Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles-4

Roadblocks: A Cunning Rule Exploitation

It may not sound very courageous or courteous, but you should play with every trick the rules allow and a nice roadblock can sure be a game winning move.

For instance, let’s say that you have a couple of transports off the coast of the Western USA, and the Japanese fleet and a stack of Japanese infantry are in Alaska. It looks bleak as the Japanese will be able to knock out your two transports and then do an amphibious invasion with a large army. The US will get an opportunity to build troops to defend the Western USA, but that of course detracts them from their strategy to focus on Germany.

But wait, it will eventually detract them, but doesn’t have to on this turn.

Those two transports can be turned into very effective roadblocks. One can be moved off the coast of Midway and the other can be moved into the sea zone off the coast of Western Canada.

The Japanese player will be frustrated and may decry the historical inaccuracies that force his huge fleet and invasion army from being held up by a pair of seemingly insignificant transports, but that’s life – or at least, that’s the official rule.

Roadblocks can work just as effectively on land, as a single infantry in Caucuses can keep a few German tanks from blitzing through and taking Russia with the help of air support.

So whenever you can, don’t forget to trade space for time, and slow down the attacker through the effective use of just a single lowly transport or infantry.

http://www.morrisongames.com/

READ MORE - Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles-4

Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles-3

Factories: To Build or Not to Build

Objective: Maximize troops on the ground quickly

Easy enough to state, but what’s the best way to achieve this goal?

Two schools of thought are transports and factories.

Factories give you the advantage of building closer to the action, and are equally adept at producing premium units such as tanks, as they are infantry. However, this comes at a price of 15 IPCs, added vulnerability to strategic bombing, and less flexibility.

Transports give you the advantage of greater flexibility, greater infantry throughput, invulnerability to strategic bombing, and naval cannon fodder. However, this comes at a price of being further from the main action and exposure to conventional attack by enemy navies and airplanes.

So what’s the best route? Does it depend on the player or the situation? Well, like any strategy it is of course somewhat dependent upon the situation, but not as much as you would think, since the decision to build a factory is usually in the early stages of the game, when the game has changed the least amount from the starting positions, allowing pregame strategies to still be fairly intact and useful.

The real answer: transports.

Transports are better because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Axis & Allies essentially boils down to an infantry war, and transports allow you to get more infantry on the ground quicker.

Let’s look at two classic situations:

1. A Japanese factory on the mainland. For the same number of IPCs, you could essentially have 2 transports. Those two transports can bring over 4 infantry a turn to any spot along the Asian coast. The factory only allows you to bring 3 infantry a turn and they always have to arrive at the same location, with no flexibility. That alone is sufficient reason not to build it, as stacks of infantry are going to be what eventually bring about Russia’s defeat.

If you’re still not convinced, consider this: the US and UK are very likely to have their bombers based in Russia. That means that you are going to be forced to build or bring over an AA unit to defend the factory, or the Allies will get free strategic bombing – not something you want to allow. That AA unit is either 5 IPCs you shouldn’t have to spend, or a wasted turn by one of your precious transports.

Furthermore, if Germany doesn’t have a good strategy for Africa, then it falls to Japan to do something about all those African IPCs that the Allies would otherwise have a lock on. A swarm of transports about Japan offer a much greater projection of power potential to take Africa than a Japanese factory.

2. An Allied factory in India or China.

This can be a bad idea for a number of reasons.

First is pure mathematics. Japan can pump every IPC into efficient use in Asia. By efficient I mean self-sustaining infantry stacks, and not expensive tanks that are economically wasteful. This means that either the Allies are going to spend too many IPCs on inefficient, expensive units to try to hold Asia (and as a result lose to Germany), or Japan is going to take China and India.

So, if you know the factory is either going to get taken, or you’re going to have to waste your IPCs on fighters and tanks, then why give the Japanese a good factory that they can then use once they capture it. Building a factory only temporarily prolongs the inevitable, and gives a useful asset to the Japanese.

Another reason that some players try this strategy is they don’t have a better alternative and want to do something to slow Japan down. The solution is Russia. Get Allied units into Karelia quick to relieve the Russian troops and free them up to deal with the Japanese. Russia is much more suited to fighting in Asia and as long as the US and UK are focused on containing Germany, Russia can start to put lots of pressure on the Japanese.

The conclusion is that whenever you think a factory might be a good investment, consider other ways to get units into the area, through transports, reallocation of other troops, etc.

http://www.morrisongames.com/

READ MORE - Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles-3

Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles - 2

Infantry: Cannon Fodder or Solid Math?

Cold hard facts of math make infantry the best choice

An old (and now obsolete Soviet Cold War joke):

Two Soviet infantry generals were meeting at a café in Paris. One asked the other, “Say, did you ever hear who won the air war?”

Grunts on the ground may not have the sex appeal of a strategic air wing, or a tank corps, but they’ll decide the outcome of the battle time after time.

