Just want to throw some mad props your way, Mazer/marvinmartian (and the rest of the editors’ too). CSub was in many ways my ideal A&A group. It had easily the highest level of A&A strategy analysis I’ve seen. I don’t want to knock this site–obviously I like it enough to be pretty active here!–but most of the forum threads are rules questions or superficial discussions, and truly in-depth analysis is rare. I suspect the same is true of most other strategy forum sites. By devoting itself to serious strategy discussion, CSub claimed a unique and extremely valuable niche in the A&A world. I miss it!
Posts made by uffishbongo
-
RE: Caspian sub people, where did you go?
-
RE: Where do you live?
@RogertheShrubber:
I live in Chicago, but I hail from the great state of Iowa where my heart still resides. Go Hawkeyes!
+1 karma for a fellow Hawkeye!
-
Question regarding Soviet NO
The one involving Archangel says there must be “no other Allied forces…”
This is probably a stupid question, but does that include AA guns? I’m so used to retreating the British gun to Caucasus and now I may have knocked out 5 of my own IPC’s by doing so. :x
-
RE: Mathematics and Axis
This thread appears to be long dead, but I never get tired of math questions! :-)
To answer the original question: The statistics of when a bomber gets shot down are determined by something called the geometric distribution, which you can find plenty of info about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_distribution. The geometric distribution describes the first occurrence of an event when you make repeated, independent trials. For example, the number of times you have to flip a coin before getting heads; the number of times you have to be dealt a poker hand before getting a royal flush; and the number of times you have to roll a die before getting a 1 are all described by geometric distributions. Once you know the probability of success in a single event, the geometric distribution tells you how long you have to wait before seeing the first success.
Some of the information for the geometric distribution:
–-The probability of getting your first success (in our example “success” is the bomber getting shot down!) on the nth turn is (1/6)*(5/6)^(n-1). This is because, in order to be shot down on the nth turn, the bomber must first survive the preceding n-1 turns, which has a probability of (5/6)^(n-1), and must then be shot down on turn n, which has a probability of 1/6.
–-The probability of getting your first success by the nth turn is 1 - (5/6)^n. This is just 1 minus the probability of the bomber surviving the first n turns. (It’s also the sum of the probabilities of getting shot down on turn 1, 2, …, up to n, but that’s the long way to do it!)Given this, a number of other facts can be calculated (I’ll spare you the details…) The question “When will the bomber, statistically speaking, be shot down?” has three different answers: the mean, median, and mode. Here’s what each of those is:
—The mode is the single turn on which the bomber is most likely to be shot down. This may be surprising, but it’s the very first turn! The probability of getting shot down is the same (1/6) on all turns, provided the bomber makes it to that turn , but first it must survive all the turns before it. Hence, the first turn is the most likely turn-of-death since the bomber doesn’t have to survive any prior turns in order to reach it.
–-The median is the first turn for which the bomber has a 50% chance of getting shot down before it. This is the fourth turn, because the probability of getting shot down on one of the first four turns is 52% whereas the probability of surviving the first four turns is 48%. So it’s about 50-50 whether the bomber survives at least 4 turns.
–-The mean , also known as the expected value, is the average number of turns that the bomber will survive. This is 6 turns. It turns out that you can actually calculate this by taking the reciprocal of the 1/6 probability of getting shot down on a given turn, although the reason why that works is slightly less obvious than it might seem.So, which of the mean, median, and mode is the most useful? When should we expect to lose the bomber? Well, the mode is the least useful for answering this sort of question. One can make a case for either the mean or the median, but for the types of calculation that people usually have in mind, the mean is the way to go. For example, if you’re trying to figure out the average amount of economic damage inflicted minus damage received from each bombing raid, then the statistic you want is the average, aka the mean.
Of course, the question of whether bombing raids are worth doing involves a lot more than calculating the average IPC’s lost and destroyed. My test: If you want to decide whether bombing a given country with your country is useful, ask yourself, “Would I destroy $10 of mine if I also got to destroy $10 of theirs?” If the answer is “Heck yes!” then SBR’s are useful. For example, Japan bombing Russia generally makes sense, as does US or UK bombing Germany. A weaker power bombing a stronger power is usually not so smart.
-
RE: Japan Naval Defense (WARNING: LONG)
I’d be honored! And yes, this is about Revised.
Let me know if you want me to edit or rewrite any sections before posting on the main site.
-
RE: Where to find competitive A&A games at?
Just wanted to mention another place to play online, which probably won’t be going AA50 anytime soon (so if you want a place to play Revised for a while, it’d fit the bill): the IAAPA, which can be found at axisandallies.net
This is one of the oldest A&A clubs around, and these folks are so old school that most of the gaming there is still 2nd edition! That’s right, Revised is cutting edge at the IAAPA. However, don’t be too quick to dismiss them, they have some very good players including some very good Revised players. I’ve played in a number of their Revised tournaments (they have three per year) and have never made it to the finals. -
RE: Japan Naval Defense (WARNING: LONG)
Thanks for the comments everyone!
