Allies lose every game.

Oh, an IC in Norway would hold Scandinavia for a while. (Move the AA GUN from Germany and build a new one to replace it on Round 1 should mitigate any SBR from England.)

Dunno how long you can expect to keep it, but you should have it for at least 5 rounds I would think.

I have not gone Jenn’s route of the IC but I have occasionally built a fleet for the purpose of landing in Norway/Finland/Karelia. Plus while the Allies will eventually destroy it they have to take the time and equipment to do so.

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

Also consider that while yes the US and UK can gang pile Norway it will take a couple of turns and divert Allied forces from other areas such as Africa or the Pacific.

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

@axis_roll:

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it.  That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it.  That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Chic logic.

Please read what you wrote, it doesn’t make sense.

Let me explain.

@Cmdr:

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, …

OK, you’re with me, yes, I give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.  They recognize I am employing a sub-optimal strategy.

@Cmdr:

…they have to do something to counter it.  …

OK, yes, I have to agree with you here Captain Obvious.

@Cmdr:

That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, ….

Woah!  Estrogen based thinking alert!  How does them realizing you are employing a sub-optimal strategy FORCE the opponent into a counter that is sub-optimal?  Assuming you know what ‘sub-optimal’ means, now the allies should be able to easily handle the Axis move, because, by definition, it is NOT the best move for them to make (again, the benefit of the doubt is giving to the opponent).

@Cmdr:

…hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Ah yes, the crux of your post.  I make a sub-optimal move… but I will win because I hope my opponent will screw up (too).

Chic logic.  Explained.

I think you are getting too focused on the “optimal” move thing.

For arguments sake let us assume that the UK and US dog piling France every turn is the “optimal” Allied strategy. By forcing the UK and/or the US to deal with a reinforced Scandinavia either through an IC, transported units, or paratroopers, the Allies now have to deal with this instead of their preferred strategy.

It is less of I made a bad move and hope my opponent makes one. It is more of dictating the terms of the fight. Refer to Sun Tzu on that one.

As far as when I may employ such it depends mostly on my mood more than anything else. I have also found that opponents that do not like tech tend to be formulaic. In other words on turn X do Y. In tech games by turn X, Y may be a bad decision. Players that play tech tend to be much more flexible and responsive so they are harder to “throw off”. That said even then I may use such against such an opponent to see how I know someone that will react well to it handles the situation they have been presented.

@a44bigdog:

I think you are getting too focused on the “optimal” move thing.

I was going off your post.  You choose the word ‘sub-optimal’.

@a44bigdog:

For arguments sake let us assume that the UK and US dog piling France every turn is the “optimal” Allied strategy. By forcing the UK and/or the US to deal with a reinforced Scandinavia either through an IC, transported units, or paratroopers, the Allies now have to deal with this instead of their preferred strategy.

It is less of I made a bad move and hope my opponent makes one. It is more of dictating the terms of the fight. Refer to Sun Tzu on that one.

Assuming that piling into France is the best allied move, then a Scandanavian IC certainly is not going to slow down the allies dog-pile strategy… in fact, it will only make it more efficient as German units/resources are tied up in another area of the board (Scandinavia/sz5)

I understand what you are trying to say, but your example doesn’t quite fit.

Perhaps you intended to say

“Sometimes doing the unexpected thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.”

@a44bigdog:

as far as when I may employ such it depends mostly on my mood more than anything else. I have also found that opponents that do not like tech tend to be formulaic. In other words on turn X do Y. In tech games by turn X, Y may be a bad decision. Players that play tech tend to be much more flexible and responsive so they are harder to “throw off”. That said even then I may use such against such an opponent to see how I know someone that will react well to it handles the situation they have been presented.

So, against tech-haters, you will try to use different strategies because they tend to be more rigid in their game play.  I can see that logic.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you about non-mainstream game plans.  Novel plans tend to catch players off-guard and CAN lead to wins.  Just looking for some insight as to when the best time to use them might be, as in poker, when certain ‘tells’ indicate a higher probability course of action.

an allied win in 41 can be tough.  my strategies always depend on the axis turns. my first turn with russia is almost always a regroup, defend, attack type thing.  for me russia doesnt go on offense till her 4th turn usually.

if jap has bad J1 in pacific,  then i try to use USA in pacific mostly, with a UK IC in SAF or (sometimes not often) AUS, the allies can really slow down japans march towards russia.

if germany has a bad first turn, then its off to the atlantic.  i like to let the UK take NOR and FIN just for the extra 5ipc, they need it.  with US, i will usually go towards ALG. bmrs for the US is a must.  how many?  depends what else you need. at least 1 to send to UK.  keep sbr ger and italy.

i love it when ger buys boats.  usually pretty easy to sink, and that means less arm towards rus.  try to build up the UK navy and keep the fleet together with americans if possible.  i usually let ger take kar first turn.  no sense in letting all the russians die for it.  move the ruskies to fin or arc for counter attack.

if ger and jap both have a good first turn…well good luck, i usually dont win those games. :-D

I see the confusion, let me clarify:

If you employ a sub-optimal tactic, you are hoping that your opponent’s method of countering it is more ineffective than your tactic is.

