New players some stuff

@domanmacgee

I used to play this version often some time ago… I might remember wrong but I think Germany is strong enough to take down Russia alone some times, just because Germany is so strong at the beginning and sometimes one less than average dice result would kill Russia early. It doesn’t mean Allies can’t hold but it’s tough the first 8 rounds for Allies. Once passed this threshold the chance of Allies victory improves over time typically…

I don’t think it matters all that much in a 4 man, it can work either way, with certain benefits and drawbacks to each pairing. Its kind of amusing on occasion to let the Allies choose whether they want to play the British or the Americans first, and then, if they can’t decide who will take the lead, flip a coin to see who gets to be “Supreme Allied commander!” (ie. take control of Russia.)
:-D

I agree that the UK/Russia combo is probably faster, and gives the Allies a stronger edge coordinating at the Center, Karelia/India/Caucasus etc etc. but then the USA can also be rather boring to play solo. A lot of waiting, with little action in early rounds.

In Classic and Revised, it was sometimes fun to encourage an Allied split with Churchill on one side and FDR/Stalin on the other (kind of mirroring the historical situation/mistrust between the leaders of the British and the Russians). In a Face to Face game, this could sometimes compensate for the Axis starting disadvantage on those boards OOB, just due to the difficulty of coordinating as Allies. This also worked better in PBEM play, with just one turn in the email exchange for USA/Russia.

But in AA50 and 1942.2 where the advantage is to Axis, I think it might be better to just pair Russia with UK, as others have suggested if your main concern is balance by sides among players of roughly equal skill. British fighters or tanks working with Russian stacks at the center, saves on the amount of time that the Allies will spend bantering and pleading with each other. USA starts way out, and usually their coordination with the Royal Navy Atlantic, or in a KJF, is pretty straightforward once the game gets to that point.

I like the Russian bomber for a number of reasons. But if you feel that the game still tilts towards Axis too heavily, you might enjoy giving any additional bid to USA, rather than UK. A bid of 5 ipcs to USA can be fun. This prevents a naval build, and instead puts the focus in China. This can be good for Allied center control, and alleviate some of the pressure on Allies, in a way that they wouldn’t usually adopt otherwise. At 6 ipcs or more, the USA can really disrupt Germany’s best u-boat option and make an Atlantic crossing much faster for the Allies. That has merit too, if the Allies really need a leg up, but I like sticking them with a 5 spot. This allows for a single extra infantry or artillery unit in China, with a remainder of either 2 or 1 ipc left over for more variety at USA purchase. Having one extra unit in Szech actually does a lot to free up the Russians, and it gives USA more power at the center, if that 3rd ground unit in Szech can be kept alive until American fighters/bombers start arriving mid-game.

The Russian bomber alone is pretty potent though. I think it probably makes the Russians more enjoyable to play in either pairing, but especially if your players decide they want to pair USA with Russia, rather than UK with Russia.

MarineIguana, it sounds like you play very much the way I do. I’d love to see how I’d fare against you. Would you care to try a Triple A game and put that streak to the test? We could make it a live game, a forum game or a PBEM game, as you prefer.

Try picking up this one if you can - newer version, newer rules, and prices have stayed pretty low on Amazon etc.

Am I the only one that thinks you shouldn’t be able to reinforce on the same turn as you repair the IC? Seems like a “double move” from a sequencing standpoint…like moving land units then letting them load on transport -or- fighters in combat landing in newly captured territories.

We always play house rule that you have to reinforce the next turn, but also adopt SB interceptor rules, so you can dissuade SB runs.  It also curbs just packing in all your units into VC’s with mindless stacks.

well the odds are they’ll only get 1 plane.

@knp7765:

In the latest Alpha+3 rules, Larry changed the SBR rules for escorts and interceptors.

This game came out 10 months after that 10/10/11 post on his site, so it has changed again. That’s one thing that makes this game frustrating - it’s not like chess where the rules have been around for hundreds of years. The rules are still fluid and keep changing.

@UrJohn:

I was just rounding to 1.

Agreed!

I always play a new A&A game the same way. First time through I play the new game as the old rules with a new setup and a new unit or 2. Second time I read the rulebook first and play through checking the rulebook on every move as I go. Takes forever but I normally only do this for 4-5 rounds. Third game is playing the game start to finish trying to remember the rules without checking the rulebook but if I have to then oh well. All 3 of these games are a me vs. me games just to learn the rules.

This learning tactic is what made Battle of the Bulge and D-day such a pain in the ass to learn.