@Krieghund Thank you!
Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)
-
@andrewaagamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
But if your question is if I have only two choices a) a battleship or b) a destroyer and a cruiser than of those two choices, yes the destroyer and cruiser is a better build assuming you have the space to build two units instead of one.
So going back to your original question is ONE battleship better than ONE cruiser plus ONE destroyer. I am thinking IF the battleship might survive it is the better unit to buy. Here are the results of the battle:
CA and DD win = 11% = $20 x 11% = $2.2
CA wins = 31% = $12 x 31 = $3.7
BB wins = 39% = $20 x 39% = $7.8
All die = 19% = $0
CA+DD = $5.9
BB = $7.8So if there is a chance after the battle is over that the battleship can escape and heal itself buying the battleship is the better economic buy assuming the slightly less chance of winning overall, 42% vs 39%, does not affect the outcome of a larger fleet battle or defending the sea zone.
-
@andrewaagamer The TUV benefit of the BB becomes even larger when the odds of winning is greater. If you know that eventually you will be able to force a fleet battle in the Pacific, and will be on the winning side because USA is doing either a KGF or KJF strategy, purchasing an additional BB or two could be wise.
If you aren’t absolutely convinced you will have an epic Naval battle with victory firmly on your side, stick with subs and destroyers.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
If you aren’t absolutely convinced you will have an epic Naval battle with victory firmly on your side, stick with subs and destroyers.
Hear that!
-
@andrewaagamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
@andrewaagamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
But if your question is if I have only two choices a) a battleship or b) a destroyer and a cruiser than of those two choices, yes the destroyer and cruiser is a better build assuming you have the space to build two units instead of one.
So going back to your original question is ONE battleship better than ONE cruiser plus ONE destroyer. I am thinking IF the battleship might survive it is the better unit to buy. Here are the results of the battle:
CA and DD win = 11% = $20 x 11% = $2.2
CA wins = 31% = $12 x 31 = $3.7
BB wins = 39% = $20 x 39% = $7.8
All die = 19% = $0
CA+DD = $5.9
BB = $7.8So if there is a chance after the battle is over that the battleship can escape and heal itself buying the battleship is the better economic buy assuming the slightly less chance of winning overall, 42% vs 39%, does not affect the outcome of a larger fleet battle or defending the sea zone.
Yep. If BB survives
DD + CA C20 A5 1.50
BB C20 A4 .63Funny how this is based on ABH reply in fleets
SS+DD C14 A4 FS 2.08
BB C20 A4 .63That’s a better buy to if sub gets at least 1 FS
Odds are BB wins 56% time. InterestingBut of course BB survives it gets repaired next turn. Free well don’t like and BB doesn’t go down to a AD@3 when damaged but this is For G40 so we move on.
-
I was considering the Atlantic fleet in a kGF situation and thinking that a 1-3-3-3-3-3-3-3 fleet might be durable and effective at pillaging the coasts. 1 battleship, 3 cruisers-3 carriers with three fighters-3 divers-three artillery-three infantry. park that in 110 and shazaam! keep a supply chain coming and you’ve got a meat grinder that halts the Germans in their tracks.
-
@crockett36 That depends on much Axis air force remains, how much Axis navy remains that can hit sea zone 110, and whether or not Normandy and Holland are available as landing spaces for those planes (with sufficient ground forces to protect them from an Allied invasion).
Also, three loaded transports won’t do. That might be enough to hold off a counterattack from Finland after you take Norway, but it’s certainly not enough to hold Normandy if Germany has been foolish (or unlucky) enough to have captured it before Russia is in the bag and is forced to defend it.
Marsh
-
@marshmallowofwar It would depend on your goals for assaulting Normandy. If your goal wasn’t to capture but to kill ground units, the fleet composition is deadly. 1st round casualties with low luck: 3 at 3 bombardment, 3 figs at 3, 3 divers at 4, 6 at 2=42/6=7 hits. 27 ipcs Germans, 21 ipcs US. Retreat and do it again for cheap.
-
@crockett36 Uh, sure.
Color me skeptical. Besides, Normandy is a sucker’s play until after Russia has fallen.
-
@crockett36 Ok, I figured out why I was skeptical.
You’ve outlined your entire Atlantic naval force as what you posted and you’re assuming you’ve got three more loaded transports coming every turn to bleed the Axis in Normandy.
If your entire fleet is sitting in 110, how are those loaded transports making it to sea zone 110 each turn? If they’re going to Gibraltar, they can be reached by Italian subs and by German strategic bombers. If they’re parking mid-Atlantic, I can reach them with France-based strategic bombers.
If your entire fleet is not sitting in 110, I’m either going to kill your sea zone 110 fleet (thus stopping the bleeding and cutting off your reinforcements) before I worry about whatever you have in Normandy. And if I don’t have the planes and subs to do it this turn, you can bet I’ll have them next turn!
