Beginner's Strategy Handouts?
I am trying to get a group of friends to start playing A&A and I was hoping that someone had created something similar to the old CSub Beginner’s Strategy Guides updated/changed to reflect A&A 1941 rules/map. I just love the simple straightforward way they put everything you needed to know to get going on a single sheet of paper.
Anyone see anything like that or have any interest in helping me, a newbie myself, update the originals?
Here is an example of what I am speaking of:
I for one am unaware of such a guide Mordineus.
Good luck with your friends.
Well, I guess I will start revising these myself.
I would really, REALLY enjoy some suggestions as to some turn one strategies.
Anyone have some suggestions for what everyone’s first round purchases should be ?
Guess it depends on the plan, but for me typically:
R nearly always infantry
G generally 1 tank and 2 inv
UK - perhaps 2 inv (always build a unit in India + protect the bomber in the UK from G air attack) and save the rest for a future naval build
J - either a transport if going for the islands or grouhd units to push through China for the Caucasus
US - 2 destroyers
well, here is a first take on Russia. It was both the first one, and as it has the fewest options, perhaps the simplest one:
We met and played yesterday, with some very incomplete versions of these that I slapped together.
They were appreciated and at least got them thinking in an analytical way about the game. I also think it helped them to quantify what the variables are to play.
I don’t know if they will be of use to anyone else, but here they are:
The game was a hit, so I am hoping to make this a regular event.
Once again, if anyone has any feedback on how to make these better, please let me know.
LincolnsTopHat last edited by
For a while, 1941 was the first and only game of A&A I owned, and I tried going deep into it with strategies, variant setups and all that stuff. It really doesn’t work with this game, the mechanics are just too small. Sure you can have basic stuff like “Russia should occupy West Russia and buy Infantry,” or “Germany shouldn’t do Sea Lion,” strategies, but if you play it for the chess like strategies, then you’ll quickly get bored. And once you figure out that Japan’s only purpose in the game is to maybe take Moscow, the Pacific becomes extraordinarily boring.
1941 is a fun game by its own terms; definitely offers a more realistic play time, and far easier to teach. However, if you’re looking for the type of game you can write strategy guides for, look into Anniversary Edition or 1942 Sec Edition if you haven’t already (or if you’re crazy like me, 1940 Global). 1942.2 is interesting because it’s a lot like this map (especially in Eastern Europe, the West Russia strategy holds true) except more detailed, but I’d say the Anniversary Edition is the superior of the two.
Also, I have no idea where I found it, but I stumbled across a 1942 variant for this game if you’re interested.
Nowhere Man last edited by
To be fair, 1941s true purpose is to introduce new players to the basic mechanics of the A&A system and secondarily to offer a quick fix for more seasoned veterans, its never been intended to be the mainstay of a group of players or friends to play on a constant basis for the reasons you mentioned… there’s just no depth to this version.
Prior to the rerelease of Anniversary, 1942.2 was meant to be the main game of the series for casuals (while Global was for the hardcore fans), but now I would say Anniversary would hold that spot as it is better balanced with more strategies available than 1942.2 without the massive time commitment of Global.
trulpen last edited by trulpen
if anyone has any feedback on how to make these better, please let me know
Just got the game and have only played it 1,5 times so far, but have more experience with the mega version of 1940G.
I think your guides are really nice! Great layout and clear to understand!
When it comes to the strategy itself, I’ll try and give some constructive feedback or ideas for (hopeful) improvement.
Definitely buy 2 infantry. Only infantry for as long the game goes, unless there’s an opportunity to be the aggressor.
When it comes to attack I reckon it’s safe to just stack everything in W Russia. [Edit: After making a small calculation, I think it’s not at all safe to stack up in W Russia.] Important to put pressure on Germany and shouldn’t be able to be counter-attacked while Moscow is safe. Caucasus only needs 1 infantry (placed as a buy) in order to block the blitz and can be easily retaken if Germany goes there. If you divide your forces, the Germans can perhaps take W Russia or Caucasus out while Russia are in no position to counter-attack. Probably Russia has to leave Karelia and Archangel to their destiny, since a war of attrition will serve Germany better. [Edit: Will contemplate this further.]
