Taifun (Axis) v EarlyDoors (Allies)

[moon1]

- The Battle of the Atlantic. Germany invested heavily in advance subs and in 1943 they were already building level 4 subs. After losing 5 MTBs and 5 Destroyers the Allies had to invest heavily in anti-sub warfare. The US bought at least 6 CVLs and 5-6 naval bombers, and the UK a few more MTBs and naval bombers. Not many MMPs were left to invest in land Tecnologies or troops.

So do you think that sub tech is worth heavy investing? As far as I know the general consesus of experienced players is that subs are a dead way tech which really falls behind in the mid-late stages of the game because of absolute helplessness against airpower.

[Taifun]

Hi Moongaz3r,
Playing the Axis is not easy, stats prove it. As Axis you need to plan in advance your moves, sometimes years in advance. In my last game against DimitryN I had to resign early as I made a couple of mistakes with the Japanese and in North Africa and lost 2 Japanese carriers in 1940. Mistakes are dearly paid as Axis as time is of essence.

So do you think that sub tech is worth heavy investing? As far as I know the general consesus of experienced players is that subs are a dead way tech which really falls behind in the mid-late stages of the game because of absolute helplessness against airpower.

I would say that it depends on the Allied player and the overall Axis naval strategy. In my case, with no UK investment at all in antisub, long-range, or naval weaponry I knew my subs would be safe. I targeted the UK Royal Navy and needed those U-Boote to be strong. I was leading and my subs level 3-4 were killing machines even against DDs. So, it depends. To win as Axis you have to concentrate in the USSR, but still the game gives you the tools to keep busy the UK/US for a while... plan your strategy and adapt!

[redrum68]

Great AAR and cheers to both players!

I still struggle to see how the Allies can win vs a top Axis player that doesn't make any significant mistakes. While capturing Egypt allowed the IJN to move into the Atlantic to finish off the RN, the game was mostly already over at that point. For the most part, the war is won/lost in USSR and even at the end of 1941 it was pretty clear they would collapse in 1942. In this particular game, the Soviets probably committed a few too many units in the north that should have helped defend Moscow but even with those maybe they defend for another few months and still collapse in early 43 which probably still ends in an Axis victory.

[Taifun]

I still struggle to see how the Allies can win vs a top Axis player that doesn't make any significant mistakes... For the most part, the war is won/lost in USSR...

It think that it should be extremely difficult to balance this great game. But I think the developers did a great job and the game is very well balanced for the vast majority of players with these last changes. New Axis players will most probably lose against more experienced Allied players, but many games end 1947 with the issue very much doubt. Two average/good players will enjoy the game playing very much either side. But I agree that if you play against a TOP GUN like fafnir or DimitryN, the Axis have the advantage. EarlyDoors stats point to an Allied vs Axis advantage...

In my opinion it is the best available WWII game in the market right now...

[redrum68]

I still struggle to see how the Allies can win vs a top Axis player that doesn't make any significant mistakes... For the most part, the war is won/lost in USSR...

It think that it should be extremely difficult to balance this great game. But I think the developers did a great job and the game is very well balanced for the vast majority of players with these last changes. New Axis players will most probably lose against more experienced Allied players, but many games end 1947 with the issue very much doubt. Two average/good players will enjoy the game playing very much either side. But I agree that if you play against a TOP GUN like fafnir or DimitryN, the Axis have the advantage. EarlyDoors stats point to an Allied vs Axis advantage...

In my opinion it is the best available WWII game in the market right now...

Agree. I think at any level below absolute top players the game is very well balanced. Top Axis players just really limit mistakes and optimize using their best units/leaders. Its definitely one of the best WWII games though I enjoy Warplan and Gary Grigsby's games as well.

[EarlyDoors]

Thanks for the game Taifun
I took a hell of a beating and it was painful to have to articulate it.
I learnt some stuff though not enough to prevent me taking a similar beating off DmitryN currently.
One of the things that marks you both out is an ability to amass overwhelming force beyond my defensive expectations.

The beauty of this game to me lies in the balance between geography and unit resource. As the Allies you never have enough to defend everywhere and why would you want to right?
In the games where I have done well it has been in encouraging the Axis to attack in less favourable theatres, remove the initiative and counterattack where they are weak.

It also rewards intelligent focused play whereas I am currently too scripted. I think my mindset would become more flexible by playing a spell as the Axis.

[petedalby]

I still struggle to see how the Allies can win vs a top Axis player that doesn't make any significant mistakes... For the most part, the war is won/lost in USSR...

Fortunately there are only a handful of Axis players who fit that bill. Fafnir, DmitryN & Taifun are the obvious 3 that spring to mind.

I think my mindset would become more flexible by playing a spell as the Axis.

I think playing both sides certainly helps. I'd be delighted to play Allies vs your Axis as & when you're ready.

[Bavre]

I also just had my first game vs the top tier Axis strategy (vs Dmitry), with much the same result as this AAR game. What a bloodbath:

Losses.JPG (109.07 KiB) Viewed 823 times

Overall this is a masterfully crafted rush, with well synergized kills of minor nations first by the Germans then the Japs, that keep the Axis in over 2 years of total god mode. Due to the many surrender bonuses even units in 1 or 2 supply often had 100%+ morale!
Imho the problem might not be a Axis vs Allies bias, but more the fact that this is such a well honed meta (developed over many high end matches, I'd wager). Looking back I probably doomed myself with strategic decisions as for back as 39 and while I could achieve some smallscale tactical successes here and there, the outcome never was in question.

I'd dearly like to know how this strategy was developed and how those who mastered it play against it.

[DmitryN]

Bavre, thank you! You actually played very good tactically. Especially the fleet. By the end of our game allies had total sea superiority with only 1 Jap carrier left. I did not lost the sea for about a year to anybody but Fanfir and you. And diplo gambit in the begining of the game was quite interesting.

[Bavre]

To be honest I was warned by the AAR, so the US navy was there in time.