Posts made by Ansbach

Are you guys playing online or am I missing something?

I still like to play without bidding online ocassionally, but I’ll only play as the Axis. Great way to sharpen the skills. I hope you are playing with RR at least! :o

Good luck and let us know how you do - some of us are stuck at work! ;) We need a play-by-play!

@TG:

Well it’s not 100%, but it is about 95% without Russia Restricted and probably about 80% with RR.

I sure hope not, as I’m playing the Axis right now! :wink:

I was assuming Eyeless was talking about without bidding…

@NewNewbie:

I’m a new A&A player and I wonder about the tech rolling. Is it worth the risk? What country shall/shall not take the risk? Can it really turn the tide of the war?

Thanks in advance for all your help

It’s probably not worth the risk unless you are deep into a stalemated game. The most common countries that go for it are Japan and the US. Most of the techs can be useful to the right country, but there are only two that can actually turn the tide of the war - Industrial Technology and Heavy Bombers. In fact, Heavy Bombers is close to an automatic win - there are a lot of custom rules to tone it down. And the other four are almost insignificant!

Many people play with a house rule of ‘no tech’ because of all this, but there are a lot of neat ‘custom tech’ rules that make the use of tech much better.

These aren’t perfect - they are a little overzealous and outdated - but they are still hands down the best collection of A&A strategy essays and will improve you play immensely if the ideas are new to you:

http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

It will be a lot of fun for you if you are the first person in your group to learn this stuff, because you will start whipping some serious butt, and then it will be your job to prove to your friends that the Allies can win almost every game. They won’t buy it at first and will keep wanting to try new ways to stop you! :)

One more warning: 95% of the ‘tips’ on this website are total crap! Many of them are jokes written to be funny by veteran players - other veteran players recognize the absurdness of them and ‘get the joke’, but inexperience players have no idea and think they are legitimate strategies.

Well it’s not 100%, but it is about 95% without Russia Restricted and probably about 80% with RR.

Everyone is skeptical about it at first and rightfully so - if two relatively inexperienced players are playing each other, the game is pretty balanced. But ‘certain Allied victory’ is an important concept that signifies the transition to advanced player, and from then on you will always play with rules that bolster the Axis. Here is the catch: the game is only unbalanced when the Allied player is experienced, and only when they use one specific strategy. Many players criticize Axis and Allies by saying that once you really learn how to play, it is the same game every time. This is mostly true for the early part of the game, say the first 5-8 turns or so, but advanced players find enjoyment in the more subtle aspects of the middle and end game.

There are several websites and posts in this forum with the the specifics of that strategy, but here are the basics:

1.) All 3 Allied countries concentrate on Germany and ignore Japan as much as possible. The goal is to defeat Germany before Japan defeats Russia. This is done by playing conservative and buying large amounts of infantry every turn. Time is on the Allies side.

2.) The UK and US build protected transport fleets that shuttle large amounts of infantry to Norway every turn. This infantry then travels to Karelia and puts overwhelming pressure on EE. Also, some can head east into Russia to help them defend Japan if needed.

3.) The Allies agressively kick Germany out of Africa so that Germany doesn’t have extra income to help defend themselves in Europe.

#2 is the key. Picture 5 US transports and 4 UK transports in the North Sea dropping off 18 Allied infantry into Norway every turn and you will get the idea. Karelia will never be in danger of falling, and it is only a matter of time before EE does. Also, this navy threatens WE, Germany proper, and EE every turn. This really forces Germany to spread itself thin. Also, keep in mind that the Allies have a 1-2-3 punch with the UK, US, and Russia all being able to attack the same German country in one turn.

Most A&A games are played with Russia Restricted and bidding for the Axis. You can find posts on bidding in this forum if you are unfamiliar with the process. If you want to simulate the most common bid, give Germany two extra infantry in Libya at the beginning of the game. This prevents #3 above, which in turn helps Germany gain the extra income it needs to defend itself until Japan takes Russia.

Also, it is very difficult to get an Axis economic victory against a good Allied player because they will be very aggresive in Africa - it is easier to take Russia with Japan.

@Wild2000:

I keep reading about all of this German troop movement to Africa and cannot help to say that it is way over rated. First of all, a couple of troops sent to Africa is okay.

The Axis win or lose the game based on what happens in Africa - kind of hard to overrate that. Sending troops to Africa is a little more than OK - if Germany doesn’t do it, they have ZERO chance of winning against a decent Allied player. The most important front line in the game is EE vs. Karelia - Germany has to hold out long enough to get help from Japan. The amount of extra German income from Africa is what makes the difference on that line.

Your post is good advice IF Germany sends too many troops to Africa. That’s a very big ‘if’ because if Germany doesn’t leave themselves weak in Europe, then you sure as hell better send some Allied troops to Africa ASAP or they will only get stronger! What’s more, as the Allied player you shouldn’t even allow that to be an option for Germany.

