From: el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Lauer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: I think the **AXIS** may be able to :)
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:03:40 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:

>Here goes. D/L this if you want, as it is rather lengthy.

I agree

... Stuff about sinking fleet, which almost everyone does as Germany the
first turn, but usually does not make a big deal about...


>OKAY here is what I exactly
>have:(looked at board again)
>3i and tank in Caucasus
>3i and Tank in Norway
>3i in Ukraine
>4i in E Europe
>I wish the fools luck if they decide to attack.
>They have almost all infantry, and should loose enough for me to
>counter-attack and really screw them good.  4 places for them to attack.
>Each has the potential of a counter-attack if left alone, and a combined
>attack at the very least.

OK, they obviously leave Norway for the other allies to take that turn.
They have (I believe) 19 inf, 4 tanks, 2 planes to use (1 tank came over
from the other front, since it could not attack the first turn anyway). 
Obviously they are building 8 more inf in karelia this turn, and landing
the fighters there (with 3 British fighters [one of which was used to
retake Syria], 1 British Bomber).  I doubt you have a transport near the
Baltic (since the British would sink it), so all you land unit to attack
Karelia must either be in these 4, or pass through Eastern Europe.  So
how about:

Attack E. Europe with 5 inf, 2 fighters.
Attack Caucasus with 3i, 2 tank.
Attack Ukraine with 11i, 2 tank.

Well, I don't think you fair very well attacking Karelia (3 inf, tank,
air force attack 8 inf, 5 fighters, bomber).  You obviously can smash E.
Europe.  Transporting to retake Ukraine causes you to lose planes
fighting it out past one round.  You can smash Caucasus by transporting
there, but then the British airforce destroyes your fleet.  Perhaps this
is still a good plan for you, though I am not sure why you build the
transport.  Anyway, Russia is now +6 on this front.  I am not sure why
they should run away from you, if they just trade E. Europe twice all
the allied transports show up, and start conquering you.  They still
have 19 i, 2 tank, 2 plane to retake it with, and you ca not land your
planes there.  Furthermore, you only built 8 inf.

>>>(they now have to choose: E europe, Ukraine, Caucasus, AND fortify Russia
>>>due to other German move)
>>
>>Gee Joe, I guess the Russians take E europe, and as much other stuff asthey 
>>can.  Cuts your main army off!
>
>Big deal.
>Can they take it all with mostly infantry? I think not, and remain alive long.
>I just attack with all the rest of the units into Karelia or re-take the 
>territory with my EIGHT tanks (if I transport one) and MY FOUR FIGHTERS and
>BOMBER.  And that is not including 8 men from Germany, and 2 men from
>W. Europe(trans).  Hope they send a load of stuff in there for me to chew up.
>AT BEST, all they get the first round is cheap infantry.

Yes they can, inf attacks at a value of 1, with support of tanks and
planes, it is fairly easy.  Obviously they do not put much in E. Europe,
they are just trading it with you.  They are just softening you up for
the allied attack, and collecting some bonus income.


>Explain:
>Fighters and Bombers from UK cannot reach, due to my taking their places to
>land.(the REAL reason why I took it)
>
>Lessee.... WHAT INDIA FORCE???
>2i and a Fighter.
>All other pieces gone in range.  NO support for India, and it falls(it did)
>to Japan the first turn, with 2i transported, and 2 fighters attacking
>(and a man from Indochina if needed).
>Looks REALLY grim for India.  Hope the UK didn't build an IC there (heh)
>
>Well, they CAN retake Syria...
>Russian tank out of range(from eastern front)
>Russia can send a fighter and reach me(as can India),
>but think about it.. Russia NEEDS that fighter badly. they can land it
>in Persia(only place), but that leaves me with a tank and a fighter in range.
>
>Uk? Well, an attack of 3 vs. my defense of a 2? not too bad, BUT...
>they loose that fighter, and Japan cake-walks all over India and the rest of
>Asia the FIRST turn.
>BADDD strategy for them, considering that I have the following in Africa:
>2i, tank, fighter(so, I got lucky-I am one infantry up), and the tank
in Syria.
>vs. 2 i from US and 1i in S. Africa.
>Looks grim. 

attack of 3, I count 4.  2 inf + 1 plane.  Obviously they lose India,
they always do (unless they are real defensive, then they lost it in a
couple turns).  Of course the British don't build a factory for the
Japanese! :-)  Look I am assuming the Allies are intelligent.  America
builds 4 transports + 1 inf 1'st turn, British build lots more
transports 2'nd turn (making the total at least 11), and rest inf. 

