The Afrika Korps

GHG, it would be easier if you set some of this up in Triple A and take screen shots of the combat moves and typical board layout after die rolling.  It is too hard to follow along on the video.  Cow does a great job in his playbook pages:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30167.0

I tried follow along for the G1 attacks.

**A)**That fight in SZ110 is very risky:
1 German BB, 2 subs, 2 bombers, 1 fighter, 1 tac. 
If the British scramble, you have a 32% chance of losing (game changing to lose 4 planes since you will struggle with either Sea Lion or Barbarosa).  Even if you win, you likely will be left with just 3 units.  No thanks on that exchange.

**B)**You also have a risky 1 sub vs 1 destroyer attack in SZ 106.  Your chance of killing the destroyer and the transport is 39%.  UK will get to keep both units 39% of the time.  That can mess up your gameplan.

C) If I replicated your moves properly, you have a 7% chance of losing the battle in Paris.  With that outcome I usually start the game over unless I am going against a weak opponent.

Adding up these three risky battles give you about a 40% chance of having an outcome that is so bad you blow the massive initial Axis advantage.  If you are playing a standard no-bid game, you don’t need to be this aggressive on G1 to win.  You should be able to win 75+% of the time against a good Allied player.

Try out TripleA since the Battle Calculator is invaluable for evaluating the effectiveness of opening moves.

Thank you for your comments Arthur I will attempt to be more clear in the future.

I have purposefully avoided downloading and playing the game on the computer. The reason I play this game is because it is a board game and I love board games. I don’t use a calculator for odds I go based upon my assessment of the situation and how risky I’m feeling at that particular moment. I can see the attraction to use the computer for doing all of this but to me I like the human aspect of playing with plastic pieces on a board and pitting my wits against another human without the benefit of calculators. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not putting anyone down who plays the game the other way, I just don’t want to sit in front of the computer and play the game. I work on a machine and interact with a massive amount of computers and programs that would put any computer game to shame so it’s no wonder that I would want to get away from that in my downtime. The only downside is that I don’t get to play against the great players that are here on the forums. Some day maybe but not at this time.

If I were to play the same strategy again I might make different choices as I rarely do the same thing exactly the same way twice. I have rarely ever lost a game of A&A or any other board game in my life and yes I used to play against some very good players. I’ve just always had a extra sense for playing board games that I can’t really explain or understand myself even, it comes natural to me.  If we all lived in the same town I would love to play a game with you and the other people on here, not just for the competition but also to interact with you on a personal level as well. Maybe that’s why I love board games so much. I do appreciate your comments though and like I said I’ll try to be more clear in my videos in the future.

@Arthur:

GHG, it would be easier if you set some of this up in Triple A and take screen shots of the combat moves and typical board layout after die rolling.  It is too hard to follow along on the video.

Adding up these three risky battles give you about a 40% chance of having an outcome that is so bad you blow the massive initial Axis advantage.  If you are playing a standard no-bid game, you don’t need to be this aggressive on G1 to win.  You should be able to win 75+% of the time against a good Allied player.

Try out TripleA since the Battle Calculator is invaluable for evaluating the effectiveness of opening moves.

GHG:  I watched your Germany video and found it intriguing. Disclaimer that I have not yet read this thread and can’t comment on the strategy of this ‘Afrika Korps’ move as a whole… yet.

I would second Bomber Harris to some degree. The more scientific you can make a strategy, the better it will be in practice. To that end, it seemed like many, if not most, of your Axis rolls were highly favorable and many of the Allied rolls were highly unfavorable. I know that wasn’t intentional and that this is not a true simulation of the whole game, but the end result of your version of the strategy becomes somewhat anecdotal in that it cannot be reliably repeated.

You may still be able to make use of a simple calculator found here on the site for some of your strategy sessions (http://calc.axisandallies.org/). Forgive me if you were already aware of its existence. Like you, I prefer to play the game in person and do not calculate odds on battles. I have played TripleA, but don’t care to spend more time in front of a computer screen than I already do. However, this is not very obtrusive and you can run decent battle simulations with it, even thousands of times over, within seconds to come up with more representative results. You could achieve this by running standard roll simulations or using the low luck dice function.

The element of complete chance rolling is part of the appeal of the game to me. I am not sure that I would want to play an online game in which that chance was removed for the averaging of overall odds. Yet, I recognize that in making a real proof to a strategy, this kind of sanitized odds should be used, ideally. I am not sure that it was even your intention to scientifically prove anything; rather than just to demonstrated the spirit of a particular strategy. Either one is a worthy endeavor. Nice work on the videos and glad to have you around supporting the community. Looking forward to seeing more from you.

