Nominations for A&A Revised Strategies

hi, You can go to BGO (Board gaming Online). They used to have a good community around revised.

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

@Fabius:

Hello everybody this is my first message, I’m an Italian player of A&A and I would like to know your impressions on this KJF strategy.

First Round:
UK: purchase 2 transport 1 Inf 1 Arm and attacks Norway with 2 Inf 1 Arm 1 Artillery (assuming Germany uses his Atlantic Submarine with the fighters to destroy the Brits Battelship in Med). Uk destroyer goes from India to S59 and destroy the Jap transport. Uk moves his South African Inf to Kenya (assuming Germany destroyed Brits in Angloegypt) and Persian Inf to India.
Uk also moves the Indian Fleet in S30 and also the Australian Fleet.
Uk also moves one armor from East Canada to Alaska, and one Inf from West Canada to Alaska.

What do you think?

I think I’m either going to take London or destroy your North Sea fleet on G2.

Also, an IC in Alaska doesn’t seem a good use of ipcs–-why not buy an extra AC with that cash or consider a Sink IC?  In the strat you describe Japan is going to get rich on mainland ICs which will allow them to buy air to resist the dual fleet threat.

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

On the Japan 1 move…

First off, add a bid of 5-9 for the Axis to even the odds.

Then build 1 IC, 2 TRN as Japan on J1.  That gets you SEVEN units to Asia on J2, 9 if the SZ59 TRN miraculously survives…

Also, if you can take India, FIC is a better place for your first IC, if not then MANCHURIA, not KWANG.

@ShadowHAwk:

Can i agree with the fact that in the current rules the carrier does NOT have to move if the fighter was destroyed, but at the same time not agree with the rules itself ?

Because it is not logical that the carrier does not start its move to meet up with the figher at the same time since it it start after the figher completed its move in a normal situation it would not be there on time to catch the aircraft.

Basicaly the time it takes for the carrier to get there is the same as the time it takes for the fighter to get there and since the carrier needs to be there at the same time in order for the pilot to remain dry it logical should start sailing in the general direction of the pickup point.

Since the Fighter in question could be “flying” from Gibraltar to the Caucus in one turn, I don’t think the model of aircraft taking off and landing as part of a days flight operations on a Carrier quite applies.  Especially since Naval aircraft are built very differently from land based aircraft yet the game makes no difference between the two.

Actually, no one had superfortresses.  The only real NA ever used was Russian Winter and Fortress Europe…the rest were forgotten since no one ever played with them.

Meanwhile, if you can scare Japan into SZ 61 or destroy him, you have effectively contained the Jap fleet.  IF you can tkae SZ 60 even if Japan isn’t there, and hold it, you have contained Japan.  (At least you’ve removed their largest production facility.)

Japan is very flimsy.  Ask anyone who’s worked on a KJF strat.  One or two bad moves with Japan and Japan is neutrallized.  One or 20 bad moves with America and at worst Russia has fallen.