It really depends on the game.
If the game starts out strong for the Allies in the center of the board you will need economy to compete. I go Hawaii, NZ, Aus, Mad/ India if that’s the case.
If the Allies have any problems out of the gate the islands become an afterthought- something for a pleasant stroll later in the game. The focus should of course be on battering down the gates of Moscow.
Ok, I guess not. Believe me, if you ever find it and try it, you’ll like it.
The trick is, you put your head right down on the floor and look sideways across the surface. It’s much easier to find your pieces that way, and after a few beers it’s also pretty fun just getting on the floor.
I got a second set from the place Switch posted. It was painless and money well spent. I don’t give a crap anymore if a fighter tail section breaks off. The only problem is I now have like 12 Russian battleships that’ll never see the light of day. Why do they even bother making them?
Absolutely- good point.
3/3 or 2/2/2 allows more risk with the armor. I usually go 5/1/1 even with a Ukraine strike, but take 2 armor to W Russia and 2 to the Ukraine fight. I know it’s a little dicey but it’s still a win by the odds. And I’ve come to depend more on artillery with Russia lately- it’s not as nerve-wracking to leave artie sitting on the front as it is precious armor… not as cost effective either.
That’s the only situation that causes me to pause when attacking the Ukraine- the perfect strafe. Killing everything but the fighter forces (for me) an agonizing decision- to stay or retreat. I think it depends on how the W Russia battle went, as well as how many hits the Ukrainian defenders inflicted on the Russian attackers. IMO, if you’ve only got a couple of tanks left- kill the fighter. If the Ukrainians only killed your infantry- falling back is suddenly an option, as you keep artillery and armor.
I’ve made both decisions- falling back or continuing- a bunch of times. More often than not I’ve wished I had killed the fighter later in the game.
The mistake is to let Germany dictate the pace of the game. Keep doing what you’re doing to get troops on the ground (maintaining a good defensive position of course). You don’t win with destroyers. You win with ground troops taking territories and holding them. I’ve never seen a destroyer parked on Karelia, but allied infantry sure look good there. That’s why transports make sense early- they beef up your naval presence while simultaneously allowing you to get a steady supply of forces to Europe/ Africa.
In my opinion you philosophically have to almost disregard the Baltic fleet. It’s a sideshow, and plays into Axis’ hands if you freak out trying to figure out how to destroy it. The time will come when you can thrash it. But you shouldn’t have been distracted from the goal up to that point.
I agree with newpaintbrush. Getting troops on the ground, especially US armor in Africa, is critical for the allies. On US2 there’s a pretty good chance that armor can roll through Libya (after Britain took it on UK2) and take back Egypt. The timing is critical- the German med navy is then trapped and will be destroyed. If that small navy escapes it can cause alot of trouble, or at the least will make the Japanese navy virtually impregnable.
4 inf/ AA gun does it for me in W Canada early game- I start the Canadian shuck a little later and lock down the west coast of the US for good. If Japan is using forces in Alaska/ Canada early, Russia is a little more relaxed. And frankly unless it’s a sizable force the US doesn’t break a sweat either.
rj-
2 transports/ 3 inf/ arm is a nice first purchase for the UK. It allows the potential to put 8 land units on the ground on UK2. The Brit carrier can be built when you move north, or you can postpone an assault on Norway until the US carrier built on turn 1 becomes your defensive backbone, allowing the UK to make other purchases.
This is pretty standard for me personally, and it works well against the German carrier purchase, as the lack of ground forces purchased on G1 means less ability to both attack and defend on all fronts at once- 4 British transports exploits this weakness.
It also means you are immediately at full capacity for production and distribution of ground units, without having to wait for a slow buildup to 4 transports. It’s why I really don’t like the carrier/ destroyer first turn with Britain. Yes it’s nice defensively, but you have little versatility.
I do agree squirecam. Killing W Russia alone limits losses and ensures overwhelming success. With an 8 infantry build it leaves you in a great position numerically on the front. That’s an incredibly solid opening.
But I’ll admit it- I like killing the German fighter, and forcing Germany to respond in more spots. I like being aggressive and setting the tone of the game. For me the opening move transcends IPC values. It’s a statement to your opponent. And believe it or not, in countless games where both myself and my adversaries attack the Ukraine as a standard move, 90% of the time the Russian player seems to end up taking it with 2 armor, and that’s only bringing 2 in the first place.
