New player needs strategy help

[Anonymous_User]

I played A&A a lot, years ago.  Just last month I started playing Revised.  I must say its a different game!

Now, on to my ordeal.  We play a four player game - same players each game.  I’m playing US/UK and the Japan player is very strategic minded.  I’ve done a little reading here, but I do need to do much more.  From what I’ve read, setting up a EUS to Europe US convoy is considered a good strategy.  Now, turning a blind eye on Japan whilst doing so, I find that Japan has built up way too much in asia.

Japan’s first turn, they take Pearl, China, drop two IC’s on mainland.  T2 they drop a third and end up dropping 8-9 tanks every turn there after.

Now, if US puts some pressure on Japan, it can slow them down.  Otherwise, it seems I’m banking on a German error so that UK/US can march through europe before Russia falls.

So, with Japan dropping into asia immediately, is it better to:
1.)  Use US to pressure Japan in pacific.
2.)  Use US to land in Europe and push towards Germany
3.)  Use US to land in (Norway) and drive through Moscow into east Asia.  <–this I haven’t tried.

[Jennifer]

Common consensus is to get 8-10 transports for the US and shuttle 8-10 units a round into Europe to bolster Russia and counter attack Germany.

I like it, but lately it really hasn’t been working for me.  Too many players here expect it so they set up for it.  I think if you shuffle the game a bit on them, go for a stall in Germany and get as many infantry as you can into Russia with England/Russia, put down a couple ICs in Asia for England/America and get some navy going, you can sucker punch most japanese players before they really understand what’s happening to them.

They make 3-6 units iwth Japan, you make 5.  You also start building a strong defensive fleet with America.  (1 or 2 ACs, a few transports.  Then start island hopping.  he’ll loose capital ships to sink you, meanwhile, you still have the islands.)

Just if you want to mix it up a bit.  I’d also suggest sending the 10 infantry Russia start with into China if you can.  The extra infantry can’t hurt and you can always retreat them to Russia after America and England get some ground forces in Sinkiang/India/Borneo.

You’d be amazed the damage 6 infantry, 2 fighters on an island can do to amphibious units.  Especially since you cannot retreat from an amphibius assault!

[Infantry Rocks]

What is Germany doing? Where are the Siberian troops. Is India intact? Is Africa intact? Have you sunk the German navy? Where is the American fleet. All these nuances play a difference.

It’s a bit late to do much in the Pacific if you’ve abandoned since once Japan has a decent foot hold in Asia they can usually fend of an American pacific attack without too much disruption.

If Germany is not covering its beaches properly you can storm western or southern in order to trade American troops for German at a favorable rate. If Fortress Europe has been established the your best bet is to drop troops in Norway and March them against Berlin. If Japan sprung for 3 IC early on then you should have some breathing room as Russia because he can’t have that many units. Also, if you’re not doing anything else with them the US and UK bomber should be taking 6 IPC’s per turn from Japan. Marching US troops across Siberia seem really slow. If you’re going to do this it’s almost strictly better for Russia to move a few units east while UK/US and the rest of Russisa’s troops move west.

[Anonymous_User]

What is Germany doing? Where are the Siberian troops. Is India intact? Is Africa intact? Have you sunk the German navy? Where is the American fleet. All these nuances play a difference.

Germany is all infantry, build up europe, using fighters to disrupt sllied shipping.
India is usually intact R1 and sometimes R2.
Africa is (surprisingly) never an issue.  UK defends and Germany never attempts to take it.
German baltic fleet sunk, german med fleet 50/50 survival.
American fleet usually working in the atlantic to start a shuttle to norway or southern.

Thoughts:

US lands in northern africa.  Makes Germany defend three fronts (against Russia to the east, UK to the north, US to the south)  Germany should fall easily.  Can it be done before Japan blitzes through asia?

US lands in Norway.  Germany doesn’t worry about southern, so they don’t fall as fast.  US can blitz through moscow to fight Japan in asia.

US build IC in Asia.  Can US/UK/Russia defend it long enough for it to be useful?  Usually ALL of Japans air force is in Manchuria.

Split US between atlantic/pacific.  Island hop in pacific, land troops in norway/north africa.  Makes axis defend from both directions but less effect allied forces in both areas.

Ah, US and UK bombers in Moscow SBR on Japanese IC’s on mainland asia.  Is it then worthwhile to dedicate IPC towards heavy bombers?

