Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
There is also a fighter which can move to Egypt during NCM, so there is an option not to include it into attacking Ukraine.
Other possibilities would be Finland, Baltic states, Belorussia. Finland and Belorussia hold only infantry so you are not killing any German attack power. The Baltic states has in it only 1 inf 1 tank, again this doesn't hurt the Germans much. Not to mention any attack vs those 3 territories would actually lessen your attack onto west russia which would cause even more casualties to your army. Most likely the Germans could take Karelia even if you took the Baltic states on turn 1 anyway. So trying to hold Karelia turn 1 is not really an option.
I suppose your 2 attacks could be west Russia, Belorussia. This would be safer however you just don't do enough damage to the germans and also you would have to leave open the Caucus for them. I know as a German player I would be happy with that opening. An extra fighter, bomber, tank and access to the caucus on turn 1, Yes Please!
Just think about it. The balance of power between Russia and Germany. Russia can't hit then retreat at West Russia as that leaves it in a worse position and leaves Germany with more options
If as Russia you hit 2 territories or 3, you inevitably lessen your unit count at West Russia, which means bad dice there leave you open to Germany breaking West Russia, which Russia can't recover from. So you can never lessen risk in a 2 or 3 territory Russian opening, it is and always will be present - only preplaced bids would put additional units on board to reduce the risk.
If as Russia you hit only West Russia - well you'd considered that already hadn't you?
So much for conventional infantry push dynamics.
Though there are alternatives, I won't get into them here, as the question was about reducing overall risk.
I guess I gotta review how I play with the other powers to support Russia after that, since there isn't much that can be done with Russia itself...
So at end of R1 you had 5 infantry 2 fighters 1 AA gun on Caucasus? Germany had no units left on Ukraine?
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&AA=on&aInf=1&aArt=1&aArm=2&aFig=3&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=1&adBat=&dInf=4&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
AACalc doesn't, I think, account for the fact that an AA gun can be taken as a casualty. The odds are decently better for defender if I'm right about that.
Nevertheless, if Ukraine is cleared of units (German fighter and bomber both dead), Germany has moderate odds of failure if it tries to take Caucasus as described, and risks some very bad outcomes if it does fail.
I'm guessing you fed Russia's Kazakh infantry to Szechwan. When Russian fighters are on the line, you can't take chances like that. In that game, it cost you.
==
I've commented on the Allies being disadvantaged because of Russia needing to take risks without possibility of retreat (retreat only making things worse in most cases), and Axis not being in the same situation, and about how preplaced bids would address that - not just in this thread, but I've written more extended comments elsewhere. My impression is nothing will be done about that, as 1942 Online is - or so I read - geared towards casual players.
Well, that's as it goes. But if you really want to mitigate opening risk in Axis and Allies, support preplaced bids, put in a request to Beamdog that it be implemented. Even if it's not implemented in this version, at least players need to make themselves heard if they want the feature to even possibly be implemented in future versions.
Also note - Germany having fighter and bomber on Ukraine is NOT remotely the same as "I took out everything there".
If everything on Ukraine is dead, Russian 5 inf 2 fighter 1 AA gun isn't the worst chance to take. It's a nasty coinflip for Germany; conservative players won't take it.
If Ukraine has German fighter and bomber survive, Germany has only something like 15% failure at Caucasus, even with 5 inf 2 fighter 1 AA gun. It is NOT at all the same thing.
You could say it's easy to misread the situation and hope for huge AA gun, but at that point you're hoping to get lucky anyways, and ought to have left 5 inf if you *were* going to defend. If you *are* going to take bad chances, you need to at least put them in your favor as much as possible.
It's really difficult to have real conversations without screenshots. And I know, Axis and Allies Online doesn't support the Steam interface so it's not easy to get screenshots. But use imgur or something, anyone who's reading this. Seriously.
Look yeah? The response I wrote was relevant to UKR being CLEARED. Not to UKR having fighter / bomber left on it.
. . . so use screenshots.
aardvarkpepper:
I just wanted to let you know I enjoy reading your comments. Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
I don't know what "LH" or "WR9" are either. But point taken about abbreviations. A post explaining certain abbreviations could probably could stand to be stickied sometime.
Mostly those abbreviations were used by *some* veterans of Axis and Allies org boards. Some by military veterans. Some just by players that didn't want to type things out.
"R/G/UK/J/US (number)" - Russia, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, United States of America, and round number. So R1 = Russia's first round turn, J3 = Japan's third round turn.
"LHTR" - short for Larry Harris Tournament Rules, which was . . . what was it, a holdover from Revised version of the board game? (Revised was one or two versions previous to the board game this version is based on - the board game this version is based on is called 1942v2.) Maybe LHTR was made earlier? I forget. Anyways the out of the box rules caused some issues for play at tournaments so "Larry Harris Tournament Rules" were created. Ever since then, any major changes to game post-release were often referred to as "LHTR" even if they didn't involve any actual changes in rules.