On a note, sz 18 (The Black Sea) is not available to any fleet intrusion, since Turkey is neutral and controls the channel. So no need to worry about the German fleet there. The Japanese is another issue for Caucasus though.
I’d say 4 infantry instead of 2 tanks seems to be the better initial buy (and likely also in G2). Partly for the defense of Germany and W Europe and partly for the goal of conquering Moscow. The 6 tanks you start with should be sufficient along with the airforce concerning attack spice.
When it comes to attacks going after the British Navy with the Luftwaffe seems worthwhile. Hitting Russia in W Russia seems too early, but needs more infantry to the front. So, in consequence 3 figs and 1 bomber against the bs in sz 8 (the sub can’t defend or be taken as causalty). Might lose a plane, but the Brits lose their battleship. A viable option is to bring along the bs and sub from sz 4 in order to save planes (they’ll just sit there and hide until wiped out by the British eventually, so that way they’ll be atleast useful).
Likewise doing an amphibious assault in Gibraltar with the North African tank and an infantry from S Europe (with the idea to shuffle them into Europe next round) as well as hitting the British aircraft carrier in sz 14 with 2 subs seems good. The fighter can’t defend and after sinking the ship the fighter simply just falls into the Atlantic for free. Not sure it’s wise to risk the destroyer in order to being able to retreat to sz 9, but perhaps it is. Those 2 subs will otherwise be dead meat by the British destroyer from sz 10. On the other hand, losing the destroyer leaves the transport a sitting duck as well as the land troops stuck in Gibraltar.
A fighter seems to be a wise choice, with the intention of clearing out the German battleship in sz 4 as a means of repayment. Perhaps another bomber is an option, but you also want to have atleast 2 fighters available when re-building a defensively much needed aircraft carrier.
Don’t believe Africa is much of an issue, but those African Corps should move towards India or to assist Russia.
Asia is more interesting. Those transports are pretty vulnerable. Maybe hitting the small Japanese in sz 38 is good with 1 sub, 1 des and 1 fig, but the remaining fleet will be wiped out by Japan and then the transports can only scurry away towards Europe.
I’d say 3 infantry for the initial buy. On round 2 perhaps a destroyer can be wise, to start and counter the likely US mobilization in the Pacific.
The prime drop-zone should be Szeshwan, unless you want to clear out some stiff ruskies in Siberia. That’s only one step away from Caucasus and as with Siberia two steps from Moscow. Priming Caucasus has the beneficial effect of co-working with the Germans in getting a strong hold of Caucasus.
Taking out the American battleship in sz 40 looks like a no-brainer, but might need an amphibious assault of Hawaii in order to dissuade a US counter-attack (making the Japanese aircraft able to land, not forcing to take them as causalties before the carrier). Might be enough with 2 infantry and 1 fighter to get the job done, while 1 ac, 1 bs, 1 fig and 1 bomber goes for a clean strike on the bs without causalties. [Edit: US does have some counter-punch adding the bomber from E US. Likely Japan can’t just put it’s navy by Hawaii risking a counter-attack from the US, which they’ll benifit having a higher income, so perhaps risk sacrificing a fighter and get stationed by Wake Island is better?]
The carrier and destroyer in sz 46 can hit the British where it hurts. With Szechwan conquered, the transport in sz 46 is safe from sneaky air-attacks from India (be careful if the fighter is somewhere else so it’s on the table, if so, keep the carrier along with the transport).
Japan should aim to shuffle troops towards Russia along with using it’s 2 transports to take control of the Southern Islands.
As with the other nations, I believe 1 transport and 2 infantry in E US is the way to go, saving 4 IPC for the next round. The US plan in Europe is to support the British invasion towards Germany, and infantry is just so much more cost effective regarding defense. Another option is to either replace the battleship in the Pacific or going 1 destroyer and 1 submarine (saving 3 IPC) for the Navy build-up against Japan. This is a tough call, but might be that KGF is more important. [Edit: Not sure about this really. Giving Japan free hands in the Pacific will make them to soon outproduce the US, and then a counter in the Pacific will not be executable. I’m leaning towards a KJF-strategy now, especially since the Allies need Tokyo as well.]
Think it’s good what you wrote that US should choose were to focus and stick with it to make an impact.