Navigation

    Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    1. Home
    2. daggaz
    D
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 7
    • Posts 39
    • Best 0
    • Groups 0

    daggaz

    @daggaz

    0
    Reputation
    51
    Profile views
    39
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Age 21

    daggaz Unfollow Follow

    Latest posts made by daggaz

    • RE: Appropriate Bid

      I dont know… I dont get to play too much with a wide variety of people, but I regularly put the hurt on the allies with only a 4 IPC bid, for an artillery in Lybia  -the bomber is just icing on the cake for this fight…  Seems pretty balanced for me there, if I dont make any big mistakes, it just comes down to the ever so slight sway of the luck of the dice over the next turn or two to see where the game will probably be heading.  Anything more than that just seems OP… I would slaughter my opponent with a 10 or 15 IPC bid.

      And its not like the opening is being done poorly…  Russia buys inf and a few art or tanks, stomps W. Russia and takes Ukraine usually with just enough force, stacks caucuses and wrussia (i never get that one back), and trades territories using fighters until the brits take norway and ready a stack for karelia.  Pull back from the japs always one country away from the dead zone, stacking in novo for mid game defense.

      England usually buys some mix of navy and troops, to put pressure on germanys western front.  USA starts up the shuck shuck.  Standard fair really.  But its simply usually enough for germany to shred africa with minimal investment, hold it until the US is forced to divert troops, at which time Japan has spread the rising sun across the entire swath of the southern pacific and the indian ocean, and is usually able to reclaim the dark continent for axis hands, while at the same time putting the serious hurt into Moscow.

      At this point, the game has gone on so long that I fail to see the massive statistical difference you would get from having, say, eight IPC instead of four on G1.  It really just comes down to the tactical errors your opponent makes, and how well you take advantage of them, be they ever so slight.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: UK1 KJF

      always happy when i see australia thinned out, makes it that much easier to steal.

      But honestly Ive never played too many KJF games so Im not 100% on what I would do… it always seems a bit suboptimal, and with the German tank divisions hammering down on Moscow, far too risky imho.

      I just try to get it in my head, the big picture, of the usual situation when the game really tilts.  Usually in KGF, with a fairly balanced game where the allies arent flat out winning, Germany is turtled hard right about the time Japan is sacking Moscow.  So I picture KJF, and I see Japan turtled or probably being sacked considering they are easier to strip of everything but the capital territory, and a WHOLE lot of US boats, and well… a German takeover of All of Europe and Russia, which is… oh god. Its scary.  I think with a solid german presence in eurasia, they will be impossible to get out…

      Maybe I should try it just for the hell of it the next few games tho. 😃

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: CSUB solution to the German Baltic Navy Problem; "the Un-Baltic"

      yeah send the fighter as well to egypt.  You have more than enough firepower to take the gilbratar bb (its almost ímpossible to lose this fight, and incredibly bad odds you lose your bb), but you really need to take out the english in africa and do it convincingly, so that any attempt to retake egypt will be very costly and will completely drain english forces on the japanese front.  Ive had egypt go poorly enough times now to know better.

      Interesting idea on the sub in sz 8, jen.  Will have to look at my board some tomorrow, but I will say that I usually hope for a US invasion of algeria turn 1, especially with all my air sitting in strike range (this alone is usually enough deterent that US waits another round for more protection).  I will gladly lose a fighter in order to sink some of the US navy, especially those early trannies and a tasty destroyer.  Just delays them all that much longer, its a cost germany can afford, even if it means not using air to retake russian landgrabs on G2.

      As for the bid… hmm we never get to play with more than 7 as getting an extra boat can really change the game…  it might actually be worth it to weaken egypt attack if you can honestly sink all the UK navy on G1.  With two trannies surviving and ready for the med, africa should be retakable even if you lose egypt…  especially since germany could afford the units now that its going to be a few turns before the english even think of hitting norway. Hmm…  Oh well, not like I will ever get to play with an axis bid-boat anyhow. =P

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: CSUB solution to the German Baltic Navy Problem; "the Un-Baltic"

      True they can pull out first, making it a bit more of a channel dash, but still isnt that better than just sitting around and waiting to die? ok you can get some use out of the tranny for a few turns in the baltic, but only moving two units at a time is limited.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: UK1 KJF

      8 units > 2x 3 units.

