The US in the Pacific? NO WAY!!!

TM Moses VII:

Although his numbers are off, the transport strategy Anon is talking about is key to understanding why the Allies can win 90% of games without some kind of house rule to fix the imbalance, such as bidding for Axis.

I’ll address your concerns one point at a time:

You strategy calls for an initial investment of 100 IPCs (3 turns based on average US capita) with an upkeep of 30 IPCs per turn. 40 for the 5 transports, 10 for the first set of infantry, and 10 for the additional set. What else will you be doing the first three turns?

Nothing. That’s the point - the key to a swift victory is ignoring Japan as much as possible and focusing completely on transporting troops to Germany. I’ll give you a typical purchasing scenario at the end of this post.

You mentioned Norway as the first landing point. By landing at Norway, I can assume this is done merely to reinforce Russian positions…. Think of where Japan will be after eight turns.

‘Merely’ reinforcing Russian positions is how the Allies win 90% of games, and it’s why you can make bold statements such as Germany can NEVER take Karelia against a good Allied player. The key to the whole war is the battle between Germany and Russia on the eastern front, and with the US, UK, and Russia adding troops to Karelia every turn Germany can’t win. The big build up you are talking about will look something like this: Germany has 30 Inf in EE, Russia has 30 Inf in Karelia, the US has 20 Inf in Karelia, and the UK has 20 inf in Karelia. You are right to worry about Japan, though, because it is a race - you have to take Germany before they can take Russia. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Allies can win the race most of the time.

Second is the invasion of Western Europe…

First, let me assure you that nowhere in this strategy are there any risky attacks that don’t make tactical sense. The key to taking Western Europe is the one-two-three punch of UK/US/Russia (landing planes when there is enough infantry) before Germany takes it’s turn. That is the same key to taking EE and then Germany. It doesn’t matter if Germany takes WE back, because you can take it again the next round, repeating the cycle. Germany is forced to fight two fronts and EE will fall shortly thereafter.

Additional problems loom large. How will you manage to defend your 5 transports? As the German player I can launch a devastating assault of 4 fighters and 1 bomber to claim victory 98% of the time – 60% of the time I will lose only 1 fighter.

You assume there is no protection for the transports. Defending the transports is easy - the UK and your battleship protect them, see the build below. Launching the German air force into the Allied navy is suicide.

Another problem also arises: What about Hawaii? Will you counterattack at Hawaii or let the Japanese task force run rampant?

You don’t counterattack at Hawaii for the reasons you stated. Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.

The hardest part of playing the US well is dealing with harassments by Japan with minimal interruption of your infantry chain. However, it it still pretty easy to do. How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens. I continue to place them in W-US from then on. You move the infantry to Western Canada, then Eastern Canada. This breaks the chain for one turn only, and from then on you have 10 infantry in W-US and WC every turn, which shuts down any minor Japanese threat.

The third issue with Japan is how to stop them before they reach critical mass. With all forces going to Germany, Japan can freely devote all its resources to Asia. Though Japan also suffers from supply line difficulties, it enjoys the benefit of having a huge air fleet at the beginning of the game.

This is a very good point, and why I keep saying it is a race. You don’t have to ‘stop’ Japan, you have to outpace them and knock out Germany, and then it’s 3 on 1 if Japan wants to even play it out. Russia just has to stall Japan until Germany falls. They can do it with the help of the Allies, because once the Allied troops are in Karelia Russia can focus more on Japan. Anything but a minor effort in the Pacific from Japan and Russia will never fall.

Builds vary depending on what rules you are using - here is a rough outline for the CD-ROM game:

US1 - build 2 transports and 3 infantry
US2 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US3 - build 1 transport, rest infantry
US4 - build all infantry

The UK protects the US fleet with an Aircraft Carrie and a bunch of transports. Also, the US Battleship from Western USA will be on the US East coast on Turn 2 and in the North Sea on turn 3.

I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!

There’s a good reason why people who haven’t tried this strategy have a hard time accepting it. That is because on paper, a balanced strategy makes more sense, so all of your logic in defending a two theatre war is sound. But in actual practice, Crushing Germany turns out to be a much better strategy.

Think of it as a cheat in a video game, like “hey, watch this - instead of doing what you’re supposed to do, you can do this instead and win every time.”

