on getting a tech early, not getting shot down by aa guns, and rolling high at the right times does not appeal to me. It looks like more of a crapshoot victory that relies more on luck than a more traditional strategy would. Maybe I’m just too cynical of anything out of the ordinary.



  • I think this variability in tech rolls and SBRs is what makes the win-loss ratios closer to 50%.  USA can risk some money on early bombers to hurt Germany.  The UK can risk some money because without SBRs and rockets they can’t do much for a few turns directly in Europe.  The rest have real decisions to make about tech.



  • I have been playing with this strategy and I have come to a few conclusions:

    If Germany moves its AA gun in SE Europe to the Balkans and if Japan takes India quickly-securing its AA gun, the Axis can have 4 rocket attacks and two bomber attacks on USSR with only the purchase of one AA gun and Industrial Center by Japan in French Indo China plus the cost of development by both Japan and Germany.  If the Axis were able to get in this position they will bring an average of 3.5 IPC losses to the USSR from each rocket (even on the Caucuses because any roll over 4 still takes four IPC’s and 4 is greater than the average roll of 3.5) for a 14 IPC loss from rockets alone.  The two bombers will contribute an additional 7 IPC loss 70% of the time (the odds of both bombers getting through) and 3.5 IPC loss 97% of the time (the odds of no bomber getting through is 16.66% * 16.66%=2.77%).  Thus the Axis should be able to bring a 17 to 21 IPC loss the vast majority of the time resulting in a near incapacity for the USSR to build new units by the third turn.  This does not take into account the losses of IPC’s by England from the Western Europe rockets or any losses by the USA if Japan moves its homeland AA gun to Wake, or the permanent losses in IPC’s from capturing USSR territory.

    Obviously, if the Allies can threaten Germany by the third round the money would be wasted and potentially a crippling loss to the Axis.  I doubt such a serious challenge can be mounted against Germany that quickly however.

    I believe the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of this strategy succeeding.  Of course it is relying on a dice roll, but so is every action in this game.

    Without changing the economic dynamic of the game, I believe the Allies are the definite favorite to win.  My own empirical experience is that the allies win 4 in 5.  The reason why this strategy is compelling is the fact that so many of the pieces necessary for its success are already in place by the start of the game and the necessary investment to complete the strategy is relatively minor compared to its potential payoff: Domination over USSR very quickly!

    The Allies have far fewer pieces in place at the beginning of the game if you don’t allow USSR to develop rockets (Their resources are just too meager to try), and Germany starts from a position of vastly superior economic strength.  Thus, the Allies must spend much more money and effort to produce a result with less impact.  Besides the Allies already have an economic advantage which they need to leverage in to winning battles.

    In conclusion (sorry for the long post), I am not suggesting that rocket development and SBR are the only paths to victory for the Axis—just a high probability play.  But overall, I think that for the Axis ECONOMIC CONCERNS must dictate their strategy and for the Allies TACTICAL CONCERNS must dictate their strategy.

    What do you think?



  • @ABridgeTooFar:

    … and if Japan takes India quickly-securing its AA gun

    most UK players move the india AA gun to persia and then caucus.  they don’t give it to you.

    @ABridgeTooFar:

    (even on the Caucuses because any roll over 4 still takes four IPC’s and 4 is greater than the average roll of 3.5)

    no, even if you play with the box rules, if you roll [1,2,3,4,5,6], the damage would be [1,2,3,4,4,4], which is an average of 3.0 per rocket strike.

    @ABridgeTooFar:

    the Axis can have 4 rocket attacks and two bomber attacks on USSR.  Thus the Axis should be able to bring a 17 to 21 IPC loss the vast majority of the time resulting in a near incapacity for the USSR to build new units by the third turn.

    i mostly agree with the analysis.  with a rocket attack on moscow (3.5) + rocket attack on cauc (3) + BMR raid on moscow over 1 AA gun (2.9) = average damage of 9.4 IPCs.  if you do this with japan, then another 9.4 IPCs of average damage.  an average of 18.8 IPCs, about what you said.  i agree that ~19 IPCs of damage would be backbreaking.  but…

    @ABridgeTooFar:

    I believe the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of this strategy succeeding.  Of course it is relying on a dice roll, but so is every action in this game.

    maybe i can convince you otherwise.

