USA play for Advanced players (help)

[ghr2]

The US needs to be careful not to tunnel vision seazone 6 too early.

[IKE]

@McX:

I don’t seem to have the same problems and haven’t ever felt the need to incorporate bids, OOB is how I have always played, and the Allies have an excellent record against the Axis, and it’s all due to the US.

US strategy is entirely dependent on how the Axis goes about starting the war,but generally speaking I focus more on Europe since I find it’s easier to defend the victory cities in Asia. But if Japan goes after Hawaii early I’ll go straight Pacific to defend Western US and Australia. The silver lining in that is it leaves UK Pacific with the ability to claim money islands and send units as necessary to the Middle East/Africa or possibly up to help Russia in the Caucasus region. If Japan doesn’t attack Hawaii I’ll slowly build a giant navy there anyways, eventually you’ll be able to outspend the Japanese even while fighting in Europe, and go in for the kill, claim that seazone around Japan (6 is it?) and then Japan’s done. You have to be disciplined to keep units in Hawaii longterm and resist the temptation to have adventures around the money islands except for a couple planes and the occasion sub or transport.

My Europe strategy depends on how bad the Axis player wants Gibraltar. If he starts parking German planes there I’ll build UK units in Canada and fighter units to scramble in London, send US navy up to Canada with several transports and then park everyone off Ireland/London in anticipation of hitting Normandy/Holland, assuming you have enough naval units to survive an attack by the German navy/air force. Then I hit Normandy with everything and stay there, funnelling in land units, play D with Russia and eventually tear the Axis in half. If the Axis leaves Gibraltar open, then you can park there with enough force to survive Axis attacks, then of course hit the “soft underbelly” of Italy, or Normandy, Denmark, or wherever he’s weak. Just keep the navy together. It’s probably pretty obvious that you won’t win Europe if the German navy is strong enough to claim the English Channel and environs for the duration of the game.

It’s hard to win with the Axis against a good allied player, reason being it’s hard to effectively allocate resources between the Russian war and naval/air units needed to keep the British/Americans at bay. When I was in the service I overheard a British soldier say “If you have all the gear and no idea you must be an American.” You can’t be that guy - the US greatest advantage is its income (Bonuses). Spend it wisely, and give everyone a job.

Sounds like your group’s Axis play may be slacking, or not up to speed with the latest strategies that YG linked too.

Axis have a very high win percentage in our games.

[ghr2]

@McX:

I don’t seem to have the same problems and haven’t ever felt the need to incorporate bids, OOB is how I have always played, and the Allies have an excellent record against the Axis, and it’s all due to the US.

US strategy is entirely dependent on how the Axis goes about starting the war,but generally speaking I focus more on Europe since I find it’s easier to defend the victory cities in Asia. But if Japan goes after Hawaii early I’ll go straight Pacific to defend Western US and Australia. The silver lining in that is it leaves UK Pacific with the ability to claim money islands and send units as necessary to the Middle East/Africa or possibly up to help Russia in the Caucasus region. If Japan doesn’t attack Hawaii I’ll slowly build a giant navy there anyways, eventually you’ll be able to outspend the Japanese even while fighting in Europe, and go in for the kill, claim that seazone around Japan (6 is it?) and then Japan’s done. You have to be disciplined to keep units in Hawaii longterm and resist the temptation to have adventures around the money islands except for a couple planes and the occasion sub or transport.

My Europe strategy depends on how bad the Axis player wants Gibraltar. If he starts parking German planes there I’ll build UK units in Canada and fighter units to scramble in London, send US navy up to Canada with several transports and then park everyone off Ireland/London in anticipation of hitting Normandy/Holland, assuming you have enough naval units to survive an attack by the German navy/air force. Then I hit Normandy with everything and stay there, funnelling in land units, play D with Russia and eventually tear the Axis in half. If the Axis leaves Gibraltar open, then you can park there with enough force to survive Axis attacks, then of course hit the “soft underbelly” of Italy, or Normandy, Denmark, or wherever he’s weak. Just keep the navy together. It’s probably pretty obvious that you won’t win Europe if the German navy is strong enough to claim the English Channel and environs for the duration of the game.

It’s hard to win with the Axis against a good allied player, reason being it’s hard to effectively allocate resources between the Russian war and naval/air units needed to keep the British/Americans at bay. When I was in the service I overheard a British soldier say “If you have all the gear and no idea you must be an American.” You can’t be that guy - the US greatest advantage is its income (Bonuses). Spend it wisely, and give everyone a job.

Is this 1st edition OOB or 2nd edition?

[McX]

2nd ed. Europe rules

[McX]

Although when i host it it’s with the 1st ed. Pac board. Don’t think it matters much though, except you can take Yukon.