Example:

America goes nuts buying submarines every round putting down 3-5.

Japan counters buy building 4 destroyers a round.

Who gets hurt more?  They are both sub-optimal strategies, but the way your opponent is countering (because he is inexperienced or whatever) is less effective, thus, your strategy is more effective than a straight and narrow campaign. (Presumably because your opponent is more accustomed to it.)

Not saying it’s a great idea, just explaining the mindset behind it!

A typical UK1 move involves ending with atleast 3 trannies within range of norway/finland.  Defending that factory is gonna be difficult unless you take Kar hard, fast, and early with a huge stack.

i have not used a UK factory in Norway often.  IF i put an IC in nor, it’s usually US.

The way I play, there’s no way England’s gunna have 3 transports in range of anything at the end of their turn.  Unless I get diced like I did against A44 earlier.

SZ 2 will have 1 to 2 submarines
SZ 6 will have a submarine
France will have 1 to 2 fighters
Libya will have a bomber
Germany will have a bomber
SZ 5 will have 2 to 3 submarines (depending on what I build.)

England’s got 1 Trn, 1 DD in SZ 9.  You’d have to build 2 transports and surface ships to protect them to have anything in range of Scandinavia on Round 2.

@bugoo:

A typical UK1 move involves ending with atleast 3 trannies within range of norway/finland.  Defending that factory is gonna be difficult unless you take Kar hard, fast, and early with a huge stack.

This is not usually the case with me.  At the start of UK1 the only navy I have is the Australian navy, and about 70% of the time the Des and tranny in SZ 9.  If I have anything else left I consider myself highly blessed.  Germany could have all of her planes on the coast as well as a cruiser and maybe a couple subs lurking about.  That set up is not unusual at all.

By the end of UK1 I try to have 2 trannies in range, but even that is not a guarantee.

At work, I was thinking about how to change things.

What IF China started instead of Germany? That should make things quite interesting since the Yunnan fighter would remain alive.
It doesn’t change the game too drastically, and it should slow down Japanese, or at least force him into committing more troops in the central front :)

Any thoughts? I personnally believe the game to be balanced enough (i haven’t played enough just yet). But if balancement is needed, maybe just switching the order of play would be fine.

Robert

i have read somewhere (here?)  that someone started doing that.  china goes first, then regular.  after the US is done, money and all, china starts the new round again.  seemed to work for them, sounded like a good idea to me.  i plan to try it next time i play f2f.

SZ2 with 1 AC, 1 russian sub, and 1 DD vs 2 subs and 2 bombs = 19% chance for G to win.  All UK purchased was the carrier.  If you have a 3rd sub, I simply purchase an extra destroyer, or go for broke and buy a 2nd carrier and 2 transports.  And against 2 DDs, and 2 carriers and 3-4 figs SZ 8 you would need 3 additional figs if i loaded 3 figs, 4 if I loaded 4.  And I can still drop 3 trannies worth UK2, just not where I want.

Carriers are the ultimate defend from annoying airplane defense, along with destroyers.  Yes if you try to keep defensive pace with cruisers you’ll have a hard time, and I don’t.

And you mean to tell me you often purchase 2 subs and a bomber on G1, spending what on ground troops?  In that case i don’t need transports russia is fine.

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.

OK, good point.

But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?

I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it.  That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Chic logic.

Please read what you wrote, it doesn’t make sense.

Let me explain.

@Cmdr:

Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, …

OK, you’re with me, yes, I give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.  They recognize I am employing a sub-optimal strategy.

@Cmdr:

…they have to do something to counter it.  …

OK, yes, I have to agree with you here Captain Obvious.

@Cmdr:

That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, ….

Woah!  Estrogen based thinking alert!  How does them realizing you are employing a sub-optimal strategy FORCE the opponent into a counter that is sub-optimal?  Assuming you know what ‘sub-optimal’ means, now the allies should be able to easily handle the Axis move, because, by definition, it is NOT the best move for them to make (again, the benefit of the doubt is giving to the opponent).

@Cmdr:

…hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.

Ah yes, the crux of your post.  I make a sub-optimal move… but I will win because I hope my opponent will screw up (too).

