I’m not sure if it’s bad form to be posting in this thread after February but anyway…

My name is Janus (also known on other parts of the internet as P.d0t)
I got into A&A with the MB version, back in about 1997 or so(?)
However, the biggest chunk of my A&A play experience is/was with the Imp Games expansion “East & West”: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

That company seems to have gone defunct (and their forums went down long before that) so I joined the A&A .org forums a while ago – somewhat passively – but have been following the site’s news via Facebook. When the announcement for A&A Online came through on that channel, it rekindled my interest in E&W. As such, I’ve been trying to track down anyone who owns the game or has played it, and have been working on honing strategies for the USSR.

One such strategy can be found here on the forums, which I ran just as a playtest against myself:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/19172/east-west-by-imp-games-soviet-strategy-playtest

If you’re a fan of E&W, please get ahold of me here on the forums/PMs; it would be much appreciated

@black_elk I think the way to do Italy justice is to just have a full-blown “Axis & Allies: North Africa” in the vein of the D-Day game.

You could have German reinforcements come in waves sorta like D-Day, but more or less run the rest of the mechanics like A&A but with a cap on the number of rounds.

@black_elk said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

I tend to agree with most of the points Janus is making about streamlining the game. I think the prob comes from low-balling the money and trying to keep those numbers so low, instead of just amping the production a bit.

After reading the thread saying “infantry should cost 3.2!” this idea popped into my head: increase the IPC values and unit costs by 10x except for infantry – which would then cost 32.

In that same vein, I think if you want to have a game with more and more unit types, they should look at doing a move to d10 (as was done with Napoleon’s Imperium.) Having infantry at A1|D3 on a d10 might help negate the IPM.

The unofficial home for modern-day “East & West” discussion is right here, on the A&A .org forums!

Have a look if you’re interested or have questions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1266842

Not location-specific, but I’m just hoping to get in touch with anyone who owns or has play-experience with this game. I own a copy myself, and am just looking for anyone knowledgeable, who would like to discuss strategies for the game – and possibly play in some electronic format or another.

The official site has long since gone offline, but a bit of info still exists here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/6441/east-west-global-war-1948

Tactics: Operation Fishnet (Soviet Pacific Fleet)

For those who know me, I’ve historically mostly played as NATO in E&W. As part of the ongoing refinement of my Soviet strategy, I wanted to come up with some better opening moves for their naval units; here’s what I’ve been looking at just recently:
(red arrows outline spaces that US navies could conceivably reach)

Objectives: To stall US transport capability in the Pacific.

This should be a fairly straightforwardly important goal, for any Soviet player: keeping the US off of your shores (or away from landing support into SE Asia.) It’s difficult to actually attack the US transports (because of their positioning) so instead we want to prevent them from steaming across the ocean, for as long as possible.

Scatter
The purpose of scattering your navy is to make it a less-attractive target for the US nuke. Many times, the Soviet moves in the Pacific involve slamming as much force as possible against another large force. Usually this is a no-win situation; either your remaining force is large enough to warrant dropping the bomb on, or is small enough that it is mopped up by US naval forces, with nary a whimper. Also, keeping subs separate from surface ships will tempt your opponent to split their air power from their naval power.

Block
By positioning the subs between your other ships, and the West US fleet, you’re able to effectively keep those units from using their full movement – unless the enemy attacks both ranks of your defensive line. Again, this is not the worst result, because you’ll have already prevented them from being able to concentrate their forces.
If the Japan SZ fleet attacks the Soviet ships in the Bering Strait, this means that the transport at Okinawa cannot effectively be used to amphibiously assault Kamchatka or East Siberia; the ships at Hawaii are also blocked from providing shore bombardment, and the carrier cannot move in to provide a landing space for supporting fighter aircraft.

Deadzone
As you’ll note on the map, the Marcus Island SZ can potentially be hit by all of the US ships in the area. However, if the US moves heavily into this zone with their surface fleet, they will not be able to keep the Japan SZ well-defended – potentially leaving it open to a counter-attack, with support from Soviet aircraft. If they instead consolidate their navy at Marcus Island, their transports will be far out of position to send reinforcements to SE Asia.
The place where the US can launch the strongest amphibious assault (with both their Japan fleet and Hawaii fleet) is against North Korea. Fortunately, the free Chinese infantry make this a tough nut to crack, and the Soviets should always have units in East Siberia and/or Manchuria, available for a counter-attack. Also, the commitment of US surface ships to such an attack would mean a much weaker naval response, to the Soviet fleets; if the US only commits submarines to Marcus Island, and only aircraft to deal with the Soviet submarines, they risk leaving the West US transport exposed to the Bering Strait ships. In this situation, the US may opt to instead move this transport towards the Panama Canal – both to be out of reach, and to instead assist in moving forces to Europe. In this case, the Soviet fleet will have succeeded at its objective.

Let me know what you think about this opening move
Comments and critiques are always welcome!

Turn Order:
(With the intention of keeping as close to the original turn order, while still slotting in the added countries)

1. USSR
2. a) Italy (and Vichy France)
   b) Germany
3. a) UK (Atlantic)
   b) China (includes India, Dutch, ANZAC, etc.)
4. Japan
5. a) US Pacific
   b) US Atlantic

Round Zero / “Impulse”:
Prior to the first full round, the Axis get one round to act. This should be played out in the turn order described above, omitting the Allied turns.