Can’t explain it, but the gods of war (or the gods of boardgames simulating war) seem to smile on the aggressor :evil:
Well, you can trade units all over Russia’s front while pooling a large force in Persia with Japan. Forces in the north alone for Japan is way less flexible- no pressure on Kazahk or the Caucasus.
Kazahk is the Russian backside equivalent to W Russia as far as critical territories go. If the Axis gets into either territory in force it makes Russia have to make some unpleasant decisions. Staging Japan in the north allows Russia to defend itself from Russia alone, not both Russia and the Caucasus.
Ouch, I sure haven’t but I can imagine the pain. :-(
That’s an interesting battle if you think about it- a bunch of bomber crews parked on the ground firing pistols at hoards of infantry… and winning.
Absolutely, completely, 100% in agreement. You don’t measure the loss of a German fighter as 10 IPCs, but as a loss in flexibility in both attack and defense for the rest of the game. It’s like losing a bomber on the first turn, only worse because bombers don’t couple as defensive units.
As I said before there’s alot more to attacks than IPC value of pieces destroyed. IMO the R1 Ukraine battle is one of those attacks. It sets the tone, it kills a precious German fighter, it helps lower the % chance of things going well for Germany on G1 attacks.
And it’s not the death knell for Russian armor. Only use two in the attack, and slowly (or quickly if so desired) replenish Russian armored forces. The battle favors Russia, and there’s no room IMO to base decisions on the chance of bad dice. You could just as easily factor in the chance of overwhelmingly good dice, which makes no sense. I choose to base my battles on odds.
My standard strat, subject to change of course based on game conditions, is the following (obviously, assuming allied KGF)-
Build to a total of two ICs and six transports. One IC in India, one in either Kwangtung or FIC (my preference). Once you get to 42+ IPCs, the following efficient and beautiful Japanese chain can be set up- one transport in SZ60, one in SZ61, two in SZ36, two in SZ34 with the rest of the Japanese navy. Each turn the two transports return from SZ36- splitting one inside to SZ61 and one to SZ60. Two infantry are picked up from Japan and dropped in Manchuria, two are picked up and dropped in Buryatia. The two original trannies in SZ60 + 61 pick up four infantry and take them to FIC. This sets up a flow, excluding builds from the factories, of two infantry over the top to keep a steady flow of pressure on Yakut, then Evenki + Novo; of two infantry from Manchuria pushing up the gut through China to hold Sinkiang and combine with the northern forces to harass Novo/ Kazahk; four infantry in FIC push along the southern route to pool in Persia or be used on transports in Africa.
The units built on the ICs would include any artillery being built in India as they are closest to the front, and armor builds in FIC or Kwangtung, depending on where you built it. With the armor builds in the rear, you can choose to go up the middle or push along the south depending on needs. I usually end up with two units (always infantry) over the top, four units (mostly infantry, maybe an artillery now and then) up the gut, and the other eight per turn (mix of inf/art/arm) along the southern route.
What I’ve found to be the most effective is staging in Persia, as it threatens both the Caucasus and Kazahk, as well as controls Transjordan and the southern tip of Africa with navy. Staging in Persia allows the potential to control the suez more easily than a staging in Sinkiang, and therefore the ability to slip into the med to help Germany if needed.
The overall philosophy is that only light infantry forces are needed over the top (two units), slightly heavier up the middle (two to four per turn), and the heaviest along the southern route. The key is that the flow is steady- as switch mentioned some time ago any gaps in the Japanese chain can be exploited by an allied strike that hits and retreats the next turn before they can be countered. The key is to make sure the pressure is continuous. Kill Russians as often as possible on the front, using your superior air power to devastating effect. Four fighters can be staged in SZ34, and two can hit all the way to Novo and trade places with fighters parked in Sinkiang.
There really is no fear of a concentrated attack on Japanese hodings through either the northern or central routes- the further the allies manage to get in either direction the closer they get to Japanese factories and their own destruction. And it’s not in Russia’s best interests to go heavily through the middle- it reverts to US economy not Russian when retaken, and Japan will claim it again before the US collects on it. The top of the board is not worth enough to make a concentrated attack upon. The Japanese player shouldn’t be concerned if they saw it coming.