Chic logic.  Explained.

man, I just gave you a +1 karma for a different post that used non-hostile logic and then I read this slam? Come on dude!

@critmonster:

man, I just gave you a +1 karma for a different post that used non-hostile logic and then I read this slam? Come on dude!

Hmm.

Even Jen admits there was ‘confusion’ in her post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14406.msg470722#msg470722

I described it as ‘chic’ logic because it was not logical.  I am a programmer, so my world is based on logical thinking.  My wife is a nurse, she has occasional fits of chic logic.  I tell her this and she laughs, it’s an inside joke.

I’m just glad you said ‘chic’ logic, which otherwise means ‘trendy’ logic.  Because if it were ‘chick’ logic, that would be pretty offensive….

Peace

@General:

G1

German Buys - 5 x tank
             2 x inf

4 inf: Poland -> Baltic States
1 art: Poland -> Baltic states
1 tank: Poland -> Baltic states
1 inf: Germany -> via trn sea zone 5 -> Baltic States
1 art: Germany -> via trn sea zone 5 -> Baltic States
(crusier sz 6 gets shore shot)

1 x tank: Poland -> East Poland
2 x Tank: Czech -> East Poland
1 x tank: Bul/Rom -> East Poland
1 x inf: Bul/Rom -> East Poland

1 x tank: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine
2 x inf: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine
1 x art: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine

1 x fighter: Poland -> SZ6
1 x sub: SZ 5 -> SZ6

1 x FIghter: Norway -> SZ2
1 x Sub: SZ7 -> SZ2
1 x Bomber: Germany -> SZ2

1 x Fighter: NW Europe -> SZ12
1 x sub: SZ7 -> SZ12
1 x Fighter: Germany -> SZ12

Link to German setup turn 1

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/German%20Turn%201%20setup.jpg

Germans win all combats and take light casualties.  Worst loss is 1 x

fighter in SZ 12.

Results

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/Germans%20turn%201%20after%20combat.jpg

After place units

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/Germans%20Turn%201%20after%20place.jpg

R1

Russian Buys = 2 x inf
       1 X art
       2 x tanks
       1 x fighter

No Combat moves

Non combat illustrated below.

leave 7 inf in bur
move 3 inf towards rus
move russian tank to kar ssr
stack 5 inf 1 art on archangel
stack 6 inf in cauc

Unit placements -

1 x tank 1 x fighter in kar ssr
2 x inf 1 x art 1 x tank in cauc

End of Russia Turn 1 map

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/End%20of%20Russia%20turn%201.jpg

note: What have I done wrong here?  how can I make a better T1 buy and setup

to stop the germans taking kar or get in a position to trade back and still

be strong in the south.

J1

Japanese buys-

2 x trn
1 x inf

Combat moves

2 x ftr: SZ 57 -> SZ 53
1 x dstr: SZ 51 -> SZ 53
2 x ftr: SZ 57 -> sz 56

3 x inf: MAN -> sui
2 x inf: Kia -> Fuki
2 x inf: FIC -> Yun
1 x inf: FIC -> Fuki
1 x ftr: MAN -> Yun
1 x ftr: FOR -> Yun
1 x ftr: Jap -> Fuki

1 x inf: Car islds - via trn (SZ 51) > Phil isld
2 x inf: Car islds - via trn (SZ 51) > Borneo (Borneo Taken)
1 BS: SZ 61 -> SZ 50
1 x inf 1 x tank - via trn (japan SZ 62) > Phil isld

1 X Carrier w/ 2 x ftr: SZ 61 -> SZ37
1 x art 2 x inf -via trn x 2> SZ61 -> SZ37
1 x cruiser: SZ61 -> SZ37
2 x ftr: SZ37 -> SZ 35
3 x inf: SZ37 -> Burma
1 x art: SZ37 -> Burma

japan Turn 1 combat setup west map

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/Japan%20turn%201%20west.jpg

japan Turn 1 combat setup east map

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/japan%20turn%201%20east.jpg

Combat

Sui taken
Burma Taken
SZ 50 win
Phil islds taken
SZ 53 win - ftr/dstr lost
Yunnan Taken
Fukien Taken
SZ 56 win - ftr lost
Hupeh stalemate - chinese retain territory
SZ 35 win - ftr lost

West map

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/japan%20end%20of%20turn%201%20west.jpg

East Map

http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/Japan%20end%20of%20turn%201%20east.jpg

---

So this is my turn 1 up to now.  How would you approach this game?  I have
left Gibraltar so as to let a few more strategies in the med be viable.  But
ordinarily I would take gibraltar with the germans to deny uk a NO and to
stop a build up of air units there on UK 1.

The allies need you!!!

why do you want to keep karelia in the first place?