Axis and Allies 1914 Series: Video 7, United Kingdom

[@AChannelThatDoesNothing]

To add on to the video: I recommend moving all units in the British home islands into Yorkshire. This allows British units to be able to move into transports in either sea zone 8 or 9, giving more options to the British for loading onto their or allied transports. Having the units in Yorkshire, as opposed to Scotland, means they can quickly move back into London if the Germans build up some transports (and the bonus of units moving into sea zones 10 and 11 as well happens very rarely in my experience).

[@malchar2]

thanks for the great video. watching these is great for figuring out if i'd like to play the game or not.

[@superilikeeggsyo]

Abusing the wonky nature of the Mediterranean SZs and its borders with Africa (Egypt specifically) was a very nice touch. Great way of utilizing the normally useless spare guys in Canada/UK.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Means a lot coming from a confirmed seasoned 1914 player. Much appreciated my friend.

[@michaelhadwick4252]

Another great episode in this series. Having United Kingdom expend all of its production in India makes great game sense but highlights the major cause for the game being perceived as imbalanced in favor of the Entente. That being said, please continue with your recommendations for the Ottomans as the game plays using the out of box rules.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I promise to address the imbalance in the final video, lay out where I think it is most 'visible' (it's probably not where you think), and my recommendations for fixing it at it's root. Thanks for the compliment and encouragement. Really glad you found it enjoyable.

[@michaelhadwick4252]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 I will reserve any further comments on this games imbalance to your final video on this series. Again, your presentations are very well done.

[@geographyfall8064]

