Favourite axis openings

@hakan:

As Allied I often buy bombers T1 for all my IPC. I think they are so price worthy in A&A50. And depending on how Germany and Japan are playing, I ether send them to the Pacific or England. If the Japan naval units is in striking distance of Alaska, I have my bombers in East Canada, so I may strike both against a Japanese naval invasion, and support a sea born invasion on France.

Yep, bombers are a good buy.  Optimal range, attack power, and at a discount price compared to before.  Not to mention, if you’re buying bombers, you’re in a great position to take advantage of tech if you get it.  There are THREE techs that improve bombers.

One of the most important A&A strategies is give yourself lots of options.  You need appropriate pieces and positioning to accomplish this.  If your opponent doesn’t know what you’re going to do and he has to prepare for more possibilities, that’s great for you.  Bombers are the best for creating unpredictability, uncertainty, and good old FEAR!!  :evil:

I now usually play with escorts/interceptors which helps keep bombers from being overpowered.

Functioneta and Rockrobin, I suggest you play each other  :lol:
Seriously, you’d probably be a good match for each other.  Prove your points on the gameboard.  Just a suggestion.

@Funcioneta:

For the 2nd, I’d skip z2 in case of Egypt attack: it’s way more riskier than z12, and if fails, it lets your fig or bomb exposed (for not saying a potential healing of the bb). You could try both z2 and z12, of course, but you must choose:

z2 with sub, fig, bomb & z12 with sub, 2 fig
or z2 with 2 sub, fig, bomb & z12 with 2 fig

Both are too risky.

For the record, the chances of bomber+fighter+sub versus battleship is 95% and the chances of sub+ two fighters versus dest+cruiser is 85%. Given that you agree that the SZ12 attack only has to kill a destroyer at minimum, it is clear that the sea attacks have a much greater chance of both succeeding than one egypt assault.

I agree that G1 focus on UK boats is a very sound strategy and much less risky.  Again, I almost always skip Egypt attack G1.
One reason Funcioneta gave for attacking is actually a reason that I don’t attack.
That is, that the units are irreplaceable.  My thinking is that they won’t be reinforced anytime soon, other than with bombers (UK and even USA potentially).  So they’re not going anywhere.  You can choose a more advantageous time to attack, later.  You can drill the UK NO by taking Gibraltar, and Italy needs 3 out of 4 for an NO so doesn’t need Egypt to get it.
I have also reconsidered my J1’s for the same reason.  I don’t think it’s imperative that the Chinese fighter be killed before it gets a chance to ever take off.  It’s not going anywhere.  It can’t attack your transports or anything.  It’s one attacking 3, coordinating with attacking 1’s and you can easily see all possible Chinese attacks.  I’ve forgone this attack several times now, and have really never regretted it.  The Chinese are not that much harder to subdue if you forgo the Yunnan attack.  That’s 2 more fighters you can use to increase odds in fleet battles.

If there is no bid to Egypt, I can’t pass up the opportunity to break Africa wide open.  I’m willing to sacrifice the bomber to kill the fighter…if killing the fighter is my measure of success, is there still a 25% chance of failure?

If those units don’t die, then Italy should be hard pressed to get the Suez NO more than once, given that I’m pulling India units back to contest Jordan on UK2.

Actually, if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt I’m tempted to buy 3 bombers on UK1, use Russians to secure Jordan on R2, and take out the Italian fleet on UK2, which means Italy only gets to use the fleet for one turn.  Then I can focus on Europe.  Haven’t had a chance to try this yet but it would free up the USA for a Pac offensive or allow a coordinated focus on Northern Europe.

@Zhukov44:

If there is no bid to Egypt, I can’t pass up the opportunity to break Africa wide open.  I’m willing to sacrifice the bomber to kill the fighter…if killing the fighter is my measure of success, is there still a 25% chance of failure?

A 20 % chance of failure if you are happy with mutual destruction.

If those units don’t die, then Italy should be hard pressed to get the Suez NO more than once, given that I’m pulling India units back to contest Jordan on UK2.

There is Gibraltar as well.

Actually, if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt I’m tempted to buy 3 bombers on UK1

Yeah, it probably does spell doom for the Italian fleet if UK purchases that way. Should live with two bombers even with a destroyer purchase. Not sure if Axis would welcome such an approach or not though…specially given that UK isnt getting into the pressuring Germany action till turn 3 now (given that SZ 2 and SZ 12 are gone and UK still needs to build its fleet and is getting poor).

I also agree with rockrobin on this post too.
There is no Suez NO.  Germany can take Gib G1 and Italy can take TrJ I1.  NO obtained.

@rockrobinoff:

@Bardoly:

I do agree that one should hit Egypt with everything on G1.

To my mind, Egypt G1 is the debate in this game. Upside: awesome when it works. Downside: Terrible when it fails.

Egypt attack fails outright about 25% of the time. If you do go for it, I think it has to mean that you don’t think the Axis position is very bad when it fails. Otherwise, you forget Egypt, and use your bomber to sink boats in the Atlantic.

