Allied Stratagy 1941

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

Okay, but how do you get to Karelia to hold it? It can only buy two units a turn to place there as Russia, and to get from Moscow to Karelia requires going through either Belorussia (a dreaded “$1 territory” that, according to you, should not be fought for) or Archangel. I suppose you could do the later, but if you’re willing to fight for Archangel, why not Belorussia, which directly borders Moscow and is on the German’s critical path from Berlin -> Moscow?

As I mentioned you stack Archangel on R1 and buy two armor. You could buy three if you drop the two artillery down to infantry but personally I like the artillery for Caucasus for the southern defense/push.

Also why TANKs? ART are the more economical purchase for offense because they boost the firepower of paired INF.
2 INF/2 ART = 14 IPC, 4 HP, 8 Punch (offense and defense)
compare with 3 TANK = 15 IPC, 3 HP, 9 Punch (offense and defense)
I understand mixing in TANKs if you’ve hit > 35 IPC (the point you’d be able to build 5 INF/5 ART), but for the bulk of the game I don’t see your income getting that high. If USSR is consistently getting over 35 IPC then you’re “winning” (which lines up with my original post that says USSR should start adding TANKs once they’ve reached a winning position.

Yes, the two INF/ART pair are a better offensive buy but the two armor is a better defensive buy AND more importantly the mobility gets the armor to Karelia on R2.

Going purely by the numbers, INF/ART are better than TANKs odds-wise because they have more punch and more HP for less money. However, when you start factoring in your limited deployment spots for USSR (10-12), things start getting different. At that point, since USSR can generally count on getting their 10 IPC bonus for no foreign units + hold Archangel, it might be feasible to mix in a TANK or two. To me, it’s all about whether USSR’s income is over that 35 IPC level (since at 35 IPC exactly, you can buy 5 INF/5 ART).

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

As you say, rather than defending Karelia directly, USSR can stack a neighboring territory and go for a counterattack on R2 (when the German Air Force won’t be present). Let’s look into this scenario:
USSR can stack either Belorussia or Archangel to try setting up a dead-zone on Archangel. If they stack Belorussia, you can dive on their stack with extremely variable odds depending how G1 went + how USSR distributed its forces. Assuming that they either stacked Archangel or you just don’t like the odds at Belorussia, you can walk into Karelia here no problem. Using your R1 build, the biggest Russian response I was able to get was 12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. the German force of 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK. Of course, the German INF number is variable based on G1, but lets break down the calcs:
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 9 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 14% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 6 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 26% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 5 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 7 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 40% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 2 USSR Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 6 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 56% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 3 USSR Tanks survive
So, if Germany had particularly poor luck in the opening, then USSR can block an advance into Karelia on G2, but even in the scenarios where USSR wins, the odds are effectively a coin flip.
Germany can likely hold Karelia for G2 and G3, but by G4 they may need to withdraw in the face of UK’s naval buildup + how the rest of the game is going. At that point we’re way too far out to make concrete calculations.

Well that is a very interesting opening. Do you vacate Norway completely? What about the fighter that attacked the SZ2 BB? Do you leave it undefended?

Conditionally. It depends on how many INF Germany loses in the Baltic States fight in-particular. If things go absolutely sideways and they lose 2 INF then Norway needs to be 100% evacuated. I understand that this risks losing the SZ2 FTR to a British air attack but they’d need to send either 1 FTR/1 BOMB or send in a loaded transport from Canada + 1-2 FTR). If UK sends forces to Norway it (hopefully) means they’re missing out on either sinking the Baltic Fleet or are delayed a turn in sending their BOMB towards the center of the map (which is a more optimal position for it). Ideally, no INF are lost and you only need to send 1 of the 2 INF to Finland.

If you were to push that many infantry against Karelia than yes, it would take a bit for Russia to take it back. Also, your 4 armor + 1 infantry against East Poland is interesting. I guess you don’t worry about the 16% chance you lose an armor there?

Not particularly. That’s like saying don’t try for Egypt G1 because you only have a ~76% chance to actually take the territory (my math might be bad on that calc because I don’t have the setup in front of me right now), If that chance actually occurred taking/holding Karelia would probably be a bust and you’d have to shift to a different game plan.

