Allies strategy

@domanmacgee

Alright, that makes sense. Also, just as a side note, a tank that used one space of its movement to engage in combat (assuming it survives the battle) can use this unused piece of movement to move elsewhere to another friendly territory or am I wrong about this assessment?

@thedesertfox said in Allies strategy:

Alright, that makes sense. Also, just as a side note, a tank that used one space of its movement to engage in combat (assuming it survives the battle) can use this unused piece of movement to move elsewhere to another friendly territory or am I wrong about this assessment?

You are incorrect. Once a unit moves in the combat phase it may not move again in the non-combat phase with two exceptions: 1) planes heading for a landing zone after a battle and 2) cargo on a transport that did not load during the combat phase (they were already on the transport when the Turn began). Technically it is the transport that moved during combat and the cargo may debark in the non-combat phase however since the cargo moved from its original spot it appears that it moved in both phases so really only planes may “move” in both phases.

Interesting points by @DoManMacgee and @TheDesertFox. I agree with some of them and disagree with others. Just to confuse things more I will throw in my two cents.

National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.

USSR: I disagree with buying fighters ever and armor early on. Infantry, and lots of it, is what saves Moscow. Later, once Germany has exhausted themselves, is time to start buying armor to threaten Japan. While armor is only a bit worse than infantry in this version infantry is still the better defensive buy and early on Russia is on the defense.

India Factory: NEVER build an Indian factory. It cannot be held by a competent and determined Japanese Player. Since there is no factory in the Pacific there would be no ships built in the Pacific.

UK Europe: Clear the German Navy. Take Norway and, if Russia did not take it, Finland. Get a safe fleet with 4 transports into the Baltic and assist Russia in holding Karelia and make limited landings in NW Europe and Poland unless you can hit France than do that.

USA: Ignore the Pacific. Go 100% in the Atlantic. Mission 1, take back Africa. Mission 2, sink the Italian fleet. Mission 3, threaten France and Rome forcing the Axis to defend both heavily.

Easy Peasy

@andrewaagamer

The barebones format of winning the war as the Allies as you stated is pretty much how I go about winning as the Allies in either 41’ or 42’ just with a few noticeable differences.

Since I haven’t touched on the bid yet, just to put it shortly, yes, I think a bid is fine for the Allies, especially in 1941 but this bid can and should be used on the Pacific side for either the UK or China.

As for the USSR, this ultimately comes down to playstyle, but for me, I’ve experienced that tanks are what win you the game, not infantry, and not fighters or bombers. ultimately, while a stack of infantry was a suitable form of defense at first glance, any group of 5 or more German tanks including some fighters and bombers could slice and dice through any number of infantry you have.

You’re pretty much right with both India and Europe for the UK in how you should go about playing that.

As for the United States, I would highly disagree with ignoring the Pacific. When it comes to the 3 objectives you stated that America should strive to achieve, they at most want a suitable navy in the Atlantic, made up of an aircraft carrier, battleship, and 3 transports with some destroyers and a cruiser or two. They won’t have anything special, just enough to kill the Italian fleet. And along with that, some land units, enough to fill up 3 transports, to take into Africa. That right there is not a lot of money spent within the time length of 3 turns especially considering you already start off with some of those pieces I mentioned. Now granted, you will be prioritizing the Atlantic more than you will the Pacific but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to beat Japan in the carrier race either.

So assuming the Japanese are going to haul hog for the Pacific islands all the way to the Solomons and Wake Island, it’s going to be up to you as the U.S play to take back each island one at a time to slowly start dissolving the Japanese economy. You’ll ultimately be leaving Japan with that choice of whether to focus on the land or focus on the sea. Granted, it’s easy at first glance to take over China and take over India and take over the Money islands and all that junk as Japan only if the Americans don’t get involved. So they need to get involved.

