I have been using this build for some time in my German openers: 6 tanks and save extra ipcs for an extra tank in the following round. Is there any way to make it more efficient?
Let me give some context. My friend and I have played about 20 games of A&A. I am almost always the Axis and he is almost always the Allies. He does the same Russian opener with little variation. He always buys the maximum amount of infantry that can be bought and places 2 in Karelia, and distributes the remaining 6 between Moscow and Caucases as seen fit for the turn. If he attacks, then his only attack is on W. Russia on the first turn with all of his Moscow forces (he does this about 50% of the time). He continues to just build infantry and nothing else for the entire duration of the game.
I respond by pooling all of my tanks in Baltic States and move my infantry from Berlin to Baltic states, from Norway to Finland, and from Poland to Belorussia. I keep the fighters where they are and buy 5 tanks. On the second turn, I attack Karelia with all my units from Finland, Baltic states, and Belorussia. I continue to just buy tanks. On turn 3, I take Archangel and on turn 4 or 5, Moscow falls.
Britian and America pitch in 1 fighter and 2 fighters per turn respectively. They land in Karelia or Archangel. An allied invasion of Africa or Norway happens on turn 3, but that doesn’t change much since all my units in the Eastern front are invading Moscow by turn 4 or 5. Japan doesn’t do much except nip at Russia’s territory in siberia usually taking 2 or 3 territories.
I’m just wondering if there are some big holes in my strategy that can be exploited or if there’s a way to accomplish this in a more efficient manner while still taking Moscow by turn 5 at the latest (with turn 4 being preferred).
If there’s any more info that you need, just ask.
Thanks to all who help!
Hmm, I suspect that if Russia builds some artillery as well, they can attack your tank-heavy forces and inflict some expensive casualties…of course, they always need the support of the West, but tanks are not too great defenders for their cost.
I usually don’t run out of infantry until during the invasion of Moscow. In fact, I usually have around 6 infantry and 20 tanks when I take over Archangel, so an artillery attack will most likely get crushed in one or two battle rounds with me losing only 2-3 infantry, if he uses less than 8 units to attack.
Mmm! I’d have to set up the board and play it to be sure, but can think of a few possible holes in your strategy:
Sounds like your friend is sacrificing infantry in Karelia and possibly Caucasus? If so, then he might otherwise have more units in his W Russia stack, whereas your counter-stack is not optimising its unit numbers through the tank strategy.
Don’t see much evidence in your post of dead zones and light trading? If R has not bought an additional fighter in R1, nor any artillery at any time, this suggests limited R attack options, allowing G to move its stack forwards without fear of counter attack. Normally R can retake Karelia in light trading until it abandons W Russia, even then retake Caucasus from it’s stack in Moscow for a while. These territory trades would suck G dry of infantry more quickly.
Russia appears to be lacking reinforcements from its allies? Most particularly fighters in Moscow. I find a UK fighter build in India each turn offers lots of options. Also US bombers in the UK can cost Germany dear through SBRs from US2, which then limits G’s tank builds.
I have probably played no more games than you Herr Rommel, and many of those against hard AI rather than a human. So don’t think I know what I am talking about! Â :-) But perhaps your strategy works because it is pitched against an unsuccessful yet fixed R strategy?
Yeah, he just buys infantry because it offers the most bang for the buck in terms of defense. If he takes W Russia, then it’s just for one turn. The only units in W Russia at the end of R1 are the units that attacked from Moscow and Archangel that survived. He never reinforces them, so a counter attack on G1 easily takes back W Russia.
If he did a W Russia stack and buy a variety of units (such as a fighter or some artillery), then would he be able to dead zone Karelia on R3? I usually take Karelia on G2 instead of G1 to ensure that I can keep it when I take it. When I attack Karelia, I have 10 tanks and 11-14 infantry attacking, and he usually has 6 infantry, 1 artillery, and 2 fighters (one from UK) defending. I usually lose only about 6 infantry. Is this beefy enough to withstand a counter attack or even deadzone W Russia?
