An Allied strategy

[Vareel]

The largest problem I see with your strat idea, is if germany goes for a quick takedown of Russia.  How many turns can Russia survive against 10 tanks a turn coming out of berlin?  And with Italy making 20+ for 2 or 3 turns even there navy can be powerful.

I don’t think pacific is the problem, it is true that if the US goes 100% pacfic, and the UK/Russia send a bit to annoy Japan, Japan can be stalled/slowly torn apart.  The problem is, the UK/Russia cannot handle the G/I monster for very long without the US’s aid.

A simple 9 Inf, 1 Art, followed by 9-10 armor a turn by germany, will result in Russia hiding out in Moscow alone as early as turn 3, and moscow would fall a few turns after.  And with Italy making almost as much as the UK, it just writes itself.

Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

[Lucifer]

@Vareel:

Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

The core issue here is that neither a pac strat nor a KGF strat is very powerful in a no bid game.

The only powerful allied strat in a no bid game is bad dice for axis :-)

[Veqryn]

with the USA going 100% pacific (minus the stratbombing and original 2 trannies + destroyer), that means it is up to the UK and Russia to defeat Germany and Italy.
without a bid, UK will lose Egypt either round 1 or 2.  without a bid, Russia will definitely lose karelia round 2.
without USA naval assets, germany can sink the UK navy round 1 (as usual) but ALSO can sink them round 2.  you say you are buying 4 transports?  that will not work, at least not on the first 2 turns, because germany will crush your navy.
if you are buying navy with the UK, you will not be sinking the italian navy any time soon, so italy will be getting her NO’s for a while.

I just do not see russia surviving past turn 5.  And Japan can still get her 3 NO’s and stalemate with USA if needed.  At the very worst, Japan does not get her island NO, then stalemates with USA.

I will give you strategy a try, but i’ve seen pretty much the exact same thing tried a hell of a lot of times and never seen it win or come even close to winning.  Germany and Italy with NOs are just too big for Russia.

(ps to Zhukov4: I updated the China mod, so you have to download it again.  Did you get it working?  I never heard back from you.  Please go download WW2v3 and the china mod again.  version number is 1.2.2 for both.  http://n2.nabble.com/Version-of-WWv3-with-China-going-first-tp4464141p4464141.html )

[a44bigdog]

@ Subotai I might give TripleA another chance, I tried it years ago and just did not care for the program. The view of the map was to small and the handling of carriers was a pain. I alos don’t particularly care to play Axis and Allies where I have to constantly be at the computer and can not even wander off to smoke a cig.

@ Vareel Yes Germany buying 10 tanks a turn will probably call for some changes. There is nothing that says the UK HAS to land in Africa instead of reinforcing Russia or landing in France or NW. Europe to draw off troops from the Eastern Front. When the US navy moves out into the Pacific many times Japan has at least 2 loaded carriers that can hit seazone 56. These are turns that the US can buy ships and troops for the Atalantic if they desire.

@ Veqryn The UK has the seazone 9 transport and destroyer in probably 95% of games I have played at least. That leaves 3 more transports to be purchased in the Atlantic over 2 turns. So some capital ships being bought is a given. The German air force sinking them in round 2 is complete BS if they are parked in SZ2. If there is any more than 1 bomber and 1 fighter in Norway then seazone 12 was not attacked.

I am also not buying that if the Allies did not place 2 to 3 infantry somewhere on the board, that may not even have been in Egypt, that Germany AUTOMATICALLY takes Egypt round 1 or that Italy AUTOMATICALLY gets both its NOs for the first few rounds. Sorry fellows I have played a few too many AA50 games to buy that. I have also played too many no bid games where Karelia did not AUTOMATICALLY fall round 2 either.

[Lucifer]

the latest TripleA unstable has very few bugs, and is very playable, imo.

It is not generally a big problem with some players who play to slow, although it can happen. I once played a game against a player on this forum (one of several players), he had never played a livegame before, so it would be somewhat unfair to blaim “too slow play”, but it can be a concern, yes.
Imo, a  country can take 5 mins, maybe 10 mins, this is variable, but A&A in the TripleA lobby is not regarded as “lightning chess”, but for players who have never played live games I think they must think faster than in PBM/PBF games.

