Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

[variance]

Interesting topic.

@larrymarx:

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1

2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
G1 DOW rarely works out well.

3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
usually, but this is counter to points 1 and 2 above

4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
How does Japan force this?

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
No

6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
Sealion is NEVER an empty threat, and it is ALWAYS on the table

7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
Why is J1 better than J2?

8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
sometimes

9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
neutral crush can also be good for axis, but generally bad for either side

10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
On land, at sea, or both?

11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).
Don’t assume you know what the other side is thinking

Kill everything.

[larrymarx]

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1
Yes, I agree if you are going to throw everything at Russia you should buy artillery on G1. However, based on conclusion #3 (below), I believe that land units aren’t a good purchase on G1.

2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
G1 DOW rarely works out well.
A G1 focused push on Moscow that more or less ignores Britain doesn’t work out well, that’s true. This conclusion is more about the Allied response to this tactic and about why Germany needs units that threaten Britain at the very least on turn 1.

Some players favor the G1 DOW even when they are still focusing on Britain somewhat. The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?

3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
usually, but this is counter to points 1 and 2 above

Actually it goes hand in hand with point 2. Point 2 indicates that Allies can defeat the G1 Moscow push strategy. Point 1 is more of a general observation. At any stage in the game, even if Germany is playing defensively or conservatively, when they decide they want to go hard for Moscow they should buy this unit mix.

4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
How does Japan force this?

It’s not an optimal move for them. They have to bring their air force up north and move infantry in or buy a major in Korea. I don’t think they should do this except in certain late game scenarios, but if they did it would be better for the Russians to retreat than let themselves be annihilated.

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
No

So far I’ve got 4 people against this one and only 1 supporting it. I’m going to have to look at this some more.

6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
Sealion is NEVER an empty threat, and it is ALWAYS on the table

Yes, I agree. Should I reword this conclusion to make that clearer?

7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
Why is J1 better than J2?

You can take out the American fleet at Pearl and the Philippines and the British battleship off Malaya, take other territories early (especially FIC for a factory J2) and prevent the British and ANZAC from making progress in the Dutch East Indies. All of these things together offset the loss of the +10 bonus to Japan and the +20 that the Americans get.

That being said, J2 or even J3 can be a better strategy depending on what the long term goals of the Axis powers are, and in this game you must plan holistically. That’s why I added “merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific”. The J1 doesn’t take Europe, the Middle East or Africa into account.

8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
sometimes

Of course everything is subject to change. Once we agree on some basic rules we can figure out when exceptions apply.

9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
neutral crush can also be good for axis, but generally bad for either side

We could invent a scenario where they need to take Turkey or something, but I’m trying to address general strategy at a very high level as opposed to the myriad of tactical situations that are possible. My findings are that if the Axis plan on a neutral crush as their strategy from the beginning, they are doomed. On the other hand, the Allies moving into Spain and Latin America can be a good general counter to certain Axis strategies.

10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
On land, at sea, or both?

On land. China stack, Russian stack, Indian transports and air, ANZAC transports and air. The Allies can’t push navy at them except with America so there’s no multi-pronged naval attack in the beginning.

11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).
Don’t assume you know what the other side is thinking

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?

[variance]

Sorry if I came off rude; didn’t mean to be.  Again, good topic.

@larrymarx:

The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?
I did look up that cobra kai video on youtube and checked it out.  With respect to the person who made video, I must say it seems not likely to end well for the axis. It is not clear to me how the Germans would handle a soviet stack at Bryansk while they are building infantry back home… but I might be wrong of course.

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?
I do like the dark skies thing, but just don;t assume that if the allies are building fleet that they intend to actually send it to Gibraltar/Iceland. They may be simply enticing you into blowing money on your fancy bombers instead of more efficient ground units for the Moscow assault. At some point you may calculate that you need to use those bombers on Russia. Such a waste.

[larrymarx]

@variance:

The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?
I did look up that cobra kai video on youtube and checked it out.  With respect to the person who made video, I must say it seems not likely to end well for the axis. It is not clear to me how the Germans would handle a soviet stack at Bryansk while they are building infantry back home… but I might be wrong of course.

Sired (the guy behind it all) says the plan is to push tanks out of the minor IC in Romania and then infantry and artillery out of Ukraine and Volgograd once you capture them. He also suggests building an airbase in Romania and 2 Black Sea transports to get more ground over there faster. I guess the idea is that you’ve outflanked the Russians by focusing on the South.

On turn 2 you’re supposed to build 21 infantry to defend against an Allied invasion if you decided not to do Sealion. That does make it a little puzzling how Germany will sustain the eastern front.

