There is another way to win…

Omega,

I would say YES,…it’s p o s s i b l e.  And a valid “strategy” to have(along with all the others just mentioned, here).

Remember, I also said that Axis & Allies was slightly(?) flawed.  And by that I meant it’s slant towards an Allied Victory.  I think everyone would agree with this.  I mean everyones on what,…Alpha-3 now.

“Tall Paul”

I agree on the fact that most games are won by unconditional surrender.  Games are too long to finish and can take FOREVER if you KNOW you are losing to get your opponent to actually win the game.  Not because he is delaying (or she in my case) but because the board is so large that you have to really stage up.

I also agree that there is no ONE WAY to win.  Many thought Sea Lion was THE way to win, until Russia ended up taking half of Europe and becomming a behemoth.  Others think Barbarossa is THE WAY to win, but you cannot just IGNORE the board.

Axis and Allies is about TWO things:  Money and Pieces on the Board.  If you have 500 IPC and no units, you will lose.  If you have only one territory and a 5000 IPC army, you probably already lost (and how did you get a 5000 IPC army with only one territory anyway?)  Position and finances are what win.  Granted, America is such a pain in the arse because it earns a double nation’s salary, but as we found in KAF games, if you hit them really early, they crumple.  And that was THE WAY to win for a while too. (Then the Larry-meister killed the whole tactic, so we’ll never really know the true power or failure of it.)

I disagree that the first round is scripted.  Germany 1 is scripted, everything else is a reaction to the board.  You want your opponent to react MORE to what you do than what you have to react for what he does, but it is all reaction.  Russia buys 6 armor and nothing else, you have to react.  England puts carriers in the water, you have to react.  Germany buys 10 armor, you have to react.  Your reaction might be along what you want to do, but it is still a reaction.

I feel, there are two reasons to attack.

1)  To deny the enemy it’s territory, and give you an economic boost.  Generally this ends up “trading” but could work out in your benefit through casualties, which is the real hope of trading in my opinion.

2)  To get you closer to your goals.

Two is more important than one, but there are times where you want to use one over two.  Example:  8 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers, 2 Strategic Bombers vs 3 Infantry, Fighter in China (all Chinese.)  You will probably lose more  in units than China will, but it is still a victory since you killed their only fighter and they will never get it back.

That said, I am still going to destroy you in our game, Gargantua.  Not because there is only one strategy, but because you underestimate me and that is the most deadly thing you can do in this game. mwuhahahaha.

I might have forgot to move the piece…it should be in SZ 115.

I wish my infantry could procreate on the battlefield like must be happening when some of my detractors attempt, in vain, to derail my argument. The absolute BEST was when Switch started sending his German Fighters to three different territories to block the upcoming American turn in his discussions!  In retrospect that was the funniest damn thing ever!  Had to play him a game of Kill Japan First to prove to him I wasn’t full of hot air. (And I beat the snot out of him too!)

Just because my strategies do not seem “main stream” does not mean they are “bad”.  A lot of alternate stream strategies work out just fine against new opponents that have not seen them yet or against certain opponents who have less skill dealing with those kinds of attacks.  More games are won through emotion than through dice!  Make your opponent FEEL like he is losing, and he’ll quit.

Gargantua I could not agree more! Cost analysis is a key component to any successful game. Many a time I have tried to argue against the more far reaching ideas, like back during A&A pacific 1940’s initial release people were saying that you could lose planes when taking territories from China, which is just ridiclious! I have always argued that any attack should be made where it will make you the most money be it in actual territory value or NO money, or if it positions you in a nesscary space.

I have seen some very far flung and very difficult to follow stratgies posted by a number of people here and most of them tend to ignore this principle. I can not take seriously a stratgey that dosnt not take this into consideration, or has a country ignore its own objectives to further some other less valuable goal. If playing as the Axis, you should do all in your power to make each Axis nation as strong economically as possible. It helps reduce the gap between you and the Allies, espically America. As the allies, do everything in your power to blunt or block their economic groth. The UK placing an IC in egypt and doing the taranto raid on UK1 is a great way to both block Italys economic groth and bulnt their relative economic strenght. The Germans wiping out the royal navy while convoy raiding the UK and sending troops to back the Italians in North Africa is a great way to blunt the Uk ecnomically while expanding both Germanys and Italys economy.

