Redrum, I didn’t realize you were a Triple-A Developer. I hope you take no offense. I didn’t mean to insult your baby. I appreciate the work you guys have done on Triple-A. As of late, I have found myself playing the AI more often than I would like (as I cannot get my friends together to play often enough). I am confident the AI will continue to improve over time. I guess I should put up or shut up. I ought to be submitting my bug reports to help you guys tweak the game.
USA Open ideas
-
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Japan keeps its fleet in Japan? Then the complex has proven its worth… Apart from that, you don’t have to buy it on A1, I was just giving an example how with IC could be faster than without. If you buy it at the right time, when you know Japan doesn’t want to / isn’t able to prevent you building 2 BB’s next turn there, then it’s a good idea, because you get 1 extra BB threatening Japanese waters. Ofcourse, the BB-strafing idea doesn’t need the IC, but it can be a boost at the right moment.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Lol, the hole Alaska-IC + BB’s isn’t about being efficient, it’s about a cool game. If you want efficiency, go KGF :roll:
-
One house rule I play with is Colonial Empire. Basically, on the first turn only, Britian can build an industrial Complex in one spot for the cost of 10 IPCs that can produce it’s units immediately that turn on these territories–
India
South Africa
Australia
Eastern CanadaMaybe it’s unbalanced, but Britain is in a position to be immediately screwed by Germany in Africa and Japan in Asia/Australia.
This would help the USA by making it easier for Britain to defend a front, leaving the US capable to fight on the other Theater or double efforts on that front.
Thoughts?
-
My thoughts are that it is over powered. You could establish quickly and easily a foothold in both areas. It would make taking Africa or India a hard task for the axis and most likely costly if they do take it. I feel it would give the Allies a noticeable advantage.
-
I agree with Concealer. Allies already have a noticeable advantage in 1942 economically and the only way for the Axis to make up that is to be able to take Africa (with either Germany from the North or Japan from the East or both). If you allow UK to get an advantage like that it will allow the Allies to focus completely on (1) hammering Europe and (2) reinforcing the Soviets. 1 means that Germany gets crushed quickly (as opposed to slowly as in a normal game) by the Allied boa constrictor, and 2 means that Japan is left out in the cold on the eastern side of the board.
The Axis strategy in 1942 is to either take Moscow quickly before the Allies can get the constrictor set up, or to bleed the UK dry in Africa so they have no ability to get the crush running. Either way they have to use their superior positioning and economic advantage over Russia before the greater US/UK economy can overun them, which becomes impossible if the US/UK gain better positioning from the get go and can focus completely on overunning the Axis.
-
Yea after 2 test games we decided to change that to only the 10 IPCs part. When I normally play the best 2 people play Axis so the Allies get beaten up pretty badly.
-
[US IC in Sin: Pre-Requisite]
I’m in the middle of a game where J1 failed to take Chi in an attack, so on US1 I decided to build an IC in Sin now that there existed a 1 territory buffer (Chi) for my IC; moved the 1 Russian inf originating from Nov (on R2) down to Chi along with the 2 US inf in Sin to Chi. This seems to me to be the only reasonable basis for building an early IC in Sin - J has to fail to take Chi. Otherwise, you have to perform an all-in strategy centered around it from the beginning. Is this the general agreement on the forums?
-
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. True in the older versions and AA1942. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
Bidding Japan 10 may make things different and make a better game. That would make it interesting. I played a game like that using my normal strategy of KGF. Moscow has fallen and Germany, very weak, but still lives.
But my counter to the next time is not going to be in inefficient use of my resources by going naval on them. It will be a more careful coordinated attempt to take out Germany. KGF in all AA except AA Global (and I am not even quite sure of that yet) is the only way, unless you are playing with inexperienced players or house rules that change the structure of the game.
AA games have always been broken and unrealistic in the Pacific. China is way to weak and Japan is way too strong. It is just broken that way. AAanniversary attempted to fix that I hear. AAPacific did a very poor job of fixing it but went in the right direction. It still requires a house rule of China going first and its infantry only costing 2IPC’s.