      Simply put, Japan can more than double your maximum output, all it has to do is is get 4 trannies in its homewaters.

      With your strat, you will slow them down a bit, but they will come, and overwhelmingly.  I always smile as Japan when I see an early India IC.  Wipe out the British fleet, consolidate in the inner Japanese seazone, start pumping troops in and take India, even if it takes a few turns.  The Americans will take a bit getting there, so thats ok.  You should be able to knock out India by round three or four at the very latest.  Now Japan owns an IC in the best possible country ever to have one if you are going to invade Russia.  And if the Russians have been helping the UK defend India, then Germany is swarming all over their front, as they are short on men and the UK certainly isnt helping them as much as they could.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: CSUB solution to the German Baltic Navy Problem; "the Un-Baltic"

      Personally I think its a very sound idea with definite implications for a solid German strategy.  It is by far WAY better than just leaving your fleet in the Baltic to eventually be destroyed in say, round three or so depending on allied builds, and it is a good way to attempt the fleet unification without actually building navy (a bad choice for Germany) and which cleverly forces the UK to choose one of several exploitable situations.

      How often have people here tried it?  Any problems or are there things you just prefer to do differently for whatever reason? I for one love the bomber build (I usually do it anyways) but this strategy really magnifies the possible usefullness of an extra bomber in the early game, where Germany really needs it most.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • CSUB solution to the German Baltic Navy Problem; "the Un-Baltic"

      This is a great article (sorry imho the only great one) posted by the guys at CSUB, so Im going to repost here.  Hopefully we can get a thread going about who has used it and to what effect. I for one am pretty curious as I think its a remarkably good idea.

      Paper Topic
      This analysis shows a method for utilizing the Baltic fleet by moving the fleet rather than buying more boats.
      _______________________________________________________

      Paper Summary
      Germany does not want to spend money in the water if it can be avoided (see Policy Paper 11 - Baltic I). This opening buys no boats but does buy one plane. Here is the rough sketch of the UnBaltic:

      Bid: Assume 1 unit in Libya, 1 in Belarus
      German Purchase: 1bmr 2tnk 5inf
      Combat:
      To Amphibious Gibraltar: 1inf 1tra 1btl 3ftr
      To Anglo: 1inf 1tnk 1bid 1ftr 1bmr
      In Europe: Attack whatever the Russians expose
      Non-Combat:
      To Z07: 1sub from Z08, 2sub 1tra 1des from Z05
      Keep 3inf 2TNK 4ftr in W. Europe.

      “But”, says you, “what about the UK fleet in the North Atlantic? What about the Mediterranean destroyer? What about Anglo? If I do this, I don’t FEEL strong. Am I strong?”
      Stop asking whiny questions and read the details.

      Details
      As we covered in the first Baltic Policy Paper, the Germans can’t spend a lot of money in the water and keep up with the Russians for very long. Previous analyses have looked at options to put a minimal investment in the water without diverting too much attention from the Russians. The UnBaltic is the logical extension of that concept. The option covered in this paper attempts to solve the problem of naval/Russian balance by buying a dual-use item that first serves in the water and then serves on land.

      The key concepts of this move are:
      Cascade dice failure risk (CDFR)
      A German United Fleet (GUF) – Covered in previous Policy Papers
      A Western Europe air base

      Let’s go through the details.

      Managing CDFR is the skill of identifying the small percentage outcomes which can have a large impact on the game and either avoiding those situations or forcing your opponent into those situations. When you are looking at the impact of luck, you have to keep in mind that the value of the battle is not just the value of the pieces involved. Sometimes a win or loss has a much greater strategic value than its tactical value. A simple example would be when you are trying to take territory to stop a tank blitz to your capital. Suppose the Russian player needs to simply kill one tank in West Russia and take the land to prevent an overwhelming column of tanks from attacking Moscow. If the Russian player sends 1inf and 1art to kill the lone tank, the Russian player is assuming a risk that goes well beyond the value of the units sent into combat.

      From a tactical point of view, the Russian player is risking $7 of gear and the German player is risking $5 of gear. But if the Russian player loses the battle, or simply fails to take the land, then the value of the battle is much greater than the cost of the gear because the Russian player now has to defend Moscow.