I also suspect that in some games that is not part of a league or is recorded in a series of games, maybe some players will be too cautious with axis b/c it is seen as a single game. The axis must be very aggressive, and this will pay off usually, but in a single game, it can be more tempting to do Egy and/or Kalia G2 instead of G1. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, but compared to Revised, it is easier to win as allies in a no bid (+NO) game in AA50 b/c it is much more likely that battles go wrong for axis during the first rnd. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, imo.

[Zhukov44]

One more thing to add in favor of TripleA is its easy to save maps and resume games in PBEM format or another day in the lobby.  Unlike other live formats, there are no timers and most players have no problem saving games and resuming them another time.  It really is just about everything one could ask for in a war-game software program.  The most significant defect is the poor aesthetics of the WWv2 (revised) map.  But fortunately WWv3 is much prettier.

[a44bigdog]

Well I checked out the latest version of tripleA and  I still don’t care for it. While the map zoom  can at least be changed now the portion of the screen devoted to the map is still to small for my taste.  I much prefer ABattlemap. As far as time constraints on moves that I don’t have a problem with, I regularly play face to face and am used to making moves based on about a 5 to 10 minute cycle. I do that here with forum games anyway.

[Seador]

I have to agree with A44, in my face to face experiance the game is pretty balanced.

Allied planning and co-ordination is critical, because it is reactionary.  A44’s plan is a broad “outline”, because the Allies always start the game reacting to the Axis.  Accepting that Japan needs to be stalled is the foundation of a solid Allied plan, and only America is in position to do that.

Otherwise, my contribution to Allied strat is to focus less on removing Axis $$ and more on maintaining Allied, especially UK, IPCs.

[Lucifer]

It’s been a while ago I tried to get opponents in the TripleA lobby, as axis in a no bid (+NO) regular dice game. I was laughed at… :-)

So there are two possibilities, either the TripleA players all have bad allied strats, or the PBF players here on this forum all have bad axis strats, and neither can disprove the others, b/c the TripleA players won’t use Abattlemap and you won’t use TripleA. So we’re stuck…  :-)

[Viracocha]

Well… I don’t play online, though I do play against a wide variety of opponents, and I’ve been playing A&A games since the Nova edition.  I’d have to agree with PG and A44, from my experiences the game is pretty balanced.

[Pin]

i just have to go along, Allies have the upper hand / balanced game. I feel its closer to a bid for the axis then the allies, but at the moment i only play no bid games.

[Corbeau Blanc]

But why do you all feel the need to deploy half complete navy?

It takes at least 2 full round buy to have a decent navy, so just keep the money in your hand and buy the fleet when you are ready…

This is a basic concept you ALL should know.

• It allows to not show your hand to your opponent before it’s time.
• It prevents your opponent from sinking your fleet part by part.
• Both of the above combined means it is also too late for your opponent to react.

Of course, take into acount your production and prepare your land/fighters units in advance if need be but in any cases, a prod of 8 to 10 is normally enough to deploy all your boats in one single turn.

1 carrier, 1 transport and a DD each turn is simply wrong if your intent is to wait until 3 carriers, 3 transports and 3 DD to send them into action. Just wait 3rd, and deploy it all at once.

The same goes with thoses UK half drops I see every games… 8 units… what do you think you can acomplish with that against a decent Germany player who have air power and 10/16 production ? When you drop, you drop… It’s way better to drop 16 units once per 2 round than 8 per rounds that will get invariably whiped clean… And that even if it means a transport over buy.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

In the real WW2 the pacific had to be fought, but not in revised/AA42/AA50. When the global AA40 comes out, I will try different strats to see what is the most effective one.

[Funcioneta]

It’s good news you at least will give a try  :lol:

[Zhukov44]

There’s alot to like about AA44’s strat.  I think especially against weaker players, the principle of contesting every section of the board is a good one, because you want to take advantage of whatever opportunities arise.

But this sort of strategy (ie USA goes Pac, UK goes to Africa or Europe, Russia plays defense in Europe…) has a glaring weakness, and in my experience it is easy for Axis to exploit.  Consider that with national objectives, Axis will achieve economic parity early in the game.  So both sides are spending roughly the same amount of money from turns 2-6.  Let’s assume Axis goes primarily for Russia, and secondarily in Africa.

