Posts made by MarineIguana

Germany making uk’s navy creation difficult through some combination of killing UK cruiser with the battleship, bomber buy and/or even a sub buy could be interesting. UK right now transitions so cleanly from round 1 carrier buy into Europe landings. Denying or delaying Nordic countries is worth 6 income a turn net.

Germany attempting to directly strike at uk’s capital is really an uninteresting line to discuss. UK has a guaranteed way to ensure that the capital does not fall with higher than 99% chance with an 8 infantry placement. Germany has minimal alternative follow ups since the entire Baltic region is already controlled by Germany. From Germany’s perspective, Sealion is a big investment at huge opportunity cost thst requires allies to absolutely blunder to gain a major advantage.

@domanmacgee I usually go directly for Russia as Japan in KGF. In my earlier post, I described exactly the kinds of Allies misplays that would motivate me to consider taking India round 3. In the first 5 rounds, I don’t seriously consider attempting India any round other than round 3 unless something really crazy happens. Round 3 is Japan’s power spike where japan’s starting units in Japan are fully deployed.

@snoil said in Game Imbalance massively obvious:

@marineiguana Yes well you’re definitely better at the game than I by far, and obviously understand the pathings and such way better than me. 90% in both means you’ve got it down. But after reading on some other parts of the forum, if it’s so balanced, why do GenCon games have a bid system for the allies to get extra help? I’ll admit, maybe as a noob I just do better having a load of troops and relative safety early on as I prefer inf/art in great big gobs over fancy schmancy battleships/tanks/bombers etc. At sea I even prefer subs due to cheapness. Easier to make impactful stacks, at least so far.

Anyway, genuine thanks to everyone, will keep stabbing at it diligently!

Your confusion is very understandable.

There is the original board game setup (OOB, out of box). This version blatantly favors Axis. If I played against myself, I would win as axis at least 98% of the time.

The Gencon tournaments attempt to balance this by bidding. People are bidding for the privilege of playing Axis and compensating the Allies player with an amount of income that the Allies player can use to immediately place units on the board. For example, a bid of 7 could be used to place 1 artillery in Karelia and 1 infantry in Caucasus Russia. Typical bids are 18 or more. A second big difference of tournaments is the time limit only allows for about 5-8 rounds of play. It’s more like a sprint to reach victory cities because of this time limit.

The Larry Harris game version is a set of adjustments that Larry suggested to balance the OOB map better. It notably makes changes to the Germany bomber placement and sz7 units. This version is well balanced, and we’re still deciding which side is favored with ideal play on both sides. The online 1942 ranked version uses this version as a default. In casual play, you can choose either this version or the OOB standard version.

Are you playing ranked with Larry Harris Rules? I suggest playing more and getting stronger before making blanket statements about the balance of the game. I have a 90% or higher win rate as both axis and allies, repeated across multiple seasons. I’m about equally happy to play axis as well as allies with regard to win likelihood.

Allies are definitely more difficult to coordinate in the early game. I’ve played enough to confidently say that the sides are very close to balanced at the highest competitive levels, such that there’s disagreement on what side if favored still. At lower levels of play, it’s definitely true that one side can win more.

General allies tips to start on a strong path:
attack WRUS with 12 units, Ukraine with 9 units
UK round 1 buy of 3 inf, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier is well balanced
US round 1 buy of 1 carrier, 2 transports, 2 inf, 2 art is well balanced

@brian-cannon said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:

@marineiguana 1German fighter survived,UK battleship and transport died

That’s a bottom 15% result, but totally fine. Germany is in real trouble in the bottom 2-3% when both battleship and transport survive. It’s still winnable, I’ve won from that position but relies on the opponent playing worse or getting unlucky somewhere.

@brian-cannon said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:

@marineiguana Boston, I expect to lose the battle and lose the transport and battleship, what amazes me is that the attack never goes bad, they never lose more than a bomber and I have never seen the Axis units survive. As opposed to the Axis attack on Sea Zone 7, this just occurred

Round 1 1 hit from 3 subs, 1 cruiser and 2 fighters
https://imgur.com/a/mYBZZlj

Round 2 1 hit by fighter/cruiser trio
https://imgur.com/a/xSPWehc
and finally round 3 1 hit
https://imgur.com/a/RERVYs6

As I have said repeatedly, I cannot buy a hit with fighters or anything whether its a 3 or less or 4 or less.

