Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
When my friends and I play we find a slow retreat to Russia works well. In a bit more detail we typically would retreat from Karelia turn 1 and Caucasus 2 moving back from the west as well. We then fly allied fighters in to Russia every now and again (Eygpt, India or Iceland are favoured routes) and almost exclusively purchase infantry for Russia until the UK/US relieve the pressure usually with landings in W Europe. Not sure this is the best strategy but it works reasonably well in our small group.
The tactic originally relied on making Russia too difficult to take even with an outside chance, but a successful attack on W. Russia prevents a turn 1 attack by the Germans on Russia itself so is a safer bet. You only need 1 unit to get in, and 1 is as good as 10 so how many you attack with is probably a personal choice. But I would usally hold back the infantry in Russia to move into the Caucasus (4).
The assumption is then that the German player could take the Caucasus but it would be considered too costly and would prevent sinking the UK fleet as any attack would require the use of all available aircraft. The game then becomes completely focused on some form of 'allied conveyor belt' to Russia usually through Europe and the Russian player pretty much sits producing infantry awaiting rescue.
As a point of interest against the AI I have found purchasing 2 bombers on turn 1 or 2 also helps as the AI is daft enough to leave tanks and or fighters with no infantry cover in small numbers around Russia, maybe 1 or 2 in a province in later turns and sending 1 or 2 infantry with 2 Fighters and the 2 bombers can pick these off relatively cheaply.
One caveat, our group is quite small (4) and so it maybe that this tactic is only working because of our particular style of play I am sure others will chip in too though, see how you get on.
You and your friends need to learn strategy and tactics for Axis and Allies. It's not a terribly complicated business, but correctly understanding the finer nuances on different boards takes some discipline and effort. Even veterans of twenty years or more experience often make moves that are plainly wrong.
(Of course, if you ask such veterans if they've put discipline and effort into learning the game they'll say they have.
So what is proper "discipline and effort", if even long-term players of the game get it wrong? I won't go into much detail here, but remember - when you read vague mumbo jumbo about "timing" and "cost efficiency" and whatever stupid impressive sounding phrase - just remember it all comes down to *numbers*. If you don't see specific numbers and specific mathematics, it's basically bead rattles and impressive capering around the fire to impress the impressionable.
As I wrote, it's not a terribly complicated business. A bit involved, sure, but Axis and Allies is a perfect information game, which eliminates a lot of gameplay. You don't know the outcomes of dice, but you can have *some idea* if you of what will happen and what is possible if you understand the mechanics of the game and use a binomial probability distribution calculator (available online, just do a Google search).
You can also use Axis and Allies "calculators" (I write "calculators" as they're not the same as actual binomial calculators but instead generate pseudorandom numbers then aggregate the outcomes to form distributions). Rather than using the link that some players have put up to a cryptominer program, use
http://calc.axisandallies.org/
Anyways remember - if you see any purported "analysis" that is vague and doesn't refer to precise moves, precise probabilities &c - it's probably just more of that pseudoanalytic fake mumbo jumbo that's going around - and there's quite a lot of that.
Pretty much anything I write about Axis and Allies is what I would call the higher class of pseudoanalytic fake mumbo jumbo. Higher class because I do consider numbers, timings, probability distributions, mechanics &c, as the foundation of what I write (unlike a LOT of other writers), but I haven't ever gotten around to *proper and complete number-based analysis*.
Yes, you only asked about Germany vs Russia, but you should at least have some idea of the sort of advice you will get, versus the sort of advice that will be really useful.
==
That said - here's some nice vague advice. Purposefully vague, because going into the numbers and percentages and everything here would make it really long to read. And if anyone wants to go into the math behind it, they're welcome to post another thread inquiring about it. But for here, I'll leave off the math in favor of more direct instructions.
What I'm going to write about here is your basic West Russia / Ukraine attack off the LHTR setup - the basic reasoning, the basic issues.
1) Buy 4 infantry 3 artillery
2) Attack Ukraine with everything that can hit it. Attack West Russia with everything that can hit that (after the Ukraine units were moved).
3) Do the West Russia battle first. You should win, but how many survivors there are impact your decisions in step 4).
4) Do the Ukraine battle second. This is a little tricky.
A) If the battle goes kind of badly in the opening, you'll end up with a few Russian units attacking a few German units - probably Russian tanks and fighters against German air. At that point you've lost so much Russian ground units that you should probably just keep on going to try to kill the German air and to capture the territory for income.
B) If the battle goes fantastic, you'll end up with a load of Russian units attacking a few German units. At that point you may want to RETREAT to Caucasus, because capturing Ukraine means Germany will be able to destroy your valuable Russian tanks on its turn. Germany keeps its air and that can be nasty, but Russian tanks are also nasty.
C) If the battle's a disaster, too bad. This is the reason I say the game should have preplaced bid units, exactly so the distribution of outcomes on Russia's opening attacks can be changed. Opting to do a West Russia only attack just opens Russia up to other German attacks. Anyways remember Russian air is "worth" more than German air.