Hey Cap, thanks for making all of the detailed and well reasoned videos in this series! I have never commented on a KZbin video before but you've compelled me because I am surprised at a number of your openings here and I share your passion for the game. I concede you have many more games played than I so I do defer to your experience, but nonetheless I'd like to hear your reasoning on a couple of things. First: How necessary do you feel sending extra troops into Africa on UK1 truly is for the Entente's overall strategy to work? In my mind, the CP already have a numbers disadvantage in Africa, and with ready access to transports and local reinforcement from India the UK could always juice this front by boat on turns 2-4. From your own advice, a single amphibious assault or landing in the right province one time should seal the theatre in favor of the Entente. In my mind this move is not necessary at the jump and distracts the UK from their primary objective, destroying the Ottomans before they can get their perimeter established. Second: I have seen your logic around Afghanistan being that the UK army in India is idle if not used for this purpose, and that the odds of 4 Inf/2Art are relatively good for finishing this combat in one round. At the same time however, there is a good chance of 1, perhaps even two casualties, which eclipses the IPC benefit from Afghanistan until at least turn 3 if not up until turn 6. All that aside, the nightmare scenario is that the UK have terrible dice and remain mired in Afghanistan for an extra turn. This seems to give the Ottomans a MASSIVE tempo advantage, and is an unforced element of risk which I feel is not worth incurring. I'm interested in how often if ever this move has gone sour for you, and how that played out. Thirdly and perhaps my main offering: What advantage does the Entente gain from not attempting to destroy the Ottoman front lines from the very beginning, using their naval movement options and initiative from the turn order? Assuming the Russian strategy accommodates an attack in Mesopotamia, by your own words an incredibly important (and valuable IPC-wise) province for the Ottomans, they have a decent chance of taking the province themselves outright on the first turn. Even assuming they do not, the UK can amphibiously reinforce and attack with 1inf/1art, with good odds to finish the job and receive 3 IPC and a dug-in position on the eastern front Turn 1. This attack may incur even or worse casualties, but serves to remove critical Ottoman offensive equipment which it is difficult for them to replace. Moreso than buying artillery, getting them to the front in short time is challenging for the Ottomans. Even if the Ottomans get lucky and kill off two Russian Infantry and the UK Artillery piece in their defense, the Entente are left with 4 defending units against a potential 7 infantry and 1 artillery from the Ottomans. This seems to be a terrible attack situation for them, and likely pans out to a contested Mesopotamia going into UK2, with the Ankaran/Syrian stacks already taxed at a likely 5 infantry and 1 artillery. The real key here is that the UK can move in and reinforce repeatedly without fighting while forcing the Ottomans to become the aggressors. In truth, simply moving two British infantry in and deferring any attack seems optimal since their primary purpose is to be deployed ahead of the main force and keep this space contested. On the Western Front, I also disagree that the UK attacking Trans-Jordan on UK 1 is an overextension. The odds of this attack succeeding entirely are slightly higher than 50%, and can be even higher if one is conservative and uses the Battleship to also land the infantry from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In virtually all outcomes you will inflict at least 2 casualties, destroying that Ottoman artillery piece. Similarly to Mesopotamia, Trans-Jordan is bordered by 7 Ottoman infantry but only 1 artillery piece in Smyrna, making a counterattack disadvantageous. The real overextension in this situation in my perspective would be for the Ottomans to retaliate instead of fortifying Smyrna and holding their ground. Meanwhile Egypt is completely safe from attack from behind. Finally, I would be inclined to use the Mediterranean transport to take the Sudanese infantry to instead activate Arabia UK1. This provides an extra British artillery piece bordering both potential contested zones, most importantly Mesopotamia, and results in 1 free IPC. Ironically this is the same IPC we did not get from Afghanistan, which seems like a good trade to me. Finally this can only be threatened now by the single infantry in Syria, which has other more important duties. These three moves likely result in both TJ and Mesopotamia being owned outright by the entente with a likely 4inf/2art in Trans-Jordan, 1inf/2art(Russian) + 1 inf(UK) in Mesopotamia, and 2 inf/1art in Arabia at the end of turn 1. Behind this is 5inf/1art + whatever your turn 1 buy was waiting to attack Persia and/or be transported to where they are needed. This is a total of 13 forward deployed Entente Units facing off against 15 Ottoman units, which have no clearly great attacks other than rushing in to contest Mesopotamia before they have proper artillery support to attack reliably. Perhaps the most important outcome is that the Ottomans now have only a total of 4 artillery in the region which must be split over two active fronts. Having 4 core units rather than 6 on their turn 1 seems enormous. Because of the UK's advantage in replacing all kinds of units this kind of early aggression at a roughly even or advantageous casualty rate seems to benefit them greatly, rather than allowing the Ottomans to dig in and attacking Mesopotamia by land on turn 3-5 when they have collected a fair chunk of income and amassed as many infantry as they are able. The UK1 transport distribution further allows for a turn 2 drop of 4 units into Mesopotamia directly, or 2 to TJ and perhaps 2 to Mesopotamia if necessary, and a flexible reinforcement army of 2inf/1art in Arabia which can reach either province. This means that the UK can then again hammer Mesopotamia with 4Inf and 3artillery and a battleship bombardment (assuming it is an assault), against only 1 artillery coastal bombardment if they lost the territory last turn. This may result in some lost artillery pieces along the way, but essentially baits the Ottomans into attacking with relatively unsupported infantry and likely remaining in a contested province, both big wins for the British. Behind this force is the main continental army which should have plenty of manpower to push directly into Persia on Turn 2 and onward. They can even push directly past into Mesopotamia on Turn 3 regardless of if they win, so long as both are contested territories. A flaw in this plan could be that Egypt becomes difficult to hold on turns 2-4, but there are Italian and French troops locally which can walk up through Egypt if a fallback becomes necessary. On top of that, the Ottomans have lost much of their local artillery and are being pressured hard to ATTACK Mesopotamia in the East. This indirectly protects TJ/Egypt from reprisal in my mind. This plan also requires that the Russians attack the Ottomans on R1, but because Russia already has relatively larger assets and is essentially doomed to die in a set number of turns anyway, the extra initiative here seems worthwhile for the team as a whole, so that the UK can eventually also project power elsewhere on the board instead of 100% focusing on the Ottomans during turns 3-6. Generally it seems like this contribution's benefits outweigh the risks. As a fourth and Final question for you: In what situations would you consider rebuilding the UK navy on Turn 1? In the games I have played, I typically see the British buy 2 battleships UK1 and merge with one of the French Battleships to make a new unassailable navy off the European coast to begin shucking from Canada ASAP. With the rules around contested sea zones that you clearly highlight in your videos this seems much less necessary, but I am still interested as to when and how you rebuild your navy as the UK and what you're thinking about when you do it. This has become a somewhat lengthy essay at this point, but I hope it has made sense and you're willing to give me your thoughts on this particular regional opening. You are very kind to offer games to others who have commented, and I'd be happy to take you up on one if you wouldn't mind playing the CPs!

