MOVED: Unstoppable strategy: 1942 scenario

@the-spaceman Seems like a good start. A few thoughts to throw into the mix:

I would say UK’s naval priorities should be first the Baltic fleet, then any stray transports, then any stray subs. The subs don’t do any convoy damage or anything like that, so they’re really just targets of opportunity; it’s not like you can safely leave British transports unattended anyway because of the German bomber, so the subs aren’t doing that much more harm. The Baltic fleet is top priority because it allows Germans to cheaply conquer Norway/Finland/Karelia, and because it’s too expensive for Germany to sanely replace.

The Australian transport can flee across Argentina to the Atlantic, but I would leave the destroyer behind to block a J2 attack on Australia – I think it does more good slowing down Japan and keeping some of the UK income than it does to get a destroyer added to your Atlantic fleet, like, 3 turns later. For similar reasons, I usually won’t move the starting US Pacific fleet to the Atlantic. If the Allies took unusually heavy naval losses, then maybe it’s worthwhile, but the Pacific fleet is earning you nothing the whole time it’s in transit through the Panama Canal. Having a few starting boats in the Pacific – even just CV, ftr, DD, tran – means that if you ever do need to upgrade the Pacific fleet into a formidable force because Japan is grabbing Alaska and Hawaii or whatever, then you can do so with one turn of purchases. If you can’t quickly reinforce the US Pacific fleet to the point where it can drive away the Japanese navy, then you might be forced to buy 10 infantry for the Western US instead or something similarly expensive and wasteful.

It doesn’t always make sense to build a huge Atlantic fleet at all as the Allies – sometimes you can sink the Italian fleet using primarily air power and subs, and/or build a pair of factories in Egypt, South Africa, India, or Australia. Some games you won’t have enough good safe factory sites, and some games you’ll need a big fleet because, e.g., Germany is heavy on air power (so you need protection for your transports) but short on infantry (so invading France is really attractive). On the other hand, if Germany trades its entire air force to wipe out your boats on G1, builds a factory in France on G1, and then drops 6 infantry there on G2, maybe just let the Atlantic navy go for several turns and rely on factories instead, or have the British build factories and let the Americans reinforce with a fleet into Morocco after they build up.

@mobius1:

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland.  That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war.  Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders.  Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL.  In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.

For purely defensive purposes, buying infantry cannot be beat. When you can swap in an offensive piece (artillery or tank) without decreasing the number of units you’re putting on the board, this is well-advised. The relative cost of units and their defending capability seems to be balanced such that quantity is quality.

For example, Russia starts the '41 version with 30 IPC. For that money you can buy 10 inf OR 8 inf and a tank, etc, etc… OR 3 fighters. If you benchmark every 30IPC purchasing combination against an attacking force of 4inf and 5 tanks (nearly a 50/50 battle with about a 2% chance of mutually assured destruction if you purchased 10 inf), the results are telling:

10 inf - 49% chance of winning [2 * 10 = 20 hit points or 20/6 = 3.3 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 38% chance of winning [2 * 8 + 1 *3 = 19 hit points or 19/6 = 3.2 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter - 16% chance of winning [5 * 2 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 4 = 17 or 17/6 = 2.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 fighters - 0.02% chance of winning [3 * 4 = 12 points or 12/6 = 2 average hits]

No combination of possible purchases perform better than 10 inf in this scenario.

However, when playing against a German Goering that likes to over-extend poorly defended fighters or bombers to gain a couple of IPCs, it’s nice to have the offensive capability to wipe them off the board. I have found this is best accomplished by pushing infantry forward (protecting your offensive pieces from overwhelming counter-attack) and keeping a mix of infantry, artillery and tanks within striking distance of the front line.

For offensive purposes, the best mix of units for the same 30 IPCs, baselined to a 50/50 battle of your 10 infantry against a defending 6inf + 1 artillery (approximately 1% chance of a draw):

10 inf - 50% [10 * 1 = 10 points or 10/6 = 1.7 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 60% [8 * 1 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
6 inf, 3 art - 81% [3 * 1 + (3 + 3) * 2 = 15 points or 15/6 = 2.5 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr - 42% [5 * 1 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 ftr - 0% [3 * 3 = 9 points or 9/6 = 1.5 average hits]

For purely offensive considerations, the optimum combination of units in this scenario is 6 inf and 3 art at 81% chance of victory with 4 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in close second at 80%. No combination of purchases which include a fighter score better than 53% (4 inf, 2 art and 1 fighter happens to be the specific combination in this case). Again, there appears to be a quality in quantity that supersedes just quality. It may go without stating, but if attacking a territory with an AA gun, the numbers will be even worse for the fighter purchases.