-
If Japan fails or merely pulls off a J1 CHN invasion, a US1 SIN IC is a very good choise.
First of all, the China pass (CHN-SIN) is forever closed for the Japanese who will not only miss some valuable IPC but will also have to take the long road to Moscow (either IND-PER or BUR-YAK).
Russians (and even Brits) can easily reinforce SIN, making it a lost cause for Japan who can throw everything they can against that IC and still gain nothing.
And it gets even worse than this. If Japan stops building pressure against that SIN IC, USA can retake CHN and threaten the rear of the Japanese forces heading to Moscow, not to mention the results of a succesfull FIC/KWA/MAN expedition.
And finally, a SIN IC is the easiest way for the US to reinforce Russia, instead of having to cross an ocean or a desert to reach Moscow.
Even if Japan finally manages to capture that IC, a strong russian armored force can immediately counter.Now, to the main theme of the thread, imho (and given J1 heavily assaulted CHN making it dangerous for a SIN IC to be deployed) US1 should be DD,AC,BB. If Japan has anything less than BB,AC,2 fgt in SZ52, counter there with BB, SS (submerged) 2 fgt and bmb. Land HWI fgt to BUR (if 6 R inf still exist there). I always go for US pasific strat, and the goal is to land in EIN (or BOR) by US3, thus stabbing Japan in its soft belly (south pasific) and being able to land in Africa and AES from the Red Sea side (avoiding those atlantic G SS wolfpacks).
-
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
-
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
The changes in the game from Revised to 1942 are minor but they do have an impact on the Pacific: Japan can’t sink the 2 Allied subs until it buys destroyers and its transport fleet is useless on defense, unlike Revised where the 3-4 Japanese transports where by themselves a deterrent against any US attack. With the right moves by the UK/Russia on round 1 Japan will find itself having to make choices about what to attack or not, which may give the US the right opportunity. The trick is that most Japanese players have no idea of how to respond to a US Pacific strat. And to those who do just buying planes for Japan won’t do the trick because of the new submarine rules.
In general, the dynamics have changed a little bit but they have changed. On Classic it was crazy to go Pacific, on Revised it was nearly impossible and on 1942 it can work but not always.
-
In both theory and practice, it’s easier for USA to win the Pacific war than it was in Revised. The new naval rules make it harder for Japan to defend its fleets since transports have no military value. Add to that cheaper bombers and more effective submarines and you have a recipe for Allied success in the Pacific. Japan should have trouble keeping pace with USA spending. If Japan opts for mainland factories instead of transports, then its tough to have enough money to use the factories and continue to control the sea zones around Japan.
The catch (and what makes Pac strats hard) is that the game balancing is different than Revised. Japan’s initial position may be weaker than Revised, but Germany is stronger and it’s tough for UK to put enough pressure on Germany to save Russia.
-
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser.
Of course, but a US Pacific strat is nothing like assaulting Japan itself, this is pure madness… It is about chopping off 12 south pacific IPC from Japan (EIN+BOR+GUI) and keeping it pinned on a fleet race that it cannot win. That way the US prevents a japanese thrust to Moscow (even if Japan captures IND+PER+CHN+SIN+BUR+SFE+YAK+ENO it will still be at 30 IPC, rendering impossible to seriously threaten Moscow from the east).
And finally, a US Pacific strat is actually a way to pacify Japan, but not a way to win the game.Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2.
Actually, the US would have to spend 1.7, but victory doesn t come cheap for the Allies… Besides the US can afford this fleet race.
You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work.
Actually, imho you must have a poorly played US pacific for this to blow up in the Allies’ face :-)
The US navy has to be used against German operations.
And when Japan hulks up (42 IPC by J3, potentially 51 IPC by J5 if left unchallenged in the Pacific)? Can the 3 Allies combined take out G before this?
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
If Japan really wants that IC there s no way to stop them. But japanese intentions about SIN are demonstrated by J1, before any US buys.