Throughout the Ukraine battle, you should use the aacalc tool to estimate not just the odds or Russia WINNING the battle and capturing the territory - but also the odds and costs of Germany's counter against West Russia.
5) Understand the specific goals, risks and issues with this attack. (Note: I use 2 tanks to Ukraine and 2 tanks to West Russia personally, but I don't recommend it for newer players. Newer players can stick to 3 tanks to Ukraine, probably they won't get punished.)
A) Germany's forward infantry reserves are destroyed at West Russia and at Ukraine. Together, this means Germany can bring very few infantry to hit Caucasus (via the German battleship/transport) or West Russia (from Belorussia). If Germany wants to attack, it risks German valuable tanks.
B) Germany can break West Russia, either hitting heavily then retreating, or actually capturing it. This is a particular problem of the 1-tank-to-West-Russia open. (I don't get into 2-tanks-to-West-Russia though, as that line of play branches out a lot. 1-tank-to-West-Russia is pretty predictable, and if Germany DOES punish West Russia, maybe Russia can counter some even if the position isn't great.) Anyways if West Russia is broken, probably Germany establishes a hold on Karelia on Germany's first turn, without anyone being able to push them off. Then Germany uses Karelia to produce units on the front, which gives Germany an advantage. (There's a few different lines of play to try to prevent German control of Karelia but those are risky and/or complicated and/or costly so I leave off those as well.)
C) Russia may lose all the valuable attack units it sent to Ukraine - probably not the ultra-valuable Russian fighters, but very possibly a Russian artillery (acceptable losses) and three Russian tanks (horrible). It's not a matter of losing them on the initial attack, it's a matter of also possibly (probably) losing them to the German counter.
If the battle isn't going so great and Russia's already sustained some losses, if it's a matter of risking just two surviving Russian tanks to try to kill a German bomber, German fighter, and maybe capture Ukraine for income - Russia loses some, but Germany loses more. It's not about how much Russia's already lost (that's over and done with), but what Russia is committing *at that point* with how much risk for how much gain.
But if the battle went amazingly and Russia's got an artillery and three tanks going against only a German fighter - probably Russia wants to retreat to preserve its tanks. At that point, Germany keeps a fighter - not great. But Russia keeping three tanks and an artillery that it would otherwise have mostly traded for cheap German infantry on Germany's counter - that's fantastic.
6) Remember - you don't want West Russia to break. So depending on the situation you may move two antiaircraft guns in during noncombat move, to pad the numbers against any serious German attack. Or perhaps just one, in case you want to have the other at Caucasus to help reinforce that territory. Never trust a guide that tells you to just blindly shove both AA guns into West Russia, or just one (and if they don't mention moving an AA gun or say not to move at least one into West Russia, throw that guide out the window.)
For the rest of noncombat, if you think you need another infantry at Caucasus, move the infantry from Kazakh to join. You will need another infantry if your defense of Caucasus is on the light side against any possible German attack. (Note again - you don't just shove things at Caucasus in some undisciplined dogmatic idiocy. You LOOK at the board. What can Germany hit Caucasus with? If it's a lot, and another infantry won't make a difference, you do NOT move the infantry in, there's no point in throwing your infantry into a garbage disposal. If Germany can hit with a good amount, but another Russian infantry WILL make a difference (use that aacalc tool), then you move it in. If Germany can hardly hit Caucasus at all, then you don't need that infantry there.
If you do NOT move the Russian infantry at Kazakh into Caucasus, you either move it into Russia to help counter Germany's attack into Caucasus next turn, or into Szechwan to join the US infantry and fighter there.
If Russian fighters are needed to help defend Caucasus, land there. Otherwise land on Archangel. (This is so you can use a fighter to destroy an undefended German transport in the Baltic next turn, or to land on London in case Germany threatens invasion of UK.)
Move all eastern infantry west towards Archangel. (They'll be used to press German-controlled Karelia), Move Russian sub to join UK battleship/destroyer/transport.
Comments - some Russian players try to stack Buryatia in some sort of "defense". Then Japan kills 5 Russian infantry in exchange for 2-3 Japanese infantry. It's useless. Even if a UK fighter joins, Japan can smash the stack if it wants, and even if by some chance Japan lets the stack live, Russia can only press to Manchuria temporarily. So that pretty much means any Russian infantry tied up in northeast Asia can only make very temporary gains at best for control of 1 IPC territories.
Russia doesn't normally have fighters or any other attack units in range or East Asia (and shouldn't, because they're really needed in Europe). So think about it. Either Russia moves its units which can't really fight or pose a threat against Japan for long anyways back towards Europe, where those units CAN and DO make a difference against Germany, for control of more valuable European territories. Or Russia leaves its infantry "protecting" some nearly valueless territory and has to pull back when Japan pushes, or even if Japan doesn't push and Russia tries to get some small advantage, Japan can just kill anything that Russia pushes with and Russia has no good followup.