If you do play the CD-Rom version, I’d be happy to meet with you (or anyone else who wants to learn) in the Zone and help you out. My e-mail address is jg2_ansbach@yahoo.com.

There is also an old set of articles at the website below that will help. They are a bit outdated with some of the new rules changes and stratagies, but the overall concept is still sound.

http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-14 12:12 ]

Iz havin sum trubl folwn sum o yorn diskushin! I downt know al dees abreffyashuns. I’m kinda new at writn al dis out. What’s ATF? Africa Takeback First? And what’s BFE (I think that was it.)?

SORRY! Just having some fun.
How about giving the long form after the initials the first time they are used in a forum?

It seems the more I play, the less I see Germany taking Karelia, nor should I think they should. No doubt, taking Karelia is great. This gives you a tremendous benefit since Russia is now force to defend its capital and neglect three Southern territories (9 IPCs). However, the amount of self-sacrifice this requires is enormous; often Germany can take Russia but lose out due to its inability to protect Germany itself.

Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.

Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.

This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.

You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion. If I already know that the Germans will not be foolish enough to throw everything they have in a last ditch offensive to take Karelia, which would result in defeat 50% of the time, then I would better use my IPCs on the Pacific or on bombers (read post on Strategic Bombing).

Your Western Europe response is a little vague. But for all matters concerning, lets say for America you have 5 transports and for UK 5 transports with 1 fighter and 1 bomber committed to each battle. Now as the Axis player I can calculate the odds and find out for that if want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry (45 IPCs) and two planes preexisting at the start of the game. For the first invasion I calculate that the Britain will lose 100% of the time with the Axis 83% losing between 2-7 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (21%) as the most likely candidate.

On America’s turn, she makes her invasion. Again the Axis will win 92% of the time. 70% of the time, Germany will lose between 3-8 infantry. I will use 5 infantry lost (13.3%) again as the most likely candidate. This means for all intensive purposes, the Allies would’ve wasted 60 IPCs on infantry (114 IPCs if you also factor in the aircraft), with the Germans at a scant 30 IPCs. This begs the question, where is Russia to land? On the following turn, I can replace most of my causalities.

#4, “You assume there is no protection for the transports.”

I assume that no protection for transports will be made since none have been mentioned in the previous topic.

#5, “Rush the Battleship through the Panama Canal to help protect the Atlantic fleet.”

How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.

#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”

By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.

#7,

I can only assume with you get Germany first scenario that you’re going straight toward knocking Germany out of the game at all cost. Now if you are the one who also likes to focus a little on Japan (ie moving forces from Karelia to the Far East), then it is a move toward my camp.

#8, “I don’t want to give too much away because half of the fun is developing the strategy yourself!”

I can’t disagree with this. A big problem a see nowadays with veteran Axis and Allies players is the lack of innovation where it should be the other way around. Players seem to forget how powerful surprise is and making your opponent second-guess your actions. I’m sure if I revealed my Allied German-Japan strategy, appropriate countermeasures could also be preformed. However, since concepts of my strategy are based around ATB and VATB, I can always keep my opponent on his toes and unsure where I’ll strike next. :smile:

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-14 20:51 ]

Sorry Xi, I should really went more in depth in explaining ATB and its cousin VATB. Well ATB quite literally means, “Active Time Battle” with VATB representing “Variable Active Time Battle.” The background from ATB stems back from this gaming parlor my brother and I would go to. It is based on the theory of time management. If I am able to perform more actions than my opponent within a given set of time, then my chances of victory increases dramatically. VATB, however, is a much newer design that incorporates ATB into the economy. What it is saying is that if the battlefield changes dramatically than I am able to make the changes appropriately to match the new environment instead managing my economy in a paper-conformist attitude.

I can go back and forth explaining specific situations all day, and honestly, I don’t mind if I’m helping others improve their play. That’s one of the reasons I post on this board. However, don’t get distracted by small, individual tactics - keep your main focus on the overall strategy: the Allies can overwhelm Germany with pure numbers and there is NOTHING Germany can do about it! If you’re like me you will probably have to see it for yourself in action before you truly accept it. Then, if you’re really like me, after the first beating you will say “OK - now I know how to stop it” and try something else, and so on… and it will be several games later before you truly accept it. :smile:

There are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia, thereby increasing pressure against Germany: Catch-22. The common solution is to use house rules that bolster the Axis.