Thank you for posting this

@Clyde85:

Gargantua I could not agree more! Cost analysis is a key component to any successful game. Many a time I have tried to argue against the more far reaching ideas, like back during A&A pacific 1940’s initial release people were saying that you could lose planes when taking territories from China, which is just ridiclious! I have always argued that any attack should be made where it will make you the most money be it in actual territory value or NO money, or if it positions you in a nesscary space.

I disagree with this for one attack and one attack only.

I am perfectly willing to send 8 fighters, 5 tactical bombers and 2 strategic bombers to kill 3-5 Chinese Infantry and the Chinese fighter because it ends, permanently, the Chinese from having a high value attack and defense unit.  It will most likely cost me 2 or 3 planes.

@Cmdr:

I am perfectly willing to send 8 fighters, 5 tactical bombers and 2 strategic bombers to kill 3-5 Chinese Infantry and the Chinese fighter because it ends, permanently, the Chinese from having a high value attack and defense unit.  It will most likely cost me 2 or 3 planes.

If you are in a position where you would need to do that then you have placed yourself in a very bad position. There are 3 territories in China you need to worry about as Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Yunnan. For economic, victory, and positioning reasons they are they only territories worth worrying about(yes Shangtung and Manchuria are important, but I have never seen China realisticly threaten any of these). You should never have to worry about taking planes as casualties espically against China. Concentrate your troops in anhui and Hunan, bring reinforcments into Kwangsi, and Hit Yunan on another turn.

@Clyde85:

@Cmdr:

I am perfectly willing to send 8 fighters, 5 tactical bombers and 2 strategic bombers to kill 3-5 Chinese Infantry and the Chinese fighter because it ends, permanently, the Chinese from having a high value attack and defense unit.  It will most likely cost me 2 or 3 planes.

If you are in a position where you would need to do that then you have placed yourself in a very bad position. There are 3 territories in China you need to worry about as Japan, Kiangsu, Kwangtung and Yunnan. For economic, victory, and positioning reasons they are they only territories worth worrying about(yes Shangtung and Manchuria are important, but I have never seen China realisticly threaten any of these). You should never have to worry about taking planes as casualties espically against China. Concentrate your troops in anhui and Hunan, bring reinforcments into Kwangsi, and Hit Yunan on another turn.

Not necessarily.  I used to never attack Russia with Japan, in which case, killing the Chinese fighter only made tactical sense.  Without it, you are no longer limited to where you have your equipment, as you will never face anything but infantry and the occasional artillery unit.  Losing 3 of 15 aircraft to kill the fighter makes sense in that equation.  Also, trading 6 or 7 more to take India early on makes sense to me, as now you can start threating (maybe not doing, but threatening) Russia’s underbelly with Japan and Italy instead of just Italy.

@Stalingradski:

Tell Paul - yes to Infantry! For example, as Germany, after G1’s naval build (to gain the initiative in the Atlantic!), I can’t help myself but build a healthy dose of Infantry, 10 per round when possible, as long as humanly possible. On land Armor, Mech, Artillery, even air power are secondary to stacks of neverending Infantry protecting your capital units… and in this case I consider an Armor or Fighter etc. to be a capital investment. They aren’t to be used in a trifling way.

Of course we are in the realm of personal play style, but when I am going Barbarrossa I prefer to build arty on G2.  Considering the large numbers of German inf already at the front, adding some slow oomph to the stack seems to be a priority.  Also when I take forward IC’s they end up pumping out inf to rebuild my stack of defensive units.  Still I try and have enough inf/art to keep my tanks alive in the moscow battle.

@Cmdr:

Not necessarily.  I used to never attack Russia with Japan, in which case, killing the Chinese fighter only made tactical sense.  Without it, you are no longer limited to where you have your equipment, as you will never face anything but infantry and the occasional artillery unit.  Losing 3 of 15 aircraft to kill the fighter makes sense in that equation.  Also, trading 6 or 7 more to take India early on makes sense to me, as now you can start threating (maybe not doing, but threatening) Russia’s underbelly with Japan and Italy instead of just Italy.

