Can Germany win without Africa?

[Guest]

I’d pull out of Africa, save the remaining units there, and add to my forces against Moscow.

[frood]

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. We’ll see how R2 goes.

I have little experience with actual play - 4 games against other newbies, basically, so I’m just wondering how screwed I am.

[Guest]

The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing :-)

[newpaintbrush]

2 inf 2 fig vs 1 inf at Karelia was overkill.  I usually use the German bomber to hit Anglo-Egypt too, with something like:

1 bomb, 1 fig, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank vs Anglo-Egypt.  With a bid, I run 3 inf 3 tank instead, because I plan on trying to hold Anglo, and tanks are better defenders.

1 battleship 1 trns 1 fig vs UK destroyer at Anglo.  I MIGHT leave the fighter out if the Ukraine fighter died.  But it’s risky because bad luck on the German side means a lost battleship or lost loaded transport, very bad.

1 sub 4 fighter vs UK battleship.

–

The other way route I run is Med battleship/transport/sub/fighter vs UK battleship and Gibraltar, Anglo as above for attempted unified German fleet on G2.  I’d only attempt that with an African bid; this is my “Ukraine counter” that leaves three German fighters free to counterattack against Ukraine.  Wow, why don’t I just give away all my secrets . . .  :roll:

–

IMHO the German build was good, but the combat move off, and for Japan’s build IMHO not optimal.

I think it looks dicey for froodster.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I kill me.

[frood]

Yeh - I’m still getting a feel for the actual game. I agree with Switch, I hope the extra few units from Africa, and the fact that I won’t be diverting any production to Africa, offset the loss.

Anglo- I definitely should have attacked with greater strength. Oh well, now I don’t have to worry about spending money in Africa.

The Med fleet - I used less strength than NPB suggested but came out unscathed (except losing the BB on UK1 - but on the other hand my TRN shot down his bomber and lived. The BB is of limited use now anyway.)

Karelia - yes, overkill, but the figs weren’t missed anywhere else (except maybe Anglo E)

Ukraine - that was a total blunder, but I lucked out on defence - he only killed my Inf, leaving my Arm + Art untouched, and losing more units himself in the attack. So I lost some Inf, but not as many as Darth, and all my expensive offensive units have been withdrawn to a more sensible location.

I agree, the combat move was off, but I’ve been saved somewhat by lady luck, so IMHO it’s not so dicey now :)

I think with Ger I’ll be able to keep Europe intact, and wait for Japan, which is going to cut through Asia like a hot knife through butter.

As for Japan, I don’t see how the build was defective. I’ll be landing 9 units on J2, and 11 units on J3.

[Jennifer]

@ajgundam5:

@Jennifer:

Yea, or you could have 100% accuracy on defense too, for your Armor.

Bash it out.  If it gets ridiculous, surrender.  Sorry, but when I play, if it’s hopeless, then I usually just surrender so we can start a replacement game.  Hopeless games are no fun for victor or looser.

You mean like your game with Switch?  :wink:

Switch made it clear after Round 5, when he was still unable to crack Russia when Russia had almost no successes in both attack and defense, that he did not want a surrender.

[Jennifer]

I follow that logic too.  If you have extra fighters not engaged and you have the movement to still land them where you want, then just add them to whatever battles in range that have the least success potential for added overkill.

After all, if you don’t use them, then they serve no purpose.  If you do use them, maybe they are the only unit that actually hits something?  I’ve attacked switch with 3 infantry, 2 armor and 1 fighter and the fighter was the only thing to hit, 3 times in a row!

[frood]

@ncscswitch:

The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing :-)

Japan is doing quite nicely. Not a single Jap unit lost on J1 - Pearl Harbor, the Aussie TRN, China and India all fell, and Bury was a walk-in.

For J2, Sinkiang is deserted, Sov. Far East is empty, and Persia has 1 sole Inf. I have 5 Inf in China and 5 Fig in FIC, and 3 TRN and an IC in Manchuria mean I will adding 9 more units to the mainland on J2 (mostly Inf/Art)

So at end of J2 Jap production should be at 40.

My take though is that units are more important than production. An Inf at your front is worth a lot more than a 3 IPC territory, because those IPCs will only turn into an Inf back at your IC at the end of your next turn - a long way from being of actual use. You accomplish a lot more by strafing the enemy, knocking out perhaps 12 IPCs of active units, and letting them hold the territory, than taking it and then having your own 20 IPCs of units wiped out in the counter. Those are far more important.

