Redrum, I didn’t realize you were a Triple-A Developer. I hope you take no offense. I didn’t mean to insult your baby. I appreciate the work you guys have done on Triple-A. As of late, I have found myself playing the AI more often than I would like (as I cannot get my friends together to play often enough). I am confident the AI will continue to improve over time. I guess I should put up or shut up. I ought to be submitting my bug reports to help you guys tweak the game.
USA Open ideas
-
[US IC in Sin: Pre-Requisite]
I’m in the middle of a game where J1 failed to take Chi in an attack, so on US1 I decided to build an IC in Sin now that there existed a 1 territory buffer (Chi) for my IC; moved the 1 Russian inf originating from Nov (on R2) down to Chi along with the 2 US inf in Sin to Chi. This seems to me to be the only reasonable basis for building an early IC in Sin - J has to fail to take Chi. Otherwise, you have to perform an all-in strategy centered around it from the beginning. Is this the general agreement on the forums?
-
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. True in the older versions and AA1942. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
Bidding Japan 10 may make things different and make a better game. That would make it interesting. I played a game like that using my normal strategy of KGF. Moscow has fallen and Germany, very weak, but still lives.
But my counter to the next time is not going to be in inefficient use of my resources by going naval on them. It will be a more careful coordinated attempt to take out Germany. KGF in all AA except AA Global (and I am not even quite sure of that yet) is the only way, unless you are playing with inexperienced players or house rules that change the structure of the game.
AA games have always been broken and unrealistic in the Pacific. China is way to weak and Japan is way too strong. It is just broken that way. AAanniversary attempted to fix that I hear. AAPacific did a very poor job of fixing it but went in the right direction. It still requires a house rule of China going first and its infantry only costing 2IPC’s.
-
If Japan fails or merely pulls off a J1 CHN invasion, a US1 SIN IC is a very good choise.
First of all, the China pass (CHN-SIN) is forever closed for the Japanese who will not only miss some valuable IPC but will also have to take the long road to Moscow (either IND-PER or BUR-YAK).
Russians (and even Brits) can easily reinforce SIN, making it a lost cause for Japan who can throw everything they can against that IC and still gain nothing.
And it gets even worse than this. If Japan stops building pressure against that SIN IC, USA can retake CHN and threaten the rear of the Japanese forces heading to Moscow, not to mention the results of a succesfull FIC/KWA/MAN expedition.
And finally, a SIN IC is the easiest way for the US to reinforce Russia, instead of having to cross an ocean or a desert to reach Moscow.
Even if Japan finally manages to capture that IC, a strong russian armored force can immediately counter.Now, to the main theme of the thread, imho (and given J1 heavily assaulted CHN making it dangerous for a SIN IC to be deployed) US1 should be DD,AC,BB. If Japan has anything less than BB,AC,2 fgt in SZ52, counter there with BB, SS (submerged) 2 fgt and bmb. Land HWI fgt to BUR (if 6 R inf still exist there). I always go for US pasific strat, and the goal is to land in EIN (or BOR) by US3, thus stabbing Japan in its soft belly (south pasific) and being able to land in Africa and AES from the Red Sea side (avoiding those atlantic G SS wolfpacks).
-
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
-
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
The changes in the game from Revised to 1942 are minor but they do have an impact on the Pacific: Japan can’t sink the 2 Allied subs until it buys destroyers and its transport fleet is useless on defense, unlike Revised where the 3-4 Japanese transports where by themselves a deterrent against any US attack. With the right moves by the UK/Russia on round 1 Japan will find itself having to make choices about what to attack or not, which may give the US the right opportunity. The trick is that most Japanese players have no idea of how to respond to a US Pacific strat. And to those who do just buying planes for Japan won’t do the trick because of the new submarine rules.
In general, the dynamics have changed a little bit but they have changed. On Classic it was crazy to go Pacific, on Revised it was nearly impossible and on 1942 it can work but not always.
