Allies strategy (No bids).

[Nowhere Man]

@mobius1:

And why bring Risk into this? As if A&A itself is even close to being an accurate representation of WWII history!! :D

Unfortunately, I can’t ever get anyone to play the more accurate ones with me, or I’d be playing those instead. I have a game of Unconditional Surrender I manage to coerce my wife into playing every now and then. We started the game last November and aren’t even past Summer 1940!

Sorry if my joke fell flat (I really need to use smileys more)… I just brought up RISK, because a lot of A&A players snub their noses at RISK and I just wanted to drive home that open Dardanelles is bad in so many ways… but you already know that and play with them closed, so all good. There’s some folks that talk about how to take advantage of the open Dardanelles with Italy and I just find that so darn terrible in so many ways, and if you played with them open, I could see how you think the Axis always wins.

I used to play the old-school Avalaon Hill games (like Squad Leader and what-not) back in the day, but nobody ever wants to play those… if you want to only play the more hardcore wargames, you spend a lot of lonely nights playing with yourself (no, not THAT way).  :-D

So ya, like you, I play A&A cuz more people find playing with little plastic soldiers more fun than playing with cardboard chits.

[Stucifer]

@mobius1:

Sorry, I was talking about the 1941 setup here. Attacking Finland is 5 infantry and 1 artillery vs. 2 infantry, and Norway has 2 infantry. Usually I take it with just 1 casualty. It does cut off counterattack options because of sending all those infantry away, but that extra 2 income is a huge blessing for Russia. Even better if you can manage to take Norway as well!

My bad, I was trawling the 1942 setup boards and accidentally came over to 1941 haha. You’re absolutely right. Germany usually has a fighter and a bomber to land in Norway after hitting the British home fleet.

@mobius1:

If you take Finland, and UK takes out the German navy, then they don’t usually have a large enough force to take and hold Karelia on G2.

In fact I usually move one of the infantry out of Finland into Norway–USSR can have the two IPCs this turn, if they want to send infantry/artillery to take it they will be killed on my counterstroke G2.

@mobius1:

I know Germany can take Karelia turn 1, and eliminate that infantry stack. But I personally think this is an inferior move for Germany, since you waste your chance to wipe out most of the British navy by sending so many planes to take Karelia. No one I play does it, anyways.

I agree. I have a friend that has done it twice and then wonders why he loses, and quickly. A 1-round naval buildup for US/UK and moved into France on turn 3, he couldn’t hold it and lost all momentum on the Eastern Front because he wasted his fighters and tanks.

@mobius1:

But actually, maybe that is another reason why the bomber is valuable to purchase R1 - It can help with taking Norway. That extra 5 IPC’s is a godsend for Russia if they can get it. Granted, it doesn’t always work out that way, since you usually need to use those forces to retake Karelia.

But part of me is wondering if it would be better to go all out tanks and infantry, have UK take Norway, and push hard for the +10 NO.

An archangel buildup is imperative for USSR as you want to keep Germany from thinking too much about renting a room for the night in Karelia. I find I usually have two core infantry groups; one in Archangel and another in Caucasus. Tanks in Russia can hit anything from Karelia to Ukraine. First round buy is usually 2 tanks, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 fighter. I think for this strategy, I would do 5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter R1. Move the 5 inf, 1 art into Finland. Hope you don’t take any hits, two hits will probably mean you can’t take Norway. The bomber would let you still take norway, but you give up the defense of the fighter in Caucasus. And you can’t keep Germany from stacking Ukraine turn 2 if you are stacking Archangel to contest Karelia, so you need the fighter.

If I see you move that stack into Finland, I will capture Karelia with minimal effort and push south turn 2. I can contest Caucasus turn 3, which caps your unit production at 6, maybe 8 if you play aggressive and push hard enough into Karelia to make me choose. Losing Caucasus is a heavy foreshadow of game over for USSR.

Italy in the '41 turn order can clear infantry blockers for Germany to move panzers through, and Japan starts with, as you said, Godzilla air force. He can spare four fighters to land in Ukraine to ensure a G3 smackdown on Caucasus or even Russia if you are spread this thin.

Then Japan can build an IC in East Indies and India J3 and use four of their five starting transports (which usually are well-guarded enough by the three aircraft carriers and 7-8 remaining fighters, two battleships…) to shuck four armour into India from East Indies, plus 3 in India. :|

The problem with the '41 setup is how unbalanced the action is: Japan can steamroll everyone in the Pacific. Assuming the standard losses J1, to match the IJN America needs to build:
1 BB = 20
2 CV = 28
2 Fighters = 20
1 CA = 12 (America will be up 1 DD so lets call this 4)
That’s a total of 72 IPCs, or 82% of USA’s expected cash in the first two rounds. And then, finally, on US3 it can move and unload in Carolines or Iwo Jima to trigger UKs NO, if Japan’s navy is far enough away. But with an IC in East Indies active on J4, he can buy more ships if he feels the need and dump 8 infantry in Japan if necessary. You’re only going to have at max 2 transports with you, because that would be 86 IPCs, and unless Japan lets you keep Phillipines on the first round you’ll only have 88.

