A Chess-players thoughts on strategy in A&A

[kevlar56]

From a lot of posts and forums I’ve read, both here and on BGG, it seems like many players keep searching for ‘optimum’ or ‘perfect’ opening moves for each of the major nations, and while this is a great thing, sometimes it seems that the forest of overall strategy gets lost in the trees of specific purchases/moves for turns 1-3. 
As the great Savielly Tartakower said a chess game is divided into three stages; the opening, when you hope you have an advantage; the middle, when you think you have an advantage; and the endgame, when you realize you have lost!  The point he was trying to make is that chess (like A&A!) is a dynamic game of fluidity and pressure and he who makes the second to last mistakes, wins. 
It seems that many A&A players are searching for openings that can force a win for one side or the other.  While the search for truth over the board is commendable, a forced win in A&A, like chess, is a chimera or will-o-the-wisp that can lead one to overlook long-term goals that may be much more productive.
A case in point (look at the forum subject) can be taken from the ‘Romantic’ era of chess.  Players attacked at all costs, sacrificing pieces right and left in a glorious bid for victory.  It was not until the Age of Steinitz that things calmed down and players began to re-appraise the value of defence and the cautious accumulation of small advantages which would eventually convert into permanent postitives leading to wins.
As time went on, the pupils of Steinetz developed what became known as the Classical school of Chess, promoting conservative play, control of the center of the board (optimum moves) and a reluctance to take chances (ie, trading material for less tangible positives like pawn structure, space or time).  This seems to me to be where A&A strategy had gotten to over the last decade with A&A Revised.  Such as an “optimum” strategy based on a quick KGF with all Allied resources bent to that end and the Axis going all out for Moscow …and many alternate strategies being discarded to the wayside as inneffective.
In Chess, the Hypermodern school, led by Breyer, Reti and especially, Aron Nimzovich, proposed that one can approach the game from an indirect point of view and attack strategically from the sides and edges, enticing the opponent into building an overly strong main attack in the center and then hitting them from the flanks.  While the Hypermoderns were effective in presenting new ideas into the game, they bent over backwards too far sometimes and that, eventually, led to a “fourth” or ‘the modern’ approach.
“Pragmatism”
The Romantics wanted to attack, the Classicists wanted perfect moves, the Hypermoderns wanted depth and exoticism.  Each school has pluses and minuses and the “pragmatists”, Lasker, Alekhine, Fisher and Karpov wanted to play, not perfect or deep moves, they wanted to play complex moves leading to complex positions, moves that could allow them to use their knowledge and skill to give them an opportunity to win!!  Basically, the “pragmatists” took the best of all of the above and tried to discard the dogmatism of the above in order to bing about a new paradigm in which skill, not memorization, determined the victor.
Stepping forward a few decades (and with the introduction of AA50) it now seems time to move toward a more “pragmatic” approach to long term strategy in our game. 
Is a UK IC the ‘perfect’ move?  No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is a Ger. CV the ‘perfect’ move? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is there an “unbeatable” strategy for ANY nation? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
And THAT’s what this post is about!  :-)
Agree?
Disagree?
Let’s talk…

[dondoolee]

For me it is more about economical purchases and the flexability of a purchass.  For example, as you are part of the G1 naval build discussion a fighter for a 10 prodution a turn germany is a sound purchas due to the flexability of the unit.  Somewhat conservative and flexible buys.  In AAR a transport was an AWSOME unit because it supplied troop movement plus defense allowing for a flexible strat on a G1 naval build.  Also knowing that ultimatly things boil down to ground units due to the nature of the game, that can never be lost sight of I think. That is the stuff I look for, as a very basic, top of my head sum up.  I prefer knowing game concepts and economics over set in stone first moves, I do think though there are uneconomical moves that can be made and those are what I seek to eliminate from my flawed gameplay.  I’ll add more to the discussion later, but I’m in a bit of a rush

[Omega]

There’s not much to argue when arguing for Relativism :)

That said, reading about everyone’s first turn can help someone (like myself) by giving him a general idea of what to do and what to not do. I believe AA to be a game where everything is not pre-determined. If it was, then the game would be boring. Certainly, some moves are more obvious than others. But again, this all depend on how you want to play it

Robert

[Lucifer]

There’s some differences from chess to A&A, some opening moves are much more important in A&A than in chess.
In AAR, not attacking WRU R1 and not attacking Egy G1. Other very important choices are i.e. not buying anything, buy only bmrs, no non combat moves etc.

