If enemy will advance the main mass there, then leave it empty, (or if it’s enemy controlled now, blitz it with a tank and back and leave it empty).
If it will be swapped, it depends who has superior airforce. Germans usually leave 1-2-3 inf. Russia leave it empty.
If Allies do KGF with multi-attacker disadvantage (vs Germany, redundant to say), then leave 1-2-3 inf. Germany leave empty (since equal attrition is disadvantageous). Except if wanting to prevent a deeper penetration, then leave a tactical block.
Posts made by Magister
-
RE: Japan defence strategy
-
RE: Essay on a German Strategy
What if the Russian Turn 2 counterattack to Ukraine is a 2-3 round raid and retreats (to either WRus or Cauc) just before exposing the expensive victors ? Then add more arty/inf in Caucasus and tanks in Moscow so Ukraine is a real dead zone. To enter it (and stay alive), Germany needs infantry, LOTS of it. Tanks alone are a big waste !
2-3 German rounds of building (almost) all inf, followed by 2 rounds of tanks throw an irresistible ‘cumulated charge’ at Ukraine and beyond. Survive at first, then survive safer (land German fighters too), then with the full 4 waves, attack !
Some little questions are what about the Western threat in the meantime, and what about the ‘hollow’ following the ‘cumulative charge’ if changing back to build inf, slow to reach the front. -
RE: France Defence by Germany
A further complication on calculating the required German defense of France vs the UK 1 - US 2. Do Germans need to count the ‘US 2’ as one normal transport wave (say 4 transports), or two cumulated waves (if US redirects the ‘shuck’ from Africa) with a pause next turn ? It resumes to the question: would US dare that ? or have interest ?
Also, if US shuttles to Africa, is it well for Germany to defend Italy with full force to hold it, or a similar wait and counterattack policy ?
-
RE: German Factory in Ukraine Turn 1
Even if Germany holds Ukraine early, better build 5 more inf instead in Germany/Italy and march them east. 2 turns later, they arrive (compared to 6 inf Ukraine could have built by then).
It’s more flexible so, because the 3 inf in Germany and 3 in EEU or Balkans are adding to the defense of their ‘pipeline’ and can reverse at any time if needed.My preferred 1G build is 12inf 1arty = 40 IPC. Tanks are good to add later or replace the slow flow, creating a ‘cumulative charge’ in which 4 turns of production arrive over 2 turns to overwhelm Ukr/Caucasus/Moscow.
-
RE: Have you ever pissing your opponent off with BB
@Cmdr:
And, as Switch said, if you put your fleet in SZ 5, just buy a submarine. 8 IPC can save you hundreds of IPC!
8 IPC gone each turn saves hundreds of IPC. One should calculate if the ‘interest paid’ on that ‘loan’ is worth it…
-
RE: How do you counter KJF?
I found at the critical stage of KJF, the Allied fleet acts defensively (occupying Solomons and threatening the rich islands from there) - so builds mainly carriers (lands planes) and some subs. Any UK survivors are just as good; I’ve seen the Russian sub too.
So Japan must keep offensive forces growing to deter that advance for as long as possible. More subs, some fighters to double the carrier capacity (8 ftr from 2 car, swapping to land bases). Some incursions to expand income in Asia are still worthy. When the time comes this cannot be sustained, resistance can be prolonged if there’s a factory in Indochina, produce 3 subs and retreat the fleet in front of it. Japan itself prepares for land defense (count carefully all US tra loads and planes in range and BB shots ! and be sure to use the simulator ;-)). US will have an extra turn of production wasted in the logistic chain…
Meanwhile yes, Germany has to race to Moscow as fast as possible. Lots of inf at start, augment last slow-production turn with abandoning (keep swapping) France, then build lots of tanks synchronized to arrive in a “cumulative charge” at the target. Key is to get a large force able to survive in West Russia (fighters irrelevant because it was Russian). From where it threatens Moscow, Caucasus (will be emptied) and any northern UK reinforcements. Next, add arty’s from Caucasus.
A little trick Allies can do is advance the main fleet to Solomons, while 1 sub or tra sacrifices in Wake to protect them from direct attack of the fleet off Japan (sz60). So the main Allied fleet can be weaker, needs only to resist air attacks. THEN WHAT can Japan do to prevent this ? keep the main fleet in Caroline ? then new production of subs off Japan is vulnerable, at least to air.
