German Offensive Troubles..

Well, I was hoping Germany would have a better time at things in revised, but it seems to me they are even worse off.

Well the bids are much better than what I hear was the norm in Classic, they’re between 4-11 with more frequency towards 7/8, which is better than like what, Russia Restricted + 10 IPCs or 21 IPCs? O_O? I’m actually surprised the balance came out as good as it did in Revised.

I joined the caspian sub group, but I gotta say, Im not thoroughly impressed with all the advanced german tactics posted there. They are all self-described gambits.  Now, buying two trans G1 does to me seem like a good tactic, what with the risk factor imposed on both London and allied shipping, but actually pulling off a SeaLion/Canadian Shield/Landbridge?  Any opponent with half sense will see it coming a mile away and respond appropriately, and now Germany has sunk even MORE money into boats, which are not forces opposing the Russian advance. Just sounds stupid to me, and every way I play it out, Germany dies horribly.

What you say is true, but let me point out one thing:

Like those Csub papers themselves state, it is easy as pie to defend against those maneuvers after you’ve read a paper about it that is specifically titled and written towards it. But those work against people who have never seen it before. There are many gambits that work because the opponent isn’t familiar with it. I remember taking Germany on UK2 against switch the first time he came here, and also if you’ve been scanning the games you’ll see weird things like people losing Tokyo because they missed something, etc. As you see more and more of the strategies out there, the gambits become less viable, but not everyone is as intelligent as you may believe.

Saying that Sea Lion/Canadian shield won’t work against good players is correct, but it’s not news. The authors already said that they probably won’t work against good players. If that is your only response, then you need to read more carefully, because their articles are nuanced - not something you can categorically dismiss.

Other than that, I do agree that neither the A&A forums here nor CSub nor any other site will give you the nitty gritty’s on the game. There are tons of little details about the German/Russo front that they just don’t go over in specific detail. A lot of it is figuring it out for yourself. My guess is that the Csub authors pretty much assume that everyone has a grasp of the little things and they show you the more strange things. If you’ve actually tried to play against them you realize that their grasp on the details is excellent, they just don’t make big articles on them. They actually do a decent job on basics if you read their cheat sheets for beginning players.

They start the game by castrating the German front (I go for belurus and Wrus, you miss out on a plane and a tank, but you split german forces better, are less exposed to counterattacks, and ukraine is now a serious dead zone.)

I need to hear more specifics about your problems with Germany and the Axis, but the general idea isn’t that hard - aim to trade Belo/Kar/Ukraine with Russia with minimal forces while keeping a fat stack of men in E. EUrope. Keep enough defense in W. Europe and Germany to prevent a landing. Retreat your E. Europe stack when the pressure gets too hot. And always keep strafing in mind - strafing is one of those things that will kill a lot of Allied players; strafing is where you attack for 1 or 2 rounds with massive forces, but don’t aim to actually take the spot, because taking it would expose yourself too much.

Taking Germany can be extremely difficult if you’ve played it right. Because the Allies have to attack separately, it takes them a little longer to build up the necessary forces. It’s no fun trying to attack a stack of 50 inf + 5 fighters + 8 tanks. Also, the USA is very annoying logistically if you’ve tried them; it takes about round 5 to have the fully stabilized shuck ready.

Anybody else feel that way?

The bids aren’t very high, it’s between 1-2 units to make the game even in most people’s eyes.

The Allies will dictate whether or not Germany can be offensive. If they’re going KGF, you just have to do your very best to keep them out until Japan crashes Moscow. You have a lot of tanks/planes to start with (more tanks on the board than all other nations combined initially!), and your income remains surprisingly strong even when reduced to your core territories (w/s/germany = 22 IPCs, 7 inf a round, not bad). Mash out tons of infantry units and give them hell!

I think revised is good because both Russia and Germany are significantly better off.  It takes much longer for American interference and Africa is much more defensible with the Axis then before. (Mainly cause it takes 2 rounds to land in Southern Africa or you are locked into Algeria landings, so you only need to defend Egypt in most games.)

If Russia is being aggressive, why not invest heavily in Infantry and force them to extend too far?

@daggaz:

Well, I was hoping Germany would have a better time at things in revised, but it seems to me they are even worse off.

How many revised games have you played?

You should really utilize the LHTR rules set.  It fixes certain things (like delayed tech)

Also, There ARE key German 1 moves to ward off the dreaded KGF strat.

I agree with Axis_Roll.  Once you learn how to play the Axis properly, the Axis can be tough to beat.  But playing “gambits” with Germany is not how you do it against decent competition.  You need a long-term strategy and the patience to invest in the right purchases to make that strategy pay off.  You also need to recognize Allied mistakes when they make them so you can take advantage.  It’s a far more balanced game than A&A Classic.

A good game has good mechanics. A very good game adds theme and distinctive flavour to the good mechanics.

I like A&A also for the feeling that it gives during play. So in my personal gaming experience I like A&A because it requires accurate planning and effective logistic to win. At same time it gives different emotion depending on the nation you are leading.
Naturally you may create your own map, simmetric and balanced for example, but I believe that in such way the game may loose some of its feeling.
Moreover, even if the possible “grand strategies” (higher level planning) are somewhat reduced I think that there are a lot of space for creativity and fantasy for concretely implementing those strategies. In each turn several different moves may be performed with diverse pros and cons.
It is similar to Chess: the “grand strategy” may be only aimed to mate the opponent king (KillKingFirst KKF :) ) but you have space for different way of reaching that objective.