Marsh
-
@marshmallowofwar Do you only play Germany? What do you do to open up a second front against the evil Huns? I just thought that I stumbled onto a reason for buying cruisers. There’s no reason the brits couldn’t have a three plane scramble there and drop an CV into the fray.
We all know the prowess of the Axis. There is zero amount of creativity in thinking of new ways for the imbalanced Axis forces to win the OOB game. There is only glory to be had in doing the difficult or attempting the impossible.
As I said, I thought of a way to effectively use cruisers. It tickled my fancy. BTW, taking down the Luftwaffe by losing a fleet isn’t a total loss. It just needs to be the right math at the right moment.
-
@crockett36 Nope, but neither can I read your mind. If you have additional things to modify the situation it’s helpful if you include them in your assessment.
-
Thank you for the post. I can add, especially winning in the live tournament format:
Sun-Tzu know your opponent: Any information that can be gained about their playstyle, opinions and predilections can become an advantage. You may also have to share information, but it may not be a 1-for-1 trade, (example; You know I like to buy mechs as Germany, I know you think stratbombing is a bad ROI)
Your job is to ensure luck matters as little as possible. This is why you use overwhelming force–more than to prevent multiple rounds of retals, it ensures victory where board position matters more than TUV trade. Some battles are forced by circumstance as in your example where your partner loses a big battle–you may need to take a risk. Its better to take that risk before, rather than after, you’re in a desparate situation. But moreover–its best to force your opponents to take those risks by simply turtling well and making him impatient for a close to 50/50 attack.
Decisive Battle; Some battles you can win by losing (both of you take massive casualties, but your follow on attacks defeat him in detail). The game we won in the tourney forced me to take a massive risk of attacking the US fleet on the final turn—luck did prevail that day but the overwhelming result was that so much Axis income was recaptured that it turned from a very close game to an overwhelming victory in 1 battle since by freeing a sea-territory a whole host of other units could/could not charge through that newly freed-up zone.
Consistency; You hit on this–the player that refuses to give up may win just because of that. There are many times that my opponent believed he’d given it all and had no further chance of victory (and he was totally wrong). In that case, I don’t signal concession–I encourage him to concede. If the game creates irrational victory conditions, use that and hope they just time-out or give up before they are attained/obvious.
Small stuff doesnt matter; we spend tons of time setting up small battles and taking $1 territories, but these truly do not affect the game as much as the key strategies; focus on capitals, defend and attack in force, flop the big money (+$70) dont sweat the small stuff. The smaller battles are a big part of (live) gameplay, but many winning strategies involve completely ignoring small, temporary money gains, or the survival of 1 infantry–and rely on much more robust dynamics…
Which is why your odds example is a bit over-illustrative as to what modifys the actual battle odds. Most times Germany is attacking Moscow with a ton of 3-4 “to hit” units that will die last. The value of the capitol ($$, plus knocking an opponent out for a minimum 2 turns) means that you can sacrifice all your best units to kill their last guy, lose $200 IPC than he did, and pretty much clench the game while doing it. That is why AxA is and remains fun–you’re obsessed with small choices–to buy this unit over that, or to take 4 $1 territories or 2…but the real game is won or lost by much more chess like moves (you killed all my pawns, but I took your queen)
-
@marshmallowofwar I guess I didn’t realize we were in a debate, but rather assumed it was a cooperative free for all that might lead to either a confirmation of standard doctrine or the discovery of innovative ideas that might change the balance of power. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
@crockett36 Normandy should be left completely unoccupied by the time the Allies have a sizable landing force. As you mentioned, there can be considerable devastation to any Axis force situated in that territory and it cannot be reasonably defended without diverting from the main goal of crushing Moscow or heading into the Middle East/Egypt. Normandy or Norway will fall, it just is a matter of on which round and whether the Axis will be able to retake it with a counterattack of ground units supported by planes. France is the best place to have the Axis counterstrike infantry/artillery. Mechanized units can help counterstrike from W Germany. Usually, though, a wave of UK fighters add enough defensive might to Normandy or Norway to ensure that the Axis are unable to strike back.
Aircraft carriers and subs are the best investment for the US as they have dual purposes of defending the fleet and attacking/convoy raiding. Build enough destroyers to prevent German wolfpacks from roaming the Atlantic
-
@crockett36 said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
@marshmallowofwar I guess I didn’t realize we were in a debate, but rather assumed it was a cooperative free for all that might lead to either a confirmation of standard doctrine or the discovery of innovative ideas that might change the balance of power. Thanks for your thoughts.
It’s not a debate, but part of any cooperative discussion has to be asking questions.
Nothing @AndrewAAGamer has said makes me change my opinion that in at least some circumstances DD+CC > BB. The BB only has more value when there are enough smaller units to shield it from taking the second hit. If we should be wringing every possible advantage out of the build, DD+CC gives a bit more advantage than BB.
