Elche +10 v Gamerman01 BM4

[gamerman01]

One more time, you need more transports with your fleet, even if it is only 1. When the US fleet was in 54 (Round 11) there was not a single transport with the fleet and this was a huge relief for me.

[gamerman01]

J12 was one of my unexpected moves, I think, much like your airstrike of TrJ with a US plane that took down Egypt.

When I attacked Hawaii Z26 when you had a transport and a destroyer there, where I attacked with all those subs.

The reason this attack that at first doesn’t seem to be smart, is because that transport and destroyer were extremely valuable. This is because 54 had no US transport, and only 1 US and 1 ANZ destroyer. Even though the Allied defense destroyed 4 submarines, it was a successful mission. Oh, and California had zero destroyers, so there would be no destroyers reinforcing the US fleet in 54 for a long time.

Basically, lesson is make sure you have transports and destroyers, but of course we all know you don’t want to have more than necessary because they are very expensive

[gamerman01]

That’s all I have written down for specific, situational points.

I will now just give an overall principle of Axis and Allies ever since 2008 when the National objectives were added, although the similar concept goes all the way back to the first Axis and Allies game.

[elche]

If you dont say that, I will need a lot of time to improve my tactic and battles.
But I try against you something new or unexpected because of the comment and to learn not really to win up to now. Therefore maybe FIC because my own winning chance is between 1-5 % against you.
Now I will go in our next game and hope, with the help of Marti for an realistic chance to get my first chance to win against you.

[gamerman01]

Oh, I understand, and well said!

---

---

Lastly, I’ll just use a tiny example to show the difference between replacement value, and positional value.

US8, when the USA used all 4 transports to take 4 tantalizing European territories, all worth 2 or 3,
consider the infantry/artillery that landed on Greece.

Of course this disrupted the Italian NO for 5 a turn, and took 2 away from Germany, and also a +2 for USA, 9 IPC per turn swing.

Not a bad move, especially if 2 or 3 USA transports were held back.

---

[gamerman01]

I8, the Italians can’t do a thing about them (2 USA on Greece)
G9, neither could the Germans, no ground in range

USA9, the pesky USA units take Albania and Bulgaria, probably just as you’d hoped

[elche]

But its just 1 week ago I learn some very important lesson with the AAGun + inf in battle. 1 day later we have same situation in NW persia. Up to this point I was sure if I attack with 10 units vs 9 inf + 2 AA I couldnt conquer - cry out

[gamerman01]

@elche said in Elche +10 v Gamerman01 BM4:

But its just 1 week ago I learn some very important lesson with the AAGun + inf in battle. 1 day later we have same situation in NW persia. Up to this point I was sure if I attack with 10 units vs 9 inf + 2 AA I couldnt conquer - cry out

:)
MrRoboto didn’t really understand this either, and used a big stack of Germans to hit my Russian blocker, and he had a 60% chance of being “sucked in” but lucked out. So the AA strategy backfired on me there because he took in more units than he should and didn’t get “sucked in”

I pointed it out, partly because I didn’t want him to keep getting lucky in his ignorance, and the next turn he got too many hits and got sucked in, and the Russians did pounce. Yes, that AA “trick” is very important to understand!

[elche]

After 2 years gaming I had to check out this in a local game.

[gamerman01]

@gamerman01 said in Elche +10 v Gamerman01 BM4:

I8, the Italians can’t do a thing about them (2 USA on Greece)
G9, neither could the Germans, no ground in range

USA9, the pesky USA units take Albania and Bulgaria, probably just as you’d hoped

OK, this example is not working right now, but jump ahead to round 12
G12 the Germans could end the American invasion of SE Europe by rolling over the infantry in Bulgaria.

Most players would attack it to get the +1 and eliminate enemy presence where they should not be (the USA does not belong in Bulgaria!).
Furthermore, the American infantry can walk into Romania and get an automatic +3 without a fight, if the Germans let the US infantry go, and don’t defend Romania.

[gamerman01]

There are reasons for this.
#1 wiping out the USA in Bulgaria would require 1 mech on Romania to go South instead of East.
#2 would need two mech to “make sure” the territory is taken immediately (+1 income, and -1 to the USA)
#3 when the USA moves in to Romania and grab +3 IPC, the German army in Slovakia can roll over it on the way East, losing no position.

[elche]

That makes the difference - to think like that

[elche]

Chess with other units

[elche]

I although try to think like you in my games.

[gamerman01]

So here’s my point.

Many players would consider the conquest of Greece with no opposition to be an obvious move, and it was indeed a good move.

But there were some high costs to the Allies in picking up those IPCs and taking away Axis IPCs

#1 The US transport is destroyed, and the threat of those 2 ground units to all areas is immediately ended.
#2 The income gained by the USA can’t be spent until the next round. And then that unit takes another turn to move out. Axis gets immediate relief, and won’t suffer consequences for a couple more rounds

So the invasion of Greece was definitely the best choice out of the 4 transports, especially if 2 or 3 of those had been saved to maintain a threat of USA landing followed up by UK landing which could include planes.
So I’m not saying the invasion of Greece was a mistake, I’m just using it as an example of the “positional value” of units. The transport, infantry and artillery were on the “front lines” projecting threat from Norway to TransJordan, and when they were landed on Greece, they did generate several IPC’s of income for USA and took away from the Axis, but the delay of those IPC’s being earned, spent, and those units deployed where they are needed, is often not considered.

Agh, I need to go to bed, and this was not the best explanation I’ve ever given, but you know what I’m saying.

[gamerman01]

@elche said in Elche +10 v Gamerman01 BM4:

I although try to think like you in my games.

I could tell, and it was annoying!!!
ANZAC getting units out there into the action constantly - and buy 3 units no matter what they are, every turn or almost every turn.

And buy the 2nd complex in Queensland when you can, yes. Your ANZAC play is very strong and annoying, they are definitely not an area that you need to try to improve.

OK, I’m out of time!
So the big 2 observations are,
Keep USA transports available in both theaters as much as possible. Don’t run low on USA destroyers in Pacific.

Be very careful about sending Russian ground away from the German front - every unit matters, and sometimes they matter so much it’s amazing.

Now maybe you can tell me when you got relief during the game and think I made a misstep -

And I will tell you why you’re wrong! LOL
Seriously, on some I’d probably tell you why I think I’m right and you could learn from that, and on others you will improve my game.

Gnight!

[elche]

Thanks and sleep well.
What time did you have ?

[elche]

I have 9:49 am

[gamerman01]

Do I have to admit it?
2:48 AM

One more - don’t be too afraid to buy bombers in BM4. on G6 I had 7 axis bombers and you had none.

The range and threat of damaging facilities is super strong.

[gamerman01]

I am really looking forward to finally having my 4th game recorded! Surrender or attack a Japanese victory city!

Thank you for playing moves quickly and regularly - then I don’t mind playing to the bitter end.