If USA commits towards the Atlantic, recognize that germany’s main goal is to survive. Try to maximize infantry purchases each round with rare exception. Trading territories back and forth very efficiently is okay, but avoid large trades such as trading germany air for Allied navy.

Check every round whether allies can safely stack Northeast Europe or France. It’s absolutely critical to calculate this each round and have enough units in reach to prevent this. You don’t actually have to occupy France and in many cases occupying France is inefficient.

Try to position to stack Karelia and check every round if you’re able to. Getting UK and US bottled up in Sweden is a very common way that axis wins.

Japan buying mostly infantry and tanks will be able to start trading with Russia starting round 3 around kazakh. Japan with starting air can trade very efficiently, and this weakens Russia. Japan should focus on expanding income. Taking india is not necessary and in many cases suboptimal for Japan to try.

The bomber in ukraine makes it a very volatile battle. It’s definitely a problem with the map setup currently that the outcome is so variable on something that can’t be controlled round 1. If it’s any consolation, Axis still have a substantial advantage and can consistently win even with bad luck. On the other hand, Allies might as well resign if ukraine goes badly.

The ideal buy for UK1 is 3 inf, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer. This creates a UK navy round 1 that can start trading with Germany round 2. If this is not possible, 3 units and fighters. Always buy 3 land units in India if at all possible. This priority is above even creating a UK navy.

A key point about defending India is that UK fighters should be sent within reach of landing in India round 3. Ideally landing West Russia round 2. With 3 purchases in india Round 1-3 and all available fighters arriving in india, Allies can usually hold.

Hit sz61 with a fighter and cruiser. All other exchanges in the Pacific are unfavorable round 1. Better to wait until round 3 when US fleet is in Pacific (assuming it’s a KJF). Uk can either merge with USA fleet or trade east Indies round 3.

@djensen I agree, familiarizing with the interface takes experience but that seems inherent to any game physical or virtual. The lack of undo is IMO the largest difference currently compared to the physical board. I have spoken to the devs and it is mainly that the current game architecture doesn’t store much historical game state information. This is necessary for an undo.

@Imperious-Leader I agree with your comments about the difficulty loading transports. I largely prefer the Triplea UI. However, I have to give Beamdog compliment for the ranked game system and the fidelity to the game rules. Allowing retreats with amphibious units, inability to both bombard and do a naval battle, probably some others I forgot. Having played hundreds if not thousands of Triplea games, I was amazed at the rules I thought, but where I was really incorrect.

On the randomness of dice… The dice are a uniform 1d6 distribution and independent. I also thought the single last defender hit too much, but then realized that it’s simply the dice UI that exaggerates the last hit. I applied a chi-square test both on rolls in general and for the last defender hit, and was satisfied. You’re welcome to replicate: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70802/how-can-i-test-whether-a-die-is-fair

@Boston_NWO

I’ve previously gone by other names such as Salta, Sanfrancisco, MarineIguana.

@Imperious-Leader Coming from my experience as statistician and coder, i’m suspicious of assertions on data hypotheses that are based on anecdotal experience rather than a statistical test. The human mind is rife with biases that hinder accurate statistical inferences. Additionally, the PRNG number generation is so established in the major coding languages, that I seriously doubt any developer would alter to make non-random die result. If you’re concerned about the randomness of the dice, record 300-400 observations which is achievable within a single game of A&A. The apply a Chi-square test.

@Brian-Cannon

Deadzone is a territory that a player can’t move a stack of units without the opponent threatening to attack it profitably. Germany should trade Ukraine with fighters and just enough land to retake. Do not attempt to stack. Don’t leave any infantry in belorussia. Germany battleship and transport and hit Ukraine Round 1 if Russia got an especially nice round 1. In fact I favor this over trans Jordan in many cases.

The key lesson is to trade efficients and don’t engage in stack battles where many units are lost. Germany can safely stack 2 territories and eventually 3. By round 20, the Germany stacks will exceed 60 units and are hard to kill.

The sz7 is 3 sub, Cru, 2 fig. Possibly 2 subs if you are a risk taker. I strongly recommend a battle calculator if you aren’t using. The difference of one cruiser is stark.

R1: Stack Karelia if possible. If not, tanks in Poland, infantry in baltic. Aim to threaten to stack Karelia R2 and onwards. Completely evacuate from France.

Germany if Allies commit to killing Germany is actually remarkably easy.

Each round, ensure that allies can’t stack france or Northwest Territories. Second, stack Karelia if possible and otherwise position in poland and baltic to aim to stack next round. Avoid engaging in any battles. 15-20 rounds later, Allies are forced to move from Moscow or take a -200 battle.