-
In both theory and practice, it’s easier for USA to win the Pacific war than it was in Revised. The new naval rules make it harder for Japan to defend its fleets since transports have no military value. Add to that cheaper bombers and more effective submarines and you have a recipe for Allied success in the Pacific. Japan should have trouble keeping pace with USA spending. If Japan opts for mainland factories instead of transports, then its tough to have enough money to use the factories and continue to control the sea zones around Japan.
The catch (and what makes Pac strats hard) is that the game balancing is different than Revised. Japan’s initial position may be weaker than Revised, but Germany is stronger and it’s tough for UK to put enough pressure on Germany to save Russia.
-
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser.
Of course, but a US Pacific strat is nothing like assaulting Japan itself, this is pure madness… It is about chopping off 12 south pacific IPC from Japan (EIN+BOR+GUI) and keeping it pinned on a fleet race that it cannot win. That way the US prevents a japanese thrust to Moscow (even if Japan captures IND+PER+CHN+SIN+BUR+SFE+YAK+ENO it will still be at 30 IPC, rendering impossible to seriously threaten Moscow from the east).
And finally, a US Pacific strat is actually a way to pacify Japan, but not a way to win the game.Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2.
Actually, the US would have to spend 1.7, but victory doesn t come cheap for the Allies… Besides the US can afford this fleet race.
You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work.
Actually, imho you must have a poorly played US pacific for this to blow up in the Allies’ face :-)
The US navy has to be used against German operations.
And when Japan hulks up (42 IPC by J3, potentially 51 IPC by J5 if left unchallenged in the Pacific)? Can the 3 Allies combined take out G before this?
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
If Japan really wants that IC there s no way to stop them. But japanese intentions about SIN are demonstrated by J1, before any US buys.
-
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser.
Of course, but a US Pacific strat is nothing like assaulting Japan itself, this is pure madness… It is about chopping off 12 south pacific IPC from Japan (EIN+BOR+GUI) and keeping it pinned on a fleet race that it cannot win. That way the US prevents a japanese thrust to Moscow (even if Japan captures IND+PER+CHN+SIN+BUR+SFE+YAK+ENO it will still be at 30 IPC, rendering impossible to seriously threaten Moscow from the east).
And finally, a US Pacific strat is actually a way to pacify Japan, but not a way to win the game.If you’re counting Victory Cities, then if the Allies can win the game by just kicking Japan out of Asia.
London, Calcutta, Shanghai, Manila, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad,
Stalingrad- oops, that’s only 8 cities, only 1 more to go.In any case, if the Allies are controlling Asia then the US can switch production to deal with Germany.
-
This all sounds so crazy to me and seem so given.
First, What does imho mean
Second, the retort against my “it takes a poorly played japan to work” with “Actually, it takes a poorly played US for it not to work”, sounds to me like “I know what you are but what am I”. (I say that with humor).
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
Fifth, I will ammend my arguement that it doesn’t just take a poorly played Japan. It would take at least a poorly played Japan or Germany who would not exploit the fact the US is in the Pacific. The recommended buys for the US I have red to me are crazy. Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.
-
One more thing I will agree with. Since these stargeties have not been successful in all experience AA games for the last 20 years, hence never or hardly used, with the new AA1942, I can see how Japan would respond in a tragic way. Like building subs to counter when they now only defend on a 1, or buildling all bombers to sink the navy thinking they will then fly to russia,(which may still work because if all you do is stalemate the US, Japan instantly can deploy those forces to where they need them, which could be over a hundred dollars of air power if the stalemate went long enough while the US is stuck with a naval fleet). The point is I can see how not knowing how to react could make the difference. But in the end the ability to spend $1 to defend verus the $1.7 to attack ratio gives way to much room and time for the Germans. The game is still unfortuneately unbalances towards the European theatre.
It like chess for those who play it and know it well. The move where you take out your bishop quickly and end the game in a few moves. Once the opposing player recognizes that move and sees it coming, it is too easy to stop it, then you find yourself with a disadvantage because you have given up a more superior setup to get that bishop out.
