German AA50 -41 strategy

@timerover51:

You are being somewhat optimistic about cooperation from the other Axis players.  Why should the German player loose those units in Africa if you are going to get the benefit?

Because you win as a team, and if you’re playing with anyone intelligent they’ll understand that also and cooperate.  If Lynxes is playing Italy and Germany doesn’t think hitting Egypt on G1 is a good move (as I don’t really), then no Germany probably won’t hit Egypt and the attack there will be delayed for a round.  Any decent German player should see the importance of punching through Egypt so that either Germany or Italy can claim the easy IPCs south.

Being optimistic about cooperation?  In Revised, I’m pretty sure that no matter whether it’s a multiplayer or 1v1 game UK will liberate Karelia more often than Russia.  And a UK player with someone else playing US/USSR, hitting a somewhat weakly defended W Europe knowing they wouldn’t take it, but also knowing that hitting it would force Germany to restock those infantry, taking pressure off Russia is certainly not being optimistic about cooperation.  I think that people will generally play with other people of their same skill-level, so whatever strategy Lynxes finds to be good, people he plays with will probably also find merits in it.  I think that expecting an opposing team to not communicate about moves before they make them would be optimistic…

Have you played much multiplayer games? I have seen great discussions between members of the same team. If both teammates are too stubborn, each one will do that he or she wants. In fact, is a funny stuff of FTF games  :-D, but if it’s so for 4, imagine 6 players games  :-D Coordination is not a sure thing, pal (thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

You know, when I saw that my buddy, playing Germany, buys bbs, I simply think: Pharaoh buying navy with Germany again ! What matters? , if he gets toasted, I, as Japan, will be the first laughing  :-D

I am not sure how many true multiplayer games that you have seen or been part of, but getting three people to cooperate is not the easiest thing in the world to do.  And that is with the existing games.  Adding the National Objectives to the mix is going to make cooperating that much harder for the Axis to do.  The benefits in IPC of the National Objectives, especially for Japan, is going to focus each country’s player on how best to get those, not on how best to win as a team.

Unless the Axis players know each other and are used to working together, or one of the Axis players dominates the other two, I think that you are going to have a lot of “I do my thing, you do yours” games.

Since Gleemax came out, I’ve played tons of ‘true multiplayer’ games (edit: and to clarify, Gleemax obviously is an online site where the games I’m playing are with people I have never met before, and most of the time I don’t run into the same people from one game to another).  And in most, if not all of them, as long as I communicate with my teammate(s) we can generally come to some type of general agreement for the course of movement.  Every move of every turn does not need to be agreed upon.

I’d think anyone seriously discussing strategy in this board is at least somewhat serious about the game strategically, right?  And those types of players will generally play with like-minded players.  Those strategic players will generally play with the scope of the entire war in mind, not just “oh, this british unit will hinder Italy but won’t do anything to me as Japan, so I’ll leave it alone”.

If you’re playing the type of game where you aren’t really playing to win, just playing to have fun and laugh at each other when you screw up, even if it’s your teammate dooming you to a loss, then it seems you aren’t playing a very serious game strategically and that doesn’t really hold much weight in this discussion.  Certainly, the game should be fun for casual as well as not-so-casual players, since that’s how AA got where it is.  But when discussing 1st round moves in-depth in a thread as we are, the assumption should be that pretty much every player in the game is serious about winning, and has a good bit of A&A experience, and thus understands the big picture of how each player’s move impacts the entire war.

Comments about “well your moves in Africa will depend on Italy (or Germany), so they’re invalid” are completely counterproductive to the purpose of this thread.

@Funcioneta:

(thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

Really?  You should notify the 2v2 tournament going on a few sections down of this news.

@03321:

@Funcioneta:

(thus 4 players games don’t need bid)

Really?  You should notify the 2v2 tournament going on a few sections down of this news.

4 players games don’t need a bid. Coordination is more difficult for allies than for axis. I have played 2 years FTF 4 players games one time at week and axis still wins 50 % of times.

5 players is even worst. I would not say than allies need a bid there, but surely any bid would imbalance the game favoring axis.

Is not matter of “I don’t aid you because it don’t aid me”. It’s matter of “my plan is far better than yours” and “wait a moment! you said you would send your fleet to z12… what are you doing with that landing at Norway?” and the better is when you go to WC and when you back, your friend says you: “sorry, I have forgotten I had to send my UK figs to land on your USA’s AC. Now Japan toasted our Pacific fleet”  :-D

Cooperation is needed for the both Axis and Allies to win. I usually play face to face Revised games, with other 3 or 4 friends, and we are quite able to cooperate because we see the benefits of cooperation.

I have also played a lot of game on Gleemax, with different people each time and I agree with 03321. Chatting with teammates and reaching an agreement on the moves to be done is the minimum that it is done. The more is the cooperation the better are the results.

Coming back on topic: given tha fact that A&A is a collaborative game the better strategy are usually the ones that involve cooperation. So to discuss a good strategy it have to be a cooperative one.

I simply can not see the usefulness of observation like: German and Italy players will not cooperate. Japan will do what he want. Then they deserve to lose. Next time they will pay more attention to the coordination with his teammates improving his gaming ability.

I do not see the interest in discussing strategies that do not involve cooperation, they are flawed from the begin.

@Romulus:

I do not see the interest in discussing strategies that do not involve cooperation, they are flawed from the begin.

nods

If the other isn’t cooperating then you might win by going solo but if the other side is cooperating then you’ll most likely lose.

Japan has a big benefit in helping G/I secure Africa: it forces the UK to choose between 2 enemies (making him react to Axis moves) rather than letting the UK taking the initiative on the Indian Ocean. Japan might not win IPCs directly but on the long run he’ll profit from it.