About Caucasus. I usually pool my units into Ukraine from Bulgaria Romania and I move all of my fighters there. On my second or third turn (it depends on how many infantry he’s put into Caucasus) I attack with that force. Is there any way for him to counterattack that?
The only territory that could be a chink in my armor if he stacks W. Russia is Belorussia, since I’d probably only reinforce it with an infantry or two and a fighter. If he attacks, I’m banking on moving my massive tank force forward straight to Moscow (from Karelia to Archangel G3 and from Archangel to Moscow in G4). By now, assuming there are no counterattacks, I have 17 tanks and about 6 infantry attacking Moscow (not including my other force from Caucasus which also attacks). He can’t fully exploit the Belorussian chink because by R4, he’s in turtle mode just to survive.
America and UK usually reinforce 1 fighter each per turn.
I’m sorry if my strategy is not clear to you. I will play another game this afternoon and I might be able to post pictures to show what I mean.
Please don’t put too much reliance on my rookie answers Herr Rommel. Perhaps our more experienced forum colleagues will join this thread and point out my errors which would be great 'cos I’d learn something. Nevertheless my perception is that generally infantry are essential to avoid phyrric victory or defeat. Number of units are as important as attack or defence value in any combat. As an example, if you run 2 inf attacking 1 tank on AACalc, the odds are attacker 55%, defender 38%, draw 7%.
This is how it seems to me:
@Herr:
Yeah, he just buys infantry because it offers the most bang for the buck in terms of defense.
True in terms of defence value vs cost per unit. But not (in my opinion) if at the expense of being able to dead zone and light trade, until such time as R is merely attempting to defend Moscow.
@Herr:
If he takes W Russia, then it’s just for one turn. The only units in W Russia at the end of R1 are the units that attacked from Moscow and Archangel that survived. He never reinforces them, so a counter attack on G1 easily takes back W Russia.
That is about your friend’s strategy. None of my response is to find holes in your G strategy against his R strategy, given that what you do works.
However, against a different R strategy I am in no doubt that your purchasing policy would need to change. Just did R1 on triple a to check and at the end of R1 I have 10 or 11 R infantry in W Russia, depending on how many I use to attack Baltic States (or elsewhere). I have not left anything in either Karelia or Caucasus.
@Herr:
If he did a W Russia stack and buy a variety of units (such as a fighter or some artillery), then would he be able to dead zone Karelia on R3? I usually take Karelia on G2 instead of G1 to ensure that I can keep it when I take it. When I attack Karelia, I have 10 tanks and 11-14 infantry attacking, and he usually has 6 infantry, 1 artillery, and 2 fighters (one from UK) defending. I usually lose only about 6 infantry. Is this beefy enough to withstand a counter attack or even deadzone W Russia?
R’s mistake there is probably to try to defend Karelia, which he cannot do and so throws those defending units away. My suggestion would be that R withdraw those units into W Russia, allow G into Karelia and then counter-attack if in a position to do so.
If I have bought 1 fighter, 3 inf & 1 art in R1 I will have 12-14 Inf, 2 art, 4 tanks and 3 fighters in W Russia by end R2, less anything used for light trading or losses in taking W Russia. That does not represent sufficient to counter-attack the G forces you have put in Karelia, but it is a balance to allow dead-zoning.
At some point G will have a force in Karelia that R cannot withstand - which prompts R to withdraw to Moscow and dead zone W Russia for as long as it can.
It’s all about delay. The more delay R can create, the more help it will get, either from reinforcements, or Allied landings in Europe (again likely to be light trading initially), or SBRs on Berlin.
@Herr:
About Caucasus. I usually pool my units into Ukraine from Bulgaria Romania and I move all of my fighters there. On my second or third turn (it depends on how many infantry he’s put into Caucasus) I attack with that force. Is there any way for him to counterattack that?
In the same way, R should not defend Caucasus but rather dead zone it, so preventing G building units there. Caucasus can be dead-zoned from W Russia, or (following withdrawal) Moscow. Of course R withdrawal to Moscow does leave Karelia with G.