@andrewaagamer

And yeah, I thought this was the case, I just wanted it to be confirmed that I was wrong or missing something about that. I can definitely understand that for ships since each ship gets a movement of two spaces but I feel like that rule maybe a little too stretched to apply to tanks. I feel like part of what makes tanks so important is their maneuverability and efficiency at getting from one place to another and if their movement stops even with one space left that just feels like a setup for which very few will look highly upon the unit as a whole.

@andrewaagamer said in [Allies strategy]

National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.

Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.

USSR: I disagree with buying fighters ever and armor early on. Infantry, and lots of it, is what saves Moscow. Later, once Germany has exhausted themselves, is time to start buying armor to threaten Japan. While armor is only a bit worse than infantry in this version infantry is still the better defensive buy and early on Russia is on the defense.

This is the 41 scenario. If you have no air units (you only need 1-2, nothing more than that), how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income? Doubly so since you advocate for playing with NOs turned on. If you just sit in Moscow all game, you’re never going to reach the point where Germany “exhausts itself” because they’ll have gotten rich off of Russian territory (specifically the 5 IPC bonuses from Karelia and Caucasus). Trading territories efficiently with Germany while the UK focuses on getting it’s navy going in the North is the only way to keep the game going long enough for the western allies to manage anything.

UK Europe: Clear the German Navy. Take Norway and, if Russia did not take it, Finland. Get a safe fleet with 4 transports into the Baltic and assist Russia in holding Karelia and make limited landings in NW Europe and Poland unless you can hit France than do that.

Landing in Karelia and Baltic states is also viable to deny Germany the factory and interrupt the flow of their reinforcements.

USA: Ignore the Pacific. Go 100% in the Atlantic. Mission 1, take back Africa. Mission 2, sink the Italian fleet. Mission 3, threaten France and Rome forcing the Axis to defend both heavily.

Easy Peasy

The flow here is fine and good but with 9 pressure Japan is just going to run the table on you. That being said, I do concede that how you play USA largely comes down to personal preference and how Germany and Japan are playing. If Germany is just building loads of INF and playing defensively, USA has the leeway to focus some of their attention on slowing down Japan, but if Germany is going all in after Moscow you should probably go 100% Europe to kill the European Axis quickly.

Overall agree with most of the points here, except for the USSR ftr build and the NO thing.

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

@andrewaagamer said in [Allies strategy]

National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.

Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.

I know you didn’t ask me but it’s America so I’ll answer anyway.

A baseline that I think should be established is the core difference between the Allied and Axis national objectives. As we know, the reason we deem the Axis as having such a huge advantage with NOs is because of how easily accessible their national objectives are. The Allies on the other hand are limited to very select few amount of national objectives that they’ll always have, with everything else lying at the top of the mountain, to put simply, not as easily accessible as the Axis National Objectives.

The Axis, mainly Germany, can and will get their National Objectives quickly. They already get one for controlling core territories, they get one for controlling at least 3 of the 5 given states of the USSR, and one for controlling Stalin/Leningrad, one or the other. Part of what makes these NOs so easy to get is their quick and easy accessibility and close proximity to Germany. However, that still resides as a weakness to the Germans. Germany can and will lose these national objectives just as fast as they will get them. The same can be said for the Italians and Japanese. This right here is the prime weakness that the Allies are very much capable of exploiting.

The Allies, while their national objectives are more beyond arm’s reach, there is one core difference that should be noted. One specific NO that belongs to the UK is to seize any originally controlled Japanese territory. Granted while you may not do it right away, once you get 3-5 turns into the game it’s likely that the British will have pushed the Japanese out of French Indo China or the Americans landing at practically any one of the core Japanese islands territories such as the Caroline Islands or Iwo Jima. Once the Japanese have lost either of these territories or even both for that matter they aren’t going to have the means nor the strength to take it back because they’re going to have many other things to focus on. The Soviet Union as well can be used as an example. Granted while their 10 IPC national will remain out of reach for quite a while, once Norway and Finland fall to the British, that leaves only one territory left for you to take in order to get that national objective at least once, leaving the Germans on a much more precarious and difficult predicament. This right here is the overall theme of the Allies’ NOs and playstyle, once you start to gain some traction as the Allies your National Objectives will kick in, and trust me when the Allies get the majority of their national objectives they seriously start snowballing.