I can’t quite tell. Did Germany kill the battleship and transport and lose everything but 1 fighter? That’s unlucky but fine. If the battleship and transport both survive, then that’s really unlucky and game-changing. Most important part is that the UK R1 transport dies. Germany is fine with 4 fighters, though 5 would obviously be better.

@aardvarkpepper

A typical optimized India R3 timing is 11 inf, 4 art, 1 tank, 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 battleship bombard, 1 cruiser bombard. Japan can apply additional pressure by buying art instead of inf R1 and bombers R2. This assumes 3-4 infantry lost in the R1-2 trading.

I recommend that the allied player before uk1 movement think through the plan to defend this timing. By my analysis, UK’s starting Egypt units are more efficient to use towards India defense than pulling Russia units.

@aardvarkpepper stacking Egypt R1 is not good because it weakens allies defense to Japan’s R3 India timing. Losing India R3 is a big loss so this can force Russia to cover with fighters and even tanks.

UK can easily deadzone Egypt R2 and South Africa infantry deadzone Anglo-Egypt Sudan. So UK doesn’t gain much stacking Egypt compared to Transjordan.

@brian-cannon
As we’ve discussed, the Germany med fleet is like the Ukraine bomber. You expect it to be killed and it’s a bonus if you get any compensation. Looks like you didn’t this game.

The UK player actually made a major mistake that can be punished. the UK units should be in trans Jordan. Japan has a fairly free India R3 timing that will be very expensive to handle with 3 less infantry.

@nosho said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:

@brian-cannon Yes. I feel it should be done, unless there are juicier targets out there (Chinese fighter undefended, UK fleet spread out, etc)

Doing pearl or not is a reasonable point of disagreement. I’ve shifted my thinking from generally yes to generally no.

My motivation:

1. USA pacific units start really out of position. If going KGF, they’re 4 turns away from position.
2. Japan by doing Pearl, places 5 units out of position for a volatile battle moderate profit. These units are important for the India round 3 timing.
3. Japan has a formidable starting naval position that USA has to overcome whether of not Pearl Harbor is done.

I’m happy to play a casual game with you and provide feedback. Boston_NWO#4108

@brian-cannon said in New Season, has there been any change to dice in ranked games?:

Started a new game Pickpocket Corkscrew, I am Axis, round 1 Russian attack goes off as planned Ukraine is taken with one tank left, Battle for West Russia, Russian loses 4 infantry takes the territory, not terrible for me. Round 1 German purchase 11 infantry 2 arty, take back Ukraine, take Karelia with one Inf. Sea Zone 7 attack goes horribly I end up retreating with one fighter. Transjordan is taken without a loss. Destroyer and transport off Canada east coast is destroyed.

Round 1 British, Standard attack on German Med Battleship, 2 fighters and a bomber goes off beautifully for British player as it does always, curious if this is now scripted in the game. For third game in a row my battleship does not even record a defensive hit. British bomber lies in Egypt, I wonder if this time it will record two defensive hits like the last time. Screenshot below
https://imgur.com/a/aQf2K2m

Again the contrast I cant get a single hit with 2 subs, 2 fighters and a cruiser but an attack with a bomber and 2 fighters on a battleship goes off without a hitch…every single time…

The same people are at the top every season because they execute excellently and minimize risk. Jan, Quintin, Battousai, CND, Il_principino. I’ve played all of them and they execute excellently.

In contrast, my first 5-7 ranked games are the beginning of the season, players are doing all kinds of risky and suboptimal things. 90% of the time, I know I’ve won already by round 2 because they’ve made a purchase decision or movement that’s so outside of optimal such that luck doesn’t matter. What I do is gain a 10 income edge, avoid engaging in major battles and win over 15-20 rounds, minimizing risk by avoiding unnecessary battles and accumulating lots of units so that central limit theorem takes hold. 80 units pressuring 30 units in Moscow. Why take 99% odds when you have 99.999% odds in two rounds.

Specific examples:

1. don’t attack E Canada, send all 6 units to sz7. By sending 5, you’re turning a 99% battle into a 90% battle with variations in the 90% where Germany loses a fighter.

2. Pearl is a risky battle. If you want to minimize risk, stop attacking it as Japan. I have.

3. Stack 5 fighters in reach of UK sea zone and surviving units in sz7 makes it difficult to create a navy. UK will feel strong pressure to use the bomber to trade sz7 instead of attempting to hit Germany’s med fleet round 1. Sounds like UK gets to hit med fleet for free in your games since Germany takes unnecessary risks in SZ7.

