Meh, I thought Shogun and Fortress had interesting mechanics and were pretty revolutionary for their times. Conquest of the Empire on the other hand, was a poor poor excuse for a game. It was OK in theory, but good god was it ever playtested?!
For A&A, yep, I introduced 2 new people to it this weekend (we played AA50). Hopefully I’ll be able to drag them into AAG soon ;)
Yeah, it seems kinda weird, but from what I recall, Stalin wasnt planning on attacking Germany until at least 42 and possibly not even then if things didnt look favorable.
I’m pretty sure there will be NO incentives for Germany to want to attack (at least I hope so! :) )
Just wish more people would be like Gravy and post those strategies rather than just saying they exist.
Given the variety of openings in this game it’s pretty hard to post any concrete strategies that dont get replied to with ‘Nuh-uh, my fleet would have killed yours, my army would have occupied your capital, and I would have a colony on the moon before you can stop me’. ;)
The variety is great for playing the game (it feels FAR less scripted than most A&A) but it makes it harder for meaningful strategy discussions IMO.
I’m kind of confused. Some people have posted saying that WOTC wanted the old battle strip in return for the new one, while others said that sending an email was enough. I’ve sent the email and have been added to the list, but I just want to be sure that is all I need to do.
And
So they required the old strip be returned as proof of payment?
Apparently they dont have their procedure straight. Some people are being told to send it in and others are not. Here is the email response I received:
_Thank you for providing the information we requested. However, it’s important to know that the incorrect Battle Strips are the proof of purchase for the extra pieces we are sending out. (I’m sorry, we should have told you this in the first email). Therefore, please send us your Battle strip to:
Wizards of the Coast
Attn: Product Replacement
P.O. Box 707
Renton, WA 98057-0707
Once we receive it, we’ll be able to send out your correct Battle Strip and extra Tactical Bombers. We appreciate your patience and cooperation in this matter._
Honestly I think they just need to make a frickin’ policy about how they want it done and stick to it…
As the US, I look at it as a target of opportunity. If Japan leaves it open, I’ll take it. If not, I’ll bypass it and use Australia.
The thing about the Carolines is that it isnt a whole lot of use to Japan early on, but it is serious pain if the US has it. It allows 1-turn access to many critical locations and that alone makes it worth defending with Japan. But it’s a convenience for the US, not a necessity so it’s not worth taking heavy losses over. I just count it as one more place that Japan has to keep a decent force to discourage the attack which further spreads Japan out.
So in short, the Carolines are not a vital strategic target, but they are a gateway for other critical targets. Take it if you can, but keep in mind that there are other ways to those same targets if it’s too well defended.
I just got a reply from WotC saying that they DID want the ‘defective’ battlestrip sent in since it would be ‘proof of purchase’….What a pain, especially since it looks like I’ll be snowed in for the forseeable future. :/
Well again, as I mentioned above, I seriously doubt there IS a way to stop it if Japan wants India. The idea would be to come up with US/ANZAC strats that make Japan pay for that heavy of a commitment of assets that far West. Without seeing in it action, I can’t really offer too much other than generalities. I do think that is it ends up costing Japan anywhere NEAR around 10 planes, it’s not worth it, particularly if it’s occupying the bulk of her TR assets in the early turns as well.
Edit: If Japan lands their air force in Kwangsi, Uk may need to move up their airforce and the AA gun as well. The only problem with this being that now bombers could potentially make strategic bombing raids on India. In this event you have to prioritize, a round of lost income vs India falling.
No, factories have their own inherent AA guns now (which makes SBR even weaker). You can safely move the gun out without costing yourself anything on that front.
I think like most of the other strats I’ve seen so far, if Japan WANTS to take ‘x’ or ‘y’ badly enough, she has the power to do so (especially if she is willing to trade planes out). The real question is the opportunity cost of throwing all those planes into battle in India. How does that impact operations in China? Is the US free and clear to take Truk (and then become a menace within a turn or two)? Have the ANZAC’s been hit at all? Are they collecting their 15 IPC and able to throw raids at the DEI?
Without seeing the long-term play out, it’s hard to see if it’s a cost effective strategy or not. I admit at first brush, it sure seems powerful, but I’m not sure if the loss of India means the loss of the game as long as the other Allies are moving quickly. Japan’s income will be pretty high after taking India, but will she be able to replace the losses she suffers taking it? I guess a lot could depend on those AA rolls too, but Japan should plan on losing 2 planes going in + any that she takes as casualties to keep the assault going. I’m not sure that’s superior to a slower grind but I guess we’ll see eventually. :)
I think a big part of defending against any strat is accurately predicting if it’s coming or not. If Britain sees the tell-tale signs of it incoming, can she take any form of counter-measure that at least runs the cost up (ie, maybe building a DD to soak-off the shelling?).
