Hey guy’s, recently me and my friends started playing A&A first edition again. And I would always play as UK and I would concentrate on destroying Germany’s economy by strategical bombing’s the whole game. But that’s not the case anymore, before I even get a chance to start my turn Germany has already captured my capitol.
With what germany has, his first move is to destroy my navy with all his Air and sea piece’s. I can usually knock out 2 if the sub’s don’t get me. Usually germany get’s Hvy. Bomber’s and send’s one in on UK, 5 fighter’s, and transport’s a tank to capture. There’s no way in hell I can fend off all them with 2 fighter’s and a few land unit’s.
Can he do this or is there a rule that we aren’t using to benefit me? Because he usually has a 90% if not 100% chance of taking UK at the very beginning and im left to build an IC in africa or canada and start over.
It’s been a few game’s now where he has done this and I need some help trying to fight him off so I can atleast have a chance…
A couple of things:
1) It isn’t possible for Germany to send that many planes into UK on round 1.
The only ftrs that can make it and land safely are the Finland ftr and the WE ftr. The other ftrs are out of range since it takes 3 moves to get there and they need a 4th to land. However, the bomber can reach.
The most possible units Germany can attack with in the land battle are 2 inf (or 1 arm), 2 ftrs, 1 bom.
Even with HB this isn’t a gimmie.
The 6 total planes cannot be involved in both the sea and land battle. If 3 ftrs are used to take out the UK ships that only leaves 2 ftrs that can attack the island.
2) As Russia attack his baltic fleet with your 2 ftrs.
This will kill the transport and make a G1 landing impossible.
3) Reinforce your SZ with the Russian ships.
If you kill the Baltic fleet on R1 (with 1 sub, 2 ftrs), move your Rus trn to the UK sz to help defend.
Now you have 1 BB, 2 trns to defend.
4) If you play that Russia can’t attack in rd 1, then transport 2 Rus inf to UK or land a Russian ftr on UK to help defend.
ALWAYS buy an IC for India on turn 1 and savethe rest of teh money. Japan MUST buy an IC on the first round or lose the game. If Russia did its job in Machuria, th eJapanesse are forced to purchase in Kwangtung which a far inferior to Manchuria. The U.S. should buy for Sinkiang first round. If by chance the Japanese didn’t purchase an IC on the first round, just laugh as you purchase teh remaining two IC on your round (Austalia and South Africa unless under threat.). If they did purhcase buy a navy (AC, 2TP, and 2 INF, 1ARm for india).
:? Mo, like Darth says, Germany can’t take you out on turn 1! He can take your navy, but not London. Fortify with some more land materiel and slap around whoever is playing A. Tell them you need some help! A can provide fighters, a bomber and land materiel. In addition R can start putting pressure in the east, since G’s sending most of the stuff your way.
You can’t win it alone, but you have allies that should be able to save you.
The only problem with ALWAYS buy an IC for india on turn 1 is this. If I’m japan, I will devote many resources to making that a jap IC. And while you’re laughing as you purchase the last 2 IC’s, I will be snickering at the fact that uk is blowing all that money and producing no pressure on ger, and very little on japan!!
2)Â As Russia attack his baltic fleet with your 2 ftrs.
This will kill the transport and make a G1 landing impossible.
I disagree with using both fighters. From my experience, one should be more than enough, unless you’re extremely unlucky. It’s only about a one in five chance that you won’t win the combat, and the second fighter could be better served putting pressure on Germany in the opening move.
The only problem with ALWAYS buy an IC for india on turn 1 is this. If I’m japan, I will devote many resources to making that a jap IC. And while you’re laughing as you purchase the last 2 IC’s, I will be snickering at the fact that uk is blowing all that money and producing no pressure on ger, and very little on japan!!
Agreed. I’ve only played three games against human opponents, but in the games I’ve played, India ICs aren’t terribly useful. It’s best to take out Germany as quickly as possible, and then prepare for an Eastern assault. In all of the Allies games I’ve played, except for the first two, Russia’s been able to hold up to a Japanese assault before Germany was taken (with assistance from Britain and America, of course), and that lowers the importance of the Eastern front (don’t just give up without a fight, though!).
Just remember: After Germany’s gone, you have all the time in the world to build an IC out East.
Nope, ALWAYS buy an IC in India. Japan may take it but it will take them forever, especially without an IPC. Not buying IC in India and Sinkiang is like letting the axis have a free dice roll in which they can win the game outright. If you cannot attack and counterattack in Asia, it lets Japan dictate exactly where to attack, with how much, and how much to defend with. This lets them use the minimum forces to attack the U.S. and British territories while funnelling the maximum at Russia a recipe for disaster. If Japan is allowed to dictate how Asia goes move by move, the Axis should win. Trust me build an IC.
Well all I know is that if you do that , then germany will breathe a big sigh of relief at having no pressure applied to them. That can be dangerous!
MADDOGG is exactly right. By splitting up UK’s forces, you’re giving Germany more time to build up, and more of a chance to hurt Russia. The Soviet Union can last just fine with a few friendly fighters in Karelia and Russia, and Germany pressured into defending, rather than attacking.
I wouldn’t be too sure about an Indian IC. As Japan, I’ve been able to take India quite easily during J1, without losing too much power elsewhere.
