Axis and Allies Notation

@Seadog Not a problem! Glad to hear you found the advice helpful.

I don’t want to go into too much detail on what you did for AA50, as that game has its own sub-forum, but I’m glad you were able to find my advice generic enough to apply to multiple A&A titles.

However, for the Anniversary game, playing a more aggressive Germany is usually favored in the 1941 Scenario (due to how weak the Soviets are at the start of the game), and even somewhat in the 1942 Scenario (If Germany can make a foothold in Eastern Ukraine early, Japan can reach the territory with almost its entire airforce on J2, there is a thread on this strategy I’ve posted in quite a bit called “Unstoppable Axis Strategy”, if you’re interested).

What you’re saying is all correct. Typically, people do choose KGF or KJF, unless Japan has awful first turn rolls or leaves another opening and the US changes plans.

My Japanese play puts the emphasis on Russia but I also take advantage of my battleships in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean to trade land in Africa and take potshots at Allied soldiers. The UK’s farflung territories like Australia, New Zealand, and Madagascar should be taken quickly. Rarely can Japan not afford these small, early diversions from the Soviets.

If you’re looking for Axis team tactics, I believe the most important is positioning Japan’s fighters well. Early on, I keep my fighters around Frindo to support a German stack in Ukraine or Egypt depending on Allied moves. Later, I like my fighters in z34. From here, they can reach Novo, Kazakh, Russia, Caucuses, West Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe, Germany, and Karelia. They can reach most everywhere that Japan will want to attack or help defend. This tactic also breaks the the UK-US double because if the UK suicides into, say Germany, the Japanese fighters swoop in and turn the odds against a US followup.

Maybe I can help.

Let’s start with Russia. The two most popular opens and the moves that I alternate between are attacking West Russia and Ukraine, and West Russia only. 3 infantry, 3 tanks is what I buy regardless of which open I use. I would not recommend attacking 3 territories, there’s way too much volatility in the dice to be a consistent first turn move.

Russia 1
Buy with 24 - 3 inf, 3 tanks

Combat
3 inf, 1 fig Kar to wr
3 inf, 1 tank Arch to wr
3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 fig rus to wr
1 inf, 1 art Cauc to wr
10 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank

Average result, Russia takes it losing two infantry.

Noncombat
All Eastern inf move west(just my preference)
both fighters land on Caucuses
aa gun to West Russia

Build 3 inf, 1 tank on Caucuses, 2 tanks on Moscow.

End result is
~8 inf, 2 art, 3 tanks on West Russia
7 inf, 2 tanks, 2 fighters on Caucuses
4 inf, 2 tanks on Russia
4 inf on Yakut

It’s important to note that West Russia has a huge strategic value, all of Russia’s units can meet here on the first turn and it commands the 3 prongs of German advance. Russia has deadzoned Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine because without horrible rolls, their units on West Russia and the tanks they built are enough to kill a German stack moved into any of these territories. In the early stages of the game, I view Russia’s primary job to contain Germany by preventing them from advancing past Eastern Europe so stacking West Russia is a must.

Now your problem was a counterattack of West Russia on the first turn. If Germany was sending all or most of their planes to West Russia, what were they sending to Anglo-Egypt and what did they send to attack the med Battleship? The Allies will be able to exploit Germany skipping either move. If you’d like to avoid the possible German counterattack altogether, try this.

Russia 1

Buy with 24 - 3 inf, 3 tanks

Combat

West Russia
3 inf Kar to wr
3 inf, 1 tank Arch to wr
3 inf, 1 art rus to wr
9 inf, 1 art, 1 tank vs 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank

Ukraine
3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank Caucuses to Ukr
2 tanks, fig rus to ukr
1 fig kar to ukr
3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 2 fig vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig

Average Results West Russia taken losing 3 inf, Ukraine taken losing 3 inf, 1 art

Same noncombat, same placement.

End result:
~6 inf, 1 art, 1 tank Wr
~3 tanks Ukr
5 inf, 1 tank, 2 fig Cauc
4 inf, 2 tanks Rus

Now the typical result is that Russia has taken West Russia solidly and has ~3 tanks sitting in Ukraine. This move takes out more German offensive units, destroys a German fighter, creates a buffer around Caucuses, and forces a counterattack - Germany cannot pass up such an opportunity to destroy Russian tanks. Actually taking Ukraine may depend on the dice, if Russia rolls really well, and Germany whiffs on defense, it might be better to just retreat and save the tanks. If Russia takes Ukraine, Germany’s got to either commit tanks or divert planes from other attacks - both are uncomfortable decisions for the Axis player. As with the other move, without awful rolls, Russia should still deadzone Ukraine, Karelia, and Belorussia. This is a solid opening that among other things, prevents the counterattack on West Russia.

What has Germany been attacking first turn apart from West Russia? I think I understand what your opponent has been doing with Japan but I would advocate building transports before buying mainland factories for them. Don’t be alarmed if Japan just rolls through Asia, just try to prevent them from taking territories in force. Specifically, try to deadzone Yakut, Sinkiang, and Persia as long as it doesn’t mean giving Germany some ground. What have the British and Americans been doing in your games?

@Granada:

oh well, i have just tried the strategy against an experienced player and i was destroyed terribly. SZ 12 IS NOT A SAFE PLACE R1. You would not have 2 UK trans in most cases. I played against bid 9 so there was one sub more from the start and an AC on G1. Any kind of convoying system is necessary for US but next time i am going to make sure that i control the atlantic solidly first. I made some childish mistakes too, but if the germans put an effort to contesting the atlantic you cannot just build trannies. You have to sink their ships first and you have to do it quick and as cheap as possible.

Btw if the convoying system is to work smoothly you need for US actually three sets of transport ships, two wount do.

Early allied shipping losses can really hamper your game plan. It is always vital to protect not only the transports, but that British battleship! If Germany invests 24 ipcs in the water, you will have to wait a round or two to be safe, however, thats all right, as Germany took away 24 ipcs from the Russian campaign, you have time to get going.

To put things into perspective I am in NY that’s GT -5.  I used to live in California and that’s GT -8.

LT

Trihero:  Odds, slim.  How many times have I seen it happen?  More times then not.

There’s no need to act like I haven’t seen it a lot, either. I just try to evaluate moves based on higher principles on bad dice that I personally happen to see.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

since owning Revised… I just don’t have the feel to play the old game… Revised is better.