Switch, but limiting Japanese advance to only 1 major avenue it is a simpler situation to handle for Russia, or not?
I believed that using more than one lane of advance, may be more dangerous for the russian army.
The problem for russian is that Japan have air forces able to switch back and forth between the attacking lanes, focusing on the more needed territory (for this aiming Sinkiang is a critical territory)
As I said I face following UK attack moves:
After they concentrate AC and two TRN near Australia. UK Sub moves depends on the success of FIG against japanese SUB: if succesfull SUB goes in Solomon Sea, ready to attack Sz 60 otherwise, if Jap Sub submerge, the sub goes with the TRN reinforcing the fleet. The FIG on Sol Sea land on american AC in Pearl Harbour
Japan buying strategy, to face this UK strategy, has been previously advocated to be optimal if I buy 3 TRN and save 6 IPC and then on J2 buying an IC in FIC and the remaining as infantries.
Now it seems that if a UK sub lurks in Solomon sea, I have to buy at least a DD and a TRN for Sea zone 6, and I agree, but this move, even if increases Japan fleet potentiality, might slow down assault on Asia mainland or not?
Maybe should be at least 1 DD and 2 TRN, saving 2? Or 1 DD 2 TRN and 2 Tank?
@ncscswitch:
There is no one single always winning strat in Revised.
And this is a beautiful think! What I am trying to do is: avoid using a flawed strategy thinking it may be good, and trying to fix it! :-D
What you said is one of the reason I like A&A. Every one may came out with his own strategy, there are two important things, however, it should be a reasonable strategy and he should be able to make it works (that it is not an obvious thing).
I completely agree with you Crazy Ivan! I am not saying that we do not use bidding because we are more smart. The problem is that only in the last few months I have been able to assemble a stable group of A&A players (previously I played casual game with a collegue that had changed work and city and after a long pause I restarted to play from April).
So we are still exploring the old opening moves. I know that I am a green player compared to most of you, and that my question and problem seem older and already resolved to you. Some question of my may also be obvious or stupid, but for now are the question that I may ask related to the problem I have.
You have my word that as soon as possible I have intention to use bidding system.
How many times Axis won in our games? In the last 10 games played Axis won 3 times.
But, as I have discovered reading the threads on this forum, we are not making the optimal moves with Allies (ok also with Axis we are not doing the optimal moves, so this is the reason of my interest in the forum!)
Said this, when I play Japan, I usually build 3 TRN and 2 INF first turn. How did gone the game? Quite good for Japan, invaded Africa, make distrubance attack in Alaska, conquested Moscow. But Berlin fall in UK following turn, because my German buddy have lost Baltic fleet and leaved open Eastern Europe and after weakened Berlin defense to counterattack. Leaved alone with Japan after some turn of friction battle in Europe, I realized I cannot win against UK and US and conceded the game.
Thanks to this thread I have switched first turn buying to 3 TRN and save 6 IPC. Then on J2 to build a IC in FIC and buying INF in Japan. And I am going to test it this week end. To you this may seem archeologic A&A strategy, I know. But this are my problem.
I still do not feel ready for convention or for Triple A ladder, maybe between some other months!
@Crazy:
I love the way some of these threads morphe. J1 turns into a B1 and then a USA1.
I’d like to get back to the J1 though.
Also I love this thread-morphing!
As I said in our games we do not use bidding, so we can not test your ideas! :-(
If I can say my opinion, the TRN in east indies fleet is powerful boost for Japan opening move!
IC on J4? I have read somewhere that an IC in J2 is also useful for Japan.
Pardon me switch but… what it means “nursemaiding”?
Ok, I agree, I am only referring to the first three turns. Whit allies I alway try to have two task force composed by 1 AC, 2 Fig, 1-2 DD and several TRN (at minimum) prior to separate UK and US Fleets. But you are right for sure!
In fact, saying maximum number of IPC in INF should mean that I intend tol spend about 24-30 IPC per turn on INF, and the remaining in FIG and Panzers.
The building of the AC on sz5 seemed to be not a good move as it appeared to me, many discussion on this forum pointed to the weakness of such tactics.
In our games German Batlic Fleet used as “Fleet in Being” (Another concept from Mahan) has always scared the UK player giving to Germany more tranquillity.
But I am trying to alter my strategy for Germany in one more land based.
I will come back with reasults and impressions as soon as possible. Week end is coming… and we planned two days of A&A playing.
Ok now I understood!!! Thanks!