>Heh. look at it again.  Looks really decieving.
>HOW many of your infantry will get wasted on my paltry infantry?
>Can you take 4 areas at once with what you start with(plus your build)?
>I assume all infantry, or maybe a tank, too.

With the original stuff I can easily take 3.  America will be taking the
other, so Russia should not bother.
>
>WHY?  
>Last game I played, the guy left Karelia a bit open(2-3 i less),
>and I sent everything that I could(and kill the UK fleet).  Flattened it.
>Problem: NO UK support landed (their transports fried)
>AND they lost the fighters, too.

Well some people don't build enough inf with russia, makes for short games!

>Russia had no choice but to put a LOT of stuff in Karelia, since he could not
>attack the first turn, knowing what I did last time.

How did Britain lose their fighters?

>>Note: Germany builds transport(s?) in S. europe.
>>ONLY plane that can anything against the AXIS fleet is the UK bomber,
>>(but they have to us it to kill that sub and trans. in the UK)
>>well, possibly not, but, the only place that they could land would be 
>>Gibraltar.  They would be nailed the next turn.(heh)
>>So, Germany sends 1 A and 2 I to Africa, as well as using that fighter
it >>has
>>there :) the next turn.
>>
>>*NOTE#2*: By taking Syria, the Russian fighters and the UK planes cannot
>>land ANYWHERE and remain safe.(Russia's fighters are useless, btw)
>>
>>Seems that the AXIS income should be about 70 by the end of turn one.
>
>Pretty close, though by the time the Germans get their next move they
>will have lost a lot of stuff!

>*BZZT!*
>WRONG! almost entirely infantry, in defensive battles.
>UK is a FOOL if he uses that bomber to do anything but move it somewhere,
>or IPC bombing.  All he can reach is ONE transport.

Sure.

>My counter-attack with 40 in tanks and planes alone(plus about 10+ infantry in
>Germany and whatever else is left in the other areas)will turn Russia into
>mush since I have no fleet to worry about.

Why, most of it is behind E. Europe.

>Russia's losses: at least 10-15 men in the attack on me, and 5-8 men on my
>counter-attack.(don't forget that BS/trans combo)

10-15?  Wow, you roll really well don't you!

I count roughly:
2 inf in E. Europe,
1 inf in Ukraine
3 inf in Caucuses, for 6 inf.  Does not sound near your 10-15 estimate. 
That "BS" causes an average of 2/3 a hit each turn, helpful indeed, but
hardly the source of our disageement.

>Seems like I am ahead in the attrition war, and with 40 IPC to spend
next turn,
>all going to Russia, guess who gets wasted?  
>PLUS the fact that the tanks he has are gone, if not when he attacks, then
>when I attack back.

He can't help but get out attritioned if you roll that well.  If you can
consistently do that, then I understand the titke of this thread.

>He has to take Norway, or I will attack for sure.
Ok, attack.  Lets count the battle out.  First turn your losses
(roughly) from 8 inf, 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 aa gun: 3 inf, 1 tank, 3
fighters.  Russian losses from 3 inf, 1 tank portion of 5 fighters +
bomber surviving AA gun:  roughly 4 inf.  Sounds very good to the
Russians.

>He has to take E. Europe, or I will blitz and take Karelia with about 4 tanks
>   left, or more(will loose some planes to keep Karelia)

Right.

>He has to take Caucasus, due to proximity to Russia itself, and attacks into
>Asia. His attack force needed to take my 13i+2a out: minimum 19i plus tanks.

yep, uses them all.  Puts most in Ukraine so it can attack E. Europe
again next turn.  You are welcome to try and attack that, but with but 2
transports worth of land units (I hope you use 4 inf!) you will be
losing planes if you continue past one turn.

>OUCH!  Endless supply of men?  I think not.  Divide and...
>:)

>>P.S. sub and transport are in UK.  Better send in those fighters...
>>Bomber? where to?  IPC raid or do something else. heh. love to see them 
>>sweat. :)

>About the UK:
 >       
>My sub and transport around UK require him to use BOTH fighters.

Not using both would be stupid, use them with the bomber, land it in Karelia.