Anyone willing to challenge me with this strategy, I would love to see. Even if you got me the first, maybe the second, after that it would be useless.
-
If you’re counting Victory Cities, then if the Allies can win the game by just kicking Japan out of Asia.
London, Calcutta, Shanghai, Manila, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad,
Stalingrad- oops, that’s only 8 cities, only 1 more to go.Usually, the Allies will be able to combine an anglosaxon landing in WE (with the UK watering down the Atlantic Wall and the US performing the actual capturing), thus ending the game with 9 VC by the end of US9 or US10.
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
I have never played AA Revised. But in AA42, there can be no “quick” KGF. Even if the Allies throw absolutely everything against Germany, there is no way to get a solid foothold in Europe before US5.
I don t know whether this is because of the new navy rules (who make defence-oriented landing fleets extremely expensive and vulnerable, while attack-oriented SS fleets cheap and expendable) or because of the new Europe map (who increases the distance between Berlin and Moscow, making it harder for Russia and Germany to reach each other). But the fact remains, there can be no “quick” KGF. And a patient J player will hulk up by J4 to 42 IPC and will force Russia to look to the East, and by J5 will force the US tho look to ALS and WUS. And if merely G and SE are still in Axis hands, there will be no turning back from that point on for the Allies.Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
Agreed.
Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Just as there can be no “quick” KGF, either can be an easy thrust to Moscow in AA42 either. Germany has to throw 4 consecutive 48 IPC spendings (a. all inf+art, b. all arm, c. all arm, d. all bmb) that will reach and strike Moscow all at once in order to bend it, with Japan having Russia reduced to 16-17 IPC and waiting in position for a double-punch, if needed.
And there is no way for Germany to reach 48 IPC before G4 or even 5, depending on how AES turned out for the Allies.
I am not sure what a bid is and how it works…Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.
Will look you up in TripleA :-D :-D
-
This all sounds so crazy to me and seem so given.
First, What does imho mean
In My Humble Opinion
Second, the retort against my “it takes a poorly played japan to work” with “Actually, it takes a poorly played US for it not to work”, sounds to me like “I know what you are but what am I”. (I say that with humor).
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
Going Pacific is a choice by the US that needs to be considered after the Japanese play. Germany bought 5 inf and 5 arm and moved all its starting units to Karelia? Then I’d advise against going Pacific. Japan didn’t lose any naval or air unit on J1 or left any unexposed ships? The same.
To argue that Germany is stronger depends on whom you are comparing it too. The US/UK/Japan and even Germany are weaker since their transports are defenseless. But Russia has the same strength and if the Allies move to cut Germany’s access from Africa (essential on any Allied strat, either it being KGF or Pacific) then you just levelled the playing field. If the UK holds Africa and starting offloading units in Europe then that’s less German units going against Russia. Or the UK can simply land on Archangel and boost Russian defenses.
Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
I never go for US ICs on Sinkiang. It just gives Japan a target to focus its energy and forces the Russians to use units to defend it instead of being available to use elsewhere.
Fifth, I will ammend my arguement that it doesn’t just take a poorly played Japan. It would take at least a poorly played Japan or Germany who would not exploit the fact the US is in the Pacific. The recommended buys for the US I have red to me are crazy. Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Most players don’t use a bid in 1942, so that point is moot. Germany can’t simply go wild on Russia or Africa: depends also on how the Allies play their hand and luck on dice.
To me there are no unbeatable strategies, being them KGF or Pacific by the Allies and the appropriate Axis responses. And repeating the same strategy ad eternum ad nauseam (KGF) just because it has a better chance to win gets rather boring after a while.
-
Agreed on the Nauseam part. In the end I just started playing AA1942 from AA Revised. But straight out, in the 20 years of playin axis and the 100 some odd games via board game and the last year on the AA.com website, without a German bid, it is extremely easy for the US and UK to knock out Germany.
Strtegy.