Protecting those 1 IPC territories is a greedy and short-sighted move by Russia. Normally they should all go to Europe ASAP. And if by some chance Germany screws up and doesn't pressure Russia, if by some chance Japan screws up and dithers around on the coast, that's fine too. Then you can just send some Russian infantry to bulk at Yakut. You don't lose anything worth keeping by retreating all Russian infantry in east Asia west - unless the Japan player was a total idiot, in which case you're going to win anyways and it doesn't matter.
Russian sub joining UK battleship/des/trn - if UK player is BAD, then move Russian sub just west of the Baltic sea zone, where it can hit Germany's Baltic sea units next turn.
7) Place infantry/artillery depending on board. If Germany has a pretty good attack lined up on Caucasus but you *can* defend, put infantry at Caucasus - no point in losing more valuable artillery that don't defend any better than artillery. If Caucasus is pretty well secure against any German attack and West Russia is probably secure too, put artillery at Caucasus - if Germany presses in force into Ukraine, you can punish Germany with an attack then retreat if nothing else, or maybe you can just crush Germany if Germany doesn't have a counter. If Caucasus is badly threatened, put your units on Russia so they can hit Caucasus and/or reinforce West Russia.
You get the idea. What you do needs to change depending on the situation.
==
OK. Now after that comes a few things. UK fighters can move from UK to West Russia. That may mean they can't hit something else, but maybe it's appropriate and necessary. US fighter can move from Szechwan to West Russia, same thing. West Russia is very good to hold, lets you trade a lot of territory, threatens German-held Karelia, and those fighters make a difference.
UK should think about saving IPCs to spend on transports and transport escorts in Atlantic. Yet it also shouldn't let India go cheaply. So putting out 3 ground units (infantry and artillery) at India each turn while saving money for a big fleet drop is a thing UK may consider. Why not just buy one ship at a time in Atlantic? Because massed German air can blow it up at little loss.
US should push Europe. US1 fleet build, US2 fighter build (if necessary) and transports, UK3 drops a fleet of transports and some escorts possibly, US3 joins UK3 navy and Allies have a pretty good-sized combined navy that's hard for Axis to break. Then UK and US push to Finland/Norway to reduce German income and to pressure German-controlled Karelia. US infantry marches to East Canada, is picked up by transport and moved to Finland/Norway, empty transport returns from Finland/Norway to East Canada, repeat. (East Canada sea zone also threatens transport landing on France).
Allies in Pacific is a fool's errand against a decent Japan. Doing a decent Allied Pacific game requires so many small things working in so many small ways in so many different combinations with such different contingencies that you seriously just shouldn't muck about with it for a long time.
==
General game plan for Allies - get transports in Atlantic, UK drops eight units a turn from London, US drops eight units a turn from US (via East Canada), that's sixteen units a turn plus Russia's bulk of units, break Axis control of Karelia, then reinforce Russia and/or roll up Europe to Germany's front door as possible. Do not muck about with trading France or whatever nonsense unless UK desperately needs income (which frankly it probably doesn't if you handle stuff right) - the only time you hit France normally is if Russia is REALLY secure and you can afford to muck about a bit, and by then you basically won anyways.) Russia uses a bulk of units to continue against Germany, but mostly has to reverse to deal with Japan. Once UK/US establish secure infantry reinforcements to Russia, it's very hard for the Axis to break Russia, then Allies press out from there.
e.g. the Russia video leaves a lone Russian infantry on Karelia. This is ALWAYS wrong. Germany can always hit Karelia with enough for a favorable odds light trade; all Russia does by leaving a lone infantry there is to give Germany good odds on killing a valuable infantry for little risk. Infantry are cheap, but nothing is so cheap it can just be thrown away.
In *some* situations a single infantry defending a territory works. But only when a player that may attack that territory needs to commit to other battles and other defenses that stretch their forces thin. In such cases, a player may simply not have the available forces to take on multiple favorable-odds attacks in multiple territories. That's the basic idea. But a lone Russian infantry on Karelia simply doesn't work that way. Germany can roll over that lone infantry in any event, is headed in that direction anyways so doesn't lose strategic or tactical position . . . etc.
e.g. the Japan video recommends a Japan bomber buy, but proceeds with a load of moves that make a bomber LESS useful.
If UK didn't kill the Kwangtung destroyer/transport, and depending on other Allied moves, Japan *may* invade Burma in what force it can to threaten an immediate capture of India - in which case a bomber makes sense. But that's *not* what the other moves in the video are, nor do the moves given complement a bomber buy in other particulars.
I've seen some apologists write stuff like "oh yeah, actually the videos are great!"
On the plus side I'll say they're short. They're simple. The set, lighting, wardrobe, and decor choices are well chosen. The enunciation is good, the editing is nice, what is recommended is shown clearly. But the videos are not a good guide to playing accurately or well.
Sure, and what have you posted?
If you don't understand why the details are important, that's on you, not me.