Latest posts made by A Person
RE: KJF- Austrailian Fleet and Alaskan Naval Base
He WANTS to build subs because of his two U-Boat NAs.
If the US and the UK have no Navy in the Atlantic, then subs will be a waste to him.
As I’ve said before, I know him. I know what his ideas are. I know what maneuvers he considers a waste of IPCs, and what maneuvers he considers useful. I’m going to use that to my advantage.
He loves to try to bring down people by being very confident and aggressively, verbally assaulting all of my plans. He throws the dice aggressively because, in his own words, “it intimidates people.”
So, I fight fire with fire, and I’m massively egotistical to him. It’s wrong, and I’ll stop it.
Either way, that’s why I said that I was “smart.” Sorry.
Ok, if the Australian Navy is a big giveaway to my plan, either way, on turn two, I can chose to go the other way.
With the money the US has saved, I can research heavy bombers and build them until I get tired.
From London, they will hurt Japan.
UK can build fighters. Either the UK researches Jet fighters, or Russia does and the UK sends it’s fighters there to become russian.
Now I’ll stop trying to defend myself and my plan.
Could you just give my advice as to how I can improve upon my plan?
RE: KJF- Austrailian Fleet and Alaskan Naval Base
It’s long I know.
I haven’t addressed how I’m going to stop Germany, but bassically Russia and Russia are going to play normally (russia defense, UK half defense, half offense) except for the UK’s begining Pacific purchases.
Once Japan Falls, or once Japan is cornered, but is too hard to take down, the US is going to research Heavy Bombers and build 2-3 bombers a turn. These is can send to London to bomb Germany, or they can go to Buryatia to bomb Japan, which will make it a piece of cake for the U.S. to overwhelm Japan. Probably, I’d send the bomber to London, to put a leash on the Monster that Germany is going to be at that time.
Also, I know that Germany is going to build many, many Submarines, so I’m just going to have UK build a massive Airforce of fighters and bomber. With these, I will, #1 be able to destroy the German Fleet, and #2, the fighters provides massive defense to London.
With Radar, and possibly later, Jet fighters, the UK’s best bet is to have no Navy, and just build planes to hurt Germany. It can use Lend-Lease to protect Russia. It’s got Many Many options for defending itself, and helpong Russia.
RE: Nominations for A&A Revised Strategies
It’s long I know.
I wrote it knowing that I was going to go against a specific player, but it’s still a good strategy as long as each nation gets 3 NA’s of it’s own choice.
I haven’t addressed how I’m going to stop Germany, but bassically Russia and UK are going to play normally (russia defense, UK half defense, half offense) except for the UK’s begining Pacific purchases.
Just read it.
KJF- Austrailian Fleet and Alaskan Naval Base
Hey, I play as Allies, A+A: Revised with the EXACT rules in the manual, especially the really really cheap rules.
I have played only one A&A game. I lost against a very experienced player. I’m playing him again.
I’m very smart, and I’m experienced at Board games in General.
I have a cool strategy, and I want to know what you think about it, how I can improve it, and/or an explanation of why it will NEVER work.
The goal of this is that in UK1, I will build a large navy and that it will destroy enough of the Japanese Navy, for the US to make a quick attack on Japan, threatening to take the capital, but in actuallity only to send them straight into defensive mode, from which I can take all of their islands, and also their asian mainland.
I’m going to play with each nation choosing 3 National Advantages. I am going to be the Allies
First, here are the NA I will choose:
Russia: NonAggression Treaty, and any two of these: Lend-Lease, Russian Winter, or Mobile Industry.
U.K: Colonial Garrison(Australia), Joint Strike, Radar
U.S: Marines, Superfortresses, Chinese Divisions
I know my opponent and here are his choices:
Germany: U-Boat Interdiction, WolfPacks, and Fortress Europe
Japan: Definitely Banzai attacks, I’m not sure about the rest.
America is going to mount a massive attack against Tokyo-Japan.
That is the whole purpose of this.
US1, move all mainland units that can to West Canada, build enough fighters until you have 4 Total. Move all ships toward West US, except for to attack Hawaii. Maybe build 1-2 tanks in West US. Save Money.
US2, Have all ships in West US, send all West Canadian land troops to Alaska. Send all Tanks to Alaska. Send all 4 fighters to Alaska. Send bomber to Alaska. Build an Alaskan Industrial Complex. Build as much navy as possible in West US (submarines are good), but save 6-10 IPCs.
US3, move all Naval units to Alaska. In Alaska build 2 Battleships. send two of the fighters from Alaska unto the carrier.
Now, it’s hard to know how much power the US is going to have in Alaska this turn.
They should definitely have, 1 carrier, 3 battle ships, 4 fighters, 2 destroyers, 3 transports, 8 land units (hopefully 5 INF, 3TNK, but 7 INF, 1 TNK is OK). The US’s Navy will definitely be larger than this. What this navy needs, are submarines, which will be built on US2.
US4 naval battle, destroy Eastern Tokyo Navy. You can use all 4 fighters because 2 start on the carrier, attack the navy, and land in Alaska. 2 from Alaska attack the navy and land on the Carrier.
With the Russian NonAggression Treaty, and the fact that R1 I’m going to send Yakut and Soviet Far East Infantry to Buryatia, I, in effect, have 10 Russian infantry there.
Eventually, my Airforce is going to land completely in Buryatia, where it will be safe.
With Fighters there to add extra defense, I will probably also send my bombers there.
Japan can easily counter this entire maneuver. It can build enough navy to stop this, and either way, Japan starts with over 140 IPCs of Navy on TURN #1. They are already going to add to this anyway.