DM: I forgot all about the articles section–I rarely even think to look there. I agree, that’d probably be a better home for this.
Zhukov: I’m getting to like air more and more as compared to subs, but the one thing that makes me wary about going entirely air-based is that if I have to switch to defense then I want some boats in the water…ideally you can stay on the offensive (or the buffer-method-defensive) but subs give you some flexibility in case you need defense in the water too. But I always feel a little reluctant buying them, I’m always happier getting fighters. I didn’t go into this in much depth in the article, but I also love how fighters are dual-use land/air units…at the right time you can suddenly move them all onto the mainland and have a huge threat to Moscow, or possibly even go rescue Berlin.
Jen: It’s probably possible to go KJF without any help from the dice, but I’m not good enough to do it. Like you, I only go KJF if I’ve gotten an invitation to do so in one way or another. One extreme example was my game against Switch where Japan got murdered in J1 not only in Pearl, but also in Borneo where the British fleet was…he came out of that turn with 1 out of his 4 capital ships left, and I think only 2 or 3 planes too. KJF was a no brainer at that point!
-
Japan Naval Defense (WARNING: LONG)
INTRODUCTION
This is a collection of thoughts about how Japan can defend against the US navy. It’s long enough that it’s more like an article than a regular post; I hope that’s not too pretentious.The topic of this article is how to respond to a particular Allied strategy that I think is fundamentally flawed, but that I nevertheless come up against regularly in league play. I suppose that by trying to convince people to stop using a flawed strategy against me, I’m not really doing myself any favors. What can I say, I’m just that magnanimous. :-P Ideas from this article could of course be applied to other situations, but a lot of the specifics will be different.
The strategy I have in mind is one in which the UK and Russia go against Germany, and the USA goes after Japan. Theoretically it might be possible for the US to do this with a Sinkiang complex plus navy, but without Russian help the complex is doomed, so play generally proceeds by getting into a naval arms race with Japan. The primary objective is to out-build Japan’s navy enough to go island-hopping and secure a decisive income advantage. Once that’s been done you can kill Japan’s navy, push them off the mainland, etc. A secondary objective would be for Japan to spend all its money on boats in order to stay ahead, relieving any Japanese pressure against Russia and enabling them to put all their troops on the German front.
It’s about time for some disclaimers:
(1)This strategy can be OK in response to specific game events , by which I mean, if Japan eats crow in Pearl and allows you to wipe out two of their capital ships on USA1. But if Japan comes out of J1 with its whole navy and air force intact and a strong Pearl and you take this approach anyway—which I’ve seen happen plenty of times!—you are trying to climb a very steep mountain.(2) I’m not trying to say that KJF is bad in general. What I am trying to say is that if you want to go KJF, go all the way. Use all three Allies and hold nothing back. If you go half against Germany and half against Japan, it’s not enough, unless the dice are very kind to you.
TWO KINDS OF DEFENSE, AND NAVAL BUILD STRATEGIES
There are two kinds of defense in A&A. The first, which I’ll call “survival”, is making sure your stack is powerful enough on defense to survive if attacked. The second, which I’ll call “buffering”, is making sure your stack has enough offense that the enemies don’t dare move within range. It’s usually preferable to play the second kind of defense when possible, and fall back to the first only when you must. This keeps your income higher, and reduces the danger to your critical territories.Which kind of defense you’re playing affects your purchasing strategy. If you want to play the more aggressive form of defense, the key statistic is the attack power of your units, not their defense power. Conversely, your aggressor’s ability to advance on you is based on the defense power of his units, even though he’s the one going on the offensive. So everything is kind of backwards.
One specific way that this affects purchasing strategy in the water is how many fighters you buy per carrier. If you’re going for survival-defense then you want two fighters per carrier. However, if you’re going for buffering-defense then you want four fighters per carrier. This is because an attacking carrier can usually support four fighters, provided there is land reasonably close by: Two fighters start on the carrier, attack the sea zone, and then land on a nearby island or continent, while two fighters do the reverse (start on land, attack the sea, and land on the carrier).
BATTLE STATISTICS AND PURCHASING STRATEGIES
Suppose you and your opponent are both given $10,000 to buy the most powerful navy you can. What should you invest in? Subs? Carriers and fighters? Battleships? Some kind of mix? What gives you the most bang for your buck? Well, this is where it gets mathematical…if your eyes glaze over, just skip to the parts in all caps. ;-)There are three statistics that measure how powerful a given army is: punch, count, and skew. The punch is the sum of all the attack values of the attacking units, or defense values of the defending units. (Your expected number of hits will then just be your punch divided by 6. For example, 3 inf 3 tanks attacking have a punch of 12 and will get 2 hits in an average round.) The count is simply how many units are in the army. Skew is harder to quantify, but it has to do with how “spread out” your combat values are; if you have some high-power and some low-power units it’s generally better than a bunch of mid-range units. (For example, 100 inf 100 tanks attacking 200 inf will almost always win, even though their punch and count are identical. This is because the attackers can take some hits without losing power as fast as the defenders).