So just because the Axis get theirs quicker doesn’t necessarily put them at an absolute advantage. The Germans will lose Leningrad just as fast as they took it and the Japanese will lose any one of the out-of-reach originally controlled territories from the impending British/American threat, because like I spoke of earlier, the Japanese have a vast and wide sphere of power for which they cannot protect all of it at once. Honestly, if anything the Allied National Objectives are better than the Axis National objectives.

@thedesertfox said in Allies strategy:

As for the USSR, this ultimately comes down to playstyle, but for me, I’ve experienced that tanks are what win you the game, not infantry, and not fighters or bombers. ultimately, while a stack of infantry was a suitable form of defense at first glance, any group of 5 or more German tanks including some fighters and bombers could slice and dice through any number of infantry you have.

Armor cost 5 and defend as a 3. Infantry costs 3 and defend as a 2. Thus, DFP per point = $1.5 for an infantry and $1.66 for an armor. In addition, I am getting more casualties per $ invested for infantry than I am for armor. 3 armor for $15 versus 5 infantry for $15. So, I am getting 65% more casualties buying infantry than I am buying armor. Statistically infantry are by far the better buy.

This can be confirmed by using a battle calculator very easily.

• 3 armor vs 3 armor = 45% win, 45% loss, 10% draw

• 3 armor vs 5 infantry = 15% win, 82% loss, 3 % draw

Therefore, early on, when Russia is on defense they should only buy infantry.

The stack of armor and fighters you mention is going to slice through an armor defense more than an infantry defense.

Again, I agree with you once the initial German attack has been blunted that the Russians should start building some armor. But, the initial defensive buys should be infantry.

@thedesertfox said in Allies strategy:

As for the United States, I would highly disagree with ignoring the Pacific. When it comes to the 3 objectives you stated that America should strive to achieve, they at most want a suitable navy in the Atlantic, made up of an aircraft carrier, battleship, and 3 transports with some destroyers and a cruiser or two. They won’t have anything special, just enough to kill the Italian fleet. And along with that, some land units, enough to fill up 3 transports, to take into Africa. That right there is not a lot of money spent within the time length of 3 turns especially considering you already start off with some of those pieces I mentioned. Now granted, you will be prioritizing the Atlantic more than you will the Pacific but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to beat Japan in the carrier race either.
So assuming the Japanese are going to haul hog for the Pacific islands all the way to the Solomons and Wake Island, it’s going to be up to you as the U.S play to take back each island one at a time to slowly start dissolving the Japanese economy. You’ll ultimately be leaving Japan with that choice of whether to focus on the land or focus on the sea. Granted, it’s easy at first glance to take over China and take over India and take over the Money islands and all that junk as Japan only if the Americans don’t get involved. So they need to get involved.

After J1, at most, the US is going to have (1) AC, (2) DD and (4) Fighters or a $70 Navy. Japan is going to most likely have (3) AC, (1) CA, (1) BB, (8) Fighters or a $154 Navy. With NOs, no later than Turn 3 Japan will be collecting $52 while the US is collecting $49, maybe $50. With the US collecting less money than the Japanese and behind by over $80 in fleet units it is impossible for the US to try and match the Japanese in naval units and commit any reasonable purchases against Europe which is far more important.

The key to winning as the Allies is to beat up Germany and Italy as quickly as possible as all three Allies can strike them whereas Japan, except for taking away British money, can not hurt anyone until they get near Moscow. It is who dies first, Rome and Berlin or Moscow that determines the game, not money in the Pacific.

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.

Sure, good question.

The real issue is early game, mid game, long game and very long game.

Early game the Axis have the advantage, no question. Germany moves into Russia, probably takes Karelia on Turn 2 for a Turn then holds their Eastern Front. Japan expands quickly taking India on Turn 3. UK holds Trans-Jordon and US takes Morocco.

