We’ll see. I’m just super afraid it’ll increase American morale if I attacked first. Worth a shot though as morale never undermined most campaigns on either side.
Safe Russia strategy
-
You have to pick your spots carefully when you are being aggressive. You don’t do it if there is no economic benefit to it just for the sake of being aggressive, you only counterattack when you can come out ahead in the exchange. If the German player is competent and on top of their game then you may not get a chance at all and have no choice but to retreat. Every player makes a mistake now and then though you just have to be ready to make them pay for it.
-
I’m starting to try some different strategies to slow the Nazi steamroller:
-
Scramble G1 - kill some Luftwaffe. Who cares about losing half the RAF?
-
Early US assault on Norway if possible
-
A lot of Strat Bombing
-
USA onto Normandy if not Norway and preferably both
-
Keeping the USSR’s Baltic Sub alive as long as possible. While this is alive Germany needs a DD to be able to build a TT in SZ113.
Basically, anything that weakens Germany strengthens Moscow relatively.
I think I’m starting to improve my (currently infinitely bad in 2017) ratio. There is no one strategy which kills them but you don’t have to. The USSR if living healthily can do that.
If USA gets on Norway, Germany has to do a lot to kick them off which takes them off killing Moscow.
-
-
This is an interesting discussion. I think both Arthur and Karl has hit the nail. No question that Axis are overpowered and the need for bids is obvious. One of the best league players, Adam514 says he need a bid of 60 for an even result if he was to play himself 100 times. But this is of course with AAA.
In other situations the need for a bid is much less. For a face to face game between unexperienced players there is no need for a bid. As your experience is growing the need for a bid becomes more and more obvious. The first 20 games or so you are more or less learning unless you have a natural talent for the game.
As a side note, defending Russia: If Germany buys 6 art and 2 inf round one and follows up with additinal men (fast moving) in round 2 and 3 and bombers in round 4 and 5. Moscow is dead on G6. You can’t stop this. Try to get allied fighters to moscow by end of round 5, it is really hard. With a bid it is easier because more of your UK fighters will survive the opening round (unless you scrambled round 1, in that case Italy will have fun in the med). Well, there are ways to get fighters to Moscow. Those extra fighters will make the deal less attractive to Germany as they will typically have only maybe 5-10 land land units remaining
-
The only way axis are winning a lot is by maximized play.
Well, der.
Of course the Axis try for optimised play. So do the allies. Aren’t you saying that the axis should play more weakly and the only thing which makes Axis strong is they play well?
-
Going around via the Med is a serious commitment though. If the Axis take Cyprus (which I think you meant instead of Crete) they then have to land on TransJordan or Syria. In all cases they are vulnerable to being hit by Italy.
-
how are you getting UK fighters to moscow end of UK3 or UK4? Are you taking out italian navy or not?
-
If the Allies put a huge amount of effort into it, they can make Moscow survive a G6/G7 attack. At the very least they can make the exchange unwise since Germany would lose too many planes. In such games, I swing my German fast movers down into the Middle East. With bomber and fighter support, they can blow through any resistance until they approach Egypt. The German income quickly rises to 80+ while Russia is struggling to add enough infantry to continue life for a few more turns. A couple tanks and bombers can swing over to assist Japan do critical can-opener moves. If Japan is doing okay in the Pacific, the game is essentially over at that point. Economic victory is a very valid way for the Axis to win. With easier logistics, they will be able to win in 12-20 rounds if their income matches that of the Allies.
In the Balance Mod, the Allied income is significantly boosted. Adding another 10-15 PUs for the Americans allow them to hold off the Germans in Europe even after the Middle East is captured. The immortal Chinese partisans keep that country alive long after they would be dead in a standard game. Those changes, or a huge Allied initial bid, are necessary to prevent the Axis from winning in the long run simply by capturing the Middle East and sending fast movers over to conquer Siberia. Simply keeping Moscow around until Round 12 does not mean success for the Allies if massive numbers of planes are required to keep the capitol from falling.
-
man a lot of hate on here if you want to take the bid away.
Keys to winning without a bid:
Strategic bombing with the USA, every turn
USA buys 4 bombers on turn one they can get there quick when you get invited to the party.Scramble on the G1 attack on UK navy. yes it hurts taranto but it also slows the germans down if they lose a bunch of fighters sometimes you also get lucky.
Stay off the coast in asia. This is a general rule but sometimes some players seem to want to go see the china sea / sea of Japan for some reason.
This is not a complete response as many things change in a game but if you break any of these cardinal rules you have no chance to win as the allies. I know this from experience.
-
Going around via the Med is a serious commitment though. If the Axis take Cyprus (which I think you meant instead of Crete) they then have to land on TransJordan or Syria. In all cases they are vulnerable to being hit by Italy.