OK, here goes…

Now, the German first strategy is nothing new. And I feel the best countermeasure Germany can put up against it is to go purely defensive instead of brash series of gambits. By resisting stubbornly, I can buy time not for myself, but time for Japan to reach critical mass. What this means is that Japan is in position where it dominates the Pacific, all of Asia excluding the Russian capital, and a strong foothold in Africa. I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game.

That’s correct and you’re off to a good start - Germany has to play defensive until Japan takes Russia. (However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)

Now the strategy I intend to use puts pressure on both Germany and Japan. For Germany, I can consider myself successful if I can isolate them to Eastern Europe and westward. All avenues including North Africa, Norway, and Ukraine should be cut off. What this does is keeps Germany in a position where it is still formidable, but not strong enough to conduct any sort of offensive in the Russo-Prussia Front.

This policy leaves me with extra IPCs from a full-blown offensive that I think will be better used in the Pacific. What this does is contain Germany in Europe and prevent the Japanese from reaching critical mass. When this happens, a stalemate is achieved where the Allies can then use its superior economy and strategic bombing to ride it out.

Developing new strategies is great – maybe yours will be the breakthrough strategy that proves all of us wrong, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I’m sure many of us would be interested in helping you flesh it out. Maybe you should start a thread with your ideas? If you do, be sure to put in your first post that you just want help developing the current strategy to it’s full potential – otherwise you will just get a bunch of people telling you not going Crush Germany is a huge mistake.

You mentioned landing troops in Russia simply as a move to reinforce them. I would agree with you. If I see Russia in dire straits, then I will funnel troops that would be normally sent to Africa to relieve this burden. However, you 20/20 tactic calls for a little too much “excessive force” in my opinion…

It’s the other way around - If you see Africa in dire straits, funnel troops that would normally be sent to Russia.

Allied troops in Russia do three things: they reinforce Karelia against Germany, they free up Russian infantry to be used vs. Japan, and they can take Eastern Europe. The game is won or lost in the battle for Eastern Europe, which means you can’t have excessive forces in Karelia – as soon as you do, you can take Eastern Europe (see below).

Your Western Europe response is a little vague… if I want an impenetrable fortress I can commit 15 infantry and two planes preexisting at the start of the game… Britain will lose 100% of the time…

Once again, let me assure you that there are no bad attacks in this strategy, and I mention this again to save you the effort you are spending in calculating battle odds for bad Allied attacks. Ignore the specific numbers and look at the concept instead.

15 infantry and 2 planes are a solid defense, and with those numbers Western Europe won’t be attacked. Trying to get those numbers while still protecting Germany and Eastern Europe at the same time is the difficult part. You also have to have 15 infantry and 2 planes in Germany to protect against the same assualt. Now look at Eastern Europe, and let’s say I have 30/15/15 R/UK/US infantry in Karelia. The UK can hit EE with 23 infantry (15+8 from the transport) and say, 1 tank, 1 bomber and 2 fighters. Then the US can hit EE with 25 infantry (15+10), 1 or 2 bombers, maybe a tank, and two fighters. Then the Russians can hit EE with 30 infantry, 3 tanks, and 2 planes. So now you get out the odds calculator and find out how many infantry and fighters you have to have to survive all three attacks, and then add that to the 30 infantry and 4 fighters in WE and G. You get the idea. But, like I said earlier - ignore the actual numbers themselves - you would be missing the point. They are just an example meant to convey the strategic concept, exact numbers would be impossible to determine until you get to that phase of the game anyway. The point is that Germany has to defend all three countries at once against odds that get worse every turn. Even if we leave Russia completely out of the picture (let’s say they are wrapped up in fighting Japan by this point), there are 18 new Allied infantry moving into Karelia each turn! As you can see it’s only a matter of time before the German player is forced to give up Eastern Europe and retreat to Germany. That only delays the inevitable, however – you will still have 18+ allied troops moving into Eastern Europe each turn.

How exactly am I able to rush my battleship in Western USA to the Atlantic? You mentioned going through the Panama Canal. Unless I am wrong (and please correct me if I am), the Panama Canal is considered two separate sea zones – the Gulf of Panama and the Caribbean Sea. That would mean the furthest I could penetrate with my American battleship is from the E. Central Pacific to the Gulf of Panama. This offers me no strategic or movement advantage whatsoever compared to the Japanese fleet stationed at Hawaii and within striking distance. Without any supporting aircraft, the American fleet at Western USA is doomed.