Most likely NO production Turns 1-4: Axis advantage = $25

• Turn 1: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 10, UK 5, Italy 5, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20
• Turn 2: Germany 15, Russia 5, Japan 10, UK 5, Italy 5, USA 10 = Axis $30 vs Allies $20
• Turn 3: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20
• Turn 4: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20

Mid game there is not a lot of movement. Germany is static but likely will lose an NO around Turn 7 to 8. Japan can take Australia however that costs so much and puts the Japanese push against Moscow so behind I would call it a wash. If Japan does go for Australia, they can remove that NO but they lose at least 1 to 2 Turns against Moscow, so I am ignoring Australia in this example. Italy can’t get any and most likely Russia will get their $10 NO for at least one Turn and we will assume France holds against UK/US pressure. Money for the Axis starts greater than dries up.

Most likely NO production Turns 4-8: Axis advantage = $5
• Turn 5: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20
• Turn 6: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20
• Turn 7: Germany 10, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $25 vs Allies $20
• Turn 8: Germany 5, Russia 15, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $20 vs Allies $30

Long game Germany has to turtle but still is able to stop Russia from continuing to collect their NO as Russia has to turn and fight Japan. Rome, Balkans and France are in danger and France finally falls to the US via a 1-2 attack or an Axis pull out to defend Rome. Japan knocks at the doorstep of Moscow. There is a more likely chance that the Allies gain more money as Russia gets their $10 NO, or US/UK do via France and/or Balkans. This example, I think, is conservative for the Allies as they would likely earn more.

Most likely NO production Turns 9-12: Allies Advantage = $5
• Turn 5: Germany 5, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $20 vs Allies $20
• Turn 6: Germany 5, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $20 vs Allies $20
• Turn 7: Germany 5, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 10 = Axis $20 vs Allies $20
• Turn 8: Germany 5, Russia 5, Japan 15, UK 5, Italy 0, USA 15 = Axis $20 vs Allies $25

End Game Germany and Rome fall and Moscow falls. It is Japan against the Western Allies. The Allies control Europe while Japan controls all of Asia and the Pacific.

Allies Advantage = $15 (PER TURN)
• Germany 0, Russia 0, Japan 15, UK 15, Italy 0, US 15 = Axis $15 vs Allies $30

So, as you can see the Axis have an early advantage. This allows them to gain the initiative. However, quickly things settle down and it is even for most of the game until finally the Allies have a huge advantage.

Things to consider.
• While Germany has an advantage of $10 to Russia’s $5 since Germany is limited in production capability their additional money is not as useful as it is to Russia. Russia is buying infantry with their money. Germany is probably buying a fighter or upgrading infantry to armor.
• The real key for Germany is taking or/and holding Karelia. It is the key in Europe and due to a British fleet in the Baltic Germany can’t take and hold Karelia for long.
• For Russia that $10 NO is huge. They should get it at least once, twice is great and 3 times is WooHoo!
• Once the end game comes it is a huge advantage to the Allies having NOs.

With NO vs Without NO comparison:
The reason I say it is the same balanced game either way is because with NO’s Germany collects more money however due to the value of France they have to defend France at all costs. Thus, a bunch of troops are sitting idle in France, more than the money they got in NOs. Ironically without NOs Germany is able to project more power early on against Russia because they can send more infantry towards Russia.

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory? Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

In addition, there is only a 53% chance a single infantry + single fighter will take a territory defended by a single infantry. That means I am losing out on taking the territory just as much as I am taking it and it is costing me valuable infantry that defend far better than the German infantry that are attacking me. Paying $10 for something that most likely is going to lose me money doesn’t make sense.

No thanks. I am going to stack Karelia, Caucasus and Moscow and, thanks to logistics, wait till the Germans run of of steam and have to start pulling back because I outnumber them and UK/US are beating down their western door.