[McX]

Slacking? Maybe. We certainly don’t author pages of moves in notation. But I don’t think so, I play with (and have taught) a few people, intellectual types, chess players almost all of them, who are good at this sort of thing. This game is really not that complicated mechanics/strategy-wise, it’s just big - but I like that, the idea that what you do on one side of the planet affects the other. I know my explanation was probably simplistic to many of you, but I was just reporting the success I’ve had playing as the US and watching. I’m mostly here for rules clarifications :)

[ghr2]

@McX:

Although when i host it it’s with the 1st ed. Pac board. Don’t think it matters much though, except you can take Yukon.

But the entire board 2nd edition for the setup and rules, right?

[ghr2]

Do you play online at all MCX?

[McX]

Right, if I understand your meaning we use 2nd ed. rules and setup, just when I host I have the 2nd ed Europe board with 1st edition Pacific, so the IPC tracker doesn’t go all the way across the top. (I eventually asked for and received AAA sculpts for ANZAC and Japan from WoC). For example, this is what we use for Pacific http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/ with the addition of the 18 Russian infantry and 2 AAA in Siberia. So Japan should be getting all its planes. Any rules I use the rulebook first then come here if I have questions. Never played online. Does that change the dynamics at all? I would assume it takes some luck out of it.

[ghr2]

It uses a random dice generator for rolling, so one can argue that the luck is the same.  Playing online allows you to have a larger pool of people to play with and to play on a map without having to worry about setting it up.  With a larger pool of people to play with, I can say for certain that I learned a lot of new and neat strategies that helped me become a much stronger player.

The game usually records one’s moves in a ‘game history’ so that you can remember what you did and you can easily undo your moves.  Once you finished deciding, you press a button to move onto the next phase.  If you are familiar with the late 90’s A&A cd-rom, its kind of like that. (Specifically, I am speaking of TripleA).

Probably the best part about it is you can save the game for a later time and reload it when you get with your opponent again.  It gets better when you have a group of people you know actually schedule a time to meet online to play against each other which can be more convenient than going over to each other’s houses sometime.

You can also send saved games between one another if you wanted to do a ‘Play by Email’ or ‘Play by Forum’.  This allows you to post important parts of the turn (die rolls, moves, etc) on the forum or an email so you can play anytime that you yourself feels like it is most convenient, albeit it takes longer to finish.  The dice rolls are emailed right when someone else rolls and with the history, it is almost impossible to cheat without someone else noticing.

When you get the time, check out TripleA.  I always like seeing new players who bring original ideas to the table.

[McX]

Cool, thanks. I’ll check it out, I’m eager to get blasted by the Axis.

Cheers

[IKE]

@McX:

Slacking? Maybe. We certainly don’t author pages of moves in notation. But I don’t think so, I play with (and have taught) a few people, intellectual types, chess players almost all of them, who are good at this sort of thing. This game is really not that complicated mechanics/strategy-wise, it’s just big - but I like that, the idea that what you do on one side of the planet affects the other. I know my explanation was probably simplistic to many of you, but I was just reporting the success I’ve had playing as the US and watching. I’m mostly here for rules clarifications :)

Slacking wasn’t the right word, my apologies.  What I meant is that most experienced players dominate with Axis against similar level players with the Allies.

[McX]

Haha no problem. I wouldn’t tolerate slacking!

[Zhukov44]

@Pherman1215:

=Here is what I normally do with USA:

80% Pac/20% Europe
1. Rounds 1-2 secure Hawaii and New South Wales so Japan can not grab them.
2. Rounds 2-3 Once at war in Europe I try and get a carrier in SZ 92 supported by a UK air base in Gibraltar in order to deny Italy’s Med bonus. 
3. Rounds 4-5 I sink what remains of the Italian fleet and get my subs into position in SZ 97 to convoy Italy.
4. Rounds 6+ begin trading Java/Borneo/Celebes/Sumatra with Japan in attempt to save India.  (2 things happen here. Either Japan wins the Island exchange or I have to dump so many resources to taking the islands that Germany and Italy break lose in Europe.)

It goes without saying there is a great deal of variability in Axis strategy and any good USA player must adapt to what the enemy is doing.

It seems like what you are doing here is trying to defeat Germany while doing just enough in the Pacific to avert Pacific defeat.  I would try a flipped approach.  Focus on destroying Japan and then turn your guns on Germany/Italy when Japan is either defeated or you have no choice but to go Atlantic to avert VC defeat.  By defeating Japan, I mean getting Japan weak enough to where USA can focus 100% on Europe while Japan can be contained or further weakened by the remaining powers in the Pacific–Anzac, China, and UKPac.

It’s definitely important to contain Italy and achieve Allied objectives in the Med, but for the first 6 rounds that’s UK Europe’s business rather than the USA’s business.