I know that you quoted an only 20% chance of mutual destruction, but I believe that I’ve seen higher numbers.  Usually one should at the least destroy all of the units and save the German bomber.  Italy has got to be allowed a chance to grow, and attacking Egypt G1 just about ensures that Italy will make 20+ IPCs for 3+ turns.  This allows Italy to come into its own as a power in the game instead of just a puny weakling like China.  So yes, while I’m not thrilled by a G1 Egypt attack which only clears Egypt leaving my German bomber or even not leaving the bomber, I still think that it is a win for the Axis.  And if I see that the battle is going sour, and I have to retreat the bomber and a land unit or 2 to Libya with most of the Desert Rats intact, then I still don’t think that the failed battle is a disaster for the Axis.

By the way, I almost always hit sz2 with 2 subs and 1 fighter and sz12 with 2 fighters.  This way, if the Egypt battle goes sour, then I should still be able to destroy at least the sz2 destroyer to save the Italian fleet.

@Bardoly:

I know that you quoted an only 20% chance of mutual destruction, but I believe that I’ve seen higher numbers.

Well, i did just run the simulation again as i was triple checking my figures. You can confirm the numbers for yourself.

80.64% chance of wiping all UK units
25.07% chance all German units would be lost, but this does not take into account the chance to retreat.  This is if you attacked until you lost everything.
So 74.93% (1 - 25.07%) chance of wiping Egypt with a bomber to spare, but UK still gets her NO
61.28% chance of taking it with a bomber and armor, denying UK NO.

@gamerman01:

One reason Funcioneta gave for attacking is actually a reason that I don’t attack.
That is, that the units are irreplaceable.  My thinking is that they won’t be reinforced anytime soon, other than with bombers (UK and even USA potentially).  So they’re not going anywhere.  You can choose a more advantageous time to attack, later.

Well, they can go to many places:

1. They can escape to India/Persia and join with Gurkas (to delay Japan’s expansion)
2. They could stack trj and prevent italian NO (yes, you can take Gibraltar, but that means less units to Africa or a secure killing of italian navy if UK buys 3 bombers as someone said
3. They could escape to Sudan to defend Africa. Probably this approach is the best since it makes SAF IC a option and not a must
4. They could escape to China (after losing soviet NO one round unless only the tank is sent to there), specially in case of Japan not doing the correct move (killing chinese corpse J1). Allies could have a hope of making China counting (and maybe even winning) if axis makes the double failure: not attacking Egypt, not killing China J1

So you can’t choose the time to attack with germans if you fail doing so G1 because UK will retreat their units until the best moment to counter since Germany left the initiative in Africa/Middle East theater. They could even retreat to Caucasus if really needed, and Desert Rats are 5 units

You seem think Desert Rats are a minor nuisance, but they can delay axis advance for rounds, specially in Africa. Same applies for China: there is not bigger target for Japan that those 5 units, specially the fighter. I doubt you leave alive all of them, but even letting Yunnan alive is a big difference. Assuming Japan’s attack go well, after China 1 we have:

1. Attack and take the 4 chinese territories -> China has one inf and only one, and that will be the latst they will have in the whole game unless USA manages somehow beat Imperial Navy
2. Attack 3 and take territories, skip Yunnan -> China has 3 inf, 1 fig after China 1. In China 2 they will probably buy at least one more inf even if soviets (or Desert Rats) don’t come to the rescue. That’s a wall of 5 units before adding any soviet reinforce. They can stack Chinghai for ages or even make some rogue attack if jap tanks get uncared

What do you skip attacking 4 chinese territories? USA’s BB? That can be replaced and is a riskier attack than chinese ones. Soviet stack at Buryatia? That bait will cost Japan too much and probably will leave even more chinamen alive. Some other? No: z35 and Pearl harbour can be done safely. Take into account you are killing one enemy power even before they do their first turn without risking nothing important in exchange. I know they are crappy due poor design and ilogical ahistorical rules, but as allies, I prefer having them alive than dead, specially if we are talking about round 1

However, this debate is interesting anyway

Well, I respectfully disagree.
I know your points are popular and are conventional wisdom, but I’ve begun to question this conventional wisdom.  A couple of Chinese infantry don’t scare me.  They don’t all need to be killed in round one.  They are DEFINITELY not going anwhere.
I’m well aware there are options for the UK forces in Egypt to run around.  However, in '41 there aren’t fighters starting in India and Australia, so again, I disagree that they are a priority G1.
You know, I was thinking about the '42 scenario as far as other things the Jap fighterrs need to do.  In '41 the Japanese scenario is an absolute joke.  They can do whatever they want.  No fighter in Australia, no carrier and fighter by India - just a BB at Pearl.  Japan can do whatever they dang well please in '41.  With 9 fighters to start and major bombardment capabilities, China is just a whipping boy that can be hammered at any time - round 1, round 2, whatever.
Wanna game, Funcioneta?  It’s very difficult to describe the merits of a strategy when there are a lot of other things going on.  Sure, it sounds like a great idea to hammer China and Egypt, and ignoring both is what you call a “double failure”  :lol:
But these actions do have opportunity costs.
I just started a 1941 game as Axis, and I decided to attack Egypt G1.  I got lucky, and won it with 2 armor and the bomber.  Sure, it’s sweet when it works.  But it depends on my mood what I want to do G1 1941.

