A Game Against Myself

[newpaintbrush]

R1

Playing with yourself is HOT.   :evil:
And it doesn’t make you go blind, or make you grow hair on the palms of your hands.   :roll:
It’s good practice for when you go live.   :wink:
I’m talking about Axis and Allies Spring 1942 of course . . . what were you thinking about? . . .

Allied strategy:  Play conservatively until after G1, see what develops, then go KGF (Kill Germany First) or KJF (Kill Japan First) based on German turn.

R1 Short term plan:  Blow up Germany’s fighters to reduce Germany’s safe attacks on Allied targets on Germany’s first turn.  Specifically, trying to force Germany to decide between Anglo-Egypt, Mediterranean UK destroyer and UK cruiser, and UK battleship.  This will be attempted by attacking Norway/West Russia/Ukraine.

Drawbacks:  It is expected that Russia’s attacking power will be badly damaged at the end of Germany’s counterattack, with 3 out of Russia’s 4 starting tanks and its starting artillery destroyed.  Furthermore, most of Russia’s units, particularly its cost-effective infantry, will not be at the central position of West Russia.  Russia will be in very poor position at the end of the German counterattack.  Germany should be able to take and hold Karelia quite easily beyond any possibility of Russia’s threatening to recapture on R2, and Germany may make additional strong gains depending on how well or poorly R1’s West Russia and Ukraine attacks went.

Alternatives:  Attacking Belorussia/West Russia conserves all of Russia’s attacking forces, and leaves Russia in excellent position to trade territories on R2 (with West Russia held by Russia and Eastern Europe by Germany, trading Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine back and forth) but doesn’t eliminate any German fighters.  Attacking Ukraine/West Russia knocks out a German fighter, and leaves Russia in strong position to trade territory on R2, but loses most of Russia’s attack power anyways, particularly if Russia plays conservatively and sends 3 tanks 2 fighters to Ukraine.

Comment:  Attacking Norway/West Russia/Ukraine has about the same odds as a Ukraine attack of knocking out a German fighter, but if all the Norway/West Russia/Ukraine battles go well, Germany is a lot worse off.  If all of Russia’s attacks at Norway/WR/Ukr go bad, though, Russia is a lot worse off.  Regardless, Germany hits back fast and hard; Russia has to be very careful and work with its allies to not be overrun.
–
R1 purchase:  5 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank.  If battles go badly, any or all units are to be placed on Moscow.  If battles go reasonably well, 3 infantry 1 artillery will be placed on Caucasus, and 1 infantry 1 tank on Moscow.

R1 Combat Movement:

3 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway, vs 3 infantry 1 fighter (42% chance to claim Norway with at least a Russian tank, with Russian fighter retreating; this protects the UK battleship northwest of London.  Additional 18% chance to destroy German fighter with only Russian fighter surviving.  Result:  42% “Excellent”, 18% “Good”.  Skew percentages downwards as Russians will retreat rather than fight to the death.)

3 infantry 1 artillery 2 tanks 1 fighter to Ukraine, vs 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter (54% to claim territory with at least a Russian tank, with Russian fighter retreating.  Additional 11% chance to destroy German fighter with only Russian fighter surviving.  Result:  54% “Very Good”, 11% “Good”.  Skew percentages downwards as Russians will retreat rather than fight to the death.)

6 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank to West Russia, vs 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank.  91% chance success.  There’s good odds of surviving with 4 Russian defenders, having at least 3 Russian defenders allows good possibilities of trading territory with Germany on R2.

Russia plans to retreat fighters, so will retreat before resolving combats if fighters are in danger of being destroyed.
16% chance failure at both Norway and Ukraine.
36% chance success at both Norway and Ukraine.
48% chance success at Norway OR Ukraine, but not both.

Combat Results:

Norway:  Survived with 1 tank 1 fighter
Ukraine:  Survived with 1 artillery 2 tank 1 fighter
West Russia:  Survived with 1 artillery 1 tank

Went very well, but not so much at West Russia.  This will mean Germany will be in very strong position at the end of G1, with Russia unable to counter at LEAST at Karelia.

Noncombat movement:

2 Kazakh infantry to Caucasus

Both fighters fly to Caucasus.  With the attacks at Ukraine and West Russia successful, Germany’s invasion options are limited to 1 transport’s worth of units plus air.  Given Caucasus’s AA gun, and the six ground units that will be on Caucasus at the end of unit placement, Caucasus is fairly safe.

Moved so 6 infantry ended up on Buryatia, on the Japanese coast.  Japan can crush them, but doing so means sending significantly less air to other important battles such as China, Hawaii, and the assorted UK fleet elements that should have split up through the Pacific.  Japan should not be able to split its navy a lot to hunt down the various UK fleet elemnts; if UK sends air to the Pacific coast, UK air / Australian sub can attack isolated Japanese fleets and destroy them.

Moved the Russian sub to join the UK battleship.  This is to help further deter German attacks.

4 infantry to Moscow

Placement:

3 infantry 1 artillery on Caucasus.  (It’s safe, so I put as much as I could there, particularly the slow but relatively hard-hitting artillery unit)
2 infantry 1 tank on Moscow.  (Couldn’t put any more on Caucasus.  The tank has enough mobility to hit on R2 from Moscow, which is why it was purchased in the first place - to give Russia a few more options.)

Collected 32 IPCs

[GCar]

@Bunnies:

Allied strategy:  Play conservatively until after G1

@Bunnies:

This will be attempted by attacking Norway/West Russia/Ukraine.

Sorry, I had to quote that. I mean until after G1 is only R1 and attackin Nor, Ukr and WR on R1 is the less conservative move you could ever make.

[newpaintbrush]

G1
Axis strategy:  Don’t commit to heavy buildup of anti-KGF (Kill Germany First) or anti-KJF (Kill Japan First) units for as long as possible.  For example, Germany building 6 subs on G1 would be a wasted effort if the Allies went to the Pacific.  A few German subs are invariably helpful in preventing landings at Archangel (Northwest Europe) and Algeria (west Africa), it is excess that is to be avoided.

There have been some comments on these forums that Germany will do better by pre-empting the Allied build.  For example, a German bomber build with Norway in German hands at the start of G1 may prevent UK from building any navy at all - as any navy could be sunk by German bombers, German subs, and German fighters stationed at Western Europe AND at Norway.  (The bombers and subs cover all the sea zones around London; German fighters at WE cover south/southwest of London, German fighters at Norway cover northeast/northwest of London.)

However, with Norway out of German hands in this game, bombers will not serve this purpose.  I consider German subs to be too specialist a unit to be of sure use against the Allies for a committed G1 build.  So I opted for an infantry/artillery build.

G1 Short term plan:  Take out as many Allied targets as possible, prioritizing expensive Allied naval units that will need to be replaced, then Russian attack units by order of cost, targeting fighters, tanks, and artillery in that order.  Preserve German infantry at the front to trade territory in the short term, producing German infantry to march to the front.  Land fighters and bomber on Western Europe to halt/slow down Allied landing in Algeria (Northwest Africa), Western Europe, and Norway.

G1 Mid-Long term plan:  Depends entirely on results of G1 combat, and especially UK1/US1 turns.
–
The Board at the Beginning of G1:  Fairly awful for the Germans, with the Russians doing very well in Norway and Ukraine.  However, West Russia went fairly well for the Germans.  With West Russia and Ukraine taken from the Russians, the Russians will be in poor position to trade territories on R2.  This, then, will be one of Germany’s attacks if possible.

The usual sub/fighter/bomber attack against the UK battleship in the north Atlantic is not possible, as Norway has been lost.  Germany will instead opt to attack the UK transport at Eastern Canada.

G1 purchase:  12 infantry 1 artillery.  Invariably, Germany will want to march cost-effective infantry and artillery towards Moscow.  The German sword will be tanks, fighters, and bombers, able to attack a wide range of territories at will with their mobility, and produced in later rounds to catch up with the first waves of German infantry.  The German shield will be an advancing wall of infantry.

G1 combat movement:

1 infantry 1 tank from Western Europe via transport to Norway, attacking 1 Russian tank.  Approx 82% odds success.  The goals here are to destroy the Russian tank (valuable attack power for Russia) and to reclaim Norway.  If UK takes it next turn, that is not of major concern; the Russians are the ones that must be prevented from holding this valuable 3 IPC territory.  The units are taken from Western Europe, as every German unit will have to do its part on offense or defense; the Berlin infantry and tanks are already spoken for.

Tank blitz from Eastern Europe to Karelia and back to Eastern Europe.