Finally, the goal should be killing Russia- I’ve fallen into the trap before of slugging it out with the allies in Africa, because it’s so compelling to be able to use two battleship shots per turn and your air superiority. Just be a pest in Africa unless an obvious chance to turn the tide presents itself and hold Africa’s economy- keep using one infantry to take an unguarded territory, or pick targets of opportunity- killing a lone armor that just cleaned up South Africa is a good example.
Any US threat built in the Pacific can be dealt with by swinging part of the navy around, or perhaps building one or two units in SZ60 to protect the chain. The US player will be spinning their wheels unless completely dedicated, which means Europe is being left to Russia and Britain to handle. Which makes Germany happy.
Hope this helps- it’s evolved over quite a few games for me but I use it whenever possible. It’s been pretty effective against good competition.
I understand why Belo is a good option, and less risky. I understand why all armor into W Russia is a good idea.
But honest opinions here- aren’t you all in a slightly better mood when you take Germany’s first turn and have 6 fighters? I know I am, and I assume my opponents feel the same way. Playing a more conservative Russia means that in exchange Germany has a little more offense with an artillery and armor saved, and flexibility with the 6th fighter, which also means more offensive options, shorelines a little easier to defend, etc.
I think that the extra fighter adds up in ways not completely IPC or pip related. It’s a little extra pressure on allied shipping, it sits nicely in France or on a carrier, and it provides one more unit on the front with Russia which won’t get killed if you’re engaging in a trading war. Flexibility is terribly important with Germany- the less options you have the easier it is for the allies to hem you in. I don’t want to oversell the importance of one fighter, but it does have a tangible effect on the game.
Personally as the allies I like to try to deprive Germany of as much of that flexibility as possible, and as Germany gain as much flexibility as possible. I believe that taking out the Ukraine is the beginning of accomplishing that objective.
I’m wondering if any of you out there have been playing the bigmap 1942 version of A&A found on triplea_0_8_2_1.
It’s extremely fun, and endlessly variable. It combines A&A Europe and A&A Pacific to make a (IMHO) much better campaign style game. The naval costs have been reduced, and economy heightened, as well as dividing the board up into more territories and including neutrals. China is included as well.
It’s currently dominating my A&A thought as there are many, many more choices that can be made strategically.
Any other players? And if so, what strats do you employ generally?
Fair enough, and totally legitimate strat. There are lots of great ways to play the game.
I’d just say that when G1 rolls around and I still own the Ukraine (and its fighter), I’m happier than if I didn’t. That says everything I need to know about the effect it has on my opponents when I kill it.
And I would never, ever advocate killing stuff just for the sake of killing them, unless I had an advantage both positionally and economically and my opponent had no hope of regaining ground. But the first turn tells you alot about how you and your adversary will play the game, and an aggressive Russia is a force to be reckoned with when played within the framework of complimentary UK and US strategy. Blood spilled in the Ukraine is like punching someone in the nose. You know you’re in for a fight right off the bat. It’s an attitudinal and philosophical thing, rather than an IPC or game mechanic thing. And that does have an effect on the game- we’re not robots.
What!? Attack the Ukraine with Russia on R1???
My favorite line of thinking is finally getting some attention on this board. It’s been the standard opener for me for over two years.
It’s less about what you kill (although the art/ arm/ ftr death is sweet), and more about dictating the tempo of the game.
An aggressive Russia forces more points of engagement for Germany, which increases the chances of one of their many dicey battles to not go so well. A 5 ftr Germany on G1 forces some tough decisions about their allocation. But most importantly IMO, it lets the German player know that you’re going to kill s–- every chance you get. Early psychological advantage- Russia. A passive/ defensive Russia allows Germany to set up their structures without having to react as much. Now Germany dictates tempo.
R1 Ukraine is a bad idea (IMO) if you’re messing around on the perimeter of the board with Britain and the US. You have to be focused on the prize- to make Germany uncomfortable quickly, to take back Africa efficiently and get Germany’s economy under 40 as fast as possible, so that Russia can turn and deal with Japan when Britain and the US take over the fight against the Reich.
If you plan on doing things other than cleanse Africa and embed yourself in the north with the other allies, then by all means be defensive with Russia, and take W Russia/ Belo or just W Russia.
Neither.
You only ever need one destroyer in a navy for sub deterrence.
I’ve never bought a Battleship in a game that wasn’t already decided.
But if you put a gun to my head I’d buy the Battleship, because it’s an intimidating purchase :evil:
But if I’m serious it’d better be a Carrier and 8 Infantry.