I think the best strategy is to divide Germany. The U.K. can purchase enough units to invade the capital, but it would: 1. Take at least three rounds to build the force, 2. Come at the expense of Africa, 3. Rely on wise Russian and U.S. players.

Either way, you are going to experience massive casualties. You can take them in the form of infantry in the west, or fighters and bombers through the air.

-Strike that-, I am not looking at my map, but isn’t it true that the fourth fighter move from the U.K. would take either an aircraft carrier or violating neutrality in Switzerland? Either way, they’ll have to get past A.A. and survive battle at the expense of infantry, and remain sitting ducks if they land in Switzerland…OR…cost you way too many IPC’s for an aircraft carrier.

I suppose you could take Finland/Norway in R1, and use that as a base for your fighters, but that would preclude attack until R4.

Okay…suppose you scratch the fighter strategy & go “All-Bomber”. You blow 15 IPC/rd on a bomber and say…minus 3-5 IPC in Africa, you now have 11 IPC/rd to spend on one infantry & a transport (R1), three infantry (R2), and a transport and an armor (R3). Round four would be the attack round. You go in with four bombers, amphibious assault, (considering the BB survives), two armor, four infantry, (considering the Luftwaffe hasn’t taken out that “spare” transport), and two “throwaway fighters”. A nice force, indeed. Germany has their average six infantry, four armor, three fighters…or maybe not, thinking you are coming after W. Europe. Let’s compromise & say two fighters, one bomber and the all important A.A. guns.

This would be the best-case scenario. The best I might ever see. You’ll usually lose almost all of your sea units as the U.K. before you even purchase a unit, but if you have what you can consider a “navy” remaining after R1, it is feasable, but definitely not probable. If you are looking to “save time”…this probably is not the best way to do it, unless the German player is ignorant enough to leave his capital under-fortified amid a building U.K. force.

Summary: Possible, but not probable. Feasable, but not likely.

Yup Riker, I’m from the US and I think that there is either “fleet fear” or fleet envy" of Japan at the beginning of the game. Just seeing all the US income does something to their heads, I think. The Pacific is dominated by the Japanese, and the US players probably see a way to 1.) get into the combat quickly. 2.) support the Soviet Far East & re-establish Asian presence. or 3.) just pound the Japanese fleet.

I’m not sure why that seems to be the trend, but it is.

We used to give the newbie the United States and tell him to “let 'er rip!” If the Japanese player did not attack Hawaii, the newbie would always blow huge wads on the Pacific fleet. If the Japanese did attack Hawaii, the newbie would buy fistfuls of bombers & put a factory in Alaska. Little effort was ever made, without a little coaxing, to assist the UK or Russia.

It seems to be an epidemic amongst new players to see the Japanese fleet and use their economic weight to slam the Land of the Rising Sun. While this is effective, to an extent, the complications arise when all monies are spent in one area and all influence in Asia is lost.

A good G1 that wipes out all UK sea units leaves the Allies in the lurch in the Atlantic, and Africa in serious peril. An effective US player knows when to throw all his weight into one area, and when to divide and conquer.

After saying all that, I think that the US is still the easiest way to get a rookie some playing time. The economic freedom and relative separation leaves room for error. The downside is the same relative separation.

I can agree that if you want to “throw them into the fun”, Japan is the way to go. Japan is for the “type A” personality with a good sense of humor. The UK is for the intellectual, patient type. Their personality usually resembles pocket lint. Russia is for the middle-lower class 9-5er. He just goes to work every round and hopes not to get %*(#ed by bad luck. The US can be the “everyman” of the game, and Germany is for the angry.

I agree that no newbie should ever play Germany. I made that mistake 15 years ago, and I am still an angry, but wiser, man. I took one look at that compact, angry, fully-stocked, gray little country and just fell in love. I still think that I drive aggressively because of Germany. I have to reel myself in when I hear a British accent. I heard the words “heavy bombing” the other day and fell out of my chair. One of these days when I visit Moscow, I’m going to place one little gray tank in the middle of Red Square.

See what I mean? This should not be cast upon anyone who just wants to play a game.

Look up the word “resolve”. the IAAPA is wrong, as is the AAMC. I wrote a long retort, including definitions and clearly stated disparity of the rules. I was told that I had an “invalid session”. I do not have another half-hour to restate my viewpoints at this time, perhaps another.

First off… I apologize for being so hasty to reply with such a sharp retort. Your response was gracious and your stating of the facts was not incendiary or hyperbolic, in any fashion.

I do, however, have to re-state the ambiguity of the rulebook as it states the “resolution” of any battle.

I believe the only point of contention is the word “resolve”. Nowhere in the rules does it say the defender must remove, systematically units from the battleboard in any proscribed fashion, whatsoever. The word ‘resolve’ in and of itself is ambiguous at best, as it describes only a “separation or breakdown into constituent parts”, not an “end, decision or determination.” (substitute the word initiate for resolve to clarify my point)

I have seen the use of the International Rules, and cannot believe that any competitive body could subject themselves to such a starchy paradigm. As a matter of the English language, the previously stated rule only serves to mirror the sequence of rolls, in order to keep the continuity congruent.

In other words, let me ‘interpret the Bible’, here…lol.

3. Attacker fires. The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Notice the battle board is divided into 4 columns. Resolve combat in column 1 first, then column 2 and so on.