@Herr:
The only territory that could be a chink in my armor if he stacks W. Russia is Belorussia, since I’d probably only reinforce it with an infantry or two and a fighter. If he attacks, I’m banking on moving my massive tank force forward straight to Moscow (from Karelia to Archangel G3 and from Archangel to Moscow in G4). By now, assuming there are no counterattacks, I have 17 tanks and about 6 infantry attacking Moscow (not including my other force from Caucasus which also attacks).� � He can’t fully exploit the Belorussian chink because by R4, he’s in turtle mode just to survive.
There is limited value to R in attacking Belorussia, unless it’s easy pickings. Once G has an attack force on Moscow, R withdraws its stack to Moscow. By now R has a sizeable stack, gaining further from “strategic withdrawal” of its far east divisions, as it has not lost units in a vain defence of Karelia, Caucasus or the far east. Re-loaded my last game and at end of R4 I had 27 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks, 3 fighters and 2 AAs in Moscow. R are light trading Caucasus and other territories around Moscow and picking up 15 to 20 ipcs per turn.
G are picking up perhaps 50 ipcs. But By R4, there may be 4 US bombers SBRing Berlin, costing G on avg c. 12 ipcs per turn in repair and allied landings on the European coastline with the threat of those being more than light trading, dragging G focus westwards. Then allow for fighter reinforcements and the eastern front ipc balance is likely to be pretty even. From that point on things begin to move away from G.
But carry on doing what you are doing, as your posts make clear that it works against the strategy you are combatting. Tanks have a movement advantage that will allow swifter progress against a Russian opponent that does not gather his forces in the way I describe - and speed is of the essence for Germany!
BTW Our colleagues on these boards will maintain that axis has an advantage over allies in the game’s set up, so I am not suggesting that a different R strategy will beat G, only that it will increase that chance. Perhaps you and your friend should change sides and so experience a change of dynamic? :wink:
EDIT: Re-read my post and nearly deleted it! I am not an expert. But this thread is an opportunity for me to learn too.
I think that I will take your advice. We just played a game and it was over by turn 7 (with Moscow taken on G4)(I could have ended it on turn 6, but I decided to toy around with him). I will play as Allies this time just to make it more dymanic. :-) I know that you are a rookie, but you advice seems to be a sound option for making Russia last a couple of turn longer (or at least trolling Germany) :-D I’ve also read some of the Russian openings thread. It’s good stuff, and your advice seems to line up with it. The only issue is that if I decide to go beefy with W. Russia and deadzone Karelia and Caucasus, couldn’t Germany attack both at the same time on G2 making a counterattack costly enough that attacking both runs the risk of losing W. Russia as a powerful defense force. Besides, if there’s nothing in Caucasus, can’t Germany tank blitz across and go into the eastern portions of Russia to wreck havoc? It’s just some ideas being thrown around.
I too, agree that some more experienced players should comment (nothing against you Private Panic). More people means more ideas.
Give it a go as the allies and see what you can do to stymie your G strategy!
I have not read Elk’s Russian openings thread, so that will be a better guide than my ramblings. There is too much excellent advice on these boards to keep up with it, particularly since I downloaded triple a (and even more so when I subsequently learned to play “by forum” on this board). I did, however, act as editor for Elk’s 42.2 strategy thread and learned a lot from him. I hope that if he reads this thread he agrees!
G cannot blitz across Caucasus. The factory stops it, which is why R does not need units there, unless to tempt G into dividing its force.
R has to husband its units. Not only is G at the front door, but J is attacking from the east. J’s contribution can be what undoes all this careful R work. But that’s a whole new subject.
So if G’s force in any territory is too large to allow a counter-attack that leaves R with strength to resist, then R has to begin to consider its next withdrawal. R only has to defend 1 territory to survive - Moscow. By the time G has such a force in W Russia or the Caucasus, the UK & US had better be making a difference! If Moscow falls then the allies’ task has become much harder, especially if R’s defending forces were not pulled out and saved to help defend India.