@andrewaagamer

Exactly as I thought before. See, I defintely see what you’re saying, it is absolutely clear that Japan starts off with a much bigger fleet then the United States but even so it’s better to build atleast something up then going in with absolutely nothing because as I’ve said before, the time will come for when you’re going to need to take down the rabid dog, and I’d personally like to do it with a little something to start with then absolutely nothing at all.

Now obviously from the beginning to mid-game, the United States won’t be in any position to take on the Japanese fleet, no questions asked. However, one thing I did discover is with the combined strength of a British task force in the Pacific, they can. This unfortunately is largely not possible due to the fact that Japan’s lightning attack on India is pretty much unstoppable. This is honestly why I much rather prefer the 42’ scenario because of the UK’s much better changes at placing a factory on India. Though without it, yes, ,you are correct. You’ll surely be outmatched by the opposing Japanese fleet without a task force.

Though with this I’m speaking from a personal experience that I’ve had playing against someone else. Yes, my American fleet was ultimately outnumbered when facing the Japanese fleet at the Philippines but with the British taskforce I mobilized made up of a couple of destroyers, 2 carriers and a battleship i was able to even those odds out, so it just all depends really, but from a technical stand point, you are correct.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory? Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

In terms of trading territories, from a technical standpoint, yes you would be correct. Trading 1 IPC territories wouldn’t be very cost-effective whatsoever. The only time I would see trading territories with Germany as being useful per se would be if it stopped a German National Objective.

Though alluding to the idea, I think what he’s trying to say here is when it comes to trading territories, it’s less about how much money you’re obtaining from it as a result and moreover how many German units you’re destroying each turn.

Ultimately, this is just a differing of play styles. You go about the wide and cheap angle of using infantry for defense, which there’s nothing wrong with that. All the same I, and I think Dom as well are more inclined to defend key areas and consistently find places to constantly counter-attack Germany in specific areas not just to slow their advance but to really make them prioritize on mobilizing a single unit that they’re running short on, for instance, tanks. And, from what it sounds like, to me it seems like both of these strategies would work just as effectively as the other so long as the Allies are doing their thing in Norway and North Africa.

@andrewaagamer

Oh… and also just one last thing, while I was a bit reluctant to believe in the effectiveness of the infantry stacking strategy, I definitely see what you’re talking about though now after a recent playtest as Japan…

To make a long story short, I was attacking with roughly 7 infantry, 3 tanks, and 3 planes and a bomber against a stack of 12 Chinese Infantry, and well, it was an absolute formality against the Japanese. Seriously, the number of hits the Chinese were scoring against the Japanese beyond astounded me. Maybe there was a bit of luck in the dice but on the first roll, the Chinese scored 6 hits killing almost all of the Japanese infantry.

@andrewaagamer Sorry. I asked you about NOs but we’ve actually argued back and forth about NOs in this thread before: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37197/putting-it-all-together-improving-allied-play/7

The tl;dr of that conversation is that NOs favor the axis but not in a game-breaking fashion. My opinion that playing without NOs is preferred has not changed since that time, but I don’t want to rehash the same multiple posts of discussion again.

Will reply to your point re: trading Russian territories separately.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory?

Because you kill at least one (sometimes two or three) $3 Germany Infantry and slow the German advance, which gives you more time for US/UK to get their fleets ready. You don’t need to swap every territory, just the ones on the critical path between the main German stack and Moscow. Even one or two good trades can be enough to delay the game for the one or two turns needed for the Allies to get their act together.

Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

Because if Germany is using their planes to attack Soviet territories, they can’t use them to attack the UK fleet as it builds up. Almost the entire UK fleet goes down (maybe at most, you get one SZ of units that survive) on G1. You need at least 2-3 rounds of builds before UK’s fleet is ready to start landing troops in Europe. If you’re drawing the German FTRs into Russia to help their trades, they can’t destroy your budding UK fleet before it’s 100% ready.

In addition, there is only a 53% chance a single infantry + single fighter will take a territory defended by a single infantry. That means I am losing out on taking the territory just as much as I am taking it and it is costing me valuable infantry that defend far better than the German infantry that are attacking me. Paying $10 for something that most likely is going to lose me money doesn’t make sense.

That statistic lacks context. This website’s calc and TripleA gave me:

1 INF, 1 Fig Vs. 1 Inf

A Survives: 90.5% D survives: 4.5%
Attacker Results:
52.82%: 1 Inf, 1 Fig
36.69%: 1 Fig
9.49%: no units

Defender Results:
4.48%: 1 Inf
95.52%: no units

I assume you got the “53%” figure from the percent chance that both the INF and the FTR survive, but even if both your and your opponent’s INF die, you still slowed their advance because Germany needs to put another unit in that position. Also, this only assumes 1 FTR. If you bring 2 FTRs, the odds improve to 61% chance the INF survives, 35.44% chance of both FTRs surviving.

No thanks. I am going to stack Karelia, Caucasus and Moscow and, thanks to logistics, wait till the Germans run of of steam and have to start pulling back because I outnumber them and UK/US are beating down their western door.

1.) Stacking Karelia is impossible. You can only build 2 units/turn there. Germany will take it with their overwhelming advantage on turn 2 no matter how many INF you try stacking there.

2.) Sitting in Moscow/Caucasus (and not at least East Ukraine/Belorussia) is a recipe for disaster. If Germany gets their main stack onto East Ukraine unopposed then they can threaten both Caucasus and Moscow simultaneously. This will force USSR to abandon Caucasus for Moscow, as attempting to defend both evenly would result in Germany walking into Moscow easily. Once Germany walks into Caucasus, USSR’s economy collapses and (especially in your version of the game where NOs are turned-on) Germany’s income explodes to such a level that the Western Allies no longer have any hope of taking France.

That being said, I believe that the reason you feel obligated to sit and do nothing as USSR because you insist on playing with NOs on (which gives Germany a massive local income advantage over the Soviets and actively discourages US/UK from playing the game correctly by landing troops in Karelia/Baltic States). Thus, you feel like the only way to play the Allies is to land in France while Russia sits and waits for the Germans to (hopefully) reach a point where they can no longer send 100% of their build towards Moscow.

Perhaps I have not been clear enough in my statements. I am not saying to buy only infantry. I am saying not to buy planes at all and to limit the amount of armor you buy to a minimum needed for counter attacking a major push by the Germans. You can’t stop the Germans from taking territory lightly but you do want to stop them from taking Karelia or Caucasus heavy and holding them.

You do not want to trade $1 territories. That is a losing battle for Russia. You do want to keep Germany from taking and holding Karelia or the Caucasus. If Russia has large stacks of infantry, with a few artillery and a few tanks, Germany does not have the ground forces to move in and hold Karelia or the Caucasus. The real danger Turns are 1-4 to 1-5. After that Russia starts pushing back and more armor purchases at that point are warranted.

I would say R1 is a 2 armor, 2 artillery and 4 infantry build to give Russia a counter attack force. After that all infantry and 1 armor a Turn until there is enough infantry on hand to start pushing back. By the beginning of R5 that would give Russia 6 armor, 4 artillery and a ton of infantry to start pushing Germany back.

• Start = 1 armor
• Turn 1 = 2 armor
• Turn 2 = 1 armor
• Turn 3 = 1 armor
• Turn 4 = 1 armor
• Therefore, Turn 5 starts with 6 armor

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory?

Because you kill at least one (sometimes two or three) $3 Germany Infantry and slow the German advance, which gives you more time for US/UK to get their fleets ready. You don’t need to swap every territory, just the ones on the critical path between the main German stack and Moscow. Even one or two good trades can be enough to delay the game for the one or two turns needed for the Allies to get their act together.

At what cost? 2,3 or 4 Russian infantry? Even at 1 to 1 exchange odds that is a bad deal for the Russians as the Russian infantry defends as a 2 while the German infantry attack as a 1.

Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

Because if Germany is using their planes to attack Soviet territories, they can’t use them to attack the UK fleet as it builds up. Almost the entire UK fleet goes down (maybe at most, you get one SZ of units that survive) on G1. You need at least 2-3 rounds of builds before UK’s fleet is ready to start landing troops in Europe. If you’re drawing the German FTRs into Russia to help their trades, they can’t destroy your budding UK fleet before it’s 100% ready.

Looking at the board the Germans can still hit the Baltic and hit Russian land troops. That is all that matters.

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

In addition, there is only a 53% chance a single infantry + single fighter will take a territory defended by a single infantry. That means I am losing out on taking the territory just as much as I am taking it and it is costing me valuable infantry that defend far better than the German infantry that are attacking me. Paying $10 for something that most likely is going to lose me money doesn’t make sense.

That statistic lacks context. This website’s calc and TripleA gave me:
1 INF, 1 Fig Vs. 1 Inf
A Survives: 90.5% D survives: 4.5%
Attacker Results:
52.82%: 1 Inf, 1 Fig
36.69%: 1 Fig
9.49%: no units
Defender Results:
4.48%: 1 Inf
95.52%: no units
I assume you got the “53%” figure from the percent chance that both the INF and the FTR survive, but even if both your and your opponent’s INF die, you still slowed their advance because Germany needs to put another unit in that position. Also, this only assumes 1 FTR. If you bring 2 FTRs, the odds improve to 61% chance the INF survives, 35.44% chance of both FTRs surviving.

Correct. I said a 53% to TAKE the territory. You said trade territories with Germany which implies taking the territory.

1.) Stacking Karelia is impossible. You can only build 2 units/turn there. Germany will take it with their overwhelming advantage on turn 2 no matter how many INF you try stacking there.

I disagree. Germany can take it on G2 but they cannot hold it and then Russia can move in in force on R2 making a G3 attack a questionable move. Assuming a heavy German push on G1, on average, Germany can get 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 armor, 4 fighters and 1 bomber against Karelia. As Russia can only get 9 infantries, 1 artillery, 1 armor and 1 AA gun Russia has to pull out. However, on G2 Germany can only move in 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 armor to take and try to hold it. Russia can hit that force with 12 infantries, 2 artillery and 3 armor which means Germany has to go light or be annihilated. Then Russia takes it on R3 and holds it. If Germany goes extra hard it may require British units to also help defend which removes the Russian NO but the Russians will be pushing in the south and getting their other much larger NO.

2.) Sitting in Moscow/Caucasus (and not at least East Ukraine/Belorussia) is a recipe for disaster. If Germany gets their main stack onto East Ukraine unopposed then they can threaten both Caucasus and Moscow simultaneously. This will force USSR to abandon Caucasus for Moscow, as attempting to defend both evenly would result in Germany walking into Moscow easily. Once Germany walks into Caucasus, USSR’s economy collapses and (especially in your version of the game where NOs are turned-on) Germany’s income explodes to such a level that the Western Allies no longer have any hope of taking France.

Losing the Caucasus for one Turn is not a game loser. Losing it the entire game is. Germany cannot take and hold Caucasus; they just do not have the ground troops for it. If they are going for Karelia they are not going for Caucasus and vice versa. I am okay trading, worst case, Karelia and/or Caucasus for one or two Turns, as long as the Germans cannot move in heavy and hold it.

@andrewaagamer

To me Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia feel like “No Man’s Land” if you know what I mean. Eastern Poland for Germany is often what I would consider the base of operations for the Axis since any and all units on E. Poland can reach anywhere in the Soviet Union. All the same should either the Russians or the Germans enter into Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine it will make countering that with a consolidated force from either side all too easy.

One more thing, Germany starts with 6 tanks, taking all 6 of their tanks and hauling ass for Leningrad would be a rookie mistake and would very soundly hand the win to the Soviet Union, yet all the same that’s not going to stop the Germans from going heavy on it either.