An Allied strategy

It’s been a while ago I tried to get opponents in the TripleA lobby, as axis in a no bid (+NO) regular dice game. I was laughed at… :-)

So there are two possibilities, either the TripleA players all have bad allied strats, or the PBF players here on this forum all have bad axis strats, and neither can disprove the others, b/c the TripleA players won’t use Abattlemap and you won’t use TripleA. So we’re stuck…  :-)

Well… I don’t play online, though I do play against a wide variety of opponents, and I’ve been playing A&A games since the Nova edition.  I’d have to agree with PG and A44, from my experiences the game is pretty balanced.

i just have to go along, Allies have the upper hand / balanced game. I feel its closer to a bid for the axis then the allies, but at the moment i only play no bid games.

But why do you all feel the need to deploy half complete navy?

It takes at least 2 full round buy to have a decent navy, so just keep the money in your hand and buy the fleet when you are ready…

This is a basic concept you ALL should know.

• It allows to not show your hand to your opponent before it’s time.
• It prevents your opponent from sinking your fleet part by part.
• Both of the above combined means it is also too late for your opponent to react.

Of course, take into acount your production and prepare your land/fighters units in advance if need be but in any cases, a prod of 8 to 10 is normally enough to deploy all your boats in one single turn.

1 carrier, 1 transport and a DD each turn is simply wrong if your intent is to wait until 3 carriers, 3 transports and 3 DD to send them into action. Just wait 3rd, and deploy it all at once.

The same goes with thoses UK half drops I see every games… 8 units… what do you think you can acomplish with that against a decent Germany player who have air power and 10/16 production ? When you drop, you drop… It’s way better to drop 16 units once per 2 round than 8 per rounds that will get invariably whiped clean… And that even if it means a transport over buy.

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then

The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it

In the real WW2 the pacific had to be fought, but not in revised/AA42/AA50. When the global AA40 comes out, I will try different strats to see what is the most effective one.

It’s good news you at least will give a try  :lol:

There’s alot to like about AA44’s strat.  I think especially against weaker players, the principle of contesting every section of the board is a good one, because you want to take advantage of whatever opportunities arise.

But this sort of strategy (ie USA goes Pac, UK goes to Africa or Europe, Russia plays defense in Europe…) has a glaring weakness, and in my experience it is easy for Axis to exploit.  Consider that with national objectives, Axis will achieve economic parity early in the game.  So both sides are spending roughly the same amount of money from turns 2-6.  Let’s assume Axis goes primarily for Russia, and secondarily in Africa.

With the “global” Allied strategy, the Allies are fighting on 3 main fronts.  Each front is completely separate from the other…they are 3 different vectors, and the Allies are attacking all 3 Axis at once.  However, Axis is pressing with all 3 powers on Russia (Japan can spend 80% of their income on defense and still press to Moscow’s borders).  Worse, Germany/Italy co-ordinate their efforts against both Russia and UK, making it tough for either to make any forward progress.

Practically speaking, even with wild success in the Pacific, it should be Rounds 6-7 before Allies start gaining the economic edge.  By that time, Russia’s situation should be hopeless.  Axis do not need to take chances; they can play conservative.  There’s no need for Germany to tank rush immediately…they can build infantry and planes for a few rounds and then lurch later.  With proper Japan play, there should be no danger of losing Tokyo or China for the first 10 rounds, so Axis have plenty of time to wear out or roll over Russia.

The primary tactical advantage the Allies have is the ability to team-up on Axis with back-to-back attacks.  But if Allies go ‘global’, they forfeit this advantage, and give Axis the opportunity to win w/o major risks.

It is easier to kill fleets in AA50 as compared to Revised, but that goes both ways for both US and Japan in a US pac strat.

It is possible but, imo, unlikely that the TripleA players have not tried enough US pac strat games, although it happens, but the KGF strat is way more popular, and that is b/c the TripleA players thinks that a US pac strat is ineffective. And that again I think is b/c a US pac strat is not more efficient than a KGF strat, b/c the KGF strat in AA50 is already tried and true.

I still don’t see how it is possible to win more games than 50% with allies, assuming two experienced players play a series of games, and not just one or two games, b/c the dice is more important in AA50 than in Revised, as much can go wrong for axis in the first rnd, but that is (bad) luck, and has nothing to do with good or bad strats.