4. Germany’s med fleet is expendable. Treat it as dead, and a bonus if it survives round 1. It’s just like the Japan transport in sz61, bomber in Ukraine.

Hey guys. It’s been a long time since I’ve been on these board. A lot of work moving from San Francisco to Boston.

I love the Round 0 movement idea!

Here’s my valuation:

• 8 US china area: Anwei and yunan would be R1 losses. Pull back to Szechwan. expected loss is 4 inf with 1.33 japanese inf killed.
  +10 sz11: germany subs no longer hit sz11. Best alternative is hit sz10, which is 1 transport less profitable and remaining subs can be killed by sz11 dest on US 1
• 9 sz53: japan no longer has a profitable strafe of sz53. For those unfamiliar the strafe is 1 sub sz44, 1 cruiser sz50, 2 fig sz50 and japan, 1 bomber japan. take 1 fighter as a loss and the sz44 carrier doesn’t need to move to sz53 during non-combat. This strafe would be a +15 attack. US sz56 to sz53 prevents the strafe. I’m reducing it by 6 because the units have an opportunity cost and could move towards africa instead.

R0 US movement would be very close to balanced. My best estimate of bidding to balance is ~18 IPC*.

• for those curious, the best bidding choice would be all land units. something like 3 art, 1 inf for russia to hit Belo, Ukr, and Wrus. 1 inf to egypt. An alternate solid option is +2 subs to hit sz37 with +1 egypt inf to ensure the fighter survives to participate. This has been extensively discussed in prior threads and agrees with my evaluation.

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

I just moved from the Bay Area to Boston. I’m a longtime Axis and Allies player, and looking to connect with Boston area players.

@Kreuzfeld:

MarineIguana Thankyou for a nice reply.

one more Question:
What does the brit do in india on UK1

I have usually played with the BGO bid and Egypt falls in G1.

My fav move is to hit Egypt with everything (3 infs, 1 ftr 1 bomber). While I also land in algeria so that US can reinforce it. If I can do it, I now control Africa. I don’t even have to take Egypt, I just have to kill what germany has there.

UK generally retreats all india to persia. Make sure UK bomber lands around russia to trade india R2.

Where does the 1 fighter to egypt come from? It’s standard for Russia to hit Ukraine in all circumstances. The other fighter that can reach is needed for sz15. If you attack sz15, there’s a 15% chance the battle goes badly where the battleship transport needs to retreat or battleship gets traded against uk destroyer. If either scenario happens, the game is effectively over against a top player. I prefer not to auto-lose 15% of my games as axis.

Because of the starting units, Germany is positioned to control Africa. A good US exerting proper pressure makes it very difficult for axis to continue stacking Egypt for more than 10-15 rounds. The highest allied pressure points are Round 5, round 8, and pretty much rounds 10+. The simple math is that US accumulates 10 units of pressure on Egypt a round. Germany starts with about 6 units advantage in Egypt, and reinforces at +2 a round. Japan needs to reinforce egypt at 7-8 a round to maintain parity. It’s possible, but Russia then has a lot of freedom to bully Japan in other areas.

Probably the longest I’ve seen Axis control Egypt is 35 rounds, with 200 units in libya/Egypt. Axis lost this game after US transfered the stack into WEur with 16 transports and UK assistance. My point is that Axis holding Egypt is an advantage, but winning isn’t a foregone conclusion.

Most common bid among top players is 1 inf ukr, 1 inf lib, 1 inf West Russia. art and tank to africa is definitely playable, but less common.

Broadly, you’re thinking well about the allied play. I think there’s little more that I can contribute without actually seeing your play.

A few thoughts:
1. I generally avoid moving US north after taking Africa as allies. UK can exert pressure on north europe, and US from the med. I feel that US in the north overlaps pressure that’s not the most efficient. US can support russia through med by ukr and cauc.

2. deadzoning allied navy using germany air really isn’t realistic. with germany 5 fig, 1 bomber, allies start with enough navy to be safe after 1 US carrier purchase. UK and US natually wants to buy transports to give pressure. Accumulating germany airforce makes these natural transport buys more efficient. I know a couple strong players who buy a few fighters; it’s definitely playable though not my personal style.