-
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser.
Of course, but a US Pacific strat is nothing like assaulting Japan itself, this is pure madness… It is about chopping off 12 south pacific IPC from Japan (EIN+BOR+GUI) and keeping it pinned on a fleet race that it cannot win. That way the US prevents a japanese thrust to Moscow (even if Japan captures IND+PER+CHN+SIN+BUR+SFE+YAK+ENO it will still be at 30 IPC, rendering impossible to seriously threaten Moscow from the east).
And finally, a US Pacific strat is actually a way to pacify Japan, but not a way to win the game.If you’re counting Victory Cities, then if the Allies can win the game by just kicking Japan out of Asia.
London, Calcutta, Shanghai, Manila, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad,
Stalingrad- oops, that’s only 8 cities, only 1 more to go.In any case, if the Allies are controlling Asia then the US can switch production to deal with Germany.
-
This all sounds so crazy to me and seem so given.
First, What does imho mean
Second, the retort against my “it takes a poorly played japan to work” with “Actually, it takes a poorly played US for it not to work”, sounds to me like “I know what you are but what am I”. (I say that with humor).
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
Fifth, I will ammend my arguement that it doesn’t just take a poorly played Japan. It would take at least a poorly played Japan or Germany who would not exploit the fact the US is in the Pacific. The recommended buys for the US I have red to me are crazy. Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.
-
One more thing I will agree with. Since these stargeties have not been successful in all experience AA games for the last 20 years, hence never or hardly used, with the new AA1942, I can see how Japan would respond in a tragic way. Like building subs to counter when they now only defend on a 1, or buildling all bombers to sink the navy thinking they will then fly to russia,(which may still work because if all you do is stalemate the US, Japan instantly can deploy those forces to where they need them, which could be over a hundred dollars of air power if the stalemate went long enough while the US is stuck with a naval fleet). The point is I can see how not knowing how to react could make the difference. But in the end the ability to spend $1 to defend verus the $1.7 to attack ratio gives way to much room and time for the Germans. The game is still unfortuneately unbalances towards the European theatre.
It like chess for those who play it and know it well. The move where you take out your bishop quickly and end the game in a few moves. Once the opposing player recognizes that move and sees it coming, it is too easy to stop it, then you find yourself with a disadvantage because you have given up a more superior setup to get that bishop out.
Anyone willing to challenge me with this strategy, I would love to see. Even if you got me the first, maybe the second, after that it would be useless.
-
If you’re counting Victory Cities, then if the Allies can win the game by just kicking Japan out of Asia.
London, Calcutta, Shanghai, Manila, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad,
Stalingrad- oops, that’s only 8 cities, only 1 more to go.Usually, the Allies will be able to combine an anglosaxon landing in WE (with the UK watering down the Atlantic Wall and the US performing the actual capturing), thus ending the game with 9 VC by the end of US9 or US10.
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
I have never played AA Revised. But in AA42, there can be no “quick” KGF. Even if the Allies throw absolutely everything against Germany, there is no way to get a solid foothold in Europe before US5.
I don t know whether this is because of the new navy rules (who make defence-oriented landing fleets extremely expensive and vulnerable, while attack-oriented SS fleets cheap and expendable) or because of the new Europe map (who increases the distance between Berlin and Moscow, making it harder for Russia and Germany to reach each other). But the fact remains, there can be no “quick” KGF. And a patient J player will hulk up by J4 to 42 IPC and will force Russia to look to the East, and by J5 will force the US tho look to ALS and WUS. And if merely G and SE are still in Axis hands, there will be no turning back from that point on for the Allies.Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
Agreed.
Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Just as there can be no “quick” KGF, either can be an easy thrust to Moscow in AA42 either. Germany has to throw 4 consecutive 48 IPC spendings (a. all inf+art, b. all arm, c. all arm, d. all bmb) that will reach and strike Moscow all at once in order to bend it, with Japan having Russia reduced to 16-17 IPC and waiting in position for a double-punch, if needed.