It’s a cold, hard, mathematical fact, that infantry are hands-down the best buy in the game. Simply put, the side that sticks to the infantry plan the best - wins.

Let’s look at the numbers.

An infantry costs 3 IPCs and rolls a 2 or less on defense and a 1 on offense, a tank (and tanks make by far the most generous comparison) cost 5 IPCs and roll a 2 or less on defense and a 3 on offense.

Let’s assume each side has 15 IPCs to spend, and Player A buys 5 infantry, and Player B buys 3 tanks.

Example 1 – Player A attacks Player B:

At the end of round 1:

Player A attains .833 hits against Player B with 5 infantry trying to rolls 1s.

Player B attains 1 hit against Player A with 3 tanks trying to roll 2s or 1s.

It looks promising for Player B doesn’t it? After all they got more hits. Remember though, they have fewer units to lose.

After six rounds the battle is over. Player A still has 2.3 infantry standing on average, and the tanks are long gone.

But what if the battle is the other way around? After all, tanks are best on offense.

Example 2 – Player B attacks Player A:

At the end of round 1:

Player B attains 1.5 hits against Player A with 3 tanks trying to roll 3s or less.

Player A attains 1.667 hits against Player B with 5 infantry trying to roll 2s or 1s.

Both classes are units are here at their best (infantry on defense, tanks on offense) and the higher number of hits are a clear reflection of that.

After only three rounds the battle is over. Player A still has 2.8 infantry standing on average, and the tanks are long gone!

As you can see, infantry outshine tanks on both offense and defense.

The reason is simple: infantry provide cannon fodder. They may be cheap and only provide meager firepower, but they absorb a hit just as easily as a costly tank, fighter, or bomber.

Imagine if you were told you could buy a unit that had 0 attack and 0 defense, but could absorb a hit, what would that unit be worth to you? Even stingy estimates are that it should be worth at least 1 IPC. So in essence, 1 IPC of the 3 IPC cost of an infantry, is buying you that hit absorption ability. Similarly, 1 IPC of the 5 IPC cost of a tank is buying you that same hit absorption ability. That in effect reduces the “true” cost of the offensive/defensive capabilities of those units to 2 and 4 IPCs respectively. Now, would you rather a 4 IPC tank, or a 50% cheaper, 2 IPC infantry?

Most would rightly prefer the 2 IPC infantry, making infantry the clear winner and favored buy.

Some would argue that a tank has a special ability that infantry don’t. Tanks can move 2 and blitz through unoccupied enemy territory. That is true, but how often does a blitz movement win the big battle for you? It’s the huge 30+ units against 30+ unit battles in Russia, Karelia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Germany that win the game. A supertank that could move 5 wouldn’t do you much good at that point.

Also, don’t forget that infantry have a special ability of their own. They get to double-up on transport movement. You can carry 2 infantry with your transport, but just a single tank. That can make a big difference when you’re trying to maximize the use of your transports to get land units into key areas or make critical amphibious attacks.

Now, to be fair, a few tanks to deliver the final knockout blow are optimal at the very end, particularly if you’re buying them to take part in the big Armageddon battle that will take place on your next turn and is two spaces away from your industrial complex. But it’s better to buy too few tanks too late, than too many tanks too early. If you’ve ever seen mathematical analysis of battle outcomes given certain armies, it is truly amazing the difference that just a single additional infantry can make to the battle. When in doubt about what to buy – buy infantry!

Pick Up From Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles http://www.morrisongames.com/

READ MORE - Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles - 2

Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles

Axis & Allies is one of the 50 most significant games published since 1800.

Designed by Larry Harris, it was first published in 1984 by Milton Bradley, now owned by Hasbro.

It was one of Milton Bradley's Gamemaster series of games, also including (Fortress America, Conquest of Empire, and Samurai Swords). The original game covers every theater of WWII. Since then other variants produced by Avalon Hill (also owned by Hasbro) include Axis & Allies: Europe in 2000, Axis & Allies: Pacific in 2001, revised Axis & Allies in 2004, and Axis & Allies: D-day in 2004.

While Risk introduced a generation to strategic fighting board games, Axis & Allies took Risk to a new level for a new generation. It adds new levels of gaming complexity, but can be enjoyed by both experienced players and newcomers alike.

Clumping - Axis & Allies' Fatal Flaw

The first principle is: act with the utmost concentration

-Carl Von Clauswitz, On War

First off, what exactly is clumping?

Clumping is simply put, the situation where it’s better to have all your eggs in one basket, rather than a few eggs in a couple of different baskets.

Clumping is virtually guaranteed to occur in Axis & Allies, due to the rule allowance that gives each unit its own die roll. What that means is that you want to have as many of your units in a single territory on the frontline as possible. You don’t want a spread-out frontline, but rather a massive clump of units that can deliver a punch on offense, but more importantly, can survive on defense without getting cut up piecemeal.