    1. what is your replacement bomber policy?  if the german bomber gets shot down, do you buy a replacement?  do you buy a replacment japanese bomber?  if so, yeah, you do 3.5 IPCs of damage when you don’t get shot down, but you have to buy a new bomber 1/6th of the time, for an average damage of 2.5 IPCs to your economy.  plus the allies can position their AA guns so that at least one of the two bombers will be fired at at least twice to make a run on moscow.

    2. what exactly is your research policy going to be?  spend 1 research die a round per power (16.6%)?  2 (30.5%)?  3 (42.1%)?  more?  the axis only starts with a 70 IPC income, and if they spend 30 IPCs on research, then they spent almost 1/2 their income on something other than boots and ships.  if you fail to get rockets the first try (likely) with either power, do you just keep trying until you do?  i assume so.

    3. plus, if japan moves its original AA gun to wake, japan has to buy 2 more AA guns to fire on moscow (10 IPCs).  plus it looks like you plan to build an IC (15 IPCs) on the mainland to produce them.  then you have to build them and move them into position.  that’s 25 IPCs more that doesn’t do boots/ships.

    4. it appears to me that your J1 plan is to build 1 IC on the mainland and buy 3 research die.  J2 you would buy an AA there, maybe buy more research.  on J3 you would move the AA into position, and it could finally fire the first time on J4.  in short–you spend the first few turns doing nothing but setting up for a rocket attack.  you are leaving yourself wide open for USA to sweep in and take away your islands and kill your fleet.

    5. germany will have to move 1 AA gun to eastern europe, and the other to balkins for this plan.  the allied fleets can threaten both your AA guns here, and russia might stack ukraine since germany will be troop light.

    @ABridgeTooFar:

    the necessary investment to complete the strategy is relatively minor compared to its potential payoff: Domination over USSR very quickly!

    what?  minor?  even if you get the tech on the 1st round of 15IPCs for both axis powers.  adding in the IC and 2 AA guns, you’ve spent 55 IPCs to invest in rockets.  that’s a lot.  not counting the other IPCs you lose by forgetting to build troops to defend/exchange your territories, it will take you ~3 rounds of rocketing/bombing to do enough damage to get paid back.  plus both axis powers will be on their heels trying to stay alive long enough for their rocket investment to payoff–the US and UK pretty much have free reign.



  • I think dinosaur summed up Revised pretty well overall.

    I don’t play with Techs and use the Larry Harris Tournament Rules, but I do like to occasionally play an Axis strategy of Strategic Bombing Russia. Even with techs I probably would not go for Rockets. While the rockets are not vulnerable to AA hits they are also only useful for Industrial Attacks. Bombers on the other hand can be used to back up ground attacks or with Japan flatten the US fleet when it gets in range. I have posted this strategy before in some detail so it is around here buried in a thread somewhere.

    With my approach Germany buys 1 bomber round 1 and round 2. They use those against Russia until they are shot down. Japan buys 2 bombers round 1 and 1 bomber per turn after that. Japanese bombers are stationed in China, this way they can reach the sea zones where Japan’s high income islands are at if need be. With Germany I send 2 bombers to Russia and 1 to Caucasus, with Japan it is 3 bombers to Russia and 2 to Caucasus. If Japan is doing well and not loosing bombers it can be worthwhile to land some in Eastern Europe and bomb England as well. I have even had a couple of games where Japan was Strategic Bombing all three Allies (US out of Hawaii).

    I have found that this strategy can be surprisingly effective. While it can go bad with some early AA hits it does not take long at all for Russia to be in very bad shape. While there are some less Axis ground units on the board I find that these are easily offset by the lack of Russian units, and the need for the Allies to quickly reinforce Russia. Buying AA guns with Russia is not much of a help either as these must be defended and a round or two of tank buys by Japan can make this a huge problem for Russia.