1. As allies doing KGF, do not fear trading Germany air for your navy on even or moderate loss terms.

2. Germany air purchases means less land units, shift every single available Russia unit towards Germany and trade as much as possible every turn. Realize that Germany air often has to choose between using the fighters to trade vs placing in the most anti-allies navy position of France. More Russia units makes it more painful for Germany to keep air in France.

3. The more Germany air, the less attractive to split allies navy. At worst, allies can trade or severely pressure northwest territory and France.

4. USA bomber purchases are very effective in kgf. Can attack outright or SBR. The purchase immediately places pressure on France. By Germany round 3, Germany must place about 20 units in France to make a safe stack against optimized allies kgf. This nearly guarantees allies stacking karelia if axis does so.

The ranking are competitive and the high ranked player win far more they lose to get there. And these players overwhelmingly do not build naval units in the Baltic round 1. This should give anyone interested in winning pause about whether it is a good line of play. Maybe someone can innovate in a way that shows a large body of evidence wrong, but strong claims require strong evidence.

The Baltic round 1 buy is problematic because Germany has extremely strong and reliable lines with a standard 11 inf 2 art buy that reliably can take Russia by round 9. By investing in the Baltic, Germany gives up this valuable opportunity.

Second, UK has simple strong counter play to prevent a decisive win. This is an 10 infantry buy with 7 or 8 placed in the UK. This ensures over 99% safety of UK round 2. With USA navy buy round 1, it is nearly guaranteed that allies have a navy around UK by round 3.

By going Baltic round 1, Germany does an all-in where it must capture UK quickly to have a good chance of winning. This goal is easily frustrated by a reliable response that does not depend on luck.

@domanmacgee i want to point out that in about 60 percent of my games as axis I dont take india as japan until round 8 or later. Often Moscow falls before India does in my games. Build a factory and infantry push to moscow, and Allies are stuck with 10-20 units in india doing absolutely nothing.

India is this shiny object for many intermediate Japan players. It is a very risky play. The round 3 timing is the strongest point and even then favors Allies by 3-4 units. As Japan, I wait for an allies mistake like overextending africa, misposition russia, misposition uk fighterd before I even consider

Subs are by far the most cost efficient naval attack purchase. Surprisingly, they do okay in defense as well since hit points are so important. Japan should only buy subs if usa purchases pacific naval units round one. Since subs have more attack than defense, the usual dynamic is that two fleets are 3 spaces apart. The stronger navy will try to move to two spaces, either through enough defensive strength or with destroyer blockers. The other side has the choice of building up defense, countering similarly with blockers, or retreating.

3 transports, 3 infantry is an all around flexible and powerful round 1 purchase. If UK attacks japan sz37, this strongly suggests KJF and a buy of 1 trans, 3 sub 1 inf might be more appropriate.

@brian-cannon I think the key is for Germany to stack ukr, trade cauc, and prevent russia from stacking cauc. Russia is forced to trade karelia and cauc. Russia will want to trade belorussia. Russia can’t afford to stack karelia because germany will move into Caucasus. This 3 territory trading, especially if germany leaves more than 1 inf in karelia and cauc will quickly exhaust Russia.

Germany buys max infantry every round and allows uk to trade france & northwest europe. Germany shouldn’t overcommit to defending western europe. Focus resources on pushing to moscow. Once Cauc is stacked, winning is within sight.

As Quintin said, 9 units to Ukraine, 12 units to west Russia. On both battles, essentially attack until all units of one side are dead and avoid retreating. This takes a lot of russian and germany units off the table, simplifying the game space and working towards allies objective of weakening Germany.

21 units to wrus only is playable, but the consensus is it’s not as strong. It leaves Germany stronger with more options to maintain africa income and block UK/US from applying serious pressure. Only wrus is most compatible with a KJF style.

1 fighter landing in sinkiang is unnecessary. I am not aware of any strong player who does this with a Russia fighter.

I came from playing a ton on Triplea, so I had a similar feeling to you initially. After playing the steam version for 5-10 hours, I became used to the interface and actually prefer it in some ways.

The big advantage of the steam version is a ranking system that holds players accountable to finishing games. I got really tired of playing players of far lower play level or ghosting when I was ahead.

Doesn’t help that the animation exaggerates hits over non hits.

@Brian-Cannon Germany in kgf can reliably hold two territories. You usually want to hold berlin and the other is your choice. Trade efficiently with 5 fighters so there’s minimal units in traded territories.

Play for averages. If the dice are too extreme, you take the loss. But good play increases the likelihood of winning.

USA bombers in particular are a surprisingly effective strategy. It takes the right mentality of leveraging allies higher income to trade with Germany. Completely naked air attacks need a little luck as well, which he apparently got.

A consistent cohort of players are consistently winning and reaching high ranks, which makes it doubtful that the game outcomes are primarily driven by the volatility of dice outcomes. You’re posit skill, wealth, internet connection speed, or time commitment. I’m making a focused statement about dice variance with respect to likelihood of winning.