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 ;)
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.
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
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.
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.
@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.
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…
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.
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.
When speaking of the center of the board, I think in every version of AA the 3 most “valuable” (in terms of practical stratagy) territories have been Cauc, Egy, India. Those are the territories around which the gameplay revolves around in my opinion.
Persia is the true center. When it falls, allies are usually screwed. If held, Berlin typically falls.
