Beginner looking for feedback on his G1

Yes INDIVIDUAL!!!

learn statistics plz, even though the battles have 80% INDIVIDUAL, that does NOT mean it have 80% chance of a success in the same game, that odds are around 45% if you add in the 3 attacks on the eastern front for the same game.

Check youre own thread Corbeau Blanc, i have done the maths for you there for youre option A. If you dont trust it read up on statistic analyzis.

You’ve used triple A battle calc… and multiplied odds. I don’t need to learn ‘‘statistics’’ to understand that a bomber + 2 inf will 100% trade a territory defended by 1 inf. The only question is if I lose 1 inf or not…

Like I wrote in other thread, 1 sub, 1 bomber and 1 jet are at 94% odds versus UK BB/TR… When in practice it’s a 100% win with 1-3 units left.

Good strats base themselves on low luck.

Speaking as an “old” (relative term since the game is new still) Karelian Banger on Germany Round 1, I can say it’s not really worth it.  You risk losing more in value, position and threat trying to take it than you get.  But that’s just my opinion.

I think that put simply, the eastern Europe NO is easier to get and reinforce than the Karelia NO in G1. Why sacrifice taking that NO in favour of Karelia?

I don’t believe that Germany can effectively:

Take Egypt.
Destroy the Royal Navy.
Take Karelia.
AND take BS, Ukr, and EP.

Without desparately overstretching herself and losing a crippling amount of Airforce.

Especially when - if played well, there is no reason that Karelia cannot be taken G2.

Statistics is not my strong point. This is just my gut instinct.

Yes, creeping deth and Octopus, the true strategy to an effective German Axis player is to hold territory and starve Russia/Britain to death with Japan and Italy’s help.  You can use the starting units you begin the game with to go willy nilly all over the place ganking ipcs, but you’ll never hold anything if you don’t play with a permanent stack.  Which means inf.  Lots and lots of inf, perhaps some tanks later on in the game to finish things if Japan is taking too long.  Your goal as Germany is to provide the defensive buffer that Russia gradually loses its forces against and pushes the Russkies back to the capital.  If you can sandwich Russia between German stacks in the Ukraine/Karelia and Italian/Japanese stacks in the Caus, you have essentially won the game if the Allies cannot use the Russian units to counterattack either of them.  With SBRs and their limited production of 6, Russia’s fall is guaranteed within a few turns.

Twigley, germany CAN accomplish all those objectives, it just takes some picking and choosing.  You can’t go after all of that at once without consequences, so don’t.  I personally enjoy hammering the British fleet at the game opening with everything I’ve got, taking out ALL the fleet except the destroyer/transport off canada.  Why do I do this G1?  The fleet is easier to pick off at the beginning of the game before it can develop into a monster stack you cannot ever possibly attack later.  I reinforce Libya with the units from France.  Egypt you can take G2 or I2, depending whether Britain reinforces it or abandons it.  Karelia will HAVE to be abandoned later G2-3 if you push inf stacks towards it; Russia simply doesn’t have the production there to hold it.  Free NO, without risking any fighters to AA.  If Russia attempts to hold it; you’ve just destroyed 1/3 to 1/2 their total military force that they desperately need to hold the capital later.

My current strategy G1 is to build an IC in France and rest inf.  With that IC you can build a total of 16 inf every turn; which is great for defense, plus you can drop fleet in the Mediterranean to help out Italy.  If italy can capture most of Africa, and Japan takes out all of Britain’s Pacific/Asian colonies, its very easy to maintain a joint German/Italian/Japanese fleet stack in the Med that the now truncated 15 ipc Britain/American fleets can’t take.  If you hold the center of the board with the majority of ipcs, its just a matter of time before the Allies throw in the towel.

Bear in mind that Italy can support a German move into Ukraine, it cannot do so as well if you go up into Baltic States. (Though, Russia has a harder time keeping it, remember that England can easily liberate it when they feel like it.)

Also, an Industrial in Bulgaria along with a Ukraine push by Germany/Italy can really put the Allies into a position of coming to aid Russia before turning to other strategic goals.

reading http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14698.15

3 quarter of the players answering the survey will throw themselves in Egypt round 1.

YET,

• Egypt G1 with bomber : 75% odds to win
• Egypt without bomber : 35% odds to win

I find it way weird that most Axis players says it is an ‘‘imperative’’ move when my own exemple of an attack of Karelia to hold an IC at higher odds 80% gets flamed down.