Thank you for your advice and your kind words. I was really only trying to put forth a general strategy on how to get to the Med and give Italy a role in the game. I understand completely what your saying by the luck that I was having with the rolls, I felt almost embarrassed to give the results and even considered redoing them. I think what I’m going to try and do in the future is not bother rolling and getting too specific, but rather suggest to go in a direction and what to do if the rolls go well or poorly. That’s how I play the game, have a strategy and then try to achieve it based on how the opponent responds and how the rolls go. I believe if you get too specific on exactly what to move and where to move it then you will be ill-equiped over the course of time to respond to the game that you are playing and the opponent that you are playing against. One of the things that made me a pretty good board game player over the years was that I understood that the game is not only played on the board but played by the players as well. There is a certain amount of persuasion and manipulation that can occur between the players. Reducing the game to calculators and scientific strategies takes much of the human element (and fun) out of the game. To each his own though and if you guys get lots of enjoyment playing the game the way you do then that’s all that matters.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Thank you for your advice and your kind words. I was really only trying to put forth a general strategy on how to get to the Med and give Italy a role in the game. I understand completely what your saying by the luck that I was having with the rolls, I felt almost embarrassed to give the results and even considered redoing them. I think what I’m going to try and do in the future is not bother rolling and getting too specific, but rather suggest to go in a direction and what to do if the rolls go well or poorly. That’s how I play the game, have a strategy and then try to achieve it based on how the opponent responds and how the rolls go. I believe if you get too specific on exactly what to move and where to move it then you will be ill-equiped over the course of time to respond to the game that you are playing and the opponent that you are playing against. One of the things that made me a pretty good board game player over the years was that I understood that the game is not only played on the board but played by the players as well. There is a certain amount of persuasion and manipulation that can occur between the players. Reducing the game to calculators and scientific strategies takes much of the human element (and fun) out of the game. To each his own though and if you guys get lots of enjoyment playing the game the way you do then that’s all that matters.

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. As you said, if a particular strategy meets the eyeball test of looking favorable, I think it could be explained and without much actual combat rolling. Most people make their in-game strategic decisions based on a visually weighted blend of observation, rough calculation and experience… as you indicated.

@Afrikakorps:

So working further on the target.

Take Caucasus, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Egypt in G5

Build major in Romania G1
Build med fleet in SZ100 G2
Italy takes Turkey I2
Germany start producing fast troops
Afrika Korps take Caucasus G3
Tropical Fleet takes Egypt G3
Afrika Korps takes Middle East/Stalingrad G4
Germany takes Leningrad G5

Collect +/- 100 IPC G5

Italy will be making 35-40 IPC I5
Japan will be making 70 IPC J5

Axis making +/- 200 IPC per turn

I don’t think this work for many reasons. Here are two examples; you might get Caucasus 1 turn, but it’s taken back immediately. Building a Romanian Major lets Russia spend extra money on expensive stuff like tanks and then a fleet on G2 is a huge advertisement to buy more tanks and move south. Italy might not have enough troops in place on I2 to get Turkey if the UK brought the right stuff into the UK1 med fight.

During WW2, when Germany launched Operation Blue (seizing Stalingrad for the initial purpose of it becoming a Logistics depot for future operations); some Generals wrote in their diaries wild fantasies of seizing the Caucasus oil fields and the middle east.

Another advantage to doing afrika korps is that if your playing with ygh rules thats a vp right there.

Also i think japan should do a calcutta crush along with afrika korps. That way, uk cant send fighters from india into egypt, otherwise lose infia and/or the possibility  of taking india back

Your plan?  Yes, dave goes through Turkey to slay the middle east, from time to time.  The most direct path avoids this and just pours units into Russia but UK has a bastion in the ME with some relief and that’s what your cool plan was trying to lance

@taamvan:

Your plan?  Yes, dave goes through Turkey to slay the middle east, from time to time.   The most direct path avoids this and just pours units into Russia but UK has a bastion in the ME with some relief and that’s what your cool plan was trying to lance

I don’t get the Turkey thing… doesn’t that turn all the neutrals against you and cause more trouble than its worth?

I think both sides should see the neutrals as the enemy and aim to crush them if the opportunity arises.

If axis can get turkey spain portugal sweden. It cancels out the ipc from south america.

Turkey is a great way to gain access to the middle east. The other options are by sea or through rostov. If italy can open that door it makes life a lot easier for the axis.

If the allies are unprepared then axis can easily grab a stack of territories.

I think that Japan will have to go hard against Russia and germany still needs to go hard to at least to leningrad and or sevastopol so that the Russians dont go having it too easy.

