Axis and Allies TV show idea: Iron Generals

what I prefer to do is this;
3 inf + 3 tanks on R1, hit ukraine with 2 tanks 2 planes and 3 inf, everything else on west russia, stack bury, and mover everything else west. turn 2 I prefer to buy 1 ftr, 1 art and 5 inf, this is to be able to scirmish on a front that is 3 terretories wide.

on UK1 my first priority is to retake egypt if possible,  to do this I use the bomber,  the india ftr, 2 inf from india, 1 inf from jordan, this should usually at least be enough to kill all the german units, even tho you lose all your infs (depending on defending luck turn 1)
I usually land in algeria, because germany are usually not capable of counterattacking the combined UK an us fleet, If this is not possible, gather the fleet west of UK with my new AC.
if for some reason germany has done a quite common mistake to only have 2 inf and 4 ftrs in france, I attack it, if egypt is not possible i often land in borneo and papua, while using the ftr + sun against j sub, and land the ftr on pearl.

US will usually buy AC + trs + inf/art tanks (if I buy 6 units it will be 4 inf 1 art 1 tank, and long game, more tank than art)

the overall gameplan from this point will be for US to land 8-10 units in africa each turn,  UK build 6-7 units + 1 ftr and at some point swich to landing in norway, when strong enough. USSR keep on scirmishing germany.

If I have a successful game, the US in africa will make it to persia, and be able to match the japanese there, possibly making it to cauc. I once had more than 150 units in cauc, only 50 was ussr. then the win is plain.

if japan manages to be fast enough, I will move all my us trannies to the med (8-10) and start landing the units in africa in s europe (16-20 / turn). I will lose it a few times, but germany will not be able to build more than 10 units / turn, at the same time UK will land in france each turn, and if USSR are not able to hold moscow from the japanses, the entire russian army will start walking towards berlin, doing a final suicide charge to kill german units.

I have had a more than 80% successrate with a bid of 8-10 (set in libya) with this stratigy.

on, and people seem to forget that trannies are prolly one of the best fleetunits on defence, UK/US fleet is often 1 BB 1-2 AC 2 DD and 10-12 trannies. you need a pretty good attacking force to deal with that. And that is before you add the ftrs on defence.

btw, I also 400 games in an insane amount, with some intelligent research, and planning, you should be able to figure it out in much less, especially playing online.

@The:

I’d say hit the Solomans with maybe as much air as you can send (if it reaches), but if it can’t reach safely, hit that area with everything you got. Those are the closets transports. The WUS ones are 2 turns away. Hit Solomans, but buy more air for a) defence and b) hitting power because when you go south, he’ll move north/northeast into your path to block you, really putting a cramp in your plans to come back to the defence of Japan.

And if you could post a map or something of what you face, that would be great. But kill transports. Battleships can’t transport men anyway!  :lol: :-D

GL

Thanks, that’s what I was thinking. My focus is Russia while they’re super weak. I can hit his loaded carrier, and trans with 2 BB’s, an AC and four planes. That should do it, and I can take two hits and won’t mind losing a couple planes.

I anticapted his blocking move too and was considering buying planes. I think I’ll buy 1 plane and all land forces.

quite simply, transports have to be defended, and the allies can put have in range alot of threatening airpower before japan’s second turn…  and every ship that’s left defending them reduces your ability to cheaply destroy the various allied fleets that might be making a mess in the pacific on turn one.

Other than that, the additional transports allow for 6 units a turn, similarly to the IC’s.  The additional transports give you the ability to grab guys more quickly from the islands, as well as the ability to push on india and africa faster and harder.  But each of these require some tradeoffs (ideally, mass troops in manchuria, but if india looms you may have to deal with that, slowing the flow of 6 units/per turn.

transports assuming a factory build later also ends up reducing the flow of fast moving armor, if that’s necessary.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a big fan of transports, but they have their drawbacks too.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

@Yahoshua:

To get a clarification:

You can bridge YOUR TRN and YOUR Troops (1 pt for TRN to load 1 pt. for TRN to unload) without moving the TRN provided the unit in question has the movement pts available for doing so (like Mech Infantry or Tanks?).

I’m not sure how this is handled with LHTR.

You can bridge INF too.

But no unit can move on land before or after being transported.

I’ve managed to get pretty good at playing Japan, but that is because I almost allways play Japan.  I think I’ve played one game as the allies.  My Skill with Japan has led be to be totaly inept at any other power however.