1 bomber from Germany and 3 infantry from Belorussia to West Russia, attacking 1 Russian artillery and 1 Russian tank. About 85% to claim the territory, preventing Russia from trading Belorussia and Karelia on R2.  (Although UK may take Karelia).

German battleship / transport carrying 1 infantry from Southern Europe and 1 tank from Southern Europe, attacking 1 UK destroyer north of Anglo-Egypt.  94% chance of success.  Failure here is horribly costly, but there is no German air power to spare - even with the Ukraine fighter intact, 94% odds is decent.

Amphibious Assault 1 infantry 1 tank from Southern Europe (previously mentioned battle) plus 1 infantry 1 tank from Libya plus Balkans fighter attacking Anglo-Egypt Sudan forces of 1 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank.

Eastern Europe fighter, 1 Eastern Europe infantry, 2 Balkans infantry, Berlin tank to Ukraine, attacking 1 artillery 2 tanks.  There’s a total of 3 German infantry going on this attack; another Eastern Europe infantry to attack improves the likelihood of the German attack succeeding, but any ground units sent to Ukraine will die to the R2 counter from Caucasus/Moscow.  A German infantry saved this turn may mean a German tank saved next turn, so I choose to attack with 3 infantry instead of 4.  77% chance to capture the territory when attacking as described.  (4 infantry brings this to 91%).

German sub in mid-Atlantic to UK transport at Eastern Canada.   This deserves a section of its own.

1. This cuts the number of ground units that can hit Norway on UK1.  UK will ideally send air to hit Norway, but UK will also need air to hit Germany’s Baltic transport and Germany’s Baltic destroyer (which will sail out of the Baltic).  Sending UK’s navy to destroy Germany’s destroyer will leave that navy in range of German subs, fighters, and bomber, which carries its own set of risks.

2. Although the target of US fleet seems more tempting with a military unit and two transports (50% chance of destroying 26 IPCs worth of material rather than 100% of 7 IPCs), each UK transport can transport a load of units from London to Europe (best deal for Allies).  Each US transport can transport a load of units from Eastern Canada to Algeria (northwest Africa) for a time-consuming march through Africa and the Middle East into Europe (far too slow).  Alternatively, a set of two US transports can transport one load from Eastern Canada to London, and then from London to Europe.  So the one UK transport is at least as valuable as 2 US transports for the problematic Allied transport chain to Europe.  Also, there’s the UK1 air situation to consider, as described in 1).

3. The German sub is not destroyed, so can threaten sea zones around UK or near Algeria (northwest Africa) on G2.  The anticipated attack is 3 German subs 3 fighters 1 bomber vs a defensive fleet of 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, and 1 sub.  That’s pretty awful for the Allies; they will probably not even hit Africa on UK1/US1.

The UK cruiser at Gibraltar is attacked with the Western Europe and Berlin fighters.  Although this could cost German valuable air, destroying the cruiser puts additional strain on UK’s airforce.  Now, UK must choose between bolstering a 2-unit attack on Norway (or leaving it in German hands), attacking the German transport in the Baltic, attacking the German destroyer off Western Europe (where the German destroyer will be at the end of noncombat), and attacking the German battleship (the London bomber can land at Trans-Jordan) with the UK India fighter.  Attacking with the India fighter, though, probably loses the fighter.  Depending on the result of the Anglo-Egypt battle, Trans-Jordan may not be at all safe for UK to land on.  UK may commit an additional transport to move infantry India to Trans-Jordan, but that loses the UK transport on J1/G2 and forgoes attacking the 4 IPC Borneo territory.  To make a long story short, the German battleship will almost certainly die if the UK cruiser is allowed to live; sinking the UK cruiser gives the German battleship a fighting chance and indirectly threatens any UK air sent to attack the UK battleship (both because there’s no carrier to act as fodder and because if the India fighter dies on the attack, it can’t help defend any territory it lands on.)

Combat Results:
Norway:  Won with 1 infantry 1 tank
West Russia:  Won with 2 infantry
Ukraine:  Won with 1 fighter.  Territory not captured.
Battle vs UK cruiser at Mediterranean:  Won with 2 fighters.
Battle vs UK destroyer north of Anglo-Egypt:  Won with battleship intact
Battle at Anglo-Egypt Sudan:  Won with 1 infantry 2 tanks 1 fighter intact
Battle vs UK transport:  Automatically won with 1 German submarine

All in all, very satisfactory.  A strong Anglo-Egypt Sudan threatens any UK bomber landing at Trans-Jordan, so the UK battleship may well survive.  All German fighters survived.  A strong Norway will require a lot of UK air power to destroy, so may hold past UK1.  All Russian targets destroyed.  There was the small hiccup of not recapturing Ukraine, losing Germany 3 IPCs and leaving Russia free NOT to commit any forces there next turn for Germany to destroy.

Noncombat movement:

German destroyer to northwest of Western Europe.  The destroyer may be able to make it to the Mediterranean or survive to threaten any UK fleet build.  This is unlikely, but at least splitting the destroyer from the transport means either that the UK will have to split its air power, commit fleet to where they’ll be vulnerable to German counterattack, or at the least, that the Russian sub will fight a 50/50 odds battle against the destroyer.  All in all, that’s about the best the destroyer can hope for without a G1 carrier build.

2 German subs to north of Western Europe.  These subs must be positioned here to threaten any UK landing at Karelia/Archangel.  UK can block the subs from reaching the Karelia/Archangel sea zone, but a UK destroyer block can be destroyed with German air, leaving the Germans free to threaten the UK fleet next turn.  The subs can also hit the sea zone west of Algeria (northwest Africa) from here.

Fighter at Anglo-Egypt Sudan lands in Libya, joined by units from Algeria.  All remaining air lands in Western Europe.

Southern Europe infantry to Western Europe.  Southern Europe artillery to Balkans.

Balkans tank to Eastern Europe

3 Berlin infantry and Berlin tank to Eastern Europe.

Note:  Western Europe ends with 2 infantry 1 tank 2 fighters 1 bomber.  There is about a 5-10% chance that London can successfully invade Western Europe, destroying all of Germany’s airpower.  I consider this to be reasonable risk; even attempting the attack leaves Norway and the German Med battleship intact.

Placement:
9 infantry 1 artillery at Berlin
3 infantry at Southern Europe

Collected 41 IPCs

Edit - On reflection, I should have brought the artillery from Southern Europe to Anglo Egypt Sudan, not the tank; there’s only a difference of about 1% in battle results, and if battle results go as usual in AES, UK1 counters and destroys the units there - hence losing the S. Europe tank.  I should have instead moved the S. Europe tank and an infantry to Balkans, to threaten a G2 pickup/dropoff including a tank to Africa again, allowing Germany to blitz on G3.

[newpaintbrush]

@GCar:

@Bunnies:

Allied strategy:  Play conservatively until after G1

@Bunnies:

This will be attempted by attacking Norway/West Russia/Ukraine.

Sorry, I had to quote that. I mean until after G1 is only R1 and attackin Nor, Ukr and WR on R1 is the less conservative move you could ever make.

Admittedly, I meant “conservative” as in the sense that the Allies do not commit to KGF (Kill Germany First) or KJF (Kill Japan First) until after the German turn, when at least some of the Axis plan is revealed.

For example, as Russia, I would not fly the Russian fighter to Anglo-Egypt Sudan or India, nor would I send Russian units, particularly tanks east (barring the 6 infantry that start in eastern Asia).  Besides being what I consider to be poor moves, these signal intent for the Allies to go KJF.

Only after the German turn can the Allies really decide where to flex their muscles.  If the Germans left Africa or Norway open to invasion, or built a lot of tanks, or had a strong first turn, or a weak first turn - these make a lot of difference in deciding what UK/US should do.  The Russian plan is always to preserve Moscow; it’s UK and US that really determine whether the Allies go KGF or KJF.

–
In that sense, Nor/Ukr/WR is conservative, in that it doesn’t tip the Russian hand.  But I think it’s reasonably conservative in the traditional sense of the word as well.

Usually, R1 Nor/Ukr/WR is followed by a very weak R2, with Russia recovering R3.  The price of a bad R2, though, is offset by the potential gains.  So long as the Russian player remembers that one or another attack will usually fail to some extent -

Good success at Norway means destroying a German fighter, claiming a 3 IPC territory that Germany must reclaim, and preserving the UK battleship.  This is a huge potential gain.

Good success at West Russia means being able to trade Karelia/Belorussia on R2.  (In this game, the R1 WR attack went a bit poorly)

Good success at Ukraine means destroying a lot of valuable German attack power including a German fighter; any German units that counterattack can be hit by from Caucasus plus Moscow fighters and possibly a Moscow tank.

In any case, both Russian fighters are preserved.