Good luck Herr Rommel :-)
@Herr:
Let me give some context. My friend and I have played about 20 games of A&A. I am almost always the Axis and he is almost always the Allies. He does the same Russian opener with little variation. He always buys the maximum amount of infantry that can be bought and places 2 in Karelia, and distributes the remaining 6 between Moscow and Caucases as seen fit for the turn.
This is why your strat of all tank buy for Germany works: Russia does not have enough offensive power to counterattack G.
On Revised and AA42.1 you see a lot of German players going for the 8 tank buy on G1 but this strat doesn’t work against experienced Russian players because Germany ends up trading tanks for cheap Russian inf.
To hobbes,
What advice would you give to my friend to help destroy tanks. After all, the German tanks (usually numbering 10 or more) are always protected by about 5 infantry the entire time. Could they be destroyed in Karelia? Archangel? Some other territory?
(I’m a noob so I don’t know these things :-()
First of all, I’m a little confused about the thrust of your question. You say that you usually play the Axis, and your friend usually plays the Allies, and you keep on solidly thumping your friend in game after game, and your friend keeps using the same losing strategies – but you want to know how you can be more efficient? It sounds like it’s your friend who needs the help! Not that you asked for this kind of advice, but if I were you, I would be looking for ways of helping your opponent gently shift his strategy – obviously he favors a very conservative, orthodox, straightforward approach to the game, but he’s going to have to branch out at least a little bit if he wants to be at all competitive. Maybe you can help him find some conservative strategies that work better for him.
One simple shift for Russia is that instead of buying 8 infantry each turn, he can instead always buy 2 artillery each turn, and then spend the rest of his economy on infantry. On R1, this means buying 5 inf, 2 art. After Russia loses a few territories, that might mean buying 4 inf, 2 art, and so on. This is a very, very modest investment in offensive power – 2 IPCs per turn taken away from max hit points and devoted toward offense. If Russia can manage to trade one territory per turn in eastern europe, the extra offense pays for itself economically (because all the territories are worth at least 2 IPCs), and if that territory is on the road to moscow, then it slows down the loss of the capital by a full turn as well.
A simple shift for the Western Allies is to increase their fighter support from 1 ftr UK, 2 ftr US up to 2 ftr UK, 3 ftr US. That still leaves a small budget for building up a fleet and an invasion force, but it will offer more meaningful support for Russia’s defense – especially if you’re trading against an almost all-tank offense and you have a big stack of Russian infantry fodder, fighters offer excellent defensive value.
Alternatively, the Western Allies could shift their invasion from Africa/Norway (which, as you point out, are not strategically important when the Germans are blitzing toward Moscow) toward France or Italy. If America can take France on turn 4 and build an IC there on turn 5, then even if Moscow falls on turn 5, the game’s not over.
You ask a good question about when Russia can hope to counter-attack Germany’s tank stack. Let’s do some math. At the start of the game, Russia has 12 infantry, 3 artillery, and 4 tanks that can reach West Russia. Let’s say Russia sends them all, and suffers a typical 2 casualties. That puts the West Russian stack at 10 infantry, 3 artillery, 4 tanks at the end of round 1. Russia can build 5 inf, 2 art in Moscow on its first turn, and also has 2 infantry (from Novosibirsk and Kazakh) that can reach Moscow on turn 1, so Moscow will have 7 inf, 2 art, 2 fighters at the end of round 1. All of those units can reach West Russia on Russia’s second turn, plus the 2 infantry from Evenki, for a total West Russian stack of 19 inf, 4 art, 4 tank, 2 fighters.
Your standard German strategy calls for Germany to attack Karelia on turn 2 with everything that can reach (except Ukraine and the French and Dutch tanks), plus Germany’s first-turn buy of 5 tanks. By my count, that’s 14 infantry and 11 tanks. I’m not counting the air force, because the German planes can’t land in Karelia the same turn Germany takes Karelia.