The Axis conduct all phases of their turns during this round, with some very important bonuses added:

• Infantry & Armor: attack power is increased by 2, costs are reduced by 1 IPC
• Fighters & Bombers: attack with 2 dice instead of 1, costs are reduced by 2 IPC
• Naval units: attack power is increased by 1, costs are reduced by half

During this round, Allied units defend as per normal, with one notable exception: since they are not yet at war, AA guns belonging to the USSR and USA do not fire.

Axis Advantage / “Russia Restricted”
On the first round, the USSR and the US (both Atlantic and Pacific) may only conduct the following phases of their turns: Purchase Units, Place Units, Collect Income.

In addition to the bonuses on Round Zero, all three Axis countries gain these benefits:

• all Axis battleships are 2-hit battleships
• all Axis powers have Super Submarine technology
• all Axis powers have Jet Power technology

Setup & Territorial Changes:
The original setup for Classic is used, however changes in ownership of a territory also govern changes in the nationality of ALL units listed for that territory (including naval units) with the following exceptions:

• All German naval units are given to Italy (including any newly purchased units)
• All Soviet naval units are given to the UK; the USSR may not produce naval units in this scenario

As you can see from the map above, the sea zones are broken down into two sections:

1. those bordering the territories of USSR, Germany, Italy, UK, and US Atlantic – to be used only by the navies and air forces of those countries
2. all other sea zones – to be used by the navies and air forces of China, Japan, and US Pacific

You’ll note that this limitation creates one sea zone in the mid-Atlantic which is effectively impassable; feel free to adjudicate this differently, if you find a change to be helpful.

Industrial Complexes / “Victory Cities”:
Add an AA gun and Industrial Complex to the following territories:

• Ukraine SSR
• South Africa
• India
• Australia

No new industrial complexes may be built.

In this scenario, the number of units a complex can produce is limited to the IPC value of the territory in which it is located (including capitols.) As such, you may only purchase a number of units up to the total IPC value of the industrial complexes which you have controlled since the start of your turn. For example: the UK has an industrial complex on their capitol (8 IPCs) as well as in South Africa (2 IPCs) meaning they can purchase a maximum of 10 units on their turn.

Further to this, the number of naval units you may purchase is limited not only to the IPC value of your coastal/island complexes, but also by whether the adjacent sea zones are clear of enemy ships. For example: Since Japan only has an industrial complex in their capitol, if the islands are surrounded by Allied naval units at the start of the Japanese turn, Japan may not purchase any naval units on that turn.

A nation who loses their capitol may continue to collect IPCs from any territories they still control, provided they also still control at least one industrial complex after the Combat Phase of their turn. If a nation controls no industrial complexes after any nation’s Combat Phase, they must surrender their IPCs to the nation whose turn it currently is. They also can no longer collect IPCs, until they regain control of at least one industrial complex.

Victory is achieved when either side controls at least “2 out of 3” Axis and “2 out of 3” Allied starting Industrial Complexes (8 Industrial Complexes in total) at the end of any round of play.

Theatres of War
It is intended that each theatre may be played separately, as their own sort of “mini-game” but they may also be played in concert, and merge together under certain circumstances of victory or defeat. A nation may not attack nor move units into any territory which is not a part of their theatre, until those theatres merge together.

• Atlantic Theatre: UK, Italy, US Atlantic
• European Theatre: USSR, Germany
• Pacific Theatre: China, Japan, US Pacific

If Germany or Italy collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income, the Atlantic and European theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Germany collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income.

If Italy or Japan collects an income of at least 10 IPCs more than their starting income, the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge at the start of the following round. This also happens if Japan collects an income of at least 5 IPCs less than their starting income.

If playing any theatre individually, the Axis country wins if they collect an income of at least 15 IPCs more than their starting income; the Allies win if the Axis country collects no income.

Starting Incomes:

1. USSR - 28 IPCs
2. a) Italy - 12 IPCs
   b) Germany - 21 IPCs
3. a) UK - 18 IPCs
   b) China - 18 IPCs
4. Japan - 15 IPCs
5. a) US Pacific - 18 IPCs
   b) US Atlantic - 17 IPCs

Mergers and Restrictions
Whenever the European and Atlantic theatres merge, Germany and Italy combine their cash on hand, and effectively become one nation.

Whenever the Atlantic and Pacific theatres merge, the same happens with the UK and China, as well as with US Atlantic and US Pacific. Additionally, when this merger takes place, the restrictions on naval movement end; the navies of all nations can enter any sea zones on the map.

Unlike most global Axis & Allies games, in this scenario Japan and the USSR may never attack each others’ territories or naval units. However, if the Pacific and European theatres have merged (i.e. all 3 theatres must have merged, for this to happen) the following actions are permitted:

• Soviet units may enter Allied-controlled territories (such as those belonging to China)
• Japan may destroy Soviet units in Allied-controlled territories, on Allied aircraft carriers, or aboard Allied transports.

Other Recommended Rules

1. No invading neutrals
2. No technology advancement

I’ve decided to leave out most of the “errata”-type changes I had written up in my earlier draft, since those are mostly down to a matter of taste; generally sticking to the 2nd Edition rules will be perfectly fine. But if anyone is interested, I’ll be happy to add those to the thread.

If you have any questions or comments, please post them down below

@tacojohn said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Yeah, it might be that. But right now, the only TGW map is in MapView, right?

FWIW, I was able to dig this out of archive.org, from the Imp Games website; I probably have it saved somewhere, but it was just quicker to dig it out that way. (Obviously not high-res, but was freely available online, when the site was up.)