      In this instance of a battle in West Russia, the Russian player has a scenario that leads to disaster based on the outcome of just a couple of dice. The German player, on the other hand, really doesn’t have much at stake. So unlikely outcome can lead to a very costly Russian remedy while no outcome can lead to a German disaster. The idea that a small failure of dice can lead to a major strategic problem is called Cascade Dice Failure Risk. Managing CDFR means positioning yourself such that your opponent owns significant risk while you own minimal risk.

      If you consistently put your opponent in a position where he is vulnerable to CDFR, then in the long run it will win you games. Let’s go apply that to the water.
      As stated in the paper summary, the purchase for this move includes 1bmr. The naval moves are taking the Med Fleet to Gibraltar, and sending the Z08 sub as well as the Baltic Fleet to Z07. Z07 now has 1tra 3sub 1des, and the Brits have several options:

      1) Ignore the fleet
      2) Attack the fleet with air power only
      3) Attack the fleet with air power and their own fleet.

      If the Brits ignore the fleet then they are exposed to a fairly impressive naval attack. There are two boats off the coast of Gibraltar and there are five boats off the coast of France. Almost anything the Allies put in Z08 will be attacked by all the boats that can reach as well as all the planes. Since a second bomber was purchased, the maximum power would be seven boats and seven planes (assume a fighter used in Anglo could not attack Z08 the next round). Figure that the UK would buy 1car 1tra 2inf, that the US would move up 2tra 1des, and that the Russian sub would block the Med Fleet, and you’re left with this:

      Att: 1tra 3sub 1des 5ftr 2bmr = oPunch:32 oCount:12
      Def: 5tra 1des 1car 2ftr 1btl = dPunch:23 dCount:11

      The median outcome of that battle is four German planes flying away. The average economic benefit of that attack is $30 for the Germans, and most of the German losses were units of little to no value to the Germans. So ignoring the fleet with a defensive build is a bad move.
      Your other option for ignoring the fleet is to build your fleet in Z02. There is no risk in this move, but it does mean that the German fleet can slip into the Med. At that point the Med Fleet will become essentially unsinkable, and two transports will perpetually threaten Africa and the Caucasus. In addition, the Germans will have the option of pulling the fleet back out of the Med for a strike on Allied shipping.

      So ignoring the fleet is bad, how about attacking the boats with everything? The UK could send 2tra 1btl 2ftr 1bmr against 1tra 3sub 1des. Clearly that is a good fight for the UK, but it has some interesting risks. First off, if the UK gets two hits on the first round, the Germans will lose the transport and the destroyer and submerge the subs. Because you can’t retreat from submerged subs, the UK fleet will be pulled out of range of the American reinforcements. Assuming the Med Fleet is blocked, the UK fleet can now be hit by a max of 3subs 6ftr 2bmr. That means that if the UK wants to attack the Z07 fleet with its own fleet, the UK has to plan on buying a carrier the first round to reinforce the survivors of the naval attack. The Germans would have successfully forced a defensive naval purchase without buying any boats of their own.

      Now look at the CDFR implications. Suppose the UK attacks the Z07 fleet and takes three or more hits (this will happen a little more than 20% of the time). Now the German counterattack may be able to wipe out all of the British boats at very little cost to themselves, and the Germans will still have the Med Fleet. As far as risk to the Germans, they aren’t buying any navy, and they don’t particularly care about their starting boats. They are putting much more risk on the British than they are assuming for themselves. The Germans gain the advantage with this move in that they force a defensive naval purchase for the UK and they push the risk onto the British.

      What about the third option of an air-force-only attack on the boats? That is not a great fight for the UK. In the first place, in a fight to the death UK wins less than 51% of the battles. The attack is inherently risky. In second place, the normal attacker advantage of being able to call off the attack is largely negated by the presence of subs. If the battle is going well for the UK, the subs will submerge and could slip into the Med on the next round. Worse yet, if the UK bricks on the first round, suddenly the Germans could be in a dominant naval position (that happens 8.33% of the time). Notice the mounting CDFR opportunities in this battle. The UK would be unhappy both if they hit very heavy or if they hit very light.

      Is there any situation where the UK can push the CDFR back onto Germany? Not really. The UK could potentially set up a situation where the Germans are enticed into a naval attack with their air force that causes the Germans to lose many planes. But because the Germans don’t much care about the Baltic Navy in this gambit, it will be hard to push them into a position where they risk something they really care about.

