German navy

[newpaintbrush]

@froodster:

Froodster: Ok on G1 I buy 3 Trns and put them in the baltic, and a bunch of Inf in Germany
NoobGuy29988: zomgzors I am going to stop you from unifying your fleet and a move X Y and Z into SZ 6. (or whatever the opposing theory is)
Froodster: Ok I bring A B and C to SZ 6 and according to the total punch I blow up your X Y and Z and I have A and half of B left
NoobGuy29988: oh yeah well I bring V and W and sink your A and 1/2 B and I have B left according to No Luckzorz
Froodster: Ok Germany is done in the Atlantic - let’s see we each lost M and N IPCs respectively and now the board looks like this…:

Lolz0rz.

Oh wait . . .

lol ^2.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

But with the expected result you get +/- both good and bad.

So even if the expected result is 37%, meaning 63% the expected doesn’t happen.

This post:

@squirecam:

Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.

Yes but of the 63% that don’t occur (“expected”), roughly half are going to be BETTER and half worse, give or take a few % points.

You’re looking at a battle that has 65-70% acceptable results for you.

Even a slight roll down may be acceptable pushing this number to say ~75%.

That analysis would be great if there were just ONE BIG BATTLE in Axis and Allies.

What you really have is lots of little battles.

So let’s say you had a big-a** fighter and naval battle that turned out poorly for you (the 30% happened there), while you hosed Russia on trading territories that turn (you got your 70% there).

You just got smoked.

Fine, then don’t attack when 70% is acceptable to you, wait for 80, 90 whatever you comfort zone is.

If I lose a “Must Win” battle where the 30% negative comes out so be it.  But I’ll do the same strat and when it comes to a similar battle I’ll take my 70% chances.  And I’ll do that over and over and over, and out of 10, 50, 100 games I’ll have a 70% win ratio.

You can’t win every game.  I write off 20% right away, I try to win the 80% that aren’t dice skewed in rds 1-2.

If I get smoked by a 30% outcome on an attempted take down in Sz 7, then boo hoo hoo.

It doesn’t make the decision to attack a bad one.  Maybe I can refine it to get a 80-85% chance but that still means screw jobs can happen.

You can’t play worry about losing battles where you have 70-90% chances to take.  Now if you consistanly attacking in battles with 55-60% you may want to change things.

I think I didn’t make myself clear.

Thanks to subsequent posts by other posters, I hope my position has been clarified.

I also hope that everyone agrees with my basic point that NoLuck, and even LowLuck, are not accurate predictors of games.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes correct. :-D

[frood]

Oh you’ve made yourself perfectly clear.

But just to repeat a point made above about 2 heads 2 tails being the result only 37% of the time - assuming “heads” are hits and “tails” are misses, then 37% is not your chance of success - it’s the chance of that exact result. The probability of that median result has to be taken in the context of the range of acceptable results.

Say you can live with sustaining up to three hits, but not four. Then the possibility of an ACCEPTABLE result is 15/16. However, you want to plan ahead and do some planning based on how many units you can expect to have surviving. Since the median result is 2 hits, that’s the assumption you could arguably base your planning on. Your plan still works if you take 3 hits, and obviously your plan won’t be hurt if you only take 1 or 0 hits - that’s just gravy.

So anyhow, I like to plan individual battles based on the range of possibilities that surround the median result. But when you’re feeling lazy, just the median result is the best quick benchmark to go by.

That said, I find I’m calculating the odds less and less the more I play, as I just get a sense for it.

[frood]

Agreed. What units you buy and where you move them in non-combat is much more important than actual combat I think. If you manage your forces well you can prevent them ever being caught in losing battles.

[goldenbearflyer]

To sum up, it appears that EVERYONE is correct, because every move and strategy is viable depending on the circumstances!!!  Germany CAN build naval units and win the game, period.  After that, the exact buy can take many different forms.

The strategy talk in this thread is helpful; all the talk about die rolls and odds is interesting but not so useful, because the proof is in the pudding, or actual games!  But this is all old news to most of you who have played a lot.