Example: If the German player has 20 units and is at the gates of Russia, controlling both Caucuses and Karelia, what troop positioning is best for Germany? Are they better off to have 10 units in each territory, or are they better off to have all 20 in Karelia or all 20 in Caucuses.

They’re better off clumping their units in either territory. This is because on the Allies players turn, assuming the Allies have the forces and desire to attack the German positions, they would probably only have enough troops or desire to attack just a single German position.

Let’s assume the Russians have 20 units in Russia, and are building 6 infantry. If the Germans clump their units, having all 20 German units in a single territory, then odds are: the Russians won’t attack.

However, if the Germans do divide their forces, let’s say 10 and 10, then the Russians have an opportunity. The Russians could then attack with all 20 units from Russia against either German position. After 1 or 2 rounds of attack, in which the severely outnumbered Germans would get mauled, the Russians could pull back into Russia (which ensures their main army doesn’t get stuck outside Russia).

The end result of the 2-round battle: The Germans have lost about 8 units, and the Russians have lost about 4 units. On the front as a whole, the Germans now have 12 units, and the Russians have 16 + 6 they just built.

Mathematically, clumping occurs because when you’re getting attacked by “x” amount of troops, they are going to achieve “y” hits on your units. On your turn, your troops are going to do “z” hits in response. The only number on defense that you get to influence is “z”. You determine how many of your units are going to be in that territory on defense, and the (number of units * the average number of rolling die points per unit) / 6 is going to be the number of hits that you deliver, or “z.” Now assuming “x” and “y” are givens (and you should always assume worst case scenario), you as the defender want to maximize “z.” You want to maximize the number of units that you have in the battle, which are able to respond to the attack and deliver hits in return. That desire usually outweighs other considerations, such as keeping a reserve, protecting more expensive units, maintaining a nice frontline, spreading out your attack, etc. Also, it must be remembered that those additional units in the battle are “safe.” The minimum number of units that you would leave in that territory is already fixed and therefore will absorb the blow of the attack. Assuming the attacker wouldn’t be able to wipe them all out on the first roll, then adding additional units to the defense doesn’t cost you anything, but gives you lots of additional retaliatory hits.

Controlling territory, or more importantly, just getting credit for owning the territory on your turn and thus gaining the IPCs for it, in the long run will often win games, particularly the close ones that go for many rounds and the economic edge becomes the economic sledge. Yet despite the importance of gaining a few extra IPCs, the game is won and lost in the big battles. Picking up 3 IPCs pales in comparison to the risk that you lose 10 more units than your opponent in a key battle. If you don’t clump and your opponent hits you with everything they’ve got, you’re going to lose a lot of mid-sized armies, and likely the game.

Now, every strategy has to be used with a little bit of common sense. There are many situations where your best strategy isn’t really to clump or to divide your forces, but rather retreat in the face of overwhelming odds (when clumping wouldn’t help at all). There are also situations where you don’t have enough units to defend either territory, but you either can’t retreat, or want to leave them in there just to tie down additional enemy forces that would be required to oust your troops. In that case, you want to spread out your forces, making things less efficient for the attacker, and forcing him to use even more troops in order to guarantee statistical success against you. Finally, there are situations in which the enemy’s forces are so few, clumping gains you minimal additional advantages, as evenly divided your forces can still easily triumph. However, by and large, most situations in which you have a choice between putting a few troops in multiple territories or a lot of troops in a single territory, the best solution is to clump them in a single territory.

Pick Up From :

http://www.morrisongames.com/

READ MORE - Axis & Allies (2nd Edition) Strategy Articles

Axis & Allies Video Games

Axis & Allies Video Games Product Description

The Time: Spring 1942, The Place: The World at War, The Challenge: Change the Course of History! Mobilize your country, command your forces and attack the enemy on land, sea and air. March massive armies of tanks and infantry into the enemy's heartland. Dominate the world's oceans with your mighty fleets. Launch grand scale bombing raids and destroy the enemy's ability to wage war.

It is all in your hands. Decide the fate of your nation and the destiny of the world.

Game Features:

• Solo or Multi-player gaming up to 5 players
• Customize your unit's strengths and movement ability
• Play an opponent over the LAN, or modem-to-modem or the Internet via Microsoft's Gaming Zone

The Ultimate World War II Strategy Game

The year is 1942. Five world powers are struggling for supremacy. The Axis war machine of Germany and Japan appears invincible. The Balkans have fallen. Pearl Harbor has been attacked. Wake Island is in Japanese hands. Rommel has the British on the run in North Africa.

Challenging this expansionism are the Allied powers of the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R. and the United States.

At this explosive moment in history, you take command.

System Requirements

• Pentium 133mhz or faster,
• 16MB RAM,
• 40MB HD
• 4x cd-rom drive
• Sound Card,
• Mouse

READ MORE - Axis & Allies Video Games