>If my transport hits first round, he CANNOT build any naval fleet.
>(If he uses only one, as I will loose the sub in that case)
>I get avg of two "flak"(one) rolls, anyway.
>
>He cannot take any chances on this happening.  Send in both to be sure.
>My options:
>1:Retreat sub, and accept loss of transport(they hit avg of once, first round.
>2:Loose sub, and take 2(avg), maybe 3 "flak(1)" rolls vs those fighters.
>
>They would die soon anyway. All those pieces are for is to kill as much stuff
>as possible. The allies NEED those pieces, though.
>Germany needs to stall them.  
>With a sub roaming free, guess who gets sneaked next turn?

Well, since the UK should wait till next turn to build a fleet, and the
US airforce is coming this way (i.e. killing the sub if it retreats
towards them), my best guess would be "No one, the sub gets killed by
planes, assuming the British did not roll two hits)

>At the very least, I will fry him.  UK is not in a position to do much the
>second turn, so at most, 2 fighters are sent to Karelia for defense.

>Plus the bomber.  I know it defends poorly, but it is a good place to
bomb from, and >Karelia should be safe next turn.  In a big battle,
every unit helps.

(ooohh, run away...)

>Max lost by next turn(avg):
>3 tanks, 10 i, sub, and two transports.
>(oooh, a whole 69!!!)
>HOW MUCH HAVE THEY LOST(plus land)?

I was saying you are not going to keep your massive attrition up. 
Counting the Syria battle, I count 11 inf, 1 tank between your first and
second turn.

>hint:15 land, avg. plus 102 damage for me, attacking, and another 30-45
>on defensive battles.
>132-147(140 avg)



>Japan's damage:Hawaii fleet, i in Hawaii, fighter and trans in counter-attack,
>2i and fighter from India, 2i and fighter in China, those men in Yakut(he sent
>the tank towards Germany, as a good Russian commander should)or sfe(whichever
>has the most in it).

I agree the tank should move to the other front, I have no problems with
your first Japanese turn.  I do believe the British are better served
abandoning India the first turn (giving the Japanese 3 free $), to help
the Russians (so the Russians won't have to defend Russia), and givining
themselves 1$ (addmitedly poor compared with the $ to Japan, but Russia
is the key, you have to keep Karelia safe).

>79(US) vs 12-15(Rus), plus 9-12 in defense
>100-106(103 avg)
>
>Losses, at WORST, attack and defending:
>Germany:75(assuming all four taken)
>Japan:141(assuming 3 ighters lost, and ALL men on continent-not likely)
>
>So, that leaves, AVG vs WORST-CASE, 232-253(242 avg)AXIS vs 216 ALLIES.
>It usually plays out to 240/200 or so.  Not optimal, but add in territory,
>and it looks a LOT better than usual.

Sure the axis are taking territoy, but still producing less.  My point
was you are not going to keep up your huge attrition advantage (i.e. out
attrition by 50$ every turn).  The first turn attrition numbers you came
up with were due to the horribly positioned allied fleet.  Of course you
should sink it, it just seemed like you where implying that you must be
winning after that huge first turn.

My idea is that if Germany spends $ on move naval pieces, they have that
much less in land units (obviously).  Sure the plan is that using it
they will collect more.  However, if they get attritioned, they will
have to keep their land units on the mainland (and I believe the
Russians come out slighlty inferior in the attrition, but get the extra
income to make up for it).

>My plan, at the very least, works a hell of a lot better than anything else

I think your plan would be much improved if you did not purchase the
second transport, and put lots of units in Eastern Europe, so Russia
could not take it,

>I have seen if Russia stacks in Karelia in anticipation of my normal attack.
>If they think I will do this, I do the other classic Karelia invasion,
>and face a stiff, but winable battle.(plus I take out those planes)
>
>That no russia attack rule allows this to happen, and makes the game much
>longer, and a real challange for both sides.  Since this is what the game
>SHOULD have been like(a fair contest), I feel that this rule is the ONLY
>way to play the game.  Not using it reduces the game to sheer luck, and
>desperate attack moves by the AXIS, and little luck, and no-brainer moves
>for the Allies.  Stomping on your friends is fun, but if it is really easy,
>a hollow victory, or is not a stiff challange for BOTH of you, then it is
>all pointless...

I agree that playing the regular completly imbalanced, Germany takes a
luck shot at Karelia, game is a waste.

>ENTIRE MOVES TO BE POSTED THIS SAT.  Both strategies will be posted for
>Germany, and will be a LOT less lengthy.
>Joe
>
>P.S. Sorry for the length. Will try to keep it down as much as I can...


Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board