[Infantry Rocks]

Never takes Africa? Even Egypt on round 1? In that case you can unite the Britsh fleets against either Germany or Japan.
US in Africa, forcing D of Southern Europe, is definitely a good strategy but make sure the Med fleet is dead, your ships can be defended and that a Norway landing isn’t better.

Norway is the only option if Germany leaves giant stacks of infantry in western, southern and berlin or if you need allies forces defending Moscow. Otherwise it’s easier to storm the beaches.

No. You can try one in India or two in India/Sink but a lone US IC will fall quickly. Keep in mind the IC strategy will let some pressure off Germany. All air? Does this mean Pearl Harbor was not done? Also do you make sure to sink the Kwang tran and do the sub batlle on UK1.

If your playing LHTR, and you should be because the out of the box rules do not work, there is a cap on bomber damage equal to the IC’s land value and heavy bomber are limited to best of 2 dice +1 rather than 2 dice, so they are not worth it except if you expect a long game . If your using out of the box rules heavy bombers are extremely powerful and will reduce the axis to rubbble, that is, is Germany weren’t capable of sacking London on G1.

[Anonymous_User]

All air? Does this mean Pearl Harbor was not done? Also do you make sure to sink the Kwang tran and do the sub batlle on UK1.

If your playing LHTR, and you should be because the out of the box rules do not work, there is a cap on bomber damage equal to the IC’s land value and heavy bomber are limited to best of 2 dice +1 rather than 2 dice, so they are not worth it except if you expect a long game . If your using out of the box rules heavy bombers are extremely powerful and will reduce the axis to rubbble, that is, is Germany weren’t capable of sacking London on G1.

Yes, pearl harbor was done.  I don’t recall exactly what happened piece by piece but all Japanese air units were on mainland asia after non-combat.

Yes, I sink the Kwang tran (usually with the destroyer, but once this failed, what luck  :(  )

I’ve looked at LHTR, but this weekend will be our 5th revised game.  At this time we are using box rules.

I’ve mentioned looking into LHTR, and we probably will, but the consensus at this time is to play box rules.  I’ve mentioned the bid, but one player is happy to take axis with 0 bid.

I’m sure this will change as our experience grows.

So, basically:

UK - take out Kwang trans, sub battle, either move into africa or defend India.  Destroy baltic fleet, begin shuttling troops into (norway)

US - begin shuttling troops into N. Africa.  Possibly utilize air to keep japanese navy small.

[Infantry Rocks]

As the US you either want to assault the Japaneese navy in force or not at all. Japan is more than happy if you lose fighters sinking a ships that have little purpose once Japan controls the Pacific.

From what you’'ve told me the ability to unite the British Med and Indian fleets is important. Also, if Germany does not reinforce the Baltic fleet it is worth it to trade the London air force for it. You’ll be able to start landing troops on turn two.

[Nukchebi0]

Most Axis and Allies playesr play with strategies that never would have been feasible during the real war.

[Nix]

Well here´s my 5 cent, on USA/UK strat.

I think the best thing to do is to Contain Japan with US/UK.

This is done as following:

Russia should for maximum effect have stacked 6 Inf in Buryatia and 2 Arm in Yakut on R1, they will then move into Manchuria on R2 (or atleast threathen to do so)

UK builds a IC in India IF they manage to kill the 2 Infantry in French Indo China. (witch you attack with 3 Inf and 1 fig.)

You must send Destroyer+AC to attack the  (or des+trn) to take out the Kwang trn, failing to do so spells disaster for Allies.

The idea with attacking Fic is that they can´t take India on J1, don´t be afraid to lose the fig if that makes the job done.

If fig survives either land it in India or in China to help defend and kill some more land troops for Japan).

Sinkiang IC for US is a really nice thing. This IC must be helped by russia, either you take 2 inf from Novosibibirsk and put here or you reinforce it with 3 Arm from Russia (terretory) on R2.

USA should “Suicide” it´s AC, Sub and SZ52 Fig, Hawai Fig, Western USA fig and Eastern US bomber to attack SZ60 if pearl is not done, to kill as many Japanesse trn´s as possible. (1 fig can land 2 steps away, 1 can land in Buryatia and Bomber can land in buryatia, western US fig “can” land on AC)

If this goes well Japan is marginalised for a fair amount of time in the game.

[Jennifer]

It does tie up a lot of allied resources though.  If you do that, you should go for Japan castration instead of just grabbing him by the nose.  Take his islands and his mainland holdings, leave him with a fleet and his main island then ignore him.