As for the philosophy of strategy, thats both interesting and entertaining at the same time, just like A&A  :-)
I consider my self as a skeptical empiricist.

[Lynxes]

/kevlar56

Of the strategic principles you wrote about the classical one has some real advantages for A&A, due to the element of chance. If you play a conservative strategy you will be able to outweigh the element of chance more and you will be less surprised by bad rolls. Some examples:

1. Always build a few more low-cost units for losses than you might need for an optimum attack (land: infantry+artillery, naval: destroyers+subs). Then you can afford a bad roll here and there, and not be forced to sacrifice expensive units.
2. If you’re not sure about your opponent strategies, play in order to implement a strategy that will hurt your opponent no matter what he will do. As the axis, a steady, heavy advance towards Moscow, as the allies, a twopronged invasion shuck at France by UK from Britain and by US from East Canada. Just like in chess, if you control the center of the board (in AA50 France or Caucasus) you will control the events of the board.
3. Try to defend in a way that you’re not forced into a purely defensive stance, so that if your enemy changes his attack you will be able to counter-attack. For example, if you defend the West coast as US, if you only do it with land units you won’t be near as flexible as if you had a naval force for defence. As Russia, those few art’s and arm’s mixed in with your inf will be really good to have in order to make a counterattack here and there and deny your opponent the chance to do a simple calculation of when to make the decisive attack.

[dondoolee]

@Lynxes:

/kevlar56

Of the strategic principles you wrote about the classical one has some real advantages for A&A, due to the element of chance. If you play a conservative strategy you will be able to outweigh the element of chance more and you will be less surprised by bad rolls. Some examples:

1. Always build a few more low-cost units for losses than you might need for an optimum attack (land: infantry+artillery, naval: destroyers+subs). Then you can afford a bad roll here and there, and not be forced to sacrifice expensive units.
2. If you’re not sure about your opponent strategies, play in order to implement a strategy that will hurt your opponent no matter what he will do. As the axis, a steady, heavy advance towards Moscow, as the allies, a twopronged invasion shuck at France by UK from Britain and by US from East Canada. Just like in chess, if you control the center of the board (in AA50 France or Caucasus) you will control the events of the board.
3. Try to defend in a way that you’re not forced into a purely defensive stance, so that if your enemy changes his attack you will be able to counter-attack. For example, if you defend the West coast as US, if you only do it with land units you won’t be near as flexible as if you had a naval force for defence. As Russia, those few art’s and arm’s mixed in with your inf will be really good to have in order to make a counterattack here and there and deny your opponent the chance to do a simple calculation of when to make the decisive attack.

this is very close to how I usually try to play, except I am usually tempted into buying 1 to 2 fighters for Russia in order to save on losses of higher cost attacking units, and flexability for russian counter atacks

[kevlar56]

Very good points!  Just out of curiosity, does anyone think in terms of ‘misleading’ an opponent into believing you’re going one way (KGF for example) and actually intending KJF?  If so, how do you cover your deception, table talk?  Indirect moves?  Or does anyone do purposefully ‘bad’ purchases like two UK IC’s or a lot of US1 subs? 
Often in chess, especially if you’re familiar with the way your opponent plays, you can try and move the game into middle game  positions they’re uncomfortable with.  (If they like to attack, close the position; if they prefer playing closed or semi-closed openings, force exchanges to free the center up… etc). 
Thanks for your replies!
Kevin

[Emperor_Taiki]

dont get me wrong i love A&A especially the AA50, but comapring AA50 and chess in terms of stratagy is a little weird

In my opinion their really is not that much stratagy in A&A. although maybe in A&A their is technicly more variant in moves most of those moves are obviosly worthless and are never played, on top of that their is less player interaction. a game of AA50 might be 8-10 turns but chess games have way more turns and their for you are making many more decisions that will impact the outcome of the game. In A&A you also place your units on the board at the end of you turn. This means that your telling you oponent what your moves are the turn before you make them, therefore surprise is almost impossible to acheive unlike chess . If you want an optimal stratagy for any game it is surprise, but in a A&A you have to not be paying attention at all for something unexpected to happen.

