Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

[MarshmallowofWar]

@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.

[taamvan]

@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)

[crockett36]

@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.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@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

[MarshmallowofWar]

@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

[AndrewAAGamer]

@taamvan said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

@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!

[crockett36]

@marshmallowofwar great thoughts. I prefer dd+cr myself.

[squirecam]

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.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@squirecam Glad you enjoyed it!

[JIM BELL]

@andrewaagamer Excellent work! I, and I am sure several other players, appreciate the sound tactical advice!

[AndrewAAGamer]

Glad you enjoyed reading it and found some value in it. :)

[JIM BELL]

@andrewaagamer Valuable indeed. I have not learned to navigate the site yet, but I would be interested in reading any and all if you have other articles here.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@jim-bell So far this is my only article. Probably, once I retire and have more time, I will expand on this article and add additional content that I didn’t touch on the first time such as the Neutrals, where to build infrastructure, Strategic Bombing, battle examples in specific theaters, opening moves, vital territories and so on.

[JIM BELL]

@andrewaagamer Excellent! I will be looking forward to your superb insight to all those topics!

[vodot]

@andrewaagamer This is an epic post - thanks for the public contribution of a terrific teaching resource. These kinds of documents enrich the entire community and are indispensable for lifting new players up the learning curve more quickly.

For printing and ease of offline reading/dissemination, I’ve created a PDF version of this article: Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies with an emphasis on Global 1940 2nd Edition OOB by AndewAAGamer.pdf.

I made no text changes apart from copy-pasting into a single document, adding page numbers, adding a line break or two where the pdf format made them necessary, and the bolding of each of the defined terms from post #1.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Cool! Thank you for the kind words and creating the PDF @vodot

[The Captain]

Great post:+1:

The explanations in depth makes it worth reading.

It is useful information for not only new players - but also for veterans, even though most of it is already known.

Reading your way through this post confirms what most experienced players know - and explains why most strategies already follow the guidelines in this post.

To confirm the example of Cruiser units:
Since the Cruiser unit was introduced more than a decade ago, I have never played an Axis & Allies game where anyone purchased a Cruiser unit.

During the developement of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion, we used similar calculations as mentioned above to determine the FCR, DFP, OFP and SA.

Once again - great and useful post, Andrew:+1:

[crockett36]

Andrew also has more specific advice for the Allies in several posts: a thread about Anzac figs on US carriers, How to Stop Japan and Help, I’m the Allies. Those are not the exact titles, but close.

[AndrewAAGamer]

Thank you @TheCaptain for your kind words. High praise from one of the icons of the community.

[Avner]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer):

@jim-bell So far this is my only article. Probably, once I retire and have more time, I will expand on this article and add additional content that I didn’t touch on the first time such as the Neutrals, where to build infrastructure, Strategic Bombing, battle examples in specific theaters, opening moves, vital territories and so on.

Hey… how long until retirement?

:) :)