If Russia attacks Karelia on turn 3 with 19 inf, 4 art, 4 tnk, 2 fighters, it has slight odds (51.5%) to win outright, killing every German unit in Karelia and returning home with a fighter or two. Even if Russia doesn’t win outright, they’re likely to blow up 9-10 German tanks that Germany can’t afford to replace. Meanwhile, Russia still has a force that can defend Moscow against what Germany sends out next – the 5 Siberian infantry will arrive in Archangel on turn 3 and Moscow by turn 4, plus Russia can continue to build 4 inf, 2 art on turns 2, 3, and 4 that aren’t being used for the Karelia battle, for a total of 16 inf, 6 art sitting in Moscow at the end of turn 4, plus about 10-15 fighters from the Western Allies. So that’s a valid counter to your tank blitz strategy.
Alternatively, Russia can wait until after your forces move to Archangel, on turn 3. The tanks you built on turn 2 cannot reach Archangel on turn 3, so your force is still only about 14 inf, 11 tnk. Let’s say by now the tanks from Italy and Romania can reach, making it 14 inf, 13 tank. Now, though, Russia can counterattack not just with the West Russian stack, but also with the forces it built in Moscow on turns 2 and 3, plus the 5 Siberian infantry (which can move to Vologda instead of Archangel to avoid being lost). So we’re looking at a Russian attacking force of (19 inf, 4 art, 4 tnk, 2 ftr) + (4 inf, 2 art) + (4 inf, 2 art) + (5 inf) = (32 inf, 8 art, 4 tnk, 2 ftr).
That battle’s not even close – the AA calculator shows 100% odds of victory for the Russians, who on average will get to trade 21 dead Russian infantry worth 63 IPCs for 14 dead Germany infantry and 13 dead German tanks worth a total of 107 IPCs. The Russians will survive in Archangel with a force of 11 infantry, 8 artillery, and 4 tanks – more than enough to resist the German counter-attack of roughly 3 inf, 7 tanks that’s coming the next turn. So, against a Russian player who’s willing to invest even a tiny fraction of the budget into offensive artillery and who is willing to attack West Russia on turn 1 and then counter-attack Archangel on turn 4 (making no other attacks the whole opening!), the German tank blitz will get shattered. Germany simply cannot get into Archangel on turn 3; it’s too reckless and Germany will be defeated unless Russia literally never leaves Moscow.
Thanks a bunch Argothair!
Now that you put my request in that light, I can see how pointless it is. My friend and I have decided to switch sides, so the advice you gave will help the Russian player, regardless if it’s him or me. There’s only been one time that the Allies have won when we play, and that was from a combination of bad dice and rookieness. Hopefully the Allied victory count will go up now and the Axis will have to shift strategy to cope, which will add a new element to the game instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
Thanks for explaining the strategy so clearly. I have searched the forums, but haven’t gotten a clear answer about what to do (mainly because our strategies are so noobish).
Good post Argothair.
@Herr:
To hobbes,
What advice would you give to my friend to help destroy tanks. After all, the German tanks (usually numbering 10 or more) are always protected by about 5 infantry the entire time. Could they be destroyed in Karelia? Archangel? Some other territory?
(I’m a noob so I don’t know these things :-()
He doesn’t need to destroy your tank stack in Karelia, Belo or Ukr, but he’ll need to destroy it in case it advances to Archangel, West Russia or Caucasus.
Argothair’s post is excellent. He goes into the detailed calculations showing how Russia can deadzone Karelia if Russia buy a little offense.
Below, I’d like to approach the issue at a broader strategic level.
The Broad Idea
Your friend’s 2 biggest mistakes are 1. all infantry purchases fail to deadzone Karelia 2. Russia easily concedes West Russia, the strongest defensive territory for Russia. All infantry buys are too passive and allows Germany advance a stack adjacent to Russia because Russia doesn’t project enough offensive power. Based on these mistakes, it’s no surprise to me that your friend is crushed consistently.
The counter
The main counter to mass tank purchases is for Russia to stack West Russia, preserve forces, and deadzone adjacent territories as long as possible.
R1: Buy 4 inf, 3 art. Attack only West russia and stack with all forces that can reach it. Place 1 inf in cauc and rest in russia.
R2: Buy inf and enough tanks to deadzone Karelia. Make sure ukraine and karelia are deadzoned and that Germany can’t produce from Karelia.