A&A is fun becasue you get to order and kill many many plastic men and machines, but besides knowing the odds in a battle thier really is not a whole lot of stratagy to the game.

[DarthMaximus]

I’m still learning some things in AA50, but since Classic and through Revised I’d probably classify myself as a Classical Player, control the center of the board (Trj/Per/Cauc/Mos) and get as many units on the board as possible (cheaper to defend).  I rely heavily on position and will sacrifice some of the out laying ipcs to get better position in the center. 
The theory being, once I control that then:
1)  As the Allies, it is easier to pick up some loose ends to get the ipc adv back.  Then you can just sit and wait.

2)  As the Axis, if you control the center and can go 1-2 on Russia, you can make up for the deficit in ipcs in a move to take Moscow.

@kevlar56:

Very good points!  Just out of curiosity, does anyone think in terms of ‘misleading’ an opponent into believing you’re going one way (KGF for example) and actually intending KJF?

Yes on the fake KGF and go KJF, but it would probably be more of a cripple Japan, since you wouldn’t necessarily have to take Tokyo.
I liked this move in Revised, and I’m trying to see if it is doable in AA50.

The premise is to set up a bunch of generic or ambiguous moves and then not commit until either US1 or Russia 2 (after you have seen a full round of your opponents moves).

In Revised it was
Russia 1 - Noraml Russia 1
ie attack Wrus, fall back and stack Yak, buy some combination of inf/rt/arm

UK 1 - The set-up
Buy normal for the Atlantic, maybe some planes, but stack a fleet in Sz 30 with 1 inf/1 rt from Aus

From here, if Japan attacks the Sz 30 fleet, they are weakend for the US to go after them, if they let the fleet live in Sz 30 you can reinforce anyhwere from Afr to Ind and have a nice sized fleet or if US goes Pac then you can swing back around the south of Aus and meet up with the US at Sol almost instantly doubling your Pac fleet to make it a super fleet that is incredibly difficult to sink.

As for AA50, the UK starts out a little weaker (no AC) in the Pac but I’m still looking for good ways to set up my moves so I don’t have to commit to KGF or KJF until US 1 or even  UK 2 since the US can still do some pretty basic moves on US 1 that won’t give anything away (ie heavy air buy or split placement between Pac and Atl).

[dondoolee]

@DarthMaximus:

UK 1 - The set-up
Buy normal for the Atlantic, maybe some planes, but stack a fleet in Sz 30 with 1 inf/1 rt from Aus

From here, if Japan attacks the Sz 30 fleet, they are weakend for the US to go after them, if they let the fleet live in Sz 30 you can reinforce anyhwere from Afr to Ind and have a nice sized fleet or if US goes Pac then you can swing back around the south of Aus and meet up with the US at Sol almost instantly doubling your Pac fleet to make it a super fleet that is incredibly difficult to sink.

As for AA50, the UK starts out a little weaker (no AC) in the Pac but I’m still looking for good ways to set up my moves so I don’t have to commit to KGF or KJF until US 1 or even  UK 2 since the US can still do some pretty basic moves on US 1 that won’t give anything away (ie heavy air buy or split placement between Pac and Atl).

Darth Maximus: If you are trying to do strong opening moves and waiting to commit here is what I do T1:
R1 send 2-4 inf in china, for T1 ONLY stack 8 inf in Bury (pull them back after this)
UK1: move fleet from Australia to NZ, maybe start flying bomber down there.  Pull out of India, link troops up with troops from Jordan
US1: Link US navy up with UK navy in NZ, the destroyer/ tranny are 1 space away (assuming they survived), fly airplanes to AUS that can reach, maybe send 1 bomb.

