Posts made by EvenkiNatlOkrug

@CWO:

The rulebooks in some of the early A&A games (I can’t remember which ones off the top of my head) included brief descriptions of each power’s strengths and weaknesses and of its general situation, followed by statement like “If you’re the kind of player who prefers such-and-such a thing, consider playing this country.”  Those were handy to new players, and they were a bit along the lines of what EvenkiNatlOkrug says about his own system for helping players decide which power fits their particular style.

If my memory serves, Larry’s summation about Germany was: “If you want to be the center of attention, consider playing Germany.”   :-)

Yep, this is actually where I got the idea. It’s in the rulebook from Revised. I’m not sure about all of them, but if you wanted a balanced game, you should play UK and if you wanted a big land war, you should play USSR.

@axis_roll:

So does this mean that Russia doesn’t have long term, large scale planning of it’s IPCs and forces?

I guess I would like a better understanding of how characterizing the countries helps to make me play those countries better when I play a game.

I agree with most of what CWO says - strategy is the overall plan for the war while tactics describe how you fight the actual combat. For example, a major strategic decision for the US would be to focus on Germany/Europe rather than Japan/Pacific, while a major tactical decision would be landing in Northwestern Europe rather than France. Another example would be deciding to use a battleship to clear a sea zone rather than conducting offshore bombardment.

Russia does have long-term planning decisions to make, but they have fewer grand strategic options. They essentially have to commit the majority of their resources to fighting Germany on the Eastern Front. However, because of the large number of territories involved in this front, and large number of units, they have a lot of tactical flexibility. They can choose which cities to focus on defending, where to mount counterattacks, where to concentrate armor, etc.

The USA has many more strategic decisions to make (Japan or Germany, Europe or Africa, Central Pacific vs. Southern Pacific, etc.), but is more tactically confined because they start with a low number of territories and units.

All of the countries have both strategic and tactical decisions to make, but they each have more of one or the other.

I doubt my characterization is going to help anyone play any better - I think the main point is help players divide up/determine what country to play. If you’ve found that you enjoy or are better at the smaller-scale, tactical decisions, you would probably like playing Russia more. If you like the larger-scale, strategic decisions, you would probably like playing the US more.

@axis_roll:

My points are regarding '41 Scenario, since that is the most commonly played (from my experience)

You’ve classified Russia as a large military.  Yet, they start with only 1 tank and they do not even have a plane.

Something to consider regarding military size is order of play.  Russia being second makes up for this small number of non-infantry units.  I guess you can take your discussion one step further, breaking the ‘military’ might into offensive/defensive for further ‘general characterization’ of each country.

True - I mainly use the military characterization for a final tie-breaker, and order of play definitely makes a difference. However, I think the USSR is the most tactical power no matter what size the military is, so it’s not as important for them.

@Admiral:

And of course… Are you ballin’ out of control with mad chedda? Tanks! Got your enemy on the ropes and want to display your hubris? TANKS! Go for it! You da man!/woman!

True that.

I think it’s pretty clear that, in order to be effective, tanks
A) need to be combined with a stack of other unit types
B) have to be adequately protected from counter attacks

I’m mainly wondering if there’s any statistical (or even anecdotal) reasoning for how many tanks you should have, especially for the big Western Front battles. I’ve played a couple games but I don’t think I’ve ever had more than 3 tanks at one time in a battle.

@Baron:

I would place Japan third while Germany in fourth position according to your criterias.
Japan have more strategic options than Germany.

I think you can definitely make the argument either way here, and it also depends on which scenario you are playing.

I agree that Japan technically has more strategic options, but in my experience with Japan, it’s almost imperative that Japan takes China on J1 or J2 and as many of the valuable Pacific islands as possible. They could immediately attack Russia, move against India, or against the US, but I think it is much more important that they eliminate China and raise their IPC count as fast as possible.

Germany does need to attack Russia, but can make decisions on which Russian VC to take first. They can also determine their level of involvement in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and whether to attack the UK.

