German navy

@CrazyStraw:

This is particularly critical in naval engagements because so many expensive units are typically involved.  In a land battle, deviating +/-2 hits from the mode (calculated outcome) is likely to be a range swing of 12 IPCs (+/-6 for 2inf).  But in the water, once you’re through the fodder you could be looking at a +/-2 hits being a range swing of 80 IPCs (+/-40 for 1car 1btl).

But many of the Naval units don’t need to be replaced.
If you have a major Naval battle (unfication in Sz 7) and the US and UK both lose BB, DD, AC etc and Ger loses the battle even though the Allies lost more IPC say 150-100, they don’t need to rebuy an AC, BB, DD etc.

Then can buy trns only, unless Germany continues to buy navy or air.

The Allies have disposable income, the Axis do not.

I’m not advocating just throwing away high valued units in any battle but there are acceptable risks for taking significant losses.

Even on Land, say Germany attacks Moscow and losses 40 units while Russia losses only 20.  Bad attack, right?
Now Japan attacks and losses 30 to Russia’s 20, but Japan takes Moscow.  The Axis lost 70 units to 40, but they gained a positional adv.

If sinking a unified fleet cost the Allies more, then so be it, but if they gain a positional adv out of the whole process, such as a stronger Russia than that is something an Allied player may be willing to accept in exchage.

Flip a coin 4 times.  What’s the odds of 2 heads and 2 tails?

According to No Luck, it’s 100%.

According to actual probability - 37.5%.

A system that indicates a 100% likelihood of something that is actually only 37.5% likely to occur in acutality is not an accurate predictor of expected results.

Can you elaborate on this just a little bit?

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

But with the expected result you get +/- both good and bad.

So even if the expected result is 37%, meaning 63% the expected doesn’t happen.

This post:

@squirecam:

Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.

Yes but of the 63% that don’t occur (“expected”), roughly half are going to be BETTER and half worse, give or take a few % points.

You’re looking at a battle that has 65-70% acceptable results for you.

Even a slight roll down may be acceptable pushing this number to say ~75%.

That analysis would be great if there were just ONE BIG BATTLE in Axis and Allies.

What you really have is lots of little battles.

So let’s say you had a big-a** fighter and naval battle that turned out poorly for you (the 30% happened there), while you hosed Russia on trading territories that turn (you got your 70% there).

You just got smoked.

Fine, then don’t attack when 70% is acceptable to you, wait for 80, 90 whatever you comfort zone is.

If I lose a “Must Win” battle where the 30% negative comes out so be it.  But I’ll do the same strat and when it comes to a similar battle I’ll take my 70% chances.  And I’ll do that over and over and over, and out of 10, 50, 100 games I’ll have a 70% win ratio.

You can’t win every game.  I write off 20% right away, I try to win the 80% that aren’t dice skewed in rds 1-2.

If I get smoked by a 30% outcome on an attempted take down in Sz 7, then boo hoo hoo.

It doesn’t make the decision to attack a bad one.  Maybe I can refine it to get a 80-85% chance but that still means screw jobs can happen.

You can’t play worry about losing battles where you have 70-90% chances to take.  Now if you consistanly attacking in battles with 55-60% you may want to change things.

Okay good point on those Russian attacks.

I was thinking more in terms of testing German naval strategy. There we’re talking about one German build, one UK / US fleet move, then potentially one German attack on the allied fleet, and then one Allied counter-attack to see what’s left at the end of the day.

For those purposes, I think tracking the No Luck result can be useful, just to determine whether in one specific theater with one fairly predictable sequence of moves and replies, can I expect on average to come out ahead?

But even in that situation, I would still want to consider the spread as well. Personally I think it’s better strategy to engage in battles with highly predictable results. Battles with a wider spread (typically where forces are more closely matched) there is too much chance of disaster.

What I am NOT saying is that you should rely on the NL result happening in every single one of your battles.