And there is no way for Germany to reach 48 IPC before G4 or even 5, depending on how AES turned out for the Allies.
I am not sure what a bid is and how it works…Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.
Will look you up in TripleA :-D :-D
-
This all sounds so crazy to me and seem so given.
First, What does imho mean
In My Humble Opinion
Second, the retort against my “it takes a poorly played japan to work” with “Actually, it takes a poorly played US for it not to work”, sounds to me like “I know what you are but what am I”. (I say that with humor).
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
Going Pacific is a choice by the US that needs to be considered after the Japanese play. Germany bought 5 inf and 5 arm and moved all its starting units to Karelia? Then I’d advise against going Pacific. Japan didn’t lose any naval or air unit on J1 or left any unexposed ships? The same.
To argue that Germany is stronger depends on whom you are comparing it too. The US/UK/Japan and even Germany are weaker since their transports are defenseless. But Russia has the same strength and if the Allies move to cut Germany’s access from Africa (essential on any Allied strat, either it being KGF or Pacific) then you just levelled the playing field. If the UK holds Africa and starting offloading units in Europe then that’s less German units going against Russia. Or the UK can simply land on Archangel and boost Russian defenses.
Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
I never go for US ICs on Sinkiang. It just gives Japan a target to focus its energy and forces the Russians to use units to defend it instead of being available to use elsewhere.
Fifth, I will ammend my arguement that it doesn’t just take a poorly played Japan. It would take at least a poorly played Japan or Germany who would not exploit the fact the US is in the Pacific. The recommended buys for the US I have red to me are crazy. Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Most players don’t use a bid in 1942, so that point is moot. Germany can’t simply go wild on Russia or Africa: depends also on how the Allies play their hand and luck on dice.
To me there are no unbeatable strategies, being them KGF or Pacific by the Allies and the appropriate Axis responses. And repeating the same strategy ad eternum ad nauseam (KGF) just because it has a better chance to win gets rather boring after a while.
-
Agreed on the Nauseam part. In the end I just started playing AA1942 from AA Revised. But straight out, in the 20 years of playin axis and the 100 some odd games via board game and the last year on the AA.com website, without a German bid, it is extremely easy for the US and UK to knock out Germany.
Strtegy.
UK takes troops from UK and retakes Eqypt. Builds IC in Africa just in case (many times not necessary but a chance). UK and US land on N. Africa first turn. After that, all US builds transports move to N. Canada. All US land buys go to N. Canada. Every turn US has choice, land on Norway, build IC, land on Western US. At that point every turn US can land troops by US3, just has to place transports right. Depending on Germany’s actions with fighters, US and UK navy’s are safe in sea zone next to Morocco and sea zone north of Norway. If Germany does the exact right thing, they can force US and UK to put navy’s together and operate in unicent. That of course is the difficult part, to time it all just right. But when you are playing the allies yourself, it is not hard to do it just right. Of course there are always room for mistakes, but without them, it is a gauranteed KGF winner. Whatever the Germans do to mess this up, the US and UK can easily counter allowing them to be delayed, However
Whatever the Germans do to delay the UK US, gives the Russians breathing room that result in only holding off the inevitable.
Again, there is room for mistakes where the Germans pull something that is hard to see then surprise, but that is what it takes.
-
I can see how AA42 makes this stragety a little harder with transport being defensless, but not enough to make this stragety still not the best to execute. But I do leave plenty of room to acknowledge it may not be the near gauranteed win it was before.
But it still sounds crazy to me to do a US all out navy assault, unless again, the axis first moves allows it. Then you just have to remember never to make those opening moves.
-
Sorry, 1 more thing,
I play on Axis.com. It is exactly, exactly like the board game. Graphics everything. They just added AA42 which is what I just switched to.
I have not heard many good things about triple A, graphics and such. You do have to buy some coins though, very cheap. Again, exactly like the board game. Quick, no bugs, timer options, ect… All pacific strategy guys, send me a challenge.
Eddie
Suggested Topics