TL;DR: USSR-Germany is a fun struggle, Japan ruins the game by backdooring Caucasus from India.
I’m writing an ‘Alternate History Scenario’ where Mao takes Lenin’s advice and builds a coalition in 1923. Able to consolidate support he begins the Revolution/Civil War and unites the country in the early 30s. Stalin continues to support China, seeing it both as a strategic partner and, in his paranoia, a place to unload troublesome generals. Thus instead of the invasion of the Soviet Union by millions of Japanese ground troops and tanks somehow able to compete with the T-34, I can have China controlled by the Russian player, extra NOs and a factory in Sikang and Yakut or Stanovoy to compensate for fighting a two-front war and give the Japanese player an actual challenge instead of moving pieces around and not even needing to roll dice after the first round.

[mobius1]

Funny how in the war, Japan stalled out in Burma! :D

I think if Japan went heavy southern route, I would consider bringing some American aid. But I usually try to rely on Russia to hold in. In fact, I usually try to retake India, which is why I like having the bombers (Though fighters can reach from Caucasus.). My opponents that tend to prefer the Siberia route, with transports and an IC in Manchuria. But maybe that’s because I’ve given them such a rough time over India in the past.

But it does weaken my Russia having to send away so many infantry. If I can’t take France or Italy with UK/USA, then I’m probably in big trouble, since Germany can send more troops East. One thing I’ve thought of doing, is getting 6-8 US transports on SZ 12, and having the troops ready to fill them all. Then you can do a really big landing if needed, with 8 inf 8 tanks. The threat alone won’t let them send as many troops to Russia.

I also, when feeling bold, I like to bombing raid Italy, not Germany, to really make them a non-factor, and give them a rough time defending themselves.

One thing I don’t do, is go for tech, which is maybe something I should be doing. The last time I did, I bought two dice, and didn’t have a tech by turn 8. Whereas my opponents will buy one die, and roll a 6 the first turn! :D I just hate bringing the random factor into it, so I tend to avoid them. But early on, I often am stifled by UK’s production limit, so perhaps that would be the ideal moment for me to buy dice.

Oh, and about carriers, this is my opinion: The problem with carriers, starting with UK, is that I often need to land my planes off the carrier. And as I said, I like to buy cruisers so that they DO help me in my land battles (Which are pretty much never inland as UK.). The same goes for USA - I usually use my planes to defend territory that UK took (Like France), or to defend in Asia. I used to buy carriers if I was trying to take on Japan, but destroyers are better now, for that. A carrier is also terrible in an offensive naval battle, which limits your options.

[mobius1]

I’ve been trying to explore more Pacific play on the Allies’ part, and actually have employed a little of what was mentioned earlier, with putting bombers on Western USA. I usually have done it to counter Japan easily taking away the second US NO.

I’ve looked into using lots of bombers to try and take out Japan’s navy, and though they can be pretty effective for their cost, it still takes a crap-ton to really pull it off. You’d need like 10-15 bombers to take out a decent sized navy (assuming a couple battleships and a couple carriers, with some fodder). If USA poured all of their money into bombers, it would take 3-4 turns, and they’d lose most of the bombers.

Maybe if you used the SZ 44 fleet with a couple extra ships, you could try and split their fleet, and then bomb the best target. You’d need to buy at least a transport or two, though, otherwise there’s little threat.

But then I think about the strength of taking Italy, or Balkans, or France, and dropping 8 troops per turn, and it just sounds so much better than playing around with Japan….

One thing I was trying to figure the logistics for, is UK/US shucking troops to Balkans. The problem is you’d need like 9 transports, to shuck 3 transports worth of troops a turn (swapping 3 transports with each other per turn between SZ 12 and 14, and the other three picking up from Canada and UK and dropping in Algeria.). But now I think I have a decent idea. USA would defend SZ 14 with its navy, and UK would defend SZ 12 (Both navies would need to be able to overwhelm German air assaults.). You could shuck 8 troops per turn, by spending one turn moving troops from Algeria to Libya, and then ferry them across the Med. This would only require 8 transports and would get you 4 transport loads per turn.

Of course, taking France is soooo much easier, and you’d certainly take it if it was possible.

Another strategy is to delay a turn, and drop 8 transports on France in one turn. But I like the Med shuck idea, because it forces them to have to defend 3 territories, and they almost certainly won’t be able to defend Balkans no matter what they do. And any France defenders can’t be used to counterattack Balkans, so Germany won’t have as much to counterattack with, and Italy would risk losing their capital if they counterattacked.