A good German player will be well aware of the danger of sending too many troops to Africa - if he even get’s the chance, which he usually won’t against a good Allied player. Your game is a good example of what you are warning against: A bid of 2-3 extra INF in Africa with RR is pretty standard - most players would consider that a fair game. If the German player lost WEu and EEu by turn 6 he either wasn’t very good or had an off game, and one of his mistakes was sending too many troops to Africa.

TG is closer to the mark - you should send 2 inf a turn as long as you can… which will only be 2 or 3 turns. If you have been buying enough infantry and have kept your planes alive, EE is only in real danger on R2 and R3 and isn’t seriously threatened again until much later in the game when there are significant Allied troops in Karelia. If the Allied player has made the mistake of leaving me with 2 transports, I will send 2 infantry and 1 tank as long as I need to. But I can’t remember the last time my Allied opponent left me with two transports for more than a turn at the most (if at all).

@Yanny:

My first turn buy as Germany is always 8 Infantry 1 Transport (assuming I didn’t buy one with bid). Works well for me. I can get enough troops in Africa to hold it for a long time, or until Japan can help out. Keeps Germany in the game against Russia longer.

Exactly. This is always my first turn buy as well, and it is for about 90% of my opponents, too - and if the Allies haven’t destroyed both transports by turn 3 or 4, they are in trouble. ;)

You don’t buy the extra transport to shuttle 4 infantry a turn to Africa - you buy it because there is a very strong chance that you’re going to lose your first transport on G2 against a good Allied player, and sending two infantry to Africa is not enough!

I guess my main point is this: If your German opponent has the opportunity to send too many troops to Africa, then you as the Allied player have made a tactical mistake, and it is only the poor play of your opponent that is letting you off the hook.

@Anonymous:

I personnaly think that the richest country in this game after two or three rounds is usually Japan. Unless there is an inexperienced player playing this country, they manage usually to take 6 more IPC quite easily. They take both China and Sinkiang and either India or Soviet Far East, then they go nagging Alaska or Australia. So normally at the end of the second turn they have about 31 IPC of production and the States 32 IPC.

If India is down, they can manage in one turn to build quite a naval stronghold and go bug about anybody, if they play more conservative on land. Also, with two or even three ICs onland, they may have quite an arsenal quite fast. So I personnaly think that the key to the victory for the axis come from Japan. Germany has to go very defensive until Japan come`s by.

Absolutely. Most experienced players would agree with all of this except that you don’t need two or three ICs on the mainland - one should be plenty. The majority of your effort should be in transporting large amounts of infantry onto the mainland every turn.

@Anonymous:

So when I play the american, I like to split my strike force: few transport to ship some men in Africa, and the other going to nag the Japs. Because if you`re not carefull, Japan can come very quick a very strong fighting machine.

The problem here is that you are using common sense! :)

It’s not that fighting Japan through the Pacific is bad, it’s just that it is more efficent to fight Japan through the Atlantic! That sounds crazy because it goes against history and common sense, but it is a case of the dynamics of the board game:

You can accomplish the same strategic goals by sending US troops to the Atlantic, with two important advantages: 1.) You can help defend Russia from Japan easier - Russia proper is only four moves away from the Eastern US(!), and 2.) your troops will concentrated and able to threaten both Germany and Japan, giving you much greater flexibility.

@newby:

@Ansbach:
which job for G-BB is better than sinkink UK-BB;AC and couple of TRN? protecting single TRN to inforce 2 inf per turn to Africa is not enough…

Which job is better? Protecting a single transport to inforce 2 infantry per turn to Africa is better. Every German infantry sent to Africa in the first few turns is worth it’s weight in gold!

I never do it - there’s no point, at least for my Japan strategy. The only advantage Mongolia has over Yakut is that it’s connected to Sinkang, but you can get your troops to Sink one turn faster going through Burma. I can see the advantage Yanny gets out of threatening Yakut and Novo at the same time, but if I’m stuck at Yakut I threaten Novo with troops in Sinkang instead - they are going that direction anyway… ;)

The point being if you are sending troops [Manchuria -> Yakut] and [Burma -> Sinkang] there is no reason to move into Mongolia.

Newby: Your Germany Turn 1 strategy is not that crazy. What is total suicide is you Germany Turn 2 plan of hitting the fleet again. The German battleship is probably the single most important piece Germany has at the beginning of the game, and it is the Allies #1 target. It is so important that no one will even mention how important it is because it’s a given that you won’t have it very long! :lol: Sending it to England is just making the Allies job easy. Losing your planes is just as bad - they are vital to the defense of Germany and you can’t afford to replace them.

Also, btw - the US transport can just move to the AZO sea zone on US1 and then the German navy can’t hit the North Sea. But I wouldn’t do that because I want to sucker you in to hitting the fleet.

The main problem is that you are only looking at the short term situation and not at the long term one. Think of Germany’s position in 5-10 turns, not in 1-2. Germany has to have the extra income from Africa to be able to survive. Germany has to have it’s airforce to defend against a 3-pronged attack from the Allies - it can’t afford to replace fighters.

Regarding Russia Restricted: Without RR, an experience Allied player can win about 95% of the time. Even with RR, the Allies can win about 80% of the time so you have to play with bidding, but that’s a whole new post… it’s not important to play RR if both sides are relatively new to the game, but you might want to start anyway so that everyone get used to playing that way.

