If USA commits towards the Atlantic, recognize that germany’s main goal is to survive. Try to maximize infantry purchases each round with rare exception. Trading territories back and forth very efficiently is okay, but avoid large trades such as trading germany air for Allied navy.

Check every round whether allies can safely stack Northeast Europe or France. It’s absolutely critical to calculate this each round and have enough units in reach to prevent this. You don’t actually have to occupy France and in many cases occupying France is inefficient.

Try to position to stack Karelia and check every round if you’re able to. Getting UK and US bottled up in Sweden is a very common way that axis wins.

Japan buying mostly infantry and tanks will be able to start trading with Russia starting round 3 around kazakh. Japan with starting air can trade very efficiently, and this weakens Russia. Japan should focus on expanding income. Taking india is not necessary and in many cases suboptimal for Japan to try.

The bomber in ukraine makes it a very volatile battle. It’s definitely a problem with the map setup currently that the outcome is so variable on something that can’t be controlled round 1. If it’s any consolation, Axis still have a substantial advantage and can consistently win even with bad luck. On the other hand, Allies might as well resign if ukraine goes badly.

The ideal buy for UK1 is 3 inf, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer. This creates a UK navy round 1 that can start trading with Germany round 2. If this is not possible, 3 units and fighters. Always buy 3 land units in India if at all possible. This priority is above even creating a UK navy.

A key point about defending India is that UK fighters should be sent within reach of landing in India round 3. Ideally landing West Russia round 2. With 3 purchases in india Round 1-3 and all available fighters arriving in india, Allies can usually hold.

Hit sz61 with a fighter and cruiser. All other exchanges in the Pacific are unfavorable round 1. Better to wait until round 3 when US fleet is in Pacific (assuming it’s a KJF). Uk can either merge with USA fleet or trade east Indies round 3.

@djensen I agree, familiarizing with the interface takes experience but that seems inherent to any game physical or virtual. The lack of undo is IMO the largest difference currently compared to the physical board. I have spoken to the devs and it is mainly that the current game architecture doesn’t store much historical game state information. This is necessary for an undo.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

@aardvarkpepper Sorry I meant, I lost my fleet in East indies and I still went ahead doing pearl harbor. I ended up with nothing left in the pacific and got KJF.

I basically learn… That when you lost east indies from UK, should have bought fleet in R1 immediately, probably 3-4 subs to prepare for KJF. Also shouldn’t do Pearl in the future, if I lost my East Indies fleet.

Make sense? :)

Thanks!

Makes complete sense to me. Good luck on your future games, I am sure you will improve quickly asking questions and trying different play

Here is a discord channel with many helpful and good players if you would like to join
https://discord.gg/j5NQUaa6

@Imperious-Leader I agree with your comments about the difficulty loading transports. I largely prefer the Triplea UI. However, I have to give Beamdog compliment for the ranked game system and the fidelity to the game rules. Allowing retreats with amphibious units, inability to both bombard and do a naval battle, probably some others I forgot. Having played hundreds if not thousands of Triplea games, I was amazed at the rules I thought, but where I was really incorrect.

On the randomness of dice… The dice are a uniform 1d6 distribution and independent. I also thought the single last defender hit too much, but then realized that it’s simply the dice UI that exaggerates the last hit. I applied a chi-square test both on rolls in general and for the last defender hit, and was satisfied. You’re welcome to replicate: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70802/how-can-i-test-whether-a-die-is-fair

@Boston_NWO

I’ve previously gone by other names such as Salta, Sanfrancisco, MarineIguana.

@Imperious-Leader Coming from my experience as statistician and coder, i’m suspicious of assertions on data hypotheses that are based on anecdotal experience rather than a statistical test. The human mind is rife with biases that hinder accurate statistical inferences. Additionally, the PRNG number generation is so established in the major coding languages, that I seriously doubt any developer would alter to make non-random die result. If you’re concerned about the randomness of the dice, record 300-400 observations which is achievable within a single game of A&A. The apply a Chi-square test.

@Brian-Cannon

Deadzone is a territory that a player can’t move a stack of units without the opponent threatening to attack it profitably. Germany should trade Ukraine with fighters and just enough land to retake. Do not attempt to stack. Don’t leave any infantry in belorussia. Germany battleship and transport and hit Ukraine Round 1 if Russia got an especially nice round 1. In fact I favor this over trans Jordan in many cases.

The key lesson is to trade efficients and don’t engage in stack battles where many units are lost. Germany can safely stack 2 territories and eventually 3. By round 20, the Germany stacks will exceed 60 units and are hard to kill.

The sz7 is 3 sub, Cru, 2 fig. Possibly 2 subs if you are a risk taker. I strongly recommend a battle calculator if you aren’t using. The difference of one cruiser is stark.