3. The main way that axis wins is that germany blocks US/UK support eventually and japan deadzones Cauc, then Russia. The main way allies win is through reducing Germany through either Weur/Ita stack or karelia/ukr into a EEur stack. Which one prevails among two strong players depends on luck and accumulation of small profits through many rounds. There is strong consensus that a bid of 9 to axis balances the game very well.

4. Japan IC in FIC and India is standard. I do know one person i’d consider top 10-15 who consistently does east indies & india instead.

This is almost certainly more advice than you are looking for. I’m going to give you the secret for playing near perfectly as Germany. This is tried and tested against the best Revised Axis and Allies players in the world across more than 500 games.

–--------
Assumptions

I’m assuming a bid of 9 by germany to ukraine, west russia, and libya
I’m also assuming that russia attacked ukraine with 4 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig ; west russia with 9 inf, 1 tank, 1 art
I’m assuming this game is low luck with no tech
I’m assuming your goal is to maximize your probability of winning against an opponent.

The most common mistake I see with Germany players is that they think they’re on the offensive. In reality, Germany is a very defensive country that receives allied pressure, while Japan pressures Russia.
Best practices:
1. buy almost all infantry. I usually spend 90+% of my germany IPC buying only infantry for the first 15-30 rounds. Eventually, Germany gets to a point where it can stack 3 territories with over 80 units each. This makes it difficult for UK to land and support Russia past round 30.
2. Prefer to attack and stack territories. This means moving a large force of units in an attack, so that the opponent can’t counter. Axis and Allies is inherently a zero-sum game, so you win by accumulating profit through income or battles. Generally, the most profitable battles are: attacking & stacking > trading efficiently > attack & retreat > doing nothing > trading inefficiently.
As a general rule, germany can stack 2-3 territories safely against a strong allies. Always stack berlin (obviously), 2nd stack can alternate between France and Italy, 3rd stack between Karelia/Eastern Europe/Ukraine
3. Try to keep Germany strong. It’s okay to make large trades against Russia, but avoid large trades with UK or USA unless it’s for a large profit. The most common way I win against top allies is to accumulate stacks of 100+ infantry as Germany. Japan accumulates as well around Persia. By round 30-40, Japan has 300+ units and eventually forces Allies off Russia.

–------------
Round 1

Standard buy for germany is 10 inf, 2 tanks.

Typical combat scenario is:

1 sub, 3 fig to sz13
3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 bomber to egypt
1 battleship, 1 trans, 1 fig to sz15
appropriate forces to trade ukraine. usually 2-3 inf + 1 fighter. Possibly as much as 3 inf, 1 tank, 1 fig if 3 russia tanks survived

Typical non-combat:
stack france. usually with 2 inf, 2 tanks, 4 fighters, 1 aa
stack karelia. usually 8-9 inf, 4 tanks, 1 aa
stack germany
empty belorussia or 1 inf
africa stacks libya

@Argothair:

Hi, MarineIguana. Please keep in mind that I’m well aware of the orthodox strategies for 1942.2, so when I write about other strategies, I usually either (a) have a niche scenario in mind where given the particular circumstances of that scenario, another strategy can be just as good, or (b) am purposely exploring other strategies that are fun but not optimal. You’re more than welcome to point out where my suggested strategies would go wrong – but please be careful not to just point out that my strategies are different from the orthodox strategies and then promptly conclude that my strategies must be wrong because they’re different from the orthodox strategies.

Yeah, I am assuming that the goal is to maximize the probability of winning a game. As an alternative challenge, one can try to place a Japanese AA gun in greenland before the end of the game. I’ve done that once and it was amusing.

The best way for Germany to bomb Russia is to avoid it altogether.
1.Russia starts with 12 production. Russia generally needs 7-8 production slots.

2. Bombing has very low expected value and high volatility
5/6 times: SBR with a uniform 1-6 distribution, 3.5 expected value.
1/6 times: SBR with -12

(3.5 * 5 - 12) / 6 bombing runs = 5.5/6 = .916 expected value

3. Bomber has a larger benefit just staying alive and applying pressure. Allies need to play more cautiously and retreat earlier.

The only time I consider SBR is when Russia is pushed into Moscow.