US1 – Move the battleship to the Gulf of Panama.
US2 – Move the battleship to the USA Atlantic, protecting any transports purchased from a german bomber in WE.
US3 – Move the battleship to the North Sea, protecting the Allied fleet.

The US shouldn’t hit the Japanese fleet in Hawaii unless it is severely damaged from the previous battle, and even then it’s not a great idea. The only thing that is doomed is the American transport.

#6, “How I personally handle it is by placing my 10 infantry in Western US instead of Eastern the first time Japan threatens.”

By doing so, you are actually helping the Axis win. This in turn slows down your transport armada by one turn allowing Germany some breathing space since it now takes two turns for your infantry to reach Eastern Canada. As for Japan, the lost turn is hardly felt since I will usually threaten Western USA from Alaska. If USA takes the bait and places, I will load my troops from Alaska back onto the transports and proceed to unload at Manchuria. Then on the following turn, my transports are free to carry more infantry.

That is the one turn gap I told you about. There is no ‘bait’ for the US to take – they HAVE to build in Western USA. It is a vital Japanese strategy. However, “helping the Axis to win” is an exaggeration - “giving Germany one more turn to live” is more accurate. One extra turn is not enough for the Axis; you have to distract the US elsewhere as well later in the game.

As for ATB/VATB - you would probably be interested in the Eight Maxims of Strategy by Hart, which apply to A&A very nicely. I will try to post them in a thread soon.

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-15 14:02 ]

I would love to discuss this subject matter for to the light of day. You remarked that I wouldn’t see the greatness of All Power to Germany, until I witnessed it myself. The problem is that I have, many, many times. All Power to Germany is not a new strategy or a very innovative one at that – nor does it mean instant victory. There is something to be said about coming up with you own unique playing style in a field dominated by norms. Now some people are content with consistency, so I really wouldn’t know.

Now you say that Germany can do nothing about an Allied invasion. I feel that this is untrue, as Germany can still accomplish a whole lot. On the first turn, Germany can hamper an Allied assault by UK through the total destruction of the navy. On the following turns, I can consolidate my gains in Africa as well as Eastern Europe. The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn.

Now you said that there are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia. I really don’t understand what you mean by “few things,” either by sending planes to Germany or what? I always came to understand that the greatest way to help out Germany is by hurting Russia. So by increasing pressure on Russia, I am in fact relieving pressure from Germany by forcing Russia to defend her home boundaries. Now the way GGF (Get Germany First) sounds, I will constantly be forced to send troops to Europe no matter what. So would I continue sending forces against Germany even though Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia?

“(However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)”

In this quote you attacked my idea that Germany will hold Eastern European. However, if you had examined my quote a little harder, you would notice,”…I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game. “ See how I said keep the Allies “at” Eastern Europe. So I am assuming that the Allies will indeed retake Germany.

“Not going Crush Germany is a huge mistake.”

Again, I would agree with this, though my strategy takes things a little differently. Rather than risking huge causalities for victory, which was Russia strategy for much of the World War, I instead propose to let Germany to wither on the vine. Germany will still be crushed, but not until the proper preparations are made so that I don’t face a backlash from the Japanese when all my forces are stationed in Europe.

Regarding Western Europe, the reason why I used 5 transports was because that was what aforementioned post stated. I too believe in no poorly planned attacks by the Allies, but by striking Western Europe with such a limited task force, that is what I am expecting. Will that mean Western Europe won’t be liberated? I really don’t know. The reason why I used 15 infantry and 2 planes for Germany was to represent a worst-case scenario. Mind you Western Europe will still be defended, though to a different degree. There are still 4-5 planes Germany controls near the start of the game.

Now the defeat of Germany is inevitable. But the number of turns this would require is the winning difference for the Axis. I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia. Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.

The battleship movement is also slightly flawed. First, this movement expects that the Japanese fleet will not go after the American fleet the following turn. Second, this movement assumes that Japan cannot launch fighters from its aircraft carrier to intercept the battleship. Now normally at Hawaii I will lose 1-2 units. On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.

I would love to discuss this subject matter for to the light of day. You remarked that I wouldn’t see the greatness of All Power to Germany, until I witnessed it myself. The problem is that I have, many, many times. All Power to Germany is not a new strategy or a very innovative one at that – nor does it mean instant victory. There is something to be said about coming up with you own unique playing style in a field dominated by norms. Now some people are content with consistency, so I really wouldn’t know.