China is not a priority and will never be able to threaten the areas of importance once you have reinforced yourself there. Losing planes to take India does make sense because you will have all of Indias income if you succeed, gain a 5IPC NO for Japan, and take a territory that is worth 3IPC, plus have knocked out a major producing power that was against you. You cant really knock out the Chinese, not like you can with India, so its a wasted effort. Take down their economy, take Yunnan, but sacrficing 30IPCs to gain 1IPC, deny your opponent 7IPC(provided your even fighting over Yunnan), to destroy a single 10IPC unit (the infantry are irrelevent as your main declared target if the fighter) is not an equal exchange.

In a conversation based on economic advantage, I haven’t seen any mention of National Objectives. Of course we can assume that it goes without saying, but because they have the power to draw units in places that may be vulnerable, No’s can not be ignored in a war of economic attrition. With Italy in particular, NO’s (once achieved) can become difficult to pry away, thus preventing their objectives becomes a huge priority for the Allies, even if position and odds aren’t on their side.

NO’s are probably the only thing keeping things balanced.  IMHO.

@Gargantua:

For me, NO’s is practically half the battle.
I make a point of studying my NO’s, and my opponents, making sure to get mine, and to prevent theirs.  A kind of, we’re good, their bad mentality.
It’s important to also pay attention to which territories are the most valueable.
Keep it all in mind folks…

Again another very very good and important point. I think this is one of the key components to understanding the game overall. This is the main reason I have always argued against a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Unions or deeper involvement in China, espically China. The Japanese NO for taking all the islands of the DEI 17IPCs total (12IPCs for the islands themselves, with another 5IPCs for the NO itself). I believe this move will better position Japan to make further gains against the allies and capture more Pacific NO’s for Japan

Everyone,

So many of the opinions that have been stated here are just so logically obvious as almost wouldn’t require expression,…but for the benefit of ALL of us I’m glad they were.

I feel the Best things to have in any game are:

1. A complete and thorough understanding of the Rules.
2. A logical plan for How as where as Where to fight at any given Time.
3. The ability to be Flexible in your objectives or even your strategy.
4. The logical acknowledgement of all the Capabilities of your enemy as well as your
   own,…and the Application of them.

In accomplishing these points everything else would seem to just follow.

Also, let me say I’m very much enjoying your very intelligent discussion of strategy and tactics.  Please, keep it going.  I feel everyone will be able to benefit from these.
Let me also say I’m certain that all of you are undoubtably very accomplished and formidable players.

“Tall Paul”

GH,

Well, in your case, I guess I would definately have to say that the refreshments would have to fall under the category “House Rules”,…haha.

We usually have plenty of juices, cokes(sodas, pops, whatever your term) and snacks available to make it a little more enjoyable.  Although we’re very strict on keeping the refreshments completely away from the gameboard.

GH, I wonder if some of your games might have ended up with the Itallians invading the Tokyo Geisha houses or the the Anzacs having a Picadily Holiday in old London Town???    haha.
                                                                                            “Tall Paul”

@Tall:

GH, I wonder if some of your games might have ended up with the Itallians invading the Tokyo Geisha houses or the the Anzacs having a Picadily Holiday in old London Town???    haha.
                                                                                             “Tall Paul”

I said that we hung out with Mary Jane, not Jim Morrison.

And Molson’s is a type of beer I think.  Could be non-alcholic, I can’t remember because I don’t really drink.

We also try and keep the drinks away from the table.  I had a friend who had a copy of the old game with coffee marks and syrup and other nasty things all over it.  Since I still play with him, we had to institute a no-beverage rule for out games!:)

That being said, during our games there’s a thick haze of battle smoke drifting over the table….

@JimmyHat:

And Molson’s is a type of beer I think.  Could be non-alcholic, I can’t remember because I don’t really drink.

We also try and keep the drinks away from the table.  I had a friend who had a copy of the old game with coffee marks and syrup and other nasty things all over it.  Since I still play with him, we had to institute a no-beverage rule for out games!:)

That being said, during our games there’s a thick haze of battle smoke drifting over the table….

Molson is Canadian beer and it definitely has alcohol, as far as battle wounds go, my money bills had tons of little burn holes.