My favorite applied towards A&A is #5 - Take a line of operation which offers alternative objectives.
Choose a single course of action that could have several objectives;
In the limited confines of a board game, this can be interpreted almost literally into “Keep your troops stacked in one territory that simultaneously threatens many enemy territories.”
I see Japan fail to do this all the time, by having their forces spread out throughout Asia instead of concentrated into a single formidable force in one country, and it lets Russia hold them at bay for much longer than they should be able to…
Read Sung Zu (sp)'s the Art of War. Best War book I’ve ever read. It will improve your play in ALL wargames.
amby, How’d you do dat? Da BIG letters.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody’s gettin’ creative roun’ chair!" - Xi
The Art of War is by far the best book ever written on warfare. It was written many centuries ago and is taught today in “corporate warfare.” Patton’s “Lessons on Corporate Leadership” (think that was the title) is a great book too in terms of economics, though the Sun Tzu’s work can be applied to almost any situation.
Yeah, The Art of War is a no-brainer and if you like the generic scope of Sun Tzu’s work then you will like Hart as well. His best book is called “Strategy” and is probably second only to The Art of War in my opinion. In it he examines top generals and battles from Alexander to WW2 and then extracts the common core principles that made them great, which he calls the “indirect approach”. The thing I like about Hart applied to A&A is that his theories are from the same era so they fit exceptionally well, as if you were studying Sun Tzu for tactics in an Ancient Japanese warefare game. Hart’s theories on mobility were the foundation of the success of German Tank Generals like Rommel and Guderian, who credit Hart as the source of their tactics.
Xi: using HTML…
< font size=n > This is the text I want bigger or smaller. < /font >
the < and the > should be next to the font statement, not a space away. I had to put them a space away so that they would show up for you to see… n can be a number between -2 and 6 I think?
TEST: -2
TEST: +6
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-06-07 08:48 ]
"Not all of these Maxims can be fully applied to Axis and Allies, but for the most part they fit very nicely.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Hart, he was a British military strategist from the early-to-mid 20th century and is regarded as the father of modern military strategy."
Well next time you change your font type, don’t make it that unreadable. (Not this post, but in the one you wrote). Small font + italics = not very easy on the eyes
sorry 'bout that :lol:
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-06-09 22:52 ]
Har-har. Good one. :smile:
“Choose the line (or course) of least expectation.”
Maybe that’s why I keep losing to the strangest strategies. “You’re landing troops in Spain!? How stupid is that!?” –— or ----- “You’re building and IC HERE!??” 'Nuff said. :smile:
actually, having the US land in Spain is not such a bad move: Either germany takes Spain, and therefor stretches his western defenses thin, or leaves it, and allows the allies to build up a massive force for further attack there. Not an easy call….
I think I might just have to test that one!
Well I’m not trying to take anything away from a Spain landing. I nfact, it’s probably the ONLY worthwhile neutral country worth taking! But you have to admit you don’t see it every game, and therefore, I haven’t come up with the effective measures to counter it. The upside is that you can stretch German supply lines or have an alternative invasion route if the Germans stacked too many inf in WE.
Sounds good to me!
Ab,
Oh, HTML! I’m gonna start learnin’ dat next week or else I B A dinosaur(stinkt) soon.
Tanks,
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Did you know that vasistdas means transom in French? I bet if you think hard enough you can figure out why that is so.” - Xi
Actually, there are quite a few nice Neutral Countries worth taking. Mongolia can be very useful to Japan. Turkey can be useful for Germany. An IC in Swiz. can be very beneficial to the Axis. All the South American ICs are excellent to use as Japan to Outflank the US.
Sorry, I still don’t see how an IC in Switzerland can benefit the axis. I’ve read that same idea in other threads as well, particularly a Japanese IC in Switz. Please explain how it helps the axis…
How do you invade neutral countries in the computer game? Whenever I try to invade one, I get the illegal move message.
Xero, Make sure you have 3 IPCs remaining in your treasury before invading.
Yanny, Also I don’t really see the advantages in landing it Switz, Turkey, or Mongol. It just seems like a waste of 3 IPCs since the surrounding terriotries can net me INCOME. Please enlighten me.
I agree, T6.
Well, Yannamoto?
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Switzerland?” - Xi
Over in the Axis and Allies games I play, there’s a house rule that if you do invade a
Neutral country, you collect 1 IPC at the end of every turn. That way there is an advantage (and a disadvantage obviously if your opponent takes it from you) to taking a neutral country and holding it to gain extra income. It’s great since the investment is long-term benefit, and neutral countries should have some industrial production capability. Also, Axis can only invade neutral countries (though Allies can save 3 IPCs by retaking them and gain the bonus), which helps even out the sides a bit.
Methinks it should take 3 INF to invade Switzerland and 5 to invade Mongolia(or sumthin). I see value in them, BUT greater cost due to mountainous resistance :P
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“What! No YanEsponse?”- Xi
