Posts made by Zero

KPwatkin is correct. Blitzing is combat movement, which occurs before any combats are resolved. So you can not Blitz the tank after the Karelia combat is won.

Field Marshall, JINX!

Now you can’t post again until someone says your name. :wink:

Actually the game supposedly starts in the Spring of 1942. Pearl harbor was Dec 7, 1941. So its already happened. The game kinda reflects this with the AC left at Hawaii, and a Battleship on the U.S. West coast as if it was just launched from the shipyards/Docks.

Really a Japanese attack on the US fleet in in Hawaii on turn 1 is a second attack on Pearl Harbor.

We play Russia restricted, 2nd edition.

The pattern for Germany lately has been to build 1 trans on G1 and all inf otherwise for several turns.

The Germans attack Karelia on G1 for one round to do some damage and then fall back to E. Europe. that liberates the tank from Norway. The trans goes into the UK SZ to act as fodder.

Germany sends 1 fighter per turn to Africa along with 4 inf. Th bulk of this force heads east into Persia to threaten india Caucases and Southern Russia.

Japan is eating up China, Russia, and possibly India depending on how much UK puts into defending it.

Germany play a controlled retreat strategy in Africa against the Allies. Letting them take it back slowly never allowing a tank blitz. At 1 IPC per territory its no big deal.

The German force of inf and planes hits Russia from the south, the Japanese hit from the East, and German Armor hits from the West. If Russia isn’t taken, it usually is well contained.
Germany then sends its armor to the West into Europe or South through Persia into Africa to push the Allies back.

Japan is usually in Alaska by now to keep the US player spending IPCs on defense.
We find most of our games are really close for 8 to 10 turns, and then somebody makes a mistake, or the dice make a decisive battle.

Regards,

Yes, you can move the transports to the sea of Japan and then bridge the troops over to Manchuria.

A transport can move up to two spaces and pick up troops/tank at any point in the move. The only catch is the transport’'s move is done as soon as you unload anything onboard.

So you can pick up a troop, move a space, pick up a troop, move a space and unload both, for example. But you can’t pick up a troop move a space, unload the troop, and then MOVE ANOTHER SPACE, because you already unloaded.

All depends on the strategies being played out by all sides really. For example Russia taking Norway on R1 and losing a tank is unfortunate, but not fatal. <<

Okay I should have said lost 2 original tanks. Russia can ill afford to replace any armor, and it needs all 4 to mount effective counter strikes. In short, I think the loss of any tanks by either Russia or Germany shows a poor use of resources that over time will cost that player the game.

Similarly retreating the eastern front forces back to russia is in most cases unavoidable. The trick is to be having an allied party in europe by the time the japs arrive - then just build loads in russia, and let UK/US finish off germany - If (sorry, When) you can take and hold Eastern Europe with russia, germany’s going to have an awful problem defending Ger and SEu from ground attack, and WEu from a amphibious assault.<<

IF Russia can take and hold East Europe, the game is over. I am more interested in subtle indicators of bad play. Like having a bad pawn structure in chess that inhibits your other pieces more than it helps them.

Similarly UK losing SAF and IND are both unfortunate, but in some cases unavoidable.<<

In my opinion, if both fall it is a clear indication that the allies do not have a cohesive strategy for defeating the axis. The allies are clearly dumping everything into Europe at the expense of losing territory in Asia and Africa. The end result will be a battered Germany able to survive because of the African IPCs, and a Russia falling to Japan.

However, the loss of both IND and africa isn’t too much of a problem for UK. You need to bear in mind that africa is only ever “borrowed” from UK. Africa is too large to be held by german forces, and if they do there will be insufficient units in Europe to hold off russia. Result = Russia takes germany. <<

Germany has great avantages in Africa. At the start of the game. Africa is nearly allied free, so Africa can be conquered quickly. The Allies will have to fight hard for every 1 IPC territory. A small German airforce in central africa will destroy any poorly defend allied fleet that lands troops in Africa thus stalling the US. A Europe based bomber squadron can sink undefended American transports on the East coast of the US. The US invading Africa or Europe faces all the logistical problems that Japan faces in attacking the US. A good German player will never let the allies build a substantial fleet in the Atlantic.

I>>In the case of the US, the japanese navy doesn’t worry me - let them have the pacific, and load up some transports and invade - it’s all too slow, too easy to defend against, and if you’re really worried, buy 2 or 3 bombers just before he strikes or a pack of subs loitering around the shores - 1 turn’s build protecting against the entire Jap strategy. <<

The whole point of the Japanese attack on the US is not to conquer the US but to force the US to spend IPCs on the Pacific front where they are less cost effective, and to give Germany a break. It is Japan’s duty to force the US to spend IPCs in the Pacific otherwise theAllies will will every time.

Japan can build a convoy route from Japan to Alaska that is just as efficient as any that the US can build to Europe. The key to Japan is to know when to stop dumping all your IPCs into Asia and start harrassing the US. The Japanese force that will take Moscow lands/is-built in Eastern Asia 2-4 turns before the assualt on Moscow. Adding more IPCs into Asia at that point is a waste. All attention should turn to dumping 6 to 8 inf into Alaska per turn, and a factory in Alaska to put out 2 tanks per turn. The US can’'t ignore this threat, or it will lose. Can the US stop it? Sure, its easy, but can it afford to stop it with Moscow teetering on the brink? Probably not.