Now you say that Germany can do nothing about an Allied invasion. I feel that this is untrue, as Germany can still accomplish a whole lot. On the first turn, Germany can hamper an Allied assault by UK through the total destruction of the navy. On the following turns, I can consolidate my gains in Africa as well as Eastern Europe. The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn.

I agree with this for the most part. I also don’t doubt your experience. Many of your previous questions seem to indicate that you haven’t been playing against advanced Allied players, which is why I am under the impression that you haven’t seen the Crush Germany strategy played to it’s full potential - but I most certainly could be wrong, all I have to go on is what you have posted. Also, that is not at all an ‘attack’ on you or your opponents - I know that tone doesn’t come across on the Internet, so understand that I am only trying to help and I don’t mean anything negative in any way!

Also, I am curious as to what rules you play with and who you typically play against? I noticed you don’t use 2-hit battleships, so maybe you are playing 2nd edition. What about Russia Restricted, submerging, stuff like that? Those factors can make a world of difference.

Now you said that there are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia. I really don’t understand what you mean by “few things,” either by sending planes to Germany or what? I always came to understand that the greatest way to help out Germany is by hurting Russia. So by increasing pressure on Russia, I am in fact relieving pressure from Germany by forcing Russia to defend her home boundaries.

You are exactly right. As I said in the original post, Japan has one job to do: take Russia before Germany falls. The ‘few things’ I alluded to are some minor and/or advanced Japanese strategies, such as landing in Alaska, sending the fleet around South America to threaten Brazil/South Africa, sending the Japanese Fleet west in the mid-game, etc. The specifics are worthy of entirely new posts, so I wasn’t going to get into the details of them. The important thing about all of these strategies is that they must take away as little momentum as possible from Japan’s assault on Russia.

Now the way GGF (Get Germany First) sounds, I will constantly be forced to send troops to Europe no matter what. So would I continue sending forces against Germany even though Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia?

That is correct, you send all of your troops to Europe (or occasionally Africa) no matter what – because Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia. The Allies can defend Russia from the west much easier than from the east. All the Allied troops in Karelia allow Russia to divert forces from Karelia to defend Russia, and if things are looking grim the Allies can move troops into Russia as well.

“(However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)”

In this quote you attacked my idea that Germany will hold Eastern European. However, if you had examined my quote a little harder, you would notice,”…I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game. “ See how I said keep the Allies “at” Eastern Europe. So I am assuming that the Allies will indeed retake Germany.

My mistake, although I’m not trying to ‘attack’ any of your ideas!

Now the defeat of Germany is inevitable. But the number of turns this would require is the winning difference for the Axis. I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia. Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.

Yes, the number of turns Germany can survive is the winning difference for the Axis, but Japan has to take Russia BEFORE Germany falls. To be more accurate, Japan actually has to take Russia about two or three turns before Germany would have fallen, then prevent Germany from falling by putting pressure on the Allies from Russia. Japan cannot win a 3 on 1 game, no matter how out of control they are.

The battleship movement is also slightly flawed. First, this movement expects that the Japanese fleet will not go after the American fleet the following turn. Second, this movement assumes that Japan cannot launch fighters from its aircraft carrier to intercept the battleship. Now normally at Hawaii I will lose 1-2 units. On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.

I think the other guy covered this for 1-hit battleships, and it’s even worse for the Japanese fighters with the 2-hit battleships that most people play with now. I’ll also steal a quote from those advanced strategy essays I told you about:

Ignore any Japanese fleet in the Pacific. Move ALL surviving U.S. fleet through the Panama canal to assist and support the “shuck-shuck” transports in the Atlantic. If the Japanese player wants to take out your Battleship and Transport near Panama, fine…too bad for the Japanese; their fleet is now at least TWO TURNS out of position, effectively eliminating them as an early useful force in the game. This is a sucker move, and it will cause Axis death that much earlier.

To all: I can’t stress the value you will get from reading those essays enough! Players really need to fully understand the concepts of infantry pushes, the ‘shuck-shuck’ strategy, and especially dead zones before they will be able to develop strategies feasible against advanced players under the standard rules.