Of course, if you are sending that much firepower north than as Russia I would push south to get to Bulgaria and the Russian $10 NO.

That possibility is part of while 4 of the TANKs go to East Poland instead of 100% all-in at Baltic States. If on R1 USSR positions its forces in either a balanced position or with a disposition towards the south, Germany is free to adjust how many troops its sending to Caucasus. Some of Italy’s started forces can also be used to plug the gap, as you don’t need to start spending 100% of their income on defending Rome/France until ~Round 3.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

You know AA50’s game flow very well (as demonstrated earlier in this thread in a post I didn’t respond to). Japan is the one who ultimately takes Moscow in most games rather than Germany. The role of Germany/Italy is to make as much money as possible during the early game and then turtle until Japan wins the game. My main gripe with NOs (and your Russian strategy of not actively fighting for space on the board) is that the easy money Germany gets makes this task much too easy.

I think we are in agreement the Allies definitely don’t want Germany taking and holding Karelia and/or Caucasus for any length of time; that is bad news. Our styles are different. I want lots of ground troops to eventually knock them out and your style seems to push for a faster more aggressive strategy that does not have as much firepower in the long run but has more in the short run.

Pretty much. The way I see it is that if USSR can punch Germany in the nose enough times during the opening turns, then their income will be stunted enough that UK/US have an easier time winning the war on their side of the map. Even if this causes USSR to lose enough units over time that Japan has an easier time taking Moscow, the Allies can usually still win as long as they take Berlin on or before the round that Japan takes Moscow.

@mobius1:

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland.  That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war.  Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders.  Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL.  In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.

Honestly Func, you haven’t tried to play KGF if you think its boring.  It’s true it would be boring if the Allied opponent simply regurgitated Revised strategies, but that’s not how you play KGF in 41–KGF in 41 requires aggression and timing and closely coordinated attacking.

It’s true that KGF is harder for the Axis to play against, because Axis has to think hard to anticipate the 1-2-3 attacks and coordinated movements.  But I don’t mind the challenge…it’s more interesting to fight a KGF then to win an inevitable economic victory or quickly stomp Russia if the Allies divide their focus.

What I can say with certainty is its lots of fun to be Allies when executing a KGF strategy, especially the sort of aggressive KGF strategy that Gargantua is talking about above.   It’s more exciting to be Allies in AA50 then in any previous version of AA, partially due to the challenge involved, and partially due to KGF being much more exciting and diverse with the inclusion of Italy.

@Subotai:

It is not possible to be prepared against tech rolls, or any dice rolls regardless of regular dice or LL. The only way to be prepared, as such, is to look into the future, and we humans are not able to predict the future.

True.  True.

That’s why I said, “…trying to be prepared…”

Peace.

On turn 1 UK can easily drop an AC-destroyer-trannie or 2 plus whatever survived, which is plenty, then US can add a destroyer a turn if needed.  I"m not advocating ignoring japan, that would be bad idea.

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.

One of the benefits of the south african IC is that you do not need to care about the italian fleet. Let the bad boys with their 10 IPCs bombard egypt or caucasus - so what? As long as the United Kingdom can occupy the italians in egypt all is well. If you sink the italian fleet you still have no additional fleet that helps in the mediteranean. The bombardment doesnt kill you and the U.S. world bombing tour can start in asia, where it can wear down the japs. Remenber, the seazone japan lies in is 4 seazones away from western united states and has 3 adjacent russian airfields. That means that the lone presence of bombers in WUS can tie down a whole fleet in front of japan. By the way, how many ICs does Japan build in J1 and J2 in your games?

There’s an easy solution, move the RAF fighters onto Karelia.  Problem solved.

It’s one turn of 5 less production for Russia… well, 3 really, since losing Karelia is 2.  It’s not a big deal.  That 5 bonus is for when Russia’s strong enough, which they aren’t at the beginning as everyone has shown.

Remember Germany also gets 7 (2 for the territory and 5 bonus) production from Karelia, and can start producing armies there.  That’s a huge negative, because without that factory the German line gets stretched out and weak on infantry.  The negatives from losing it are steep, very steep.