As for Japan, I can safely lose the SOJ sea zone, providing I have sufficient IC’s on the mainland, but hey - if I buy 3 bombers, I can destroy that entire US fleet and he’s got to send another one over <<

If you lose SOJ it means you didn’t commit enough resources to the Pacific theatre. Building 3 bombers to try and clear the fleet is a waste of money, that will likely fail to liberate the SOJ. A US AC with 2 fighters and 2 transports or subs will kill your bobmers, and you will have wasted an entire turns income (if your lucky enough to be earning 45 IPCS!) to accomplish nothing. You have lost the game at that point. IMO

It may also mean that the allies are playing the Japan first strategy, in which case you probably can’t afford 3 bombers.
Your income will be in the 8-12 range, and you will be fighting for your life.
(

(What surely must be an error is allowing the US Pacific fleet to get to the Atlantic) <<

Agreed!

A&A is a fairly rich game with lots of variations of play, but it seems to me that there are some events which clearly indicate: bad play, a false move, a turning of the tide for one side or the other.

Russia

• Losing any of your original 4 tanks.
• Losing both of your original planes.
• Both Germany and Japan control a territory adjacent to Moscow.

UK

• Losing control of both South Africa and India
• If the RAF is reduced to less than 2 planes.

Germany

• Losing control of Western Europe
• If the Luftewaffe is reduced to less than 3 planes
• Being forced completely out of Africa

Japan

• Losing control of the sea of Japan
• Airforce reduced to less than 3 planes.
• Navy reduced to less than 3 ships.

US.

• Navy reduced to less than 3 ships
• Losing control of Alaska and either Panama or Brazil.
• Enemy ships occupying either U.S. coastline for more than one turn.

Am I off my nut with these? Would anyone let to add more.

I agree with the first turn purchase of 1 transport and 8 infantry. Destroy all enemy ships around Europe as your top priority. Hit and Run Karelia to get your tank out of Norway and give Russia a good right hook to the jaw. Take 3 territories in Africa by advancing your infantry south and blitzing your tank.

Land one or 2 fighters in Lybia along with the 2 infantry brought over by transport. Land your Bomber in Western Europe so it can strike any newly built east coast U.S transports next turn. Just be sure to land fighters or move infantry into western Europe to back up the bomber.

ONe topic not dicussed yet is what order the Japanese player should lose pieces if the U.S. gets more casualty than would be expected.

Assuming the transport has 2 inf to invade Hawaii, I think the best order of removal for the attacker would be:

-submarine
-Battleship
-fighter
-Battleship (Things are going badly, at this point)

I think the Battleship is less valuable in the long run than a fighter even if it costs half as much to replace. If the US counter attacks the fighter will defend as well as a battleship.

I don’t like to attack Hawaii on turn 1 for 2 reasons.

1. It think its best to use the battleships for the intial turns to assist in amphibious assaults on more valuable territories.

2. There is a considerable risk in attacking Hawaii. If the Japanese only get 2 hits in round one. The U.S. can retreat its sub towards the Japanese mainland. If both Japanese Battleships are at Hawaii, then any transports at Japan will be poorly defended and at a severe risk for being sunk by the US sub. If Japan loses 2 or more transports on turn 1 to the US sub, it would stall the Asia invasion for 1-2 turns.

I know its not a great strategy because it relies too much on chance, but it could cetainly make things interesting.

An alternative would be to have GB and US each take 3 tech rolls on their first turn. The probabilities are the same, but the reduced units are spread over 2 countries.

Well, I won’t get Hvy Bombers every time, but I have a 2/3 chance of getting something. All of them are useful to some degree.

If I don’t get anything, then the U.S will just go one with business as usual, but 1 turn later than normal.

I routinely read on this board about how people say that the U.S. can afford to rebuild its fleets, while the Axis can not. If that is true, then the U.S. should instead protect its fleet, and buy tech rolls.

Buying Tech rolls on the first turn is the best option because any results you get wil be in effect for the whole game.

Hi, This is my first post. I have been reading this board for about a month.

I would like to propose a radical idea for the U.S first turn. I think the U.S. should buy 6 tech rolls and 2 infantry. The U.S, more than any other country, has the ability to spend 30 IPCs on tech without really threatening the Allies ability to hold off the Axis. If you happen to get Heavy Bombers, the game is essentially over on turn 1.

I calculated the odds. There is a 2/3 chance of getting at least one technology. A 40% chance of getting exactly 1 technology, a 20% chance of getting 2, a 5% chance of getting 3, and insignificant chances of getting 4, 5, or 6 technologies. The overall odds of getting Hvy Bombers is 1 in 6.

I haven’t gotten to try this idea out yet. I will get to play the U.S 2 games from now in the group I play with (we rotate). I plan to try this out. I will let you know what happens. I would like to hear any other opinions on this idea.