From the perspective of supporting shore bombardment, 5 cruisers gives on average 2.5 hits while three battleships gives on average 2 hits for the same IPC cost. (However, I believe that only one support shot per loaded transport is allowed; if so that would increase the cost of the landing by at least 7IPCs.)
From the offensive/defensive perspective DD + CC gives a small edge over BB in early combat rounds (the ones that matter most) AND chance of am early second hit when the BB can only get one hit.
DD + CC puts more units on the board to allow smaller task forces to exist to cover transports.
Are cruisers overpriced? Absolutely, and the real cost should be 11 IPCs (or maybe even 10…), but I build cruisers more often than I build battleships.
@arthur-bomber-harris said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
@crockett36 Normandy should be left completely unoccupied by the time the Allies have a sizable landing force. As you mentioned, there can be considerable devastation to any Axis force situated in that territory and it cannot be reasonably defended without diverting from the main goal of crushing Moscow or heading into the Middle East/Egypt. Normandy or Norway will fall, it just is a matter of on which round and whether the Axis will be able to retake it with a counterattack of ground units supported by planes. France is the best place to have the Axis counterstrike infantry/artillery. Mechanized units can help counterstrike from W Germany. Usually, though, a wave of UK fighters add enough defensive might to Normandy or Norway to ensure that the Axis are unable to strike back.
Agree with most of this, but as I’ve said on other threads I try not to take Normandy at all until Russia is captured (and there’s absolutely no way I would have forces sitting there waiting to be bombarded). Sometimes taking Normandy is unavoidable, but Normandy without a US factory is a much easier nut to crack than Normandy with a US factory!
Marsh
-
@taamvan said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):
Thank you for the post. I can add, especially winning in the live tournament format:
Sun-Tzu know your opponent: Any information that can be gained about their playstyle, opinions and predilections can become an advantage. You may also have to share information, but it may not be a 1-for-1 trade, (example; You know I like to buy mechs as Germany, I know you think stratbombing is a bad ROI)
Your job is to ensure luck matters as little as possible. This is why you use overwhelming force–more than to prevent multiple rounds of retals, it ensures victory where board position matters more than TUV trade. Some battles are forced by circumstance as in your example where your partner loses a big battle–you may need to take a risk. Its better to take that risk before, rather than after, you’re in a desparate situation. But moreover–its best to force your opponents to take those risks by simply turtling well and making him impatient for a close to 50/50 attack.
Decisive Battle; Some battles you can win by losing (both of you take massive casualties, but your follow on attacks defeat him in detail). The game we won in the tourney forced me to take a massive risk of attacking the US fleet on the final turn—luck did prevail that day but the overwhelming result was that so much Axis income was recaptured that it turned from a very close game to an overwhelming victory in 1 battle since by freeing a sea-territory a whole host of other units could/could not charge through that newly freed-up zone.
Consistency; You hit on this–the player that refuses to give up may win just because of that. There are many times that my opponent believed he’d given it all and had no further chance of victory (and he was totally wrong). In that case, I don’t signal concession–I encourage him to concede. If the game creates irrational victory conditions, use that and hope they just time-out or give up before they are attained/obvious.
Small stuff doesnt matter; we spend tons of time setting up small battles and taking $1 territories, but these truly do not affect the game as much as the key strategies; focus on capitals, defend and attack in force, flop the big money (+$70) dont sweat the small stuff. The smaller battles are a big part of (live) gameplay, but many winning strategies involve completely ignoring small, temporary money gains, or the survival of 1 infantry–and rely on much more robust dynamics…
Which is why your odds example is a bit over-illustrative as to what modifys the actual battle odds. Most times Germany is attacking Moscow with a ton of 3-4 “to hit” units that will die last. The value of the capitol ($$, plus knocking an opponent out for a minimum 2 turns) means that you can sacrifice all your best units to kill their last guy, lose $200 IPC than he did, and pretty much clench the game while doing it. That is why AxA is and remains fun–you’re obsessed with small choices–to buy this unit over that, or to take 4 $1 territories or 2…but the real game is won or lost by much more chess like moves (you killed all my pawns, but I took your queen)
All good points. Thanks for contributing!
-
@marshmallowofwar great thoughts. I prefer dd+cr myself.
-
This was a good read.
I’d say the best players minimize the dice luck as much as possible, and can overcome the dice when it does happen. No matter what game version is being played.
I dont think that the worse player should make riskier attacks though. I think the worse player should focus on minimizing mistakes.
If you somehow cant get better…then go ahead and make the risky gamble.
-
@squirecam Glad you enjoyed it!
-
@andrewaagamer Excellent work! I, and I am sure several other players, appreciate the sound tactical advice!
Suggested Topics