R2:  maybe establish a 1 inf per turn pipeline to china, start bringing the Bury stack back.
UK/US T2 Move fleet to SZ 47 (where the US navy will follow) This threatens Indonesia, Japan will probably have to move her fleet there to defend it.  If you really want (as long as you plan on sending more US navy over) you can build an Aussie factory that will mostly be building inf/art and maybe the occasional sub/tranny/des, it may not build anything at all.  The UK can now threaten multiple theaters and still focus almost all of her time and money on Europe if it wants.  Even without the Factory and some US ships you have given Japan a little bit of a stall.

This is a great cheap way to have a start in both theaters without commiting IMO.

[beerbelly]

As Emperor_Taiki mentioned, I think one of the biggest differences between chess and AA is the number of turns in which a game is played.

The reason why opening moves may be more emphasized in AA as opposed to chess is the advantage gained (or lost) in each turn.  A bad first move in chess is not the same as a bad first turn in AA.  In AA, a bad opening turn can be very crippling and difficult to recover from for the rest of the game.  Because the importance of each turn is magnified in AA, the tendency to develop “optimum” opening moves seems to be quite natural.

There are also other game play factors that attribute toward more deterministic play.  For example, one space on a chess board is not inherently more important than another.  Controlling the center of the board is advantageous but the spaces themselves do not give any special benefit other than board position.  In AA, territories can be varied in their worth and importance.  Some territories are inherently worth more in IPC value.  Other territories may have an IC built upon them.  Some territories may be favorable due to location/board position.  Finally, with national objectives, some territories have an added incentive to gaining control of them.  Because of these differences in territory values, players will naturally try to direct their efforts towards the capture of the more important territories.

[Lucifer]

There are reasons why many chess players go for the middle of the board, and also many A&A players send units to the middle of the board, but for different reasons. In A&A it’s all bout the money. If you earn more than your opponent you are favored to win the game. In AAR and AA50 the most valuable TTs are on the middle of the board, from Moscow to Berlin. It’s also about logistics, which is not so important in chess, since you hardly get any new pieces/units while the game is playing. like in real wars, a long supply line is ineffective compared to the shorter ones. This is also a reason why KGF is more effective than KJF.

[Corbeau Blanc]

For me, it is about doing unexpected moves, ensuring the game will not be classical. Most players like to play on their own terms, with the most optimal opening and expecting their opponent to respond in kind. I like to not do that.

Be it a US brazilian IC to the unlikely german or russian navy, I might just do it if only to mess things up.

This is to say, playing the player opponent is normally a better way to win than trying to play the game. For instance, I normally win in chess against my friend because he rely mostly on his knights. I will always trade any same value piece for his knights and then force him in game terms he don’t favor.

In A&A, if you know your opponent likes to KGF for exemple, it’s easy from turn 1 to focus on infantry turtling while putting the maximum hurt on his fleet. Then with Japan, make some obvious but controlled mistakes to lure the USA in the pacific. Choosing the game you want to play is to choose the batlefield.

Which in my opinion is why many favor Low Luck which is close to Chess as opposed to people like me, who prefer a risk factor that emphasis a psychology factor like poker. Deceit, traps, lures are tools I like to use in my games, whithin the rules of course.

I’m not reiventing the wheel, thoses are old Basic concepts: Master the basics, Choose the Battlefield (When, where, how ), Know your opponent.

I guess I’m an hypermodern from your descriptions ;)

[LuckyDay]

@Emperor_Taiki:

although maybe in A&A their is technicly more variant in moves most of those moves are obviosly worthless and are never played, on top of that their is less player interaction. a game of AA50 might be 8-10 turns but chess games have way more turns and their for you are making many more decisions that will impact the outcome of the game.

there are far more than 8-10 turns in a game, though there are often 8-10 ‘rounds’ in a game.  Each round is made up of 6 players turns, and each of those players moves can involve the movement of every piece they have.  So in terms of moves, there are far more moves in AA than in Chess.