I seem to be one of the few people actually playing at the moment and testing out the ideas (not a criticism, just an observation), and I want to say (a) I see now the benefit of the G1 3trn 2inf 2arm buy.  It definitely slows down UK/US and causes problems for the Allies.  Many different possibilities present themselves after G1, but one consistent truth, in my experience, is that Russia builds a significant lead in ground units and should be able to take 4-7 IPCs away from Germany [Edit to add:] each round 1-4, at least (WRus, Belo, Ukr, or some combo of those).  This makes it extremely difficult for Germany to close the gap in ground units. With respect to Africa, in my experience it is NOT a given that Germany takes IPCs in Africa that make up for losing ground on the eastern front.  It is possible for UK to defend Africa; I know because I’ve done it.  (b) I do see the benefit of the AC buy, but I like it less than trannies, because the trannies move ground units to the front while still providing defensive value and useful fodder if a large naval battle ensues.

I know there are many other naval buy options and ramifications of each, but there is no doubt in my mind that all of them provide an advantage in ground units to Russia.  The one complaint I have about Axis strategies as discussed on this forum is that they SEEM to consistently underestimate the staying power and possibly even offensive punch of Russia.  I hope that is a somewhat controversial statement; I am sure many folks will point out flaws in my thinking.  However, I am only going by what I see on the board in numerous games I have played recently.  If I have time I will post the actual unit counts in one of my current games, because I want to demonstrate that this is not simply a small unit differential; Russia has approximately a 2:1 advantage in inf, whereas Germany’s arm is better, but overall ground units are such that Germany cannot take out Russia’s big stack and is often struggling to hold back an advance.

The key, of course, is what is Japan doing all the while?  Of course they are advancing (but do not assume I am talking about pure KGF and full retreat in the east – there are many different scenarios that can happen there).  The crux of the issue about a German naval build is essentially:  can Germany hold out long enough until Japan somehow wins the game?  That may be wrong, but that is the way I am seeing it “here on the front lines”.

Fire away…

[squirecam]

Depending on your location…

Next week is Greg’s Spring Gathering.

About 40, if not more, A&A players will be playing for fun and door prizes.

Both minis and board gamers welcome

Cincy, Ohio

March 30-31

Details here…

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/AAspringgathering.html

[squirecam]

@goldenbearflyer:

but one consistent truth, in my experience, is that Russia builds a significant lead in ground units and should be able to take 4-7 IPCs away from Germany [Edit to add:] each round 1-4, at least (WRus, Belo, Ukr, or some combo of those).  This makes it extremely difficult for Germany to close the gap in ground units.

The crux of the issue about a German naval build is essentially:  can Germany hold out long enough until Japan somehow wins the game?  That may be wrong, but that is the way I am seeing it “here on the front lines”.

Fire away…

These 2 things I disagree with. Remember that the USSR starts with several infantry in the east, which need time to walk to Moscow and then the front.

Germany has most of its troops already at the “new front” by holding EE and trading UKR/Belo/Karelia.

You dont need to be “ahead” in Ground units. You need to have “enough” to swap these territories and gain Africa.

As to Africa, if you destroy the allied transports, Africa SHOULD be yours for these first 4 rounds. The allies wont have any transports left to have landed in Africa.

Also, The point of the Navy is FLEXABILITY. You can merge. Get London. Nuke the allied fleet. Contest Norway. Or just defend and cause allied pain in the cost to sink you (which they have to do to open Germany/EE to amphib attacks).

It might happen that the fleet dies and you can only wait for Japan to save you. But with a UK fleet and focus vs Germany, there is NO UK IC in India. This usually results in a rapid Japan advance.

Moreover, Japan can swing a transport or 2 to Africa to speed its conquest if needed.

Squirecam

[DarthMaximus]

@goldenbearflyer:

I know there are many other naval buy options and ramifications of each, but there is no doubt in my mind that all of them provide an advantage in ground units to Russia.  **The one complaint I have about Axis strategies as discussed on this forum is that they SEEM to consistently underestimate the staying power and possibly even offensive punch of Russia.**  I hope that is a somewhat controversial statement; I am sure many folks will point out flaws in my thinking.  However, I am only going by what I see on the board in numerous games I have played recently.  If I have time I will post the actual unit counts in one of my current games, because I want to demonstrate that this is not simply a small unit differential; Russia has approximately a 2:1 advantage in inf, whereas Germany’s arm is better, but overall ground units are such that Germany cannot take out Russia’s big stack and is often struggling to hold back an advance.