Which is why I think it helps me a lot more that no Inf were lost in taking China (and  that 5 Inf are now one territory closer to Moscow) than the taking of China itself helps me.

2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.

[Guest]

That is true MOST of the time Dan…

But you do reach the point in some games where just going after dollars is all you have to do… damn the cost!  :-D

[newpaintbrush]

@froodster:

2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.

If you leave China alone, though, that’s more units the US will be producing and attacking you with.

My preference is to take territories if possible, until very late game.

[frood]

I guess what I’m saying is that IPC income is only part of the picture, and perhaps less important a part than people commonly think. The other part is battle losses, which is much more volatile. Suppose you are generating 40 IPCs/turn, but you lose a lone battleship to a couple of subs, and 1 Inf and 1 Arm that you blitzed into empty territories (your only combat move, adding 4 to income) are wiped out. Your real gain in strength that round is only 12 IPCs: $44 cash at end of round minus $32 in lost units.

Income only helps because it helps put units in the field. If you lose those units foolishly, you may as well not have had the income in the first place. At the end of the game it’s the player with the most forces that wins the final critical battle.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in taking territory, just that you have  to consider the full cost. Ie. I will need a ton of infantry to push for Moscow, and it takes me 4 turns to get them there. Do I really want to throw a few Inf into the fire every turn after having waited so long to get them to the front?

This is especially so because the other side still gets the income if they recapture. It might be different if you could effectively deprive the other side of income with cheap little land grabs.

[U-505]

Well, the whole idea is that those units will get a defensive roll and, on average, take their due on their way back to the parts box. Usually it’s better to trade units and territories than to let your opponent keep territory for free unless it’s clear you will be losing much more than your opponent. Infantry defends better than attacks so you might as well force your opponent to let you get those defensive 2’s.

[Guest]

And there is also the issue of pushing the front back, making the enemy have to fight to re-gain territory instead of gain new territory, which in itself can be a critical tactical advantage.

[Jennifer]

Or just letting them keep territory and moving more units up to the front, so you can conserve infantry.

[frood]

This is way off topic by now but I don’t mind because I started this thread. Consider this scenario:

Germany and Russia keep retaking Ukr and leaving 1 inf to occupy. Each turn, both countries earn 3 IPCs, and each loses 3 IPCs when their Inf is killed. Neither gains an advantage.

If one side stops the swapping, then neither side loses the 3 IPC from the lost Inf. However, the one country stops earning the 3 IPCs. So I guess both sides are forced to keep doing it. It’s a deadlock that neither can leave without giving the other an advantage.

I wonder if retaking with 2 Inf is smart. With 1 Inf, the other side can get away with retaking with just one Inf. But with 2 Inf, you force them to dedicate more than 2 Inf to guarantee a re-take, thus weakening the main force more than yours was weakened.

The other issue is which side is hurt more by having their fighter(s) tied up in supporting the attacking Inf, and who has a harder time replacing Inf at the front. On my last German turn, I had almost no Inf at the front, leaving my armor stack without fodder. Not a good tactical situation.

The one advantage to falling back is that the pursuer is fighting “upstream” - their Inf cannot keep up with the front, while you continuously meet reinforcements coming toward you.

[Guest]

You trade it until you have enough forces forward to TAKE AND HOLD.

Then you repeat trading the NEXT territory in line while you move more forces to the front.

At least that is what I using trading for :-)

[U-505]

Sometimes it becomes a free for all where each attacker succeeds in retaking with increasing amounts of units until one side gives up and goes home or the defender manages to hit above average and then the attacker is left with 1-2 infantry and the scrum starts all over again.

And Russia usually comes out on the losing end of the “fighters for trading” (kinda like dollies for froggies. Anybody?) battle because the Axis have more aircraft and the Russians have to also trade with japan as well as Germany. Although, the other Allies can offset the German side with trades of their own. Or Russia can completely abandon eastern Asia to avoid trading with Japan but that presents a problem all it’s own.

Germany can get squeezed for infantry in the middle rounds but once you get a decent sized stack of inf in W Eur all of your infantry builds(which should be your entire income’s worth) will be going east. You can always use some of your armor to help defend W Eur(which I hate because armor is for attacking, not defending) in the short term to keep up the infantry supply moving toward Russia.