“Resolving” combat is a poor choice of words, due to the fact that there is no resolution of combat, as it pertains to both sides in a natural interpretive sense, except on the side of the attacker. I believe that when the rule later goes on to state…

Each time a hit is scored, the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line in the same column of the battle board.

…that this statement only refers to the unit’s defensive capabilities, but can lead to confusion as to what the order of removal should, or could be. To clear this linguistical nightmare up, I’ll restate it: “Move your defeated units below the line, in the column area they came from.” Otherwise interpreted, it would mean that the removed units must mirror the attacker’s units’ capabilities, which is impossible 99% of the time. Any other interpretation of a linear removal of units is a convoluded misinterpretation.

Again, in the fourth part of the “Land Combat” section, (Defender Fires), it mirrors the same “resolve” statement described earlier. In fact, the word “resolve” is often used as an end, decision or determination, when in this case it is only a separation, or breakdown, into constituent parts.

This ‘breakdown’ is only meant as an order by which the initiation of die rolling by either side is commenced! A “resolution”, in this case does not mean an end, decision or determination! Substitute the word “initiate” for the word “resolve”, and you will see what I mean.

I, again, re-state the rule quoted from pages 4 and 5 of the manual. These statements of fact are not clouded by language, double-talk, confusing rhetoric, or any other form of misunderstanding:

Scoring a hit means your opponent loses a unit. THE PLAYER SUFFERING THE HIT CHOOSES WHICH UNIT HE OR SHE WISHES TO LOSE!

There are NO qualifiers in that statement. There is nothing demarcating ANY proscribed ritual, rule, linear fashion, or other order FOR REMOVAL OF UNITS. As a matter of fact, there is NOWHERE, ANYWHERE, that describes the removal of units, except for the rules on pages 4 and 5. The other rules, on page 18, are easily confused by language. There is nowhere clearer than 4-5, to describe REMOVAL OF UNITS!

laststrike, again I apologize for jumping down your throat in my earlier post. This has been a point of contention amongst my friends as well, and I have argued this point to where it is almost an area of expertise for me. I just about took your well-written post as more confusing garbage in ‘professor-speak’…lol. When something is well written, it becomes more believable.

This is a confusing area for this game, and I had to pull out a dictionary AND a thesaurus to convince some very well-read compatriots! But, every time we read it, we come back to pages 4 and 5.

Thank you for your time.

-Gravy-

The premise of ‘anal defense’ is incorrect, as stated from the bottom-right corner of page 4 in the rulebook, to the upper-left column on page 5:

A. Put all units on the battle board on top of their matching shapes. Attacking units on one side; defending units on the other side. The number above the unit identifies that unit’s maximum attack or defense capability…which means that if you toss that number or less on a die, you score a hit against your opponent. Scoring a hit means that your opponent loses a unit. The player suffering the hit chooses which unit he or she wishes to lose!

The anal proposal of linear removal of units flies in the face of strategy. Resolving combat by column is not meant for sequence in the removal of units; it is meant to keep track of which units have taken part in battle. (with the noted exception of a submarine’s first strike)

Nowhere in the rule laststrike stated does it mention anything about the actual order of removal of units from the defender’s battleboard. The part about the “attacker always chooses which units will be casualties” is a misleading and ambiguous statement that is countered by pages 4 and 5, and also the line in the proposed rule on page 18, stated by laststrike: “the defender must choose one of his or her units as a casualty and must move it below the casualty line”.

If you are going to quote the rulebook, read the whole rulebook.

I bet my non-believer friends $50.00, ($25.00 each), that I could beat them three of three games with the Allies, having played Germany almost exclusively for 15 years now. I have played this game at least thirty times, winning only twice.

These guys, having enough expertise under their belts, both thought that “they could see the ‘mistakes’ I was making with Germany” and took the bait by allowing me to attack with Russia in round 1. (I must admit, that in the first game, Japan was a powerhouse, and I was lucky to have a UK ‘expert’ on my side. I had played the UK only once in all those years!)

The second game was almost a nightmare, as I actually attacked the Ukraine and Caucasus simultaneously, (in the third or fourth round), for what I thought would be a “quick six”, as I could withdraw my tank and just leave Germany without forces for the next round. Caucasus went fine, Ukraine did not. The lost forces, on top of a mathematical mistake wiped out Karelia for two rounds.

I got it back, I got lucky, I keep my fifty…whew!

The third game was almost as “by the book” as it gets. After losing Western Europe again, my buddy who ‘saw the mistakes I make with Germany’, actually said: “I guess that’s going to happen, huh?” No sh*t, Sherlock…I actually laughed out loud.

After the third game, and various strategies exhausted, I asked them if it felt like the movie “Wargames”, where the computer screams through all of the possible strategies, and finally quits…They blamed the losses on bad rolls in the first two games, but were relegated to my point of view only after forking over the ‘fiddy’.

The games varied, and navies were built and lost, factories wound up in India, S. Africa, Manchuria, Burma, China, Sinkaing, Alaska, E. Canada, and Brazil…don’t ask, freaking USA…lol. Africa was held by both Germany and the UK in different games, and Japan was always a load to deal with. The point is, there are as many ways to win with the Allies as there are ways to lose with the Axis, and RR is a must. We have not gone so far as to award super subs and jet power yet, but as I read earlier…one point at a time.

I would not lay down cash on games again, though. As I said before, I was one bad move from losing Russia. This is just how far I had to go after 15 years of being pummeled into submission in my little gray homeland.