The Germany Turn 1 move F_alk mentioned is a conservative move used to keep the German navy around for another turn. If Germany takes Gibraltar, then the Western Med. SZ (and German navy) is safe from UK fighters on UK1.

“If the british player decides to strengthen africa with his indian troops, well i don’t mind that, that only helps my japanese ally to waltz through.”

Japan might not mind it, but Germany certainly does! :(

Usually the game is won or lost in Africa - 9 times out of 10 a UK1 counterstrike in Africa is a better move than defending India on turn 1…
If I’m the Allies I want Germany out of Africa ASAP!

Just my 2 cents.

Usually Japan will take South Africa on J3 - the threat to Brazil forces the US to come back and lose two turns in Europe, so Brazil is not really an option unless the US ignores Japan. I am a HUGE advocate of ignoring Japan as much as possible, but this is one of the only situations where ignoring Japan is probably a bad move - they can really start causing the US some headaches because they will have the rest of the fleet coming around to back up the carrier and transports. The real threat to the Allied game with this end around is the large Japanese navy cruising the Atlantic very early in the game.

As the Allies, you counter this end around by making Japan pay - slow down their mainland offensive enough and you will win. That’s why you don’t want to try this end around if the UK is trenched in India.

On a grand strategy level, the whole purpose of this move is to slow down the US for a few turns at the expense of slowing down Japan for a few turns. So what can you do with the extra time you bought Germany to make it worthwhile? That is the whole ‘balancing act’ you must pull of in order to make this strategy effective. The primary benefit to the Axis boils down to significantly less Allied troops in Karelia in the early part of the game. There are two ways to take advantage of this: use the ‘freed up’ German resources to take Africa more convincingly, or to put extreme pressure on Karelia (or a mixture of both.)

I think one of the reasons this strategy isn’t used more often (besides the popularity of Indian factories) is not because of its ineffectiveness, but because of the level of difficulty in pulling it off. That is kind of contradiction too - if it’s more difficult to implement, then it’s less effective - right? ;)

Just defend the eastern front with all tanks and 4 inf from Germany.

That’s not enough to hold against Russia - they should have 16+ infantry and a few tanks and planes that can hit Germany on Russia’s second turn - you would loose all of your tanks and Germany’s game would be over in 5 turns.

@Yanny:

Wouldn’t you think it would panic the US more to threaten Brazil and set up an IC in South Africa?

I definitely agree, and what’s so great about the move is that 95% of the time the US is totally out of position to help with Brazil after US1, so they have to backtrack to defend or counter, then you just pop over to South Africa. You make the US defend Western US and Panama on US1, then defend Brazil on US2 - that’s the last thing the US wanted to be doing on their first two turns! Then on J3 you move completely out of their theatre of operations and are over securing Africa for the Axis!

If you ignore the overall strategy and just analyze this tactic on it’s own, it is awesome - a virtual no-lose tactic for Japan that gives the US all kinds of problems early. The problems with this tactic are the negative consequences that manifest in the overall strategy later in the game, and those problems tend to outweigh the early benefit you get from this Japan opening. Nothing beats an immediate concentration of Japanese infantry rushing towards Moscow.

But it’s excellent to use for a quick Axis win against a poor Allied opponent.

@eyeless_9mm:

how fast can a GOOD axis player beat the allies? (in turns)
how fast can a GOOD axis player beat the allies? (when the allies a good)

It is an extreme difference, as Yanny pointed out, and I would agree with him - less than 10 against a poor opponent, 30+ against a good opponent. It’s almost never in the middle - either you win quickly and easily or the game draws out into a long war of attrition. A good A&A player can beat a poor one very quickly. A few bad purchases or wrong moves in the first few turns and you will fall like a house of cards against a veteran player. But if you are playing another veteran player then the game will last a very long time.

Who do we tell that img isn’t working?

I think what you are refering to is a risky but sometimes very effective opening move by Japan. The most typical move is to send two loaded transports and the carrier to the POL sea zone on Japan 1. From there they threaten Western US, Panama, Australia, and New Zealand. Then on Japan 2 you can elect to move to the SCO sea zone, where you threaten Panama, Brazil, and South Africa.

This can really slow down the early US game, but at the cost of a slightly slower push on the mainland vs. Russia.

Be honest - you don’t really like Axis and Allies that much, do you… ;)

That is awesome!

@Lil’:

Yanni - could you please elaborate on this. If you attack the US navy, don’t you find that it makes it difficult for Japan to get rolling on mainland Asia? Because you would have to commit your transports to the sea battle as fodder, which makes them unavailable for a mainland inbvasion for J1 and J2.

Lil’ Tokyo, I always hit Hawaii but I never bring in a transport for fodder - I would rather lose a plane. I would rather have 4 extra infantry on the mainland in the first two turns than the additional firepower the plane brings - it is much easier to buy a replacement plane later and move it to the front lines in one turn than to try and push 2 waves of 2 infantry to the front line.