[Stucifer]

@mobius1:

Funny how in the war, Japan stalled out in Burma! :D

Exactly. I think the biggest thing that this board needs is a 2-zone split of India. It is a massive area and splitting it would make it one turn further from Caucasus–a double edged sword, but mostly hurts Japan in the 41 setup for sure.

@mobius1:

I think if Japan went heavy southern route, I would consider bringing some American aid. But I usually try to rely on Russia to hold in. In fact, I usually try to retake India, which is why I like having the bombers (Though fighters can reach from Caucasus.). My opponents that tend to prefer the Siberia route, with transports and an IC in Manchuria. But maybe that’s because I’ve given them such a rough time over India in the past.

The best continental ICs after India are #2 Kiangsu and #3 French Indo-China. Kiangsu is the perfect drop off for a 8-unit transport shuck each round off Japan. FIC threatens India directly with tank buys. Both are 4 territories to Kazakh, which lets you threaten Moscow and Stalingrad simultaneously. You can move 10 infantry for two rounds and follow it up with 4 infantry, 6 tanks a third round. 2 more tanks in Kiangsu and a set of bombers in Japan with leftover money, move everything including your navy fighters where you can spare them into Kazakh and you’ll probably have 20 infantry, 6 tanks, 2 bombers if Moscow hasn’t already capitulated to the Germans.

@mobius1:

But it does weaken my Russia having to send away so many infantry. If I can’t take France or Italy with UK/USA, then I’m probably in big trouble, since Germany can send more troops East. One thing I’ve thought of doing, is getting 6-8 US transports on SZ 12, and having the troops ready to fill them all. Then you can do a really big landing if needed, with 8 inf 8 tanks. The threat alone won’t let them send as many troops to Russia. I also, when feeling bold, I like to bombing raid Italy, not Germany, to really make them a non-factor, and give them a rough time defending themselves.

Bombing Italy is a solid choice, it’s easy to get it into the red where they can’t build anything without spending 40-50% of their income on repairs. I also move the AA gun out of Karelia so unless the German player is spending IPCs on building an AA gun and marching it over, he’s spending up to 4 IPCs each round for the privilege.

SZ 12 is fine if Italy’s fleet is dead. Italy may try to get a CV on turn 2 to keep everything alive. Start with a fighter round 1 and he can afford a CV and usually an inf + arty depending on how well Africa went (in 1941 it’s dead easy to have Egypt and Trans-Jordan R1 if Germany helps just a little). Then they get a 2nd transport or just more inf to hold France/Italy.

I think SZ 3 is the best choice for early game buildup as long as Germany isn’t parking all his fighters in France or Northwestern Europe. Depriving Germany of Norway and Finland can be done early on, and its an excellent staging ground for helping USSR keep Karelia contested. It’s a two-turn shuck to Eastern Canada, just like 7 and 12 are, but it’s much more sheltered. Plus an American or British factory in Norway is awesome for getting a few more tanks into the fight each round, and UK can really use the extra 3 production slots to fill a 5th transport.

@mobius1:

One thing I don’t do, is go for tech, which is maybe something I should be doing. The last time I did, I bought two dice, and didn’t have a tech by turn 8. Whereas my opponents will buy one die, and roll a 6 the first turn! :D I just hate bringing the random factor into it, so I tend to avoid them. But early on, I often am stifled by UK’s production limit, so perhaps that would be the ideal moment for me to buy dice.

Tech is great, but it is random and there are too many filler/dud/situational techs IMO. Long-range aircraft are ridiculously good. I once got this with USA on round 5 after I had built a decent bomber fleet (7 I think) and I flew the new ones from Eastern US, old ones from somewhere else (Think it was Australia actually) sunk the Italian fleet at harbor, and flew on to Moscow or Caucasus in one fell swoop.

@mobius1:

Oh, and about carriers, this is my opinion: The problem with carriers, starting with UK, is that I often need to land my planes off the carrier. And as I said, I like to buy cruisers so that they DO help me in my land battles (Which are pretty much never inland as UK.). The same goes for USA - I usually use my planes to defend territory that UK took (Like France), or to defend in Asia. I used to buy carriers if I was trying to take on Japan, but destroyers are better now, for that. A carrier is also terrible in an offensive naval battle, which limits your options.

I like cruisers fine, they definitely serve a purpose. I think you’re right, as the UK setting up for the US to take and HOLD France, the bombard is solid value when you’re committing just enough to get the bombards and nothing more. Like Italy does in Caucasus/Ukraine for Germany with Dardanelles open. If UK can take France and repel the Italian counter-attack, and US can follow up with 8-12 transports and fighters, Germany’s in a serious pickle.

