I think the key to A&A is really resource management. Since its a zero-sum game, the player that manages their resources the best will do the best, and ultimately win the game. What do I mean by Resource management:
Getting the most out of your units on offense and defense. Planes are a good example. You want to position your planes so that they can participate in an attack every turn, and provide defense until the next turn. If you position planes so that they miss a turn without being able to attack, then that’s wasted resources.
Another example is buying transports, and not having enough troops/tanks to fill them up. Again, this is generally wasted IPCs/resources.
It is vital as any country to use exactly the right amount of resources to acomplish your goals. If you use too much, then those wasted resources will cost you position elsewhere in the game. If you use too little, you will fail in your goal and again the resources are wasted.
For example, if Russia is playing to stall the Axis, then the Russian player must spend just enough IPCs on the Western front to stop Germany. All other resources go to the East to stall Japan. If the Russian player miscalculates, then either Japan or Germany will advance faster than optimally possible.
Another example, Japan must spend exactly the right amount of resources to attack Moscow/Asia, and send the remainder East into North America, or West into Europe to help Germany. If Japan stikes the right balance, then The Axis is hard to beat.
This is true for all countries. I once played the US, and I bought 3 bombers during the game, but I positioned them terribly, and they hardly ever saw combat. It was a huge waste of 45 IPCs.
The flip side to this problem of course is risk management. the closer you come to using just the right amount of resources, the higher the risk you will miscalculate, and use too few.
What do you guys think?
This is sooo right on the mark–new players take note! I have seen many many new players make the mistake with the TRs–don’t build them if you can’t fill them and move them next turn! If you do you are just wasting resources and limiting your options. As Japan I try to never let my INF and TR numbers get out of balance–leftover INF in Japan after a noncombat move are just more wasted resources. Same holds true of USA or UK.
Maintaining a net gain of units each turn is also a must, especially for the poorer countries and ESPECIALLY for USSR and Germany. For instance, try not to use so many tanks in a given attack as USSR that you come up short next turn after Germany counters–you just may have to buy even more. A slow, steady buildup with more limited attacks will net you better
results. Same goes for Germany…and as anyone can tell you, all too often Japan attacks in so many places that in a few turns she has NOTHING left but empty territories and a few INF. This is poor play.
Ozone27
i can’t disagree…that’s all i have to say…for now.
If i want a transport navy, ill buy as many as i can in and given round, regardless of how many tanks or infantry i have. If you build just enough to transport, you run the risk of losing it to any particular attack.
What im saying is, the best way to build up for a amphibious landing is to build the units to transport then the transports themselves or vice-versa.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-28 16:11 ]
I think with Japan, you won’t have to worry about air or naval attacks trying to wipe out your transports. All Japan really has to worry about is 1 UK ftr. India (Russia will probably be too busy with its ftrs in Europe). And since Japan is constantly expanding its borders, there’ll come a time where Allied aircraft simply can’t find anywhere to land.
Whenever I play with Japan, I try to build just enough trans. because I don’t want to risk stalling out as stated above.
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-28 16:02 ]
You wont stall if you buy the transports first.
Won’t stall if I build transports first?
Well if I build nothing but transports for Japan on the first turn and then load up all my existing forces into transports, by T2 I should have 3 transports plus 2 more (assuming our transports haven’t been destroyed). However I would only have 1 tank, 2 inf. to transport from Japan and Okinawa. However, if I had bought only 2 tansports and 3 inf. I would have 4 transports and 1 ARM, 5 inf. What sounds like the better idea?
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-28 16:45 ]
I didnt say anything about turns!? Or Japan for that matter.
Ok, maybe it did have a little to do with japan……but i stand by my first statement.
Well how would you build all transports first? Do you mean just all transports or what? Even for other countries beside Japan (like USA) you still have to be realistic and see that you can’t build more transports than existing production can bear.
I sort of see what Ghoul is saying but I think it applies only to a situation (like UKs) where the enemy can sink a navy that isn’t large enough. But situations change, and when your turn rolls around again, you may regret being unable to attack a nearby zone (maybe a different zone than the one you had originally intended) because you have a whole bunch of TRs with nothing to put on them–don’t trap yourself; retain your flexibility by playing “lean” and only buying as many TRs as you will need…
Ozone27
Yeah, that’s probably what he’s trying to say. However, even with UK I wouldn’t suggest buying all transports again. What will offer greater protection: 2 transports (16 IPCs) or 1 Aircraft Carrier (18 IPCs)? I think that the single aircraft carrier will offer greater protection, provided you can get USA or Russia to land at least one of their fighters on it.
Yeah, unsupported TRs are one of the worst defensive buys ever…I’m assuming in my response that there is already a CV there…
Ozone27
I wouldnt buy transports if i didnt have protection for them already……give me a little credit.
When i play the allies, i dont invade amphibiously until i have a force large enough to attack and hold the country im liberating. So, Ill just buy the Tranports OR ground units all first. Attacking piece meal is ok for icp grabs but youll never hold ground- just drag things out. Which may lead to waste over the long run.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-04-02 18:26 ]
I agree completely with you. In fact, my guide talks a lot about resource management.
(I tried to type it while on vacation, but didn’t get far. I never could sit down and write something that long without being forced to)
Well with the Allies you don’t have to worry as much as not holding territories for more than a turn. For example: UK attacks with her forces and manages to take Western Europe with three inf. remaining. Of course it would seem like these 3 inf are piece meal to German forces. But on the following turns USA also lands in WE reinforcing the territory with 10 inf. As you can see, Allied coordination plays a huge role in these efforts.
Even better, Britain takes with forces, America and Russia bring all their troops and fighters in. This way they can hold it.
But where should the landing occur? Eastern Europe. Then again if Russian armies are in position a all out strike against Berlin would be something I would very much like to see.
Eastern Europe could be followed up by Russian forces. Do that if the Russians are strong. Western Europe splits the German forces, do that if Russia is weak.
Ah I see. Two different striking points will definately force the Germany forces to split themselves and keep them off guard. But this requires that American transports are at least in the Canadian sea zone.
