Strategic Planner's Improvement and Critique Thread

[simon33]

@strategic:

@knp7765:

A J3 or even J4 is not bad for certain situations.

what are certain situations? can i preplan those situations or are they situations that are based off of what the allies do?

It’s based on what the axis do. As others have said, axis lead, allies react. Although you can’t be completely reactive as Allies.

If Japan doesn’t declare war J1 and the US goes full atlantic, staying at peace until J4 makes total sense. That way the US can’t help out Russia. And the UK has enough trouble just surviving.

Japan has a bit of bother to take down China though, even without the other allies helping out. Without UK help, you can generally get into Yunnan J3. UK generally needs to be at war UK2 to protect that or choose to abandon it, perhaps to help USSR against Germany.

Regarding winning in Germany/USSR, a G2 DOW with a strong assault on the weaker path generally nets a factory unless you really stuff up. If going via the Northern route you need pretty massive reinforcements from Germany. Southern path can net two factories and a territory worth 2IPC which can hold another factory. This is less reliant on reinforcements from Germany.

@strategic:

also what are the at war rules? i think i remember them as france, ussr, ukanzac, and us are all independently triggered?

so this makes sense…

Aren’t they in the manual? UK/France at war with Italy/Germany. UK/Anzac/US at peace with Japan. USSR also at peace with Japan but not influenced by other DOW. Similarly with USSR vs Italy/Germany.

[taamvan]

"In effect you transfer much of the Japanese starting warpower (in form of planes mostly) from the Pacific Theater to the European Theater.  These can be used to strategic bomb moscow earlier than anticipated, turning off (or down) the production of units Moscow counted on producing to defend with.  When the UK player realizes this, they may begin production to get units into Moscow through the Middle East, so be prepared to see China re-opened by the UK in the mid to late game.

Russia has a hard enough time dealing with Germany and Italy, that if Japan is chipping away at income from the Pacific side and eventually gets involved in the siege of Moscow, the Russians are generally going to fall.  It also enables the Italians to consider making a play to take Egypt before the Allies can reclaim it to secure an Axis win in Europe.  Later on, the abundance of aircraft from Japan can swing through in a 1-2 punch with the Germans to sink any fleets the Allies wanted to use to land in Europe.

All Japan has to do is defend Tokyo in this type of strategy.  To me, it is a bit “gamey;’ But I’ve employed it before and won convincingly.”

Boy do you have it right.  We used to think 3 powers against UK or US was gamey, but 3 powers against USSR is just broken, which is why absent altering Russia (and the bid never seems to go to Russia based on the fact they cannot attack! imo) it would be hard to fix the G40 scenario.

But, make Russia stronger and it will either be too tough for Germany and Italy alone or too weak for all 3 axis.

[simon33]

A minor point but I’ve noticed that you (strategic planner) haven’t balanced your fighters and tac bombers properly on G1. 2 fighters go to SZ111 while 2 fighters and 4 TBs go to SZ110 IIRC. Should be even. Makes 1/6 of a hit per battle on the first round difference, possibly continuing to the second.

[Spendo02]

@taamvan:

Boy do you have it right.  We used to think 3 powers against UK or US was gamey, but 3 powers against USSR is just broken, which is why absent altering Russia (and the bid never seems to go to Russia based on the fact they cannot attack! imo) it would be hard to fix the G40 scenario.

But, make Russia stronger and it will either be too tough for Germany and Italy alone or too weak for all 3 axis.

The real problem is two fold:

1. Allied income and potential production is lacking in Europe.
2. The cost to transport units across an ocean is astronomical in comparison to the cost of the Axis massing units with range / movement to reach Moscow.

That means we can:
1. Bump Allied Income in Europe, or
2. Increase Allied production in Europe, or
3. Decrease the expense to transport ground units across the Atlantic, or
4. Change the units the Axis employs to slow them down, or
5. Change the map in Russia to buy the Allies more turns before Moscow is on the brink of collapse.

I’d argue the Allied bid should be the option to place 1 TT per turn (counts towards production limits) per starting IC in Europe.

[variance]

Global is a very deep game.  It takes a long tie to learn it, a longer time to play it well, and most of us never get really good at it.  The point is to keep playing and learning and habe fun with it.  Keep at it s.p.  :-)

[simon33]

Had a look here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37118.0;topicseen

Was there a reason Germany continued beyond the first round in SZ111? If you retreat, your battleship is repaired G2 when theirs is still damaged - you will retreat to a naval base but they don’t have one there.

DOW G1 is not normally advised. Those 3 tanks in Gr Sth Germany are better used assisting in France.

[simon33]

@strategic:

@simon33:

Perhaps you could summarise it for us? Regarding Allies Strategy, I’ve got a few thoughts here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37400.0

As for Axis strategy, pretty much the collective wisdom is J1 DOW, weaken then take down India via sea, G2/G3 DOW etc. Do those things not work for you?

Is there a reason why J1 is wisdom?  I did 2 G4J4s (iirc) and 2 G1J1s. I built factories as japan including one in korea. I even lost japan in one of the games.

My eaatern front game is pitiful. I think i bought too many trans and land units as the us as opposed to pure naval buys.

Reflecting on my own games and what I’ve seen of others, I would say that a J1 DOW would work much better with an abandon China strategy. Otherwise it is probably better to weaken China first. Not sure if that’s the conventional wisdom though. Although I couldn’t bring myself to abandon China on J1.

[Private-Panic]

I have seen posts in the past advocating J1, often in great detail, maintaining that the risk to J’s attacks on all fronts are only marginally increased. Certainly not advocating that J abandon China.

Personally, though, I agree with simon 33. A J2 DoW on UK/US. But I have tried a J1 on France allowing the development of bases/factories in FIC from the earliest opportunity. FIC has a critical role to play for J.

[JDOW]

@strategic:

I would like to thank my opponents (especially JDOW) for suffering and working through it all with me. I want the brutal truth because it will set it up. I tried to do two G1J1 games and two G4J4 games for fun.

You are welcome :-)

The “brutal” truth is that you should not bother about concepts like J1 or J2 or J3 DOW or when to attack Russia but get familiar with the basic game mechanics.

• Don’t put your armies or fleets to places where they get slaughtered with no counterattack
• Make optimal attacks and don’t let your air idle when they could support
• Don’t make suicide attacks at a regular base as you do

This is far more important for you then having DOW discussions about Japan.

It’s similar to chess. Learn the basic tactics first and then continue with some positional principles. Learn this before bothering about if Sicilian, Caro Kann or whatever is the “best” response to e.g. e4.

Good luck.

[Juan_de_Marco]

That’s some very sound advice, JDOW.

[JDOW]

@simon33:

DOW G1 is not normally advised. Those 3 tanks in Gr Sth Germany are better used assisting in France.

Getting Russia down is the one and only objective Germany has in that game. So DOW1 on Russia is a but risky but a valid strategy because it take several Russian units out.
In order to compensate the missing tanks Germany should definitely let 111 or 110 go or even both seazones to get firepower at France with the Luftwaffe.

Exposing air to the French AA is a calculated risk Germans can definitely take.

It is a general mistake that beginners stretch the German forces too much at G1 (often attacking Normandy and SF that turn). Diluting the France attack to 90-95% odds not yet understanding that 95% and 99% makes a HUGE differences. You could describe it in other words: 95% is failing 5 times as often as 99% and even more important: winning is not everything. Germany taking France with 1 tank remaining is a pyrrhic victory and Germany is almost lost when losing almost all ground units in France G1.