[newpaintbrush]

@froodster:

This is way off topic by now but I don’t mind because I started this thread . . .

I wonder if retaking with 2 Inf is smart. With 1 Inf, the other side can get away with retaking with just one Inf. But with 2 Inf, you force them to dedicate more than 2 Inf to guarantee a re-take, thus weakening the main force more than yours was weakened.

I prefer a holistic approach to Axis and Allies, actually.  Africa, China . . . it’s all part of the greater whole.  In fact, my approach goes so far as to include scenarios in which my opponent had spinach for lunch, with contingency plans for ham and mustard.

Really, you can’t neglect any aspect of the board, or of the opponent that you face.

The THEORY goes something like this:

I have 2 infantry and a fighter attacking your 1 infantry in a 2-3 IPC territory.

I choose to attack because if I leave you alone, you gain 2-3 IPC.  If I attack and succeed, you must counterattack or leave me with 2-3 IPC gain.

On the first round of attack:

Your defender has 1/3 a chance of killing a 3 IPC unit (net loss 1 IPC for me)

I have a 47/72 or so chance of killing a 3 IPC unit right away (gain of 3 IPC assuming the enemy infantry DOES die) and gaining a territory worth 2-3 IPC (net gain 5-6 IPC for this step)

I commit 2 infantry worth 6 IPC to the attack.  Both of those infantry will die, to the enemy counterattack if nothing else.  (net loss 6 IPC for this step)

However, there is a decent chance that the defending infantry will kill neither attacking infantry, and a chance that only one of my attacking infantry will be killed off on the initial attack.  Each surviving infantry that I have is worth 1 IPC, because that infantry has at least a 1/3 chance of killing a 3 IPC infantry when you counterattack.  (Note that this assumes no battleships; battleships do change the equation).  So net gain 1-2 IPC for this step.

Of course, this risk calculation is far from exact, it makes a few assumptions along the way.  But roughly,

Lose 1, gain 5-6, lose 6, gain 1-2 for ROUGH parity.  I think that if you calculate it all out, the attacker loses a bit.  But if the attacker doesn’t attack, of course, the defender simply gains 2-3 IPC from holding the territory, and you gain nothing, for a net of you lose an infantry and your opponent gains an infantry, which is actually a net pain of 4-6 IPC.

Sure, there’s a logistic problem, but the defender doesn’t have to worry so much (the attacker’s coming right for him/her), and the attacker still needs defense at worst.

[frood]

@newpaintbrush:

I commit 2 infantry worth 6 IPC to the attack.  Both of those infantry will die, to the enemy counterattack if nothing else.  (net loss 6 IPC for this step)

I agree, if you retake with two they will both be killed. My point though is that when you retake with two, the other side will have to commit minimum 3 Inf to guarantee a retake. (9 IPCs, which YOU will have the option of wiping out next, with one likely already sacrificed in re-taking) - if they only send 2, you’re even and if they send one inf they risk losing a fighter.

But IPCs aside, my main point is that the effect of this is to reduce the size of the opponents main stack by 3 Inf. Thus you have used 2 inf to effectively remove 3 of their inf from their main stack, which is a lot more good than 2 Inf will accomplish actually attacking those units.

Of course this only works if the opponent has no other Inf nearby and is forced to split some off from their main stack (or from joining it). You might then have enough remaining strength to attack their main stack, or you may have the option of wiping out their 2 or 3 inf with force.

My argument is tactical, not economic.

[DarthMaximus]

Think of Karelia when it is held by 1 UK inf.

Should Germany attack and trade?

I’d argue no.  Why?  B/c in this case you are bleeding 1-2 German inf for a British inf.  It is not worth it to trade, IMO.  Yes, if you don’t attack Russia will be earning the extra 2, but the loss of the 1-2 inf per turn can really cost you against Russia.
Likewise, I think this can occur at Belo as well.

If you have the infantry and you assess that you may have the overall lead then maybe you can spare an attack of 1 inf with 4 ftrs, but in a tightly contested match it is bad to trade German units for UK/US units on peripheral battles.  It could even be bad to take out a Russian inf that is sitting there.

This can also be the case when dealing with WE.