@hengst I mean if you’re building a game where your baseline assumption is that Germany would/should be overpowered, then sure

Edit: To clarify my point, I think one of the things that works to keep Germany competitive is that the Allies don’t get to attack them together. Even then, their job tends to be “don’t die, until Japan sweeps the board.” If you take that disadvantage and give it to Germany by splitting their economy and units into smaller chunks, it’s not actually a benefit to them. And I think if the only justification for doing it is to have a 3v3, I feel like the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Our intrepid Axis & Allies player @The_Good_Captain has put out a video which includes a review of East & West!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsm4is72-sc

I’m about to check it out myself; I’ll let the crowd know if I have any thoughts on it

I popped my head into this subforum, and just on a whim decided to scroll/skim through the old threads and see who I could find from the area in the title. (I kept most of the links, in case anyone wants me to dump them here.)

I’m one of the assistant moderators in a small “Axis & Allies Alberta” group on Facebook, and we’ve kicked around the idea of doing some kind of a meetup (maybe convention?) but nothing has come of it so far. So I figured maybe casting a wider net might get the wheels in motion, and also I just wanted to see who’s still active around here.

Anyway, here’s what I came up with; feel free to chime in with any corrections:
(apologies for me not really knowing jack all about where stuff is in BC, btw)

British Columbia
@Gargantua - New West
@Triplecrown - Vancouver
@majorclean - New West
@Erocco - Vancouver(?)
@Quick-Ben - Campbell River
@Rammstein - Kelowna
@ampdrive - Delta
@Germanicus - Delta
@PattonsArmy - Burnaby
@age - Sechelt
@GeneralHandGrenade - Prince George
@Eyzaya - Nelson
@94Canuck - Nanaimo
@Blart-Versenwald-III - “Penticton area”

Victoria, BC
@Cyph3r
@LennardF
@GeZe
@Hierax
@pfusch
@talonz

Edmonton, AB
@jim010
@Kevin-S
@StuckTojo
@Rank-Carcass
@Idi-Amin
@MassBlood
@WolfCry
@Azrael-TheArchangel
@thewizard
@redtaz

Calgary, AB
The Janus
@Ehpic
@jwo1984
@deadpeon
@zylumn
@chillaxe
@namicus
@Han
@Flagstaff

Grande Prairie, AB
@Jinx1527
@Canuck12
@Electrobiker86
@Ben_D

South Alberta
@Submarine_Bomber
CanadianRebel
@FastHeinz
@Tokyogriz - Lethbridge

Saskatchewan
@A_Desert_Rat - Weyburn
@gswaan - Saskatoon

Winnipeg, MB
@Kriegmeister
@Nhdoucette
@Lt-Ian
@cawinnipeg
@frood
@cystic-crypt
Mr. Ghoul
@bungalowboy

Anchorage, AK
@Rcpomeroy
@bolasgod
@AK_Grown
@thenorthman

The Great Nuke Debate

One of the questions that comes up in the podcast is whether the Fusion Weapons tech functions as a direct upgrade to pre-existing nuclear weapons (such as the one that the US starts with, or any subsequent ones they might have purchased, while they only had the Fission Weapons tech.)

Now, to my eyes, the text of the rules supports this interpretation – I just want to say that, right out of the gate. There’s also the fact that the game doesn’t call out the two types of bombs as being different units (they’re all just “atomic bombs”) and neither the physical nor the electronic games include different units for fission weapons vs. fusion weapons.

Does this make sense, “realistically”? Not really; uranium or plutonium (fission) bombs function quite differently than hydrogen (fusion) bombs.

However, as I said in the podcast, (to my recollection) Imp Games did make a clarification that Fission Weapons and Fusion Weapons are considered different types of units. I also recalled having the different abbreviations for them in PBEM format (FiW, and FuW, respectively.) But, as I also said in the podcast, somehow this never made it into either:
a) the E&W 2nd edition rules clarification
b) the E&W “2nd edition merged” electronic-format rulebook
c) the E&W FAQ

As a side note, the FAQ says that:

[Q.] If the Soviet Union captures an Allied bomb before learning Fission technology, can they still use the bomb? Do they gain the technology just from capturing the bomb?
[A.] If the Soviets capture an American bomb, they can load it into a bomber and use against its former owners, but they do not gain the Fission technology.

However, in the original rules, it actually specifies:

The steps for delivering a nuclear device are as follows:
The attacker must have the fission bomb technology.

So, uh, ok then… The rules then go on to say:

The attacker builds a bomb on his “Purchase Units” phase.

Now, I may be grasping at straws but this is probably the only daylight as far as in-writing support for the distinction between the two bombs; if the purchasing of the bomb is considered part of the “steps for delivering a nuclear device”, then the technology which you have at the time of purchase should determine which type of bomb you’re purchasing and which kind you’re delivering… if that make sense – basically, the two ideas are linked together.

This might potentially explain the bizarre exception in the description for Fusion Weapons:

Benefits: Atomic weapons are at double strength (destroying ten enemy units), and reduce a territory’s value by two credits for one round. Note that a player may choose to deploy fission weapons instead.

i.e. Once you gain the Fusion Weapons tech, all nukes that you purchase are Fusion Weapons, but they may be “deployed” as fission weapons.

It is important to make this distinction – “deploy” and “deliver” are terms that are exclusively used to describe the firing off of atomic bombs, not their purchase nor the purchase of any other types of units. The only other instances of the word “deployment” are:

Atomic Bomb Complications:
Protests: Demonstrations at major universities prevent deployment of the bomb this turn. The USSR may ignore this result.