@Funcioneta:

So you can’t choose the time to attack with germans if you fail doing so G1 because UK will retreat their units until the best moment to counter since Germany left the initiative in Africa/Middle East theater. They could even retreat to Caucasus if really needed, and Desert Rats are 5 units

Nope, must of my opponents leave it there in Egypt, reinforcing with TrJ (giving that to the Italians along with NO), because it goes toward UK and Italy NO’s, I suppose.  Maybe you are superior to my average opponents, I don’t know.

You seem think Desert Rats are a minor nuisance

Nope - just don’t always want to make a risky attack and commit the German Bomber down there.

What do you skip attacking 4 chinese territories? USA’s BB? That can be replaced and is a riskier attack than chinese ones.

However, this debate is interesting anyway

What is with this idea of whether something can be replaced or not?  Sure, it can be replaced, for 20 big ones!  I’m looking at threat levels.  Letting one or two Chinese infantry live does not pose much of a threat in future turns.
As far as your, um, interesting idea about taking all the mideast forces up to Chi, you’re abandoning the mideast, giving away Italian NO’s without a fight, it takes several turns to get up there, losing Russian NO’s on the way…  I must say, that’s unconventional wisdom, at best.
I’m getting tired of discussing the what if’s.  Sounds like you’d be a good opponent.  I challenge you to a game.

@gamerman01:

I’m getting tired of discussing the what if’s.  Sounds like you’d be a good opponent.  I challenge you to a game.

Mmmff… I really don’t want more games now (specially AA41 ones) but OK, with these conditions:

• I want play allies
• NOs on
• Techs on
• Dardanelles and interceptors off

Just make the thread and start with Germany at your pleasure. As an option, we can do it a league game to make it count, but I let that for you to decide

It’s on  :wink:
I have a lot of games going now too, so no pressure on you to move timely.
I’m just posting here in case someone following the discussion wants to view the game, I wanted to confirm that there will be a game.
I guess I will forgo the Egypt attack so you can show me the dire consequences of this failure.  I might have been thinking of 1942 more with the whole leave the flying tigers alone thing, so not sure if I will be attacking them or not in 1941.  I’ll see if I can let them go so I can commit the “double failure”  :wink:
I usually play with Dard closed and no new Island complexes, but welcome a chance to play Axis without these “handicaps”.  I’ll go set up G1.

@gamerman01:

It’s on  :wink:
I have a lot of games going now too, so no pressure on you to move timely.
I’m just posting here in case someone following the discussion wants to view the game, I wanted to confirm that there will be a game.
I guess I will forgo the Egypt attack so you can show me the dire consequences of this failure.  I might have been thinking of 1942 more with the whole leave the flying tigers alone thing, so not sure if I will be attacking them or not in 1941.  I’ll see if I can let them go so I can commit the “double failure”  :wink:
I usually play with Dard closed and no new Island complexes, but welcome a chance to play Axis without these “handicaps”.  I’ll go set up G1.

42 scenario is a diferent animal, but that’s not the matter. I’m not against Dardanelles, but I feel it’s better not using FAQ optionals this time

As for non island complexes: no way, pal, I want Mc Arthur’s HQ in long run (Philippines) :-D

Heh heh, I’m sure we’ll have a great game.
Just so everyone knows, I got heavy bombers in G1 with 10 IPC’s, so the joke’s on me.  I really want to attack Egypt now, but not going to, since that’s kind of the point of this game  :lol:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

@gamerman01:

Heh heh, I’m sure we’ll have a great game.
Just so everyone knows, I got heavy bombers in G1 with 10 IPC’s, so the joke’s on me.  I really want to attack Egypt now, but not going to, since that’s kind of the point of this game  :lol:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

@rockrobinoff:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

Nonsense.  Even Funcioneta acknowledged that with a naval build, using the heavy bomber on SZ2 was a good move.
10 bucks is far from an outrageous move.  This is AA50, where you don’t throw away the money, remember?  If I didn’t roll a 6, I’d get a chance the next turn and the next turn until I did. 
10 bucks gives you 30.5% chance of a breakthrough.
I play this game for fun, not like some cold, calculating killer who must always make the optimal strategic move.  Getting tech is fun.  Not to mention the fact that having heavy bombers helps my chances of winning big time.
I don’t understand why people act like tech is such a big gamble or waste of money or whatever.  Jeez, it’s not Axis and Allies without tech.
To each his own.  I don’t care what you think about spending 10 on tech.  I spent 15 with Japan and got improved shipyards, and then I spent 10 with Italy and got nothing.  What do you think about that?  I think I’m going to win.