The trouble in the forum discussions that attempt to do this is that it seems like everyone does the math a little differently, makes different starting assumptions, etc. That’s why I’d like to just see it actually played out - not in a full game, but just in a little exchange like this:

Froodster: Ok on G1 I buy 3 Trns and put them in the baltic, and a bunch of Inf in Germany
NoobGuy29988: zomgzors I am going to stop you from unifying your fleet and a move X Y and Z into SZ 6. (or whatever the opposing theory is)
Froodster: Ok I bring A B and C to SZ 6 and according to the total punch I blow up your X Y and Z and I have A and half of B left
NoobGuy29988: oh yeah well I bring V and W and sink your A and 1/2 B and I have B left according to No Luckzorz
Froodster: Ok Germany is done in the Atlantic - let’s see we each lost M and N IPCs respectively and now the board looks like this…:

I just think that would be a more helpful/interesting way to test out a German naval strat instead of all this pure theory where one person runs through the whole battle in their head. It takes two to tango, so I want to see how a strat would play out between an opponent of the strat and a proponent of the strat, because neither one may fully appreciate all the starting assumptions of the other side.

And no the NL result won’t always happen - but it’s the best “benchmark” to go by. What do you propose as an alternate?

Darth is right again … as usual…Why are people not looking at the opposite side of the coin?

If something has a 37% clip of working  it also has a 63% clip of not working. Strategy is supposed to have some outcome and my previous label as a “gambit” is even more reinforced. This plan is a gambit. Germany is really making a sacrifice to gain some positional advantage on the western front.

Here is an assesment that probably comes only after many posts and thinking on this…

the fleet unification play of building TRNs in the Baltic is probably more useful for what it forces the allies to do than for actual fleet unification. Hence, it prolly shouldn’t called a play but a threat.

Thats also what i have been saying in the last “German buy thread”  this is not really a viable plan but a direct threat of something requiring the Allies to shift a few turns worth of buys… After all is said and done if the plan is executed it will result in little gain for germany in net IPC, while it will gain them some breathing room on the western front, while to the detriment of the eastern front for about the same period.

Also, We should look at what the Soviets are doing for the 1st 3 turns while this plan is happening. The German air force is likely tied up for turns 1-2 and partially into turn 3

The Soviet Union has grown stronger… so what are they doing in all this?

@CrazyStraw:

@DarthMaximus:

But many of the Naval units don’t need to be replaced.
If you have a major Naval battle (unfication in Sz 7) and the US and UK both lose BB, DD, AC etc and Ger loses the battle even though the Allies lost more IPC say 150-100, they don’t need to rebuy an AC, BB, DD etc.

Where that matters in the specific instance of the GUF (German Unified Fleet) is that if you go the battle with a thin margin of winning, you could be in for cascade failure. Â

Say your attack should win for you with a mutual kill.  Instead of getting the mutual kill you hit light by 2 hits on the American attack.  1car 1btl survive; Germany sends 2ftr to refill the carrier.

Now you’ve gone from a situation where Germany would have never been in the water again to a situation where you still have to sink 1car 2ftr 1btl with already depleted Allied forces.

The simple swing of hitting light by only 2 hits is a devastating turn of events that will require many more IPCs of gear to rectify.

Now, here’s where it gets really interesting.  Let’s say the battle goes the other way and Germany is the team that hits light.  Say the US was doing the heavy lifting with air power and the units that survive are 2des.  Does Germany care about that?  Does 2des really change any German activity?  Probably not.  So in the instance I laid out, if things go slightly good for Germany, the Allies suffer dramatically.  If things go slightly good for the Allies, the Germans probably don’t care.

Ah, okay.  That makes sense.

@froodster:

Froodster: Ok on G1 I buy 3 Trns and put them in the baltic, and a bunch of Inf in Germany
NoobGuy29988: zomgzors I am going to stop you from unifying your fleet and a move X Y and Z into SZ 6. (or whatever the opposing theory is)
Froodster: Ok I bring A B and C to SZ 6 and according to the total punch I blow up your X Y and Z and I have A and half of B left
NoobGuy29988: oh yeah well I bring V and W and sink your A and 1/2 B and I have B left according to No Luckzorz
Froodster: Ok Germany is done in the Atlantic - let’s see we each lost M and N IPCs respectively and now the board looks like this…:

Lolz0rz.

Oh wait . . .

lol ^2.

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

But with the expected result you get +/- both good and bad.

So even if the expected result is 37%, meaning 63% the expected doesn’t happen.

This post:

@squirecam:

Also, the “expected” result, if 37% is the top result, means that 63% of the time the expected result WONT OCCUR. So you cannot take a result as being “expected” if 2 out of every three times it doesnt happen.

Yes but of the 63% that don’t occur (“expected”), roughly half are going to be BETTER and half worse, give or take a few % points.

You’re looking at a battle that has 65-70% acceptable results for you.

Even a slight roll down may be acceptable pushing this number to say ~75%.