Ballistic Missiles: The German V-2 rocket was the prototype for all missile technology until about 1950. In fact, the dwindling supply of captured V-2s provided American scientists with incentive to begin developing their own missiles capable of delivering payloads hundreds of miles.
Benefits: Atomic weapons may be launched up to three spaces from an AA gun. No bomber is required for deployment. One bomb may be launched per AA gun on any given turn.

Now, that all being said, in practical terms my opinion is this:

• If you let the Americans upgrade their starting nuke for free? That’s probably not going to affect gameplay a whole lot.
• If you let the Americans stockpile a nuke each turn until they get the Fusion tech, and then upgrade ALL of their nukes for free? That’s gonna be a problem.

For those reasons, I would lean towards not treating the tech as an upgrade; I can’t envision a scenario where the latter assumption creates a desirable game state. I think either of these instances coming up are kind of niche (just based on my own playing experience) but I would chalk this up as one of the screwy/unclear/incomplete rules that need to be ironed out between yourself and your opponent(s) before you start playing a match. In fact, the rulebook even says as much, under their “tips for play and setup”:

If any rule is unclear, remember that the point is to have fun. Invent a replacement rule that is consistent and fair, and realistic if possible.

This is actually game #14 of East & West (between myself and @The_Good_Captain) dating back to December of 2021.

Below is my recap of the game, up to the end of round 4; a friend had asked for something of a deep-dive on the NATO strat, and how the game state had gotten to where it was, so there is a lot more detail given to that (also, because the NATO perspective is my perspective, obviously.)
For those unfamiliar, in this game NATO consists of 3 powers: Western Europe (WE), British Empire & Commonwealth (UK), and the United States (US).

This is the 2nd game which TGC has edited together YouTube videos for; you can check those out here:

Soviet opening
NATO turn 1 recap; Soviet turn 2
NATO turn 2 recap; Soviet turn 3
NATO turn 3 recap; Soviet turn 4

Also, check out his channel for videos of our previous game, plus other games – including multiple 1914 playthroughs.

Rounds 1-4 recap

Atlantic

Rd1:
Soviets sent all subs + 1 fighter against the North Sea; the SZ was cleared without loss, but this meant the subs were stranded without any surface ships for AA cover.

On the counterattack, UK’s fleet + 1 bomber wiped out the surface fleet without loss, while the remainder of their air force attacked the subs, scoring 2 hits. Because WE had moved a transport into the Irish SZ (shipping the lone infantry from Portugal to France) the remaining Soviet sub could only submerge, or retreat to the Batlic; it opted to do the latter.

The US moved their sub (from Iceland) into the North Sea to keep the other sub penned in, and prevent it from being used in concert with any air power against the main NATO fleets.
UK places 2 transports in Ontario; US places 3 transports off the East Coast.

Rd2:
Soviets sent their sub after the Americans’ but opted to retreat back after one round of fire, with neither side scoring a hit. US fighters based in France were able to sink the sub.

Overall losses:
	USSR: 3 subs, 1 transport, 1 cruiser
	US: 2 transports, 1 cruiser

Pacific

Rd1:
The Soviets did the standard “Tokyo Drift” setup. US opted to salvage their sub from the Japan SZ, with the Soviets losing 1 sub and retreating the other to Marcus Island SZ; the US sub at Guam also survived, and retreated to Okinawa SZ to join the other retreating US sub.

Both US subs, both US bombers, and 1 fighter were sent to clear Japan SZ; a cruiser and fighter from the West Coast + the sub at Hawaii were sent to clear Guam SZ. Only 1 sub was lost (in the Japan SZ battle.) US navies grouped up around Guam and Hawaii.

Rd2:
Soviet fighters were sent to sink the lone sub in the Japan SZ; they missed, and the sub opted to submerge in place. This kept the sea lane open for the US transports, for a possible landing in Korea.

The US bombers (which had landed in Japan) were sent against the remaining sub at Marcus Island, along with 1 fighter. The sub was sunk, with 1 bomber moving to Panama and the other moving to the Eastern US to rendezvous with the nuke. A token force was left in the Pacific, with a transport depositing the armor (originally from Okinawa) at the Western US; all other naval assets were moved towards the Panama canal.

Overall losses:
	USSR: 2 subs, 2 transports, 2 cruisers
	US: 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship

Africa / Middle East / Central Asia

Rd1:
Soviets do the standard Turkey attack, with only 2 attacking infantry surviving.

WE sends infantry in Africa eastward; armor from Italy is transported to Sudan. The fighter from Indochina lands in Pakistan, along with 2 infantry via transport; the remaining infantry walks forward to Burma. French paratrooper lands in Pakistan. Fighter from France lands on the UK carrier; entire WE and UK Mediterranean fleets are moved to the Red Sea. UK fighter from the Mediterranean goes to Pakistan. WE places infantry in Madagascar and Mozambique.

Cruiser from South Africa moves north, into the Atlantic; infantry move to Mozambique, armor moves to Congo. UK pushes everything forward, from India into Pakistan. All Australian assets are moved to India; Burma’s infantry moves to Indochina to protect from paratroopers based in Siberia. Indian navy moved to Persian Gulf.

Rd2:
Soviets invade Iran with everything from Turkey, Georgia, and Turkmenistan. Soviets move more tanks into Georgia.