    Since we seem to have a new crowd here now in the AAR section I will see if I can find the thread with the Axis SBR strategy laid out in detail and bump it.



  • @frimmel:

    It is a game of attrition.

    You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

    It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

    Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?

    It isnt quite that easy though. Sometimes you can go into a battle where you expect to lose more value units but you can afford those losses while the other side cannot afford them. Destroying 32 worth of transports but losing 36 worth in units in the process might be worth it.


  • Official Q&A 2007 AAR League

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @frimmel:

    It is a game of attrition.

    You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

    It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

    Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?

    It isnt quite that easy though. Sometimes you can go into a battle where you expect to lose more value units but you can afford those losses while the other side cannot afford them. Destroying 32 worth of transports but losing 36 worth in units in the process might be worth it.

    I couldn’t claim that it is easy but it is a ‘basic phlosophy.’ Yes there are times when coming out behind on unit value leaves you ahead in another way but basically losing by 4 in the situation you describe creates other favorable battles or prevents territory loss earning those 4 you ‘lost’ back keeping you ahead economically and allowing you to create mre favorable battles. .


  • '10

    IMHO, it is both.

    For the Axis, it is through Battle.  Time is against you, therefore you must knock out one of your enemies sooner rather than later.  When you fight, you must win.  The economy, while still important, is not as necessary as marching to Moscow or sailing to London.

    For the Allies, it is through Economic Advantage.  You need to build up.  You need to coordinate.  Winning all your battles is not as important as the constant flow of troops and material to the front.

    I pretty much agree with way2slo.  It’s both.

    The Axis start the game at an economic disadvantage but at a military advantage.  Meaning that their armies start in concentrated force and it good position.  The Axis survival depends on aggressive battles and quick expansion.  But they must make sure that the Allies losses are much greater then their own.  The Axis cannot afford to break even or lose.

    The Allies are just the opposite.  They start at an economic advantage but at a military disadvantage.  Militarily they are too spread out to make any major military offensive.  They need to take whatever military forces they do have in the beginning to cause enough damage to slow or stall the Axis until they have time to build up and move their forces into major battles. Because they are at an economical advantage.  Allies can afford to take losses but only if it slows or stalls the Axis offensive.



  • @frimmel:

    It is a game of attrition.

    You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

    It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

    Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?

    This sums up my philosophy perfectly.  I am a very risk-averse, methodical and boring AA player.  I feel that the entire game boils down to the conflict between Germany and Russia. Germany and Russia want to create a horde of infantry that is so big that it is dumb to attack it.  In order to do this one should buy nothing but infantry and stockpile them all on the front lines in the same territory.  The only reason to buy a unit other than infantry is if you already think you are going to win and you don’t want to suffer through a 30 round game.  The reason why infantry are so good is because having twice as many units as your opponent is generally enough to win a battle no matter what the units are (if you don’t believe me attack 50 tanks with 100 infantry and see if the tanks ever win).  Also, all of the units you will lose will be… infantry so you can replace them cheaply. If you do not have twice as many units as your opponent then you do not enter into that battle.  This means not exposing small armies.  With Germany and Russia I always end up with exactly as many tanks and artillery I start with.  I simply do not put them within reach of a bigger army.  Usually a capital falls when something like 60 infantry and whatever other units attack about 40 infantry and whatever units.  This is an extremely low odds low risk attack and is exactly what I wait to do for the entire game.  Hopefully the opponent will buy tanks or artillery (artillery are the worst piece that you can buy) so that you can have double an army sooner.  Buying tanks and artillery is not going to keep up with your opponent buying infantry.  This means that you will never make an attack on their horde and your horde will be more susceptible to attack.  In summary:

    build giant hordes of infantry because any time a giant horde of infantry goes against an army that is half its size the smaller army will suffer horrible attrition and the horde will not.  This results in a huge economic advantage in the long run.