You should be able to castrate Japan in 4-5 turns which Russia is more then capable of surviving against Germany, without loosing more then Karelia for any period of time.

[newpaintbrush]

Although I see a lot of people posting that resources should be committed to attacking or containing Japan, I completely disagree.  I believe the best thing to do is go after Germany 100%.  The exception is some tournament games, in which particular cities give more points towards a victory (this is not the victory city system, but something else).  In those games, a KJF strategy is used because the cities that give more points are all around Japan, not Germany.

If I were playing Out of the Box rules (I REALLY recommend using FAQs, or Germany should beat the g-d he** out of everyone every game), I would go KGF.

(How does Germany beat the g-d he** out of everyone?  Unlimited Rocket attacks, you just sink everything into rockets and AA guns.  The FAQ fixes this.)

With the FAQs in effect, I do this:

1.  KGF.  With a KJF, you need a massive US fleet buildup to counter the gigantic Japanese navy.  Look around, what else can the Japanese navy be used for?  You can lose Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as New Guinea later on.  That’s 5-6 IPC.  If you manage to take Japan’s isolated islands, once you start, Japan can’t stop you, but you need a TRULY gigantic fleet, probably two carriers, battleship, destroyer, three subs, two transports, six fighters minimum before you start really messing with Japan.  On the other hand, all you need to build in Eastern US is three transports, infantry, and three tanks, and you’re in Algeria with three infantry three tanks on US2.

Why else KGF?  You stand to lose 5+ IPC in the Pacific, but you take Africa back earlier (worth 10 or so IPC), plus Norway (3 IPC), plus probably Karelia (2 IPC).  If you run through Africa, Germany is forced to keep units in S. Europe and W. Europe, which slows down the attack on USSR.  So - KGF.

2.  How do you do a KGF?  Kill the Baltic and Med fleets.  If the German player doesn’t build anything in the Baltic, you can kill the Baltic fleet with the UK air force.  Once the Baltic fleet is gone, the UK battleship and a carrier, combined with UK transports is VERY costly for the German air force to attack.  (You will lose 8 IPC transports for 10 IPC fighters, and you can just rebuild next turn).  Once the Med fleet is gone, you threaten S. Europe, which is a major pain for Germany.

3.  Depending on the amount of Japanese pressure, you can either use the UK forces to take Norway and keep trading Karelia and/or W. Europe and Belorussia with the Germans, or you can just shuttle UK infantry into Archangel to reinforce against the Japanese attack.

By the way, I wouldn’t recommend six infantry in Burytia.  If I saw that as Japan, I might forgo Pearl Harbor to smash Burytia.  Your two tanks could counterattack supported by USSR air, but you would lose those tanks for sure on the next turn, then USSR would be wide open.  (If the tanks retreated, USSR would be wide open anyways).  The only time six infantry in Burytia is good, IMHO, is if there’s also a UK fighter there (from the Indian Ocean) - but then, UK probably wouldn’t be able to take back Africa from the Germans unless it was willing to lose its bomber.

[Infantry Rocks]

I think Sea Lion is a slightly bigger problem with the OOB rules.
78% * 83% = 64% chance to get long range air tech  and then take London on G1 makes for a not very fun game.
LHTR solves such problems.

[newpaintbrush]

@Infantry:

I think Sea Lion is a slightly bigger problem with the OOB rules.
78% * 83% = 64% chance to get long range air tech  and then take London on G1 makes for a not very fun game.
LHTR solves such problems.

I must disagree to some extent.  I believe that the REAL reason that a six-eight tech dice G1 Sea Lion is discouraged with OOB rules is that it can neutralize the UK player for a few turns, so in a five player tournament game, the skill of the UK player becomes less relevant.  Even if a German player only runs one-two tech dice, I think G1 Sea Lion is easily defeatable.

If you know that Sea Lion is allowed (i.e. say that OOB rules with FAQ are used); then you can fly two Russian fighters to London.

1.  Attacker must first invest in long range aircraft research.  If a lot of IPC are spent, USSR can expand early.  If few IPC are spent, there is a greater chance that the tech dice simply go to waste.  (I think I would prefer going for fewer tech dice).

2.  With Russian fighters in London, attackers have 1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber going against 1 bomber, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 4 fighters, and an AA gun, not good odds considering the “skew”, as Caspian Sub would put it (Caspian Sub Yahoo group).  Basically, the Germans lose 3 attack power with every casualty after the initial infantry, while the Allies lose only 2 defense power for the initial casualties after the initial bomber loss, plus throw in the fact that the Allied AA gun can shoot some German air down, and the attack is horribly risky.