All these potential benefits come with a real cost that the Russian player should be willing to pay.  So there is some real risk involved, but I wouldn’t think of it as a risky investment in a dot com stock.  Rather, I’d think of it as the risk involved in a mutual fund.  Some parts of the mutual fund may be unprofitable, but the whole should bring a profit.

Most women I know don’t think of mutual funds as sexy and exciting - they think they’re conservative and boring.  But if you think mutual funds ARE sexy and exciting . . . how about dinner Thursday night?   :wink:

(edit) - come to think of it, there is a pretty nasty cost to failing at Ukraine - the potential German Turbo Tank Dash.  But more on that later.

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

The UK cruiser at Gibraltar is attacked with the Western Europe and Berlin fighters.  Although this could cost German valuable air, destroying the cruiser puts additional strain on UK’s airforce.  Now, UK must choose between bolstering a 2-unit attack on Norway (or leaving it in German hands), attacking the German transport in the Baltic, attacking the German destroyer off Western Europe (where the German destroyer will be at the end of noncombat), and attacking the German battleship (the London bomber can land at Trans-Jordan) with the UK India fighter.  Attacking with the India fighter, though, probably loses the fighter.  Depending on the result of the Anglo-Egypt battle, Trans-Jordan may not be at all safe for UK to land on.  UK may commit an additional transport to move infantry India to Trans-Jordan, but that loses the UK transport on J1/G2 and forgoes attacking the 4 IPC Borneo territory.  To make a long story short, the German battleship will almost certainly die if the UK cruiser is allowed to live; sinking the UK cruiser gives the German battleship a fighting chance and indirectly threatens any UK air sent to attack the UK battleship (both because there’s no carrier to act as fodder and because if the India fighter dies on the attack, it can’t help defend any territory it lands on.)

Attacking the German battleship with the India fighter and bomber is high risk: 62% odds that Allies will win against 38% that the Axis will survive the battle. The bomber and the fighter would be more useful on Egypt (94% odds).

German destroyer to northwest of Western Europe.  The destroyer may be able to make it to the Mediterranean or survive to threaten any UK fleet build.  This is unlikely, but at least splitting the destroyer from the transport means either that the UK will have to split its air power, commit fleet to where they’ll be vulnerable to German counterattack, or at the least, that the Russian sub will fight a 50/50 odds battle against the destroyer.  All in all, that’s about the best the destroyer can hope for without a G1 carrier build.

2 German subs to north of Western Europe.  These subs must be positioned here to threaten any UK landing at Karelia/Archangel.  UK can block the subs from reaching the Karelia/Archangel sea zone, but a UK destroyer block can be destroyed with German air, leaving the Germans free to threaten the UK fleet next turn.  The subs can also hit the sea zone west of Algeria (northwest Africa) from here.

A matter of choices. Moving the 2 subs to SZ6 allows you to hit SZ4/12 but a single UK destroyer placed on SZ3 blocks both subs from reaching SZ2 (to attack any new builds) or SZ4, like you said. Or the Allies can move 1 BB, 1 trn, 1 sub to SZ4, on which case the 2 German subs have bad odds of succeeding. If you want to hit SZ2, then the best move is to split the subs to SZ3/7 since it prevents the DD block.

The case of the German destroyer is also something to consider. Keeping the DD on SZ5 makes sure that any UK fighters used against it can’t land on an UK carrier unless it is built on SZs 3/6/7.

[newpaintbrush]

Re:  Hobbes’ response.
Agreed with what you said about the UK air better used at Anglo-Egypt Sudan.  I usually do that myself, actually, as UK, can’t imagine why I didn’t mention it.

On the topic of German fighters attacking the UK cruiser - granted what you wrote about using UK air at Anglo-Egypt Sudan, but IF UK keeps its cruiser in the Med, I think the German battleship has a good chance of getting whacked.  It’s just a tasty target of opportunity.  This is something I’d rather prevent, even if it costs me one of four German fighters.  (Probably the German battleship dies quickly anyways, but the longer it lives, the better.)

A matter of choices. Moving the 2 subs to SZ6 allows you to hit SZ4/12 but a single UK destroyer placed on SZ3 blocks both subs from reaching SZ2 (to attack any new builds) or SZ4, like you said. Or the Allies can move 1 BB, 1 trn, 1 sub to SZ4, on which case the 2 German subs have bad odds of succeeding. If you want to hit SZ2, then the best move is to split the subs to SZ3/7 since it prevents the DD block.

The case of the German destroyer is also something to consider. Keeping the DD on SZ5 makes sure that any UK fighters used against it can’t land on an UK carrier unless it is built on SZs 3/6/7.

1.  UK block at SZ3 is about 60% likely to be destroyed at no cost to the Germans.  It depends on what Germany commits to destroying the destroyer, but it’s good odds.  8 IPCs is not a whole lot, but the longer Allies do things like destroyer blocks, the longer it will take them to get a good transport fleet going.

2.  The German bomber landed on Western Europe.  So 1 BB 1 trn 1 sub at SZ 4 can be attacked by 2 subs 1 bomber, which is at least decent odds.  Unless, of course, UK blocks with a destroyer, in which case there’s the 60% chance to kill the UK destroyer with no German loss.

3.  Splitting subs at SZ 3/7 means 1 sub is committed to defense of Karelia/Archangel, and another sub is committed to Algeria.  SZ 6 is the only German sea zone that allows subs to hit either Archangel or Algeria.  I am not worried about SZ2; I consider there to be nothing Germany could have done with Norway in Russian hands at the beginning of G1.  (German fighters couldn’t land on Norway to threaten SZ 2).

4.  UK offloading units to Karelia/Archangel is annoying, especially with the destroyer block, but they probably WILL NOT do it.  If they land at Archangel, the UK fleet is vulnerable to 3 German fighters and German bomber, landing at Karelia. and reinforced by German infantry.  If UK lands at Karelia, Eastern Europe and Norway recapture Karelia, Norway tank blitzes to safety at Eastern Europe.  In any event, UK offloading to Karelia/Archangel requires a destroyer block, which costs them.

5.  Norway is really the weak point in the German chain, which is why it’s so heavily protected.  The fear is UK-held Norway at end of UK1 with 1 battleship 2 fighters 1 carrier 2 destroyers 1 sub (19 defense, 8 hits).  Germany’s strongest counter is 3 subs 3 fighters 1 bomber (19 attack, 7 hits).  But if UK does try to take Norway early, the German destroyer, or Anglo-Egypt Sudan, and/or the German Mediterranean battleship are far more likely to survive - so in any event, things are likely to turn out decently for Germany.

6.  The concentration is NOT on Germany controlling waters around UK / hitting SZ 2, at least not yet.  With Norway in Russian hands at the start of the German turn, I could not land fighters on Norway to threaten the waters northwest of London at the end of G1.  As UK could build a defensive fleet of 2 destroyers 1 carrier northwest of London for 1 Russian sub 2 UK destroyers 1 UK carrier 1 UK battleship 2 fighters (8 hits, defending at 19), the attack of 3 subs 1 bomber (4 hits, attacking at 12) that could hit SZ 2 is just not enough.  It can’t be stopped; if UK wants it, it will happen.

6.  True, UK fighters used against a Baltic based destroyer can at best land on a newly built UK carrier in striking range of Germany’s navy.  Since UK would not be so silly, that means UK fighters land on London.  But that still leaves US landing a fighter on UK 2 destr/carrier/battleship northwest of London with 7 hits defending at 15, against Germany’s 4 hits attacking at 12.  Still awful for Germany.

7.  The German destroyer dies to a massive air attack unless Germany retreats it quickly, while UK still has other targets to send its air against (i.e. German transport, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, German Mediterranean battleship, Norway, etc. etc.)  Sending the German destroyer west of Western Europe STILL probably sees it die on UK1 but IF it survives G1, it slips into the Mediterranean and safety - where, starting on G3, it starts to screw up the numbers on Allied air attack against the German battleship/transport.

The alternative is building more German naval surface units to protect the destroyer.  Although this could protect the German transport too, and gives the logistic improvement of German infantry to Karelia in one move, I prefer using German subs (not naval surface units) and bombers that are hard for the Allies to concentrate their firepower on and destroy.

[McLovin1985]

@Bunnies:

Playing with yourself is HOT.   :evil:
And it doesn’t make you go blind, or make you grow hair on the palms of your hands.   :roll:
It’s good practice for when you go live.   :wink:
I’m talking about Axis and Allies Spring 1942 of course . . . what were you thinking about? . . .

Haha, I lol’d when I read that. Finally some humor… These threads are too stale most of the time. I’ve yet to play with myself, I might for Global though. A lot of options to explore there.