And I think that since AA50 has been playable on TripleA for almost a year, that different players in the TripleA lobby have tried many different strats for trying and failing just like they did after Revised was available in TripleA, so I doubt that the reason why a US pac strat is hardly used is b/c they can’t master it.

As this is not a scientific question, but a question of faith, I believe that the experienced players in the TripleA lobby have found that in a 1vs1, +NO, no tech setting, that axis are significantly favored, so much that a unit bid of 6-9 ipc is necessary to balance the game, or else, the axis side would win much more than 50% of all games, and so it would not be fun to play w/o a bid, and axis players would have a very hard time with finding opponents.

@Subotai:

And that again I think is b/c a US pac strat is not more efficient than a KGF strat, b/c the KGF strat in AA50 is already tried and true.

I think this is the main reason: KGF was very prevelant in Revised and it was quite well tuned too.
So why re-invent the wheel?

Before AA50 was released, there were some strong proponents of a US Pac strat in Revised, probably because it became Germanys main goal to turtle up and stay alive in AAR.

I think KGF is somewhat easy to counter as the axis:  Japan has no pressure and plenty on mobile defensive pieces (ftrs) that can be sent to aid Germany/Italy.  I think with the advent of cheaper subs and carriers, a US pac strat may be doable, but we’re all still learning the game and trying new things.

Bottom line… don’t count out the Allies and the Pac strat… it still has lots of potential.

As a follow-up, I think that AA50 is most reactive version of the game I have seen.

What do I mean by this?

I mean you have to be quick and fluid with your strategic responses to your opponents moves as well as the outcomes of the battles/dice.  If you can do so well, you will win more games than you lose with either side in AA50.  If you fail to do this well, you will lose more games because of your slow responses.

Telamon had a good explanation of the balance issue in AA50, but also the fact that AA50, is much much more dice dependent b/c of all the first rnd attacks the axis must do. Germany and/or Italy will have Africa for several rnds in 75% of all games.

In most cases, the axis attacks will not fail, meaning, dice rolls will be near average outcome, and then the axis will have the economic advantage from rnd 3 until it’s game over for allies. UK+Russia is not enough to stop Germany+Italy, generally. And the Italian can opener makes it even worse than in the 42 setup, even if the 42 scenario possibly(?) demands an even higher allied bid to balance the game.

@a44bigdog:

I could be wrong on this but I may have figured out why the TrippleA players have a different take on the balance. I have noticed that some of the people here that say AA50-41 is balanced are fighting in the Pacific. The TrippleA players seem to all be in agreement that KGF is the way to go. Just something to think about.

I will say something in regards to the Pacific that I think is true for the US and Japan. And that is that it takes time to learn what works and what does not. I don’t think it is something that will be acquired after just a few games either.

@ Zhukov True it is easy enough for Japan to sit in its home waters and defend its fleet. If that is the case the US is doing the wrong thing in the Pacific. The US needs to be taking islands and FORCING Japan to respond. This is when it gets far less easy for Japan.

AA44, true some of the TripleA players who post here like KGF but we are a skewed sample.  My best playing partner via TripleA is a Pac-Wars enthusiast…neither of us score many Allied wins…  From what I can tell the “global” strat (ie USA goes Pacific) is more popular on TripleA than KGF.  You see more of USA going all-out in the Pac then you see USA going all-out in the Atlantic…

Why the different opinions on balance?  For one thing, playing dice/tech (more popular here) means more Allied wins because of the greater variability, while in a ll/nt game, it’s less likely for Axis to lose their advantage and Allies can’t win on account of a lucky tech in the opening rounds.  Plus, good players will be able to win with either Axis or Allies.  This was the case in Revised w/o a bid…as it is in AA50…this doesn’t mean the game is balanced per se.  Also, there is a greater pool of players on TripleA…players find each other and conclude that in ll/nt Allies need a big bid.  Finally, a number of dicey players on this forum also seem convinced of the need for a bid.