strategy plays a big role in AA, more so in normal dice rolling than in low luck as one’s strategy has to provide for a larger environment of outcome possibilities within which to work as more or less favorable rolls better reflect the dynamic conditions the battles represented, while LL plays more into averages and thus smaller potential outcomes. 
  In my experience AA50 has the most dynamic game system of all the AA games, in that a wrong move or poor choice or battle can be more easily overcome because of the larger scope of the game than the others. 
  First moves certainly need to be examined, as do the middle and end moves, but openings are more static in piece placement and easier to discuss without posting pics of maps and unit placements first.  it’s just plain easier to discuss the start without having to explain how everything got where it was for your death-grip of the US.  That being said the game is often looked at in too simple of terms without the depth of strategy that is available within and there are often times players will use the same openings time and time again without examining the situation they find in front of them. 
  All in all, to some these games are more a way of life than a pastime with friends and so some will take it more seriously than others, like chess.

@Emperor_Taiki:

In my opinion their really is not that much stratagy in A&A.

oh dang, they even wrote it on the box… we’re screwed… :-o

[Lucifer]

Not only is the first moves (rnd 1) much more important in AA50 than chess, but the end game is completely different. A game of AA50 sometimes ends with a capital taken and held, and the player that manages to capture the first capital and holds his own capitals wins the game. Other then capital capture, is the situation of conceding when one of the players have a TUV (total unit value) advantage over the opponent, from 150-200 and gaining, then it starts getting difficult to turn the tide, and so it quite often ends with a concession.

[Woodstock]

Nice opening post, and I completely agree. Not sure if I can add to the discussion in the quality everyone else is doing (english is not my first language, and I’m not good with big words and stuff :P ), but here’s my $0.02.

Apart from the opening move from Germany, I rarely ever use the same opening move for any other nation. Simply, because you have to react on what the other is doing.
With that said, I am kinda contradicting myself, as I do see myself as a more long term thinker. I hardly ever count the immediate economic value of a battle, I look at at the advantage of the territory itself. Does it allow me to pass on to another theatre, do I force my opponent to react on it and distract him from his own strategy etc.
(Heck, I’d even kill a $20 UK fleet if it would cost me a $40 Luftwaffe if that was the only UK fleet)

Take the G1 naval buy (see the topic that I started myself). The discussion there is all about economic value of that CV, the flexibility of other units, how you can buy 4 inf for that 1 CV etc.
The reason why I like that CV buy is because my goal with Germany practically never is to take Russia. My goal with Germany is always to survive, and soak up UK and USA IPC’s, and have Japan take Russia. In my opinion, that CV helps me with that, even though it might not be the best economic advanced purchase, nor does it give me any ground units that are a must have accordnig to other players.
…no clue where I was going with my post, and I definitely dont want to derail this topic into another G1 naval discussion.

For myself I have often compared A&A with Chess…but only with Low Luck. The main difference between Chess and A&A are the dice. With the dice, you never know the outcome, and you always have to keep in mind a bad outcome (or be surprised with a great outcome, and realise you just spent money on reinforcemenets you dont need), whereas with Chess, you can always tell which options there will be in the next turn. (Might be hard to predict all various moves in chess, but in theory, you can).
With Low Luck, that difference is minimalised.

Nonetheless, your 4 schools of chess players do seem to be around in A&A aswell indeed.
There’s the economics (why take a 2 IPC country if it cists you 3 5-ipc units?), there’s the gun and runners (dont care about the costs, Im gunning straight for Russia/Berlin), there’s the long term strategists (look 3 turns ahead, pull your opponent where he doesnt want to be, as you slowly build up your main attack), and …well there should be a 4th.

In short:

Is a UK IC the ‘perfect’ move?  No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is a Ger. CV the ‘perfect’ move? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is there an “unbeatable” strategy for ANY nation? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.

I couldn’t have answered any of those questions better myself.

The UK IC is very dependent of the overall Allied strategy (are you all going KJF? Then by all means, get those UK IPC’s into the Pacific, someway).
The Ger CV depends on what you want to do. (Are you going straight for Moscow? Then heck no……Are you waiting for Japan to come over and party? Then yeah, why not? It keeps those pesky Britains at the other side of the canal at bay)
An unbeatable strategy does not exist. Period.