[newpaintbrush]

UK1:

BTW, Thanks for the replies.  I try to keep this a little humorous, but this is intended to be an “informative” thread.  So there are gonna be dry bits, especially as most of my humor is pretty blue, so I self-edit.   :roll: I know, sad isn’t it.  I have a dirty, dirty mind.

Allied Strategy:  KGF (Kill Germany First).  Germany’s mass infantry build will threaten Moscow’s west in 5 turns, likely coinciding with the arrival of Japanese infantry and tanks from Moscow’s east.   Stalling a skilled Japan player’s progress in the Pacific takes a long time.  Combining these two, along with 1) Germany built no air (especially bombers) or navy, 2) 2 German fighters were destroyed, 3) UK battleship survived, 4)  US cruiser/2 transports survived, means it is probably easiest to try to use UK and US together to start landing cost-effective infantry in Europe ASAP.  Africa will need to be reclaimed from the Axis as well; first from any Germans, then from a round 3+ attack from Africa’s east coast.

Germany’s current defense in the Atlantic is weak, but it can easily build subs and bombers to quickly make a very threatening counterattack force in the Atlantic.  So, UK and US will work together.  Inevitably, Japan will attack the US, forcing US to divert forces to defend, and disrupting the flow of Allied infantry to Europe.  UK/US must have broken the Axis fleet by that time.

UK1 Short term plan:  Reclaim Anglo-Egypt to stop the German tanks currently there from blitzing through Africa.  Germany can reclaim Anglo-Egypt on G2, but trading AES slows the Germans.  The Kwangtung transport must be destroyed to help protect the 6 Russian infantry on Burytia.  Apart from that, UK will split its forces as much as possible near Japan to give Japan multiple targets to hit.  This means Japan will need to neglect some targets to attain superiority of force, or can make many attacks with only a slight advantage at each (risking some battles turning bad).  UK must build a fleet on UK1 to reclaim Algeria (northwest Africa) on UK2.  This is only possible if US fleet also helps.

UK Mid-Long term plan:  Send the Indian carrier and UK Australian transport south of Africa / south of South America, to unite with the rest of the Algeria-based fleet around UK3-4.  Concentrate on building a defensive fleet, transports, air (useful to hit any German naval builds), and infantry.  When trading territory, infantry and air will be used, to threaten the maximum number of territories while committing the minimal force.  (For example, attacking a territory with 2 infantry 1 fighter means the 2 infantry will probably die on the counterattack; that’s 6 IPC worth of units.  Attacking with 2 infantry 1 tank means the 2 infantry and the tank will probably die on the counterattack, or 11 IPC worth of units.  If Germany offers no targets to early UK air, UK may send air to Pacific to help there for a while.
–
The Board at the Beginning of UK1:  Germans have a load of units at Anglo-Egypt Sudan.  UK will barely be able to retake it using all the power possible.  Apart from that, everything is as can be expected.

UK1 Purchase:  1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, to be placed in sea zone 2.

In THIS game, a UK1 naval build was possible, and was done to threaten a UK2 landing at Algeria.  But a UK1 naval build is NOT always a good idea.  Sometimes, Germany places fighters on Norway at the end of G1 (not possible this game as Germany lost Norway on R1) and/or builds a German bomber.  In such cases, Germany often threatens any newly built UK fleet with 2-3 subs, 2 fighters, and 2 bombers.  A dice calculator does not give accurate results, as to preserve the more valuable naval units, the carrier must be destroyed first, which accomplishes Germany’s goals after which German air retreats.  Long story short - UK naval build after G1 bomber build and/or German fighters on Norway can be a very bad idea, so be sure to think twice.

In THIS game, Germany can hardly hit sea zone 2, so UK can build fleet.  Furthermore, UK can build a transport instead of a second destroyer, as the UK battleship survived.  This lets UK hit harder in Africa on UK2.  Not building a UK destroyer at all (when building fleet) is a bad idea; German subs with sneak attack rolls are very nasty.

There is a G2 London invasion threat of 1 infantry 1 tank 3 fighters 1 bomber.  This will be addressed by landing UK fighters back on London, moving the Eastern Canada tank to London, and flying the US bomber to London.  The US fighters from Western and Eastern US will land on the UK carrier, giving it full protection.  This leaves the UK fighters free to hit the fleeing German destroyer.  If a UK fighter is destroyed, the Eastern US fighter will land on London instead.
–
UK1 combat movement:

2 India infantry via UK transport to Anglo-Egypt Sudan.  1 Trans-Jordan infantry to AES.  UK bomber to AES.  India fighter to AES.  Attacking 1 artillery 2 tanks.  8% total failure, leaving at least 1 German tank alive.  10% only UK fighter survives.  (The bomber should die before the fighter, as the German fighter in Africa can hit the UK bomber wherever it lands.)

India destroyer to Kwangtung transport.

Australia sub to Solomon Islands.  (Japan submerges its sub, but this is still combat movement)

2 UK fighters attack German destroyer in Baltic.

Combat results:

At AES, survived with 1 fighter 1 bomber.  There was a point at which Germany had 2 tanks, and UK 1 infantry 1 fighter 1 bomber; I continued attacking.  The next round was 1 German tank against 1 fighter and 1 bomber; I continued attacking.  This was very risky, but I think it was sound.  UK needs transports and infantry; leaving Anglo-Egypt in German hands at the end of UK1 means long-term IPC losses to UK and gains to Germany.  UK can USE its air, but it does not NEED it in the same sense that Germany does, to fend off enemy transport fleet escorts and trade territory.

India destroyer automatically won against Kwangtung transport.

Australia sub at Solomon Islands survived.  Japanese sub submerged and survived.

Both UK fighters survived after destroying the German destroyer.

Noncombat movement:

India AA gun and infantry to Persia.

UK fighter at bomber at Anglo-Egypt Sudan to Belgian Congo.  (Landing at Italian East Africa risks destruction by 2 Japanese fighters.)

UK transport northwest of London picks up UK tank at East Canada and drops it on London.

UK infantry at Western Canada moves to Eastern Canada.

2 fighters that destroyed German destroyer land on London.

UK carrier at India to sea zone just east of Kenya (Africa)

UK transport at Australia picks up an Australian infantry, moves to New Zealand and picks up an infantry there, then moves directly east to Sea Zone 42.  The Japanese sub can hit this target, but sending the Japanese sub here means 1 less unit at Hawaiian islands, meaning some additional chance of a Japanese fighter being destroyed.

(edit) UK infantry from Union of South Africa to Kenya.

UK1 unit placement:  All units northwest of London.

Collected 28 IPCs.  (Total 29 IPCs)

[newpaintbrush]

J1

J1 strategy:  14 IPC of transports moves up to 4 units from islands to Asia (as opposed to a 15 IPC industrial complex that can only produce 3 units).  Transports let Japan hit any number of targets on the Asian, and later African coast, making it very hard to defend against Japan’s attacks.  As a final dealbreaker, Japan’s infantry on its islands are pretty useless, and it has 10 of them - that’s 30 IPC worth of unused material, that Japanese transports can bring into the game.  For all these reasons, transports are Japan’s answer to pretty much anything and everything.

J1 short term goals:    Whack the US fleet at Hawaii.  (The US carrier gives US fighters a tremendous range boost; those fighters can be used to threaten Japanese transports).  There’s an annoying US fighter to swat there too.

Mid-long term goals:  Depends entirely on Allied responses.  Japan has to be sure to watch carefully for any enemy subs and/or bombers; even bombers that seem far away can swoop in and smack Japan up.  Even “impossible” attacks may become possible when, say, Russia claims a territory, and UK lands a bomber on it later.  If U.S. builds a lot of subs, Japan will need destroyer(s) to hunt them down.  Not hunting down US subs lets them run all over the place, forcing Japan to either keep the fleet in one place, or to build multiple defensive fleets.  Keeping the fleet in one place means either stopping moving ground units into Asia (awful) or never getting to use Japan’s infantry on its islands (horrible in opportunity cost terms).  Building multiple defensive fleets is so expensive, Japan might as well build a couple destroyers and just fend the Allied subs off.
–
The board at beginning of J1:

Germany lost 2 fighters, UK kept its battleship, and UK built navy.  Clearly, Germany’s in for interesting times.  However, U.S. could still drop a load of units in the Pacific and force Japan to fight for its life.  So Japan should keep that in mind.

UK did NOT capture Borneo or New Guinea, which is a plus.