For the two scenarios above, the most balanced purchase (averaging the %won for each purchase in its offensive capacity and defensive capacity) is 7 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. This particular purchase is the second best defensive purchase (next to 10 inf) and only 4% less potent than the best offensive purchase (6 inf and 3 art).

I’m not against fighters or bombers, they certainly have their place I just haven’t found justification for purchasing them when playing as Russia (or Germany for that matter) - especially in the early rounds.

Similar conclusion are drawn with respect to naval units - more cost-effective units (subs and especially destroyers) are typically better than fewer high-powered units (battleships and especially cruisers).

Excepting special circumstances (such as no time to get infantry to a developing hot-spot on the map or needing to sandbag funds for a massive naval build against enemies squatting in your sea-zone) a good rule of thumb seems to be to maximize the number of attack/defend points your are bringing to the board, first, and spread over as many units as possible, second.

As this topic has fallen asleep, I want to discuss the allied bidding strategies in aa50-41, no tech, low-luck, bid: 13 IPC

I - Russian fighter

a) fighter on the western front, maybe on Caucasus to eventually kill the German transport in the med or to Karelia to make a German assault to expensive (high losing risk and forgoing too many other targets) and eventually killing the lone German transport (if the cruiser attacked the UK destroyer)

The 3 IPC left can be used for any allied country, e.g. an infantry in Egypt

b) fighter on the eastern front to Buryatia to kill the transport in SZ 62

b1) With 3 IPC go to the US and buy an infantry on the Philippines, land the fighter there. 3 Inf + 1 Fighter is hard for Japan lacking one transport and having no shore bombardment
b2) With the 3 IPC go to UK, e.g. Egypt, land in Yakut und go to the western front against Germany
b3) With an infantry bid in Burma or India: land in Yunnan. Yes, this is a sacrifice, but 3 Inf + 2 Fighters just allow the Japanese to clear the country, but probably not conquer it. This will slow the Japanese very much in moving against India.

II Anti-Manchuria

Bid: 1 Inf to Buryatia and 1 tank to Soviet far east and one to Stanovoj C.

attack Manchuria with 4 Inf + 2 Tanks - 2,5 units left is the expected result in low luck, means 2 tanks or 2 tank + 1 inf
a hard punch against Japan but no bid for Africa/Europe

III-UK fleet

IIIa destroyer in SZ2

While SZ 2 is still attractive, only 2 subs + fighter + bomber is a safe deal.
Which means Germany has to sacrifice one fighter in SZ 12 for at least one battle round to secure the Italian fleet.

IIIb destroyer in SZ12

in SZ 12 the italien fleet is endangered severely so Germany must attack here.
both attacks, SZ 2 with 1 sub+fighter+bomber and at the same time SZ12 with sub+2 fighter make both somewhat risky, probably losing a fighter for Germany too.

the 5 IPC remaining will probably be a UK tank in Egypt or a Russian tank on the front against Germany

IIIc a sub in SZ12 and a sub in SZ 35

the one in SZ 12 is to threaten Italy, while the one in SZ 35 wants to harrass Japanese ships or lone transports

Buying both at the same time is one option, the other is buy only of of those subs and some ground units

IV - pro Russia

buy any units for Russia for 13 IPC placing them on the front with Germany

V pro UK

buy any units for 13 IPC for UK, maybe to strengthen either India oder Egypt/Africa

Have I missed some good allied bids ?

I always felt allies were stronger in both scenario. You just have to know how to play Russia agressively.

Definitely not. Allies are at a huge disadvantage in 41. Although Axis is at a huge disadvantage in 42. Its unfortunate that neither scenario is balanced.

I like Darth Maximus’ idea of liberating one of the 2 4-IPC Islands, and then build a british IC there.
Sure, it would take 3 or 4 rounds before the US can safely hold it, but if they can, and UK can start building there, Japan is gonna be in trouble.

In those first 3 or 4 rounds UK should do everything it can to preserve IPC’s and it’s income, just threatening Germany to keep it honest (Russia should be able to withstand Germany for a while, especially if Japan is busy with the Yanks).

Not saying this can work, but it’s a complete different approach, which is worth thinking about.

@Subotai:

I would like to play against this strat in TripleA low luck game, but sadly AA50 is not finished yet for release in the stable version.

If I think a strat is vastly inferior, then I could possibly be interested in playing reg dice, eventually good dice rolls can only bring you so far.

There’s un anstable version, but it works perfect.

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/Forum

The only thing I noticed so far are some error messages in History. But you can ignore them, and still look at it.
For the rest, it seems to work great.

apperently, i’m the only not-risky guy :-)
i prefer killing british destroyer east of england with sub and cruiser
2 subs, 1 fighter and 1 bomber to sz 12
take out all 3 eastern europe countries
hold france

doubting wether attack egypt or not.
if you do, sz 12 is more risky without bomber, but perhaps still acceptable?