I skimmed this thread:

1. Japan pressuring Alaska will only work against bad allied players. Fundamentally, US produces 10 in Western US and has shorter supply lines than Japan producing 8. Against bad players, any number of strategies can work.
In reality, there’s only 1 optimal strategy for Japan vs good players. The priorities are to 1. deadzone the US fleet and 2. deploy land to Asia to pressure India, then Russia & Africa.

2. Don’t build factories R1. Transports > any factory build R1. For 14 cost, transports can deploy 4 units a turn into Manchuria or Yunan. East Indies factory is good, but Japan doesn’t have the transports to utilize Japan production AND East Indies. Timing wise for India pressure, R2 or R3 factory is ideal.

3. India falling before R6 represents a huge blunder by the allies. India provides solid income, and Japan capturing the factory accelerates pressure on Africa and Russia.
India can often can be held indefinitely with a little US pressure on Japan. Even if Japan somehow manages to apply enough pressure, Russia has the option to place enough units to defend India.
The current best practice is to buy 3 land in India, and 2 fighters in UK. Fighters UK -> WRussia/Russia -> India. By accumulating fighters, UK can start really deadzoning japan navy off africa by round 10 with ~20 fighters.
To reiterate, holding India is almost completely the ALLIES CHOICE in the first 20 rounds.

4. UK should almost always send 1 fig, 1 cru to sz 61 and kill the dest and transport. UK fighter lands in szechwan + 1 rus inf makes szechwan safe R1.

Let me know and I can clarify any of these points.

Great post CWO Marc

@SubmersedElk:

@Young:

A balanced game can also be described as one that allows for strategy options, and multiple mistake recovery… if an experienced Allied player can beat an experienced Axis player for 50% of games, it just seems to me that the Allies would need to follow a very narrow script without any room for mistakes.

That’s not necessarily a question of balance but of strategic depth. A good game should have both of course.

My fear is that so much of the G40 map is scripted by the particulars of its design that it leaves no room for strategic depth even if it were balanced. For example, some have said that they have seen games go well without UK doing the Taranto raid, but can they do so against quality Axis players? If not, that attack is effectively scripted by design. When I analyze Allied-side choices, many of them are essentially scripted responses to Axis openers, since deviating from those responses can only produce worse results than the script. When you boil it down to optimal openers followed by scripted responses, it becomes a one-player game (all choices on Axis side), and not a terribly fun one at that.

For what it’s worth, It’s my experience that Axis and Allies is inherently scripted on both sides with one optimal strategy that dominates all others. This is my experience on Revised, 1941 v3, Big World, Global 1940, Lord of the Rings, and New World Order.

Then again, the optimum strategy is complex enough to execute that few/nobody humans can actually attain it. It’s similar to Chess, where state of the art computers have nearly solved the game such that the computer can look at each point and evaluate the decision tree of outcomes to select the best one. The parallel I am drawing is that there’s an inherent optimal play in both game structures, not that Axis and Allies has good AI (doesn’t yet.)

Still, Axis and Allies is a fun game that’s certainly captured my attention across over 500+ full games.

I second regular kid. I’m just starting to learn Global and it’s clear that allies should receive a bid. To be clear though, I have played over 500 games, many at the highest levels in Revised, NWO, etc.

patterns I notice in high level play:

• Germany can consistently pressure Russia back to Moscow by turn 7
• Japan normal pattern is to force china to the edges and UK out of india.
• UK needs a bid to neutralize Italy. Otherwise axis can consistently achieve income parity
• Games seem to be short and end within 15 rounds. This is refreshing considering that high level NWO games last ~25 rounds and revised can easily last 40.

I’m always puzzled when people make the suggestion of playing better as the solution for strengthening the weaker side. The purpose of the bid is to an even game among players at the same skill level. Such posts are often followed by bad play suggestion (e.g. keeping russia in Bury, when the territory structure so dramatically favors Japan.

Buy much more navy than land. Purchases should reflect specific goals, rather than nebulous ratios.

The goal is to deadzone/prevent US from advancing onto Japan’s major income islands. Japan can do this with heavy sub purchases and good positioning. Due to the territory structure, allies can’t hope to hold coastal territories, so long as Japan’s navy is alive. Japan at worst trades a couple coastal territories.

By far the most common mistake with KJF is 1. japan doesn’t know how to attack pearl profitably. 2. doesn’t buy/position appropriate such that US can advance.

A good japan should be able to deadzone US with 100% us navy buys for at least 15-20 rounds. No joke.