Turn Order?

i just thought i’d mention this for all the people who hate the nutcracker strategy (like me, i think it is cheap and dumb), russia needs to go BEFORE germany, not after

so for example

germany
russia
italy

this would allow italy to be the nutcracker

but
russia
germany
italy

and
germany
italy
russia

in these two cases, italy can not be the nutcracker (technically germany could crack it for italy, but since italy can’t take moscow this doesn’t count)

i seriously prefer these last two turn orders to the first one

simply because the nut cracker strategy is really bad game design and no fun, in my opinion

thx,
veqryn

@Veqryn:

simply because the nut cracker strategy is really bad game design and no fun, in my opinion

The ‘nutcracker’ is fine. It’s a good tactic and makes the game more interesting.

Sure, it challenges the default “I’ll just leave one infantry behind, and I’ll be fine for another turn” mindset, but breaking down that way of thinking is a good thing for the game.

Here’s how the USSR (or any other big power, for that matter) needs to defend against the nutcracker: the minimum ‘holding’ stack becomes the smallest number of units that will be able to successfully hold the Italians (or any small power) off (and leave you with at least the standard one infantry left standing to fend off the more powerful follow-up attack). Given how few units the Italians will normally be able to afford to throw into the eastern front, where none of their N.O.s will be, this minimal stack shouldn’t be too hard for the USSR to afford. And if there are plenty of Italians in Russia, then the Axis will have some pretty big problems coming their way soon from the Med and across the English Channel.

Failing to defend against a nutcracker is just sloppy play. An experienced and vigilant player will be able to see it coming and figure out the appropriate response, whether that’s a defence or a counterattack.

Maybe the turn order should be:

1 All Axis countries
2 All Allied countries

This would get rid of all of these nutcracker/can opener strategies.

that depends on which axis go before which axis

if italy goes before germany, without russia inbetween, then you would still get the nut cracker

@Veqryn:

that depends on which axis go before which axis

if italy goes before germany, without russia inbetween, then you would still get the nut cracker

No I mean all Axis countries turns are simultaneous and then all Allied countries turns are simultaneous.

You mean like advanced wars? No then the game becomes too much like WWI…

@idk_iam_swiss:

You mean like advanced wars? No then the game becomes too much like WWI…

I am not sure what you mean. Can you please explain?

Advanced Wars is a game for the DS. Its similar to the idea you proposed, where one entire side ( Allies) move then the other side ( Axis ) move. The problem lies in the invariability. It favors the defender. After your forces are exhausted, You are typically to weak to defend or too weak to press on ( not you as a person, your forces are).

Let me put it in axis and allies language… It would be similar to Russia attacking, losing much of its forces. And then having to hold the taken territory with whatever is left over. Only instead of int eh European front…It would be EVERYWHERE! I dont like Risk, and Advanced wars for that very reason. Its to much like WWI. Nobody moves. and the game favors the defender.

I disagree with that statement the only way that you would be weakened by taking over a territory is because you eliminated a large force that can not be easily replaced, and the agressor is rewarded by getting extra IPC’s.

@Brain:

This would get rid of all of these nutcracker/can opener strategies.

I think we should use the term “Can-Opener” since that is the most appropiate.

I dont like when a game is designed to fit only one type of strategy, or to rule out certain types of strategies. The real wars in the real world do not follow this kind of narrow-mindet rules. Real wars favours skilled Leaders that exploit all opportunities. The can-opener strategy has been used since MB 2ed back in 1984 when UK always attacked East Europe, then was re-inforced by US infantry and fighters, and later by Russian infantry and possibly Russian tanks blitzing, in what was called “The German Crush” by Don.

@Brain:

1 All Axis countries
2 All Allied countries

In a speach in 1925, Stalin said it was 3 major blocks in the world:

1. The Axis Block by Germany, Italy and Japan.
2. The Western Allied Block by UK, USA and France.
3. The Commy Block by Sovjet Union.

For game purposes, I think the classic turn order of Russia, Germany, UK, Japan and USA is the best way to go, and let Italy move in same turn as Germany, and China in same turn as USA, and France with UK or Russia, and all others are true neutral that you need to attack and occupie if you want their IPC’s.