WE does no combat this round. Infantry are again moved east, into Sudan; the tank from Sudan is transported to Pakistan, while the 2 infantry placed last round in Africa are also transported to Pakistan. The 2nd WE fighter lands in Pakistan, and their remaining armor is moved from France to Algeria. The bomber moves to New Guinea. WE places in Indochina and Africa.

UK attacks Turkmenistan (1 inf, 1 arm, 2 ftr vs. 1 inf) and captures the territory without loss; all attacking equipment is moved back to Pakistan. Indian units move to Pakistan, Burma infantry to India; the infantry and armor originally from South Africa are transported to Pakistan. Transport at India moves back to Australia; UK subs rally in the Red Sea, carrier moves to Persian Gulf. Paratroopers from Italy are landed in Pakistan.

Rd3:
Soviets counterattack Turkmenistan, pulling their fighters from the far east to do so. They rally their forces in Iran.

WE uses their armor to attack Turkmenistan, and their fighters + cruiser to attack Turkey, losing only 1 infantry in the Turkmenistan battle. Armor in Algeria moves to Sudan. Bomber brings paratrooper from New Guinea to Pakistan. Infantry from Madagascar and Mozambique are again transported in, as well as the 2 infantry that arrived in Sudan last turn.

UK uses paratroopers and fighters from Pakistan to attack Georgia, capturing the territory with only 1 loss. Transports ship infantry from Australia, Ceylon, and Singapore onto the mainland.

Rd4:
Soviets are forced to pull infantry from Romania for an amphibious assault into Turkey. They also counterattack Georgia and Turkmenistan, recapturing all 3 territories at a loss of only 1 infantry. Iran is heavily reinforced, with additional fighters, as well as a heavy armor and bomber.

WE attacks Turkmenistan and Turkey again, but fares much worse in both attacks this time, losing 4 infantry in total but still managing to capture both territories. The French armor finally reaches Pakistan, while the bomber is sent back to Europe. Infantry are placed in Indochina, Madagascar, and Mozambique again.

UK sends 1 infantry to cover the empty Turkmenistan, but otherwise reinforces into Pakistan.

Overall losses:
	USSR: 17 inf
	WE: 14 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr
	UK: 3 inf
	Neutral: 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr

Europe + Mediterranean

Rd1:
Soviets do the standard attacks; only 5 infantry remaining in West Germany, 1 in Greece, but all 5 in Norway. Soviets rally in Poland and Romania, as is customary.

WE trades an infantry with the Soviets, over Yugoslavia; the Americans move 1 more infantry in to reinforce. Infantry are placed in France. UK forces move from France to Italy.

Rd2:
Soviets invade Finland (without loss) and counterattack Yugoslavia.
WE infantry are moved from France into Italy, to oppose the new stack in Yugoslavia.

British marines from Canada land in Komi (unopposed) and Norway (w/ naval bombardment). Infantry from Gibraltar and Algeria are landed in France.

US activates the classic shuck-shuck; the US Mediterranean transport arrives in the Irish SZ.

Rd3:
Soviets invade Sweden and Switzerland, losing 3 infantry in each battle; also counterattack Norway and Komi. Soviet forces marshal in Ukraine.

Italians perform the now-infamous bayonet charge into Yugoslavia; 3 infantry killed, taking no losses. UK mops up the remaining infantry in the territory, while also exchanging infantry in West Germany (w/ naval bombardment). South African cruiser reaches the Mediterranean.

Spain joins the war, on the side of the US.
US forces in Italy and France (bolstered by Spanish units) combine to strafe the Soviet stack in Switzerland, regrouping in France; US drops the nuke on West Germany, immobilizing 2 fighters in addition to killing 5 infantry. Arab Outrage leads to the Suez Canal being closed to NATO. US bomber arrives in France from Panama, with 1 paratrooper.

Rd4:
Soviets re-secure Yugoslavia. Soviet forces are consolidated in West Germany and Finland.

WE uses their bomber to help retake Yugoslavia once again.

British armor helps to liberate Switzerland, while the British Mediterranean fleet wipes out the Soviet Black Sea fleet. Royal marines capture an only lightly-guarded Karelia.

US air and airborne forces liberate Norway, against minimal opposition. US marines capture Komi (w/ naval bombardment). Final US transport from the Pacific reaches the East Coast, as the shuck-shuck intensifies.

Overall losses:
	USSR: 54 inf, 1 trn, 1 sub, 1 crz
	WE: 12 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr
	UK: 6 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, 1 sub
	US: 13 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 bmb
	Neutral: 9 inf, 1 arm, 2 ftr

Re: infantry placement rule in E&W, other general thoughts

One thing I’ve recently come to realize / appreciate about the infantry placement rule is that it really goes a long way to reversing the imbalances of the shuck-shuck (if not necessarily negating them.) This means that the game is a lot more more even vis-a-vis a land power like the USSR and countries that rely on navies.

What I mean by that is, transports effectively allow infantry to move across an ocean at faster speeds than they move across land. This seems… weird. So, while the “global” infantry placement rule may also seem weird and unrealistic, particularly in certain circumstances (US infantry in Japan or Iceland being examples that always stuck out to me) I think the rule actually is a step forward, in terms of mechanics. Sometimes I sort of just assume it’s meant to replicate something more akin to rail movement, or (especially for the USSR) communist / partisan uprisings. Create whatever fiction you want.