@variance:

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?
I do like the dark skies thing, but just don;t assume that if the allies are building fleet that they intend to actually send it to Gibraltar/Iceland. They may be simply enticing you into blowing money on your fancy bombers instead of more efficient ground units for the Moscow assault. At some point you may calculate that you need to use those bombers on Russia. Such a waste.

So in this case Germany decided to defend themselves when they didn’t have to - they miscalculated. But if they are going to choose to defend, whether rightly or wrongly, I would still say bombers are usually better than naval or ground. If a land invasion becomes certain you can buy mech, or if you really have to push their fleet back you can build subs in the Baltic.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I like the topic and there’s no doubt that it will create a lot of discussion. My philosophy though is that there is only one hard and fast rule of the game, that Germany takes Paris in the first round. After that anything goes.

The most important skill to learn is to be able to read and react to the events going on in the game on both sides. Memorizing all of the best moves will only get you so far. You need to use your creativity to make it up as you go along. Understanding basic principles such as which units will be more effective against the units that you are facing, or the task that you want to accomplish, will allow you to overcome the best strategies if your opponent knows little more than memorizing that strategy and lacks the ability to react to what you’re doing. It is beneficial to have a good understanding of the rules as well so you aren’t surprised by something that your opponent does to you. It also helps to know the standard strategies to give you a starting point and to recognize what your opponent is doing. It is important to avoid using the same strategy over and over again so that you aren’t too predictable.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no way of listing all of the things that you should do in a game. Each game is different and not everything on a list will be a good idea in any particular game. It doesn’t hurt to list all of the known strategies though. Carry on!

[Fatespinner]

Strategies and plans will also vary depending on the meta environment. Do you always play with the same people? Do you play online or face-to-face?

I play online with a fixed group of friends and often strategies works that people normally define as unplayable. This is because people have certain playstyles and preferences. Due to a lack of time I make my complete move in 15-30 minutes. Looking at the map an deciding my strategy. Others spend a lot of time planning and playing and thus make less mistakes.

In our last game a G1 Dow worked pretty well, because it was so uncommon in out group that the allies did not know how to respond well. The same happened with our first J1 Dow, which was totally unexpected by the allies and won the game.

I think that Germany is much stronger and more dangerous to the allies than Japan. So I would say that the Allies should concentrate on Europe, because if you focus on Japan first and then Germany the game is lost.

[larrymarx]

@GeneralHandGrenade:

My philosophy though is that there is only one hard and fast rule of the game, that Germany takes Paris in the first round. After that anything goes.

I’ve actually heard of players strafing France and giving it to Italy if they can leave it with one or two units  :-)

@GeneralHandGrenade:

You need to use your creativity to make it up as you go along. Understanding basic principles such as which units will be more effective against the units that you are facing, or the task that you want to accomplish, will allow you to overcome the best strategies if your opponent knows little more than memorizing that strategy and lacks the ability to react to what you’re doing.

In fact I agree with you. It is for this very reason that I’ve been doing this research. When I say “strategic framework” I don’t mean a set of memorized moves or ploys - I mean a broader understanding of the dynamics of the board and the units that will assist players in reacting quickly to the circumstances they face, which of course will always be different.

One example of this kind of thinking is your “floating bridge” strategy. The knowledge that America can get the “four lane highway” going via Southern France is important to have whether or not one uses it in most games.

In addition, if we can agree on what “should” happen in an average game (optimal openers for the Axis and their appropriate responses), we can spot more easily when our games have deviated from the norm and adjust our play fluidly.

[Fatespinner]

Knowing some common strategies and their counters will be a good think. So that you can recognize them and be prepared. Hopefully that will lead to some more uncommon moves.

[Cow]

The Russia into Africa point, I like it generally, 2 mech 2 armor is more than enough.
~
Lately I prefer early russia units going to china. Both are good. You can do both if you buy bombers with usa and bring them into russia within 2 turns (they are really expensive infantry for this purpose,  use them to attack lone units germany has)

[simon33]

@larrymarx:

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1
Yes, I agree if you are going to throw everything at Russia you should buy artillery on G1. However, based on conclusion #3 (below), I believe that land units aren’t a good purchase on G1.

Hmm. If you are intending a G7 attack on Moscow, you can place 10art in Germany G2 which can participate, no more. Buying a few more artillery G1 means more artillery G7. I think the threat needs to be there even if it isn’t acted on. Otherwise the UK’s planes can hit the Axis elsewhere.