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Glad you enjoyed the videos my dude. 1) Given that I feel the Entente have an incredible advantage with the out of box setup, the reason to invest in Africa on turn 1 is to begin cutting out CP money. I feel this is best done safely, surgically, and methodically for the Entente in the manner described. Africa is a breadbasket of IPC and can make a real long term mess down there if allowed to fester. 2) The two pieces in Afghanistan can't roll hotter than two hits so I'm not sure what the fear is here. I have certainly seen the British get hung there an extra turn but since the average 1914 game lasts 12-20 turns, its best to get that territory working for the Entente right away. The goal here is the answer to the first question: smother the CP economically (and those pieces would otherwise just sit on this turn). 3) You can certainly try all of this. I've seen that enough to realize that this actually IS dicey. It can work if it works but I feel like you are ignoring the CP in Africa and that's going to start to hurt real soon for the Entente. A savvy CP player can make quite a bit of hay with half decent dice down there. Also, the Russians capturing Ottoman territory definitely cuts hard the other way in the mid and late game when any territory that is red now stops producing income for the Entente. Any Russian territory in the Ottoman Empire is "scorched earth" for the Entente by turn 5/6. More Entente IPCs lost... 4) I don't rebuild the UK navy unless there's no other allied navy in the Atlantic (VERY rare). The UK's job is in the south. The most I do is shuck a transport or twos worth of infantry across the channel in the mid/end game to help the French. 5) my email is ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com and of course I'm game for any challenger but I do not see my mind being changed on this point: the method described for winning as the Entente in these videos is not the ONLY way to win (that would be a tough sell, given how imbalanced the game appears to be)- but I feel it is the method with the highest chance of long term success. When following this script, and between perfectly experienced players, the win rate for CP is close to 0%. I hope that clarifies the foundational pitch I'm making in these videos for the Entente.

[@geographyfall8064]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Hey Cap, thanks for the reply. If I gather correctly, your strategy for the UK as the OOB entente really rests on a foregone conclusion of the Entente's victory. Saying that you'd prefer to surgically remove what little resistance is available in Africa and then march toward inevitable victory over land in the East doesn't feel like much of a strategy at all... If you'd be willing to elaborate, how might this strategy be forced to change if you were using the 5 optional rules you proposed in the final video of the series? Obviously this would change most if not all other nations' moves, but I assume it might also make "dicey" moves like the ones you mentioned potentially more attractive, even if this side of the board isn't changed much if at all. The CP certainly don't have the luxury of cruising around the board and attacking unaligned neutrals for a single IPC on turn 1 given the standard starting rules after all. I expect the Entente might not either if America is a turn late, Italy is 6 infantry weaker, and Austria has a protected underbelly and more domestic naval power projection against that same weakened Italy. Have you made or found a playable TripleA version of the adapted ruleset you proposed? I'd certainly love to play a game (perhaps on both rulesets) to see how different they play.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@geographyfall8064 To your first paragraph: the wording here is odd since I dont feel the strategy “rests” on anything. Its low/no risk and it works game to game and opponent to opponent. I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t feel like a strategy at all”. To your second paragraph: This is the strategy I employ as the Entente in every game. The balance doesn’t change it much. The game appears to be far more entertaining and challenging for both sides with them though. I’ve played a lot of games with that configuration before and since this series release. Actually, I’ve added another balance since then bc the Entente still win too easily: (as of 03/08/2024, I additionally recommend the removal of 6-8 Russian artillery - yes, the game appears to be THAT imbalanced). Use of TripleA's edit mode takes care of everything regarding balance in the current version of 1914. The albania access to sz 17 as well as the ottoman strait are taken care of by gentlemans agreement.