R3+ do the same. Try to keep trading Karelia. If Germany is able to produce from Karelia, it’s only 1-2 more rounds before Russia is forced off West Russia.
In low luck settings, it’s pretty much an automatic loss if Germany purchases 6 tanks R1 and allies respond well. Germany’s stack is defensively weak and can’t advance to threaten Russia. Eventually, Germany is forced to trade using tanks. As such, the purchase is considered a gimmick, and relies on the opponent to make a big mistake. I personally prefer to assume that my opponent is strong and play strategies that have a good probability of winning against good opponents.
Some food for thought (a digression)
Axis and Allies is inherently a zero sum game. If a major battle happens, one player has probably made a mistake.
If the offensive player advances into a territory that the opponent can attack for a profit, it’s a mistake.
If the offensive player advances, and the defending player doesn’t appropriately retreat, it’s a mistake.
It’s not unusual at high level play for a 25 round game to end in resignation without a single major battle.
Some food for thought (a digression)
Axis and Allies is inherently a zero sum game. If a major battle happens, one player has probably made a mistake.
If the offensive player advances into a territory that the opponent can attack for a profit, it’s a mistake.
If the offensive player advances, and the defending player doesn’t appropriately retreat, it’s a mistake.
It’s not unusual at high level play for a 25 round game to end in resignation without a single major battle.
Food for thought indeed MI and true in most circumstances I have no doubt. Just wondering about the exceptions that might apply? Possibilities might be:
Defending a capital? I guess that if so, the opposite is also true - an attacker risking a battle in which he needs luck in order to liberate a capital?
Setting up a battle offering sufficient TUV gain to be irresistible so as to distract your opponent and draw his forces away from your true intent?
Any other examples?
Thanks.
Sometimes a player who’s losing may make a risky attack on a territory, hoping to get lucky. That might be a good move if doing nothing would ensure you’d lose.
Yeah those are some good exceptions.
A big exception is when you are coordinating a 1-2 attack. Say UK-US on France. UK may make a “terrible” attack so US can mop up. In this case UK could end up being severely negative and the US might come out just barely positive but the overall result may be negative TUV for the Allies but you gained Fra or now turned it into a deadzone.
UK may also make less than favorable plays to spare Russian units and try and bleed off future German attackers so they won’t be able to hit Moscow.
There are also example of say Germany attacking Wrus at negative value to take and then Japan landing ftrs to cover a counter.
Or trying to bait an attack as Private Panic suggests. Leave a lone trn, or arm/ftr/bom in a spot as a juicy target to try and keep 1-2 of your opponents favorable attacking pieces away from the real action.
Most reasons to ignore TUV revolve around a positional gain and recognizing certain supply lines are longer. It doesn’t matter how much the US earns if it takes newly purchased inf 5 turns to get to the needed area if you know Russia will fall in 2. That’s a bit of an extreme example, but the bigger take away is how does the supply line situation look.
The big thing is eliminating your opponents stack, if possible. If all the Allies are stacked in Wrus and you can take them out but you lose the TUV in the battle, it wouldn’t matter provided you have more reinforcements coming OR you know Japan can now basically walk into Moscow since Germany did the heavy damage.
Positional plays can take precedent over TUV in some cases.
Thanks Cal & Darth. These are all regular features of the game.
But that does not detract from MI’s maxim - rather it demonstrates the need to be clear as to why you are doing differently.
That’s true.
And thinking about it, you can probably argue some of these fit the maxims anyway. In the case of France and a UK-US 1-2 attack. The German player should recognize that attack and pull out of Fra and deadzone it. Assuming they’d have the attack power to counter the UK/US stacks. So that might fit into:
If the offensive player advances, and the defending player doesn’t appropriately retreat, it’s a mistake.
Low Luck is unforgiving with the numbers game, however with dice you have the hope that even if you are losing maybe the dice gods shine on you. But even in that case if you are on the leading side with the TUV adv, you can simply stack and stack and stack until you get the numbers that make the attack less dicey and more in your particular comfort zone.
