A&A Revised Strategies



  • I have been wondering if tournament play often sees new strategies.  For example, most people know not to purchase fighters for Russia until breathing room appears.  Most people know that purchasing a battleship as Germany is likely to severely hurt the land battle.  UK, US and Japan have a little bit of flexiblility, but the strategy tends to remain simliar.  Can Germany or Japan truly take over the US if the other player knows how to counter the Canadian Shield or attacks like it?  I can see people using all sorts of methods in regular ‘it doesn’t matter’ game play, but do tournament players use similiar strategy?

    There are methods that are tried and true and methods that may win once or twice to the unsuspecting opponent.  Is A&A predictable, or is it full of endless variety?



  • Actually, I often buy a FIG on R1.

    As for “normal strats”…
    Germany goes for income in Africa, UK and USA try to block that.
    Japan goes for income in Asia, and is basically successful, though potentially slowed a few ruonds with good/aggressive Allied play.
    Allies go for Germany first, with UK and US setting up a TRN network to send troops to Europe (after securing Africa).

    Canadian Shield is a “once and done” strat, that once a player sees it, they never fall victim to it again.

    And as far as KJF (Kill Japan First)… there has yet to be a determined a method that has a high degree of success against a skilled Japan opponent.


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    That Canada Shield thing doesn’t work. Not that I would know anything about that.  :roll:



  • @Natasin:

    I have been wondering if tournament play often sees new strategies.

    I’ve taken new strategies to FTF tournaments and done very well with them.  Online play is a bit different because you have a lot more time to analyze the board, but new strats can work well there too.  You just have to disguise the sucker punches better.

    Can Germany or Japan truly take over the US if the other player knows how to counter the Canadian Shield or attacks like it?

    Sure it CAN happen, but usually the point of a move like Canadian Shield is not to take over the US; it is to gum up your opponent’s logistics.  Just becaues you CAN counter a move doesn’t mean that the counter doesn’t have a high cost.  That’s the real benefit of a good sucker punch: if you don’t score a killer blow, make your opponent incur the counter cost.

    There are methods that are tried and true and methods that may win once or twice to the unsuspecting opponent.  Is A&A predictable, or is it full of endless variety?

    I’ve played a lot and I’ve analyzed a lot, and I still find new stuff all the time.  Just yesterday I played a game and realized something about naval adjacencies I hadn’t noticed before; it may be good enough to change the way I play some variations of the US turn.

    Canadian Shield is a “once and done” strat, that once a player sees it, they never fall victim to it again.

    That Canada Shield thing doesn’t work.

    Heh.  A) Moves like that DO work.  B) They work against some of the best players in the game.  C) They work against the same guys multiple times because the goal is to incur the counter cost, not just to land the death blow.

    But it may be very well be true that the guys who dismiss those types of moves are unable to execute them correctly.

    Peace


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yea, Switch, I’ve been going the Fig, Arm, Art, Inf, 2 IPC route iwth Russia 1 lately myself.  The added benefit is you can build right on Caucasus without needing to stage in Russia and you have more offensive punch then normal too.

    Another common FIG purchase route is Fig, 2 Arm, Art.  or Fig, Arm, 3 Inf

    Which one do you like?



  • I don’t think tournament players are necessarily a whole lot better than nontournament players.  Going to a tournament shows that you want to have a fun time at an event where you can meet new players, and meet old buddies from other regions.  Not going to tournaments means, well, that you just don’t go to tournaments.  Maybe you don’t like flying, or maybe your location and job mean you can’t really make it out there.

    I actually think people like A&A because it is a predictable grind.  People that like a strong element of chance and variability play Magic: The Gathering, or Warhammer.

    Really, think about it - the board position is ALWAYS set up the same (for Magic and Warhammer, people bring different decks or armies).

    The board geography and territory value and unit value and rulesets are such that only certain strategies are going to work, and those are the strategies you’re going to see in tournaments.  In GENERAL, I will go ahead and say that you will see lots of repeated moves like US and UK uniting off Algeria depending on the German Med fleet move, or Germany trading territories with USSR near West Russia; whenever you have a game with good players on both sides that have good communication, I think the game will come down to variations on a theme.  Basically - I’d say the game is predictable, not filled with endless variety.

    But I will also say that although the game is predictable, dice results can quickly force or allow a player to change from one variation to another variation, or even switch themes altogether.  I will also say that on-the-fly risk calculation is a huge part of the game.  Probably the biggest trick is balancing Germany effectively.  If you are too aggressive with infantry,Russia can counterattack and smash you; if you are not aggressive enough, Russia gets more IPC from territories and can smash you anyways; if you commit fighters to land battles, that’s less that defends against the Allied navy; if you commit too much air, USSR can press without fear of reprisal; if you build too much ground and not enough air, the Allied fleet can invade, if you build too much air and not enough ground, the USSR can press; it’s a very delicate balance that shifts very quickly.

