Towards a General Strategic Framework - 11 Conclusions

Global 1940.2 has been out and rigorously played for five years now. I think this is roughly the time when the community should start to settle on a general strategic framework - that is, what constitutes optimal play over the long term. What we have are openers for Japan and Germany that work well and have been thoroughly tested. This game is viewed as weighted towards the Axis. It is possible that the game is objectively easier to win as the Axis, but it is also possible that most players are just better at playing the Axis because of how well researched the openings are for those powers.

I have spent a good deal of time reading through posts on this forum and also testing strategies recently trying to discover what optimal play is for both sides. I have a number of conclusions that I would like to propose. If you’d like to help me in this effort, please look these over and tell me if you agree or disagree and why.

These conclusions are not the general strategic framework that I have proposed - they are merely a step towards one. We must agree on some basic facts about the board before such a framework can arise.

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
5. If the Allies choose to go KJF and play defensively in Europe, Russia should send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
   Edited Based on forum contributions
6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
    edit: I am referring to an overall strategy, not to specific tactical situations that may arise
10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).

I hope this will get some good discussions going. We can also set up separate threads if any of the above points seem to generate a lot of discussion.

@PainState:

Your conclusions are not wrong or off based, they are just based on conclusions that if you agree that the Axis opening turn gambits as laid out on You Tube or on the forums is the way to go for the Axis.

The Axis plan of attacks as laid out in numerous places is all based on a Turn 1 set piece game, it never changes and is always the same. So, the advice on the Axis plan of attack at the start of the war is based on a set piece. Well why not wait until T2 or T3. Well, it is so close to the point of origin, set piece, you can still game plan to a certain degree. That is why all the opening turn gambits by the Axis have the disclaimer if the Allies do this you do that OR you do this to force the Allies to do that and off we go. ( Sea Lion is an example of this: You fake or go for Sea Lion BUT the idea is you force UK to go 9 or 6-1 on their builds in England. You are forcing their hand and stalling them for a turn. If you do not build even for a fake Sea Lion, well, now the UK is free do as they please in the opening turn.)

Why are there not any Allied Turn 1 game plans? Well, because, they can not do anything in Turn 1, they are just sitting ducks.

Why are there not any Allied Turn 6-8 game plans, when the war can be turned for the Allies? Well, that is to far out from T1 and the set piece nature of the game. Who knows what is going on in Turn 6? I don’t. All we can talk about is in vague terms that you want your Allied forces in position to take advantage of this or that. Well, great, how do I do that? No freaking clue, it is all based on what the Axis do in T1-5.

At the core of all of this is why this game is fun to play. There is no one path to victory. The idea that as long as you do this and the dice do not hose you, YOU WIN is false.

I have found that there is more than one Axis strategy “as laid out on You Tube or on the forums” that is accepted as viable. In other words, the fact that we have all these gambits and plans for the Axis doesn’t contradict your notion that there is no one path to victory. There is more than one path just at the beginning, and then as you say the game can take multiple routes depending on what happens because of the luck factor.

That being said, I would argue that it’s still very important to plan ahead. You need to understand how to react to what happens, and for that you should examine what is likely to happen. You need to have objectives based on what you can realistically achieve, and for that you need to understand the board.

This type of planning and analysis is what I call a “general strategic framework”. You can read a famous example of something like this (“Don’s essays”) at http://donsessays.freeservers.com/. It will be a lot more difficult to write articles like this for Global but someone should get started.

@MEANWHILE:

@larrymarx:

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.

This is one which I find highly debatable. In my opinion, the ME is much more valuable and practical in British hands. It is a waste of time for Russia to go down there. The juice is not worth the squeeze me thinks. You may gain the units from Persia, but will loose some taking Iraq. Plus your units are now out of position in the event of a Nazi invasion. Giving the extra income to Russia only deprives Britain.

First of all, I agree that Britain should get Persia. What I’m talking about are the pro-Axis neutral Iraq and Italian territories in Africa. My conclusion is that Russia should always pursue this objective.

Here is my thought process:

Scenario 1: Germany attacks early. Russian units are in a better position than other Allied forces to take Iraq. The 5 IPC’s per turn will more than make up for the 2 infantry you sacrifice taking the territory. An early German assault means the Allies need to be prepared for a joint defense of Moscow (conclusion #2), and it is better to have Russia building an extra 1.66 infantry per turn in Moscow than Britain building an extra .2 fighters per turn in the Middle East.

Scenario 2: Germany attacks late. British forces will be tied up defending themselves and they won’t have the economy to support an IC in Iraq for quite some time. Russia should take the extra 5 per turn and use it to build offensive units and punish Germany for ignoring them, or else defensive units if it turns out Germany is coming for them after all.

In either scenario, I think the tank and mech, and maybe 1 tactical bomber as well should continue onward to Egypt. They can defend Cairo if needed, which means they weren’t needed in Moscow after all, or else take African territories for a major boost that makes up for their absence.

All of those assumptions are fair.

Here is my response to the conclusions:

1. Only one tactical bomber is needed in Iraq. With proper positioning, this plane can participate in a counterattack the turn before (Bessarabia or Eastern Poland) and the turn after (Ukraine or Western Ukraine) the assault on Iraq. The loss of one plane for one turn is worth -3 IPC’s at best.

2. If Moscow actually does fall on G6 or G7 in spite of a concerted Allied defense (10-15 fighters land the turn before the attack), the game is over for them so it doesn’t matter that Germany has an extra 5 IPC’s and Britain 2 less per turn.

The plan is to hold Moscow. There may be games when the Allies fail to do so, but if they do achieve this goal, Germany will be facing a stronger Russia.

The way I play the game, Britain usually doesn’t make landings in Europe. In a Moscow push they help defend Moscow, and in other scenarios they fight the Italians and try to hold on to their territories. This all rests on the assumption that KJF is the best way to make gains quickly as the Allies.

I understand that’s different from how you play the Allies, but under the circumstances I described would you agree it’s at least better for Russia to have +5 than Britain +2 for Iraq?

1. Generally, to make gains against Russia, Germany should buy a lot of mechanized infantry with some tanks and some planes.
…and artillery G1
Yes, I agree if you are going to throw everything at Russia you should buy artillery on G1. However, based on conclusion #3 (below), I believe that land units aren’t a good purchase on G1.

2. If Germany declares war on turn 1, ignores Britain and throws everything they have at Russia, Moscow will probably fall on G5 or G6 unless the other Allies send planes to Moscow.
G1 DOW rarely works out well.
A G1 focused push on Moscow that more or less ignores Britain doesn’t work out well, that’s true. This conclusion is more about the Allied response to this tactic and about why Germany needs units that threaten Britain at the very least on turn 1.

Some players favor the G1 DOW even when they are still focusing on Britain somewhat. The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?

3. Because the Allies can hold Moscow with a joint defense (as above), it is not wise for Germany to pour everything they have into Russia. They must play a longer game and also devote some resources to threatening Britain.
usually, but this is counter to points 1 and 2 above

Actually it goes hand in hand with point 2. Point 2 indicates that Allies can defeat the G1 Moscow push strategy. Point 1 is more of a general observation. At any stage in the game, even if Germany is playing defensively or conservatively, when they decide they want to go hard for Moscow they should buy this unit mix.

4. Also because of the joint Moscow defense (above), Russia should not retreat the far east troops to Moscow unless forced to by Japan.
How does Japan force this?

It’s not an optimal move for them. They have to bring their air force up north and move infantry in or buy a major in Korea. I don’t think they should do this except in certain late game scenarios, but if they did it would be better for the Russians to retreat than let themselves be annihilated.

5. Russia should always send an expeditionary force to the Middle East and Africa to boost their income.
No

So far I’ve got 4 people against this one and only 1 supporting it. I’m going to have to look at this some more.

6. Sealion is best viewed as a threat or an opportunistic play because a determined Allied defense of London will usually make it too costly for Germany to take in the early game.
Sealion is NEVER an empty threat, and it is ALWAYS on the table

Yes, I agree. Should I reword this conclusion to make that clearer?

7. If Japan merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific, and the Russians have retreated from Amur, a J1 declaration of war is their best move because it allows them to make gains early and destroy Allied units before they can retreat.
Why is J1 better than J2?

You can take out the American fleet at Pearl and the Philippines and the British battleship off Malaya, take other territories early (especially FIC for a factory J2) and prevent the British and ANZAC from making progress in the Dutch East Indies. All of these things together offset the loss of the +10 bonus to Japan and the +20 that the Americans get.

That being said, J2 or even J3 can be a better strategy depending on what the long term goals of the Axis powers are, and in this game you must plan holistically. That’s why I added “merely wishes to win as quickly as possible in the Pacific”. The J1 doesn’t take Europe, the Middle East or Africa into account.

8. It is generally easier for the Allies to press an advantage against Japan than against Germany and Italy. As a result, in the initial stages of the game, the Allies should generally play defensively in Europe and seek to contain Japan in the Pacific.
sometimes

Of course everything is subject to change. Once we agree on some basic rules we can figure out when exceptions apply.

9. Assuming skilled play on the part of both players, a neutral crush can help for the Allies (example - Spanish beachhead) but will not work for the Axis.
neutral crush can also be good for axis, but generally bad for either side

We could invent a scenario where they need to take Turkey or something, but I’m trying to address general strategy at a very high level as opposed to the myriad of tactical situations that are possible. My findings are that if the Axis plan on a neutral crush as their strategy from the beginning, they are doomed. On the other hand, the Allies moving into Spain and Latin America can be a good general counter to certain Axis strategies.

10. To stall Japan’s advance in the early game, it is better to push units against them from multiple directions than to keep retreating.
On land, at sea, or both?

On land. China stack, Russian stack, Indian transports and air, ANZAC transports and air. The Allies can’t push navy at them except with America so there’s no multi-pronged naval attack in the beginning.

11. The best way for the Axis powers to defend their gains is to set up kill zones (for example, the dark skies strategy for Germany).
Don’t assume you know what the other side is thinking

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?

@variance:

The “Cobra Kai” school mentioned earlier espouses G1 and a rapid push for income territories. Do you still think this kind of thing doesn’t work well?
I did look up that cobra kai video on youtube and checked it out.  With respect to the person who made video, I must say it seems not likely to end well for the axis. It is not clear to me how the Germans would handle a soviet stack at Bryansk while they are building infantry back home… but I might be wrong of course.

Sired (the guy behind it all) says the plan is to push tanks out of the minor IC in Romania and then infantry and artillery out of Ukraine and Volgograd once you capture them. He also suggests building an airbase in Romania and 2 Black Sea transports to get more ground over there faster. I guess the idea is that you’ve outflanked the Russians by focusing on the South.

On turn 2 you’re supposed to build 21 infantry to defend against an Allied invasion if you decided not to do Sealion. That does make it a little puzzling how Germany will sustain the eastern front.

@variance:

Could you be more specific if you have reasons why the killzone approach won’t work?
I do like the dark skies thing, but just don;t assume that if the allies are building fleet that they intend to actually send it to Gibraltar/Iceland. They may be simply enticing you into blowing money on your fancy bombers instead of more efficient ground units for the Moscow assault. At some point you may calculate that you need to use those bombers on Russia. Such a waste.

So in this case Germany decided to defend themselves when they didn’t have to - they miscalculated. But if they are going to choose to defend, whether rightly or wrongly, I would still say bombers are usually better than naval or ground. If a land invasion becomes certain you can buy mech, or if you really have to push their fleet back you can build subs in the Baltic.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

My philosophy though is that there is only one hard and fast rule of the game, that Germany takes Paris in the first round. After that anything goes.

I’ve actually heard of players strafing France and giving it to Italy if they can leave it with one or two units  :-)

@GeneralHandGrenade:

You need to use your creativity to make it up as you go along. Understanding basic principles such as which units will be more effective against the units that you are facing, or the task that you want to accomplish, will allow you to overcome the best strategies if your opponent knows little more than memorizing that strategy and lacks the ability to react to what you’re doing.

In fact I agree with you. It is for this very reason that I’ve been doing this research. When I say “strategic framework” I don’t mean a set of memorized moves or ploys - I mean a broader understanding of the dynamics of the board and the units that will assist players in reacting quickly to the circumstances they face, which of course will always be different.

One example of this kind of thinking is your “floating bridge” strategy. The knowledge that America can get the “four lane highway” going via Southern France is important to have whether or not one uses it in most games.

In addition, if we can agree on what “should” happen in an average game (optimal openers for the Axis and their appropriate responses), we can spot more easily when our games have deviated from the norm and adjust our play fluidly.