UK takes troops from UK and retakes Eqypt. Builds IC in Africa just in case (many times not necessary but a chance). UK and US land on N. Africa first turn. After that, all US builds transports move to N. Canada. All US land buys go to N. Canada. Every turn US has choice, land on Norway, build IC, land on Western US. At that point every turn US can land troops by US3, just has to place transports right. Depending on Germany’s actions with fighters, US and UK navy’s are safe in sea zone next to Morocco and sea zone north of Norway. If Germany does the exact right thing, they can force US and UK to put navy’s together and operate in unicent. That of course is the difficult part, to time it all just right. But when you are playing the allies yourself, it is not hard to do it just right. Of course there are always room for mistakes, but without them, it is a gauranteed KGF winner. Whatever the Germans do to mess this up, the US and UK can easily counter allowing them to be delayed, However
Whatever the Germans do to delay the UK US, gives the Russians breathing room that result in only holding off the inevitable.
Again, there is room for mistakes where the Germans pull something that is hard to see then surprise, but that is what it takes.
-
I can see how AA42 makes this stragety a little harder with transport being defensless, but not enough to make this stragety still not the best to execute. But I do leave plenty of room to acknowledge it may not be the near gauranteed win it was before.
But it still sounds crazy to me to do a US all out navy assault, unless again, the axis first moves allows it. Then you just have to remember never to make those opening moves.
-
Sorry, 1 more thing,
I play on Axis.com. It is exactly, exactly like the board game. Graphics everything. They just added AA42 which is what I just switched to.
I have not heard many good things about triple A, graphics and such. You do have to buy some coins though, very cheap. Again, exactly like the board game. Quick, no bugs, timer options, ect… All pacific strategy guys, send me a challenge.
Eddie
-
Got the website wrong. Unless you’re trying to sell us camera equipment. :lol:
Gametableonline is the only site I know that has the graphics just like that on the 1942 map. Haven’t played it since it left the beta stage. -
Agreed on the Nauseam part. In the end I just started playing AA1942 from AA Revised. But straight out, in the 20 years of playin axis and the 100 some odd games via board game and the last year on the AA.com website, without a German bid, it is extremely easy for the US and UK to knock out Germany.
Revised always requires an Axis bid, usually 7-9 IPCs. I haven’t played a single game of AA42 yet with an axis bid. (on all the 50 or more I’ve played AA42 since it was released)
Strtegy.
UK takes troops from UK and retakes Eqypt. Builds IC in Africa just in case (many times not necessary but a chance). UK and US land on N. Africa first turn.
I consider the IC on S. Africa a waste. Helps to assure that Africa remains on Allied hands but afterwards it is too far away to have any influence on the center on the board. Also, any units built there won’t reach Egypt until turn 3, giving the Axis the chance to hold on to Egypt for a few more turns.
After that, all US builds transports move to N. Canada. All US land buys go to N. Canada. Every turn US has choice, land on Norway, build IC, land on Western US. At that point every turn US can land troops by US3, just has to place transports right. Depending on Germany’s actions with fighters, US and UK navy’s are safe in sea zone next to Morocco and sea zone north of Norway. If Germany does the exact right thing, they can force US and UK to put navy’s together and operate in unicent. That of course is the difficult part, to time it all just right. But when you are playing the allies yourself, it is not hard to do it just right. Of course there are always room for mistakes, but without them, it is a gauranteed KGF winner. Whatever the Germans do to mess this up, the US and UK can easily counter allowing them to be delayed, However
Whatever the Germans do to delay the UK US, gives the Russians breathing room that result in only holding off the inevitable.
Again, there is room for mistakes where the Germans pull something that is hard to see then surprise, but that is what it takes.
I’ve faced that US strat on Revised a few times but I only tried it a couple of times. I am not a fan of letting the US get Norway (the UK and Russia are harder pressed for cash). In Revised the best action for Germany would be to move a large stack of tanks and infantry to Karelia on G1/2 and contest Norway as long as possible to prevent the US building the IC and the subsequent build up of US forces.
