Yes, in every round of combat in which no enemy destroyers are present.
Attack, Retreat or Advance?
-
In online games with two good players using Low Luck (or even regular dice) it is common to see large stacks like that because players will rather not take chances and wait to move those stacks until they are sure that they can’t be destroyed. It also depends on the overall strat you’re following: if you are ahead on income and you’ve stopped the enemy from advancing then it’s best to keep piling up units until you are ready to move. You’re already ahead of him on income so he’ll be the one who has to take more risks.
On this game the Allies essentially kept their advantage on income and started a reinforcement chain through Archangel to fortify Russia for a few rounds. That’s how the UK ended up with 30+ units in Caucasus. The problem is really that the Allies work together great on the defense but it can be very hard to advance since each one will have to attack individually.
Oh, and I don’t think it was so many Japanese tanks… but by then I had stopped counting :D
-
Hobbes put the point perfectly. A good game Vs. two experts is almost always going to last for 12+ rounds. Most of the game becomes posturing. This is the problem I have with the allies as well Hobbes. Normally when I play the allies I let the UK and Russia do all the attacks unless an attack from US presents itself. I just build up my forces with US until they are too great and since they haven’t done any fodder attacks, their army is huge!
-
Normally when I play the allies I let the UK and Russia do all the attacks unless an attack from US presents itself. I just build up my forces with US until they are too great and since they haven’t done any fodder attacks, their army is huge!
Which brings another question, which role the UK/US should have. The most logical is UK nibbles, US delivers the major blow, as you described. However, there are situations where it gets inverted:
- The UK is better placed and can start assembling a large force while the US is still building up their transport chain.
- UK forces in Russia can both defend against Germany and still use their advantage of playing before Japan, in coordination with previous US/Russian blows to the Japanese.
-
This may or may not be consistent with the conventional wisdom, but with regard to low luck games, my philosophy as Allies was always to be aggressive and wear down Germany with all 3 Allies. So in my view large stacks are more beneficial to Axis (unless they are pinned down and losing bad economically). In dice it’s not as easy to be as aggressive because amphib assaults can go terribly wrong, and one bad amphib can completely ruin a structured KGF. For this reason I was inclined to believe the Allies have a better chance at winning in low luck.
-
I believe you are right. The allies should have the advantage in low luck because of the amphibious asaults. I also spend all my units as UK. Meaning I try to take as many territories as I can but still have a steady stream of 2 inf 2 tanks a turn to norway or lenningrad if can stack. I think in our game Hobbes decided against these attacks and kept a steady stream of 8 units heading to archangel with UK.
-
Re: Large Stacks: You see this a lot in games in which both Axis and Allies are controlled by conservative players of moderate to high skill. If one or the other player is aggressive, large stacks won’t form, and the game will end quickly as the battles are quickly resolved. If one or the other player is not at least moderately skilled, that player will make a mistake that the other player can exploit, which makes the game shorter (so large stacks don’t have time to build up).
Re: UK/US (and USSR) roles: This following comment is not directly relevant to earlier posts in this thread. If Germany holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, UK can attack and fail and retreat, then US can attack and fail and retreat, then Russia can attack. That is, the Allies have three chances to commit minimal force to attack a German-controlled Russian territory and take control of it by the time Russia collects income. On the other hand, if Japan holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, there are only two chances. If Japan holds a territory originally controlled by US, there is usually just one chance that has to be taken by the US.
If this wasn’t already an indicator that KGF is better for Allies, there’s the additional logistic advantage in going KGF. UK/US fleets in the north Atlantic can hit any number of territories with cheap infantry (plus support) from amphibious assaults. Allied forces in east Asia have almost no relative mobility because they’re stuck walking around instead of being offloaded from ships; the Japanese are the ones with the mobility advantage as the Japanese can offload to any number of key points (Buryatia and French Indochina being key), plus have the air power to turn a couple of infantry and a tank or two into a significant attack threat.
Re: “conventional wisdom” - the “conventional wisdom” behind KGF is to attack 3 vs 1; the Allies are delayed by having to build the naval infrastructure, but then have a logistic advantage with amphibious assaults that potentially lets them trade off at 1:1 or better. The delay is usually long enough for Japan to get quite large and nasty, which means the inevitable loss of Moscow. If the Allies do NOT trade off with Germany early, Germany can potentially have defensive stacks that get reinforced by Japanese fighters. Japan then tries to either grab Caucasus or Moscow while Berlin holds fast; if Berlin can hold for a few turns while the Japs control Caucasus or Moscow, the Axis probably win.
Re: low luck favoring Allies: Try to quantify that with an Axis bid if you would, please. 3 IPCs worth of units preplaced on the board / added to the bank? More?
-
I think I see a wabbit… with a machinegun! :-D
@Bunnies:
Re: UK/US (and USSR) roles: This following comment is not directly relevant to earlier posts in this thread. If Germany holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, UK can attack and fail and retreat, then US can attack and fail and retreat, then Russia can attack. That is, the Allies have three chances to commit minimal force to attack a German-controlled Russian territory and take control of it by the time Russia collects income. On the other hand, if Japan holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, there are only two chances. If Japan holds a territory originally controlled by US, there is usually just one chance that has to be taken by the US.
If this wasn’t already an indicator that KGF is better for Allies, there’s the additional logistic advantage in going KGF. UK/US fleets in the north Atlantic can hit any number of territories with cheap infantry (plus support) from amphibious assaults. Allied forces in east Asia have almost no relative mobility because they’re stuck walking around instead of being offloaded from ships; the Japanese are the ones with the mobility advantage as the Japanese can offload to any number of key points (Buryatia and French Indochina being key), plus have the air power to turn a couple of infantry and a tank or two into a significant attack threat.
I completely agree with all the theory you described, although that’s what happens when the ideal conditions are met. With amphibious assaults, in many occasions you’ll be unable to expect any Russian support because they will be more occupied against Japan. But logistically and otherwise the UK+US combo against Germany is the best, even better if you manage to get the Russians involved, even if it’s just to protect the territory.
However, there are quite a few important factors in deciding to swing against Japan the Russia+UK combo. First, it can be quite unexpected for Japan, if the player has never seen it before, to watch the US+Russia+UK attack unfold and be unable to do anything about it (other than flying some fighters to defend a territory, usually). Second, it can break any coordination by both Axis powers and give the initiative to the Allies. Third, it can be easier to set up (sometimes I find setting the supply chain to W. Eur harder than to Archangel because of all the movement involved due to Axis planes). Fourth, even by landing on Archangel, you’re keeping the pressure on W. Eur, by being able of landing 24 units, while at the same time send 16 units each round, to Moscow. -
I am not a big fan of tripple attacks, unless for a capital. Tripple attacks almost always means that the allies lost many more men than Germany overall. Unless this totally obliterates 70% or more of germany’s forces I tend to just build up and stack off eastern europe when the situation allows for it.
Suggested Topics