Re. Pacific…AA44 I think you have a good buying strat (ACs, trannies, figs, gear, etc.)…this is the strat that seems to make the most progress.  AC-based air is key because it forces Japan to defend SZ62 and other naval production zones.  And as you suggest, not buying enough transports/gear is indeed the most common mistake in USA Pac offensives.  However, in my experience even the deadliest USA strat will not make enough of an impression in time…  Japan has an overwhelming tactical advantage in the Pacific in that it 1) has more money and 2) has factories close to the islands and the mainland and USA does not…  Nothing stops Japan from continuing to buy transports and contesting every territory.  When it comes to money islands, Jap air will have superior positioning which means the trades will cost USA more than Japan.  Optimal Japan play would include buying transports, gear, air, destroyers, etc. and actively fighting back and contesting every NO.

Victory in AA50 depends alot on effective air/naval tactics in the Pacific…i think some of us are more skilled than others here because we had practice playing KJF (and against KJF) in Revised.  I think part of the draw of USA Pacific is that many Axis opponents do not have experience fighting Pac-wars and make mistakes.  In Revised, if Japan played smart conservative defense it was difficult to make enough progress in time (see for example Uffish’s article on the subject)…this problem is amplified several times over in AA50, where Allies have no viable way of stopping Japanese mainland expansion, and cannot use E. Indies/Borneo as USA production centers.

Axis_Roll, I wouldn’t rule out a Pac offensive in some circumstances.  Say if Axis goes overboard on new factories and is buying tons and tons of inf…in that case Allies should probably contest those Pac NOs to grind out an economic advantage.  The problem specific to 41 is that J1 is extremely hard to mess up, so the cases where an immediate Pacific offensive is advisable seem pretty rare.  Mid-game is another story.

Good post Zhukov about the US lack of return on investment and Japans upper hand.

@Zhukov44:

Axis_Roll, I wouldn’t rule out a Pac offensive in some circumstances.  Say if Axis goes overboard on new factories and is buying tons and tons of inf….in that case Allies should probably contest those Pac NOs to grind out an economic advantage.  The problem specific to 41 is that J1 is extremely hard to mess up, so the cases where an immediate Pacific offensive is advisable seem pretty rare.  Mid-game is another story.

No truer words have been typed/spoken.  Key here is to recognize when it MIGHT be a good opportunity to jump on Japan early.  IMHO, that doesn’t happen too often as she has alot of power and mobility with her carriers and ftrs and transports.  Her early expansion is almost unstoppable.

I agree that Mid-game is generally the best time for that to happen as well.  By that time US Atlantic investment needs are more supportive:  keeping the units moving to either africa or a more northerly route.  Now a pacific fleet buy is almost necessary to keep japan from plucking easy NOs / islands.

@Zhukov44:

Why the different opinions on balance?  For one thing, playing dice/tech (more popular here) means more Allied wins because of the greater variability, while in a ll/nt game, it’s less likely for Axis to lose their advantage and Allies can’t win on account of a lucky tech in the opening rounds.

That’s a main point. A dice game and a low luck one is definitely not the same game. I believe that low luck definitely gives a big advantage to axis, because it gives advantage to the attacker, and that the first round includes plenty of attacks.

To give an example, I will consider 5 of the main (and quite common and important) attacks for axis rd 1 : Egypt, Yunnan, sz35, sz 56 and sz Z3 (I consider a no tech game here, and percentages come from tripleA calculator).

Egypt with all that can reach : 75% with dices, 95% with low luck.
Yunnan with 3inf, 1fgt : 82% with dices vs 98% with low luck.
sz35 and sz 56 with 2fgt : 95% with dices vs 100% with low luck.
sz 53 with 1DD, 2fgt : 90% with dices vs 100% with low luck.

All these attack combined : 50% with dices vs 93% with low luck.

So of course, you can go in Yunnan with one more fighter, but as you can see, in low luck, you do not really need that, and can use the extra fighter again another chinese territory fo instance. This is just an example, I am not claiming that this is the correct opening for all of these battles. But I think that several people manage these battle like that.

The conclusion to my mind : in low luck, axis is stronger. So speaking of balance must take into account what you are playing with. It is possible (even if I have no idea if this is the case) that Allies need a bid in low luck, but that the game is balanced with dices…

I agree with you Yoshi.  Bids are needed in low luck to give the allies a chance to hold Egypt or other territories.  Using the calculator for dice can be misleading
because you need enough units to survive a bad first round of rolls. Once I attacked yun with the requisite 3 inf and 2 fighters and still  lost  whiffing on rd 1 , 1 hit on rd 2  whit China hit on all 4.  So 80 % attacks are not really 80 % if you fail and it leaves you in a poor position.