So how does all that math affect purchasing strategy? Well, one simple way to proceed is to calculate which purchases give you the most punch per IPC. Unfortunately this won’t account for count and skew, but some hand-waving descriptive arguments can help figure out how those factor in.
At first glance, here are the stats:
Attacking Unit…Punch/IPC
Fighter…0.3
Sub…0.25
Destroyer…0.25
Bomber…0.25
Battleship…0.167
Carrier…0.063
Transport…0Defending Unit…Punch/IPC
Fighter…0.4
Sub…0.25
Destroyer…0.25
Carrier…0.188
Battleship…0.167
Transport…0.125The moral of the story seems to be that both sides should just buy fighters. Unfortunately, one quickly realizes that without carriers this doesn’t actually help your navy much! A more relevant statistic would be to compute punch/IPC for a carrier group, meaning a carrier plus all the fighters it can support. Recall that a defensive carrier group consists of a carrier with two fighters, whereas an offensive carrier group consists of a carrier with four fighters. We then have the following revised table:
Attacking Unit(s)…Punch/IPC
Solo Fighter…0.3
Sub…0.25
Destroyer…0.25
Bomber…0.25
Carrier Group…0.232
Battleship…0.167
Carrier…0.063
Transport…0Defending Unit(s)…Punch/IPC
Solo Fighter…0.4
Carrier Group…0.306
Sub…0.25
Destroyer…0.25
Carrier…0.188
Battleship…0.167
Transport…0.125So, what to make of this? If you’re looking to go on the offensive—or, if you’re looking to go on the defensive using the buffer method—then carriers and fighters are slightly less efficient ways of getting punch than subs, destroyers or bombers. When you factor count into the equation—an offensive carrier groups costs $56 for 5 units, whereas you could get 7 subs for the same price—it becomes clear that subs are your best bet for adding to your offensive punch. However, on defense the picture is not so clear. Carrier groups give you significantly more defensive punch per IPC than subs do, but subs give you significantly more count (50% more, in fact). Tough call. Personally I would still go with subs as my mainstay, since their count advantage seems to be wider than the carrier group’s punch advantage.
The other moral of the story is that, just as in the land war, defensive punch is cheaper than offensive punch. This implies that if you and the Americans spend the same amount of money, given long enough they will eventually reach the point where they can safely advance within range of your navy. Of course, with your initial head start that may take a while, by which point your income could be higher than theirs due to gains in Asia. But it is good to know that the long-term situation favors their ability to push forward if all other things are equal.
But wait, there’s more! Why did I leave the solo fighters on the list? Didn’t we decide they were just a fiction? No, there are circumstances where their statistics are relevant. Considering the following two applications:
(1) MAX OUT YOUR EXISTING CARRIERS FIRST! If you already have a carrier and you don’t have all the fighters for it, then buying more fighters to fill it up is effectively adding to your army at the solo fighter rate rather than the carrier-group rate. The application to Japan is, BUY YOUR 8TH FIGHTER BEFORE GOING HEAVY ON THE SUBS. With your two initial carriers you can bring 8 fighters to the battle. Until you have those 8, more fighters are the fastest way to add to your offensive punch.
(2)If you station air on an adjacent island, the fighters don’t need a carrier. For instance, if you’re anticipating a big battle in SZ 45, then you can park your air on the Caroline Islands and it’ll be two spaces from SZ 45—so, no carrier needed! You can buy as many fighters as you like. So you really can add to your force at the solo-fighter rate. This option is competitive with subs as the best overall offensive purchase; you get 20% more punch than with subs, but 20% less count.
GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
So far I’ve just been considering the effectiveness of different units and purchases in the abstract. Time to look at the geography of how a US invasion might proceed, and how to fend it off.US INVASION STRATEGY
It’s well known that the favorite US invasion point is the Solomon Islands and its corresponding sea zone, SZ 45. This because (a) it’s only two moves from SZ 55, so US builds can get there in one turn, and (b) it’s within two moves, hence one turn, from all the key islands: East Indies, Borne, Philippines, and even Australia. Thus, a massed American fleet off LA can move to the Solomons in one turn, and then go crazy all over the islands.As soon as it’s safe the Americans would like to build a factory in either Borneo or the East Indies. This allows them to build ships right in the thick of the conflict. Borneo is a more aggressive option, since its sea zone is only two moves from Japan; the Americans have to be doing pretty well to be able to put that factory up. East Indies is three moves away and hence may be feasible at an earlier point, but of course the flip side is that it puts less pressure on the Japanese navy because of the extra space.
In summary, the basic USA invasion proceeds as follows: move to SZ 45, start taking islands, put up a factory on one of the big islands, and start producing ships in Japan’s backyard.