      The UK player has a choice to make. He can:

      A) Expose himself to the dice (CDFR)
      B) Plan on making a defensive naval build to start the game or
      C) Allow the Baltic Fleet to slip away.

      The German player is probably fine with all three of these options, so the UK player should select the counter that best fits the rest of his opening.

      UnBaltic and The German bomber

      There are not many instances where Germany gets a second bomber on the board. The typical German player will make land-intensive purchases along with a small investment in the Baltic and perhaps in the Med. Since Germany is usually in a defensive position, an additional gray bomber is an unaffordable luxury. Because this scenario looks to punish sloppy or unlucky play in the water, however, buying a bomber makes sense. Once the water has been resolved one way or the other, the bomber still has a great deal of utility.

      Typically WEU becomes an air base for Germany. Swapping land with Russians often involves bouncing many fighters between WEU and KAR, and sending one bomber and ground troops to UKR/BAL/BEL. Having a second bomber means you can push infantry into swap zones with air support for each territory. Fighters still go to Karelia and one bomber can go to each of the other two typical swap zones. This will save logistical problems with fighters and prevents having to use artillery or tanks to take land.

      The second bomber also has an interesting impact on Allied shipping lanes. Having two bombers stationed in Western Europe can cause significant havoc for the Allies in setting up their early supply chain. The Germans may never actually attack in the water, but the Allied player will have to be careful with his capital ships to protect the western end of his supply chain. Unprotected transports in Z02 are quite exposed.

      Also, as the game reaches mid-to-late stages, the can-opener value of the bombers can be quite useful. The Germans may be able to open up a tank path to Moscow for the Japanese.

      Finally, having a second “4” throwing in a large land battle against the Russians is always nice. It’s not as nice as having three more tanks, mind you, but remember that the money you spent on the bomber was taken from the naval budget, not the ground budget. Instead of building transports or a carrier, you built a dual-use item.

      FAQ

      1. In the case of submerged subs in Z07, how about attacking them with an American bomber and an American fighter that lands on a carrier built in Z08?

      This is the type of move you would consider with a defensive-minded UK plan. It was left out of the main paper for the sake of simplicity because it is a bit more complicated than it looks at first. Consider the implication of three sub hits on the first round of the UK attack (1 in 27 chance). Two of the hits will remove boats, meaning you may not be able to just lose a UK fighter or bomber to absorb those hits. You also have to consider that the American Air Force may miss, and the subs will just re-submerge. And only in rare cases will the American kill more than one sub. CDFR is still significant problem.

      2. Why not do an UnBaltic opening that builds only ground troops?

      Without building the bomber, the Allies will be into Europe almost immediately. There certainly are variations of the UnBaltic opening that skip the bomber, but you will find that the Allies have a very rapid buildup in Europe. Buying the bomber manages to leverage your navy without spending money in the water. Even if it never attacks boats, the bomber will be useful in land battles, undoubtedly providing value every round.

      3. In the paper summary you specifically mention that you should have two tanks in Western Europe. Why?

      You have two transports available. If the UK loses their fighters and you keep your transports alive, you want to have the threat of invading London. The odds are very small that you would ever actually get to do the invasion, but you should at least threaten the invasion to force a response. Remember, you could have as much as 2inf 2tnk 5ftr 2bmr 1btl for the invasion. The chances of a viable invasion are small, but the prize is far too large to ignore the trivial setup necessary to maximize this opportunity. Make sure you are in a position to punish any mistakes or to capitalize on any bad dice. If it doesn’t cost you much, set up a CDFR possibility!

      4. Won’t the UK bomber and destroyer attack the German Med Fleet?

      Run that battle in the simulator and you’ll see that the battle is not very favorable for the UK. It is possible that the UK player would consider trying to battle for one round and then pulling off it goes badly, but under what circumstances is that the best use of the bomber? In almost every set up that bomber will be wanted for either Z07 or Anglo.

      5. The UnBaltic is essentially a defensive German opening, so why does the recommended buy include 2tnk?

      The full answer is too long to go into in this paper, but the short answer is that it has to do with a counter to the Russians. Buying 1bmr 8inf save $1 is fine, as is 1bmr 7inf 1art. It depends on your overall strategy for the Germans.