I bolded the Russia part.
I agree.  I learned long ago in classic, that Russia is not weak, but infact, quite strong when played right.
I think that translates to Revised as well.
What makes it so, is they are the one power that can simply sit back and buy land units all game long.

Check out the games section as well, many of us are quite active.  We’re in the middle of a 32 person tournament, several league games going, and several pick up games with NA’s, two-on-two, varients, etc.

[Imperious Leader]

yea i say the same thing… that is the other side of the coin. The german fleet gambit hardly works unless they roll high, but also gives the Soviet player more options.

Also, We should look at what the Soviets are doing for the 1st 3 turns while this plan is happening. The German air force is likely tied up for turns 1-2 and partially into turn 3

The Soviet Union has grown stronger… so what are they doing in all this?

[goldenbearflyer]

Next week is Greg’s Spring Gathering…  Cincy, Ohio

I would love to be there, but I’m in CA.  I’ll be in Cincy in July visiting family.

Remember that the USSR starts with several infantry in the east, which need time to walk to Moscow and then the front.

Germany has most of its troops already at the “new front” by holding EE and trading UKR/Belo/Karelia.

You dont need to be “ahead” in Ground units. You need to have “enough” to swap these territories and gain Africa.

As to Africa, if you destroy the allied transports, Africa SHOULD be yours for these first 4 rounds. The allies wont have any transports left to have landed in Africa.

Also, The point of the Navy is FLEXABILITY. You can merge. Get London. Nuke the allied fleet. Contest Norway. Or just defend and cause allied pain in the cost to sink you (which they have to do to open Germany/EE to amphib attacks).

It might happen that the fleet dies and you can only wait for Japan to save you. But with a UK fleet and focus vs Germany, there is NO UK IC in India. This usually results in a rapid Japan advance.

Moreover, Japan can swing a transport or 2 to Africa to speed its conquest if needed.

Squirecam, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the flexibility of the navy.  If the Allies make a mistake, yes, some of those cool options are there.  I am coming around to the idea that NOT building navy leads to a worse situation for Germany.

I know you are correct in what you say, because you must be having those results in actual play.  The disconnect for me is, I don’t know what types of numbers your Russian opponent is putting up against you.

As long as we agree that Germany is not ahead (although I say significantly behind) in ground units, I’m fine.  But what I’m saying is that if the G big stack is too small to take WRus, and Russia adds about half of its ground unit production to Moscow each turn, by the time the Japanese reach the outskirts of Moscow, the Russians have a big enough stack to hold off the Japanese.  In my experience.

As for Africa, perhaps Germany has had bad luck in several games, but I kid you not, I have seen UK take it back T1 and/or T2 several times, especially if Med fleet moves west!

And what is the UK Indian Ocean fleet doing all this time?  That’s the point, if Med fleet moves west and UK actually takes back Africa, UK can move into the Med T2 if it wants!  I saw it happen.

[squirecam]

Squirecam, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the flexibility of the navy.  If the Allies make a mistake, yes, some of those cool options are there.  I am coming around to the idea that NOT building navy leads to a worse situation for Germany.

I know you are correct in what you say, because you must be having those results in actual play.  The disconnect for me is, I don’t know what types of numbers your Russian opponent is putting up against you.

As long as we agree that Germany is not ahead (although I say significantly behind) in ground units, I’m fine.  But what I’m saying is that if the G big stack is too small to take WRus, and Russia adds about half of its ground unit production to Moscow each turn, by the time the Japanese reach the outskirts of Moscow, the Russians have a big enough stack to hold off the Japanese.  In my experience.

You are not going to take WR. That is not the point at least not for the first 3 rounds. Without blocking, UK is adding 8 units per turn into Norway/Africa. This is from UK 2, or at least by UK 3.

You are eliminating that 8 unit buildup. But not so much that WR should be taken. Your goal is to hold EE. Trade Karelia, belo, Ukr, and possibly Norway.

AFTER africa is yours, your income will be enough to crush the russians. Africa income is pretty important to the plan.

As for UK taking Africa back, UK has 6 units available. 3 India, 1 transj, 1 persia, 1 SA. Germany’s bid should allow Germany to conquer Egypt G1, and retake G2, which should only leave possibly 2 inf left. Remember that if India is abansoned, use the japanese to sail to Africa if needed. It doesnt matter WHO takes africa, just that it IS taken. As expediently as possible.