It’s just that I’ve never seen the game last that long (but I almost always play Axis, so maybe that’s my problem  :roll:) :-D

[mobius1]

I tried buying an Italian carrier once. It was an interesting strategy, and eventually helped to solidify the Suez, which allowed me to get Japanese ships in the Med to defend them even more. But I think the problem is that in the end, the loss of ground troops to buy it, meant the allies could afford to purchase more air or ships to wipe it out. True, Japan was able to help them, but that’s because my opponents were not as aggressive about taking them out as I would have been. Thankfully my opponents don’t value Africa as much as I do, so I usually win it regardless of which side I’m playing. And them playing around in the Pacific really helps me out as Axis in Africa, be it Germany, Italy, or Japan that takes it - it’s usually a toss up for me.

Initially, SZ 12 is pretty safe though, because you can combine US and UK navies. Then once I build up the proper navy/air force, I hit the Italian navy. But I like to get troops to Algeria asap to stop the Italian NO. Usually by US2.

If Japan pushes hard through the southern route, then that’s usually when I send US troops from Africa to Syria. But usually I can delay India being held by counterattacking with Russia. My last game I even brought 2 UK bombers to Syria (After they wiped out the med fleet) to help dead zone India. You’re most certainly not going to stop a determined Japan from taking it, but you can delay them. Also, for them to hit India hard early, they are usually making less gains somewhere else. People claim you can ignore China, but that’s a load of crap. :D

The more I talk about this, the more convinced I am about buying air for Russia instead of tanks. I’ve found one of the best ways to counter Japan, is taking advantage of a good stack of air units to assist your infantry in attacking them. You can’t win a defensive war when they have 10 planes - you have to attack them after they gain a new territory. This forces them to slow down and let more infantry catch up, which buys you even more time for the Anglo-Americans to do their thing. But I’m still on the fence over whether to buy fighters or bombers….I’m still leaning towards bombers, because without the 6 range, you can’t as easily cover the west and east front. I used to get by just fine with fighters in Revised though, I guess. Maybe next game I will give it a shot (And try out my Balkans shuck.).

[Nowhere Man]

Building a Russian Carrier Fleet in the Caspian Sea usually will secure victory…

(for the Axis)

[mobius1]

I just want to have one game where Axis takes Greenland.

[axis_roll]

KGF is the best way for the allies to have any chance of winning without any bid.
A good axis player will recognize this and start out stacking German defense right out of the gate:
10 inf rd1.  Japan flies 2-4 ftrs into Africa, aiding the building of Fortress Europe.

So, in OOB rules with Tech and National Objectives, no bid, the best hope for the Allies is technology (that and good dice for you and bad dice for the axis).  IMHO, the axis should never lose in this scenario, IF they were playing to win (vs trying new things)

If that doesn’t float your boat, try throwing too many units/targets at Germany and Italy early for them to handle.  Personally I like a few Russia tanks over ftrs.  They take and hold land, especially with some UK or USA air power to protect any Russian stacks from German counter attacks.  At least this method can push the deadzone territories to East Poland/Ukraine/Karelia to keep Germany too close for an Italian can opener to enable a German tank blitz to hit Moscow.

Godzilla gets too big too quickly, and there’s not a whole hell of allot that the allies can do to slow that down.  You might try and get all hopeful that an India complex is possible on UK1.  Russia needs to move many units into Persia R1 to support that IC and then Japan needs to not be in any position to hit India J2 (or Australia for the matter) because US ftrs can go to aussie and then India USA 2, to help hold the Indian complex against a J3 attack

If Japan plays it right, she won’t allow the IC to be a realistic option for the allies.

[mobius1]

Yeah, I am not a fan of an IC on India. It basically becomes a free complex for Japan, since 3 units a turn isn’t enough to stop them. I’d rather buy 3 dice.

If you focus so much of Russian offense against Germany, are you basically trying to trade Moscow for Berlin? The main reason I build planes is the eventual need to attack the Japanese (Since I find defensive stacks almost never work.).

[axis_roll]

@mobius1:

Yeah, I am not a fan of an IC on India. It basically becomes a free complex for Japan, since 3 units a turn isn’t enough to stop them. I’d rather buy 3 dice.

Agreed… just throwing out ideas.

@mobius1:

If you focus so much of Russian offense against Germany, are you basically trying to trade Moscow for Berlin? The main reason I build planes is the eventual need to attack the Japanese (Since I find defensive stacks almost never work.).

This is why it’s called KGF, with the F either being First or Fast, either way, it’s a race to who loses their capital first, and at what cost.

Lot harder to stop a 3 on 1 (or 1.5 if you count little brother)
Than a 2 on 1 (Germany throws herself at Russia, Japan from the rear)

[mobius1]

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

[axis_roll]

@mobius1:

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland.  That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war.  Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders.  Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL.  In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.