  • I will disagree that pure infantry buys are the way to go in Revised. They are certainly the most cost effective defensive units, nobody will dispute that. Russia especially needs the mobility and a Classic 8 infantry buy will allow Germany to stack Karelia first turn. My response as Germany against that build is to commit 1-2 cardinal sins in your book. On G1 I will build something along the lines of 10 infantry, 2 tanks or worse - 6 infantry, 3 artillery, and 2 tanks. In any case, I will be able to hold Karelia first turn unless you have 9 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks, 2 fighters able to counter. The two tanks are to provide immediate reinforcement to Karelia next turn as well as landing fighters there. Depending on how significant the threats are to Western Europe and Karelia, I may even abandon Western Europe on G2 and turn it into a trading zone so I can continue march east on Russia.

    The rationale behind the Soviets building offensive pieces isn’t necessarily to attack a forward Axis stack, but to delay that stack from advancing by turning territories surrounding West Russia for example into deadzones. Stationing tanks in Russia with an infantry stack in West Russia, and a handful of infantry in Caucuses and Novo will allow Russia to simultaneously threaten Karelia, Ukraine, Belo, Persia, Sinkiang, and Yakut.



  • Just a note on artillery. You list an example of attacking 50 tanks with 100 infantry. The attacker wins 96% of the time and the average result is the attacker wins with the loss of 61 infantry. Suppose that the attacker spends the same 300 IPC’s on 60 infantry and 30 artillery to kill the 50 tanks. The attacker wins 100% of the time and the average result now is that the attacker wins only losing 40 infantry. Now suppose the defender spends their income in the most cost effective way - infantry. 250 IPC’s can buy 83 infantry. 60 infantry, 30 artillery vs. 83 infantry is a 70% win for the attacker with an average loss of 60 infantry and 15 artillery.

    See for yourself. http://frood.net/aacalc/

    The point is that artillery are cost-effective offense and aren’t useless. However, since they only have a range of 1 like infantry, they have limited tactical value.



  • @Fleetwood:

    I will disagree that pure infantry buys are the way to go in Revised. They are certainly the most cost effective defensive units, nobody will dispute that. Russia especially needs the mobility and a Classic 8 infantry buy will allow Germany to stack Karelia first turn. My response as Germany against that build is to commit 1-2 cardinal sins in your book. On G1 I will build something along the lines of 10 infantry, 2 tanks or worse - 6 infantry, 3 artillery, and 2 tanks. In any case, I will be able to hold Karelia first turn unless you have 9 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks, 2 fighters able to counter. The two tanks are to provide immediate reinforcement to Karelia next turn as well as landing fighters there. Depending on how significant the threats are to Western Europe and Karelia, I may even abandon Western Europe on G2 and turn it into a trading zone so I can continue march east on Russia.

    The rationale behind the Soviets building offensive pieces isn’t necessarily to attack a forward Axis stack, but to delay that stack from advancing by turning territories surrounding West Russia for example into deadzones. Stationing tanks in Russia with an infantry stack in West Russia, and a handful of infantry in Caucuses and Novo will allow Russia to simultaneously threaten Karelia, Ukraine, Belo, Persia, Sinkiang, and Yakut.

    Abandoning Western Europe is a very reasonable thing to do.  I am reluctant to criticize any strategy with Germany because you can play perfectly and still lose badly.  They are doomed.  My issue with offensive units is that you start with plenty.  As long as you never expose them to risk then you will always have them and so you are capable of taking a territory without losing too many infantry.  I have played the stack infantry with Russia strategy over and over again and I have always succeeded in holding Russia.  My strategy with uk is to start dropping guys into Norway until i have force big enough to put a lot of pressure on Germany.  They simply can’t win a two front war.  I have gone to Russia with as much force as possible with Japan and they never get there in time.  I always stack 10 guys in East Russia off the coast and that can hold for quite a while.  When it gets threatened I just back up.  Also with the US I build transports, tanks, and infantry until I can bring over like 30 guys.  I have a more in-depth analysis on why artillery are the worst unit in the game to buy.  You are right about my specific example of attacking tanks.  That example was more to illustrate the efficiency of infantry.  An even better idea than infantry and artillery is infantry and tanks.  I’m not positive what the most effective ratio is but you have to keep in mind defense after you win.  Also the extra movement for tanks.