With players on the same level, axis should get a 8-9 bid IMO.

@Romulus:

A good game has good mechanics. A very good game adds theme and distinctive flavour to the good mechanics.

I like A&A also for the feeling that it gives during play. So in my personal gaming experience I like A&A because it requires accurate planning and effective logistic to win. At same time it gives different emotion depending on the nation you are leading.
Naturally you may create your own map, simmetric and balanced for example, but I believe that in such way the game may loose some of its feeling.
Moreover, even if the possible “grand strategies” (higher level planning) are somewhat reduced I think that there are a lot of space for creativity and fantasy for concretely implementing those strategies. In each turn several different moves may be performed with diverse pros and cons.
It is similar to Chess: the “grand strategy” may be only aimed to mate the opponent king (KillKingFirst KKF :) ) but you have space for different way of reaching that objective.

I completely agree – each country has decisions to make which are not automatic, even when playing an overall strategy of KGF or KJF.  Within KGF, there are a variety of ways to go about it.  Do you go the Africa route or the northern route?  Do you push back against Japan or fall back?  What did your opponent do?  What opportunities do your opponents moves create?  I’ve played more than 30 games on this forum and every one was different.  It’s why I keep playing.

Hey Daggaz,

Since you guys play tech, why not get Rockets with Germany, put an AA Gun in E. Europe and hit Russia, Caucasus and England every round?  Add an SBR of England or Russia with the German bomber each round and you can do some serious damage!

Might knock the wind out of the Russian sails if you get lucky enough early enough to implement it in time!

As to the general German strategy of trading with russia, hoping for a weakness, and eventually turtling up and waiting for Japan… its the same thing as last version, with just a couple different twists.

Well, I guess you have to expect something like that in a game titled Axis & Allies. And as it being the same thing except for a couple of different twists - did you not expect that when the title was “Axis & Allies: Revised?” If you didn’t like the old game, then why expect the new game to be completely different?

Perhaps Risk is more of your style? Or try one of the other A&A variants, they are a lot different with things like supply trucks, fortune cards, etc.

They are all self-described gambits.

took the word right out of my mouth. not safe and steady play but reckless ‘seat of your pants’ type of things. not too good. not crisp playing techniques. Its more like a network of theory attempting to discover some “great” new ideas never before thought of but its just an average study of the game.

I don’t think any site goes over “crisp playing techniques” for Revised.

Csub is also fairly in depth about certain topics. It talks about complexes vs transports, the viability of IC in India, how to attack Pearl and how to go KJF if you wanted to. The cheat sheets also give a great starting place for new players.

And in spite of the obvious that people state about the gambits, they are actually decent normal moves as well, as Daggaz has admitted. It’s the ghost of the gambit that gets the people scrambling and possibly overreacting. None of the gambits are truly “risk takers”; all that land bridge asks you to do is buy 2 transports instead of a carrier, which actually is a better buy in many ways, and as for the Japanese gambit well this isn’t out of the way at all, lots of people take islands in the exactly the same manner.

But I’m just talking about one or two transports here, nothing like the gambits describe with dumping a whole turn into boatbuilding… that is just instant death at my table.

If you actually read the gambits, they only recommend 2 transports at elite level of playing, and their goal is never to do a gambit, just to screw up Allied shipping. Like you said, it buys a round or 2 and forces the US to sacrifice their air and fleet. There’s no reason to pidgeonhole those papers, because they are quite nuanced if you read them.

Still, we keep running into the problem that we all understand force projection, kill zones, and logistics all too well.  It just keeps up ending as a war of attrition…  And in this case, as long as the allies dont get bad luck (or the guy gets too tired), they generally win.

Then the bid isn’t high enough. I also have to say I’m skeptical that your play is so perfect already. What are the general timetables on which Germany is falling? On which round do they lose Norway, Ukraine, etc? On which round is Japan able to threaten Moscow?

I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility.

Yes, it makes it tons easier not to have to send your bb/tran to Egypt!  :-)

@Bean:

I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility.

Yes, it makes it tons easier not to have to send your bb/tran to Egypt!  :-)

More importantly, bringing the inf and tank from SEU to AES (with an inf/tank bid in libya) leaves a force that UK can not counter on UK1.  AES is one of the most important territories in round one for Germany/UK.

As Japan I like to leave a carrier and battleship in SZ 60.  That way America isn’t tempted to put a solitary transport in SZ 55 in hopes of getting an island or two before it is sunk.

Life is just easier when America knows it’s place on Tokyo’s planet!

More importantly, bringing the inf and tank from SEU to AES (with an inf/tank bid in libya) leaves a force that UK can not counter on UK1.  AES is one of the most important territories in round one for Germany/UK.

Actually I want the UK to counter, which makes it easier for Japan to expand. I don’t mind using up those initial units in Egypt to burn up all those random inf the UK has.

If UK has the shot at 2 German tanks solo in Egypt, they have to go for it.  The cost of Africa is too high not too.

@Cmdr:

If UK has the shot at 2 German tanks solo in Egypt, they have to go for it.  The cost of Africa is too high not too.

True dat.  AES is the gateway to lots of IPCs… it’s like a double swing.  German +IPCs, UK -IPCs.

An early goal the Axis should have is to reduce UK’s ability to make war… they are the first to strike on Germany so it’s best to make them as weak as possible from Berlins perspective.