-
RE: Have you ever pissing your opponent off with BB
The 1inf, 1BB support costs 3 IPC and damages 2.5 IPC (2 from BB + 0.5 from inf)
Worth only if transport capacity is in excess (e.g. late UK) and it goes around Allies’ multi-attackers disadvantage vs Germany, which is ~1.4x.The sacrificial sub costing 8 IPC is worthy only in desperate situations, to prevent a large BB bombardment (more than 4 BB = 8 IPC, make it 5 with the sacrificed attacker’s inf), or to use scarce building ‘slots’ (e.g. 10 units in Germany can be 9 troops + 1 sub). And it can be crushed by UK, then US BB’s can still bombard…
-
RE: Japan Basics
OK. Let’s analyze precisely what Japan can best do in the worst case (that is becoming quite frequent now):
- Russia pushes 6 inf to Buryat.
- UK takes Borneo (1-2 inf surviving), New Guinea (same), des sinks Kwantung tra, sub+ftr sink Solomons sub (and Brits survive) then ftr lands on US carrier. UK carrier moves off Philippines to block quick liberation of Borneo. Bomber also comes closer in range, say Yakut.
=> Japan buy ? Does it matter if there are 1 or 2 IPC saved ? (30, 31 or 32 to spend). I find even 4 tra cannot survive with good chances if serious escort doesn’t stay with them, so 2 factories (Indochina and Kwangtung) are quite ‘forced’. Or not ?
- Pearl Heavy ? How heavy ?
The absolute max. for Japan is: 1tra 1 des 1btl 1car 3ftr 1bmb vs Allies 1sub 1car 2ftr.
With normal dice, ~94% to survive with at least 1des 1btl 1car 2ftr (the minimum to deter US counterattack).
Attacking without the tra for fodder reduces this chance to ~78%.
Or, try just one round of ‘heavy’ to absorb the loss with the battleship, then retreat ? What loss options do Allies best take ? (e.g. if losing 3 units, keep a UK fighter, US fighter, or carrier alive ? All have good uses together with the Buryat air return base). - China ? Of course. 5inf 3ftr are plenty, but to send less involves increasing risks and extra losses. Assume Manchuria left empty (not practical to keep defense vs Russian 6inf) and defending Indochina needs 2inf + 2-3 returning fighters against UK 3-4 inf (India + landing back from Borneo) + bomber.
- Buryat is impractical without at least 3inf 1tnk 3ftr (btl) which is also the most Japan can send. It makes any one of the two above impossible. Worthy the trade-off ? Then the tra left E of Japan needs escort. The btl support does nice, with lots of new transports, but this prevents Pearl Heavy.
- Pick other easy targets, like lone transports, with fighter(s) ?
- South fleet (btl, car) can sink Kwantung des or Philippine carrier. May need 1-2ftr to land on car to defend against rest of massed Brits (2tra 1sub 1car 1bmb)
Now let’s think the options in groups that make sense together.
- Buy 2 factories, do Pearl max and China max, as above. Downside is that without transport (sunk first or out of position), it leaves freeing Borneo to turn 3 at earliest, and Manchuria income may be lost for 1-2 turns too. Serious pressure to Russia is delayed 2-3 turns due to income drop and delay in other income rises (India, Australia etc).
1’) Same, but transport with troops joins Southern fleet in Kwa or Phil. Ready for Borneo next turn. But increases risk Pearl goes bad. - Buy 3-4 transports, do Buryat max and China max. Maybe 1 transport picked. With so many naval survivors (UK just as good as defenders), US is worthy to start serious KJF !?
- If China goes lighter, what else (esp. use of scarce planes) can fit instead ? Worth the trade-off ?
Can a combination of Buryat + Pearl light + China lightest be squeezed to reasonable advantage vs risk ? [Now, what if the Japanese sub in Solomons survived ? does it make this combination better ?]
Other worthwhile combinations you see ?
-
RE: What about a KBF strategy
A KBF delayed for Turn 2 or 3 might work if a careless Brit neglected island defense or bought elsewhere (India factory) or support is away (Russian fighters in Caucasus or Siberia) or suicidal to bring (say if US cannot survive after they bring the 4 land units). It’s more a scare to keep Britain honest than a deadly threat.
-
RE: Quick and dirty battle calculations
as much inf as this easy formula: # defending inf = attacking land units + attacking air units + BB attacks + 1/2/3, depending on how safe you wanna play), complemented by an AA ofcourse. Every 2 ftr in defense allow you to reduce the inf stack by roughly 3.