  • In practice, infantry and tanks are better than infantry and artillery for the added defense and mobility. However, infantry and artillery are more cost effective offensive units at distance 1. The problem with your artillery analysis is that you’re assuming that the attacker will have a huge battle, then their artillery are one step ahead of their infantry and therefore inefficient. Let me tell you, this doesn’t happen. Offensive units that Russia and Germany purchase are 90% of the time purely for threat and in the case of tanks, mobile defense. And with the Soviets, if supply lines ever become a problem, you’ve won. Any time a truly big battle happens and the infantry are depleted, either someone made a mistake that will likely cost them the game, or a capitol fell.

    Certainly Germany is well served by lots of infantry but if changing 5 infantry of my build to 3 tanks will keep the Allies out of Karelia for a round, why not do it? That’s one more round they aren’t trickling units into Russia, one more round they aren’t trading Belo, and one more round that Eastern is under relatively minor pressure. In the same way, if an artillery build will delay Japan from holding Novo another round, I’ll do it.

    Having the UK build up Norway until a Karelia stack is safe is the basic strategy and I do the same. Often, I’ll send the Brits to Algeria first.

    @Papasmurph:

    I am reluctant to criticize any strategy with Germany because you can play perfectly and still lose badly.  They are doomed.  My issue with offensive units is that you start with plenty.  As long as you never expose them to risk then you will always have them and so you are capable of taking a territory without losing too many infantry.

    Have you played with bids to even the game yet? Germany isn’t completely doomed. Typical ranges are from 6-9 IPC’s in pre-placed units and any unspent bid money becomes extra IPC’s to spend in the first round. How do you define “plenty” of offensive units? If building 2 tanks G1 allows Germany to hold Karelia until the infantry waves arrive starting G3, so be it! Infantry is the best buy but I think you underestimate the tactical value of tanks. 44 IPC’s to me is 13 inf, 1 tank - not 14 inf, save 2.

    Have you used your Japanese fighters to hold German territory or taken Africa with japan?

    Do you have time for a play by forum game of Revised? If you haven’t done it before, I can show you the ropes. It’s hard to evaluate someone as a player by just their posts. All I know so far is we both have diarrhea at the keyboard.

    Ratios.xls



  • @frimmel:

    It is a game of attrition.

    You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

    It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

    Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?

    I completely agree here. However I think it is important to keep in mind that the loss of a capital is denying a entire nation its income, indefinitely(hopefully). that’s why the battles seem more important because all the economic weight is placed in one place. A lot easier to blow a bank up than to individually rob people.  Another important party in the economics of it is Time.(projection power). if you’re marching to moscow the troops in Germany are no help to you this turn. So this is my argument to do with tanks. Tanks essentially increase your tempo by 1. Tanks are important buys offensively because of the tempo and the fact infantry are for defence.(as pointed out already). Call me old school but I remember this article on yahoo.(Caspian sub???) it talked about skew and shields. infantry cost less so they have to die before the more costly units. (why i would prefer any day 5 inf and 1 tank to 4 tanks)

    So really I think this game comes down to maximizing available force. (increasing income, killing units and defending your own units both directly and indirectly)



  • @Fleetwood:

    In practice, infantry and tanks are better than infantry and artillery for the added defense and mobility. However, infantry and artillery are more cost effective offensive units at distance 1. The problem with your artillery analysis is that you’re assuming that the attacker will have a huge battle, then their artillery are one step ahead of their infantry and therefore inefficient. Let me tell you, this doesn’t happen. Offensive units that Russia and Germany purchase are 90% of the time purely for threat and in the case of tanks, mobile defense. And with the Soviets, if supply lines ever become a problem, you’ve won. Any time a truly big battle happens and the infantry are depleted, either someone made a mistake that will likely cost them the game, or a capitol fell.