UK did NOT fortify India, which means it can be captured quickly.  (Allies fortifying India is almost always completely useless in the face of a determined Japan onslaught anyways.  J1 transport build, J2 eight units to French Indochina, J3 10 ground units (2 infantry from East Indies) plus 4-5 fighters plus bomber plus 1-2 battleship support shots rolls right over Allied resistance.  At best, you have 5 UK infantry in the area to begin with, plus possible UK1 industrial complex, UK2 build of 3 units, UK3 build of 3 units for a total of 11 ground units plus up to four fighters (UK1 build, plus 2 starting UK fighters at London, plus India fighter) and UK bomber.  Sounds good, right, but this means a quick German victory in Africa, and Russia being horribly drained, so Allied resistance at India is almost always less.  In practical terms, Japan usually lets Allies hold India, and smashes any Allied attack into French Indochina, while it builds up forces and pushes on Moscow through China/Sinkiang and Soviet Far East/Burytia.  In fact, India is completely open.

UK has a lone transport carrying 2 infantry near the Solomons sub.

The Allies have no bombers in range of the sea zone east of Japan.  This gives Japan a huge advantage; if Japan can put its transports east of Japan on placement at the end of J1, its fleet will be able to grab infantry off islands immediately.

There is a stack of 6 Russian infantry on Burytia.  If at all possible, Japan wants to crack that stack open, but not at the cost of too much Japanese air.

J1 purchase:  3 transports 1 destroyer.  With the sea zone east of Japan not subject to easy Allied attack, a minimal defense fleet allow Japan to build transports there.  From there, Japan can grab infantry off various islands quickly.  Initially I would have built 4 transports, but after considering Japan’s possible attacks, I changed my mind.

J1 combat movement:

Lots of good choices.  Japan can attempt to completely wipe out the US Pacific fleet by hitting the US battleship with sub and fighter (60% odds of destroying the battleship, considering sub and fighter expendable), and by hitting the Hawaiian fleet with only air, making the US sub useless on defense.  Hitting Hawaii with air means landing fighters at Solomons, though, where they will be out of the fight in Asia for a while.  Meanwhile, Japan must keep some mind to defense; the UK destroyer and sub are a significant threat, as is the US sub that will survive Hawaii.

In a KGF strategy, the US Pacific battleship/transport does not become a problem for Germany until US3/4 (when it can reach Algeria and Norway, respectively).  The US Pacific fleet can become an almost immediate annoyance to Japan when teamed up with a US1 build.  So I decided to take a chance on destroying it.  I don’t care at all about my submarine, and my fighter’s a small price to pay for an odds-on attack against a battleship - with a transport thrown in for good measure.

If the fighter being sent to attack the US battleship DID survive, I would have to move a carrier to Hawaiian islands, which could immediately be destroyed by up a sub, 2 fighters, and a bomber.  So it’s better if I can arrange for the Japanese fighter to be destroyed.

This being all I could hit the US Pacific battleship/transport fleet with, I turned my attention to the Hawaii Islands attack and the planned Japanese fleet at the Solomons.  Any Japanese fighters surviving Hawaii would have to land at Solomons, where they could be hit by 1 US sub and 1 US bomber, followed by 1 UK sub.  Considering the forces in the area, Japan should send a battleship or cruiser to keep the Solomons carrier relatively safe.

I ended up deciding to attack all the priority targets - Burytia, China, the Hawaii fleet, and the West USA fleet.  This ended up with a plan leaving the East Indies battleship and carrier at Solomons and the Japanese battleship east of Japan.  The Caroline Islands carrier could end up having to go to Hawaii if the Japan fighter attacking the US battleship survived; to give the odds maximum possible chances of success, the fighter would have to be the one chosen to survive any initial round.  Since I sent the Jap cruiser to Hawaii, this left the Japanese battleship east of Japan vulnerable to a UK attack of sub/destroyer.  I decided at this point to do 3 transports 1 destroyer rather than 4 transports.
–
J1 combat movement:

Solomons sub, Caroline Islands fighter to US battleship/transport.  41% fighter survives.  20% everything dies (perfectly acceptable, even preferable)

Caroline Islands cruiser, 2 East Indies fighters to Hawaiian Islands sea zone, attacking US sub/carrier/fighter.  The odds here are pretty awful (58% win), but the goal is to destroy naval units, not the US fighter.  As soon as the carrier is destroyed, Japan can run.  This would leave 2 fighters on Hawaii, making the threat against any Japanese Solomons fleet VERY strong, but if the battle went badly, the Japanese fighters would be dead, meaning the Japanese carrier could retreat.  At most, Japan would lose 1 carrier, taking the survivors of Hawaii and the US West attack.

Japan transport picks up infantry from Wake Island, tank from Japan, drops in Burytia, defended by 6 Russian infantry.  2 Japan fighters and Japan bomber to Buryatia.  2 Manchuria infantry to Buryatia.  Battleship support shot from battleship east of Japan.  The purpose is not to claim Buryatia, but to destroy the 6 Russian infantry losing at most 1 fighter in the process.  Odds are around 75% of doing so.

2 French Indochina infantry and French Indochina fighter, plus Kwangtung infantry, to China.  This leaves India in UK hands, but UK could have reclaimed easily anyways.

J1 combat results

Hawaiian island attack 1st round had US inflicting 1 hit (not by the US sub), and Japan hitting nothing.  I dropped the cruiser and stayed, US sub submerged.  Japan sunk the US carrier and suffered no hits in return.  I decided to finish the 2 Jap fighters vs 1 US fighter battle, and killed the US fighter at the cost of 1 more Jap fighter.  Results:  1 Jap fighter survived.

East Coast attack first round, everything missed.  Second round, Jap fighter hit, US battleship missed.  Third round, Jap fighter hit, US battleship hit.  I dropped the Jap fighter.  Keeping the fighter would require parking a Jap carrier at Hawaiian islands, without any reinforcements, where it would probably be sunk by up to 1 sub/2 fighter/1 bomber.

Burytia succeeded with 1 infantry 1 tank plus all air remaining.

China failed with 1 Japanese fighter retreating.  1 US fighter and 1 US infantry survived.  Awful, awful fail.

Comment:  79% chance of capturing China with at least 1 Japanese infantry and 1 fighter.  The result left 1 US infantry and 1 US fighter alive, a huge, huge swing.  This is why a lot of players complain about dice.  But really, experienced players will know that MOST battles go better or worse than “average”.  As it is, Japan did extremely well in all its other attacks, and can be thankful for a turn that generally went quite well.  Blowing up the US Pacific fleets at a minimal cost in Japanese air was very lucky for Japan; there was a good chance both attacks would have failed, and that Japan would have had to retreat to the Solomons.

Comment 2:  Some people say things should be “average”.  But by “average”, it’s like they’re thinking - "I flip a coin and it comes up heads sometimes and tails sometimes.  So if I flip an AVERAGE coin, it should never land heads OR tails, because either one would be different than the “normal” result of “half the time heads” and “half the time tails”.  Therefore, the coin should either land on its edge every time, or end up spinning in the air endlessly, never landing. Nonsense!  Sometimes it comes up heads (good).  Sometimes it comes up tails (bad).  (Or vice versa, your preference).  The A&A player that manages risk the best and plans the best attacks, that manages to compensate for poor luck and take advantage of good luck, is the one that should win!

By “managing risk”, I don’t mean only engaging in 90%+ battles.  Sometimes, you can gain a decisive advantage if you strike with multiple attacks, each only having 60-80% success probabilities.  Though it’s likely some of such attacks will fail, the advantage you gain by the attacks you win may be enough that your failures are completely offset.
–
J1 noncombat

East Indies battleship and carrier to Solomon Islands.  Fighter at Hawaiian islands to Solomon Islands.  1 fighter from Burytia to Solomon Islands (to help stop the long-odds US sub/fighter attack)

Caroline Islands carrier to east of Japan.  Fighter from China, remaining fighter from Buryatia to sea zone east of Japan.

Bomber to Japan.

J1 placement:  All units east of Japan.

Collected 31 IPCs (have 32 IPCs total)

[newpaintbrush]

US1

US strategy:  Since the Allies are, at this point, pursuing a KGF (Kill Germany First) strategy (everything’s coming up roses in the Atlantic, and the US Pacific fleet is almost completely wiped out), they will want to get infantry to Europe.  Infantry give the most defensive power for the least IPCs spent, and are useful on offense to soak up enemy hits.  The least expensive and most efficient way to get infantry to Europe is to produce ground units at Eastern US, walk them to Eastern Canada, pick them up there with transports and drop them in London, then pick them up at London and drop them to Europe - specifically Karelia and Archangel.  On the way, UK/US should pick up Africa, then hit Norway, Western Europe, Germany, and/or Eastern Europe, if a good opportunity presents itself.