I think that uk factory build in persia iraq and a us landing on morroco could cause further problems for this strategy.

Uk and russia could also team up against fin/swe/nor which would be costly and difficult if all of germany’s ships are in the med. I would probably keep the baltic fleet there and reinforce the northern attack on russia to keep that area strong and busy while the bulk of the axis europe forces go south.

@Afrikakorps:

I think Japan should wait with declaring war, so JDOW3 or JDOW4 and crush China + Russia in the meantime, preparing for an Indian Crush in J4 or J5.

That’s very late. UK Pacific will by then have taken some of the DEI islands and will have built a powerful infantry stack that will be hard for Japan to overcome. Anzac will also have some islands and will have every opportunity to harass Japan.

@Afrikakorps:

My first idea was build new fleet in G1, second idea was to build fleet in G2 Southern France but my current and I think best idea is to build German fleet in the Black Sea, so minor or major in Romania G1 (I will go major). If you are going to crush neutrality, why not optimize it?

German fleet builds in Black Sea allows fast access to Egypt, Middle East and Southern Russia, while far away from USA reach.

That would be a massive early investment, implying that you can’t really be threatening Sea Lion. The UK will notice that and spend its money in Africa and the Middle East, so you’ll encounter strong opposition there. And you can’t just build transports: the UK will have several planes available even after Taranto, and may fly in more from India. Also, the British Indian Ocean fleet may sail towards the Mediterranean, especially with the Japanese not having sunk the battleship.
Also, the neutral crush will provide the British with much-needed additional troops and income: Angola, Mozambique and Saudi Arabia will join the UK, Afghanistan may also, or join the Russians. And apart from what the British will do, you’ll need some units to actually take Turkey - and you’ll probably need to do something about Spain and Sweden too or you’ll be in trouble when the Allies land.

@Afrikakorps:

I hope to cancel this out by using diplomacy to my advantage against the Allies.

You may find that the Allies will continue that diplomacy “by other means”.  :-D

One of the great things about this game is that even the Axis strategies that are optimal have costs. If the Axis focus on X they also create vulnerability Y that the Allies can exploit.  This goes both ways of course, but the Axis start with the initiative and so the Allies are more often in the position of reacting in the early game. The DOWs illustrate this well. A later Japanese DOW should generally improve the Axis chances in Europe but at the expense of Axis chances in the Pacific.

My skepticism of this approach is that I don’t think it accounts for how the allies might change up their approach in response. If the allies just go with the default and build infantry and retreat, this strategy will work better, but I think they may be able to break it if they change up too. Obviously without trying it this is a bit speculative but here would be some concerns.

So far I have liked a J3 DOW, but it is a signal to the allies that you are trying to win on the Europe map and gives the US more leeway to build in the Atlantic. It also may mean the other pacific allies can more safely put energy into the Mid East and Russia while still securing their own positions in the Pacific.

A G1 Romania factory tells the Soviets that you are focusing on them but it also usually means that they can block a G2 attack. They just build tanks in their forward factories and stack in Belarus and W Ukraine. A G2 navy build threatens the Caucasus but the lack of land units means that a G3 direct attack on Eastern Europe is also blocked.  And if you go for the Caucasus you would have a hard time both attacking the USSR and defending your starting territories in the 3rd turn. If the USSR is primarily thinking of your G5 or G6 attack on Moscow and only building inf, than they will have trouble countering. But in seeing that you are not building land units, the Soviets might switch to tanks, mechs and artillery knowing that you will have trouble defending against the counterattack and that territories in E Europe and scandinavia might be up for grabs.

As Kaleun points out, it also lets the Allies know that sea lion is less likely which allows the UK to build more aggressively.

Both sides should certainly consider attacking Neutrals but it is much more risky for the Axis since there are many more Neutrals that the Allies can easily reach. And an I2 attack on Turkey has lots of dangers. If it doesn’t ensure an early axis victory you have given the US  income, plus lots of inf (16 between Spain, Portugal and Latin America),  and a more direct route into  Europe. This could easily mean a secure Allied beachhead in Spain on their turn 3. And as KaLeun notes, it also strengthens the UK in Africa and the Mid East. The UK Pacific also gets 4 more inf and a direct route for its air to Moscow (and vice versa). If you decide to also attack the other Neutrals for their income you are also committing land units that are badly needed against the USSR.

Anyway, just some thoughts. The best Axis strategies (I think) are ones that are more open ended and which allow the Axis player several options depending on how the Allies counter. The allies are put in a position of having to prepare for several possibilities and have to play more cautiously as a result. This strategy really commits the Axis to a particular approach and seems to make it harder to adapt to changes in the Allied response.