That analysis would be great if there were just ONE BIG BATTLE in Axis and Allies.

What you really have is lots of little battles.

So let’s say you had a big-a** fighter and naval battle that turned out poorly for you (the 30% happened there), while you hosed Russia on trading territories that turn (you got your 70% there).

You just got smoked.

Fine, then don’t attack when 70% is acceptable to you, wait for 80, 90 whatever you comfort zone is.

If I lose a “Must Win” battle where the 30% negative comes out so be it.  But I’ll do the same strat and when it comes to a similar battle I’ll take my 70% chances.  And I’ll do that over and over and over, and out of 10, 50, 100 games I’ll have a 70% win ratio.

You can’t win every game.  I write off 20% right away, I try to win the 80% that aren’t dice skewed in rds 1-2.

If I get smoked by a 30% outcome on an attempted take down in Sz 7, then boo hoo hoo.

It doesn’t make the decision to attack a bad one.  Maybe I can refine it to get a 80-85% chance but that still means screw jobs can happen.

You can’t play worry about losing battles where you have 70-90% chances to take.  Now if you consistanly attacking in battles with 55-60% you may want to change things.

I think I didn’t make myself clear.

Thanks to subsequent posts by other posters, I hope my position has been clarified.

I also hope that everyone agrees with my basic point that NoLuck, and even LowLuck, are not accurate predictors of games.

Yes correct. :-D

Oh you’ve made yourself perfectly clear.

But just to repeat a point made above about 2 heads 2 tails being the result only 37% of the time - assuming “heads” are hits and “tails” are misses, then 37% is not your chance of success - it’s the chance of that exact result. The probability of that median result has to be taken in the context of the range of acceptable results.

Say you can live with sustaining up to three hits, but not four. Then the possibility of an ACCEPTABLE result is 15/16. However, you want to plan ahead and do some planning based on how many units you can expect to have surviving. Since the median result is 2 hits, that’s the assumption you could arguably base your planning on. Your plan still works if you take 3 hits, and obviously your plan won’t be hurt if you only take 1 or 0 hits - that’s just gravy.

So anyhow, I like to plan individual battles based on the range of possibilities that surround the median result. But when you’re feeling lazy, just the median result is the best quick benchmark to go by.

That said, I find I’m calculating the odds less and less the more I play, as I just get a sense for it.

Agreed. What units you buy and where you move them in non-combat is much more important than actual combat I think. If you manage your forces well you can prevent them ever being caught in losing battles.

To sum up, it appears that EVERYONE is correct, because every move and strategy is viable depending on the circumstances!!!  Germany CAN build naval units and win the game, period.  After that, the exact buy can take many different forms.

The strategy talk in this thread is helpful; all the talk about die rolls and odds is interesting but not so useful, because the proof is in the pudding, or actual games!  But this is all old news to most of you who have played a lot.

I seem to be one of the few people actually playing at the moment and testing out the ideas (not a criticism, just an observation), and I want to say (a) I see now the benefit of the G1 3trn 2inf 2arm buy.  It definitely slows down UK/US and causes problems for the Allies.  Many different possibilities present themselves after G1, but one consistent truth, in my experience, is that Russia builds a significant lead in ground units and should be able to take 4-7 IPCs away from Germany [Edit to add:] each round 1-4, at least (WRus, Belo, Ukr, or some combo of those).  This makes it extremely difficult for Germany to close the gap in ground units. With respect to Africa, in my experience it is NOT a given that Germany takes IPCs in Africa that make up for losing ground on the eastern front.  It is possible for UK to defend Africa; I know because I’ve done it.  (b) I do see the benefit of the AC buy, but I like it less than trannies, because the trannies move ground units to the front while still providing defensive value and useful fodder if a large naval battle ensues.

I know there are many other naval buy options and ramifications of each, but there is no doubt in my mind that all of them provide an advantage in ground units to Russia.  The one complaint I have about Axis strategies as discussed on this forum is that they SEEM to consistently underestimate the staying power and possibly even offensive punch of Russia.  I hope that is a somewhat controversial statement; I am sure many folks will point out flaws in my thinking.  However, I am only going by what I see on the board in numerous games I have played recently.  If I have time I will post the actual unit counts in one of my current games, because I want to demonstrate that this is not simply a small unit differential; Russia has approximately a 2:1 advantage in inf, whereas Germany’s arm is better, but overall ground units are such that Germany cannot take out Russia’s big stack and is often struggling to hold back an advance.