As those who have followed the videos might have noticed, E&W games are very short. Back in the day, my friend and I figured an average game was decided at about the 4th round; I believe the Captain pegged it as being within 4 to 8 rounds, in his video. This is a stark departure from A&A, where (for example) me playing E&W on the Classic map in TripleA takes something like 20 rounds for a NATO victory, and usually at least double that for the USSR to build enough boats to win.

Since the way we’re playing is effectively “PBEM” with MapView support, we usually can get through a game at a rate of about 1 “turn” (USSR, or all three NATO turns) per day – meaning we can wrap up a game in 1.5 to 2 weeks, tops. Part of that may be the distinct lack of a back-and-forth, in the sense of a game like A&A1914, just for example.

I do think that the speed of the game is definitely a point in its favour, particularly in the electronic format. I say this because (obviously) setup and teardown are very quick, but also because the units fit into the territories much better. As I can recall, on my physical map you could barely fit in a chipped stack of infantry onto territories like Poland, the Balkan countries, North or South Korea, etc. let alone any tanks or planes that were supposed to be there.

I love cruisers, and I think they work particularly well for this game; IMO the reason that we didn’t get the W@W-esque “half-battleship” unit (although I think that’s a general QOL improvement) is because E&W is so slanted in terms of the naval game. I think the way that damaged battleships are handled is meant to give the Soviets more of a chance, in that regard; they aren’t useless once they’re damaged but IMO it negates their main selling point – namely, shore bombardment. If I’m NATO, I tend to try and save a cruiser (or even a sub, if it’s early in the game) rather than a damaged battleship.

@the-janus said in “East & West” by Imp Games - Discussion:

Pakistan: the other, other keystone state

A brief UK strategy discussion

(starting setup for the region)

Building off of this post, I think a broader discussion of the overall UK strategy is warranted.

Essentially, I would proffer that there are 4 places from which the UK can meaningfully generate units:

1. UK
2. India
3. Singapore
4. Ontario

The way I tend to look at it is that whatever you do on the rest of the board determines what you do at your capitol; if you place 5 infantry around India, then you’re going to place 3 transport loads in UK – either all infantry, or 4 infantry and 1 tank. If you control Pakistan, you’ll place those 5 infantry in Pakistan, India, and Burma; if you lose Pakistan, you’ll probably place in India and Singapore instead.

The unique positioning of Singapore means that you can do some interesting things with it, just by using one transport:

• Move 2 infantry to Burma every round
• Move 2 infantry to India every round
• Move 2 infantry to Pakistan (or Iran) on round X, and move 2 infantry to Burma on round X+1
• Move 2 infantry to Korea on round X, and move 2 infantry to Burma on round X+1

Now the question that always gets asked is whether to build an IC – and possibly, whether it should be built in India or Singapore.
As demonstrated above, the positioning of Singapore makes it an appealing choice, but it has all the same problems as a Philippines IC – with the added problem of the UK having less income than the US. Do you want to have to commit 3 transports so that you can build 2 tanks every round?

With an India IC, you’re committing at least 6 infantry (18 IPCs) per round to the theatre. Without building an IC, you can easily commit 5, and with 1 transport you can boost that up to 7. If that’s the case, then why even bother with the IC?

So let’s assume you’re using the IC to build armor instead:
3 infantry + 3 tanks = 24 IPCs
This leaves 9 IPCs for the rest of the board, meaning likely just 2 infantry for Europe… doable, but probably not advisable.
With a Singapore IC, 2 infantry + 2 tanks = 16 IPCs… assuming you spend at least another 9 IPCs for 3 infantry in India (total of 25 IPCs) that leaves just 8 IPCs for the rest of the map… also gross.

Probably (barring heavy armor, or self-propelled artillery) the best use of an India IC is something like 5 infantry + 1 tank, per round (20 IPCs). This leaves 13 IPCs for the rest of the map – essentially 4 infantry.
The other option would be 4 infantry + 2 tanks for India (22 IPCs), leaving 2 infantry + 1 tank for the UK (11 IPCs).
Generally I like to have the UK putting out 3 transport loads every round, but I’d say 2 is the bare minimum.

Now, the Ontario strategy is a very niche kind of build, but it is super fun if you’re willing to commit to it.

1. You need to commit (at least) your transports from India and Australia; send them up to the Chukchi Sea ASAP
2. You probably need to send both bombers towards Western Canada (and eventually Japan)

What this allows you to do is create essentially a complimentary Western Canada shuck to help your American friends; similar to Singapore you can:

• Move 4 infantry to East Siberia every round
• Move 4 infantry to Kamchatka every round
• Move 4 infantry to Korea on round X, and move 4 infantry to Kamchatka on round X+1

Because Ontario is worth 2 IPCs, the IC there allows you to build 4 infantry, then you can simply march them forward to Western Canada to get the pipeline rolling. If you can swing a 3rd transport over in that direction, you can instead place 1 infantry in Western Canada every round, along with 3 infantry + 1 tank in Ontario (the Quebec transport could reach the Chukchi Sea by round 4, but could actually reach Western Canada by round 3; the Italy transport would take until round 5.) It’s a very handy tactic for punching holes in the far east, to allow the US to walk in unopposed and reinforce those positions.

If you’re committing 12 IPCs per round to Ontario, that leaves a healthy 21 IPCs (7 infantry) to split between India and the UK – in other words, likely 3 infantry for India, and 2 transport loads for the UK.

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

Overall thoughts on the USSR:

One other minor thought that I would add is that I don’t generally find myself in a position to spend money on spies, as the USSR. I think the priority (as @The_Good_Captain plays it) would be using your spies to kill all of NATO’s spies… and if they stay dead, then the secondary priority would be boosting favour with China. Stealing nuclear tech would also be tempting.

