I think taking and holding CAU in G2 can be a viable strategy.
Russia often stacks CAU but without enough people to hold it against a determined (or slightly lucky) attack, and then lacks a counter-strike force.
The goal is to take CAU with 1-2 armor. Russia can only counterattack with 2-3 infantry.
Then Japan has to either take Persia out, and/or land 4-5 fighters in CAU for defense against the UK.
If Germany holds CAU, it can build 4 units/turn (vs Moscow building 6/turn) and with some reinforcements it should be able to hold it for the rest of the game, while getting all three NOs. It should make it very easy for the Axis to win.
Take 1
You can see this game where I tried it and failed. Russia held on to CAU with a single bomber (a lucky bomber that hit twice on defense!). I had about 68% chance of winning the battle and figured that at least he’d be forced to take the bomber casualty to increase his chances (but he didn’t).
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16771.new#new
Take 2
I’m considering using this strategy a second time against A44BigDog
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16764.new#new
Italians suicide amphibious assault it - hopefully kill 2 units (cru, bat shell + inf and art).
Germans hit it with everything. Have about 85% chance of holding it with 2 arms. Then you’ve got only 2 russian infantry to counter attack (10% odds for you).
Then before UK hits, Japan can strike PER and land 3-5 fighters in CAU.
Downsides: risky. You neglect Africa and other places.
Waiting to rush Russia with a stack of armor positioned in EPL, using the Italians to open up a path to CAU, KAR, or MOS on G3 or G4 might be a much better strategy.
Just a quick note, discussing whether G could/should take Cauc is fine, but I want to make sure people don’t post or try to influence the league games linked.
So if comments will relate to these specific games, please wait until they progress to the point where suggestions can’t inluence the games or until the games are completed.
Already completed games or players past experiences are obviously fine.
Just a quick note, discussing whether G could/should take Cauc is fine, but I want to make sure people don’t post or try to influence the league games linked.
There’s nothing to stop that sort of help happening in private
A determined G2 attack on Cauc is positively deadly. I see them played against me and have no idea what to do. If Germany pushes hard into Ukraine and lands all 4 figs in range, then Russia is hard pressed to muster enough troops to hold Cauc against a 1-2 Axis punch…not w/o breaking the Russian NO and flying in some RAF.
The ideal scenario for Axis is if Russia doesn’t anticipate the Cauc stack, allowing the 3 Axis powers to take and hold Cauc as a team endeavor, which determines the game.
But even if Allies anticipate the Cauc push and stack with every unit possible, Axis can switch gears and use the air positioned in the region to wreak havoc in Africa.
It’s an extremely tough strategy to counter…I haven’t discovered a solution besides hoping Axis overextend and make an error.
Ok, so maybe people can wait a round or two to say if I should have done it on the game against A44BigDog.
People could comment on the other game though, as the task is done and I lost the battle. The negative consequences are pretty obvious. There are some positive consequences too - Germany is really pushed into Russia’s territory. On second thoughts, that time I didn’t do the Italian suicide attack, my odds were slightly on the low end and I shouldn’t have done the attack. I
So far it looks like I’ve got an 80% chance of taking and holding CAU if I go almost all out. Maybe 85% if I go all out (and commit the Italian fighter to the suicide attack on CAU for the extra 0.4 hit).
Downsides: Allies could gain back what I take in terms of France or other parts of Europe, Africa, generally a stronger UK (they’d hold India one more round and also Australia), and possibly get one or two NOs that they wouldn’t otherwise get. It’s really hard to predict this though.
One of the larger theoretical questions is if I’m the type of player who wants to win 80-85% of my games (I know this might sound a little ambitious, but my record is pretty good), should I engage in risky strategies or am I better off building up a longterm advantage with small gains? (People can comment on this).
Unfortunately this move isn’t as easy to analyze as the direct sacking of a capital. If you can get 30% odds on taking a capital, it is often a good idea to do so because the reward is so great - so long as you won’t lose too many planes.
There is also reputation to consider (aka the “I’m Crazy” strategy). If your aggressive moves cause your opponent to act more defensively, you might be able to push them harder on their borders. For instance if Russia (or Germany) has to focus on defending GER or MOS/CAU then you have a better chance of taking valuable countries like FRA/KAR.
According to the board, Russia can also make a 6tnk purchase, put the inf usually used to stack Caucasus between Russia, Caucasus (just and Persia (a threat against Japan, even if they just take back Caucasus next turn), take back BST (giving another front to deal with for Germany). And then, you have enough units to take back Caucasus strongly, so that Germany cannot take it anymore.
Of course, this is just an example of possible reaction. A lot depends of G1 other moves and dices.
I think this strategy depends upon Russia not thinking about it. What it means is they cannot put so much effort into KAR/FIN/NWY.
I managed to pull it off in my game against A44BigDog. The Italian suicide got a good result (3 hits, better than the 1.83 expected) - giving me a 95% chance of taking it with 2 armors or better.
Russia had good defense rolls. So I only took it with 2 armor by sacrificing my fighter and bomber.
Now he’s still got a chance to take it back, but it’s going to be hard.
I think this strategy depends largely on the UK player. An aggressive UK player that quickly builds transports and ground troops could easily make Germany pay for being overly aggressive against Russia.
You can have a hard time getting as much of Africa as you’d normally get. But otherwise, what is a UK player going to do? Invade france once - which they can normally do anyway. They can invade NWE and Poland all the time, but that seems to happen regardless as it is hard to defend FRA, GER and another country.
You can have a hard time getting as much of Africa as you’d normally get. But otherwise, what is a UK player going to do? Invade france once - which they can normally do anyway. They can invade NWE and Poland all the time, but that seems to happen regardless as it is hard to defend FRA, GER and another country.
One potential problem with the Cauc stack is if Russia is hanging tight, then Germany is keeping its armor in a region far from Berlin and Paris. The Allies can then counter by trying to stack France or threaten a 1-2 on Germany.
I rarely see this happen in 41–usually if Axis gets the Cauc stack and hold it Allies are dead. Something like this would happen more often in 42, where it takes longer for Japan to get in the game so Germany is more likely to take chances against Russia and end up losing their capital.
Now having played these two games for several more rounds there do appear to be some disadvantages.
Sacrificing german planes to take CAU, or Italian troops on a first-round assault to help the Germans take it, combined with placing fewer troops in Africa - can make it so that the Axis has less of a fighting force, and might also be making less money than otherwise possible.
Italy is likely to lose its NO(s) in Africa faster. Germany gets the CAU NO, but if it is possible to get this by trading KAR, then that might be a lot easier.
Germany loses a lot of flexibility by being tied into sending armor to CAU (either to reinforce it, or to take MOS). Also fighters can get tied up too, making atlantic Allied convoys easier and facilitating the US going for Japan.
Plusses: if you can get Italy to fight your Russian territory border skirmishes and to build infantry to defend ITA, FRA, and GER against the Allies amphibious assaults - then Germany can build up much faster than Russia and ultimately take Moscow with a stack of armor (possibly reinforced by a buy of all bombers, the turn before the assault - as they can fly from GER to MOS is one turn).
Having Italy use its infantry for cannon fodder is much better than having Italy attack MOS to soften up the defenses before the German attack, as Italy will typically lose all its units on the first round of fighting (thus it costs 10 IPC to kill a single defending Russian infantry - by buying 2 arm, or 10.5 with inf/art). Italy can also intentionally escalate in border countries (stack an empty country with 2 inf, instead of 1) to bleed off more Russian units.