SIMPLISTIC JAPANESE COUNTERMEASURES AND HOW THEY FAIL
Since the Solomons are the linchpin of US invasions, perhaps the way to counter is just to make sure enough firepower is within reach of SZ 45 to kill anything that moves there. So with Japan you can just mass your fleet in SZ 60, and make sure SZ 45 is a deadzone, right?The reason this fails is because the US can buffer with a sacrificial lamb. They move most of the fleet to SZ 45, but leave one cheap straggler in SZ 51. All the glorious Japanese battleships are now prevented from attacking, as are the transports you might use for fodder. If the Americans are smart enough to buffer with a destroyer then your subs can’t get there either. Attacking with pure air against a fleet with lots of transports to absorb your hits gets real ugly real fast.
Buffering like this allows the US to invade with an inferior fleet. You can send your fleet down to chase them, but they can grab a few islands, continue to protect their main fleet with a buffer, and put up a factory before you manage to pin them down. Few things are more frustrating than chasing an inferior fleet around the South Pacific while they take your valuable islands from you and continue to send reinforcements in from the east!
BETTER JAPANESE COUNTERMEASURES
In order to avoid this kind of scenario, it’s best to stay far enough ahead with your naval builds that the buffering strategy becomes impossible. The key is to have your main fleet sitting next to SZ 45, not two spaces away, so that the US can’t protect itself with a buffer.If your fleet is a lot bigger than the Americans’, you could take the offensive and push your fleet up to Hawaii or Wake. However, staying on the offensive in the Pacific will take a lot of your resources, and you’d rather be putting some ground troops in Asia to grow your economy and pressure Russia. Hence, a more economically efficient option is to create a stalemate: you hang back and make them make the first move, but keep enough power to make that move costly. Hence, you want your main fleet buildup to be in a spot that (a) is out of reach of SZ 55 (so you don’t have to worry about your survivability against an American attack—you can guarantee that you’re the one threatening to attack), and (b) is adjacent to SZ 45. This means the Caroline Islands is the place to go.
If you have ships farther west that are within reach of SZ 45—say, SZ 37, or either 38 or 46, or 48, etc—these are still OK because the US can’t reach far enough to buffer against them. It’s really just the SZ 60 fleet that can be made ineffective by a Wake Island buffer. So you can still send your boats to grab Australia, deal with an annoying British fleet in Borneo, or whatever, while still keeping an eye on the Solomons.
However, your default buildup spot is the Carolines. You should park your battleships there, and at least one carrier. Once you’ve built up to your 8th fighter (see above) you will want to start getting some subs in the mix. Build them in SZ 60 and then move them to SZ 50 on the subsequent turn. Note that this requires you to stay a turn ahead of demand, because there’s a turn delay between when you build the subs and when they are (unblockably) threatening SZ 45.
As mentioned above, you can buy beyond your 8th fighter if you plan to station some air on the Caroline Islands. This gives you more punch but less count than subs, so it’s a judgment call. However, this has the additional advantage that your purchases go into effect immediately: If you move an already existing fighter from the mainland to the Carolines (or from the mainland to your carrier and one from the carrier to the Carolines), then your new fighter purchased in Japan is threatening SZ 45 and will have the potential carrier spot opened up to it that was vacated by the fighter you moved to the Carolines. So if you need to up your threat to SZ 45 and can’t wait a turn for your sub purchases to move into position, a fighter purchase can do it more quickly.
You will need to think about defending SZ 60 against air. You’ll probably have a couple transports operating there, and your new sub builds. This makes a juicy target for air in SZ 55; they can go on a raid and move a carrier up to SZ 57 to pick them up. Since this would likely be suicidal for the carrier, it may not be worth their while, but you need to keep an eye out for that move and think about whether to leave some air defense in SZ 60. If the air threat is small, a destroyer should do the trick; if you need more, you can leave one of your carriers there.
Let’s talk about where to station the fighters. Four of them will be on your carriers, able to hit SZ 45 and then land on an island or mainland. The other four, then, can start anywhere within four spaces of SZ 45. This means you can put them as far up as India and Yakut and still be able to make it in four spaces. If you haven’t held India or Yakut yet, or just want to provide more complete coverage of the Pacific, try FIC and Buryatia. Either way, you can keep using four fighters against Russia while still maintaining the threat to SZ 45. A bomber stationed in Buryatia is great too; it can hit the key Pacific spots, can reach all the Russian territories east of Caucasus, and can SBR Moscow, all from the same place.
FALLBACK OPTIONS*
Sometimes things go wrong. You make a blunder, or the dice get screwy, or whatever. Ideally you’d like to prevent a move to SZ 45, but suppose it happens. Then what?Well, my favorite fallback spot is FIC. There are two reasons for this. One, I always build a factory there J1 if the Russians and Brits didn’t go bananas with a crazy KJF starter. (My favorite J1 purchase for a KGF game is 2 tran 1 IC after bidding $1.) Second, it’s right next to your three big islands (East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines). You can let the US get Okinawa and New Guinea, those are small potatoes, but you want to protect your big islands.