As it is, the Captain will always replace NATO spies that get killed, and it never seems to have any material impact on him (militarily or otherwise.)

So I’ve generally resigned myself to:
a) rolling the free counter-intelligence, but otherwise not bothering with spying, and;
b) not building any strategy around relying on China (either moving through their territory, or them defending North Korea) beyond the first round.

Overall thoughts on the USSR:

Generally speaking, the conventional wisdom/orthodoxy amongst E&W players is that you need to at least take out West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and South Korea on rd1; if you’re going to push for taking out all of the countries in Scandinavia, you’d likely add Norway to that list. Aside from West Germany, you want to place infantry on the front lines on rd0, to be used in those attacks on rd1.

What @The_Good_Captain tends to do at sea (which is… unorthodox, but that may have to do with us old-timers not fully reading/understanding the submarine rules, back in the day) is to send transports and a fighter to clear the US sub at Guam, while sending the rest of the fleet (along with the bomber) to the Japan SZ, but having 1 attacking sub retreat to the Marcus Island SZ after the first round of combat. This blocks the other US fleets (and particularly, the US transport at Hawaii) from reaching either the Japan SZ or the East Siberia SZ, on rd1.

As a minor side comment, I find the 3rd Edition style of sub rules like these to be a little bit janky, in the sense that it ‘breaks’ the general rule that “all combat occurs simultaneously.” Specifically, I always understood this to mean not just attacking/defending rounds of combat in a single space, but also all spaces in combat, on the same turn.
With this sub movement put into place, it actually matters which of these two sea combats is resolved first, because the US sub at Guam SZ could potentially retreat into the Marcus Island SZ, thus spoiling the other part of this move. So, this rule necessarily means that each battle has to be done in a particular order (which, to my experience, wasn’t the norm in 2nd Edition Classic) especially when dealing with battles in adjacent sea zones, where subs are involved.

Now, my particular deviations from this overall strategy aren’t a refutation of them. My style is more “ok, that worked; now, what else works?” whereas the Captain tends to brute-force a winning strategy until someone or something breaks it.

In our recent games, there have been 3 driving ideas behind what I’ve been doing differently:

1. Sending the armor from Moscow to East Siberia, rather than Turkey. Generally speaking, I think one of the better strategies is to bottle up India with a huge wave of Infantry, and then pull back offensive units out to other theatres. The problem is that the armor are kinda slow, and I’d rather put them in a position to counter-attack Kamchatka and North Korea, ASAP.

2. Setting up air forces for naval attacks on rd2. Now, with the hindsight of some experience, this doesn’t work well at all – the Soviet fleets are in a lot better position to do damage to their NATO counterparts, before they’ve had a turn to merge up. But suffice it to say, this is why I have been largely keeping the Soviet navy out of major battles on rd1.

3. Reducing the number of combat rounds in rd1 battles. The idea essentially being “a penny saved is a penny earned”; what I was finding with the Captain’s moves is that the USSR was kind of gassed out on rd2, and didn’t have many infantry left after most battles (particularly in Greece, Turkey, and South Korea.) A slight shift in the odds could leave you in a really weak position in any/all of these battles, so I wanted to commit overwhelming force to land battles – in the process, stripping air power from naval battles. Ideally, you want the average number of combat rounds below 2, to produce the best results.

Ultimately, this 3rd point comes with some sacrifices (particularly combined with the 1st point) – in short, you typically end up ‘skipping’ one of the rd1 battles in order to beef up the others. By not sending the armor against Turkey, you end up having to pull fighters and/or heavy armor away from West Germany and/or Greece in order to compensate… meaning you usually skip Greece.

In this latest game, I went the other way around, skipping Turkey instead. Being isolated, it’s a little harder for NATO to move units in or out of, compared to Greece; it also has the benefit of that big stack of infantry in Moscow just waiting to be moved up to the front line. By not controlling the strait, you’re potentially sacrificing your Black Sea fleet – but I almost never end up being able to use them offensively anyway, so I don’t see that as a factor.

One of the pros to skipping any battle is that you don’t have to put any rd0 resources towards that battle, leaving more for others – typically West Germany, or possibly a Pakistan attack. The cons of skipping a battle is not destroying NATO “equipment” (particularly fighters) in Greece, Turkey, and/or South Korea.

It’s for this reason that I would posit the idea that the “ideal” battle to skip would be Norway, since it has no equipment in it, only infantry; I’ve seen the Captain pull 2 infantry out of Norway (when I’ve done this in conjunction with other strategies) but other than a move where you skip Greece / stack Yugoslavia strongly on rd1, NATO would be pulling these 2 infantry out of wherever you skipped a battle anyway (in Europe, at least.) So, probably the next go-round I take as the Soviets, a “no Norway attack”-strat on rd1 might make an appearance.

The other thing I’m weighing is how to distribute air power in Asia/Pacific on rd1; basically, the two fighters and 1 bomber can all participate in either the South Korea battle or the Japan SZ battle – so do you go all in on one, or the other, or split them? If you go all in on the naval battle(s), do you ‘skip’ South Korea entirely (negating a rd0 placement in North Korea)?
What I’ve come to find out is that crippling the Japan SZ fleet is critical, because the shore bombardments for the US are so potent – particularly if the US is all-in on the Pacific theatre. So an “overwhelming force” doctrine for land battles in Europe might not be what the doctor ordered, on the other side of the map.