3.  The German airforce usually gets smashed even without Russian fighters in London.  This allows the Allies to build a nasty transport fleet faster (since the transports won’t require as much expensive escorts).  Germany can rebuild its air force with its 78-82 IPC paycheck, and will have the advantage of long range, allowing fighters to trade territory with USSR and fly back to W. Europe to defend, but having to rebuild the air force is quite expensive.

4.  With Germany spending IPC on tech, USSR can push early; Germany has a harder time dislodging USSR from those valuable 2-3 IPC territories.

Basically, with no airforce and no ground units produced first turn, the loss of London by no means signifies the end of the game.  UK can retake from E. Canada with battleship bombard and a tank (usually all that’s left in London is a single German tank).  US then reinforces with 2 inf, art, tank, fighter, and bomber.  If the UK attack is successful (odds are it will be if all that’s left is a German tank), then UK gets a paycheck of 30 IPC that it can spend on the next turn.  Even if the UK attack is not successful, the US attack almost certainly will be, and even 2 inf, art, tank, and AA gun are likely to be enough defense against a German counterattack of infantry, tank, and bomber (all that’s left of the German airforce).

On the other hand, if Germany bought 2 transports, some infantry, and only rolled one or two tech dice, Germany could be in a very good counterattacking position.  BUT, this assumes that the initial London invasion was successful, which I do not think would be the case if there were 2 additional Russian fighters present.  Of course, if the initial London invasion WAS successful (against the odds), then the Germans would have a won game, particularly with the Russian fighters out of the picture and a lock on London . . .

–

What of the argument that flying USSR fighters to London weakens the USSR initial turns?  That’s very true.  But those fighters can be used to attack Karelia from West Russia next turn (I forget the map; maybe Archangel instead).  Germany could prevent this by bulking up at Karelia, but then USSR could push on the Ukraine with a fairly standard 3 inf 3 tank build, or with a 2 inf 2 art 2 tank build.  Of course, there’s the counterargument that then Germany could forgo the attack on London to attack a weakened Caucasus (since if USSR fighters are in London, they weren’t used to attack Ukraine, and cannot land in Caucasus), but I think that attacking Caucasus early with Germany can very well be horribly costly to a West Russia/Moscow counterattack.

[Anonymous_User]

This weekends game:

I.  Rules
    1.  Weapons development goes into effect during mobilization of new units
    2.  Battleships “heal” during purchase units of next turn
    3.  Axis player - zero bid - trying to prove point
    4.  1 on 1 with me trying to show that Axis cannot win as designed.
II.  USSR
    1.  Two battles in EU - (battle board memory problems) - EEU, and just west of caucuses
    2.  6 inf to Bur
    3.  2 inf to western US territory (china or sinkaing, can’t recall)
    4.  2 Fig to US terr.
III.  Ger
    1.  Attacks UK med fleet
    2.  Attacks UK fleet w/air units, fails
    3.  Takes back terr. w. of caucuses
IV.  UK
    1.  Fig from Ind. attacks Jap sub
    2.  Destroy Jap tran
    3.  Begin building up Navy in UK preparing to storm Normandy
    4.  Fig in Russia
V.  Jap
    1.  Buys 1 IC and Transport(s)
    2.  Pearl
    3.  Minor battles in Asia (takes out US 2 inf, 1 fig) , large air force east of india
VI.  US
    1.  3 tran, land units
    2.  Attack Jap navy at pearl
    3.  Move 2 inf towards Alaska for reinforcement
    4.  Begin buildup of Navy for EU invasion

This starting strategy worked well, as Japan was held back in Asia for several turns without losing too much ground in russian europe.  US and UK were able to begin shuttling armor into Europe and press hard towards Germany before Japan was able pressure Russia.

Game ended, however, when allies conceded.  I made a huge error.  Forgot to purchase units for USSR which left Moscow completely empty for a german invasion (1 tank).  50 IPC’s to Germany.  Game would have still gone to Allies, but it would have been a LONG game.

Point was, though, that the Axis cannot win without an Allied error.

[Infantry Rocks]

Attacking Eastern Europe not so good. You can’t bring  all your air power without losing some on the counter so you’re better off attacking something closer.
Axis can certainly win with equally skilled play but the Allies  have an undeniable edge and will win more than their fair share without a bid.

[Guest]

No bid, with equally skilled players and no major mistakes, and no bid…

Axis win from 30% to 40% of games.