US will therefore need transports and naval escorts.  What sort of escorts?  Battleships and cruisers soak up damage, and can lend their power to support shot attacks, but are of limited use when compared to carriers and destroyers.  Destroyers are the only unit that can root out subs.  Carriers can carry fighters, and fighters are useful in prolonged engagements over land.  Subs are useful when attacking enemy navies, but looking at the board, Germany doesn’t have much navy to speak of.  So the escorts will be destroyers and cruisers with fighters.

US short term goals:  Build fleet to move units to Algeria (northwest Africa) on UK2/US2.  Germany must be prevented from taking mainland Africa early on, to maintain Allied economic advantage. With the current UK navy, the anticipated UK2/US2 fleet at Algeria will be1 battleship, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser, 1 carrier, 2 destroyers, 1 sub (9 hits 22 defense) plus the US1 build  Current German defense consists of 4 fighters and 1 bomber from Western Europe, 3 subs, for 8 units with 22 attack.  Germany could move its battleship to threaten any Allied landing, and could produce up to 3 bombers, bringing the Germans to 13 hits with 34 attack  US will clearly have to build units to stand a chance against even the lesser possible German attack.  Adding 1 destroyer 1 carrier gives a defensive fleet of 13 hits 32 defense, still not good against the strongest German response, but UK and US can put off invasion of Africa until UK/US3 or even later.  The spare US destroyer will be used to hunt subs later on (Germany has three subs right now, but will inevitably be useful.

Mid-long term goals:  Just as in “Strategy” above.

Da Kunnin’ Plan - well, there is one trick I hadn’t mentioned.  UK doesn’t want to spend a lot of IPCs on fleet; its income will be uncertain thanks to Germany hitting Africa, and Japanese hitting India/Persia and later Africa again.  The only reason UK drops IPCs on fleet on UK1 is to threaten a UK2/US2 drop to Algeria (northwest Africa), which potentially protects UK’s income.  However, UK usually can’t land fighters on its newly produced carrier, as UK fighters can usually hit Baltic fleet on UK1 and don’t have the range to land on the carrier in its safe zone on the far side of London.  But the Allies can work together, using the US’s Western US and Eastern US fighters to land on the UK carrier, protecting it from German attack on G2.

But the fun doesn’t stop there.  US fighters typically require two rounds of movement to get into action, flying from US to London, then from London to Europe or other targets.  UK carrying US fighters, though, gives the US fighters additional effective range if the UK moves its carriers into attack range for the US turn.  So suppose Germany does move its Med battleship/transport to Libya on G2 to threaten any Allied fleet landing at Algeria.  UK2 sees the UK fleet move to Algeria, bringing the two US fighters.  US2 sees the US fighters in range of the German battleship, potentially sinking it.  The US bomber can join the action at Libya if it flies to Brazil on US1, landing on Trans-Jordan (even if in German hands, it can often be reclaimed on UK2 by UK units, leaving the US room to land fighters and bomber there.)

There’s a few funny tricks like that that exploit the advantage of teamwork.  They’ll be addressed in due course, when I use them in-game.

/end Da Kunnin’ Plan

Of course, the Germans may NOT go to Libya with their Med fleet, and may put German air in range to hit Trans-Jordan, preempting Allied air landing there.  But then the German air and navy wouldn’t be in range to protect Algeria (northwest Africa).  The Germans can’t be everywhere.

–
The board at the beginning of US1:

US Pacific fleet is wiped out, Japan’s fleets are consolidated preventing any US sub strikes and has a destroyer to hunt the US sub down if it does remain.  Japan killed 6 Russian infantry at Buryatia and captured the territory, and has plenty of transports; that plus Japan fleet consolidation and the US Pacific fleet’s being wiped means the US bomber will be of little to no use in the Pacific.  The China fighter lived, as did a US infantry, very surprising; the US infantry will be used for short term IPC gains and to draw Japanese forces away from India as possible, the US fighter will be landed on Caucasus to help sink the German battleship/transport on US2.

US1 purchase:  1 infantry, 2 tanks, 1 transport, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer.  This is very carefully considered, and I’m not just saying that to sound sexy.  First, tanks are useful for blitzing through Africa and recapturing land from the Germans if necessary, and the US will need more than just one if it wants to preserve any sort of real threat.  Second, tanks will be necessary at Africa when the Allies divert their navy and air towards Europe; lone infantry will be able to do little of use.  Third, US starts with 9 ground units and 2 transports in the US.  Building 3 ground units and 1 transport means that at the end of the US2 turn there can be 6 units on Eastern Canada and 6 units in Algeria, with newly produced units at Eastern US (say 3 transports 6 infantry).  On US3, the transports at Algeria can pick up the Eastern Canada units and drop them in London while the US2 build moves to Eastern Canada.  US3 build is another six ground units with discretionary air/sea units.  On US4, the transports at London can drop to Norway, the US2 build moves Eastern Canada units to London, the US 3 build moves to Eastern Canada, and the cycle repeats.

What happens if Japan drops units to Alaska?  It takes a while for the US to reclaim the territory (the fact that US can send Eastern Canada units to Western Canada immediately to cut off Japan’s progress helps).  This disrupts the US flow.  But any early Japan landing at Alaska slows Japan’s against Asia, and later Japan landings can be countered with US’s discretionary funds.

US1 combat movement:  China infantry to Manchuria (unoccupied).  This is the best place for it.  First, with very lUS infantry in China/Ssinkiang can do little of use, even with the unexpected support of the fighter.  Since the opportunity presents itself, it’s best to use the infantry to get 3 IPCs in the bank, and have at least a 2 in 6 chance of destroying something when Japan destroys it.  Second, Japanese transports at Manchuria are in the worst possible position for Japan, as they will be delayed in moving back out to the islands in the Pacific.  (In this case, this means little as Japan has 4 transports, but it is better than nothing).  Third, Japanese units sent to Manchuria will take longer to hit India, which is currently in UK hands.

US1 noncombat movement:

Sinkiang infantry to China.

China fighter to Caucasus.

Hawaiian Islands sub to Mexico.  (Nothing for it to do in Pacific except be destroyed)

Hawaiian islands fighter to Western Canada.

Eastern US ground units, including AA gun, to Eastern Canada.  Central US ground units to Eastern Canada.

Alaska infantry to Western Canada.  Western US infantry and AA gun to Western Canada.

Western US fighter and Eastern US fighter to UK carrier northwest of London.

US bomber to Brazil.  The Axis can’t hit it, there’s no targets in the Pacific or in Europe that UK can’t handle.  The anticipated target is the German Mediterranean battleship, and the US bomber may be able to help there.

US1 placement:  Everything in Eastern US.

US collects 45 IPCs.  Normally it’s 40 IPCs at this point with the fall of China, and without the capture of Manchuria.

[newpaintbrush]

Round 1 Recap:
Russia pulled a Nor/WR/Ukr attack, succeeding at all territories (very unusual), but with 2 less infantry than expected at West Russia, impeding future territory trade with Germany.

Germany started 2 fighters down thanks to Nor/Ukr falling, and could not carry out the sub/fighter/bomber attack on the UK battleship.  However, Germany lost no more air in its attacks, which was very lucky for Germany.  Anglo-Egypt was captured with 1 infantry and 2 tanks surviving.  Thinking about it, I think I will use S. Europe artillery or infantry in place of the S. Europe tank in future games.  West Russia was captured, crippling Russia’s ability to trade on R2 (trading Karelia and Belorussia will not be possible for Russia.)  Germany’s attack on Russian-held Ukraine failed, but at least destroyed the Russian tanks.

UK sunk the German destroyer in the Baltic, but left the German transport alive - Germany will gain a logistic advantage from that, but the bulk of Germany’s infantry is on Berlin, where it cannot threaten Moscow.  Anglo-Egypt was not recaptured, but the German units were destroyed, preventing a tank blitz through Africa on G2.

Japan went for risky attacks, attempting to wipe out both the Hawaii fleet and the US West fleet, and succeeded.  However, its 5 infantry 1 fighter attack against China’s 2 infantry and 1 fighter utterly failed, losing 5 infantry and destroying only 1 Chinese infantry.  (see Chennault’s Flying Tigers in action!)  Almost no Japanese air was lost, though, so all in all, a very satisfactory Japanese turn.

US snapped up Manchuria and started the gears rolling on a KGF via Africa.
–
The first round was characterized by flashy attacks from Russia, Germany, and Japan.  Surprisingly, although some of the attacks failed (as expected), all the “important” battles succeeded, with almost no air power being lost by any of these attackers (a considerable added bonus) in the course of their attacks.

For new players reading this game record - remember that flashy attacks carry a real risk of failure.  There is a time to press the attack, and a time to retreat, and it’s important to be able to distinguish between the two.

For vets reading this game record - I know, my attacks may seem flashy and cheap, much like the bar girl you met Thursday afternoon.  But, as you found out Thursday night, the bar girl knows what she’s doing.  Oh ya.  Although I’m a man, baby.

:x

I hope that doesn’t shock you.

:x

Of course, I don’t REALLY know what I’m doing all the time.  Or even most of the time.  Maybe even not even some of the time.  Or maybe I know what I’m doing all the time, and I’m just saying I don’t really know what I’m doing all the time, so if I’m ever brought up in court, nobody can prove or disprove anything, except maybe temporary insanity.  Or permanent insanity if they think they can get my estate.  But it’s my estate.  Mine and my dog Bubbles.  And frankly, I don’t care who your lawyers are.  I have lawyers too.  So does my dog.  And they’re nasty.  The lawyers, that is.  Frankly, not nice people at all.

And maybe when you wake up in the morning you’ll put on your slippers, and you’ll find a nice surprise.  Because when you have ninja cats on your payroll, almost anything’s possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gigante

Don’t Fight The Power.

Be The Power!

And on that flashy non sequitur, it’s on to R2.

[newpaintbrush]

Before going into R2, I’m going to review R1, and write a few words about Axis Tank Dash.  Because Axis Tank Dash is nasty, and therefore useful to know.  Much like a lawyer, or a really experienced French girl.  But I digress.

Most of this  post’s commentary is specific to the Russian turn following a Ukr/West Russia/Norway attack; readers will probably quickly understand why the three-territory Russian attack is considered risky - that is, it almost invariably loses 10 infantry and 3 tanks immediately., as opposed to more conservative plans that lose 6 infantry or so.  True, sometimes 2 tanks are preserved, but that’s always only when things go SO badly for Russia that Russia has to retreat.

So what’s so bad about Russian tanks being preserved?  Let me think of a simile.  It’s like when you come out of your house, look across the street, and see an evil zombie clown.  Of course, you pick up your boom-stick and unload a few shells.  But let’s say that your boom-stick doesn’t go off.  In a way, you could say that’s good, because you saved a few shells.  But on the other hand, when there’s an evil zombie clown running at your a**, that’s not the time to worry about saving your shells.  You want your shells to be used, you know.  Especially when that evil zombie clown has a chainsaw.

Much like Germany has a whole lot of fighters and tanks and stuff.

Yeah, you know how I like to keep it real.  :mrgreen:

Real crazy?  :roll:  Hey, I heard that.  :x

R1 pulled flashy attacks against Germany, depleting its power horribly, losing most of its infantry on the western front, and all of its tanks and artillery.  (At best, only 1 tank 1 artillery may survive a Nor/WR/Ukr attack).  The R1 build of 5 inf 1 art 1 tank build gave Russia the hitting power to respond to a premature German attack, and the numbers to withstand (barely) a G1 pure tank build if UK and US helped respond appropriately.

What is the Axis Tank Dash scenario?

G1 build 8 tanks, G2 hits Ukraine and cannot be dislodged and builds 8 more tanks or bombers, G3 hits Caucasus or West Russia with about 12 tanks, 4-5 infantry, 4-5 fighters and a bomber (or additional bombers depending on G2 build), and moves G2 build tanks to Ukraine, about a 21 unit attack.

This is the first “breaking point”; if Russia does not withstand this attack at Caucasus, Japan lands fighters on Caucasus to reinforce, and Germany pumps infantry at Caucasus supplemented by tanks from Berlin.  Horrible for Russia, it will probably not last long thereafter.

If Russia cannot stop Germany from sitting on West Russia, Germany parks there and keeps moving tanks up.  Soon, if not immediately, Russia must choose between Moscow and Caucasus.  When Russia pulls back to Moscow, Caucasus falls.

What resistance can the Allies offer to this German Tank Dash?

Defending Caucasus R3:

The R1 build leaves 15 Russian units in relatively non-tradeable zones, R2 build gives 8 more, and R3 another 4 (only units that are built on the Caucasus can be used to stop the G3 push) for a 27 unit defense against a 21 unit attack, possibly supplemented by up to 4-5 Allied fighters for 31 units (Acceptable for Allies).  (UK/US must still start the logistics of their transport chain; further delay means an uphill battle).  There may be up to 8-10 additional Russian units, depending on whether Russia tried to build some offensive units, or went pure defense.  It is not too difficult to defend Caucasus against a German tank dash.  But as previously mentioned, it is not enough to stop the tank dash at Caucasus; Germany cannot be allowed to park at West Russia.

Defending West Russia R3:

If Russia has almost nothing but infantry, it will have plenty of units, but no attack power.  If Russia build artillery and tanks, it will probably not have more than about 27-30 units on R3.  But this force will still be made up mostly of infantry and artillery, and cannot match Germany’s power.  Russia’s stack will beat Germany’s stack, but Russia will suffer a lot of casualties in doing so, maybe too many depending on Japan’s progress.

So what’s the lesson?  Russia can defend West Russia AND Caucasus on R3, so long as it doesn’t go screwing around with a lot of fighters, subs, bombers, naval units, or other stuff like that (Russia needs a solid ground defense), but a good number of Russia’s build will need to be artillery or tanks (cheapest offense), to pose a credible threat to Germans sitting on West Russia.  This is even with a Nor/WR/Ukr attack

But Belorussia/WR is far more conservative.  That trades 6 Russian infantry for 6 German infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 tank.  Contrast with Nor/WR/Ukr, trading 10 Russian infantry and 3 tanks for about 9 German infantry, an artillery, and a tank, with the potential (but not the certainty) of a German artillery, tank, and 2 fighters thrown in.  That is, with Nor/WR/Ukr, Russia loses 4 infantry and 3 tanks for about 3 German infantry, plus some possibilities.

Back to the German Tank Dash.  Japan, and UK/US still need to be taken into account.

Meanwhile, Japan expands in Asia; J1 transport build.  The quickest route to Moscow is through Burytia/Soviet Far East, so J2 to Burytia, J3 Yakut, J4 Novosibirsk, J5, the 8 Japanese infantry from the J2 drop reach Moscow.  However, it is not quite so simple, switching to tank production on J2 to complement the German tank dash sees J2 production of 3 tanks on Japan for a J3 drop to Asia and an IC build.  J3 sees mobilization of the first tanks at Manchuria and tank drop to Burytia for 6 tanks in Asia.  J4 sees those tanks roll to Yakut (or the equivalent); J5 sees them hitting Moscow, for a threatened J5 hit of 8 infantry, 6 tanks, 4-6 fighters, and bomber, with 6 tanks coming in each turn.  This is not something Russia can ignore either, and again, Japan can add 2 bombers by cutting tanks that would be newly produced and stuck en-route for an immediate added punch against Moscow.

So the real test of the German tank dash strategy comes around G4/J4.  Germany starts to have the numbers to be a real threat to either West Russia or Caucasus, and Japan forces Russia to retreat to Moscow.  It’s almost certain that with J4 pressure, R5 retreats to Moscow, and G5/J5 claims Caucasus.

So you may ask yourself if Germany is delayed until G5 to take Caucasus, is there a need for tanks for Germany on G1?  The answer is - maybe not.  G1 tanks allow Germany to take and hold one territory that it would otherwise have to trade, but the tank mobility quickly becomes irrelevant as Germany stalls.  A G1 infantry build of 13 units will give Germany a 5-unit advantage when it comes to the big battle for Moscow.  That’s why I went infantry for G1, instead of using G1 pure tank dash.

So ends the discussion on tank dash.  Eventually, the Axis will want to go mass tanks to break Moscow, as described above, although the timing may be bit different, especially with Africa and various income-generating territories thrown into the mix.  But that is the basic Axis plan, when tanks are the intended instrument of victory, which they almost always are, as a relatively cheap, hard hitting, fast moving unit that can claim and hold territory.

What about the Allied plan?  While this is all going on, UK/US will be building transports.  As mentioned in the US1 turn, UK5/US5 usually sees the UK/US transport chain in full effect, dropping at least 12 units (probably 14, and very possibly 16) units a turn into Archangel.  There’s also the threat of permanently claiming Western Europe and/or Norway to pump out additional units each turn.

Germany can stall UK/US, at the cost of slowing down its attack against Russia.  But with Russia pinned at Moscow by Japanese units, Germany need not try to capture Moscow.  It need only hold in place on one side while Japan holds on the other.  If Russia attacks one side, the other side will probably be able to attack and win.  If Russia does not attack either side, Germany and Japan’s forces grow faster than Russia’s (with Russia’s income limited as it’s pressed on both sides).  Even though Germany’s using most of its resources to hold the Allies off at that point, its forces near Moscow still grow faster than the Russians, and Japan’s forces grow even faster.