We’s fightin’!

After a relatively long hiatus, @The_Good_Captain and I have been getting in a few games of E&W.

I’ve mostly been playing as the USSR recently; as I may have said before, I think my opponent has probably nailed down the ideal Soviet opener, so I’ve been trying to go a little off the beaten trail.

In this video, you can see my latest attempt – a “no Turkey attack” opening move as the USSR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydQmlM2JWI

Thanks again to @The_Good_Captain for editing and posting the video.
Feel free to comment below (and if you’d like us to make separate comment threads for actual gameplay, let us know that as well.)

Pakistan: the other, other keystone state

A brief UK strategy discussion

(starting setup for the region)

One thing that I think is key to NATO’s success is the simple logistics of figuring out how to get land units onto the Eurasian continent; if you lose Pakistan, that’s 1 fewer UK infantry you can place on the mainland, per round. It’s also important to keep Pakistan strong, in order to threaten Turkmenistan and Iran (the latter of which the Soviets will likely crush) as well as to deter a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; we can’t do any of these things if NATO gets boxed up into India.

The UK’s starting income is 33 IPCs – a budget of 11 infantry (assuming we can hold onto all of our starting territories.) This translates easily into 5 infantry for Pakistan + India + Burma, and another 6 infantry (i.e. exactly 3 transport loads) for the UK. If we lose Pakistan, this all gets messed up.

The other thing is, it’s easy for the Soviets to box the UK into India, with just a mass swarm of infantry in Pakistan, and then pull all of their offensive units away to focus on other theatres; an aggressive defense of Pakistan is necessary, to counteract this move.

WE:
2 infantry from Indochina can be transported to Pakistan, or at least to India, in order to be in Pakistan by round 2 (with the expectation of the Soviets moving through Iran on round 2, and then intending to hit Pakistan on rd3.) The fighter can also be landed in Pakistan on rd1, with the intention of hitting Turkey, and potentially landing on the UK carrier from the Mediterranean, ultimately en route to Europe. It can be kept in this theatre instead, especially if WE is committed to placing more infantry into Indochina.

You can also consider sending a transport with 2 infantry from Italy to Sudan, to reach Pakistan on rd2; this gives you some more forces if you want WE to be able to attack in the region. You can also send your bomber from France (carrying 1 paratrooper) to Pakistan on rd1.

UK:
Send everything from India into Pakistan on rd1. The transport from India can be sent down to pick up the infantry from South Africa (moved to Mozambique on rd1), and the transport from the Mediterranean can pick up the armor from South Africa (moved to Tanganyika on rd1) by moving to the Red Sea. These units can then reach Pakistan on rd2. With land units in Pakistan, these transports can be used to amphibiously assault Turkey, or else be moved into the Mediterranean to create the “Orient Express” floating bridge, from either France or Italy to either Greece or Turkey.

The fighter from Australia can reach India on rd1. The transport at Australia should be used to move 2 infantry to India, so that they can then be moved to Pakistan on rd2; this transport can then be sent back to Australia on rd2, to pick up 1 more infantry there + 1 infantry from Singapore on rd3 (ending its turn in the Burma SZ, and unloading into either Burma or Indochina.) You need to decide if you want to keep producing 2 inf per turn in Singapore to continue using this transport, or to instead produce those 2 inf over in the UK.

The UK can also send a bomber + paratrooper from France to Pakistan on rd1; you can decide if you want to move your remaining infantry from France to Italy, and potentially land your starting UK bomber there, to pick up a paratrooper and carry it to Pakistan on rd2. The fighter from the UK carrier in the Italy SZ can also reach Pakistan on rd1; you may want to consider sending the UK’s fighter to land on this carrier in Italy SZ on rd1, and then continue to Pakistan on rd2.

US:
If you plan to be feeding this theatre with 2 inf per turn from the Philippines, then you should also consider some or all of these moves:

The tank on Okinawa can be transported to Burma on rd1, and move to Pakistan on rd2; this transport is then in position to pick up infantry from the Philippines every round (until relieved by another transport; read on…)

The US can transport 2 infantry (or 1 armor) from Italy to Sudan (much as WE can do) to arrive in Pakistan on rd2; this transport can then continue on towards the Philippines to replace the transport that started at Okinawa. You can also consider sending the US fighter from Italy either to Sudan or onto the UK carrier, to reach Pakistan on rd2.

If you implement this plan, along with consistently placing the 5 UK infantry in the region every round (and moving them forward) you should be able to fend off Soviet advances from both Iran and through the Chinese territory of Sinkiang. You don’t want to leave India weak, but if you’re placing 3 inf and moving in 1 more (from Burma) you should be set. It can be risky if the USSR moves heavily into the region, so it’s not advisable to build an IC in India with this strategy (as well as for other reasons.)

@the-janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

House Rule/Discussion Topic: Tech Tree Rework

1. Defensive Weapons: Jets -> Anti-tank Guns
2. Mobile Warfare: Heavy Armor -> Self-propelled Artillery
3. Aircraft: Long-range Aircraft -> Helicopters
4. Nuclear Weapons: Fission Weapons -> Fusion Weapons
5. Missiles: Cruise Missiles -> Ballistic Missiles
6. Submarines: Nuclear Power -> Snorkels

One idea for a balance fix (building off of this concept) might be to require a country to gain at least one tier in either Submarines, Missiles, or Aircraft before it can start to do research into Nuclear Weapons.