[WILD BILL]

Point #5 for Russia sending units into the Mid East is something I often do. With that said I would still allow the UK to take Persia ASAP (most likely UK1) for a couple reasons. 1) Because if the Germans are slow boating wG3 attack it would be lost allied income. 2) Because the UK would make better use of the 2 inf IMO  3) Over 5 turns the income for Persia gives you a UK ftr that could be heading to Moscow. If the Germans didn’t attack Russia by G2 I would also have UK take NW Persia so the Russians can blitz into Iraq w/air power after a G3 attack (have Russia buy an extra mech?). Yea it could be a little more costly for the Russians but it also means they save a couple of their starting inf that would help to def the motherland. Also the Russians taking Iraq very well might entice a distraction to the axis to take it back. They don’t like when the Russians get that bonus.

Something I think that is missing from your framework is to do a Taronto or Tobruk attack. I think this falls with-in your guide lines as an opening move. Although you have listed mostly axis moves, you do say for both sides, and the UK is generally aggressive in the Med even when threatened.

[variance]

WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar

[WILD BILL]

@variance:

WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar

Also note worthy.

[Hunter Jones]

@variance:

WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar

with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.

The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.

[simon33]

@variance:

WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar

Adding a German plane to Rome G1 is compulsory! The optional move is adding a plane to Tobruk.

If you also sink the SZ91 cruiser and are playing a game without an additional sub in SZ98 or similar, you give the allies a difficult choice. A lot of players will forego Taranto in this case or opt to send a second fighter from London. The latter move can’t really be combined with an IC in Egypt because it leaves London exposed.

@Hunter:

with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.

The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.

Two subs can reach - the ones in SZ103 and 108. Even if you only use one, it’s actually a coin flip because of the first strike capability of subs.

This works best in a G1 DOW scenario where you are foregoing the attack on SZ110. The other possibility is a scenario with a bid fighter in Scotland where you would normally forego one of the attacks on the Royal Navy.

[Hunter Jones]

@simon33:

@variance:

WILD BILL makes a good point. The axis should usually do something to make Taranto difficult, like add a German fighter and maybe sink the cruiser by Gibraltar

Adding a German plane to Rome G1 is compulsory! The optional move is adding a plane to Tobruk.

If you also sink the SZ91 cruiser and are playing a game without an additional sub in SZ98 or similar, you give the allies a difficult choice. A lot of players will forego Taranto in this case or opt to send a second fighter from London. The latter move can’t really be combined with an IC in Egypt because it leaves London exposed.

@Hunter:

with what exactly? A sub? So your going in on a Cruiser that has a better chance of hitting you? You are better off taking that sub to take out the destroyer off Canada or go in to SZ 111.

The fighter to Tobruk and a Tac Bomber to Rome is standard now. It bolsters defense in the best possible way.

Two subs can reach - the ones in SZ103 and 108. Even if you only use one, it’s actually a coin flip because of the first strike capability of subs.

This works best in a G1 DOW scenario where you are foregoing the attack on SZ110. The other possibility is a scenario with a bid fighter in Scotland where you would normally forego one of the attacks on the Royal Navy.

Hmmmm… a bid fighter in Scotland… thats huge for the UK.

I would also like to point out that 6 Infantry and 1 Fighter is the standard UK 1 buy. So even if they have brought down 2 fighters from London, they are putting one on London when they place their units. All the units from Scotland will go down to London anyways, thats 2 UK fighters and the French Fighter.

If you leave the fleet in SZ 111, Thats a Battleship, Cruiser and, Destroyer for the UK that could get away and be built on in Canada. But building on it leaves London open for attack.

[Cow]

Giving France to italy is silly, I rather use German air to blast UK ground so italy can walk in

[taamvan]

Its not silly when Italy has 2TTs+, then a grand fleet, and then 50 income!    Of course no Taranto but we didnt’ know how good that was when we first started playing.

[Cow]

Thing about Russia helping out  Asia and middle East is it does require USA to send bombers to Russia. Nice thing about bombers to Russia is that it can attack mech/inf/armor that tries to go past Russia to choke it’s income… USA bombers can of course attack ground units if the axis go heavy middle East as well. It takes a round longer to get to Russia going the Africa route.

USA bomber is very very effective against a j3 Dow because you can get bombers in on USA 5 in time for a G6 all in on Russia… Of course it doesn’t make it in time for a G5 all in. But you can get Anzac air for that or UK pacific air in… Generally UK pac is safe from Japan in that scenario.

I still on occasion g1 Russia and j1 swarm east russia… It is a cheese strategy, after Japan has to either take out UK pacific or shut down Iraq persia Egypt or union factories for the Europe win. USA bombers can stop a G6. So Germany is forced to go G5 with full force. All in fast game strat.

[Cow]

But yeah keeping the 18 inf around in the Pacific can be problematic for my J1 Dow.