    I am definitely assuming that the attacker will have a huge battle.  I am coming from the standpoint of a very risk averse player.  I hate losing any units except for infantry so my battles tend to be of the sort where I can definitely take the territory and then hold it until the next round without being attacked by an army larger than mine.  I don’t like battles with small amounts of units because that leaves a lot to chance and since I assume that I am the better player taking chances is the only way to lose.  In my experience capitols fall in big battles and taking capitols is the way you win.  Often I will take a few turns to take the capitol by attacking and retreating and doing it again.  I do this because I always have a stream of infantry coming and I don’t want to get into a situation where I barely win and end up losing tanks and fighters.  I totally agree that if Russia is worried about supply lines then they have already won.  It is different for Germany though because they have to fight on two fronts.  That is why I would ALWAYS rather have 4 tanks than 5 artillery when I am getting close to a major battle.  I also think that infantry pose more of a threat than most people realize.

    Certainly Germany is well served by lots of infantry but if changing 5 infantry of my build to 3 tanks will keep the Allies out of Karelia for a round, why not do it? That’s one more round they aren’t trickling units into Russia, one more round they aren’t trading Belo, and one more round that Eastern is under relatively minor pressure. In the same way, if an artillery build will delay Japan from holding Novo another round, I’ll do it.

    Who cares about Karelia?  There is no IC there, and it is worth 3 IPCs.

    Having the UK build up Norway until a Karelia stack is safe is the basic strategy and I do the same. Often, I’ll send the Brits to Algeria first.

    I never bother squabbling over Africa.  The main struggle is to take Germany or take Russia.  Germany can stand to lose 2 IPCs.  In fact I always transport my guys from Africa back to Europe.  I would completely abandon it except that my transport gets killed before I can use it the second time.

    @Papasmurph:

    I am reluctant to criticize any strategy with Germany because you can play perfectly and still lose badly.  They are doomed.  My issue with offensive units is that you start with plenty.  As long as you never expose them to risk then you will always have them and so you are capable of taking a territory without losing too many infantry.

    Have you played with bids to even the game yet? Germany isn’t completely doomed. Typical ranges are from 6-9 IPC’s in pre-placed units and any unspent bid money becomes extra IPC’s to spend in the first round. How do you define “plenty” of offensive units? If building 2 tanks G1 allows Germany to hold Karelia until the infantry waves arrive starting G3, so be it! Infantry is the best buy but I think you underestimate the tactical value of tanks. 44 IPC’s to me is 13 inf, 1 tank - not 14 inf, save 2.

    No, I have never played with bids and I can see why that would make for a much more interesting game.  I define plenty as whatever Russia and Germany start with.  I guess about 20 for Germany and a dozen for Russia.  I agree about the 44 IPC situation.  I would not, however, buy 12 infantry and 2 artillery.

    Have you used your Japanese fighters to hold German territory or taken Africa with japan?

    My basic strategy with Japan is to take Asia as quickly and decisively as possible.  I buy infantry the first round with two transports and then tanks and infantry and then nothing but tanks.  Every now and then I get to Russia in time to be relevant.  I do fly my fighters when it becomes clear that Asia is wiped out.  No, I never go after Africa period.

    Do you have time for a play by forum game of Revised? If you haven’t done it before, I can show you the ropes. It’s hard to evaluate someone as a player by just their posts. All I know so far is we both have diarrhea at the keyboard.

    I would love to play a game some time.  I would have to find some time to do it though.  I think we are both good enough that the game will take about…. a week.  Also, I don’t really play with the victory cities.  I usually just play until either Russia or Germany falls and then call it quits.  If we did a 10 victory city game I would have to seriously reconsider my strategy.



  • Okay, send me a private message when you’re free to start a forum game. The conditions would probably be when someone surrenders, I don’t really pay a lot of attention to Victory Cities either. I think I’ll bid 8 to take the Axis. That means if you want to play the Axis, then you get to place 7 IPC’s in units before the game begins or you play the Allies and I place 8 IPC’s in units before the game starts.

    I can see how the Axis would struggle if they transport out of Africa rather than taking Egypt on G1.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 12
  • 9
  • 13
  • 6
  • 28
  • 5
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

91
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts