Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube

Glad to see you’re still around; I had been checking in daily to see if there were any updates both on the game and the videos.

Regarding the new video, it does feel much better to only have one uninterrupted video so thanks for getting that to work. Nothing was new or surprising content wise with what you presented which doesn’t surprise me given that Classic is really the only version of the game I’m familiar with, but I’m looking forward to the next few where you go into your take on openings then.

Possibly my only comment is that in most of my online games, I’ve rarely if ever gone for weapons development. A lot of my games have ended by the losing side conceding rather than meeting one of the victory conditions - for the losing side to suddenly recover with a fortuitous Weapons Development roll would feel awfully anticlimactic so when I’ve been on the losing end, I’d rather just concede and move on to the next game than have the dice be entirely responsible for my win. Experienced players can generally tell who is going to win a game, barring a huge upset of the dice, and again I’d rather not let that sort of factor change the outcome of the game. As you note, when the Axis surpass the 74 IPC mark several rounds in a row, it’s often inevitable that they’ll be able to hit 84 eventually, but it may take a few rounds for the logistics of their war machine to be able to secure that, and if both players agree, then it’s over and you move on. On the other hand, if Axis fails to break the 74 IPC mark, then even if they’re holding steady for several rounds, usually the Allies will be able to turn the tide eventually but it also may take several rounds of play, especially when both sides have large infantry stacks on all the right places.

DizzKneeLand, since it looks like your game with AcesWild is on hold for possibly a couple months, would you be interested in a bid game of classic with me?

@Avin sure that sounds great – maybe we can get something setup in the next few days after I get some work done this week lol. That will be fun.

Now, I’m going to go out there and spew some heresy about tech. Honestly, the most solid Axis players set up Japan to buy bombers and then when ready roll for tech. This isn’t getting lucky in this case, the strategy centers around it. US will have to counter heavies at some point. Otherwise, Axis cannot win the long game (non 84 victory) consistently.

I won’t throw more details out there since there are those better than I at these strategies. I have lots of 3rd edition strat articles on an old computer.

Okay, I’m done with most of my work for the week so I’m good to go on our game if you are still interested. Did you want the standard 2nd edition rules? And, I will let you bid first. :)

EDIT: Oops, thought I sent this as a PM, but that’s okay, just don’t want to hijack the thread…

Replied by PM (I think) to avoid thread hikacking as you suggest. ;)

Interesting suggestions for R1. I found myself wanting to disagree, but then thought further and realized that my gut reaction was probably off based on the fact that I am so used to playing with an Axis bid. With classic rules out of the box, your Persia move is fine, and while I think you are playing things overly cautiously for Russia I don’t doubt that it would work; after all if Allies have the advantage as I still think is the case, there’s no use being risky and throwing away that advantage.

On the other hand I’m looking forward to seeing your suggestions for Germany and Japan to see if you have something new to bring there too!

After watching, that Persia move is only valid in Russia Restricted. There is a WORLD of difference between Russia Restricted and non Russia Restricted. That world of difference is (85% at least) the battle of Ukraine. Russia can completely crush Germany there. That’s why the 18 bids are needed – to offset that crushing. Bids in Russia Restricted range from 6-12 (Utah rules, where there is no tech until round 4 and such).

So, there is never a time in a no bid game that Russia shouldn’t hit Ukraine, and, I do like the Persia move in Russia Restricted (I do it slightly differently, but it’s the same in concept).

I now know why I prefer 3rd edition rules – 2 hit BB’s, and no stupid unit restrictions based on the number of pieces in the box. I mean, I can chip bomber stacks up to 100, but if I dare try to break that 100 into 4 stacks then the world ends. Doesn’t make any sense. :)

EDIT: The reason for taking Ukraine in that scenario is killing a German fighter in addition to a lot of other reasons. That fighter loss will compound as Germany progresses, even in the North Sea or other places (one less attacker will mean more losses). Japanese fighters aren’t as important, which is another reason you can leave Manchuria as a strafe. But German fighters are dear.

I hadn’t been keeping up with these but I’ll continue now.

Just finished the Germany video. I largely agree with your recommendations with the caveat again that I still think Allies are at a significant advantage so it’s hard to assess one weak position versus another weak position. Don’s recommendations, as you note, have a much higher variance of results due to engaging in riskier battles, but from the perspective of a side that is “behind” then engaging in a riskier battle is often what you need to do in order to have a chance to pull ahead.

One curious omission to your otherwise conservative play though is the fighter against the LAB transport. That’s probably the riskiest battle of them all in my opinion! There’s only a 5/7 chance of the ideal result, which is only slightly better than the bomber versus the sub in the Eastern Med that you wanted to avoid, with a 1/7 chance equally of mutual destruction (which is significant since losing the German fighter is pretty bad) as well as a 1/7 chance of the transport winning. If instead of sending two fighters against Egypt you only sent one, instead sent one of those fighters against the sub along with your battleship in the Eastern Med, then you can spare the bomber to also join the fighter against the LAB transport. I feel like that arrangement much safer overall.

The main omission in this segment that I see is that you don’t really address what to do without Russia Restricted. Without RR, Germany has one fewer fighter to work with as Ukraine is almost certainly lost. Don recommends only a strafe attack on R1 but most people I’ve played with will just do the outright attack against Ukraine as there’s really not much of a risk anymore especially if the Baltic fleet is taken care of too.

For the UK video, that does seem like an interesting play but I generally feel like it’s too slow for not enough benefit. In fact even Don’s recommendations are too slow, as it feels like it’s a wasted turn. I always go for building up my UK fleet on turn 1. If somehow my battleship survives in the North sea and it looks feasible, then buying transports should shore that up. If not, then building a carrier and transports on turn 1 should still be sufficient to dissuade the Germany air force from sinking them again. I can’t recall why Don thinks waiting the turn is a good idea - if it’s because he prefers to keep the US fighters to counterattack Pearl Harbor, then I’d say that that’s a bad tradeoff, since the US really doesn’t have any need to do that counterattack; being able to immediately start funneling troops into Europe is well worth giving Japan more freedom in my opinion.

I wouldn’t necessarily describe that as “my” version of G1 since with G1 I typically kill off the North Sea fleet, but I’m also assuming a bid to Germany. I was just assessing the hypothetical of playing by your rules with starting Germany in which I’d agree that there’s not enough material to cover all your bases.

From your J1 video I actually feel like I got the insight into my own bidding patterns: I usually put bid a couple infantry into Manchuria, but then I always end up doing the Pearl Harbor attack because with those extra infantry, the entire Japanese navy is more or less useless on the first round, so I might as well use it to clear the American fleet even though there’s little reward to it. But maybe if I wasn’t bothering to bid anything to Japan then I would have more need of the fleet and therefore can skip Pearl Harbor.

For USA, you mention having up to 10 transports with the US. This is way, way too much unless Germany is already conquered and therefore the game essentially almost over. The cheapest load of units 10 transports can fill up with is 10 tanks, which costs 50 IPCs, which you could never sustain unless you had an income around that level. So unless you are considering two transports in your supply chains that’s a bunch of wasted transports. If you are using two levels of transports, then you’re not correctly shucking: you really should only need one per tank/2 inf to transport your troops to either Europe or Africa.

@AcesWild5049 said in Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube:

I hate bids and won’t comment much on that.

Oh, interesting, I didn’t realize. You say you won’t comment on that, but I am very curious why that is. But perhaps that’s addressed in your final video which I haven’t watched yet.

Regarding your penultimate video, however, I have to say that I thought you were better than that. I respect you and I have gained insights from your videos even though I disagree with you on a number of points. Yes, I agree with you that Don is unreasonably arrogant and his opinions are flawed, but why should you stoop to the same level in dismissing his essays as you do? You have to recognize that he wrote them around 20 years ago, and both the internet culture in gaming communities as well as the broader grasp of Axis and Allies strategy at the time were very different from where they are now. Don may or may not have been the first to write about some of the things he did; I don’t know actually. But I do recognize him as being the first so widely spread to describe such concepts as the general infantry push mechanics, the Shuck-shuck, the value of strafing, and so on. A lot of what Don says you “must” do is definitely obsolete, but the ideas behind them show a valuable progression from what was out there in terms of strategy advice before.

You are right to call Don out on the arrogance of his claims and the outdatedness of the strategy, but not any more so than you would be for calling out a 19th century writer discussing Napoleonic strategy on their casual racism and obsolete tactical analysis. As I think I mentioned in this thread early on I recently started playing Axis and Allies with my kids, and I saw no reason to give them Don’s essays to read because I could give strategic advice directly as we were playing, but if I had, the disclaimer I would give would be more along the lines of, “These are some really old essays on Axis and Allies strategy, but there are some good ideas there that you can still learn from even though you should take all Don’s claims with a grain of salt on what you ‘have’ to do. Most people today have come up with a lot of improved strategy that goes beyond it, but this is a good starting point for you if you want to see how strategy has developed over time.”