Thanks, this is roughly OK to the safe side for ONE power threatening (since one can assume landings use 50% inf and 50% arty/tanks). I’d apply it, say to defend Italy vs US alone.
For TWO powers in 1-2 it ignores the major multi-attacker’s disadvantage - so it’s MUCH “too safe”, so it foregoes the chance to hold more land still safely enough. Two equal forces need 1.4x defense, not 2x. If forces are unequal, it’s biased towards the larger force.
And if some landing threats combine with an already existing land force which is inf-heavier (Allied Karelia+landing to German EEU) ?It’s understandable if I try to hold WEU, Germany and EEU as long as feasible without excessive risk…
Then such calculations give the 50% midpoint, which may be deterrent enough for marginal landings (say two-wave WEU defended only by lots of inf; no planes to be caught there). But for Germany one needs 1% to 10% at most. How to conceive of such safety margins ‘quick-and-dirty’ without getting to gross excesses of forces (say 0.01% for Germany to fall) increasing risks elsewhere ?
-
RE: Quick and dirty battle calculations
OK. Any hints to quick-and-dirtify necessary German coastal defences ?
If needed, I’ll get from my archives some sets of numbers to make your heads spin… each area with different numbers of planes that can reach for each side, tanks that can or cannot pour through breach (depending on whether German counterattack seals EEU or not), two levels of US threat to WEU (‘normal’ with one set of transports, or double if disrupting the shuck) etc. etc. -
RE: Quick and dirty battle calculations
Jen: your criteria (equivalence in inf, superiority in tanks, fighters) are not enough for victory, since inf and fighters have defender’s advantage.
e.g. 10inf 3tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr. Attackers win 30%, losses 57:38 IPC.Punch (sum of firepowers; division by 6 unnecessary unless desiring ‘simulation’) and hit count are good guides. Multiplying them (or at least, figuring if your relative advantage in one is more than opponent’s disadvantage in other) is a better approximation.
e.g. 14 inf attacking 10 inf, quite close by Lanchester’s theory. 46% to win from simulator.
Attacker 14 punch * 14 count = 198
Defender 20 punch * 10 count = 200If there is different ‘skew’ (proportion of good units to cheaper ‘fodder’, including the battleships’ first repairable hit), then my Sum of punches as they decrease with losses is an even better approximation. The best I know, still doable ‘by head’ for small battles.
Attacker 1bmb, 2ftr 10+4+7 = 21
Defender 1btl, 2tra 6+5+4+4 = 19Another quick tip for ‘safer’ land attacks. Often easy to do ‘in mind’:
Offensive pieces > Defensive pieces
where
Offensive pieces = OPunch / 3 = Fighters(-AA) + Tanks + Arty + Inf/3
Defensive pieces = DPunch / 2 = Inf + Arty + 1.5* Tanks + 2* FightersThis assures 1.5x superiority in Punch which is plenty. One may win with some inferiority too, if inf fodder is enough.
e.g. 10inf 3tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr (counterexample for Jen above)
Offensive pieces = 3.33 + 3 + 2 = 8.33
Defensive pieces = 10 + 3 + 4 = 17but 10inf 8tnk 2ftr attacking 10inf 2tnk 2ftr (the kind of strong ‘superiority’ Jen may have thought)
Offensive pieces = 3.33 + 8 + 2 = 13.33
Defensive pieces = 10 + 3 + 4 = 17
and simulator says attackers win 98.5%.The delicate situations I have trouble (enough to not recognize when close enough to need checking with a simulator ! ;-)) are defending against overlapping multi-attacker threats (figuring survivors, then defending vs second wave).
Germany MUST know early how many/what areas are defensible from UK+US landing threats, and defend each with enough - esp. vital Germany, and where planes are. LL makes transition from ‘victory forces’ to ‘defeat forces’ much sharper, so any mistake is fatal. Re-adjusting after combat is often too late to change qualitatively… -
RE: War story
How many of us will brag about too awesomely advantageous dice ?
I have some ‘war stories’ but none as outrageous as the first examples given.Guess the brain is more an ‘injustice detector’ than a neutral reasoning machine ?
