Anyone who places all of their strategic decisions on “simple math” will fail at Axis & Allies. Period.
Like it or not, A&A is a game about economics (math) and statistics (math). The less mathematically efficient a strategy is (in total, for example you can sacrifice direct economic stat efficiency to save positional efficiency by building mechs and tanks in Global), the more likely it is to fail. If I’m missing something here, please tell me.
To remove the option for the UK to place ANYTHING in London is an asinine assertion.
I’ll admit, I went too far with the extreme here. If the Atlantic is safe and you have the money, transports to move the troops off Britain/Canada are good. But they’re gravy, not the primary focus, in the early game (~Rd1-8). Also, if you are being strangled by USW (probably not going to happen without a house rule to boost it), it’s important to break free of that for economic reasons.
Yes, transports have a cost, but once paid it’s done.
Except that you have to defend them if Germany builds navy to threaten them, sinking more IPCs into there. If you don’t have those transports, you aren’t forced to spend on navy to “counter” German navy.
The real question is at what strategic value do you place on being able to deploy troops a dozen spaces closer to Berlin (and in a myriad of locations in two turns) rather than through India? Please remember the victory conditions: Berlin + one other. The Ottoman’s could be made completely irrelevant through non-engagement if they get Austria.
Due to the nature of combat in this game, Berlin is a tough nut to crack and you will need a significant economic advantage to do so. So that’s where the primary benefit of building in India and attacking the Ottomans comes from: Economy. Persia, Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan and Arabia are pretty easy pickups, and eventually you’ll get Ankara and Smyrna. So 5-7 IPCs most of the time increasing to 12 before you can take Constantinople. This also means you aren’t losing these territories (and Africa) to the Ottomans and allowing them to get an economic advantage. There’s not much Britain can do in Europe to take Germany and Austria when the Ottomans are making more than them and sending it all to defend Vienna (or even navy to stop America). The Victory Conditions (Berlin + 1 other) are basically impossible to get without an economic advantage, so my strategy focuses on acquiring that before taking the cities themselves.
So please, spare me the epeen stroking about how we didn’t play with “your” optimized, best strategy and imply that everyone that played in my game was stupid. I’ve taken about 4 hours to write up a post-game review for everyone to enjoy, another data point to add to your knowledge, not to come down from on-high about the perfect strategy.
I’m sorry you felt that way, but I didn’t imply your group was stupid, just that they played poorly. I play poorly all the time (that’s why I don’t win balanced games as much :-D) I guess I should have waited for your Allies comments so I could respond in a more structured manner, so I apologize if I sounded arrogant. But if you didn’t want public criticism/commentary, what was the point of this write-up?
KNOW THIS : I have been playing Axis & Allies for thirty years. I own every version, and have played (excluding online stuff) over five hundred games. Trust me when I say there were no glaring strategic errors, no blunders, and everything made sense at the time the movements were made.
Please, spare me the ego stroking that because you’ve played so long, you can no longer make strategic errors or blunders, or look back and realize mistakes even though they looked alright at the time. (THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS ARGUMENT, just showing the parallels between your argument and what you thought was bad about mine. Fighting fire with fire online is a dangerous path if people aren’t reasonable)
As someone who has played so many games, I like trying new and different strategies rather than parrot what others tell me is the best. Instead of countering theorycraft with more theorycraft, I’ll stick with writing up what happened in the actual game. Thanks.
I appreciate this, but my comments aren’t based on theorycraft; they’re based on actual game experience. I don’t know what made you assume I didn’t actually play this game; I do. But thank you for the write-up so the community has a detailed example of what happens in a game like this.
The French went all land, all against Germany. Absolutely everything and the kitchen sink.
The GOOD: France, with very little aid, was pushing into Germany solo. It was touch-and-go for a long time, but then slowly pushed forward.
The BAD: France did not support Italy at all. Sorry buddy, you�re $^&*ed! Italy fell hard to Austrian and yes, Ottoman transports. It also took France 8 rounds to start advancing.
What did the French navy do? Supporting the Italian navy would stall the Austrians/force them to spend way more if they want SZ17. That leaves a couple extra subs in the Atlantic though.
The US went for an all-transports approach. With the UK blocking in the German navy, they had a lot of land units heading towards Europe.
The GOOD: They brought a lot of stuff into Europe, however, they had to go to Southern France to hold off a surging Austria that had annihilated Italy (literally every Italian territory was taken by Austria).
The BAD: with no protection, they couldn�t support Africa or Italy in the Med. France was all land, and the UK fleet was all needed to fend off the German fleet. Austria had a sizeable navy, that if the US were to counter, it wouldn�t have had enough land units to save Italy. A lose-lose there.
In my opinion America has two general goals: Keep Italy alive and keep France alive. If they’re both doing well, then US is free to be more aggressive and start landings in the Balkans. If France/Italy is doing poorly, US needs to help them out by getting troops there. A prerequisite of getting troops to Italy though is holding SZ17, so the US should build enough navy to hold it if necessary, and the rest on transports, troops and escorts for them if necessary.
What did Russia do?