Let the US, Anzac and British fleets merge around Australia which should happen if the allies want to keep them alive.
That is a major mistake for the Allies IMO. Even together, all they can do is defend and that accomplishes nothing. I think the Allies need to spread out and take advantage of their turn structure, not group up where they can’t act.
I do launch the counter-attack as long as I’ve taken out at least 1 unit when Japan attacked originally. If not, then I tend to not counter-attack.
But what to do with China largely depends on when Japan kicks off the war against the other Allies. In general I think its folly to try and create ‘hardpoints’ with China. Japan has too much airpower and can slaughter the Chinee wholesale that way. Instead, I prefer to fall back and snipe at small Japanese ground forces. Japan is critically short on ground troops and even shorter at the point of attack. If you can snip off one or two a turn in counter attacks Japan will eventually lose steam without a major commitment of resources (which can cost them in the DEI race).
I think it’s an impractical move. I dont see how it can be done early enough without accepting a horrible trade ratio of forces. Japan can stall this strategy by picketing with DDs and if she has planes anywhere near the coast, all of them can arrive in Japan at moment’s notice to benefit from the scramble rules. Can you force the Japanese to redeploy a portion of their fleet and air force? Sure, but to what gain? Even half to 2/3 of the starting force (augmented by builds) can stand off the US fleet with little issue. And the remaining portion is still more than enough to seal off the Brits and take the DEI.
Now MAYBE if you’ve already whittled down the Japanese fleet a bit and you have some sort of southern force as well, this could be used to draw the Japanese and allow a counter-attack in the DEI to succeed. But as a general strategy? No, I dont think it fulfills the role of pressuring Japan since it threatens no longer-term effect.
I posted the original question on CAs. ;) Up to that point, I had never found them useful. But as a shelling option in low-intensity fighting they seem to be OK.
The goal for the conveyor belt is to have one loaded carrier with support ships in each of 4 locations.
Carriers are nice, but not even required for this strategy to succeed. In fact, in some ways I think the US is better off with more light forces and yes, even some CAs. As I posted elsewhere, a pretty good US ‘standard’ build is 2 DDs, 2 SSs, 1 CA, 1 TRs, 1 Inf, 1 Art for 54 IPCs. This gives good flexibility for attack, defense, and island raiding as well as potential to hit convoys and act as blockers.
Cost for cost:
1 CV + 1 Tac + 1 Fighter = 37 IPCs for 4 hits, 7 attack points, and 9 defense points. But note that you cant even use the CV to soak up hits unless you have friendly base nearby (which is not always possible when ‘raiding’).
For 3 IPCs more you can have the 2 DDs, 2 SS, 1 CA for 5 hits, 11 attack points, and 9 defense points. You also have 1 shelling option to support invasions and far more convoy hitting potential as scattering ability. The downside is that you lose some of the flexibility of playing games with LBA basing and you are restricted to naval bases to retain a 3 space strike range.
That is not to say that CVs dont have their role, but honestly I like having the ships for sea threat and the planes available for LBA duty.
The idea behind the CAs is that they offer the ability to magnify the strength of invasion forces. If Japan has 2 Inf garrisoning an island, they can feel pretty comfortable about holding out against a single Allied TR attack (either a 3/1 or a 2/2). Japan has odds in that battle and as the Allies, you are relying on luck to succeed (a long-term plan for failure IMO). But if there is a CA or two floating around, that threat potential goes up. NOW a 2 unit garrison is NOT sufficient in most cases. Yes, the Japanese COULD get lucky and hit twice and prevent the invasion but that is about an 11% shot…not something I want to rely on. In addition, the CAs just add to the headache because they run decent odds of hitting attacking units (50% more effective than DDs). So if a CA-led invasion hits an extra enemy defender and draws a heavier resposne from the counter-attacking forces then it’s more han made up it’s +4 IPC cost over a DD IMO.
Again, it’s all about escalating threat against Japan. The more places Japan is threatened, the more places she has to spread out to defend or suffer the consequences. A few CAs simply increase that threat at a relatively cheap cost.