The key, of course, is what is Japan doing all the while?  Of course they are advancing (but do not assume I am talking about pure KGF and full retreat in the east – there are many different scenarios that can happen there).  The crux of the issue about a German naval build is essentially:  can Germany hold out long enough until Japan somehow wins the game?  That may be wrong, but that is the way I am seeing it “here on the front lines”.

Fire away…

Depending on your location…

Next week is Greg’s Spring Gathering.

About 40, if not more, A&A players will be playing for fun and door prizes.

Both minis and board gamers welcome

Cincy, Ohio

March 30-31

Details here…

http://www.geocities.com/headlesshorseman2/AAspringgathering.html

@goldenbearflyer:

but one consistent truth, in my experience, is that Russia builds a significant lead in ground units and should be able to take 4-7 IPCs away from Germany [Edit to add:] each round 1-4, at least (WRus, Belo, Ukr, or some combo of those).  This makes it extremely difficult for Germany to close the gap in ground units.

The crux of the issue about a German naval build is essentially:  can Germany hold out long enough until Japan somehow wins the game?  That may be wrong, but that is the way I am seeing it “here on the front lines”.

Fire away…

These 2 things I disagree with. Remember that the USSR starts with several infantry in the east, which need time to walk to Moscow and then the front.

Germany has most of its troops already at the “new front” by holding EE and trading UKR/Belo/Karelia.

You dont need to be “ahead” in Ground units. You need to have “enough” to swap these territories and gain Africa.

As to Africa, if you destroy the allied transports, Africa SHOULD be yours for these first 4 rounds. The allies wont have any transports left to have landed in Africa.

Also, The point of the Navy is FLEXABILITY. You can merge. Get London. Nuke the allied fleet. Contest Norway. Or just defend and cause allied pain in the cost to sink you (which they have to do to open Germany/EE to amphib attacks).

It might happen that the fleet dies and you can only wait for Japan to save you. But with a UK fleet and focus vs Germany, there is NO UK IC in India. This usually results in a rapid Japan advance.

Moreover, Japan can swing a transport or 2 to Africa to speed its conquest if needed.

Squirecam

@goldenbearflyer:

I know there are many other naval buy options and ramifications of each, but there is no doubt in my mind that all of them provide an advantage in ground units to Russia.  **The one complaint I have about Axis strategies as discussed on this forum is that they SEEM to consistently underestimate the staying power and possibly even offensive punch of Russia.**  I hope that is a somewhat controversial statement; I am sure many folks will point out flaws in my thinking.  However, I am only going by what I see on the board in numerous games I have played recently.  If I have time I will post the actual unit counts in one of my current games, because I want to demonstrate that this is not simply a small unit differential; Russia has approximately a 2:1 advantage in inf, whereas Germany’s arm is better, but overall ground units are such that Germany cannot take out Russia’s big stack and is often struggling to hold back an advance.

I bolded the Russia part.
I agree.  I learned long ago in classic, that Russia is not weak, but infact, quite strong when played right.
I think that translates to Revised as well.
What makes it so, is they are the one power that can simply sit back and buy land units all game long.

Check out the games section as well, many of us are quite active.  We’re in the middle of a 32 person tournament, several league games going, and several pick up games with NA’s, two-on-two, varients, etc.

yea i say the same thing… that is the other side of the coin. The german fleet gambit hardly works unless they roll high, but also gives the Soviet player more options.

Also, We should look at what the Soviets are doing for the 1st 3 turns while this plan is happening. The German air force is likely tied up for turns 1-2 and partially into turn 3

The Soviet Union has grown stronger… so what are they doing in all this?

Next week is Greg’s Spring Gathering…  Cincy, Ohio

I would love to be there, but I’m in CA.  I’ll be in Cincy in July visiting family.

Remember that the USSR starts with several infantry in the east, which need time to walk to Moscow and then the front.

Germany has most of its troops already at the “new front” by holding EE and trading UKR/Belo/Karelia.

You dont need to be “ahead” in Ground units. You need to have “enough” to swap these territories and gain Africa.

As to Africa, if you destroy the allied transports, Africa SHOULD be yours for these first 4 rounds. The allies wont have any transports left to have landed in Africa.

Also, The point of the Navy is FLEXABILITY. You can merge. Get London. Nuke the allied fleet. Contest Norway. Or just defend and cause allied pain in the cost to sink you (which they have to do to open Germany/EE to amphib attacks).