@Yoshi:

The conclusion to my mind : in low luck, axis is stronger. So speaking of balance must take into account what you are playing with. It is possible (even if I have no idea if this is the case) that Allies need a bid in low luck, but that the game is balanced with dices…

The TripleA calc can be a bit misleading because the percentages it gives are percentages to win.  Strictly speaking, the mean outcome for each battle should be identical in dice or ll.  In Egypt, ll means it’s less likely for Axis to fail, but it also means it’s less likely that Germany will achieve some wild success and take Egypt with two or more units.

LL shouldn’t effect balance, at least not substantially…if that were the case you would see different bids in ll for Classic/Revised…I’m not aware of anyone bidding more or less in a ll game than they would for a dice game.  Theoretically, once the bid is sufficient, low luck will not favor either side.

If low luck favors a side, it’s the side that has the starting advantage.  For example, I’ve noticed that in a format where low luck is popular (TripleA), the average bid for Axis in Revised is around 9, while in a format where dice is popular (GTO), it’s more like 7.

My point was that dice/tech creates the sort of variability that can produce Allied wins.  If both sides were equally skilled and pursued optimal strategies, Allies would only win no-bid games occasionally in dice, and virtually never in ll.

All that said, it’s a good point that Japan and Germany have alot of attacks round 1 and ll helps Axis accomplish many objectives safely.  While I don’t think dice or low luck should make any difference in what G1 attacks one makes, it does seem more likely that Germany will accomplish its G1 objectives in a ll game.

I don’t think the balance issue is tied up to the LL or regular dice difference, b/c I’m talking generally. That means much more than one game, maybe 20-30 games, but usually it is enough with 10 games to come to a conclusion, b/c it is very unlikely that one side has bad luck in more than a few games, and more games means dice averages even more.

So even if it is true that in a single (or several) LL game, the axis attacks rnd 1 will not fail much, while it happens more often in regular dice, but even with regular dice, it does not happen in the long run!

The Egy G1 being 95% in LL and 75% in reg.dice is a difference, but it does not change the fact that 75% is way more than 50%!

Kalia G1 is about 95% in reg.dice, and usually Germany would have one land unit left, but then there is a higher risk of losing several aircraft as opposed to LL where Germany may lose only one aircraft. But in the long run, this attack (kalia G1) is the same as in LL, the only difference is that we might have to play 10-15 games in reg.dice to get the same average result as in a single game in LL.

Well my opinion is somewhat skewed on this strategy.  I have only played it out twice, by myself on tripleA with no low luck, just normal dice.  And the outcome was still pretty similiar with Russian being able to hold out for 5 rounds or so, successfully countering Germany attacks and with her NO, netting around 30 IPCs a turn.  With the UK I did the fleet build up and pipelined me through Algeria to the middle east to halt the Japanese southern thrust.  I stacked the Russian infantry in Bury and keep some Japan units tied down for a few turns but I took them out later on after Japan had all but crushed China and had taken India.  With the devastated UK fleet having to recover, I never actually took out the Italian fleet in the 6 rounds I played because from the Italian players perspective, I bought as many land units I could buy each turn and kept invading/bombarding anywhere and everywhere in the Med. while keeping troops in France for defense and tanks rolling east to back up Germany.  The US I went probably 80-90% strength there and kinda regret not doing 100%.  I decided after a turn or 2 to start moving a transport and 2 land units to Europe each turn and the rest in the Pacific.  I even played this round with Turkey being an inpassable seaway and yet still Italy took Persia, Eukraine, East Eukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia.  They basically had attacks set up to clear some road blocks for a German thrust to Moscow which was retaken by Russia then lost for good, barely, to Japan.  With Japan getting so much money extremely fast playing with the NOs, I just don’t see a way around stopping them from getting to Moscow.  I feel I played pretty sensible on both sides, basically doing my normal strong axis buys while doing this new allied strat.  Each turn with Germany I was producing a plane of some sort then a host of tanks and infantry.  Even with no navy, the stacks of infantry and a few fighters would be more than enough to ward off the UK from having an effective landing.  This is a solid strategy but I just personally feel that NOs unbalance the game.