    “Sure it CAN happen, but usually the point of a move like Canadian Shield is not to take over the US; it is to gum up your opponent’s logistics.  Just becaues you CAN counter a move doesn’t mean that the counter doesn’t have a high cost.  That’s the real benefit of a good sucker punch: if you don’t score a killer blow, make your opponent incur the counter cost.”

    Ya srsly.  I think it’s pretty extreme to say Canadian Shield doesn’t work - there are lots of conditions that have to be met, and Candian Shield is still a fine diversionary attack in almost any KGF game.



  • What you all say makes sense to one degree or another.  The dice are useful in changing strategies.  I do wish there was a way to make sure that people could have different goals to win the game.  The victory city conditions can make the goals similiar.  I do wish Japan had a viable way to take on the US, or even an effective KJF.  Good dialogue, maybe I just need to play against people who know what they are doing 🙂  (That’s why I came here)


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    I would suggest that the Canada Shield can be prevented before the incursion of the counter cost. I would also suggest that the proper logistics would prevent the gumming up of the works. Proper being moving your US units from WUS to WCA to ECA then on to Europe and Africa. A turn one US defensive Naval build to cover your transports will put you in an effective position to counter at little cost or stop it from being tried at all.





  • @frimmel:

    I would suggest that the Canada Shield can be prevented before the incursion of the counter cost. I would also suggest that the proper logistics would prevent the gumming up of the works. Proper being moving your US units from WUS to WCA to ECA then on to Europe and Africa. A turn one US defensive Naval build to cover your transports will put you in an effective position to counter at little cost or stop it from being tried at all.

    Both the WUS-WCA-ECA and a US Pacific naval build are a counter cost.  You just pay before the attack instead of after.  Problem is since it’s preventative medicine, you may not be hit with the disease.

    If you run infantry from W US to WCA to ECA, that’s an entire turn’s worth of production tied up.  Similarly, if you build a carrier and a couple of subs in the Pacific, that’s another entire turn’s worth of production tied up.    Both builds also take time, which slows any attack on Germany.  The builds are also quite visible - Japan can simply choose to NOT do any move towards Alaska or WCan, or may chase the US fleet down or force the US to build up.  True, you could just start a E. US to ECA, but then WCA and Alaska would again be open to attack.  Or you could do a Pac buildup, but then Japan could do defensive fighters, or you could run to the Atlantic, but then you would have wasted time.

    It’s true that both builds let you do things you couldn’t before; the WCA lets you defend Alaska, and the Pacfleet lets you threaten a move towards Japan’s islands.  And it isn’t QUITE cut and dried as I presented.  But either way, if you choose to build defensively, you are still paying a counter cost.  You may not have to pay as much directly, but you give up speed, which is costly in its own way.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes, but the American Shuffle (as I call the dance of Infnatry from W. US to W. Can. to E. Can) only ties you up for 1 round and secures your border forever.

    1 Round in a 10 round game is nothing.  Especially considering you don’t even have the ability to move all that stuff on R1 or R2 anyway.  It’s too easy to build 4 infantry, 2 transport and something on US 1 and move those to England, moving what you have there to Finland and whalla, you have a 2 transport shuffling system set up.  You have 4 Infantry in E. Canada at the end of US 2, 2 Transport in SZ 2/8, 2 Transport in SZ 3/6 (depending on game layout, etc.) and you can start building on that.  Meanwhile, you should have at least 4, probably 6 infantry in W. Canada and 6 or 8 Infantry in W. USA to continue the movement…though it’s okay if you dont since new transports won’t be moving units from your train anyway, they can just grab from the capital.



  • The longer US is delayed the better.  1 round can definitely make the difference between taking the Caucasus and being forced to defend Western and/or Southern Europe.

    congrats on promotion to heavy bomber.



  • If you build heavy in WUS on US1 (land units, not naval units, no need for Naval in the Pacific, unless Japan is going KUSAF (in whcih case smile, build lots of INF, and just let him smash his units on your Pacific Wall).

    You need about 3 turns as the US to build up aTRN network anyway, by which time those WUS forces are waitign for your TRNs in ECan.  And with them in ECan instead of EUS, you can “out and back” your TRNs from SZ12, 8 or 2 to get forces to Algeria or UK every round with the same TRNs.  Add a second set of TRNs in the SZ3/4/5/6/7 area and you ahve 2 turn TRN from US to Europe, with a solid pipeline of forces coming from Western that also serves as all teh defense you need against all but a KUSAF move by Japan… and still be 100% KGF as Germany.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    But there is no US delay.  You need time to get your fleet up to maximum production anyway, so why not move your infantry the long way, provided you always have full transports?