What it really comes down to is the Axis trying to stop UK/US from getting going in the Atlantic while trying to crack Moscow, and the Allies trying to hold Moscow while trying to prevent the Axis from slowing the UK/US plans too much.

More on this in-game.

[newpaintbrush]

More On Tank Dash.  Because it’s So Dashing.   :roll:

Looking back, I still feel like doing some commentary on R1, because I don’t think I really described what a total disaster failing to capture Ukraine can be.  On to R2 in a moment, I promise.  And may I say how flattering that dress looks on you.  Really.   :wink:  I’d never guess you had three kids and a trick lung.

Suppose Russia failed to capture Ukraine, and Germany Tank Dashes.  Say that Russia slaughters everything there, but leaves the territory in German hands.  What are the possible consequences?  The consequence isn’t a normal German Tank Dash.  It’s the German Turbo Tank Dash.  Completely different, much like how a Lamborghini dealership is different from your kid’s collection of Hot Wheels cars.

Eastern Europe and Balkans tank, plus Southern Europe infantry, plus 5 fighters and bombers, hitting Caucasus.  This is not a picnic; if Russia had its usual 6 units there, it gets crushed.  Let’s say Germany’s willing to drop some air on the attack, to leave boots on the ground.  Japan flies 4 fighters to reinforce.  That means on R2, you’re looking at 1-2 German infantry 3 German tanks, 4 Japanese fighters, and an AA gun on Caucasus, with 7 German infantry 5 German tanks at Ukraine/Eastern Europe ready to move in.  If Germany holds Caucasus past R2, that’s another 4 units there at the end of G2, plus it’s likely Germany will have built a lot of tanks on G1.  The start of R3 could easily see a 20-unit German stack on Caucasus, with 8 tanks at Balkans, for a 28 unit attack against Moscow for G4.

This is like “jesus wtf” for Russia, especially after losing most of its attack power on R1.

Since Russia knows Ukraine COULD go bad, and Germany COULD respond aggressively, what can Russia do to destroy the Axis forces of 1 infantry 4 tanks 4 fighters 1 AA gun on R2, to prevent Germany from holding Caucasus?  Plenty; the best counterattack force means a R1 build of 2 inf 2 art 2 tanks or 1 inf 4 art 1 tank.  (5 inf 1 art 1 tank gives a 75% recapture instead of a 81-82%.  But if even 1 unit survives at West Russia, you get 90+% to recapture.)

But R2 reclamation is not the end of the story.  Even with 4 units surviving at West Russia (assuming Russia got lucky), there’s still only going to be about 9-10 units on Caucasus at the end of R2.  This is faced with the German stack of 7 infantry at Ukraine plus 5 tanks ready to roll, plus German air.  (If Russia left a fat stack on Caucasus at tne end of R1, there’s less air, but far less Russian defenders at the end of R2).  G2 recapture breaks Russia.  R3 cannot recapture Caucasus.  So starting G3, Germans start pumping units there; added to the tanks incoming from Berlin and pressure from Japan, Russia’s under pressure.

UK and US can set up a quick transport chain, but it’s likely that G2 will land air to protect from a UK2 landing.  From there, UK and US have to take the time to build a defensive fleet, while Germany continues to run a few tanks in from Berlin, and produces units at Caucasus, while Japan runs around like crazy kicking a**.

What are the odds of all this happening, with a 2 tank 1 fighter attack on Ukraine?   That is, what are the odds that Russia fails to leave at least 1 ground unit in Ukraine?  37% if Russia’s willing to lose its fighter over its tank to claim Ukraine.  If Russia holds on to its fighter, it’s 47%.

So you know, when old codgers nod their heads and say “back in MY day, we treated Ukraine with RESPECT and sent 3 tanks 2 fighters there for a 91% chance to claim Ukraine.  None of this newfangled UKR/NOR/WR nonsense!  Why, don’t you know you’re only 53% likely to take Ukraine and keep your fighter?  Drop your fighter and it’s 63%, but that’s a Russian fighter, man!” - now you KNOW what they’re talking about.

There’s some things UK can do to screw with the basic German game plan, but attacks on Japan’s India fleet, transport fleets with minimal destroyer protection, and so on and so forth, really come down to the same thing.  It’s a probable death sentence for the Allies, even with careful Allied play.  UK/US don’t have the transports or the transport escorts to get ground units into Europe yet, so Germany has a while to play hardball before it has to worry about self-defense.

BTW, this is also what I mean when I say things like “Africa isn’t everything, the Axis don’t need Africa.”  Then I see people like  :roll:  But I just hold on to my dreams, and say where there’s a tank, there’s a way.

Because . . .

TANKS ARE STRONG!  :lol:

[newpaintbrush]

R2
Strategy:  Stall until UK5/US5, at least.

Russian Short Term Goals:  Reclaim West Russia with a load of infantry and trade territory with Germany.

The Board at the Beginning of R2:

UK and US are setting up their usual slow transport chain.  Africa’s not doing well, but it isn’t awful, with UK/US set to start reclaiming in force on UK2/US2.  Germany may start tank dashing, but it’s too soon to tell, anyways Germany has a huge infantry reserve incoming.  Japan’s out of range to land on any newly captured German territories that are important.  Russia’s hitting power is feeling the aftermath of the R1 drain, and needs some help.
–
R2 purchase:  1 fighter, 1 tank, 2 artillery, 3 infantry.  Russia intends to trade territory with Germany without committing expensive ground units, and fighters are the way to do it.  Tanks can switch back and forth between west and east quickly as needed, and can blitz territories that are left unguarded.  (Suppose Russia attacked a German territory and failed.  Germany might pull all units out of that territory on its next turn.  If Russia used an infantry to capture, that infantry would be destroyed next turn.  If Russia used a tank to blitz, Russia would simply gain income.

R2 combat movement:

4 Moscow infantry, 1 Moscow tank, 2 Moscow fighters, 3 Caucasus infantry, 1 Caucasus artillery to West Russia.

R2 combat results:

6 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 2 fighters survived at West Russia.

R2 noncombat movement:

2 Russia infantry to Novosibirsk.

2 fighters at West Russia to Caucasus.

R2 placement:

1 infantry 2 artillery at Moscow.
2 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter at Caucasus.

R2 collects 26 IPCs.

[newpaintbrush]

Lol, Hobbes beat me the f*** up last night in Spring 1942 (v4 map on TripleA).  But I’m learning.  I’m gonna get you, Hobbes.  And your little dog, too!

I’m like a Terminator.  An angry, furry Terminator with a bladder problem.

Couple things I noticed, he likes building early destroyers with Allies in a KGF (I do that myself, but it’s a good thing to mention), and he sent UK air to Africa to whack the German battleship on UK2.  I have never seen that before; it makes me think twice about splitting the German destroyer from the German transport in the Baltic.

I screwed up by not diverting to kick the Allies out while they were weak, and I should have done G1 and G2 infantry builds.  BUT it’s not like I’m saying the game was mine to win or lose; Hobbes just pwnt the hell out of me.

If Hobbes is like “wtf I not play Bunnies P Wrath last nite?”  It’s an anagram for newpaintbrush.  ^^

Yeh, I’m like a ninja.

While you ponder those words . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5gCeWEGiQI

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

J1

J1 strategy:  14 IPC of transports moves up to 4 units from islands to Asia (as opposed to a 15 IPC industrial complex that can only produce 3 units). 
Transports let Japan hit any number of targets on the Asian, and later African coast, making it very hard to defend against Japan’s attacks.  As a final dealbreaker, Japan’s infantry on its islands are pretty useless, and it has 10 of them - that’s 30 IPC worth of unused material, that Japanese transports can bring into the game.  For all these reasons, transports are Japan’s answer to pretty much anything and everything.

There’s a little more to that math. 2 transports are more cost effective than 1 IC for Japan, if they are used to offload units to Buryatia/SFE/Kwantung/Manchuria (transports move nothing or 1 SZ to pick up units and land them). In the case of FIC you really need to have 4 transports to be able to land 4 units on FIC each turn (using a shuck shuck with 2 transports each on FIC’s SZ and SZ60).

And 4 transports is the bare minimum if you are planning on delaying an IC purchase until you really need it (i.e. Japan’s production is above 40 and you want to spend all money on land units). If you want to hit other targets (Australia, Africa) then you’ll need even more transports if you want to keep those 8 units flowing into Asia.