-
RE: Bunnies P Wrath's Running Strategy Post
Bunnies 2. (second German sub in Atlantic) >> Russia feels compelled to take Norway instead of Ukraine. Slightly worse for them, usually still takes 1 German fighter but the one needed in the upcoming air-naval action, and takes the German return base.
dezrtfish. (second Italian transport) The Greek gift that keeps taking income out of Europe ;-)
Seriously, I lost Africa too often as both sides. I think good subtle bullying skills are needed to get and keep it with moderate force and more threats…
I’ve also seen extra Japanese transport >> Hawaii taken J1, Brazil J3 ! What can Allies do reasonably about that ?
-
RE: Do you prefer playing axis or allies ?
Well, most of my successes have been with Japan so far.
Usually, the spicy Indians and Chinese are quick to comfort the victorious Yellow fellows. Hawaiians offer flowers, and New Zealanders sing like Hayley Westenra and Kiri te Kanawa.
BUT… Allies often get back the stunning Norwegians (not before Operation Lebensborn ‘produces’ Anni-Frid Lyngstad!).
And the French dames get two sets of lovers every turn… -
RE: Countering the conservative Russia
If the Russian is too defensive, it’s easier for both Japan and Germany to push close to them. More infantry first for a safe mutual siege (maybe some tanks produced later to reach simultaneously the front, the Cumulative Charge effect). Then use the extra income to add offensive forces. Japanese arty made in Novosibirsk are better than tanks from way back.
-
RE: Determining opponent playing style
Yes, I think it’s important to feel each opponent’s “deterrence threshold”, because deterrence happens in his/her mind first, not on a (simulated) battlefield ! There, only defeat can come ;-) And it’s not even something that may be shown by a pre-simulator/calculator like Frood’s.
Much important in A&A, even more important, say, in “Victory in the Pacific” (AH). How many of you know that game ?
Too solid deterrence may mean missing opportunities to hold more income; too little and they dare to call your bluff…
-
RE: Eastern Front
The more important practical sub-questions are:
- How to pressure the Eastern Front while still defending against massive Allies.
- How early or late to leave France to swapping.
- Balancing with the demands of Africa (Too often I’ve lost in Africa from either side ;-))
For 1) once the UK and US transport fleets grow, clear the Axis counterpart and get well positioned, they effectively “multiply” the threat by each area where the threat is applied, making a total defense of everything pointless.
For instance, a Baltic fleet threatens WEU, GER, EEU, KAR of which Germany can stay in, say, only GER and KAR.
An US fleet in Med threatens WEU, SEU, BALK etc., of which only SEU is almost mandatory to hold.
Dividing UK and US threats into N and S reduces their interference in same areas as “multi-attackers disadvantage”.What I don’t know if how a not-very-rich Germany can stop UK(+US) flow to Archangel then Moscow if they want that, instead of the Norway build-up.
-
RE: J1 Mainland IC
I only build 2 IC’s in Japan is too heavily pressed navally for 3-4 transports to survive right then. (Say, British ran all over the place, took Borneo, and have a lot of ships in attack range that it’s impractical for Japan to wipe them all).
IC’s without AA are also vulnerable to UK, later US strategic bombing ‘for free’ (1,2,3,3,3,3 averages 2.5 IPC damage, better than 3.5*5/6 = 2.92 vs Germany with a 15/6 = 2.5 IPC risk of losing bomber). Only later can Japan have a 3-area-deep conquest for them to be safe.
-
RE: The Art of Defense
I like the initial idea. Didn’t Robert E.Lee use much this “strategic attack through tactical defense” using the advantages of both ?
In A&A, tactical defense is either an economic attack (say, Axis holding Caucasus) or a positional attack (in a ‘light KJF’ an Allied fleet have only to survive in Solomons) setting up a dangerous ‘fork’ between deeper targets (Borneo, Dutch East Indies).
Technology (intrinsic in unit ratings) is only a small part of defender’s advantage in A&A. On land, that’s ~1.15x for optimal attackers (6inf 3art 1tnk = 35 IPC slightly better than defending 10inf = 30 IPC). At sea, it can be more, between the ‘pure defensive fleets’ of sets of (1car 2ftr). They still benefit from some ‘attack-oriented’ submarines added.
Multi-power defender’s advantage is more important - up to 1.41x for two countries or 1.73x for three, if they are equal. Even if unequal, a few British with minimal attack on their own still help US fleet survive in Solomons.
Often the Allies have some economic advantage in a KGF, but not enough to overcome the 1.41x 1.15x of Germany defending against UK+US. Then it’s better if one of the powers switches to another domain of force (say, fleet, or strategic bombing) letting the other alone to do an easier land offensive after the economic imbalance increases.