The key is to have both UK and US fleet always togheter in the same sea zone, to minimize chance to be attacked by German airforce, and then leaving UK troops to fight in Africa while US troops go to Norway, regrouping fleets again in sz6. Thanks Jennifer! It is a very effective coordination of movements! What seemed strange to me was the fact that US troops land in Algeria on US1 and then embark for Norway in US2, but now all is clear!
I know, naturally, that without cheating it is impossible for US troops to hit Norway on US1, and this is the reason that in our games we have never landed US troops in Norway on US1. :-)
I do not want to seem dumb, but, only to better understand, I was persuaded that US fleet transported 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, and 1 Armour from EUS in Algeria on US1. So to have them in Norway I should embark them, again, and then transport them in Norway, offloading from SZ6.
TRN and units build in US1, may hit norway in US3, not before, if I do not miss.
As I said before I have no map at hands, right now.
Las Vegas would be more intersting, maybe! :mrgreen:
Yeah, but moving USA fleet from sz12 to sz6 do not allow to transport land unit (other than the units in Algeria landed in US1). Other US unit in US2 are in North America.
I agree with you that landing so many unit in Algeria will stop more effectively African occupation than an IC in SA, but it will cost units and tempo.
Moreover I believe that USSR fleet (a single sub really) may not reach sz12 on R1 i f I do not miss( right now I have not the map in front of me)
What is Japan going to do with an IC in South Africa???
Nothing of particularly useful but… it simply can not be leaved in UK hand! :-D
That said, switch is absolutely correct about Germany being a land power. A&A is a land centric game. The navy exists only to move land units around or prevent land units from landing. By that reasoning, you should only have just enough navy to move your land units around as you wish. Which is why I usually have some transports in the Baltic to aid in shuttling German Infantry to Leningrad. Their aided defense of Berlin is secondary.
In fact in my next games with German I am going to spend the maximum number of IPC in infantry!
I also agree with you that resources from territories that lays on the other shore of the sea must be transported by merchant ship in homeland to be used and that in A&A this aspect is completely overlooked.
But I will continue to play A&A and I am willing to learn as much as possible about it!
In a typical 9 VC game, which VC are most often the Axis targets and in what order?
Obvious !!! :-D
Ok, when plane retreat from a battle they are, ideally, removed from the battle board and placed in the territory on the map where tha battle is fought.
(If you do not use the battle board leave the plane where they are, simply consider that they are not in the battle from the next round on)
In the non combat move you must land those plane in place where it is legal to do that: territories that you own from the start of the turn or seazone in wich a carrier is present.
If they win the battle… well… it is the same thing! :-D They stay in the contested territory after the battle is resolved, and land in the non combat move.
In both case the planes may be treated independently and moved, individually, to a legal destination that they may reach.
For Historical A&A I have only downloaded the material, I have never printed it! :-D
As I said I have had difficult times to convince my friends to play standard A&A historical may be too much for them!!! :oops:
You are right, I mentioned the Marginal Victory Condition, that has been introduce in Larry Harris Tournament Rules, and was so called Marginal to differentiate from Minor.
Really in the latest version of those rules, LHTR 2.0, the Victory condition has been reduce to only two:
Standard Game (recommended for tournament play) 9 Victory City Controlled
World Domination Game 12 Victory City Controlled
We normally play with the rules from the game (OOB = Out of Box rules) but use the 9 city Victory Condition, so you may use the standard game rules but play with the 9 city victory condition. It has been introduced in LHTR because the Minor Victory condition (8 city) is flawed, and cannot be fixed!
Say the japs have a bomber on midway. 1 move to enter the surrounding sea, 2 to enter west US seazone, 3 to enter west US and attack, 4 back into west US seazone, 5 back to midway seazone, and 6 to land on midway? Or am I screwing that up somehow.
You are completely correct here, you counted correctly every territories and sea zone you crosses. I continue to think that you are working well with plane rules! :-D
Regarding Historical A&A I do not know of the esistence of components that may be bought, I know only of the material that may be downloaded and then printed. Maybe someone else on this forum may be more precise than me. :?
SlipShot762, at me seems that your problem is not of the kind of objectives or the victory condition. Your problem is that your friend do not want to spend more than 2 or 3 hours in playing A&A.
As I said also I have had the same problem, and I resolved cultivating in them the passion for the game. How? Playing with the Marginal Victory Condition (9 cities) so there are no flaw in the game Victory Condition, but fixing the time for the end of the game.
By that time, if no side have the control of 9 Victory, you may use a predefined method to assess the winner, (the most IPC controlled, or the IPC gained, or the total value of IPC controlled (territories + units IPC value)), in tournament Games there are a way to asses the winner basing on the control of a certain number of key territories, that provide victory points.