[@Sooper-Pumpkin]

I was most surprised by no attack against the ottomans, to activating Arabia, and attacking Afghanistan instead of attacking Persia

[@TheGlobalWarVeteran]

Afghanistan is a much easier / better attack than Persia on round 1.

[@Sooper-Pumpkin]

@@TheGlobalWarVeteran I get that it’s easier but it still surprised me

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

After you pull two infantry out of India, there is only a 25% chance that the attack on Persia will succeed. Additionally, the Persian survivors will almost certainly become Ottoman. You may end up adding pieces to your opponents army. There's no rush as the Entente but more on that in the final video.

[@Sooper-Pumpkin]

What do you think about instead of the French taking Spanish Sahara having the British take it as units are ending up there anyways due to the Canada-Egypt pipeline (Assuming the British can take Spanish Sahara turn 1)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

That all might be true except perhaps not on the first turn (as you point out) and so this could mean the Entente have to deny themselves a certain amount of IPC equivalent equal to however long it takes to get a UK troop in there to do the job. This is moot if one or both UK transports survived the opening onslaught but in that case, I feel that France still actually needs that IPC more than the UK does. So I stick with France out of geographic convenience and quick, easy IPC for a vital power. But its small potatoes at the end of the day.... wouldn't change much if anything. Thanks for the question!

[@cannonplays939]

What is the idea on attacking Afghan? Wouldn't it be better to just go all in on Persia round 1 or just sit and wait for the first round buy instead of potentially losing stuff on Afghan?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Afghanistan is one of the 8-10 IPCs from unaligned neutrals that can feed the Entente economy and help drown the CP economically in the mid/late game. The UK1 attack appears best because other than the first turn, the Brits should be pushing/stacking westward as fast and as heavily as possible to break through Mesopotamia. To attack later is to divert troops from that task. Finally, even if the defenders score two hits, this does very little to change the outcome of the UK2 attack on Persia. That being said, it is only 1 IPC and not vital to the Entente win. But if you're going to take it, the most efficient time to do it is on the first turn.

[@cannonplays939]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks for the info

[@michaelhadwick4252]

The British cruiser in sea zone 19 moving to sea zone 17 would provide back up to incentivize the Italian fleet into attacking the Austro-Hungarian ships during its turn.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I would caution against this for several reasons. First, the Ottomans go before the Italians and they will (or should) reinforce the Austrians with their cruiser(s) if they're still alive. That by itself should end this hypothetical. But even if there are no Ottoman cruisers, the attack is as likely to fail as it is to succeed. If it succeeds, the math doesn't change much between the CP/Entente. If it fails, a big opportunity is now available to the CP. The transports in the Med/off Portugal are at huge risk on the very next turn even with the UK cruiser there.

[@michaelhadwick4252]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 You are right the risk would be too great for the Italian Fleet to attack on turn one. Still, having the British cruiser in sea zone 17 would certainly dissuade any thoughts of Austro-Hungary doing a rash attack on the Italian fleet on turn two and the British cruiser will be there when the British Fleet in sea zone 28 attacks the the Austro-Hungarian fleet on turn two. Really looking forward to your videos for Italy and United States in this series.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@michaelhadwick4252 agree on all that and many, many thanks.

[@typektypowy]

Capitan what are your toughts on the Kings and Kaisers wariant of the game?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I've heard of it and seen the map via someone else's KZbin channel but otherwise don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

[@dylanhoeltzel09]

Can you explain why you invaded Afghanistan?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

...to get that IPC working for the Entente right away. Otherwise, these troops just stay put and do nothing.

[@AChannelThatDoesNothing]

Never mind.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

huh?

[@AChannelThatDoesNothing]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 I was going to say something, but then realised that you agree with it more than I initially thought as I continued the video. My bad.