What italy?? Italy is dead with or without a bid after round 1 they are lucky if they got something floating in the med at all. All those air units combined with tactical bombers can destroy italian fleet units on the way from gibraltar to cyprus. With only 10-15 income what is italy going to produce in the face of +5 allied aircraft? Sure germany can station 3 fighters in south italy that is 3 fighters less for the attack on russia and 1 turn delay for UK fighters going to russia.
Italy still has its sz95 navy in every game I’ve seen.
Usually still has its air force. Has Libya and will get Greece.
That counts to 11ipc i1 plus any bonuses, less convoying. Generally, if it scrambled it will be able to sink the British forces who remain and collect the no for no ships, also meaning no convoying of its income.
-
I don’t know what you expected seancb. Experienced players generally win as axis.
There may be strategies which turn the tables but these have not been proven yet.
-
Keys to winning without a bid:
Strategic bombing with the USA, every turn
USA buys 4 bombers on turn one they can get there quick when you get invited to the party.When I’ve done moves like this they just don’t repair the damage in West Germany and build in Germany which you can’t strategically bomb without taking somewhere to land, e.g. Finland/Norway. Also, they quickly take Ukraine and/or Leningrad which are difficult to bomb.
-
In BM the French navy is left alive because you don’t have to kill it. In standard it’s normally hit isn’t it? Guess it depends on what Italy has left and has to hit.
-
FWIW, with a 2ftr 1tac scramble I get 2.66 remaining units if one fighter is brought from London and 4.34 if two fighters are brought (for 5 total planes).
The UK has to lose planes to keep ships alive in SZ97. This might make sense if Taranto and Tobruk are combined because Egypt is left so weak. If Ethiopia is done instead, the attack on Egypt is only a 41% possibility even without the blocker in Alexandria. Perhaps Italy would do so.
You generally have the Cruiser in SZ96, which will tie up probably the sub and bomber , while the dd and cruiser might go after the French ships. If you are willing to go for a coin flip on one you can attack both.
Ok, so there is a strong possibility of not making the NO even with the scramble.
-
Not sure whether anyone else has said it, but holding Moscow is often not necessary, if the allies still hold Egypt.
As G will usually have odds on Moscow at some point, then saving that Russian stack by abandoning Moscow and withdrawing south to the Middle East can mean that losing Moscow does not lose the game.
The experienced contributors to this thread will know all this, but thought it should be stated for any less experienced players.
Or perhaps those experienced players will tell me why I am wrong! :roll:
-
@Private:
Not sure whether anyone else has said it, but holding Moscow is often not necessary, if the allies still hold Egypt.
As G will usually have odds on Moscow at some point, then saving that Russian stack by abandoning Moscow and withdrawing south to the Middle East can mean that losing Moscow does not lose the game.
The experienced contributors to this thread will know all this, but thought it should be stated for any less experienced players.
At some point defending Moscow is just protecting 3 IPC (unless if you hold Irak and the African territories) and the troops and the Allied planes sitting there can be tied up at pretty minimal cost for Germany (stack of troops strong enough to hold near Moscow which is is being reinforced with cheap units, + planes + fast movers sitting elsewhere).
Russia holding Bryansk for as long as possible is important. After that, not losing Russia while keeping pressure on Stalingrad and Caucasus seems to be the strategy. Many of the German players build lots of mechs and later add some tanks that can head south and really cause big problems. Ideally Russia is able to keep this mass busy long enough (e.g., trading territories and chipping away at it, or forcing that force to stay north) for the UK to get their act together.
UK fighters are particularly valuable because they can shift from protecting the Russian front to protecting the Middle East and they also add to the strike value of the Middle East stack.
-
I never had that result, first the UK takes 1 or 2 hits on the carrier you got 21 defence and 5 hitpoints vs 22 attack and 9 hitpoints.
A game with a bid will normally add a sub. You mention taking hits on the planes which is about what I said. If the Cruiser is there and SZ96 then yes, you are exceedingly unlikely to get the NO.
-
if anyone is interested in taking on a league or non leage game for 0 bid to show I am wrong I am up for it. I am not a very good axis player but feel confident at this one. text me
-
I am betting that nobody takes you up on that offer, Oysteilo. My experience with people running around saying that the game is balanced also insist on playing Axis, or they are more casual gamers who balk about a TripleA game where you can more carefully plan your moves and calculate the probabilities. They also don’t realize the quality difference between people who play 10 games a year in local groups compared with the hardcore League players who are doing an order of magnitude more matches and has in depth experience with a much wider range of game situations.
-
If i got time ill take you on Oysteilo as i like a challenge and i still think i could make it happen.
Most experienced leage players are experienced with exactly the same game over and over again with little variation, i prefer to think more outside the norm.
That would be fun to do! Let me know. If you like we could start a non league game and just have it run in the background and you can post whenever you have time. When I play with one of my friends we never use bids either, but we drink beer and wine and then after a few rounds it is a balanced game :-D :-D
-
Just start the thread here if you don’t want it to count for league: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=40.0
Suggested Topics