If you’re forced to fall back, then, the basic maneuver looks like this:
(a) Move fleet to SZ 36, and build up to 3 more ships there (subs most likely, maybe a destroyer)
(b) Build more air in Japan if you have the money for it.The result is that you can deadzone the three valuable islands. What’s more, because FIC is adjacent, there’s no way for them to use a buffer to sneak in either. So even after they push to SZ 45, you may be able to keep them away from your big targets for a few more turns.
If you do this, MAKE SURE THEY DON’T GRAB TOKYO! Moving your fleet down from SZ 60 to join the others in SZ 36 leaves you open to invasion. Station some air there, and buy a couple inf if you need to.
SUMMARY: HOW TO REPEL AN ILL-ADVISED AMERICAN FLEET BUILDUP
–First, make sure it really would be ill-advised. That means not losing your initial fleet. If you go heavy into Pearl on J1, which I still usually do (even though it’s becoming less fashionable these days), make sure you come out with your BB and CV and 2 ftr and one other ship if at all possible. This means attacking with your DD and sub (if it survived) is a good idea, it may mean losing your bomber before a cheaper ship, and if things go wrong you may want to non-combat your transport from SZ 60 to help out. Better to start a little slower on Asia than to lose your fleet.
–Buy up to your 8th fighter soon. Station 4 on your carriers, 4 on the mainland but still within reach of SZ 45. This way you can use them against Russia throughout the naval standoff. Bomber goes on Bry or possibly FIC.
—For the first few turns, you shouldn’t need to buy more boats except some transports. Focus on grabbing land in Asia, while always calculating to make sure you’re deadzoning SZ 45 adequately.
—If the Americans continue to get serious about their naval builds, start getting some subs while continuing to make ground units. Station your main fleet in SZ 50, move your sub builds there the turn after you make them, and keep your 8 ftr within range.
—Consider adding more fighters, to be stationed on the Carolines (or New Guinea), in addition to your sub builds. Also make sure you have one destroyer in SZ 50 to cancel out their sub’s special abilities.
—If you have to fall back from a superior fleet, pull back to SZ 36, build more boats there, build more air on Japan, and make sure to adequately protect Tokyo. This should buy you some more time before your key islands fall. -
RE: My Axis Game from Last Night, or- "A Crushing Fascist Victory"
I disagree with your analysis–from what it sounds like, UK1 was played quite well. Ignoring Japan for a few rounds is not a problem. As far as I can tell, the main factors contributing to Allied loss were
—not contesting Africa (big one!)
—losing the British fleet (carelessness + your luck)
—Panicking on the USA west coast–your landing in Canada could have been handled easilySounds like there was solid Russian play all the way through, and mostly sound Allied play, but with the aforementioned oversights. If he had shut you out of Africa and not had to rebuild the USA fleet, I’ll bet Germany would have been about ready to collapse by the time Moscow fell. Generally the Allies can win if Berlin falls even a round or two after Moscow. I don’t think the idea of letting Japan go for a while and going full bore against Germany is wrong as a big picture approach, it just sounds like a couple of the details were botched.
-
RE: Way to not get raped with uk?
Actually, if I was Germany and saw a Russian fighter in Egypt I would start watering at the mouth…anytime I get a chance to kill a Russian fighter I become very happy. Russia’s fighters are essential to its ability to trade territories and keep its income up, and it generally can’t afford to replace them.
With a bid in Africa the Germans can bring up to 6 ground units and 2-3 planes into Egypt on turn 1. There’s no way you can withstand that. Even without the bid they can get 4 ground units and 2 planes for almost a 90% chance of winning. I would go for that pretty much every time with the Germans.
-
RE: Japaneese IC
It seems to be a popular view that Japan is wasting its money if it buys a complex before it has maxed out the first one (i.e. is transporting 8 units/turn to the mainland). However, I am of the opinion that 2 tran 1 IC–this is assuming $1 bid to Japan–is the optimal J1 purchase for getting units to the mainland quickly. There was an old thread (sorry, I couldn’t find the link on my first search and I’m too lazy to look harder) that had some calculations to this effect, but for the short version, consider:
—If you build 3 tran on J1, you can put 8 units in Asia on your second turn. However, with 2 tran 1 IC you can get 9 units there: 6 from your three transports, and three more from your complex. With a 2 IC purchase it’s down to 8 again, one from your transport and 6 from your complexes. (I’m assuming throughout that the UK killed your transport in SZ 59 so that you only have one to start with.) So if you’re trying to get as many units to Asia on J2 as you can, 2 tran 1 IC is the way to go.
