Posts made by Squash

Good point Jen, 'cept that the war and the game are different. So let’s work out when the game is set. If you don’t want to sort through the technicalities, just scroll to my conclusion.

Russia has been involved, that started in June 1941, so it’s definately after 1939, but more importantly America has been involved, and everything in Pearl Harbor has been wiped out except subs and carriers. So that was December 1941. Now Algeria is still German, and that was invaded by the US in November 1942, so it had to be before that. Now, Japan invaded the Soloman islands in January 1942, which are Japanese on the gameboard, so it had to be after that. Now the American and Filipino forces didn’t surrended until April 1942. Now, Guadalcanal fell to the Japanese in early July, 1942, and I doubt you could say the Solomans were Japanese held before then. I know that the obvious objection to going past June 1942 is, “well that was after Midway, what was our fleet still doing at Pearl?”, yeah, that’s true, but if you look off the US West Coast, you’ll see ships, suggesting several months of war production following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So what we’ve established is, before November 1942, after April 1942. Let’s get more technical. Diplomacy. Brazil declared war on Germany in what I remember was mid August. As far as I can think of, those are the only fairly non-subjective events in that timeframe, meaning unless someone else can find a clarification marker (that wont be clouded by say, gameplay considerations, such as military numbers, production numbers, or ambiguous Eastern European/Atlantic territories), the game begins between August and November 1942. So in your game terms, let’s say fall.

Now we’ve got another problem: the war wasn’t that long. If every turn was a season, then the war would be over in like turn 3. (do the math if you want to, I just don’t feel like it). What if each turn was a month? For history minded people you could start R1 in August, and for the game oriented gamers, you could start R1 in July to make it easier. To clarify, I’m an Aussie, I use the wet and dry, so maybe my January - February - March system of spring (and the others following suit) is wrong, adjust for that.

So what about unit bonuses? That’s hard. Seasonally combat would be less influential in say, North Africa and the Pacific, but very influential in Red territories. I’ll leave the bonuses to someone else, just wanted to help out.

Conclusion: The game is set between August and November, 1942.

Huh, I like you. You used whatever in an A&A forum, and you like chinese food, both awesome. Good observations, and compelling example, but not the point. This is a semi-goofy thread for fun, and the point is to generalize. Yeah, for an individual game, the territorial importance depends on the strategies employed, but I’m not talking about individual games, I’m talking about the wider game of Axis and Allies in general. And I’m asking you: the players. Which are most important to you? Again, in GENERAL.

I don’t think Germany would focus largely on taking Norway. If Germany attacks Norway, they’ll of course win, because of the awesome power of the Germany airforce. But when it comes to the British counter-attack, it’ll be the exact opposite, because fo the grand power fo the British airforce. If it turns into an aggressive trading war, in which Germany, and the Western powers trade off Norway every turn, that means the Allies are winning, because those are ground forces not fighting the Russians. And I doubt Germany is going to use its bomber to strat bomb a target worth 3 IPCs. Yes, transports will soak damage for the American fleet, but it’s all in degrees. We’re talking about two transports, two hits, vs. having either a Northern European trap for Germany, or a logistical paradise, in which America can send three tanks a turn to the Eastern front, a front otherwise devoid of anything but American aircraft. If Russia is in the lurch, it’ll immediately help, if your fleet gets unlucky, it’ll lessen the blow, and after a few turns of deploying tanks, you’ll have a number of tanks at your disposal, to be backed up by your airforce, possibly also in Nroway, not a weak force, even on the Eastern front.

I’d rather have three tanks than a bomber.

I’m not positive, but I think Jennifer just threw in with the “yay ofr Norway IC crowd”. Awesome. I’m going to try it next game, the question becomes though:  What will Britain attack in turn 1 now?

Good point Jen, I really should have put them in there. They can neutralize Japan should the Allies control them, and gives Japan awesome projection power over the region with alot of transports. My pick however was SZ15, as I think, although not the most influential to one or two players, it’s the only seazone that will actually influence everyone. Even Japan will be interested in what goes on there.

Someone actually voted for Norway, I’d really love to hear the reasoning for this. I mean yeah I think it’s valuable, but the most important? Very interesting…

After the most important territory one, I got curious about this. After the two polls, I’m gonna have a third, “what is the most important area?” question, comparing the two winners. Here’s some explanations for my picks.

1. SZ15: This seemed like the most obvious choice, it’s a major focus for Germany in the first turn, and in many games Britain fights tooth and nail to control the Suez, just to pass fleets through SZ15, in either direction. Controlling it means dominance of the region for whoever has it.

2. SZ35: One of the hardest decisions in Britain’s first turn is what to do with the fleet in this seazone, and it can be incredibly influential in deciding the outcome of the early game. If Japan wipes out the fleet here, India is potentially gone that turn, almost definately the turn after. The British fleet will sometimes connect with the one off Australia, or if the Suez is by some miracle still open (it happens), make a dash for SZ15, moving a regionally weak pacific fleet into the Mediteranean, giving Britain the most powerful Atlantic Navy.

3. SZ5: Germany’s crucial Seazone, what it does with its fleet can decide how soon Western Allied intervention hits European shores. a Weak defence of ships here can mean a grizzly end at the hand of British airpower, whereas an overly zealous offense can dwindle your forces early, and open the way for Allied dominance of the Atlantic.

4. SZ52: Not only is it a crucial first turn (yet ‘mostly’ indisputed) move to wipe out the US fleet at Pearl, but it’s an important staging ground for an American counter attack. And American pacific buildup. Or a Japanese aggressive defence, or even in rare occasions, assault on the Western US.

5. Here’s the underdog of my poll. I picked it because it’s logistically useful for Japan to control, and more useful for the US. It’s a pivot point that can access any Japanese held zone in the pacific, and is the only entrance to the Philipines, a valuable victory city which is practically impossible to recapture in most situations.

