Beginner looking for feedback on his G1

[Corbeau Blanc]

Butcher, you can take and hold Karelia. Just keep your 2 poland tanks in reserve and move them in non-combat to Karelia once Baltic States is taken. Allies can’t take it back R1 if you know what your doing.

As far as Egypt goes, it’s easy to retake from Germany with UK 2 trans-jordan inf and bomber. There is maybe 1 german infantry left down there and 2 italians after such a fiasco.

OR you can just elect to sink german transport if i drops in Egypt on UK turn before it gets cover from Italians, this cuts german reinforcement right there…

All in all, you are left with no troops to defend against UK/USA landings in Moroco and possibly no German reinforcement. It’s a popular but bad move. Italy will enjoy it’s NO one turn faster but in most case, it will last for 2 turns while delaying one turn can ensure you keep your Italians NO the whole game.

[Butcher]

Ultimately, a strong move south is easier to support than a northern attack. If going south, you can have immediate Italian reinforcements, and Japan should be to Persia by turn 4, maybe 5 at the latest.

Going north means Germany is on her own, while the U.K. can reinforce Russia.
Only take the northern route mid-game if it will help you.

Egypt offers more benefits than risks. Even if you don’t take Egypt G1, Italy will have an easier time getting income and being useful.

And if you set up a G2 attack on Karelia, Russia will either leave it with one infantry and set up a counter, or stack if heavily. If it has only 1 inf, take it with 2 inf and air support. If they stack it, the southern front will be weak, and exploit that.

[bugoo]

It is also much easier for the Russians to defend in the south and it keeps her units where they can defend against Japan, whereas Karelia is islolated from Russias other factories.

I feel a strong push at Karelia (not necessarily G1) is required in the early game, atleast until you see the allied game plan.  A German turtle might seem like a great idea G1, till the IC goes up in India or the US boats are built in the pacific.

[Butcher]

In the end, there is no set way to do anything after G1, and to an extent, J1. You can go into the game with an idea of what you want to do, but you must be responsive to what happens in the game. I’m not saying that going south is always the best move, but that it can be supported by both of the other Axis nations, and is my preference when Germany goes on a large offensive.

By the way, I normally play a more conservative Germany and let Japan kill Russia. I see Germany’s job as trading territories to maintain a decent income and bleed away Russian troops while Japan gets to Caucuses. That is why I’ve never attacked Karelia G1. It is just an attempt at a quick push to Moscow that will leave German defenses weak.

[Corbeau Blanc]

The Karelia G1 , coupled with a full frontal eastern assault, whipes out 50% of Russian troops. One of the goal is to kill thoses russian units right there. That’s their biggest starting stack. You also get all your NO’s.

Countering the northern sea zone route is possible. First, the northern route for reinforcement is not before UK 2 since you do sink the BB/TR. To prevent UK to drop on UK2 directly in Karelia simply by blocking norway sea zone with the German BC by G2 ( And yes, you did protect your baltic fleet G1 with an AC, the strat depends on it ). UK have to fight the BC to pass trough which prevent any amphibious assault in the next zone. Sure, they can drop non-combat in archangel and remove 5 more ipc from Russia. And it’s not R2 that will be able to overtake the germans.

Round 1 and round 2, Karelians speaks German if you know a little bit how to play. So tell me how ultimately Egypt is better than 2 rounds of 5 IPCs in NO’s, a 2 units prod IC and an AA gun you really can hold?

You don’t even need Egypt for the Italians NO. It’s  3 out of  Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, Gibraltar . Also it’s only 5 IPC.

Just position Japan to drop either in Egypt or Trans-Jordan by J2. With 4 of their planes and anywhere between 2-4 transport full of units, UK troops will get cut down before they even reach Persia. So why on Earth would you sacrifice all your German/Italians units to get one round of 5ipc for Italians? Especially when you just told me 10 IPC worth of German NO, an IC and a free AA gun while whipping out more valuable russian troops is a worst move than Egypt… I’m puzzled out, seriously.