And for everyone else, the “bad” moves are not bad. I dont know how that term got started. They’re merely risky. And they’re really only risky in that you’re losing your transport. The men and equipment will reach their destination. And bear in mind the strategy as a whole is not random. It’s coordinated chaos designed to provide a lot of allied flexibility.
I originally referred to them as ‘bad moves’ in my post. That came from a few early games where we had multiple players on the Allied side. When it was the Brit and Anzac turn, they’d often do something ineffective and when I asked them why they weren’t being more aggressive they’d reply “I can’t see any good moves to make…Japan can just squash me” to which I replied “fine, then make some bad moves and together we’ll add it all up to be a good move for us as a whole”. That spurred them into action and we started to see this strategy take shape. And again, it’s not a ‘strategy’ in terms of planning on hitting ‘x’ objective with ‘y’ forces. Instead, it’s more of a mindset that the Allies have to adopt in that some times various Allies have to ‘take one for the team’ in order to allow the other Allies to succeed.
Though isn’t it also fair to say that alot of the success of that strategy of employing so-called “bad” moves against the Japanese presupposes a Japanese player that is willing to bite? If you have a focused Japanese player gunning for the objectives he needs to win, wouldnt it seem that an effective counter would be to just ignore the nusiance bad moves, however tempting they may be, and simply carry on, full steam, with whatever overall strategy they plan to use?
I guess my only point is - while I agree with what Uncle Joe says and have seen similar strategies work for the Allies - I can also see how a focused Japanese player can avoid the pitfall of over extending himself by simply not responding to an Allied strategy of “bad moves.”
It takes a certain kind of Japanese player to really fall into the trap of responding to every Allied incursion - and Im just not certain you’ll always get that player. Its a calculated risk I suppose.
But like so many “strategies” for this game, it really does depend on the game at hand.
Yes and no. The goal is to present the Japanese player with two unpalatable options. You aren’t necessarily relying on them to make ‘mistakes’ or to ‘bite on’ a trap for this to work. Either of those certainly helps, but the main idea is to spread them out OR force them to have a weaker econ and less stable front via incursions onto critical areas.
Obviously if both (or all) players are playing ‘perfect’ games without mistakes then the results can and should be determined by the dice…there is nothing else to do it. But I find it hard to imagine playing a ‘mistake-free’ TURN let alone GAME of A&AP40. And a mistake doesn’t have to be an ‘oops, that was dumb’, it could be more in the form of not sending quite enough into battle ‘x’ to get the job done properly or on the opposite spectrum, perhaps a ‘mistake’ might take the form of overcommiting to a battle and being out of position on a future turn.
But in any case if you present a LOT of different targets and intrusions, you greatly magnify the potential for the enemy to deploy incorrectly. For my part, I tend to err on the side of caution (sometimes to a fault) since I refuse to rely on ‘luck’ or on ‘decent odds’. I want to ensure I win my battles and often have to send along a little more than SHOULD be necessary. I’ve seen too many games lost due to a single critical battle where the attacker skimps to stretch elsewhere and it comes back to bite them in the end.
FWIW, I consider Infantry/Tank sort of overkill. Infantry/Art is more economical for similar punch. For tanks you are paying for the mobility which will rarely be used in the Pacific (unless you land in FIC or something). An Infantry/Tank combo attacks at ‘4’ total and takes 2 hits for 9 IPCs. Inf/Art also attacks at ‘4’, but only costs 7 IPCs. Granted you are a little more fragile with the Inf/Art but I think that is worth the ~30% cost break.
Again, I think things are tight enough economically that if Japan has the disposable income to blow 30 IPCs on an IC in Malaya, then chances are the Allies have already lost their shot at winning. The Allies have to keep the pressure on Japan early on and a 30 IPC splurge on J3 or so should be a luxury they can’t afford IMO.
The problem is troops and transport shortages. Yes, leaving all of the islands ungarrisoned is a recipe for disaster but it’s tough to have enough combat power to leave some on each critical island and still have enough to push into India/China in time.
I’m one that usually strips the islands bare and uses those troops for attack, but that can be costly if you cant hold the Allies out of the area….
Yes and the scramble ability is one reason I to build the airbase on the Solomons instead of New Guinea.
Wait, you mean the Japanese want to try and build an AF on Guadalcanal and the US want’s to prevent that? Wow, it sounds quite a bit like what really happened. ;)
As I said in another post, I really get the feeling that the designers put a lot of effort into encouraging players to follow at least some parts of the historical goals and strategies actually used in WW2.