Why is surrender not an option in the original game?

@shadowhawk

Agreed. Though it is more bearable online.

It’s point 1 which matters.

Point 2 - well you still deny the Leningrad NO and potentially gain the Lend Lease NO. You have to lose the Lend Lease NO while giving up the Caucusus and Stalingrad NOs to be on a loser here.

@diabo:

in my group we play in similar ways, but i think it is not wise to do japan’s turn, BEFORE russia bought units.

another thing is, i have to admit, i had to smile that you regarded france as a block for itself… ;)

If there were a reason to change Japan’s strategy based on what Russia purchases, I’m sure it would be a minor issue. A larger issue is the time it takes for Japan to finish their turn, in my experience, Japan is the biggest culprit when it comes to clock consumption and getting Japan started right away is paramount for quick games.

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

The few games I campaigned through China I used the jap aa gun to try and kill that ftr.  I remember it worked at least once.  a small stack against a chinese attack that is light on arty means China will have to bring the ftr to have the punch to clear the zone.  This can work great if you are cutting the Burma road every round.

I also did air raid it the first game I played Japan too.  I just don’t think that ftr is really worth gunning for.  Now if it could leave China or attack the sz’s on the coast it would be dead meat.

I’d rather kill that ftr when its attacking than having to go in and dig it out when its rolling 4’s.

The two games that I have finished (in one go) have lasted 13 and 15 hours respectively.  I have played 4 others in an ongoing format where we would play a turn every other day.  All of these games lasted over a week.

I think attacking a strict neutral may become a late game move in which the other tt on the board are worthless to the outcome of a game that may end in 3-4 turns.

I love Ping pong, but A&A is also a love of mine too, lol.