Egypt G1 will never be a good move in my book UNLESS you are FORCED to hit it to protect the Italian fleet ( exemple, you did not have forces to hit the sea zone 12 Uk BC/DD ). Even then, it’s 53% odds if UK uses BC/DD, bomber + fighter, might as well force UK’s hand in that move. Japan can very well hold on Egypt/TJ for Italy while being shielded by the canal if Allies should venture a fleet in med. More I think of it, more I’d welcome that UK1 attack.

[Butcher]

If everything goes well, you will be in a good spot against Russia. However, if your attacks fail, you will cost yourself the game. Britain can land at France U.K.1 either way, and if something goes wrong in the north (i.e. transport survives attacks, which I have seen happen, or the Red October sinks the German cruiser) Britain can retake Karelia. You will be very vulnerable to the Western Allies.

The probability of everything going in your favor isn’t very good. As Pin said earlier, you will have about a 45% chance of winning all of your battles. If you want any more info on statistics, here is a thread where Pin and I have gone into detail about it http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14841.0

[Corbeau Blanc]

I’ve read that thread and sorry, it’s BS…

Pin multiply odds of all battles, be them minor ones or major ones on equal footing without even grasping the whole pictures or considering the ennemy is still receiving casualties ( He did not even consider possibilities like straffing and low luck ).

Hell, if all my battle were at 100% and one with no real importance was at 50%, he would tell me my whole strat is at 50%.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Let’s be clear ( And I really tought I had been), I don’t play dices when evaluating moves.

[Butcher]

If there is a battle with little importance, than don’t bother including it when you multiply. I thought that was pretty clear in the thread.

And low luck isn’t just a possibility, it completely changes the game.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

I explained this in the thread. I thought it was pretty clear.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Those “statistics” are known as dice.

[bugoo]

And that is why LL requires an allied bid, and dice does not (may not?)

[Corbeau Blanc]

Butcher, I’m not speaking here of dices odds for one round of combat, which are imho accurate.

If you need to weed out some battles from an overall turn odds calculation, it just confirm it’s useless for an overall turn calculation. It’s a contradiction in itself. I explained in details how you need to attribute a clear value to your overall goal and for each battle within that goal for it to make any sense.

I was reffering to the ‘‘statistics’’ of the triple A odds calculator. When i see 100% chances with dices, I get jumpy. We speaking of dices like you said, there is always the remote chance you will fail. 100% does not exist. So no, I still don’t think that calculator is accurate as a tool for what you trying to achieve. It’s a simulator of 5000 battle and does not even always return the same value each time it’s ran. Try it, you’ll see. % deviation goes as high as 5%, immagine multiplied overall several battles and your numbers are totally skewed…

[Butcher]

The only reason I suggested weeding out battles was based on their value to you. Not weeding them out will still find the odds of all the battles succeeding.

It isn’t as detailed a method as any of us would like, but it isn’t useless.

And I never figured out the odds of meaningless battle in this thread. I’ve only looked at the ones that pertain to taking and holding Karelia.

Just out of curiousity, do you notice how you are almost alone in advocating a G1 Karelia attack right now?

[Corbeau Blanc]

Just out of curiousity, did you notice you are pretty much alone with your friend Pin to flame down my low luck strat with an argument based on a dice odds method  ?

Yet still insist my strat would be at 45% by multiplying Egypt, Ukraine, East Poland using that very same method, when the goal of the strat is to hold Leningrad/Karelia. All that while you just told me that for your method to work, we need to weed out unrelated batlles? Some consistency would be welcomed…

After that, you still can’t see how comparing 3 battles in the strat  with dices and using your very own method are above 80%… And still can’t admit Karelia battle itself is at + 90% while Egypt is at 75%…

I’m not forcing anyone to use that strat but there is no way you will come here telling me I don’t know my maths, the diference between lowluck and dices,  and then add the insult to the injure by serving me that garbadge method that suddenly put to the test became ''not as detailed as any of us would like"

End of story.