@Romulus:

Cooperation is needed for the both Axis and Allies to win.

True, but Allies need cooperation more than Axis, because Germany and Japan can operate alone in most cases. However, a mix of USA and UK fleets is needed both for KGF and KJF. And don’t forget monster-mixed stacks at Karelia , Caucasus or Russia.

Anyway, maybe the word here is not “cooperation” but “coordination”. It’s true than any teammate will try cooperate, but an effective coordination is vital for Allies each turn, and for Axis only in a few cases.

Mmm… I am not english born (I am Italian and this is a bad thing for speaking english… in the best case I speak english-ian, english + italian  :-D) but I suppose that coordination should be a stronger way of cooperation.

According to my dictionary:

coordination = harmony, accord; working together

cooperation = working together

(so in the weaker form they are the same thing but coordination on average is a more strictly cooperation)

English born people opinion will be appreciated here…  :-)

However, I agree with you about Allies needing more cooperation, or even more coordination, to win.

At same time Axis may benefits by cooperation. Axis coordination could be really a deadly thing.

Sure, Axis may win also without cooperation/coordination, playing almost individually, but I am still convinced that the more efficient Strategy are those involving cooperation.

As you get a bonus for conquering Baltic, East Poland & Ukraine, it`s obvioius to attack all 3 territories. Karelia certainly is not a good idea as you need the airforce for something else.

The biggest questin is really Egypt. With the bmb, you have a 61,3 % chance of taking it with arm, bmb (74,6 % to win). But in 19,4% you even loose and the UK-fgt survives and you certainly loose the trn. The trn can be whiped out in any case if UK sacrifices the bmb that lands in TRJ.

What you gain by EGY is 2 IPC fot the territory and UK looses a bonus of 5 and the average gain is 4,7 IPC in unit (calculated with Revised price of bmb, so it`s even more).

The opportunity costs are that you miss the bmb in other fights, that you have a 19,4% risk of loosing the trn “cheap” (with UK-fgt) and a certain 100% risk of loosing it anyway if UK desires.

If you do not attack EGY, attacking cru, des at Azores is a must as otherwise your Italian fleet could be attacked by des, cru AZO + fgt EGY + bmb GBR which has a 53% chance of winning and therefore whiping out both the german and italian trn.

What about Germany taking Gibraltar on the first turn?  Then if Italy can take Egypt OR Transjordan, then he should get 21 or 22 IPC at the end of his first turn because of getting both of his 5 IPC bonuses.  Of course taking Egypt is much better, not only because of the IPC difference, but also because of taking away England’s bonus, but it may not be feasible on Italy’s first turn.  I realize that the UK bomber can take out the German tansport, but the tradeoff may be worth it, because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.

@Bardoly:

because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.

Sorry, this is complete nonsense. Gibraltar borders sz12 (AZO) in the new map and therefore it is easyly accessible for both UK and USA. You would loose it very quick!

@Atlantikwall:

@Bardoly:

because Germany may hold Gibraltar until the end of the game.

Sorry, this is complete nonsense. Gibraltar borders sz12 (AZO) in the new map and therefore it is easyly accessible for both UK and USA. You would loose it very quick!

I diagree with you.  I DO agree that it would not be too difficult for the Allies to take it back, but I think that it would be one of those things where there would always be something better to do than take back a 0 IPC territory.

Ya really when you are u.s.a d you go to southern islands then japan i think not you send your fleet head to head in the northern pacific to save both of your main spots.

This is really true!  (I would alos pion tout sometimes making o ipcs 1 just for the conquerer makes them really want it!)

Right now I like 8 inf and 1 bomber for Germany.

Hit the British Battleship in sz 2 with the Subs, Bomber and Norway fighter for a clean kill.
Baltic sub and 1 fighter to UK destroyer in sz 6 (with inf and art to back Norway or NW Europe). 1 Fighter to strafe Baltic or W. Poland (land NW. Europe to cover sz 8 ), 1 to strafe/take Ukraine (land in Bulgaria to back the Afrika Corps/Egypt round 2.) 1 tank and 1 inf from France to Libya. Most of the Armor can be used to secure France and Northwest Europe, since the major counter push against Russia doesn’t need to happen for another round anyway. AA gun, 3 inf, 2 tanks, 2 fighters in NW. Europe; 3 inf, 2 tanks in France. This basically scuttles the Baltic fleet, but provides a very strong incentive for the British to trade what remains of their own surface fleet, giving the Italians more breathing room. I think with that much air in range (the bomber and fighters at Norway/Northwest Europe, and the new Bomber in G), you might be able to force the Brits into a naval save, rather than risking a counter strike from the Luftwaffe in the second round, or bomber Blitz on London.

Not 100% on this one yet, but it feels pretty good right now. The Eastern Front seems like a rather different sort of game than what we saw in Revised, since G is so short on fodder, and Russia has no punch in the first round. Going to be like a 2 or 3 round build up before the war kicks into high gear. Even if our info isn’t 100%, I like what I’m seeing so far. This game should be a lot of fun for the first 6-8 months here.

Will be interesting to see what everyone else comes up with. :)

@italiansarecoming:

Ya really when you are u.s.a d you go to southern islands then japan i think not you send your fleet head to head in the northern pacific to save both of your main spots.

This is really true!  (I would alos pion tout sometimes making o ipcs 1 just for the conquerer makes them really want it!)

I would agree, that is the way the war was won. But is nice to try different stratagies from time to time.

Ya but anyways the germans will need to work with/for the japanese (let the u.s.a do kgf then japan all asia )
allies lose russia falls