6. I really expect this one to be picked the most, because there are so many Seazones in the game, and I only touched on a few.

So, I thought this one would be interesting. It’s pretty self explanatory, I’ll give a quick run down on why I chose those nine, some i took more seriously than others.

Caucasus: it’s worth four points, has an IC on it, is an often necessary steppign stone for Germany, and links the Middle East and Asia to Russia’s doorstep. This one was a no brainer.

Anglo-Egypt: It seems to be an incredibly pivotal territory in first turn moves, although I noticed there isn’t much focus on that in subsequent turns, for better or worse for either side. Very interesting.

Western Europe: C’mon, it’s Western Europe, it’s easy to trap Germany resources here pointlessly, and is a major stepping stone for the US especially. Overall a crucial territory. Also worth alot.

4. India: My personal pick, Britain can really hold Japan’s expansion by making a stand in India, and if JApan gets ahold of it, can mean the end of Africa.

5. French Indo-China: Japan’s launching point into India, point of support towards Sinkiang and North Eastern Russia, and the amphibious jumpoff point for Japanese naval advances towards Africa and Australia. Overall a very popular place for a Japanese IC, and very useful for an offensive Japan.

6. Australia: I didn’t think this one was that important, and I don’t get why it’s so valuable to Britain, or Japan, though I do recognize with 3 infantry stacked there it’s hard for Japan to logistically take the island and make it worth it. Why it’s a good pick, I dunno, but some people on the boards seem pretty zealous about it, so okay.

7. Norway: I like this one, it’s Britain’s first step into Europe, it’s a great place for Germany to dump off planes, and it’s a safe money grab for Russia should Britain fall. It’s the only German territory (outside of Africa) that can probably be taken without fear of counter attack. And as recently discussed, I think a US IC here would be devestating to Germany.

8. Algeria: Another not-so-hot pick, but important none the less, America’s first stepping stone to Africa, and subsequently Germany, and valuable Allied airbase if used correctly (for say… bombing), and possibly a point of strong German defence.

9. Southern Europe: I don’t like this pick much, but it seems too important a territory not to mention. I just think that when Southern Europe falls the game is over anyway. Up to you.

10. Gibralter: Uhhh… Well you can land Allied planes on it in a pinch… And it frustrates the Germans, and may tie up German assets if they decide to capture it… If you put an Allied Anti-Aircraft gun on it you can strategically bomb German factories… I dunno what I’m talking about, I just think Gibralter is funny on principle.

11. Throw something at me!

Well I for one think that’s a great idea, I’ve never thought of it before, and in a close, long game, I think it’d be a great advantage, especially to Russia. It’s practically impossible for Germany to retake, or keep from Britain, and it’s got no real advantage to being taken by Germany. It’s an IC which is very useful for the allies, but almost useless for the Axis. Ingenius.

Dude, that’s hilarious.

Wow, I had a really different first experience. We had a group of 5 people raring to go, but we had to wait till the weekend. We’d already pre-decided the teams, and my teammate and I (I was Japan, he was Axis) stayed up for hours the night before the match planning out our strategy. We searched the rules, and set up the board and played out a mock run of the first turn. It’s scary how close to forum convention we came actually. Our first turn strategy was “Kill the allied navy.” and we basically succeeded. We were all lousy at logistics, being a first game, but the Axis had the ships already, so we had a clear advantage. Axis took over every Allied capitol. In terms of mistakes, I think we only make one big one. We didn’t know there were already fighters on the carriers at the beginning of round 1. WOOOOOOOPS! Mostly screwed me in hindsight, but that’s okay.

I think it depends on the build, and the fun of britain having third turn instead of second, is you (as germany) don’t know what they’ll do. I know alot of people who use an IC + bomber first turn UK buy, and others who use a two-IC strat. Both of those would get scrapped by a strat bombing.

Hey all, yeah, I’m still alive, fun huh? So this weekend, I’ve organized a game of A&A with 5 other members of the military history department, (btw, advice on the best way to play with 6 players would be nice, obviously two separate games, but how would each work?) and this seems like the perfect time to attempt a sociological experiment. Will they feel compelled to follow the example of history? Will the Axis players realize their historical shortcomings and seek a different path to victory? Will it prove that social scientists are incapable of rational, logistical thought? Or will it just be a usual old cut-throat game of A&A? Choose now, and I’ll post the winning result after the game(s). (and seriously, 6 players, wtf?)

I think that strat bombing London on turn 1 (and only turn 1) should be given some serious thought. Even depleting the UK of $1 can seriously distrupt their plans, and may mean the difference between an IC somewhere, or a transport.

well, back on topic, your build would work for any kind of GFP for sure. My build is usually very different though. My first turn build for Britain is almost always, 1 factory, 1 transport, 1 infantry and 1 artillery. If the japense transport is taken out I put the factory in India and focus my game on that territory, if not, then I put it in South Africa.

Doesn’t anyone else see the irony of talking about using low luck dice’s, because good or bad luck could ruin a game… And the unrealisms in the game, in the same conversation? Take Midway for example, that was an incredibly close, unbalanced, and purely lucky thing.

Huh, Jennifer, I like those ideas, I don’t really understand why the first one should be like that, but I like the second idea alot. Very representative of the war’s actual end with Germany’s rocket program. Perhaps a great addition to any kind of free for all house rules.

I’m fairly certain the answer is a yes, the logic being that seazones are big enough, and ships are small enough, that avoiding the battle is possible

It’s absolutely winnable, actually I personally think in a world domination game the allies have an advantage, seeing the difficulty in an American invasion. As for strategies, nothing specific, as they are too numerous and too specific, but just practice some Western logistics, getting British and American troops into Europe for instance.