-
First the website.
1.) It actually axisandallies.com. On the main page they offer, “play axis and allies”. Takes you to a Wizards of the Coast thing. You pay coins to activate the game and play. 3 coins per game. Graphics are exactly like the real thing. They just added AA42. I am playing 5 different games by email at once. My first 5. Playing joint games.
2.) IC in S. Africa. In revised a must when Germany had 9 bid and put it all on Africa. That was it’s only purpose. Not saying there is another way to retake Africa. In AA42 still figuring it out.
3.) The post about victory cities was really strange. The victory city strategy doesn’t exist for the Alllies. You have to utterly destroy both enemies to get that advantage. The game is over way before that condition would ever be met. Unless you are playing someone who like to play to the death.
-
2.) IC in S. Africa. In revised a must when Germany had 9 bid and put it all on Africa. That was it’s only purpose. Not saying there is another way to retake Africa. In AA42 still figuring it out.
Even with a German 9 bid to Africa on Revised I still think the money spent on the IC is better spent on other units for UK1. Usually the UK/US can perform a combined landing on Algeria and after another round of UK and/or US landings and the Germans can’t keep up with the Allied build up on Africa without Japanese help. Unless Germany still has all of its original airforce intact. But even on that situation it is better to increase the UK’s navy and start taking W. Europe/Norway to prevent the German income from going too up and helping the Russians while keeping the UK’s income in the 30s, while the US gets tasked to releasing Africa from Axis hands.
3.) The post about victory cities was really strange. The victory city strategy doesn’t exist for the Alllies. You have to utterly destroy both enemies to get that advantage. The game is over way before that condition would ever be met. Unless you are playing someone who like to play to the death.
If the Allies keep all of their original 6 cities and hold Shanghai, Manila and Paris/Rome at the end of the US turn, the Allies win. It may be hard to happen but I’ve won games that way.
-
First the website.
1.) It actually axisandallies.com. On the main page they offer, “play axis and allies”. Takes you to a Wizards of the Coast thing. You pay coins to activate the game and play. 3 coins per game. Graphics are exactly like the real thing. They just added AA42. I am playing 5 different games by email at once. My first 5. Playing joint games.
That’s GTO (Gametableonline), you can see the icon the A&A site you refer to. It’s 15$ to activate and then its free to play games in the lobby, and then about 20 cents a game to play PBEM games hosted on their server. It’s a great website and I’ve used it alot but these days I prefer TripleA due to its superior features and gaming variety (save, edit, stats, v3 and other games, etc).
2.) IC in S. Africa. In revised a must when Germany had 9 bid and put it all on Africa. That was it’s only purpose. Not saying there is another way to retake Africa. In AA42 still figuring it out.
I’d concur with Hobbes’ assessment that a South Africa IC is a suboptimal move (particularly in Revised, but probably also in 42). That said, it would be boring if everyone played the same tactics over and over. While I don’t disagree that a form of KGF is probably the optimal strategy in AA42……its way too early to tell. For example, I have a game going where I played a KGF strategy, BUT I exerted substantial pressure on Japan via subs (i have 4 in the Pacific). Consequently Japan hasn’t taken Aussie/NZ or Africa, so Allies are able to build on their economic advantage. Cheaper/better subs and bombers means that the optimal Allied strategy in 42 likely requires more Pacific action than you would see in a Revised KGF.
3.) The post about victory cities was really strange. The victory city strategy doesn’t exist for the Alllies. You have to utterly destroy both enemies to get that advantage. The game is over way before that condition would ever be met. Unless you are playing someone who like to play to the death.
Alot of games end that way, especially on GTO. On GTO games usually either end with 1 player getting to 9 vcs or the other conceding. VCs introduce some good tension into the game and enliven the Pacific theatre….since Manilla, Shanghai and Bombay are all victory cities, if USA holds them all at the end of its turn that might be game over for Axis.
Suggested Topics