—4 tran on J1, using a bid of $2, is also a good way to start fast. However, in this case your capacity outstrips your income; it will be a couple rounds before you can actually get new units fast enough to keep your transports busy. The 2 tran 1 IC buy is better optimized at keeping your production/transport capacity matched up with the number of units you can afford to produce. In particular, a 4 tran J1 purchase enables you to put as many as 10 units into Asia on J2 if you clean out Philippines, East Indies, Okinawa, and Wake, but then you run out of island units and can only make up to 8 new ones in Japan. So you get a lot of inf on J2 but it’s more of an anomaly, where the 2 tran 1 IC buy gives you a smoother and more continuous startup.
—As far as location, I like FIC the best. Kwang is farther from Moscow than either Fic or Man, so if you’re trying to put pressure on the Russians quickly you want either Fic or Man. You can supply plenty of troops to the northern area from Japan itself, so the complex is needed more on the southern end. Plus it enables you to get to Africa, Caucasus, etc better.
—So far I’ve been assuming KGF. In KJF you should certainly be a bit more hesitant about getting factories up quickly. However, I’ve found that a FIC complex, which is always where I build on J1 if I build a factory at all, can be very helpful in KJF. Ideally when defending against an American fleet you want to defend as far out as possible, e.g. with a fleet in the Caroline or even Solomon islands. However, if you’re forced to fall back, FIC is a great fallback point. The key thing about it is that it borders all three of your valuable islands. If you get in trouble you can fall back to SZ 36 and build more ships there to join your retreating fleet. Often this will be enough to prevent the Americans from taking any of those expensive islands right away. If your only factory is in Japan you’re forced to keep your navy farther north to incorporate the new builds, and the Americans have an easier time getting to the southern islands. -
RE: Need help with allies :evil: (I'm not a noob)
I have been turn 1 russia 1 tank, 1 arty, 5 inf. I’ll try 3 + 3 instead for a while. (you put the inf in caucus, 2 tanks in moscow right?)
1+1+5 is not at all a bad build. I prefer to get 3 offensively oriented units though. For the longest time I got 4 inf 3 art, which I still think may be the best long-term buy, but in the short term the 3 tanks are a big help, especially if you do the Ukraine attack and lose some tanks in the counterattack.
Why are you building a Carrier with England, i thought that was america’s job? (especially since america will get to put 2 ftrs on it when they build it, while england’s fighters should be used up killing stuff, either baltic or germany norway/karelia)
If by “use up” you mean get them killed, I don’t think UK needs to use up its fighters against the Germans. But, I do agree that UK can often get away without a carrier, and I usually try to if possible. It’s more of a fallback to be on the safe side if your navy is getting in trouble. It sounded like the Allied navies in your games needed some more longevity, which was why I recommended it.
If the german baltic fleet moves to SZ6, you have to attack it with your UK 2 ftrs 1 bomber or else they threaten a combined attack of navy + air force on the allied fleet. If germany keeps it in SZ5 you can ignore them for a turn or more. If you do not take them out, then you can not take Norway turn 1 uk, and if they are sz6 you also can not take karelia turn 1 uk. Do you disagree? Why?
If the Baltic fleet moves to SZ 6 you can hit it not only with your air force, but also with your tran and BB from SZ 2. With the BB to soak up a free hit and the transport to take another if necessary, you won’t even lose a plane. This is an example of where you might want to build a carrier, though, since otherwise your BB could go down in the German counter. The other option is that you could build fleet in SZ 2 for a turn, in which case they’re with reach of the German boats but out of reach of the planes.
I have been using the moscow ftr to land in china, and attacking french indochina with 3 inf and 1 ftr, then landing ftr in china also. The carrier, destroyer and transport hit the SZ59 transport and kill it, the sub in SZ40 hit the jap sub, and the transport moves up one to threaten borneo for a turn 2 strike. I also tend to move up to 3 tanks and 4 inf into sinkiang. This allows me to take manchuria and china with russia turn 2, and half the time the brits get french, the other half they leave it unoccupied. This splits up the japanese airforce, usually meaning they leave the trsport in 46 alone, attack pearl with the bare minimum, and take china with only 1 inf left. They then lose a couple ftrs to a russian attack on kwangtung turn 3. After that I begin withdrawing from asia back towards persia, sinkiang and yakut.
If, instead of doing this you use the trsport with 2 indian inf plus ftr to attack and retake egypt, you will slow the african campaign down enough to delay a landing in algeria until turn 2. I can see this being beneficial as the addition of 1-2 transports, a carrier and fighters will limit the german ability to destroy the fleet (they can still attack, take out all trsnports, then retreat). Unfortunately, you basically give asia to japan and will have a big jap stack and 5 ftrs plus 1 bomber on moscow’s door turn 4, not to mention an unstoppable ipc generation in japan. If germany feels they can not stop your fleet, they will use their airforce against russia instead, which could end up hurting you more. I actually enjoy throwing my navy at germany in order to kill 5-6 ftrs turn 1 (turn 2 germany).Well, it sounds like the reason Germany is so unstoppable in your games is that the Allies are throwing way too much stuff at Japan! It is possible to do KJF if you go all out with all three Allies (I’m not a KJF expert by any means), but if you throw tons of gear Japan’s way just to slow it down then you’re getting the worst of both worlds. Japan will still do just fine and Germany will absolutely demolish you. Better to throw everything at Germany for the first few rounds, before Japan gets dangerous.
lastly, if people aren’t using TripleA, what are they using instead?