It might happen that the fleet dies and you can only wait for Japan to save you. But with a UK fleet and focus vs Germany, there is NO UK IC in India. This usually results in a rapid Japan advance.

Moreover, Japan can swing a transport or 2 to Africa to speed its conquest if needed.

Squirecam, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the flexibility of the navy.  If the Allies make a mistake, yes, some of those cool options are there.  I am coming around to the idea that NOT building navy leads to a worse situation for Germany.

I know you are correct in what you say, because you must be having those results in actual play.  The disconnect for me is, I don’t know what types of numbers your Russian opponent is putting up against you.

As long as we agree that Germany is not ahead (although I say significantly behind) in ground units, I’m fine.  But what I’m saying is that if the G big stack is too small to take WRus, and Russia adds about half of its ground unit production to Moscow each turn, by the time the Japanese reach the outskirts of Moscow, the Russians have a big enough stack to hold off the Japanese.  In my experience.

As for Africa, perhaps Germany has had bad luck in several games, but I kid you not, I have seen UK take it back T1 and/or T2 several times, especially if Med fleet moves west!

And what is the UK Indian Ocean fleet doing all this time?  That’s the point, if Med fleet moves west and UK actually takes back Africa, UK can move into the Med T2 if it wants!  I saw it happen.

Squirecam, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the flexibility of the navy.  If the Allies make a mistake, yes, some of those cool options are there.  I am coming around to the idea that NOT building navy leads to a worse situation for Germany.

I know you are correct in what you say, because you must be having those results in actual play.  The disconnect for me is, I don’t know what types of numbers your Russian opponent is putting up against you.

As long as we agree that Germany is not ahead (although I say significantly behind) in ground units, I’m fine.  But what I’m saying is that if the G big stack is too small to take WRus, and Russia adds about half of its ground unit production to Moscow each turn, by the time the Japanese reach the outskirts of Moscow, the Russians have a big enough stack to hold off the Japanese.  In my experience.

You are not going to take WR. That is not the point at least not for the first 3 rounds. Without blocking, UK is adding 8 units per turn into Norway/Africa. This is from UK 2, or at least by UK 3.

You are eliminating that 8 unit buildup. But not so much that WR should be taken. Your goal is to hold EE. Trade Karelia, belo, Ukr, and possibly Norway.

AFTER africa is yours, your income will be enough to crush the russians. Africa income is pretty important to the plan.

As for UK taking Africa back, UK has 6 units available. 3 India, 1 transj, 1 persia, 1 SA. Germany’s bid should allow Germany to conquer Egypt G1, and retake G2, which should only leave possibly 2 inf left. Remember that if India is abansoned, use the japanese to sail to Africa if needed. It doesnt matter WHO takes africa, just that it IS taken. As expediently as possible.

UK should not be able to move into the med given G1 and G2 control of Egypt.

Also, if G loses too many troops G1 (or russian attacks go bad), dont bother buying a fleet. Punish the russians with ground units.

Squirecam

@squirecam:

You are not going to take WR. That is not the point at least not for the first 3 rounds. Without blocking, UK is adding 8 units per turn into Norway/Africa. This is from UK 2, or at least by UK 3.

You are eliminating that 8 unit buildup. But not so much that WR should be taken. Your goal is to hold EE. Trade Karelia, belo, Ukr, and possibly Norway.

AFTER africa is yours, your income will be enough to crush the russians. Africa income is pretty important to the plan.

As for UK taking Africa back, UK has 6 units available. 3 India, 1 transj, 1 persia, 1 SA. Germany’s bid should allow Germany to conquer Egypt G1, and retake G2, which should only leave possibly 2 inf left. Remember that if India is abansoned, use the japanese to sail to Africa if needed. It doesnt matter WHO takes africa, just that it IS taken. As expediently as possible.

UK should not be able to move into the med given G1 and G2 control of Egypt.

Also, if G loses too many troops G1 (or russian attacks go bad), dont bother buying a fleet. Punish the russians with ground units.

Squirecam

Well, don’t forget the UK ftr from the Indian Ocean can help attack Africa.  That is why I agree it’s important for part of the J navy to head west and try to eliminate the UK navy east of Africa.  So, yes, if that happens I can see that whole plan working.

Of G loses too many troops, don’t bother buying a fleet?  I thought we’re talking about a G1 naval buy, before you really know how it’s going, without regard to what Russia did R1?