If you gonna take Egypt, do it turn 2 with Japaneses. This will save valuable German troops to defend vs US/UK landings in Moroco. Deal with Transjordan troops asap. This let you slip Italian and/or german transport into Indian Ocean round 2 to grab valuable ipcs before allies can react. You can even bypass India/Australia with japan and let Germany or Italy take it.

I don’t attack Egypt either.

I understand the rationale of people who attack Egypt and who attack Karelia.  It is my PERSONAL opinion based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and PERSONAL BELIEF that attacking Egypt and/or Karelia are not the best uses of the German pieces on round 1.

Italy can easily close the Suez by taking Jordan if they want and Germany can reinforce Ukraine and Libya to prevent Russia and England from taking either of those.  Meanwhile, you can sink nearly the entire British fleet between you and Japan before England can go.

I see the Axis problem as two fold:  1) Take out the British fleet and maintain ownership of the Atlantic as long as possible.  2)  Take out Russia as fast as possible.  Egypt solves neither of those two problems.  Karelia, IMHO, saps your strength more than it does Russia and thus, solves neither of those two problems.

@Corbeu blanc,

There is a big difference in attacking Egypt versus attacking Karelia. Karelia can be retaken by the Russians or, depending on other battles, British. Egypt cannot be reasonably retaken. Egypt is part of two NO’s, one for Italy and one for Britain. Taking that money puts the U.K. in a hole really early, and helps little brother grow up. You can’t start taking African IPC’s soon enough. Finally, it helps clear Japan’s way by preventing those units from joining the Trans-Jordan and Indian units in Persia. Egyptian units can’t be easily replaced, while Karelian units can.

Most of the time, if I put Egypt off, I end up regretting it. I know there are pros and cons, but that’s just my preference.

That seems to be the major dilema for G1: 
Go after the UK Atlantic shipping or Try for Egypt.

How to decide?  Well… how does Germany intend to play her game?  She goes first and gets to dictate how the opening few rounds are going to play out.  If a quick rush on Russia is the goal, then tanks are bought, and Germany should eliminate as much shipping in the atlantic as possible.

If a slower, more defensive style is desired, either all infantry buys, or a mix of ground units (perhaps even an IC in France) with an Egypt attack to secure a strong economic advantage for Germany would work best.  Let Japan be the hammer, Germany can be the anvil.

Then there’s the middle ground… which is a bit more shakey, IMHO.  If Germany tries to be good at both styles, she will probably be poor at both.  Make a decision and pick one.  Trying to pinch Russia but defend against the Western Allies is what got Germany in trouble in the real war…

Butcher, you can take and hold Karelia. Just keep your 2 poland tanks in reserve and move them in non-combat to Karelia once Baltic States is taken. Allies can’t take it back R1 if you know what your doing.

As far as Egypt goes, it’s easy to retake from Germany with UK 2 trans-jordan inf and bomber. There is maybe 1 german infantry left down there and 2 italians after such a fiasco.

OR you can just elect to sink german transport if i drops in Egypt on UK turn before it gets cover from Italians, this cuts german reinforcement right there…

All in all, you are left with no troops to defend against UK/USA landings in Moroco and possibly no German reinforcement. It’s a popular but bad move. Italy will enjoy it’s NO one turn faster but in most case, it will last for 2 turns while delaying one turn can ensure you keep your Italians NO the whole game.

Ultimately, a strong move south is easier to support than a northern attack. If going south, you can have immediate Italian reinforcements, and Japan should be to Persia by turn 4, maybe 5 at the latest.

Going north means Germany is on her own, while the U.K. can reinforce Russia.
Only take the northern route mid-game if it will help you.

Egypt offers more benefits than risks. Even if you don’t take Egypt G1, Italy will have an easier time getting income and being useful.

And if you set up a G2 attack on Karelia, Russia will either leave it with one infantry and set up a counter, or stack if heavily. If it has only 1 inf, take it with 2 inf and air support. If they stack it, the southern front will be weak, and exploit that.

It is also much easier for the Russians to defend in the south and it keeps her units where they can defend against Japan, whereas Karelia is islolated from Russias other factories.

I feel a strong push at Karelia (not necessarily G1) is required in the early game, atleast until you see the allied game plan.  A German turtle might seem like a great idea G1, till the IC goes up in India or the US boats are built in the pacific.

In the end, there is no set way to do anything after G1, and to an extent, J1. You can go into the game with an idea of what you want to do, but you must be responsive to what happens in the game. I’m not saying that going south is always the best move, but that it can be supported by both of the other Axis nations, and is my preference when Germany goes on a large offensive.