@Make_It_Round:

@Veqryn:

simply because the nut cracker strategy is really bad game design and no fun, in my opinion

The ‘nutcracker’ is fine. It’s a good tactic and makes the game more interesting.

Sure, it challenges the default “I’ll just leave one infantry behind, and I’ll be fine for another turn” mindset, but breaking down that way of thinking is a good thing for the game.

Here’s how the USSR (or any other big power, for that matter) needs to defend against the nutcracker: the minimum ‘holding’ stack becomes the smallest number of units that will be able to successfully hold the Italians (or any small power) off (and leave you with at least the standard one infantry left standing to fend off the more powerful follow-up attack). Given how few units the Italians will normally be able to afford to throw into the eastern front, where none of their N.O.s will be, this minimal stack shouldn’t be too hard for the USSR to afford. And if there are plenty of Italians in Russia, then the Axis will have some pretty big problems coming their way soon from the Med and across the English Channel.

Failing to defend against a nutcracker is just sloppy play. An experienced and vigilant player will be able to see it coming and figure out the appropriate response, whether that’s a defence or a counterattack.

lets say you are playing DICE
and lets say you want to be certain to have 1 infantry or other kind of unit left over approximately 95% of the time

and lets say the italians have 2 tanks and 1 fighter in range, and the germans can take your capital IF the italians do a successful can-opener/nutcracker

according to two different battlecalcs, in order to defeat 2 tanks and 1 fighter the russians need to have
5 russian infantry to be successful 83% of the time
6 russian infantry to be successful 96% of the time

now then, if the germans are in east poland, this means you have to cover 2-3 territories, a minimum of BeloRussia and EastUkraine, and possible normal Ukraine if you like holding on to the Caucasus.

so this means the russians not only 12-18 infantry per turn to cover those 2-3 territories, but they ALSO need to beat whatever german/italian stack is in the territory in the first place and have those 6 infantry left over after the battle is done

tell me where you are getting ~15-25 units per turn

and tell me again why this is a fun strategy that makes the game interesting and good to play?

simply put, the nutcracker/can-opener is a really dumb and easy to do strategy that ruins the fun of aa50: 1941

Can-opener is no ‘dumber’ than having 1 infantry corps represented as being able to hold off the entire Wehrmacht for half a year.

Let’s talk counter-measures: USSR just has to keep moving up its full stack each turn, no penny packets. Sure it’s tough, sure it’s risky. But the Russians can use the can-opener to their benefit, as well: landing UK and US fighters on their newly-acquired territories to help hold them from Axis advances, and anchor their infantry stacks.

To be honest, I get tired of people crying about this or that ‘broken’ strategy, dwelling on–and inflating–perceived problems, without their putting the least amount of thought in about how to best counter it. If a game mechanic can be used against you, odds are that it can be used against your opponents as well. It’s up to you to figure out how.

Whether or not you like it, the can-opener’s here to stay regardless. So the best thing for us to do is to work out the Allies’ optimal response to it. I’ve given one possible answer above, but I’d like to hear more.

The “can opener” tactic has always been part of AA. The UK opens doors for the US all the time on land or at sea in both theaters. It wasn’t until Italy became a power that it became more prominent (axis vs Russia). Russia gets beefed up a little to compensate, and it has allies to bail them out.

Make_It_Round has a great point about countering week Russian advances w/UK or US air (or ground forces) to force Italy to think twice about attacking in the first place (or at least cost them if they do). If both euro axis want to play in Eastern Europe then you have to get UK/US in there as well. A strong UK/US naval presence heading toward Italy will also turn those Italians around (love to see them waffle).

Another thing would be to close the Black Sea (errata/faq option in AA50). Don’t allow Italy to use its navy to aid in taking key tt. We at times have not totally closed the Black Sea, but axis would need to hold all 4 tt that boarder Turkey in AA50 to enter (we call it political pressure). In AA 40 global you will need to invade Turkey (new straight rule) to gain access to the Black Sea, so this should slow them a bit.

As we add more minor powers there will be more double teaming going on by both sides. UK (India) and Anzac both go before US in global, you only think Russia has problems. You have to be aware and see at least into the next round of play so you can prepare.