      Wrap Up
      The UnBaltic is not a crane-kick, but it does force some interesting choices on the British player. In some instances involving CDFR, the German player will gain a decisive early naval advantageat little cost to the ground game. And who doesn’t love having a second bomber?


      Version and Unresolved Issues
      1v0 Date: 1/8/2008
      Unresolved issues: NONE! //On a side note, rather than take the smug assuredness that their are ZERO zilch nada problems with this idea, how about we leave it to debate and good old rigorous experimentation??  I’m curious to see people’s takes on this one.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: Caspian Sub: Now with half the dreck, twice the funk.

      Hey thanks for the articles Jen, I appreciate the effort on your part.  😃

      I suppose this is as good a thread as any to discuss them, so here’s my take.

      Meh.  Most of them are either for beginners (like basic statistical breakdowns, or how Germany should turtle), or they are in the realm of “yeah this would work maybe once in my group, maybe. And I had better get the opponents a bit drunk first.”  (canadian shield and landbridge etc.) That or they were seriously shortsighted, looking at immediate IC/gain/loss effects of strategies rather than the big picture.  Typos and flat out obvious mistakes were numerous, it would help the authors to actually proof-read their own material.  The interjected comedy was humorous at times, but more often came off a bit forced, and really was just out of place most of the time.  I’m reading strategy, why is half the pdf about Mr. T?  I could really care less, I stopped reading halfway thru when I realized the attempt at explaining the benefits of tanks was going to really stink.  Boredom and the gag reflex trump banal curiousity every time.

      There was one article that stood out above the rest, which was the one about the Un-Baltic.  This one really broke thru the box and gave the best possible solution I have yet seen for an otherwise tricky dillema for the Germans; I am definitely going to try this out the next few games.  I especially liked the progressive thinking as to forcing the UK into bad fights which usually in the game any player can choose to avoid without serious consequences, and also the effects of luck on small battles.  This is a really smart article.

      That said, it amazes me that no less than three articles were published which focused solely on builds that absolutely cripple the Germans in not just the long run, but the short run as well.   And these articles are presented as a fundamental strategy. (??!) When I first came onto the canadian shield etc ideas, I thought, ok, thats an interesting threat/deterrent which could change the game.  It doesnt take too long to realize that the Russians will take FULL advantage, and that it requires minimal maneuvering from the other allies to negate this massive IPC and strategic investment.  Like I said, it would work once against somebody not paying too much attention to the board, so get them drunk first if you can.  Unbaltic should be the alpha and the omega as far as German naval builds go, in regards to CSUB articles.  Dont delete the others, but they should be side-shelved into “interesting gambits,” not mainstream strategy.

      Finally, at the end of each article there is a small conclusion about the shortcomings therein.  90% of the time this was something like, “None! There are no shortcomings or missing ideas or mistakes. This idea is absolutely perfect!”

      Wow. What an arrogant crock of siht.  It doesn’t take a leap of imagination to figure out what kind of people tag their own articles like this, or even who they are.  Big surprise there, really. /sarcasm

      In conclusion, most of the articles are more or less a waste of time unless you are really new to the game and especially strategy games in general.  If so, by all means read them all and absorb what you can.  For advanced players, I wouldn’t bother too much with CSUB except for the UnBaltic move, which I will post here on another thread, as I am interested to hear some of this board’s veterans’ take on it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: Rate Best A&A versions and why

      1. AAR
      2. Classic, 2 ed.

      There is such a gulf between the two that its almost not worth comparing them to me.  My old game sits in its box and we wont touch it even if we want to play A+A, there is just no reason for it anymore.  I think I am going to just scrounge the units out so that we can replace eventual losses in the new board.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz
    • RE: Newb Questions for Revised rules…

      I have no idea, Ive never played anniversary (btw check out the forum section on this game, its at the top of the list).

      I will say Revised so far is like a million times better than classic 2.ed.  It is more balanced, it is far, far more dynamic, and nearly every unit has a definite beneficial reason to purchase it.

      Anniversary seems likes its even more so, with extra teams thrown in plus a sorta 2fer1 thing, in that you can start with one of two setups. (tho the boards seem to indicate that the first setup is highly imbalanced towards the allies.)

      My advice?  You should buy anniversary and get a friend to buy revised. Or the other way around.  :evil:

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      D
      daggaz