[LuckyDay]

@Subotai:

Not only is the first moves (rnd 1) much more important in AA50 than chess, but the end game is completely different. A game of AA50 sometimes ends with a capital taken and held, and the player that manages to capture the first capital and holds his own capitals wins the game. Other then capital capture, is the situation of conceding when one of the players have a TUV (total unit value) advantage over the opponent, from 150-200 and gaining, then it starts getting difficult to turn the tide, and so it quite often ends with a concession.

I agree, first moves in AA are huge, TUV and position and capitals are big keys to victories.  Even though in AA50 and AAR the way to win is victory cities, it is often when a capital (read Moscow or Berlin) falls that concession occurs, despite the number of victory cities held at the time.  This may speak to more of a need to still be able to build and fight despite the loss of a capital, but that’s off on a tangent.

There are chess players who consider the first move of the game to be of dynamite importance, because of how far into future moves they see.  They are seeing the variables of many moves ahead and the first move breaks down the possibilities.  It’s about the scope of the battle.

Despite the VC aspect, capitals can be seen alot like a queen with a very similar endgame.  set it up in a position to lose that your opponent can’t get out of and they may concede without the battle, or simply take your opponents while protecting your own and you win.

I would see the biggest shiny example of difference from AA to chess as the dice.  The differences involved in using ADS versus LL already are like playing 2 different games or like using AAre, it’s just not the same game anymore.  Not necessarily a knock against it, just pointing out it changes the nature of the game. 
  With dice, an INF can take out 2 fighters, it’s not likely, but its possible.  In chess a pawn can take out 2 Bishops, but it would require more definite decisions than just rolling the dice.  So I would see the likelihood of taking out 2 fighters with an Inf as best in ADS, then in Chess, then LL.
  AA can showcase the strategy of a pawn v 2 Bishops, but then the dice break down the varying results.

[Lucifer]

@LuckyDay:

With dice, an INF can take out 2 fighters, it’s not likely, but its possible.  In chess a pawn can take out 2 Bishops, but it would require more definite decisions than just rolling the dice.  So I would see the likelihood of taking out 2 fighters with an Inf as best in ADS, then in Chess, then LL.
  AA can showcase the strategy of a pawn v 2 Bishops, but then the dice break down the varying results.

In LL, an inf can take out 2 ftrs, but not in the same attack. If a pawn takes out 2 bishops in chess, it’s not for the dice gods to decide, it’s the players skills, and lack of such skills, that determinate the fates of the pieces.

If I could take out your 2 bishops in chess with the loss of a pawn, I would certainly do it. I would also take out two of your ftrs in A&A, but unfortunately, its not for me to decide, unless this is a triplea game, and I’m using the editor to edit out your 2 ftrs, and let my infantry live… :roll:

You will usually not be able to take out 2 bishops with a pawn against an opponent which is equally good as you are, but in ADS games the dice gods do not ask if you’re a good player, before they let a single inf kill 2 ftrs…

[Corbeau Blanc]

Then again, when in position, you can absolutely take 1 bishop with a pawn while 1 infantry have very low odds to take out a single fighter.

[Octopus]

I completely agree that Axis and Alllies is like chess. Naturally, Chess does not have the element of random rolls (read: luck) however the concept of initiative remains the same.

The idea of the ideal first move is to grab and hold the initiative. In other words, force your opponent to react to your moves rather than you react to theirs. This does not mean to not respond to their moves but to be in control of the flow of the game. Forcing your opponent to attempt to contain you means you have the initiative.

In 1941, the Axis have the initiative but can the player maintain it? The Allied production will attempt to turn that initiative around somewhere through the middle of the game. The mid-game decides if the Allies can overcome their initial deficits.

The end game is not necessarily the taking of the Captial or where your opponent concedes, but the tipping point of no return for either the Axis or the Allies.

A good set of players will have a long mid game where the balance sways just slightly in either direction.

In that regard, I think it is a lot like chess.

If you are wondering what solid first moves are, consider if you can support another set of solid moves after the first one.  If you cannot, then perhaps that first set of moves wasn’t so hot. This game is about constant momentum…even if it is very slight.