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.
Lots of great insights floating around in this thread.
In keeping with the stuff Marine Iguana and others have brought up, there are really only a handfull of territories and sea zones (honestly maybe a half dozen) that are valuable enough to warrant trading your TUV at a loss to gain control of them. Everything else is just trying to snatch a slight edge, or trying to stay afloat “along the way” to eventually controlling those critical spaces.
The dance around Moscow and Berlin is probably pretty familiar by now haha.
Despite all the various tweaks over the years, to the map, the unit roster, starting income etc. the rule regarding “capital capture” remains the single most significant gameplay driver.
The only real exception to Marine’s maxim, is when the battle offered might result in a capital trade, and even then sometimes it’s still not worth it. The chance to knock someone out of play once and for all, or else the old “damn man, it’s getting pretty late, and I got work tomorrow. ���� it! I’m going all in!” Heheh
You know the mistake of thinking you need sleep, or a life outside of A&A, has been the undoing of more than one top drawer general. Otherwise, you can stack it like the empire state, and keep going till the sun comes up, before one side or the other gets a real shot on something decisive.
:-D
Tank drives worked a lot better on the older maps than they do in 1942.2. You wouldn’t think that 1 ipc increase in the cost of armor would have such a huge effect on the overall purchasing strategy, but it definitely does.
In many people’s minds 8 ipcs for 1 inf and 1 tank, with 4 attack power used to trump,
7 ipcs for 1 inf and 1 artillery, with 4 attack power. Or 6 ipcs for 2 inf with 2 attack power. Basically because of the movement advantage of the tank.
But now that same inf + tank combo costs 9 ipcs in 42.2!
It’s pretty hard to justify tanks these days, unless there is a clear need to max attack power or movement out of limited production. Back when you could drop 8 tanks a round for 40 ipcs in Germany, or 6 to 9 tanks a round with Japan in Asia, the tank drive was a fun way to play the fast paced game on Moscow. But at 6 ipcs a pop instead of 5, they’re a lot less fierce, and a lot easier to counter with the infantry spam and the air wall.
My friend and I were discussing Argothair’s strategy. He says that if he could easily counter a giant W. Russia stack by attacking Karelia and Caucasus at the same time. Especially Caucasus, attacking with everything in range. Would a good counter-strategy be the Russian Ukraine opener? I’m talking about attacking Ukraine, but not taking it on the first turn.