Games here are played by forum rather than by email, so the alternative is to type your moves directly into the forum post. The mapping utility of choice is ABattlemap, which is graphically much uglier than TripleA but has more flexibility strictly as a mapping utility (TripleA is really a game engine). Dice are authenticated via the “in-house dicey”, a forum script which converts certain syntax strings to dice rolls. For example, if you type ;aaa 1@1 5@3; but replace the colons with semicolons, it knows to roll 1 die at 1 and 5 dice at 3, and displays the answer as
Rolls: 1@1 5@3; Total Hits: 41@1: (1)5@3: (1, 2, 3, 5, 4)
-
RE: Need help with allies :evil: (I'm not a noob)
You’re right that the USA can’t really get much momentum in Europe until about round 4. On the other hand, Japan can’t really harm Russia until then either. Before that it’s just grabbing empty 1 IPC territories and/or a couple of stray islands.
I definitely wouldn’t park an Allied fleet in SZ 12 on round 1 if the Luftwaffe was all in position to hit it. Round 2 would be better, and you can use carriers built on round 1 to get your defense where it needs to be. UK can take Norway on round 1, enough to annoy Germany and possibly reduce Russia’s workload by trading Karelia on round 2.
If the Allies land in Algeria round 2, that doesn’t give Germany a free pass in Africa, especially with no bid. Chances are G2 is just retaking Egypt. G3 you might get to take your one tank and blitz a couple territories, which can be taken right back from SZ 23. Woo hoo.
One thing that I think is important for Russia in the first couple of rounds is getting enough counterattack firepower. If Germany has to build up its stack for a round or two before pushing it forward, you can buy enough time for your allies to catch up to you. I assume your Russian opponents are buying straight infantry or something close, which may be part of their problem.
Re the Ukraine attack: The chance of failure is real, but the odds are significantly in your favor. Russia can’t afford to cower in a corner, it needs to take a couple of (well-planned) aggressive attacks. It does have the drawback that it exposes 2-3 of your tanks to die in the counterattack, but on the other hand, (i) you take out valuable German units, (ii) you create a protective buffer around Caucasus so you aren’t forced to shift all your forces south to defend it, (iii) you increase your income.
Here’s an idea for an R1 much like what I usually do:
–-Purchase 3 inf 3 tanks. This helps replace the tanks you’ll lose in Ukraine, and creates offensive threats to make Germany think twice about stacking too high in the border territories. It also helps prevent a German stack in Karelia on G1, one of my favorite German openings when I get the chance.
—Attack Ukraine with everything available (if you feel like playing it safe) or everything available minus one tank (if you feel a little more like rolling the dice). If you attack with everything you have a 96% chance to win. If you take out one tank it drops to 87%. (Don’t know the percentages for taking it over with ground troops off the top of my head.)
—Attack West Russia with everything available that isn’t going to Ukraine. You can leave a guy in Karelia too if you like, though it’s really not necessary.
—Don’t leave more than 6 inf on the Japanese front. The guys in Kazakh go to Caucasus, the guys in Evenki and Novosibirsk go to Moscow. You need those guys against Germany ASAP, and don’t need them against Japan for a few more rounds.
—Coupla options with the Far East guys. You can stack all 6 in Buryatia, which (especially if you take out the Japanese transport in SZ 59 on UK1) might be challenging for Japan to take back without abandoning some of their other plans (Pearl, China). If, in addition, you land the fighters in Kazakh then you might be threatening Man with enough for the Japs to leave it empty and you can walk in and pick up a free $3 next turn. On the other hand the Japs might concentrate all their firepower on taking out your stack and leaving Siberia completely empty. A safer bet is to retreat the 6 guys to Yak.
—Sub to SZ 2, of course.For UK 1:
—It’s often not actually worth your while to take out the Baltic fleet on UK 1 unless Germany is threatening to do something harmful with them. You can afford to just bottle them up and clean them out later.
—If it looks like Germany is putting up a fight in the Atlantic, a good buy is 1 tran 1 CV 1 inf.
—Retake Egypt if possible. You can get there with 3 inf 1 ftr 1 bmr, so if German has fewer than 4 ground troops there the odds are in your favor to retake.
—If SZ 12 is too hot to land there on round 1, take Norway and get the cash flowing in your direction sooner rather than later. You can go to SZ 12 on round 2, or may be able to leave that entirely to the Americans, depending on what Germany does.After that it depends on how things have gone so far. I’m not sure where your huge German stack on the front line is going, but in my experience you often end up with competing stacks in East Europe and West Russia staring each other down for a couple rounds before either is big enough to advance. This is enough to get UK/USA into the game.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, and actually I think only a minority on this site use TripleA anyway, but I have version 1.0.0.3.
