@calvinhobbesliker:

If OOB is used, all allied strats will fail

I think I know what you mean. I played a Global game where I convinced the Russian player to not attack me and I was able to take India on J4. Mind, the German player had to convince me to wait a turn before I attacked (J3). I 21 planes against India along with 10 infantry was a slaughter. So good was the plan that I built a Major in Malaya and the game was over before I even used it. To be fair, the Allies were not tactically sound.

What tactics could you see otherwise to at least distract the US (Alaska? Taking Hawaii, but only have two aircraft carrier and one battleship). It makes me think Japan has to build two Aircraft Carrier turn two to help harass the US. As for the US, built those subs and go harass Japan until they cry. It won’t save India sadly though.

@Weezer:

I like to attack Korea because its 3 less bucks for Japan and it buys the other Russian territories time because the Japanese player has to use up his precious land units to attack, Im assuming I have two infantry left in Korea, and an IC in Manchuria would divert forces from southern china (burma road) and India which is what I am really trying to accomplish with those 18 infantry.

Also usually Japan will not have many land units available to defend Amur when he attacks J1 so it should be fairly easy to counter attack Amur R2 and stall the Japanese even more!

@Weezer: Attacking Korea with Russia works well OOB but not so well in the Alpha setup when Korea has two more infantry and Manchuria has two more infantry also. I still think it’s an overall waste of an three infantry. Sending more wouldn’t help either because two or even 18 infantry would just get slaughter. Korea’s a horrible dead zone for Russia except to just irritate Japan (and if that’s the allies plan then that might useful).

@Oztea: I think your suggestions have merit as I’ve strongly considered sending the airplanes but I think Germany has to have tried SeaLion to be able to give up some of the offensive power. There is some merit of sending the airpower R1 and trying to get it back to Russia by R4-R5, but there is simply just too much distance. Also I think tactical retreats and avoiding deadzones will allow Russia to survive in the east for a significant period of time.

In a game I played, I moved Russia’s 18 infantry into Sakha because I felt like it had the most flexibility to attack or defend. I’m a big of creating deadzones. Unfortunately, Japan invaded into Amur and I suddenly realized that my Sakha army was trapped. The Japanese player had flown a great majority of his planes into Manchuria (I was playing oob setup so I think this would change in Alpha) and I realized that no matter where I moved that I those 18 units were dead. I could attack but the counterattack would be too painful even if it cost Japan units and Japan can counter attack with major forces if Japan doesn’t declare war J1 or J2.

Knowing this, I’d think the likely tactic would be to move the forces into Buryatia and move to Yakut the turn after. Yeah Russia will lose resources but won’t lose those troops without a proper and painful fight without air cover.

I can see attacking but that just seems to be more of an annoyance than a proper tactic with teeth. This is especially true in Alpha setup.

What do you guys think?

@zooooma:

I recal a concern about this that if UK is at war with Japan but Russia is not at war in Europe, Russia can land a fighter in Egypt, forcing Italy to ignore it or attack Russia.  This only really works if UK declares war on turn one or two, and Germany has not attacked Russia by turn two or three.  I don’t see this as a problem for the Axis:

• Japan would love a DoW by UK

• Germany tends to attack Russia anyway

• UK can generally hold Egypt by turn two without the Russians

If it’s the ahistoric nature of the situation that bothers you, how do you feel about Japan helping Italy in the Med, or America ignoring a Japanese occupation of Hawaii?

I’ve seen it noted before ( I believe by Krieg) that the attacker can choose to not attack units that it is not at war with. So technically Italy could still attack and Russia would just watch from the sidelines. Because it isn’t a combat turn of Russia, then I doubt they could choose to go to war at that one moment especially if it’s before turn 4.

This was the issue I was talking about in my other post. There seems to be no way around England not building 9 units on turn one if they want to keep Africa. I mean I appreciate that if you build less than 9 then you can salvage (somewhat) by not doing the Taranto attack.

Do you always buy a carrier G1 then cause otherwise those APs will go poof E2

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.

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)

Switch, you’re completely correct.  A good player can stack the luck in their favor fairly well.  A good player is not going to lose that many games in the long run.  My roommate relies a lot on luck and loses most of the time.  I know it for truth, but still dislike luck.  Though I slightly disagree about dice not losing a player the game.  There are important battles that dice can sway that may lose a player the game.  As a general rule, that does not always happen very much.  Again, over 100 games, it will not happen much at all.  Strategy is the most important, but any good strategy can be destroyed by luck.  In a pickup game it may not be important, but tournament play is far more unforgiving of bad luck.  Luck always depends on the opponent.

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?

What have I started!

There is a place and time for all types of rules.  The dice give A&A that extra mysterious element.  To limit that amount of luck would change the game similiar to chess, but still hold a large amount of strategy.  I am not fond of luck type situations and introduced these proposed variants as a simplified method to rid the game of luck, if the players want it that way.

Jen, keep in mind that you want to stay away from charts as much as possible.  Rules need to be as simple as possible to be effective.  “taking a 10” rule would allow people to take the averages in some situations.  Even the full blown No Luck variant is somewhat too complicated, but easy enough with practice.  I would like to see a way to kill off extreme luck, but LL might be the best choice.

Switch, it is easy to call A&A simply a game, and you are completely correct.  Unfortunately, some of us poor unfortunate souls have a certain disdain for luck.  We realish the competition and do not mind being beaten by good strategy, but hate losing to luck.  Over time, we learn to cut our losses and remember that not every game will be so unlucky.  We also learn to not throw our chances to luck.  As a matter of course, different players have different tolerarances to luck.

The major point of this thread is to think of a method that will be satisfying to a multitude of people without changing the game.  Luck is an important aspect of war to vary the game.  I like no luck only due to trying to test out new strategies that would not be possible overwise.  Thanks for the interesting dialogue.