Saving alll Spending points to the bank for a turn.

@Hobbes:

@stebobibo:

Can you buy and deploy units on the first turn? Because in the rules it says you collect income at the end of each turn, therefore you would have no IPCs to spend on your first turn. If you do start with IPCs and can buy on the first turn, how many IPCs do you start with? Is it the number printed on the set-up cards? Or would it depend on the territories you have under your control at the start of your first turn? Example, USSR on his turn has taken some German territories worth 4 IPCs in total. Would Germany therefore start with 40-4=36 IPCs?

Germany (and the others) start with the money printed on the setup charts. At the end of its turn (after it places the units it purchased with its starting money) it receives income based on the number of territories it controls and their value. So, if G has 36 worth of territories, it will receive 36 IPC that can be used on beginning of its next turn to buy more units.

Actually, Germany starts with 41 IPCs instead of 40; the UK with 31 IPCs instead of 30.

These inaccuracies really bother me because ANYONE involved in the production of this game could have caught them before printing… but didn’t take the time to. Really careless work, and misleading for new players.

In fact, the rulebook as a whole seems largely geared towards an existing player base, rather than carefully explaining gameplay in a methodical fashion to beginners. Things could easily be laid out in a much more logical and intuitive fashion; once again, Wizards misses a trick.

@ashoka:

Also about the navy, I think I was being too cautious but let me give you more details. Germany has 3 bombers by G3 and 3 ro 4 fighters stationed in Karelia. At that point, if I take Norway, I need enough navy to defend against that airforce which can attack at 21 to 24. Do you think just defending at around a 21 with about 7 pieces is enough to deter attack by Germany? He would have 60 to 70% odds but would be left with 2 bombers usually. And maybe it’s a good thing if Germany loses most of it’s airforce taking out that fleet since I can replace the navy (UK/US combined) faster than Germany can replace the airforce? Or is it smarter to bring more US navy and make sure the transport chain is secure?

Against that kind of airforce (3 ftrs + 4 bmrs) then you definitely need more ships than the ones I mentioned, since the most important is to protect. Be glad your dad hasn’t discovered yet the wonders of bringing the entire Japanese airforce to Europe, since he seems to like a large Luftwaffe (I do as well ;) )

Lastly, about holding off Japan with Russia. Japan was very well played. They took a slow road to Moscow with 3inf, 3art landing in Buryatia every turn and heading on the northern route to Russia while 3 tanks per turn produced in FIC stationed themselves in India for a few turns along with a few inf, art thrown in. Sinkiang was held with 4 inf and 3 of the tanks from FIC. From there Japan didn’t advance for a couple of turns while the forces slowly built up and soon an IC in india was producing tanks as well. By the time they were in range of Russia, they were too large for the attack to be worthwhile and they were able to storm into Caucusus and then build mix of inf/art/tanks there. Do you think Russia should extend itself early on to help UK hold India or perhaps stack allied forces in Persia?

Thanks again, I think I have a much better grasp of allied strategy now with these discussions.

Yup you should definitely have pressed Germany harder. But you can also prevent Japan from building those single large unit stacks on Yakut/Sinkiang. The problem with Japan is that the 3 routes (northern, chinese and southern) can’t support one another while advancing and they have long communication lines. Thus if you see Japan starting to advance stacks over the 3 routes you can move an infantry stack to Novosibirsk to create dead zones in Sinkiang/Yakut. You shouldn’t usually actually attack if he only leaves 1 inf on those territories (Russians liberating Sinkiang gets no money to the US since Japan will retake it afterwards) but as long as you keep the larger stacks away you’ll gain more time to finish Germany.

Basically for Russia (and the UK/US) against Japan is let it advance and punch and destroys its units piecemeal without allowing it to concentrate. And if G is not advancing then Japan can suffer some severe punishment from the Allies: US retakes Russian territories taken by Japan. Russia retakes more and/or uses a tank stack to crush Japanese reinforcements behind the original frontline. UK reinforces the position taken from Japan with more tanks and fighters. It isn’t easy to pull it off but it can be done.

@Col.:

Assuming that the war doesn’t have to end in summer of '45 (but probably somewhere near there), what do you guys think is an accurate timeframe regarding a full round?

Six months seems like an easy guess, but I haven’t really played enough games to get a good sample to draw from.

If we’re talking Spring 42, then 2 (possibly 3) turns is approximately 1 year? So if the game is still going after Round 12 its Spring 1948 and the world is drastically reshaped from a conflict twice as devastating as WW2.

@Keredrex:

Here it is

This is awesome and it is the sheet that I will use from now on. Thanks.

I don’t think that the purpose of placing an IC in India is to hold India. It deters Japan from walking straight into Russia an dallows the allies much more time to get into Europe. Also with India only having a value of three I don’t feel like the IPC drain is a huge commitment. Also when you couple this with a IC by the US in China you turn Asia into a back and forth contest between for those middle terrorities similar to how Russia and Germany treat Eastern Europe.

As the UK in this strategy I usually build a sizable air force to keep Germany from amassing a navy, which with help from the U.S. this is not a problem. That frees me up to put a combination of units in India and to attempt a pipeline of units into Archangel. I feel like the goal with the India IC on UK1 is to stall Japan and harass them when you can. This leaves Russia to devote a much larger force to Germany and with a little luck I have been able to to attack Japan with Russia as well.

@Fleetwood:

As a side note, not attacking z2 doesn’t mean the Allies get a totally free pass in the Atlantic. Say Germany commits a sub and 2-3 fighters to the Med cruiser. 2/3 of the time the sub lives. If Germany builds a bomber G1 and the med sub lives and the Baltic subs escape, they will still be able to kill a round one Allied move to z8 2/3 of the time. That’s 3 subs, 4 fighters, 2 bombers vs 2 destroyers, 1 sub, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser, and 4 transports using this calculator. http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html

Are you saying that Germany should buy a cruiser and a destroyer for the Med on G1, and not use the Z8 sub to splash the Canadian transport, but retreat it into the Med (Z13 is as far as it can reach)? This takes away half of Germany’s income, which means it can only commit 20 IPCs to the land battle with Russia, and allows UK to retain both of its Atlantic transports. I don’t know if that is a good move…

@manincellv:

It is not worth getting without Italy.  Italy has set the standard now.  Its not a real A&A game without it.

Yes. Italy is awesome.