[ghr2]

@Pherman1215:

=Here is what I normally do with USA:

80% Pac/20% Europe
1. Rounds 1-2 secure Hawaii and New South Wales so Japan can not grab them.
2. Rounds 2-3 Once at war in Europe I try and get a carrier in SZ 92 supported by a UK air base in Gibraltar in order to deny Italy’s Med bonus.  
3. Rounds 4-5 I sink what remains of the Italian fleet and get my subs into position in SZ 97 to convoy Italy.
4. Rounds 6+ begin trading Java/Borneo/Celebes/Sumatra with Japan in attempt to save India.  (2 things happen here. Either Japan wins the Island exchange or I have to dump so many resources to taking the islands that Germany and Italy break lose in Europe.)

I would say, US should invest just enough to help uk secure  gib, but only if the axis did not over invest into.  Other than that, I like the idea on focusing japan hard with the US.

I sometimes like to send anzac fighters and some india forces to support egypt and the middle east when i go balls to the walls pac with the us.

It goes without saying there is a great deal of variability in Axis strategy and any good USA player must adapt to what the enemy is doing.

It seems like what you are doing here is trying to defeat Germany while doing just enough in the Pacific to avert Pacific defeat.  I would try a flipped approach.  Focus on destroying Japan and then turn your guns on Germany/Italy when Japan is either defeated or you have no choice but to go Atlantic to avert VC defeat.  By defeating Japan, I mean getting Japan weak enough to where USA can focus 100% on Europe while Japan can be contained or further weakened by the remaining powers in the Pacific–Anzac, China, and UKPac.

It’s definitely important to contain Italy and achieve Allied objectives in the Med, but for the first 6 rounds that’s UK Europe’s business rather than the USA’s business.

[IKE]

@Young:

Hello Pherman,

Your problem is our problem, that’s why there are so many house rule discussions. Most of us have given up on trying to compete with dominate Axis strategies that can’t seem to be countered, if the Allies win it’s never legit the way the rules demand, it’s because the Axis made a fatal error, or the dice gods crucified them. Either way, the Allies almost never win against experienced players playing the Axis, at least not wins that they earn due to strategy.

Perhaps the game is more historically accurate this way, Allies need Axis mistakes to gain the edge, and then exploit it.  The Allies role is apply max pressure and force bad decisions.  Just a thought after watching 3 episodes of WWII In Colour last night.

With relatively new players I think the game is balanced in this sense, and historically accurate. The problem is that some of us play so many games that we no longer make mistakes… Hitler didn’t have the opportunity for a do-over.

[Young Grasshopper]

@McX:

Slacking? Maybe. We certainly don’t author pages of moves in notation. But I don’t think so, I play with (and have taught) a few people, intellectual types, chess players almost all of them, who are good at this sort of thing. This game is really not that complicated mechanics/strategy-wise, it’s just big - but I like that, the idea that what you do on one side of the planet affects the other. I know my explanation was probably simplistic to many of you, but I was just reporting the success I’ve had playing as the US and watching. I’m mostly here for rules clarifications :)

Sorry if we came across the wrong way, your explanation was excellent and what we meant to say was… stories of the Allies winning most games seems old to us, we now believe the situation to be the opposite because of some well tested strategies by the Axis that the Allies have not yet been able to counter. We had games where the Allies were winning all the time and then someone showed me a strong Axis strategy that someone showed them, etc…

[McX]

It’s all good - after reading a few posts over the last couple years, I knew the “I don’t bid” bit goes against the dogma. But if you bid, you usually get what? A Russian bomber or four British infantry? Does that really impact the war so much more than sound strategy (and a bit of luck)? I think no. But that’s just the experience I’ve had playing over the years, with different groups and in different cities - not that the Allies dominate, but hold their own, and the good US player should do what the US did in real life, turn the tide of the war from it’s lowest point and give the Allies a collective shot in the arm. Right? Cause whether or not the US comes into the war right away as a result of a Pearl Harbor or stays neutral for the first couple rounds, the Allies get smashed from the get go - UK gets its cash convoyed and bombed, Russians are getting massacred, China usually gets close to elimination or gets eliminated fairly quick, India’s threatened right away and everything looks horrible. Then the US player comes in, and a good one should even it up somewhat. The strategy comes from how well the US player is a factor once its economy is unleashed - how well it plans with the other allies and allocates its resources in protecting its transports and getting a foothold somewhere.

[ghr2]

Well, the bid usually gives someone better turn 1 options to handle the axis and/or provides many options for attacks later in the game.  The 4 infantry can be used to help kill some important Italian locations which helps UK stabilize and set up for the long game easier.  Russian bomber gives Russia more counter attack options and allows him to take places (like Iraq or Japanese places) much easier.

Overall, the point is to slow down the axis enough so that the US can make it’s presence felt in that theater and have an actual impact on the outcome.

[Young Grasshopper]

To balance our games, we use house rules over bids, bids I feel are better suited for the online forum games rather than table top gatherings. I do find it interesting how most bids are used against the Italians who in my opinion are the weakest threat out of all three Axis, but I do see how 1 or 2 units won’t mater early enough in the Pacific.