UK1- Indian navy and the small Austalian navy move to NorthWest Australia, In the colonial garrisoned Australia, I’ll build a destroyer and a fighter onto the Carrier from India. The rest will be spent to defend London.
In North West Austalia, I’ll have, 2 transports, 1 Submarine, 2 Destroyers, and a Carrier with 2 fighters.
If Japan does not destroy this turn round one, then it will: #1 grow in strength, and #2 take various Islands such as East Indies and Borneo.
This is very dangerous for Japan, because just those two islands give it 8 IPCs per turn (because UK can hold either for at least 2-3 turns.)
Japan can only barely take this force if it uses everything in reach,
East Indies- Full Carrier and Battle Ship
Solomon Islands- 1 Submarine
Caroline Islands- 1 Destroyer and a Carrier with only 1 fighter
French Indo- 1 fighter (will land on the carrier from Caroline)
After the battle, this leaves Japan with a Force of, usually, a battleship and a carrier with 2 fighters all in NW Australia. That means that the UK destroyed 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, and one carrier with two fighters (56 IPCs of units).
If Japan gets NA Kamikazi Attacks, then it will only lose more IPCs of units because the fighters won’t help much.
He still has a Battle ship and transport in Eastern Japan, and a transport in Kwangtung.
If Japan proceeds to Attack Pearl Harbor that same turn, he will send 1 bomber, 1 Battleship, and 1 transport, which will be so weak that America can destroy what’s left immediately with it’s Battleship, transport, 2 fighters, 1 bomber.
Whatâ€s left of the Japanese Navy in Japan will have to rush to Tokyo for it to block the USâ€s Navy, which, on US3, will consist of 1 carrier, 3 battle ships, 4 fighters, 2 destroyers, 3 transports, 8 land units (hopefully 5 INF, 3TNK, but 7 INF, 1 TNK is OK). This is the minimum, the US’s Navy will definitely be larger than this. What this navy needs, are submarines, which can be built on US2, in addition to what has already been noted above.
The Probable 1 Battleship and 1 carrier with two fighters (the survivors of the Australian Battle) can only make it to the East coast of Japan (the outside). The Australian survivors cannot make it to the inside of Japan, where they would be an additional turn away from the Alaskan Navy.
Some possible changes are, I could have the US do everything exactly one or two turns later, that way it has a larger navy when it attacks Japan. This is very smart, because #1, although Japan will see that the US is saving its money on the first two turns, it wonâ€t know for sure, which way the US navy is going to go, East or West. I could send the entire American Navy to SZ-20, the other side of the board, where they are one turn away from West US. Then, on the turn that I use the money Iâ€ve saved to build lots of Navy and the Alaskan IC (saving 6-10 IPCs), Iâ€ll move the prior navy from 20 to West US. On the Next turn, Iâ€ll build two Battleships outside of Alaska, and send the West US navy to join up with them.
The great thing about this is:
#1- Japan doesnâ€t know for sure what Iâ€m doing. It might build an Asian mainland IC, or it may build lots of infantry and send them towards Indian or china.
#2- I get to see the Japanese Navy and build my own navy in a way that exploits his navyâ€s weaknesses.
#3- Each turn the US waits, it gains about 10 IPCs more than Japan does.
#4- Japan either loses its East Indies and/or Borneo Islands, or, it doesnâ€t attack Pearl Harbor. If it canâ€t destroy the Australian Navy, then it loses an opportunity against Pearl. Actually, it can still attack Pearl, but it wonâ€t be worth it because I can attack it back.
Other changes could be what I build for the Australian Navy UK turn 1.
Maybe, I should send the original Indian fighter from the carrier, to attack the Solomon Islands sub, possibly killing it, and then have it land on the Pearl Harbor Carrier.
This would leave the Australian fleet with:
2 transports, 1 Submarine, 1 Destroyers, and an empty Carrier.
I think that, in that case, I should build two Australian fighters, which will both land on the Carrier. This leaves the Australian Navy weaker by one Destroyer, the Pearl Harbor Navy stronger by a fighter, the UK with 2 more IPCs for London, and it possibly destroys the Solomon Islandâ€s Submarine, which could have been used against the Australian Navy, or the Pearl Harbor navy.
I donâ€t like this much because I WANT, Japan to attack Pearl, because that Leaves the UK to take away IPCs from Japan, strengthening the UK, and hurting Japan. This will eventually FORCE Japan to attack the Australian Navy, which will only be stronger at that point. Plus, if Japan gets ready to attack the Australian Navy, on that same turn, I can have the US build its navy, and the Australian IC. Japan then has little choice because it needs to defend Tokyo, and if it does that, then there will be two Navies coming towards it. I remind you that I gave the UK the Joint strike NA. This means that if the UK Navy joins the US Navy (making a CONSIDERABLE force), then on the UK turn I call joint strike, but then Japan gets a turn to ready itself, and then on US turn, I do the strike, utterly destroying the Japanese Navy, and letting me, within one or two turns, have enough force to Definitely take Tokyo. (With the US Battleship bombardment, and all of the fighters and the one US Bomber, I could Take Tokyo. While I would rather that the UK won the IPCs, if the US wins the IPCs, it will then #1 build Sinkiang IC (reinforce Russia w/ two tanks a turn), #2 send half of its Navy to take the Japanese Islands, #3 send the rest of its Navy to the Atlantic, and #4 build billions of fighters and send them to Russia. On russiaâ€s next turn, using its Lend-Lease NA, it can then take those Fighters and the Sinkiang Tanks (after they move to Caucasus or Moscow), and use them itself.
What are your ides about this plan?