Here’s the website again for those of you who missed it:

http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

To TM Moses VII, maybe you have already read them and just don’t agree with them – nothing wrong with that. Maybe you know all of those concepts by different names through experience. Maybe you are only playing with your own circle of friends and don’t have to create strategies that will beat advanced players – just ones’ that will beat your friends. Maybe you put more value on developing unique strategies than perfecting existing ones – nothing wrong with that either.

This thread took a right-hand turn because we noticed you were making some strategy assumptions based on poor Allied play, and you seem to be unfamiliar with the specifics of some advanced allied tactics. That is not a personal attack on you by any means – I’m certainly not familiar with every advanced tactic myself, and I don’t know if you’ve played 5 games or 5000. Our discussion is really only on advanced Allied strategy – you are preaching to the choir about developing new strategy - everyone’s all for it. The original intention of this thread was to help improve the play of beginning and intermediate players, not to debate the value of new strategies. I’m genuinely interested in your ideas for a ‘balanced attack’ strategy – let’s all toss around ideas and see how much we can do with it!

However, all that having been said, the only strategies of value to many of us are the ones that are based on the advanced play concepts that have been proven effective over the years. Hundreds of players have already walked the path in front of you. There is nothing wrong with developing a unique playing style, but to misquote Bismark – your skill will evolve much faster if you learn from other people’s mistakes instead of your own.

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:02 ]

Actually, I sort of play against TM Moses so rest assured there is quite the advanced challenge to the game.

1. Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
   a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
   b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
   c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
   d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
   e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
   f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies. :wink:

2. I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.

3. Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.

4. I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.

1. Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies.

If by ‘large chance’ you mean Japan has say, a 20% chance of winning I might buy it, but otherwise we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What you have described sounds more like the optimal situation for Japan that presents the only way they would have a chance of winning – I certainly wouldn’t consider it the norm. I know what you mean about the former Russian territories being worthless, but it usually only applies to Karelia, Caucasus, and Ukraine. Maybe I’m the only one, but I seem to always wind up taking EE and Germany with the UK or more often the US – it’s rarely with Russia. If the game is that close, most of my Russian troops are in Russia. Usually the Japan player just throws in the towel, so I don’t think that too many are played out to begin with.

2. I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships, as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.

You may be right, but in my A&A world (which is mostly online play, Spring1942, the zone, and my circle of friends) they do. I know that the IAAPA still uses 2nd Edition rules…

3. Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.

Don’s quote, not mine. I think he’s talking about the fighters being out of position, i.e. they would be better used pushing the assault in the mainland. Not to mention the fact that you will probably lose both planes – even with 1-hit battleships it’s an attack with bad odds. If the US brings a transport from the East Coast then Japan has about a 60% chance of losing both fighters. I’ve seen people do it anyway to force the US to build another capital ship and you can always get lucky, but I personally think the 2 Fighters are more valuable to Japan then the Battleship is to the US. It’s just a bad move anyway you look at it. He could also be talking about swinging the fleet around South America.

4. I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.

I’m sure you meant not perfect, and I agree with you 100% - they are somewhat antiquated, a little overzealous – especially about “use these opening moves or you will lose”, and the infantry buildup game is certainly the most boring strategy in A&A – but it does still give the Allies the best chance of winning, and the basic concepts are extremely valuable to beginning and intermediate players.

---

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truly counts” –

I like the quote! I’m a big fan of WWII and WWI air combat. I am lucky enough to have one of the largest private libraries on WWI aviation about 5 minutes from my house, at the University of Texas at Dallas.

“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 12:20 ]

:lol:

According to Don, by participating in the Panama air combat raid at 15ft on the Battleship, I am somewhat abusing the use of my fighters, which should be used in Asia. So I can understand where he’s coming from. However, the simple thought of letting 24 IPCs slip away from my fingers is just too much for Japan to reconsider. Plus the delay is not as great as expected. On the third turn my aircraft laden carrier can return to Wake Island, where upon I can launch my ftrs to reach almost any location Asia in my non-combat phase. However, with ATB, this is still considered wasted effort under the part of my fighters. If you want to somewhat make up for the difference, you can invade Hawaii on the return trip.

As for the Japanese turn, that is the ideal situation, which I stated above. Usually this doesn’t happen much, but when it does, the Allies are in for a world of hurt. Generally I can take Russia before the fall of Germany with Japan and sometimes even relieve the Germans.

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts” -

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-17 20:50 ]

BTW, That’s highly intelligent of you to recognize those two quotes. I’m sure anyone with the slightest knowledge of WWII air combat would know who Adolf Galland is. And for no small matter – the youngest fighter general in history. However, the second quote was much more ambiguous. But again, who doesn’t know the Red Baron and his Flying Circus? My favorite fighter is the famed Erich Hartmann, a strict Me-109 advocate and one of the few to oust Adolf in the kills category.

However, a much less secular view has emerged from which I can also accredit to Galland.
“Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall success of the group….The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself.” - Letter to Adolf’s brother Wilhelm - January 1943.

Not intelligent of me - just my main interest!

Here is the first thing I always bring up: Ever read this book?

War in the Air : True Accounts of the 2Oth Century’s Most Dramatic Air Battles by the Men Who Fought Them - Stephen Coonts (edited it)

These are the most incredible stories you have ever read, about 20 short stories from WWI all the way through Vietnam!

If you haven’t, trust me - quit reading this post and go order it from Amazon right now!!!

My favorite pilot is probably Boelcke, just for the fact that he was the pioneer of it all - the original fighter pilot.

His gravesite even had a wreath with the inscription: “To the memory of Captain Boelcke. Our brave and chivalrous opponent. From The British Royal Flying Corps”.

“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:33 ]

When it comes to air combat, I usually stick to pre-Vietnam War. And let me tell you why. “There is something inherently compelling about the image of lone airmen matching wits and the performance of their respective aircraft in a one-on-one duel – modern warfare’s last throwback to a form of combat predating Homer’s Iliad, now rapidly vanishing into the smoke left by radar-guided air-to-air missiles.” The missiles say it all. With missiles, fights begin to lean a lot more to the machine then they do to the man. Furthermore, air combat has evolved into a much larger based conflict with squadron-based tactics. I am in now way degrading today’s air force though, as the America’s Air Force is the World Finest with an average kill ratio of 12 to 1 - if not higher.

War in the Air: True Accounts of the 2Oth Century’s Most Dramatic Air Battles by the Men Who Fought Them? I think I’ll check this one out. The majority of my fighter information comes from the library, so I’ll be sure to drop by there sometime soon to check if they have in stock. (Don’t blame me, I’m just a reader on a budget). I would also like to suggest “Battles with the Luftwaffe: The Bomber Campaign Against Germany 1942-1945” by Theo Boiten and Martin Bowman. A sincerely interesting read detailing the dramatics, dynamics, and daily running of the gauntlet that our brave Allied airman had to partake on a daily basis.

I’m sure you can find War in the Air at the library. I’m right there with you on pre-vietnam - I think there’s only one or two Vietnam stories and they are about Huey pilots - those guys had balls as big as any fighter pilot!

I don’t want to spoil any of the stories, but just to give you a sneak preview - one of them was written by a british pilot, and the last part of the story was about him limping home over the channel on his own after a bad dog fight, I think in a Hurricane. A ME-109 saw him, came up behind him, took his time lining up on him (he couldn’t manuver) and then let loose. It didn’t bring him down. The german pilot pulled up beside him, surveyed the damage to the Hurricane, then fell back behind him and did it again. It still didn’t bring the Hurricane down. I think the german pilot repeated the whole process 3 or 4 times, but the Hurricane wouldn’t go down. The german finally pulled up beside him, saluted him, and then took off. The guy made it back to base! They counted the bullet-holes in his plane and it was in the hundreds!

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:49 ]

I have a great deal of respect for bomber crews, probably more so then fighter pilots. If I was piloting a P-51 Mustang and found myself outnumbered 10 to 1 by Me-109s and Fw-190s, I could just go full throttle and out fly them. Obviously for big bombers, this is certainly not the case. Imagine the nerve wrecking experience of seeing flak (and in Vietnam SAMs) blanketing the sky for many miles but having no other alternative then to fly through it. If that isn’t enough to knock the socks right off you, you still have to deal against nimble enemy interceptors willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the homeland. The only real advantage I see with bombers is really the fact that if you’re hit, at least you won’t die alone. :sad:

My grandfather would be glad to hear you say that - he’s part of the reason I’m a big pilot buff. He flew B-24s in the Pacific. The only problem is that every time we ask him to tell us stories about the war, he says “I’m a lover, not a fighter!” and tries to pinch Grandma (or my wife) on the butt… lol! We have a lot of great photos of him though.

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:58 ]