I’ve always been intrigued by how the powers are assigned to each player at the beginning of the game. Revised had a chart in the rulebook that explained each power’s strengths and weaknesses, but it’s not really a topic that I’ve seen much written on other than discussing which is the easiest or hardest for a new player to start with.

One way to look at it is whether you want to be a tactician or a strategist - probably both. But which country is best for you? I’ve considered two ways to classify the powers based on their starting geographical position: “centralization” and “localization.”

Centralization: How concentrated is your IPC production? Is it centered on a small number of higher-value territories, or is spread out?

The main advantage of high centralization is that you have a high degree of strategic freedom, as you have a relatively secure base of operations and don’t necessarily need to to focus on one specific area. The disadvantage is that you have a low degree of tactical freedom because you can’t afford to lose many of your starting TTs (i.e. a power that is not centralized can adopt a “bend but not break” defensive attitude and choose what TTs to lose, while a centralized one has limited options for giving up territory).

Localization: How geographically close are your IPC production centers?

The main advantage of being very localized is that you have higher tactical freedom because your units are typically all near each other and can easily reinforce each other. The disadvantage of localization is obviously lower strategic freedom because you have a limited number of fronts/theaters in which you can participate.

I would say Germany and the US (and Italy) are centralized and localized. Their production is centered in 3-4 relatively high-value TTs that are all near each other.

The USSR is also localized, with all of its starting TTs contiguous, but is pretty decentralized, with much of its production spread out among a high number of TTs (this is even more pronounced in AAE40).

The UK is the opposite - it’s centralized, but delocalized. It has a presence all over the map and a high number of TTs, but with primary production centered in 3-4 territories.

Japan is the fourth option - decentralized and delocalized (especially in the 42 scenario). It controls a relatively large number of medium value TTs that are relatively distant from each other.

Based on this, someone who is more of a tactician would probably want to be the Russians, who are primarily confined to one theater but have a lot of tactical options there, whereas a strategist would favor the British, who can participate in almost every theater but with limited options in each one.

The other countries are a little harder to classify, as they each have strategic and tactical leanings. However, if you consider the starting units as well as geography, you can classify them better. The US has a very small military at the beginning of the game, limiting its tactical options and forcing it to make major strategic decisions early in the game (Europe or Pacific, naval or air, etc.). Germany, on the other hand, has a much larger military and (arguably) fewer strategic decisions (they essentially must attack Russia). I would classify Italy the same way.

Japan is probably the hardest to classify. The delocalization gives it strategic freedom while the decentralization gives it lots of tactical options. But because it has an overpoweringly large military at the beginning, I think it’s more of a tactical power.

So, for those of you who made it through this post, and with apologies to Italy, here’s how I would rank the powers from most strategic (1) to most tactical (5).

1. UK: centralized, delocalized, small military
2. USA: centralized, localized, small military
3. Germany: centralized, localized, large military
4. Japan: decentralized, delocalized, large military
5. USSR: decentralized, localized, large military

Obviously this is oversimplified, but it seems to give a relatively easy way to compare each country. Any thoughts?

In my experience, it depends on what is going on in Russia. It’s difficult to attack India until Russia is eliminated or at least pushed back to Ukraine/Moscow.

I think the ideal situation for the Turks is to take the southern Russian TTs (Sevastopol, Romania, etc.) while Austria and Germany handle the heavy lifting against Russia. That gives them enough money to pose a serious threat to India or, at the very least, prevent a classic Allied KTF strategy.

As for actually taking India, I’m not sure that’s always worth it. I think the Turkish role is simply to survive and divert as many Allied units as possible while Germany actually “wins” the game for the CPs. If you can simply force the British to continually build units in India and maintain a stalemate in the Middle East, Turkey has done its job and Germany/Austria can take it from there.

Recently tried out some of these suggestions in a game, and it turned into a pretty convincing Axis victory.