Regarding Blitz, as stated in the rules, you may blitz trough an unoccupied territory, conquer it, and then finish your move in another territory, that may be:
Moreover, you may blitz only during combat move.
Thanks can move up to two territories even if they are not blitzing. For example a panzer from Germany may participate in the attack on Leningrad in G1. Another example, in G1 non combat move, is a panzer from France that moves across Germany to reach Eastern Europe.
Regarding Germany first turn (G1) fighters, all six of them and the bomber can reach Leningrad legally. So you are working well with plane rules, in my opinion. The problem is that German fighters are needed also elsewhere on G1!
I have a curiosity. Why the last release of LHTR is labelled 2.0? :?
Prior to download and read them I expected important changing in the rule, given the fact that major version number is changed.
At first reading it seems to me that they have only minor difference from the preceding 1.3. (But I could have read too much rapidly :-D not seeing important changes). Apparently in LHTR the major release number and the minor release number are inverted.
I do not want to criticize, I would like only to better understand the use of versioning (major number and minor number) in labelling the releases of the LHTR.
Regarding the rules itself, they are great!
I like very much the changes made to the NA, and also the other detailed specifications and examples. The rules are explained well and clearly.
The elimination of German artillery NA (from a gaming point of view is very interesting the research NA that replaced it) and USA Superfortress NA (using the preceding rule that requires two dices for each bomber was too much time consuming) are two things that I take part in.
Regarding that last USA NA, does it means that TRN and SS cost 7, DD 11, AC 15, BB 23, FIG 9, Bomber 14? Or do I misunderstand the rule?
In my games usually it turns out that Japan is small potatoes compared to Germany. Germany wins the war, Japan just makes things difficult for the Allies. This has been proven by our play when Japan has been totally abandoned by the Allies and all efforts have focused on Germany.
Do not underestimate Japan contribution to final victory. German is the anvil and Japan is the hammer to crush Russia! :evil:
As you also said Japan has to do some important task on J1: destroy USA fleet at Pearl Harbour, and conquer Buratyia and China.
As for the J1 buying I buy 3 TRN and save 6 IPC and then Buy the IC on J2 placing it in FIC. Several posts on this forum advocated this buying, I have tested it and it works very well for me.
Buying the IC on first turn with a bomber leaves Japan without INF for at least three whole turn, in this case Germany had really to win the war alone.
Buying three TRN, from J2 turn and subsequent Japan starts to land 8 INF on Asia every turn, and also builds other 3 land units in FIC. Normally on J3 or J4 another IC may be build, and everithing else may be thrown to Russia.
Meanwhile Imperial Navy may conquer Australia and New Zealand, and then invade Africa, damaging very much the UK economy.
Without this help from Japan, Germany alone is doomed and cannot win the war alone, repeated UK/US landing in Norway and then Western Europe will first stop German surge and then deafeat her.
Jennifer, i normally prefere to use all my fleets to lands units in Norway, and going to drop units in Algeria on UK1 and US1 leave my US fleet out of position for invading Norway on UK2/US2. So I prefer to build the IC and start to send troops in Norway on UK1 and US2, leaving at the IC in SA the role to contest Africa. Later, when I have some TRN to spare I sent a force to Algeria to kick off completely Germany from Africa.
Naturally this may be effective only in our games, because Germany normally ignore Africa and use Mediterranean fleet to harass russia, performing landings in Ukraina or dropping an INF in Caucasus to exploit the bombard every turn. Also for this reason UK/US are more focused on sending as soon as possible troops in Norway and then in Russia.
The problem is… when Japan come to claim Africa and gets a free IC in SA! :oops:
So for the future it can be useful to swith to your strategy. How do you organize the fleet movements when you send troop in Algeria in Uk1/US1?? :?
My friends dont have the patience to play for more than minor victory and it seems a guaranteed axis win unless the axis players are dumb.
I have had your same problem! Try saying them that the minor Victory condition has been emendated by the Marginal Victory Condition, with 9 cities!
Or, more preferable, play with the Minor Victory Condition using OOB NA. I know that they are unbalanced favoring the allies but the important thing is to play! Maybe your friends will became more involved in the games after same matches and you may propose them the Marginal Victory Condition (9 cities) that is a fully different matter!
Even my friends, once sceptics, have begun to appreciate A&A played with Marginal Victory Condition (9 cities). So do not overwhelm them with long game session, and be content to play for less time, your objective is to cultivate in them the passion for the game.
Good Luck!