UK should not be able to move into the med given G1 and G2 control of Egypt.

Also, if G loses too many troops G1 (or russian attacks go bad), dont bother buying a fleet. Punish the russians with ground units.

Squirecam

[goldenbearflyer]

@squirecam:

You are not going to take WR. That is not the point at least not for the first 3 rounds. Without blocking, UK is adding 8 units per turn into Norway/Africa. This is from UK 2, or at least by UK 3.

You are eliminating that 8 unit buildup. But not so much that WR should be taken. Your goal is to hold EE. Trade Karelia, belo, Ukr, and possibly Norway.

AFTER africa is yours, your income will be enough to crush the russians. Africa income is pretty important to the plan.

As for UK taking Africa back, UK has 6 units available. 3 India, 1 transj, 1 persia, 1 SA. Germany’s bid should allow Germany to conquer Egypt G1, and retake G2, which should only leave possibly 2 inf left. Remember that if India is abansoned, use the japanese to sail to Africa if needed. It doesnt matter WHO takes africa, just that it IS taken. As expediently as possible.

UK should not be able to move into the med given G1 and G2 control of Egypt.

Also, if G loses too many troops G1 (or russian attacks go bad), dont bother buying a fleet. Punish the russians with ground units.

Squirecam

Well, don’t forget the UK ftr from the Indian Ocean can help attack Africa.  That is why I agree it’s important for part of the J navy to head west and try to eliminate the UK navy east of Africa.  So, yes, if that happens I can see that whole plan working.

Of G loses too many troops, don’t bother buying a fleet?  I thought we’re talking about a G1 naval buy, before you really know how it’s going, without regard to what Russia did R1?

[squirecam]

Of G loses too many troops, don’t bother buying a fleet?  I thought we’re talking about a G1 naval buy, before you really know how it’s going, without regard to what Russia did R1?

Example:

If USSR attacked UKR and lived with inf, art+tanks OR attacked UKR but whiffed and retreated,  dont bother with the fleet. USSR either needs immediate attention (former) or screwed the pooch and is ripe for the pickings (the latter).

Squirecam

[Wazzup]

I have never once used a battle sim.  (I guess I used to do algebra, calculus, and statistics in my head during high school, college)

All they do is give you something that should have happened but didn’t.  Damnit, that ace hit on the river and I am Phil Helmuth and can’t believe it.

Low Luck really takes the fun out of the game.  Everything is predictable, and blah blah blah.  “If luck weren’t invovled, I’d win every game.” -Phil Helmuth

The best predictor of outcomes?  Count your units, count his/her units.  If you have more, then you are doing ok.  However, if you are attacking, better hope at least 30-40% of your force are attackers.  I generally go with a bit more, but sometimes I have no choice.

German Navy can be evil.  However, in my normal KGF, it doesn’t bother me.

However, in KJF, German navy can be a challlenge.

[Imperious Leader]

Actually after playing this over and over again I have come to a new conclusion:  It appears that the best idea is to never leave the baltic… This is the only useful idea to come out of this plan of 1 CV and 3 AP on G1.

The idea is to keep the threat an active threat, which also requires the allies to build differently to defend against possible link up.

You can throw a scare into them anytime you take the medd fleet to western Medd ( must take Gibrater)

Additionally, you allways have this option open which forces the Brits to keep a sufficient garrison in England.

Lastly, you can shuck huge amounts of infantry and artillery to the Soviet Union getting to Moscow. That may be the compensation for no land buys on G1 for the eastern front.

This is after like 10 playtest sessions trying out different ideas and variations.

[Guest]

Congrats IL, you reached teh same conclussion I did several games ago…

Let the UK come to you, and stay out of range of the BB as long as possible.  This gives you several advantages:
1.  Forces the UK to take 2 rounds to get to Germany/Eastern… 1 to get through the navy, one to attack the land territory
2.  Gives you the best bag for your buck on your fleet since it is better on defense than on attack

[frood]

This is interesting, because I’m coming to the conclusion that the UK does best to just ignore the Baltic fleet too… unless there are 3 TRNs there.

[Guest]

Let me keep it Dan…

Added German security, added mobility… and the contant threat that i will come after your fleet anyway  :-)

[frood]

well eventually, perhaps round 3 or 4, but it’s not important. It’s not as if UK is any threat to invade Berlin before then anyway.