My takeaways:

1. Taking Moscow was more important than Leningrad or Stalingrad. Germany pretty much ignored the southern half of the Eastern Front and just played defense in Bulgaria/Romania.

2. It’s pretty essential that Japan takes out China completely in the first turn, which allows Japan to focus land forces on Russia and India.

@CWO:

@EvenkiNatlOkrug:

A VC in South Africa could mean more Japanese and British involvement in the Indian or South Atlantic Ocean, and also prevent a large chunk of the map being relatively empty.

Madagascar might not rate having a VC, but it could potentially be a house rule National Objective for both the Allies and Japan.

I would agree - anything to make that theater more interesting would help.

My other idea was to potentially have Dakar (French West Africa) or Brazzaville (French Equatorial Africa) as a VC. This might be more applicable to Europe 1940, but Dakar was a significant objective for the Free French, and Brazzaville was their “capital” for a couple of years. The British made a significant attempt (Battle of Dakar) to take it from the Vichy forces.

I like the idea of additional VCs, especially for creating more strategic options.

Rather than, or perhaps in addition to Cairo, I’ve always thought it would be interesting to add a VC in South Africa, perhaps Cape Town or Joburg. I think it would make the African theater more interesting, instead of just a major battle in Egypt followed by an Italian tank blitzing through sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt is going to be a focus of action either way (whether it’s a VC or not). A VC in South Africa could mean more Japanese and British involvement in the Indian or South Atlantic Ocean, and also prevent a large chunk of the map being relatively empty.

Ok, thanks for the clarification - looks like we missed that in the rules.

One follow-up question: can any power collapse on any turn?

Obviously, in this scenario France has the next turn so it wouldn’t make a difference, but could France collapse during Russia’s turn?

Playing a game of 1914 and an interesting question came up…

Germany controls Picardy, Lorraine, and Burgundy, and has large stacks on Burgundy and Picardy.

France controls Paris, Bordeaux, Marseilles, and Brest, and has a large stack (~20 inftry) on Paris, but few other units. Hoping to prevent a collapse, Britain has reinforced Brest and Italy has reinforced Marseilles, but there are only 2 infantry on Marseilles and 3 on Brest.

My question is, at what point during the combat phase does a political collapse occur? I know the rules say “immediately,” but I’m wondering if that creates an unintentional advantage for the attacker.

For instance, in this case, Germany can easily overpower the Allied units in Marseilles and Brest, taking control of those TTs for a total of 10 IPCs and forcing a French political collapse. However, they most likely do not have enough to take Paris.

What Germany could do is simply move a single infantry into Paris and use the rest of their units to take Brest and Marseilles. If those two battles are resolved first, they force the collapse and thus the removal of all French units from the board. That means that they’ve sidestepped a large French stack in Paris and taken the capital, previously defended by over 20 units, with a single infantry.

Is this the correct implementation of the rule?

@Flashman:

On the other hand Britain can usually afford a tank stack while France can rarely do more than replace basic units to hold the line.

That’s true - I was just using that as an example of coordinated multi-national attacks. A better example may be an attack by Britain on German-occupied Belgium, followed by the US coming in with primarily infantry to mop up and defend Belgium against a counterattack. Both nations could afford tanks, but in this case Britain would have significantly more use for them.

In my experience attacking the UK is an expensive and risky endeavor in any version of the game, but if you’ve eliminated Russia than Germany should have a pretty big economic advantage.

My advice would be to build warships and transports in Europe while helping Japan to eliminate remaining British territories in Africa/Asia. Eventually you’ll have a large enough economic disparity that you can attack the UK directly. How much support is the US sending to Europe?

@shadowguidex:

@ColonelKurtz:

Every single time I have bought tanks, I regretted it.
Bought them for offense, but got counterattacked and they were wiped out defending in place.
I do not advise buying tanks.

If a counterattack so easily wiped out your stacks, then your initial attack was a bad idea. Attack to win, not for mutuallyou assured destruction. No harm in delaying or even retreating one zone until you have the advantage.