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    I was in no way advocating any sort of US naval build in the Pacific. I simply advocate that building units you can’t move to Europe yet but will be able to down the road in the WUS puts you in position to counter any moves without a hiccup to your logistics. You are including a counter Canada Shield contingency plan in your logistics.



  • The earlier the TRN network starts, the earlier Africa is retaken, the earlier Persia can be reinforced against attack from India, the sooner W. Europe and S. Europe can be threatened and exchanged with Germany, bleeding off units from the eastern front.

    Running infantry from EUS to ECA is a necessary evil because you don’t want to be stuck with three transports per two transported ground units.  But running infantry from WUS to WCA to ECA means that whatever’s in WCA are units that could have been at Germany one turn sooner.

    If Germany doesn’t send the Med fleet west, I often unite UK battleship, 2 UK transports, 1 US destroyer, 2 US transports west of Algeria, with total UK forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank, US forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter at Algeria.  My build on US1 of 3 transports, 3 tanks, and 1 infantry lets me hit again next turn.  US2 I build 1 transport plus 8-10 ground (if Germany has run through Africa, I get tanks), and send the 2 empty transports from Algeria back to E. US, and send full transports to Algeria.  US3 I send 3 full transports back, run 4 ground units to ECA, and put 3 empties back on EUS, build 8-10 more ground.  US4 I use 2 empty Algeria transports to grab units from ECA and send 3 full transports from EUS to Algeria, so now there’s 10 units in Algeria threatening WEU and SEU with UK help - and more on the way from a feed from EUS-ECA.  There is NO TIME TO SPARE; the US landing on US1 allows progression US1 Algeria, US2 Libya, US3 Anglo-Egypt, US4 Trans-Jordan.  If the US does not press hard and fast through Africa, Japan secures Persia to threaten the Caucasus, almost impossible for the Allies to crack an infantry wall there, because the Allies must ATTACK to take that crucial territory.  But if the Allies manage to unite at Persia on US5, Japan is probably NOT going to be able to push ground through the Caucasus; it will have to take on units from three different countries; US, UK, and USSR - not much from each, but the combined strength is very great.

    That is why I don’t think I would ever run infantry through WUS.  I would let Japan hit me, early or late.  Early, and that’s less early pressure against Russia (good).  Late, and I can deal with it.  (good).  (Note that I didn’t say that late, it’s less pressure on Russia - because late game, infantry transported to Soviet Far East - Yakut - Novosibirsk would take TOO LONG to get to Russia.  It is far more effective for Japan to just open a can of whoop-ass with eight transports and start slugging Alaska and Canada.  Problem is, by that time, UK should have its transport fleet set against Germany, and the US can use its already mobilized units near Europe, so it’s UK/USSR/US (in order of strength) hitting Germany, USSR vs Japan, and US playing a back seat role in keeping Japan from reinforcing its Asia position.



  • @frimmel:

    I was in no way advocating any sort of US naval build in the Pacific. I simply advocate that building units you can’t move to Europe yet but will be able to down the road in the WUS puts you in position to counter any moves without a hiccup to your logistics. You are including a counter Canada Shield contingency plan in your logistics.

    Ah.  Well, I did mention that I played those US moves with the German Med fleet NOT moving west; I suppose a Canada Shield contingency plan could work quite well if the Germans DID move west.  Or would I build fighters instead?

    Can’t argue with Khan Noonian Singh!

    THE MAN!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.


  • Moderator

    @Jennifer:

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.

    QFT.

    😄


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @DarthMaximus:

    @Jennifer:

    Ya know, I have no problem with a US assault on Japan.  They are perfectly capable of moving against Japn quickly, thus negating any gains Japan has with losses on their islands.

    Meanwhile, England and Russia are perfectly capable of holding the Germans and maybe even backing them down.

    QFT.

    😄

    I espoused it before your game with me, DM. 😛

    BTW, if anyone cares, I’m battling Arsonist with the German IC in W. Europe concept.  I still don’t think it’ll be more then an anchor tieing up Germans, but let’s see, shall we?


  • Moderator

    Yeah, I know.  I just wanted to quote you b/c I agree with you in this case.

    US can go toe to toe with Japan and that doesn’t mean Germany will run wild.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yea, the reason for that is America can offset any advances by Japan through exploitation of her islands.  Couple that with the massive fleet Japan has to build up just to keep America from owning everything and killing her Asian units from the rear and you have a mess for Japan.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 30
  • 2
  • 28
  • 5
  • 3
  • 6
  • 3
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts