Posts made by Whackamatt

Looking for anybody. lol.  I have every version of A & A, some of which I have yet to actually play.  :|

Gwlachmai and I have a game going right in the forum and I am Japan, I’ve made at least one major oversight which he/she capitalized but as I am Japan it still looks good for me at teh moment, as it’s turn 4 and I’ve captured Ind and most of Asia and there is and was NOTHING more he could have done to stop it.  So… no bid means your typicaly losing with the Allies.

I have some questions though, Whitmann, as taking India, and even China is not a game winner.

So you’ve taken India by turn 4.  And?  The Allies don’t have to stop it to still win.

After the necessary number of turns needed to take India & China, America has had more income than Japan on every turn, and the opportunity to buy stuff.  What has America done?

With so much IPCs spent against the UK, I’d imagine you’ve bought practically nothing in terms of navy.

Wouldn’t America have a comparable navy by the time India falls?  Plus they still have a similar sized income.  How do you plan on taking Australia or Hawaii from under such a massive fleet?

Did America squander it all?
What has Australia done since your focus has been on India?

My experience with the game so far is that Japan starts with enough units that there is nothing the Allies can do to stop either an Australian or India crush move.  Heck, there’s even a 40ish % chance they can take America.

However, the balance comes into play in that even if they take any of the three capitals, they haven’t won the game, it’s about VSs now.  In one game where Japan crushed India, America was able to remove the Japanese fleet and they couldn’t recover, eventually losing all island territories, and America landing in Korea.

Even in one crazy game where Japan won against America in an experimental game, the UK player had taken all of the DEI, liberated China, and taken all Japanese territories on the mainland.  The UK had more income than Japan, and a similar sized navy by the time Japan started to swing back West from America.  They couldn’t retake those VCs on the mainland and lost.

bigdog, I understand the contain Japan aspect, but what in this strategy is putting pressure on Germany?  And have you encountered a G1 naval build in this scenario?

If Germany buys a carrier and cruiser, you’re facing a loaded carrier, 2 cruisers, sub and transport, supported buy planes and bombers in France and Norway.  The UK will start with 1 tranny and a cruiser, possibly another destroyer.  If Russia moves units into China, that helps out Germany.  I don’t see how it would be possible to buy 2+ transports in the first two turns and still be able to counter that German navy.

Germany will get one NO, and the UK will lose 8 production to Japan in the first round, so the incomes of Germany and the UK will flip flop.  It will be difficult for the UK to put any kind of pressure on Germany in the near future, giving Germany time to press into Russia.

I think cruisers are an excellent piece and add flexibility and fun to buying; it is no longer an all or nothing (BB vs DD).  It’s a mid range with trade offs.

They are very useful if you find yourself bombarding a lot, or have amphibious assaults as a part of your strategy.  Buying crusiers instead of battleships will give you more offshore shots for your IPC.  If you had 60 IPCs, the firepower of offshore shots would be 15 to 12 in favor of the cruiser.  But it’s still more than just that, you’d have more ships with which to bombard, allowing for multiple targets per turn.

While the piece has its uses, as with most units, it is highly dependent on what your opponents have and buy.  Some games cruisers might be worth it, while other strategies would require the battleship.

Throw in personal preferences to the mix and the cruiser won’t be for everyone.  There’s no right answer, really.  I simply prefer to keep all options open to give myself maximum flexibility when playing an opponent.

It’s possible to take Italy first to spice things up, but France confers a bonus to both the UK and US players where taking Italy dose not.

In the 1942 Scenario, I’ve used the 3 starting US bombers to give Italy fits.  :evil:

Figured it out.  So you take Australia and then go for India?  What do you buy with your Major complex?  I mean, you’re still splitting money against the UK and the US.  Do you go for armor, or a slow infantry push wich would leave you with more money to throw against the US?

There are two things that Japan must consider:  Not only when to attack, but which victory cities to go for.  In my groups games, Japan had a mindset of Anniversary or Revised edition, where you think that the removal of an Allied player wins you the game.  This is no longer the case!

In Game 1, Japan crushed the UK and China, but had no follow up plan to get the last and crucial victory city.  American out maneuvered them and their mainland gains slowly unraveled.

In Game 2, Japan focused on crushing Australia.  They got a foothold on J1 in Western Australia, and on Turn 2 had landed most of its planes there with more transports.  Sure ANZAC was thoroughly crushed, but they were never able to beat down UK and eventually America overtook them.

Both times Japan didn’t have that second bit of planning, where they consider which victory cities will win them the game.  You have to have this in mind from the outset, or else you’ll find yourself out of position and lose.  On Game 2, Japan was collecting 72 IPCs, but had squandered its starting navy and was facing a combined UK/China assault that had regained all of the starting Chinese territories.

So what victory cities do you focus on?  I assume Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Manila will be taken, which leaves 4 left.

So which do you find it better to focus on?  Calcutta and then Sydney, a mostly avoid America plan?  Do you go for Calcutta and Honolulu, leaving ANZAC to do whatever?  Is leaving the UK player alone viable at all, going instead for Honolulu and Sydney?

Sure, Japan taking America is the longshot, but I believe it has more of a chance then people think it does. I’m just hashing out a new idea here, so please don’t kill me.

There are several things that work in Japans favor when trying for a J4 sacking of America.  Japan moves in for the strike on Turn 3 but doesn’t attack, stopping at SZ9.

1.  People usually don’t expect it.  The best defense against an amphibious assault is to have more units then your opponent can bring with trannies.  If America is not expecting it, they won’t spend their first couple of rounds on all tanks or infantry, but instead on carriers or subs.

2.  You never give America the added wartime economy until it’s too late to help them.

3.  The delayed attack allows Japan to bring extra transports.

The total attacking force I have come up with is
8 Infantry
6 Artillery
2 Tanks
3 Fighters
3 Tac Bombers

The resistance comes down to what America buys in their 3 rounds of purchasing at 17 IPCs, and how they move their existing forces.  The strategy hinges on if America sees it coming.  The less they spend on ground units, the better.

Turn 1
Japan feints away from America.  Take the Caroline fleet and combine it with the Japanese fleet around Formosa (SZ20).  It looks as if Japan is consolidating for a push against India. 
Japan buys 3 Transports.

At this point the US player would not suspect an assault, and most likely build up its navy or airforce.

Turn 2
Japan moves its consolidated fleet back to Japan and buys 2 more transports (for a total of 8), and artillery and a tank to fill them up.

The hope is that the US still believes the fleet is going towards Hawaii or south to the Philippines or Caroline Islands and continues with its naval build.  Seeing the combined Japanese navy may frighten America into buildings carriers or destroyers instead of infantry.

Turn 3, the whole fleet moves out to SZ 9.  It’s just one space from America, so no blocking destroyer movement will stop next turn’s assault.  If America has moved enough away towards Hawaii or purchased mostly navy, no single turn buy will swing the assault to their favor.

If America still has their entire starting airforce (except for the Philippines) within 1 turn of America, then an all infantry buy will bring them up to about a 50/50 chance of survival.  Not good odds, but perhaps fun to try.

If America buys all Fighters and uses the Hawaiian Fighters and carrier planes to land on America, they still have only a 44% chance of survival.  Buying infantry, however, really turns the tables.

I guess one plus would be the ability to break away into other strategies.  If you see an all land unit buy on turns 1 & 2, you can simply move south towards whatever you like.

If you see too many land units placed by Turn 3, you can take Alaska, British Columbia, possibly move south to take Hawaii or crush any American Navy.

It’s one of the lowest chances for success, but it sounds like fun!  A great move to try against a newb that won’t see it coming.

I don’t think this move would have worked had the US player been paying attention.  With the Japense in Alaska and with a large transport buy, why were they not anticapating an invasion?  And since Japan attacked on turn 1, that gives the US 55 or so to buy a counter.

5 Fighters?  Why not 9 or 10 tanks?  Combined with 5 Infantry from a first round buy and the starting planes, and I don’t think Japan has much of a chance.

I think a Japanese attack could work if alterned.  I’ve been toying with the idea of a J4 attack.  This gives Japan more buying power through 3 turns.  Japan waits to leave on turn 3 and sails into SZ1, but doesn’t attack.  You’re forecasting your move, but not giving the US any added income.  Sure, they’ll be at war on J4, but the fleet is just 1 space away and can’t be destroyer blocked.

All that said, there are things called “House Rules”.  Please don’t try and change the streamlined rules for all of us because you like the extra complications.

If Japan had some troops in FIC or Korea or Novo (fanatay anyone?  ) and China had enough force to kill them, you can bet your pants China would attack, it’s a war after all, even if a three sides war (KMT vs Mao vs Japan).

Riiiight.  And which side would attack?  You don’t think that if the Nationalist or Communist Chinese over-extended themselves to attack Japan for little gain that the other party wouldn’t stab them in the back for their efforts?

If you want simulate chinese civil war there are other ways: the reduced income China has is a way (no way in real life of Japan outproducing China in terms of manpower as does in A&A).

But it’s not just manpower.  A unit of Infantry in the game does not simulate X number of troops.  It represents trained, armed, and equipped soldiers.  Yes, China had the bigger population, but trained armed, and fighting troops?

Other option is rolling after combat move is done: if China attacks out of China (or moves in NCM) roll one die, with a 6 China don’t attacks due civil war. Other option is split chinese income in two (commies and KMT), make a new maoist sculpt and don’t let commies and KMT mix … and delete the fantasy ACME wall

Neither of your proposed rules would add any fun to the game.  As stated, the current rules are elegant enough to get the point across without overly complicated methods such as rolling a die after each combat.

It’s not elegant, in fact is the worst rule made in any A&A game. China is not well represented in any A&A game and ACME wall is just the opposite way the things should go

Really?  The worst rule ever?  To date it is the best representation of China and Chinese forces without undue complications that detract from the game.  It’s much better than in Classic or Revised where China was owned by America and America would funnel all of its income into factories it created there.

I didn’t really consider Italy in the equation, as they’re a minor player.  They can be effective, to be sure, but what can they really do.  If the Allies focus on Germany and take it, Italy most likely won’t be able to do anything about it.  However, if the Allies take Italy, Germany stands a better chance of having enough units and production take Italy back.

If we lump Germany and Italy together, my point should stand that it is easier for the Allies to take Europe than it is to take out Japan.  :-)

I agree with the Legend.  If you want to counter a preceived G1 naval build (as Germany hasn’t gone yet), then it’s a good risk, one that could pay off.

Sure, on an individual basis it isn’t very healthy for the Russian player, but collectively it could be a good move.  That’s all assuming UK & US are going after Germany and want to build up a sizeable fleet.

My play group has always flipped to see which scenario, and randomizes who is what country.  Unless there’s a newb in the group; they get Italy.  :-D

Here is the assessment of AA50 from my play group.

1.  Russia is still the weakest link in the Allied chain.  It is land locked with Germany, starts with the least production, and is the hardest for the allies to reinforce.  Most games come down to the take Germany before Russia falls category.

2.  Germany has the most accessible capital for the Allies.  Thus many games depend on Germany holding out against a combined assault until Japan gets it in gear.  The purchasing of a German navy allows them to hold of any France landings for an extra couple of turns, and if the US and UK don’t work together to counter it, it may be what gives the Axis the victory.

3.  While Japan can become a monster, the Axis will still fail without a clear cut plan of attack (ie which Capital they are going for.)  We’ve seen Japan collecting 60+ IPCs and still lose because Germany fell and they weren’t in position to take Russia.  Japan must threaten SOMETHING for the Axis to win.

4.  A UK factory in India is feasible, but will most likely require backup from Russia through Caucasus via Tanks.  May be more trouble than its worth, as it pulls resources from Russia and the UK, without having enough production to counter Japan’s 8 placements.

5.  Italy should always be cautious, as both the UK or USA can annihilate their starting navy if caught out of position.  Sacrificing its fleet for any short term NO gain is folly.  Italy should focus on taking out Egypt, a hard to reinforce spot for the Allies, and take the time to do it with ample force.

6.  The American player is the most likely to become distracted by a high income and waffle on the chosen strategy.  Pick a theatre and stick it to ‘em.  Sending in your starting navy to Morocco Algeria on Turn 1 usually sees the loss of said fleet.  Take the time to amass a sizeable fleet before moving in either direction; Russia will not fall in the first few turns, so slow it down.

So when you do a J2 or J3 attack on Hawaii, how do you back up the Chinese mainland?  Do you use minor factories, or transport some troops to the mainland for a turn or two before you attack and then let them be?

And how much of a problem does the UK fleet around India become?  Do you break off something small just for them, or are you willing to sacrifice planes?  With two transports Japan would have to be careful not to let them get somewhere vital.  Or will UK be too wrapped up with China to even think about moving stuff out of India.

So looking at the incomes for both sides, Japan is only down by 28 Production to begin with, and considering the size advantage they start out with in terms of Total Unit Vaule, they can stand to wait and better position themselves rather than pull the trigger prematurely.

Would building a couple of small factories offset the lack of mainland presence?  Once Japan’s increases, it would be easy to put 3 Infantry and 3 Tanks on the mailand per turn.  Combined with their airforce and they could slowly grind away to India.  Any left over money could go towards holding off America.

Wow, somebody is not used to thinking, or allowing others to work out their ideas on these boards.  I looked over the first several pages and decided to just post again.  If these kinds of posts are getting “old” for you, then please stop replying to them.

[cit]First off, you would send a sub to kill the transport at Pearl, else your getting a US scramble and loosing a bomber.[/cit]

That is a good point.  A sub would be better suited for the free kill.

[cit]Secondly, you will not be getting all of the DEI area on J2 as the UK can move 2 boats to SZ 37 & 42 to block off Sum, which just happens to be in range of 6 allied planes that can land on it turn 1, up to 7 more on turn 2 (not saying they should, just saying they could).[/cit]

But I landed many Bombers and Fighters on Kwangsi.  The Bombers destroy the lone boat in 42, and the Fighters take out the lone boat in 37, allowing my transports free access to whatever.

And as you point out, the UK could land planes on Sumatra instead of reinforcing China, but doesn’t that help my mainland invasion? 
If they do concentrate planes on Sumatra, then I suppose I could turn more of my attention to that island.  I do have three transports and a small navy in the area, and those 7 Fighters are from two different nations, so their attacking power isn’t as great.

[cit]Third, you best be getting a mainland factory on J2 unless you want china to stay alive for a good long time.  And you best hope the UK player doesn’t help china by stacking the daylights out of Yunnan on UK2.[/cit]

And?  Why wouldn’t I get a mainland factory?  Sorry for not pointing out the obvious there.  If the UK player “stacked the daylights” out of Yunnan, then that means Malaya is Infantry free, no?  If they try to keep infantry on both, then I’d hardly call that “stacking the daylights” out of Yunnan.

[cit]Fourth, and the worst, on J3 you will be able to take all of the DEI, the problem is on US3 there starting fleet can hit DEI as well.  Now they may have to sacrifice a transport to take an island, but, you’ll be trading down there for the remainder of the game.  Then it becomes a race, take out India before the US takes over the DEI, or you loose your income advantage that you never really had.[/cit]

So how exactly would the America player slip past my Caroline fleet in timely manner?  If they did try to go around Australia, wouldn’t the Japanese player see that coming and be able to break off the appropriate amount of ships to deal with them?

[cit]Fifth, and last, is this not the same J1 i’ve seen posted several times by Maher C and originally by Frontovik?  Oh no, his was better.  He used planes against ANZAC so he didn’t expose any boats.  And he knew to send a sub to Pearl.[/cit]

If you use planes against ANZAC, then how exactly are you to take the Philippines?  They are the offensive firepower in the above outlined plan.  It holds America down to 55 Production instead of 62.

How would someone know that Maher C or Frontovik had posted this “several times”?  They’re not on the first several pages of the forum.

Perhaps this conversation is old because you yourself keep posting about it.  Isn’t that your post about the economics of a J1 attack just 2 days ago?  Not that subject again!

And I doubt you’ve seen the last of someone’s J1 attack plan.  Please try and refrain from being a condescending prick for the next guy.

Bazinga, indeed.