If a tank saves one infantry it has paid for itself.  If it saves two then it ishould an advantage.  Infantry will still be your primary unit, but three tanks out of 30 units can be awesome.

I would say that there are uses for mutually assured destruction attacks, especially for the Allies. With a large economic advantage, and with time on their side, it can be worth attacking the CPs with the sole purpose of destroying units as opposed to taking or holding territories. For France it could be useful as a delaying action if you’re waiting for the arrival of British/American reinforcements. Or it could be used by France or Britain to soften up Germany for Britain/US later in the round.

In the second scenario, I think tanks would be useful for the first attacker. For example, if the Allies were attacking a German-occupied Belgium, France would attack first with the goal of simply destroying as many German units as possible, and Britain would follow up primarily infantry to mop up the Germans and occupy/hold the territory. Tanks would be helpful for France but a waste of money for Britain.

Interesting - that makes sense. I think I’ve usually seen Japan play in more of their Classic/Revised role, in which they serve more of a “distraction” - diverting American and British focus from Germany while Germany takes on Russia.

That means that Japan has focused on the islands, Australia, Hawaii, etc, expanding slowly in China, and leaving India and Russia for later in the game. Basically they leave mainland Asia alone until it’s too late. Seems like a better idea is to prioritize China and India immediately like you say - thanks for the input.

Hi everyone,

Just got this game and I’ve only played through a few rounds in a 4 player game (unfortunately without checking the FAQ/Errata first, which caused some interesting US2 and US3 moves).

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the optimal ratio of infantry/arty/armor builds, primarily for the CPs? It seems that it’s essential to buy enough fighters to ensure that you get air superiority, and that tanks are exponentially more useful when you have a lot of them, but past that I’m not sure what the best force is for attacking.

I know in past A&A versions it was pretty commonly accepted that a infantry/tank combination was superior to any force containing artillery with the exception of a few specific situations, but with the new unit costs and attack values in 1914 I’m not sure.

I’m sure there’s statistical analysis you could do, but haven’t really gotten around to that yet.

Hmm - based on your that, I’m wondering if my Axis losses are more due to not being aggressive enough with Japan. Seems that the majority opinion on the forum is that the OOB game favors the Axis, primarily due to Japan becoming a monster in the early going.

So the overall idea is limited offensives by Germany with a focus on holding out long enough for Japan to take Moscow? Does this mean Japan should focus on Siberia and/or China on J1?

We usually play the 1941 scenario, and Japan often focuses on some combination of Philippines, Hong Kong, and the high-value UK islands on J1, with India and/or Hawaii on J2. I also often see a UK IC in India on UK1.

Interesting - seems unique compared to most versions, in that Germany is the “minor” Axis player while Japan does the majority of the attacking and “wins” the game for the Axis.

I agree that a lot depends on the first 1 or 2 turns for Germany. In my experience, barring very lucky dice, it’s unlikely that Germany will ever take Stalingrad or Moscow. They may take Leningrad but will probably not be able to hold it.

What are your thoughts on German/Italian naval builds? Is it worth it for the sake of holding off UK/US landings in Morocco/France?

Hi everyone,

Long time casual player, mostly Classic, Revised, and Anniversary, and a little Europe and 1914. Love the forum - first time poster.

Anyway, it may be mostly my inexperience, but it seems in both the 1941 and 1942 scenarios I always see Germany losing pretty quickly. It seems that almost every game goes the same way: Japan gets very powerful (India, Australia, etc.) and pushes all the way to Russia, but Germany makes almost no progress and eventually falls and Italy is not far behind.

Typically the German strategy is to push for one of the Russian VCs, either Stalingrad or Leningrad. If they go for Stalingrad, the general Axis strat is a “Meet in Persia.”

However, it seems that Russia always can counter Germany relatively easy, or at least not lose anything too important until the US/UK show up in Europe. It seems Germany almost never is successful in this game.

Would you say it’s a better idea to push for Leningrad? or Moscow? or am I missing something completely?