With the “global” Allied strategy, the Allies are fighting on 3 main fronts.  Each front is completely separate from the other…they are 3 different vectors, and the Allies are attacking all 3 Axis at once.  However, Axis is pressing with all 3 powers on Russia (Japan can spend 80% of their income on defense and still press to Moscow’s borders).  Worse, Germany/Italy co-ordinate their efforts against both Russia and UK, making it tough for either to make any forward progress.

Practically speaking, even with wild success in the Pacific, it should be Rounds 6-7 before Allies start gaining the economic edge.  By that time, Russia’s situation should be hopeless.  Axis do not need to take chances; they can play conservative.  There’s no need for Germany to tank rush immediately…they can build infantry and planes for a few rounds and then lurch later.  With proper Japan play, there should be no danger of losing Tokyo or China for the first 10 rounds, so Axis have plenty of time to wear out or roll over Russia.

The primary tactical advantage the Allies have is the ability to team-up on Axis with back-to-back attacks.  But if Allies go ‘global’, they forfeit this advantage, and give Axis the opportunity to win w/o major risks.

[a44bigdog]

I could be wrong on this but I may have figured out why the TrippleA players have a different take on the balance. I have noticed that some of the people here that say AA50-41 is balanced are fighting in the Pacific. The TrippleA players seem to all be in agreement that KGF is the way to go. Just something to think about.

I will say something in regards to the Pacific that I think is true for the US and Japan. And that is that it takes time to learn what works and what does not. I don’t think it is something that will be acquired after just a few games either.

@ Zhukov True it is easy enough for Japan to sit in its home waters and defend its fleet. If that is the case the US is doing the wrong thing in the Pacific. The US needs to be taking islands and FORCING Japan to respond. This is when it gets far less easy for Japan.

[Lucifer]

It is easier to kill fleets in AA50 as compared to Revised, but that goes both ways for both US and Japan in a US pac strat.

It is possible but, imo, unlikely that the TripleA players have not tried enough US pac strat games, although it happens, but the KGF strat is way more popular, and that is b/c the TripleA players thinks that a US pac strat is ineffective. And that again I think is b/c a US pac strat is not more efficient than a KGF strat, b/c the KGF strat in AA50 is already tried and true.

I still don’t see how it is possible to win more games than 50% with allies, assuming two experienced players play a series of games, and not just one or two games, b/c the dice is more important in AA50 than in Revised, as much can go wrong for axis in the first rnd, but that is (bad) luck, and has nothing to do with good or bad strats.

And I think that since AA50 has been playable on TripleA for almost a year, that different players in the TripleA lobby have tried many different strats for trying and failing just like they did after Revised was available in TripleA, so I doubt that the reason why a US pac strat is hardly used is b/c they can’t master it.

As this is not a scientific question, but a question of faith, I believe that the experienced players in the TripleA lobby have found that in a 1vs1, +NO, no tech setting, that axis are significantly favored, so much that a unit bid of 6-9 ipc is necessary to balance the game, or else, the axis side would win much more than 50% of all games, and so it would not be fun to play w/o a bid, and axis players would have a very hard time with finding opponents.

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

And that again I think is b/c a US pac strat is not more efficient than a KGF strat, b/c the KGF strat in AA50 is already tried and true.

I think this is the main reason: KGF was very prevelant in Revised and it was quite well tuned too.
So why re-invent the wheel?

Before AA50 was released, there were some strong proponents of a US Pac strat in Revised, probably because it became Germanys main goal to turtle up and stay alive in AAR.

I think KGF is somewhat easy to counter as the axis:  Japan has no pressure and plenty on mobile defensive pieces (ftrs) that can be sent to aid Germany/Italy.  I think with the advent of cheaper subs and carriers, a US pac strat may be doable, but we’re all still learning the game and trying new things.

Bottom line… don’t count out the Allies and the Pac strat… it still has lots of potential.

[axis_roll]

As a follow-up, I think that AA50 is most reactive version of the game I have seen.

What do I mean by this?

I mean you have to be quick and fluid with your strategic responses to your opponents moves as well as the outcomes of the battles/dice.  If you can do so well, you will win more games than you lose with either side in AA50.  If you fail to do this well, you will lose more games because of your slow responses.