By the way, I normally play a more conservative Germany and let Japan kill Russia. I see Germany’s job as trading territories to maintain a decent income and bleed away Russian troops while Japan gets to Caucuses. That is why I’ve never attacked Karelia G1. It is just an attempt at a quick push to Moscow that will leave German defenses weak.

The Karelia G1 , coupled with a full frontal eastern assault, whipes out 50% of Russian troops. One of the goal is to kill thoses russian units right there. That’s their biggest starting stack. You also get all your NO’s.

Countering the northern sea zone route is possible. First, the northern route for reinforcement is not before UK 2 since you do sink the BB/TR. To prevent UK to drop on UK2 directly in Karelia simply by blocking norway sea zone with the German BC by G2 ( And yes, you did protect your baltic fleet G1 with an AC, the strat depends on it ). UK have to fight the BC to pass trough which prevent any amphibious assault in the next zone. Sure, they can drop non-combat in archangel and remove 5 more ipc from Russia. And it’s not R2 that will be able to overtake the germans.

Round 1 and round 2, Karelians speaks German if you know a little bit how to play. So tell me how ultimately Egypt is better than 2 rounds of 5 IPCs in NO’s, a 2 units prod IC and an AA gun you really can hold?

You don’t even need Egypt for the Italians NO. It’s  3 out of  Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, Gibraltar . Also it’s only 5 IPC.

Just position Japan to drop either in Egypt or Trans-Jordan by J2. With 4 of their planes and anywhere between 2-4 transport full of units, UK troops will get cut down before they even reach Persia. So why on Earth would you sacrifice all your German/Italians units to get one round of 5ipc for Italians? Especially when you just told me 10 IPC worth of German NO, an IC and a free AA gun while whipping out more valuable russian troops is a worst move than Egypt… I’m puzzled out, seriously.

Egypt G1 will never be a good move in my book UNLESS you are FORCED to hit it to protect the Italian fleet ( exemple, you did not have forces to hit the sea zone 12 Uk BC/DD ). Even then, it’s 53% odds if UK uses BC/DD, bomber + fighter, might as well force UK’s hand in that move. Japan can very well hold on Egypt/TJ for Italy while being shielded by the canal if Allies should venture a fleet in med. More I think of it, more I’d welcome that UK1 attack.

If everything goes well, you will be in a good spot against Russia. However, if your attacks fail, you will cost yourself the game. Britain can land at France U.K.1 either way, and if something goes wrong in the north (i.e. transport survives attacks, which I have seen happen, or the Red October sinks the German cruiser) Britain can retake Karelia. You will be very vulnerable to the Western Allies.

The probability of everything going in your favor isn’t very good. As Pin said earlier, you will have about a 45% chance of winning all of your battles. If you want any more info on statistics, here is a thread where Pin and I have gone into detail about it http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14841.0

I’ve read that thread and sorry, it’s BS…

Pin multiply odds of all battles, be them minor ones or major ones on equal footing without even grasping the whole pictures or considering the ennemy is still receiving casualties ( He did not even consider possibilities like straffing and low luck ).

Hell, if all my battle were at 100% and one with no real importance was at 50%, he would tell me my whole strat is at 50%.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Let’s be clear ( And I really tought I had been), I don’t play dices when evaluating moves.

If there is a battle with little importance, than don’t bother including it when you multiply. I thought that was pretty clear in the thread.

And low luck isn’t just a possibility, it completely changes the game.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

I explained this in the thread. I thought it was pretty clear.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Those “statistics” are known as dice.

And that is why LL requires an allied bid, and dice does not (may not?)

Butcher, I’m not speaking here of dices odds for one round of combat, which are imho accurate.

If you need to weed out some battles from an overall turn odds calculation, it just confirm it’s useless for an overall turn calculation. It’s a contradiction in itself. I explained in details how you need to attribute a clear value to your overall goal and for each battle within that goal for it to make any sense.

I was reffering to the ‘‘statistics’’ of the triple A odds calculator. When i see 100% chances with dices, I get jumpy. We speaking of dices like you said, there is always the remote chance you will fail. 100% does not exist. So no, I still don’t think that calculator is accurate as a tool for what you trying to achieve. It’s a simulator of 5000 battle and does not even always return the same value each time it’s ran. Try it, you’ll see. % deviation goes as high as 5%, immagine multiplied overall several battles and your numbers are totally skewed…