"1942v2" - 1942 version 2. Hasbro / Wizards of the Coast / Avalon Hill / whatever they're calling themselves these days what with mergers and all only makes one 1942 version, I think. But there was an older version called 1942 as well. So to avoid confusing the two, some players sometimes call the board game version 1942 Online is based on "1942 v 2".
"LHTR" (continued) - 1942v2 fixed a lot of issues (at least I would say there were issues) with Revised gameplay. Under Revised, transports could be allocated as hits, so when you had an expensive transport escort fleet, the first thing to die were usually the cheap transports that had a low defense (they did have a defense roll in Revised). So it was very cheesy, once a player gets five or six transports together and a carrier, attacking that was crazy expensive in terms of airpower because expensive air would die in exchange for cheap transports, and the heart of the defensive escort fleet (the carriers) could never be touched. Then there were the "fire an infantry at the shore" plays that involved unloading a single infantry to get whatever number of offshore bombardment support shots, that incidentally also destroyed stuff before they had a chance to fire back. And Revised also had that recurrent Allies-dropping-units-to-Africa gameplay. Same thing EVERY time with veterans. And Allies were favored to win, to the extent that Axis often used a "preplaced bid" as a VERY commonly used house rule in online games that were played on TripleA. So with 1942v2, they made a load of rules changes and map changes and balance changes, but in so doing the Axis ended up being favored.
So "LHTR" setup was introduced post-release (of the board game which was years ago), making certain changes that helped the Allies, though players still differ on whether Axis or Allies are favored.
"Pre-placed bids" - usual rules used are - only place up to a single unit where the placing power already has ground or sea units, players bid before game to decide who's what, lower bidder gets the side they want and other side gets IPCs that they may distribute as they like; those IPCs may be used to purchase units before game start.
==
Other abbreviations you see a lot, and not just from Axis and Allies org / TripleA veterans -
"CA, CV, CC, BB" etc - military abbreviations.
AA = AntiAircraft
CA = Cruiser
CV = Carrier. Yes, you would think maybe CA = carrier but no.
BB = Battleship
"WR, UKR, Cauc" - country abbreviations
Cauc = Caucasus
WR = West Russia
UKR = Ukraine
Different players use different abbreviations.
thanks
nice to feel appreciated
Revisited this thread, noticed I hadn't addressed this. There are things you can do, but don't fool yourself into thinking clever Allied play can get around bad dice first round. Only preplaced bids can, because only preplaced bids change the initial setup that change opening attacks balance.
That said, and commenting that the developers, if I recall correctly, stated allied carriers may be able to be used by fighters in future -
1. I wrote a basic tactics guide for Axis and Allies describing infantry push mechanics. If you reference it (it's the only guide in the 1942 Online section right now I think) - that tells you some very BASIC stuff, that especially with some smart cooperative play, leads to better applied economics, which gives game advantage. BUT it does not address multiple-threat dynamics, well who knows I could write a whole series of guides but eh. No money in it for me, so "someday" will have to do.
I mention that because part of what I'm about to write requires understanding multiple-threat dynamics.
2. Your basic play with infantry push dynamics - on UK's turn, look at West Russia, calculate Russia's planned attacks, calculate if West Russia has a decent chance of holding with additional support, if it does, send support, if not, don't.
For example, suppose Germany "overextended" - that is, left valuable units where they can be cheaply destroyed without the attacker being punished in turn (either because the attacker can leave so many defenders that they can't be counter-attacked effectively, or because the attacker can retreat to safety and move up reinforcements). In this imaginary scenario, maybe Russia needs to abandon West Russia to get good odds on killing most of Germany's tanks and fighters at Ukraine. This is super good for Russia, typically it's trading 3 IPC infantry and 4 IPC artillery for 6 IPC tanks and 10 IPC fighters, so IF it can manage it and not get horribly punished, well.
But that means if UK flies fighters to West Russia without anticipating Russia's attack, maybe West Russia is left undefended, and Germany can easily kill those UK fighters in exchange for a couple German infantry.
OR suppose Germany has some massive attack on West Russia. If adding UK fighters to the mix just means UK fighters die in the scrum without doing much, Russia should probably retreat, and UK should not land fighters at all.
Sending reinforcements inappropriately is very bad. So check the above two cases.
Right. So - if West Russia looks like Russia is going to stay there and not shift off to do some great attack or run away, then UK can fly fighters on to reinforce. And US can also fly its China fighter to reinforce.
. . . and there's ways to help the US fighter survive against possible Japanese attack before US's turn, but I won't get into that here. The point here is you CAN reinforce West Russia with fighters, but you MAY NOT ALWAYS want to do it.