R1: Stack Karelia if possible. If not, tanks in Poland, infantry in baltic. Aim to threaten to stack Karelia R2 and onwards. Completely evacuate from France.

Germany if Allies commit to killing Germany is actually remarkably easy.

Each round, ensure that allies can’t stack france or Northwest Territories. Second, stack Karelia if possible and otherwise position in poland and baltic to aim to stack next round. Avoid engaging in any battles. 15-20 rounds later, Allies are forced to move from Moscow or take a -200 battle.

What is the donation goal? I can potentially support more if you need.

@moonzar said in Japan R1 attack on pearl harbor:

@aardvarkpepper Sorry I meant, I lost my fleet in East indies and I still went ahead doing pearl harbor. I ended up with nothing left in the pacific and got KJF.

I basically learn… That when you lost east indies from UK, should have bought fleet in R1 immediately, probably 3-4 subs to prepare for KJF. Also shouldn’t do Pearl in the future, if I lost my East Indies fleet.

Make sense? :)

Thanks!

Makes complete sense to me. Good luck on your future games, I am sure you will improve quickly asking questions and trying different play

Here is a discord channel with many helpful and good players if you would like to join
https://discord.gg/j5NQUaa6

I agree that a deep understanding is better, but that takes a lot of effort. Knowing what good players are doing and copying that is a solid way of quickly improving while also reverse engineering the understanding of mechanics over time.

This season, I haven’t attacked pearl harbor once (25 games) despite all kinds of opponent actions. Not claiming I am the best axis player, but I’ve done well enough that I think my advice is useful.

Quintin is a strong player and provides a good menu of alternative evaluations on pearl. Even 5 seasons in among strong players, there remains disagreement about the very best move.

The only cases where you should clearly not do Pearl is if UK attacks borneo, Russia places 5 infantry in buryatia, or some similar level of UK aggression where Japan has use the starting units to great effect. In this scenario, attacking pearl as well overstretches Japan’s navy.

@moonzar Yep ground battles. These are small but guaranteed profits. The big reason why hitting USA pearl isn’t as good as it seems is that the USA navy units are so out of position. It’s round 4 until they’re useful in Europe, and often times Allies end up with more navy than they need (other than transports). In contrast, Japan’s air is immediately useful in rounds 1-3 making additional profit with each battle.

1 bomber to burytania
2-3 fighters to Anhwei
1-2 fighters Burma
1-2 fighters Yunnan
fighters if UK tries to take borneo, New Guinea, or otherwise leaves units exposed

I don’t attack Pearl Harbor any more, in any situation. the profit is minimal and there is a surprisingly large opportunity cost.

William, I think that’s a reasonable play and a coherent strategy. I wanted to point out a couple variations.

1. You are right that the UK India navy position is untenable. Other than sacrificing it round 1, UK can sail it around Africa to reach France by Round 4 - perfectly timed for when Allies have a peak power advantage on Germany.
2. Japan can completely ignore India and move directly on China. Playing as Axis, I do this the vast majority of my games unless UK plays in a way that loses India Round 3. Japan can cluster the fleet at sz61, avoiding the UK fighter pressure.
3. Most of the strongest UK players prioritize creating a UK fleet round 1. this is because the UK navy applies threat to 6 Germany territories (7 if you count Karelia). A fleet with transports also activates the existing UK units at the capital. 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 3 infantry allows UK to create a navy round 1 while also placing maximum units in India.

Yup, apparently not; think you were right on this point.
I read through Julius’s post and see that they are fixing lane rolling. Drag and drop units should also be nice!

@aardvarkpepper Agreed, there’s a real mathematical difference. Beamdog made a game design choice that asynchronous play is an essential product feature of the online version. Defense profiles and lane rolling are aspects that are motivated from this product decision.

Whoops, I just realized that I replied to a thread that’s 2 years old. sorry about that!

@djensen I don’t follow why you perceive that there’s lane rolling. The online implementation is equivalent to rolling all dice at once since the defender’s defense profile is set as soon as the defender clicks to complete their turn. A click pause between each level of rolling is simply a game flourish to build suspense.

Ah, I can see what you mean with how the attacker gets to choose the losses at each loss stage. It’s not the same as Triplea or the board game, but I honestly haven’t noticed a difference in my games. 99.9% of the time the order of loss is aa -> inf -> bomber -> art -> tank -> fig. Navy is sub -> dest -> car -> cru -> fig. There are some caveats, but I perceive the difference between selecting losses by lane vs knowing the entire round hits to be a minor effect. It has the effect of slightly disadvantaging the attacker since the attacker must make decisions prior to knowing the full hit information. On the balancing side, the defender has to select a defensive profile prior to the subsequent round of battles.