-
RE: Way to not get raped with uk?
I’m talking about UK’s first turn, before Japan moves. If Germany takes Egypt on its first turn, UK can transport 2 guys from India to help take it back. As far as what happens after that, it depends on Japan’s first move; some Japanese players may not want to send their fleet to SZ 34 on the first move if they think they need them somewhere else. If so, UK still has its transport on its second turn and might be able to hit Egypt with it again if necessary.
-
RE: Need help with allies :evil: (I'm not a noob)
As syntaxerror said, lots to digest, but I’m left wondering what Allied opening strategies you’re seeing. For example, you mentioned in passing that Germany has 6 fighters to work with on G1. Around here the most common Russian opening seems to be a Ukraine/West Russia attack, leaving you with only 5. (I favor the Ukr/Wru move myself, though some don’t like it.) I’m also wondering what the UK/US are doing with their shipping if you’ve been able to take it out with your Luftwaffe.
I’d be up for an unofficial, just-for-fun game to try things out if you like. Do you use TripleA?
-
RE: Way to not get raped with uk?
Hi malleberserker,
In most games, even ones that the Allies win, the UK income will take a hit for a couple rounds before coming back up. Don’t worry, it’s no cause for alarm. A few thoughts:
–-Your forces in the Indian Ocean area (south coast of Asia, the SZ 35 and 40 fleets, and your African and Australian troops) are enough that you can make a play either in Africa or against Japan, but not both. So you have to pick one. I usually go after Germany in Africa. At best you can slow Japan down a little (unless you’re playing KJF–whole other topic–in which case UK is VITAL), whereas you can actually help bring Africa under Allied control for the long haul.
—Germany usually takes Egypt on turn 1. If they take it with fewer than 4 ground units remaining, I almost always counterattack on UK1. You can get 3 inf (2 by transport, 1 from Trans-Jordan), 1 fighter, and 1 bomber to the battle. Even if you only take it over with planes, you’ve stopped the Panzers from blitzing the heck out of sub-Saharan on round 2.
—It’s good for both the Brits and Americans to get involved in Africa in the first couple of rounds. Often you go for a combined move to SZ 12 on either round 1 or 2. From there your forces can march across North Africa, or you can send a transport or two down to SZ 23 to hit whatever Germans are reachable from there. If I do make the latter move I usually prefer to do it with the Americans, so the Brits can get back up to Europe ASAP and take Norway and start pressuring the German coastline.
—If you managed to retake Egypt on turn 1 you can usually stop the bleeding in Africa without too much problem. Germany retakes it on G2, but you may be able to re-retake it on UK 2 (if your transport survived J1) and either way, by the time Germany starts heading south from there your troops from Algeria are close on their heels.
—Even when going after Germany in Africa, I still send the destroyer to SZ 59 to take out the Japanese transport. Not much else to do with it, and it does help slow them down.
—If Egypt is taken with too much to retake on UK1, my favorite alternate start is to take Borneo with the transport from India, and still send the destroyer to SZ 59. I usually also move the carrier to the Borneo sea zone and land the fighter on it (after the fighter helps attack Borneo). It annoys the heck out of Japan, and if they decide they need it back immediately then they have to concentrate a lot of their first turn on that. I’ve seen some J1’s practically end the game because they made a risky attempt to recapture Borneo and lost a lot of expensive hardware in the naval battle. You create a lot of opportunities for things to go wrong.
—Overall: Don’t bother with India or Australia, you’ll lose them anyway (again, assuming KGF rather than KJF); South Africa complex is not bad, but you can get Africa without it; and don’t think you’re necessarily doing something wrong if it takes a few rounds to get your income back up to healthy levels. -
RE: Brazil IC in Non-Mediterranian US strat
Ah, didn’t realize you had tried it in another game too. That makes more sense now.
Yeah, round 3 or 4 is the earliest the USA can have any real pressure in Europe…I don’t think a German tank dash is unstoppable in general, but slow-building Allied strategies must be used with care, as sometimes you have to go lickety-split to keep up.
-
RE: Brazil IC in Non-Mediterranian US strat
Define “somewhat successful”. :-P
-
RE: A Russian Hypothetical
Re the 1 art 4 tank purchase on R1, it looks really unbalanced. But, if you move the inf in Eve+Kaz+Nov west on your first turn, you basically get 6 inf free, so it becomes a 6 inf 1 art 4 tanks purchase, which doesn’t look quite as unreasonable. I still gravitate toward either 4 inf 3 art or 3 inf 3 tanks, but I wouldn’t rule out 1 art 4 tanks.
-
RE: Noob question about air units
Yes, you’re correct. An aircraft’s movement is the maximum allowed for the sum of combat and non-combat moves in a turn. Also, you’re right that you can ignore enemy aircraft along the way.