3. Understand the dynamics, really understand them. A lot of players on Discord have some rudimentary idea of tactics, but they think it stops there, and when I write otherwise they roll their collective eyes and say I don't know what I'm talking about. Well that's on them. Also, understand the little things you can do and how those things can be countered &c.
For example, a "little thing" - suppose Germany DID break West Russia on Germany's first turn, and it's looking super bad for Allies. What can UK do? There are two things offhand.
First, the "little thing" - fighters to Iceland. The "optimal" route for UK fighters is UK fighters to West Russia, Karelia, or Archangel; any of those can be flown to India next turn, and/or may bolster key positions in Europe. Russia itself is out of range of UK fighters. And if UK builds a carrier for fighters, that carrier may be easily destroyed by Germany. But UK fighters can fly to Iceland without need for a carrier, then from there to Russia. Any named island,even without an IPC value, may be landed on.
Second, abandoning India. Frankly, UK should not abandon India cheaply, but if Moscow is horribly pressed, there really isn't much choice. The key is UK *tanks* at India. If at all possible, one should not buy UK tanks at India for most of the game; they're simply too expensive. If possible, UK should buy infantry/artillery, then right before Japan crushes India, buy nothing new to place on India (they'll die anyways), and move the big block of India units to Persia, then to Caucasus, where they reinforce Moscow. Being cheap at India means UK has more IPCs to spend on transports and escorts in the Atlantic.
. . . at this point a lot of Discord players are probably rolling their eyes "aardvark's off on a rant again!" Yeah okay whatever. I notice them dispensing sound tactical advice backed by starting unit dispositions and outcome percentages when?
Anyways, as much as I'm writing, I AM leaving important details out. But hopefully you can figure most of that out. Anyways - that's what UK does if Germany isn't breathing down Russia's neck.
But if Russia is threatened, India must be abandoned. Once the Axis secure Russia, normally Caucasus is next. Then Russia/Caucasus produce 12 units a turn, Japan produces 8 units a turn, India lasts about as long as a fart in a hurricane. So rather than losing Russia then Caucasus then India, better to lose India first and maybe save Russia.
. . . and WHEN you do that, you may want UK tanks. Suppose Japan is gearing up towards India. All right, you send a couple UK infantry to Persia perhaps. It shouldn't be much of a problem because if Japan does switch up and dump a load of units to Burma, if you were going to seriously defend India anyways, you could pull back from Persia to India if necessary. And you weren't going to seriously try to take Burma in force with UK anyways because it's a useless trap.
"why is it a useless trap" - because if the Axis are playing properly, they're pressuring Russia. They'll be quite happy for a big block of UK infantry to be walking into Burma then French Indochina Thailand or whatever, where they're well out of the way. If the Allies are winning by a load and pushing Axis back on all fronts, then taking Burma in force might actually be a good move, but usually it's just a dead end that puts a little more IPCs in UK's pocketbook but loses the game.
So UK goes to Persia, and uses UK tanks with some UK infantry to help hold India. Then the UK tanks plus Persia infantry plus UK air pose a potent counterthreat to any German push into Caucasus. Yet India is also defended. Then when Japan gets too close and India is abandoned, the bulk of India's forces shift immediately into Caucasus *in force* because of the India tanks, and a mid-sized batch of UK infantry is left at Persia for a followup.
The tradeoff is obviously if UK is buying all these expensive tanks, UK is not getting its Atlantic transport game on. But it's not *necessarily* clear cut. Because after US1 fleet buy into US2 movement then US3 fleet to UK sea zones, UK may have been able to drop a good-sized fleet that the US3 movement covers. So though UK definitely gives up some unit count strength, it gains *speed* to help defend Russia, and if its Atlantic transport game suffers a bit, at least it's not totally crippled (hopefully).
Other "little things" - if Japan doesn't attack US's Hawaiian Islands fleet, a US fighter can fly from carrier to W Australia, then to India. The US fighter could be useful in Atlantic, but usually that's US3 by earliest. Again, it's not a good standard, as usually it's better to have US's air where it can be used to increase the threat range of its ground units (cheap US ground dies while expensive US air remains - and probably US doesn't have much ground in Asia for quite a while). But if you need speed, there is that option.
4. Strat bombing. Normally I really frown on strat bombing, bombers are just too useful and expensive to be risked to strategic bomb. But again, if you want to get those small quick gains rather than building up a more solid infrastructure, bombers. But normally, you don't buy new bombers for that purpose; UK and US need to set up their transports and escorts; building expensive bombers just leaves Germany and Japan with more time to pull off their shenanigans.
Generally - if you want QUICK gains, you can do UK/US tanks. If you're dropping to Morocco, or using tanks to move two territories to reinforce Russia faster, or whatever. It's not the greatest, but it beats being locked out.
Awesome stuff. How long have you been playing A&A?