Japan has two fighters on the mainland, both of which can immediately attack India. There’s also a bomber on the main island that is in range. Also, one tranny with the 2inf 1ftr in the Philipines, backed by the 1AC 1BB 1ftr by the Caroline Islands (the boats should not be able to make it: the AC will allow the 2ftr to land after attacking the tranny), means it can destroy the British tranny (and/or sub) that could possibly be defending the Indian coast at that point, and land its troops for a total of 4inf 2ftr 1bmr of attacking forces against a British maximum of 2inf 1ftr defending forces.
Even if Russia devotes its entire initial air force to India’s defence, the end result will be 2inf 3ftr of defence, and that still doesn’t quite stack up to Japan’s invading army (and at the cost of Russia’s air force).
Attacking FIC wouldn’t be efficient, either. Even if you dice-whipped Japan and took FIC, the tranny from Philipines would still be a threat, and could easily claim the now-defenseless India, and its IC. (not to mention the substantial forces that can easily reclaim French Indo-China)
So there ya go. Japan definitely can, and probably will, take India by the end of the first round. (unless the UK gets a lot of help from its allies, and even then, it’s iffy) Then, Japan can use the IC to stage against China or Russia, while coming from the northeast. It’s a significant loss in resources for the UK, and a significant gain for Japan.
Correct me if I’m wrong. This is just from analysing the starting position of each country. I may have missed something. ><;
That may pay some dividends no doubt. But I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that that’s not the most efficient way to deal with the axis. Of course doing the same old efficient method every game might get a little boring after a while. That’s one reason that I much prefer to play the axis.
limitedwhole, are you not playing with bids or something? If so, what sort of bids? At least Maddogg, and I think SUD as well are both probably responding to you under the assumption that the Axis is bidding 22+ or at least 12+ for RR (I’m not too familiar with RR bid levels).
People can assert strategies all they want but if they’re not operating under the same assumptions then it’s useless. If Japan bids 2 inf MAN 1 inf FIC, as I will sometimes do, then India and China will fall on J1 and Sink on J2 guaranteed, barring horrible dice in ADS for Japan, but that’s one reason I don’t play ADS - any strategy, however bad, can work some of the time in ADS with the right dice of course. And if Japan didn’t bid that much there, then the bid probably went to Germany and with the US and UK focusing via ICs on Japan, Russia is dead before the combined production from those ICs (5 units per turn, which cannot match Japan’s inf production with fighter support) is able to do much good. Of course this relies on the previously mentioned bid levels and if you’re not bidding or bidding much lower, then sure your ideas would work - in fact a lot of strategies would work as Allies.
No we play no bids.
We use the following rules.
It’s worth noting that the British TP can be used to block an assault on India. The Russians really do not need to send FIGs down. They are far too important in Europe. What the IC in India and Sinkiang do is allow the Allies and Japan to trade back and forth Burma and China. The Japanese cannot attack India without a fleet then. Sinkiang is difficult to attack only form China as that means seeding Burma. If Sinkiang is taken it can be liberated from India. A U.S. fleet keeps the Japanese fleet at home. They really can’t afford to send ships beyond Burma.
In the Pacific I prefer to invest early to stunt the Japanese while keeping the GErmans out of Afirca. Then take France or reinforce through Findland depending on teh state of Russian plight.
In the PAcific, the U.S. should have lost the FIG and AC but retreated the SUB depending. So they either have a BB and TP and maybe a SUb. The T1 Sub build and T2 AC build is all the allies should ever need in teh PAcific to completely hem in Japan. I normally build maybe one more sub dpeending on the board state. The Idea is for teh U.S. to puch in a fleet into Japanese territories. If the Japanese attack they will either lose all their TP cpacity or a large amount of capital ship or plains. Any ofthese losses is incredibly detrimental to Japan. If the Japan player isn’t carefull you can take the Japan SZ which is essentially game over as the transport supply is halted and their IC in Kwangtung should fall.
No we play no bids.Â
We use the following rules.
- all IC limited to production value.
- Russian disrepair- Russia cannot attack with planes and ships on T1 although they may move during the move phase.
- Germany starts with techs 1-3 and Japan starts with supersubs.
It’s worth noting that the British TP can be used to block an assault on India. The Russians really do not need to send FIGs down. They are far too important in Europe. What the IC in India and Sinkiang do is allow the Allies and Japan to trade back and forth Burma and China. The Japanese cannot attack India without a fleet then. Sinkiang is difficult to attack only form China as that means seeding Burma. If Sinkiang is taken it can be liberated from India. A U.S. fleet keeps the Japanese fleet at home. They really can’t afford to send ships beyond Burma.
In the Pacific I prefer to invest early to stunt the Japanese while keeping the GErmans out of Afirca. Then take France or reinforce through Findland depending on teh state of Russian plight.
In the PAcific, the U.S. should have lost the FIG and AC but retreated the SUB depending. So they either have a BB and TP and maybe a SUb. The T1 Sub build and T2 AC build is all the allies should ever need in teh PAcific to completely hem in Japan. I normally build maybe one more sub dpeending on the board state. The Idea is for teh U.S. to puch in a fleet into Japanese territories. If the Japanese attack they will either lose all their TP cpacity or a large amount of capital ship or plains. Any ofthese losses is incredibly detrimental to Japan. If the Japan player isn’t carefull you can take the Japan SZ which is essentially game over as the transport supply is halted and their IC in Kwangtung should fall.
Three questions:
1. One move when facing a UK IC in India and no significant reinforcement from Russia is to hit Sinkiang along with China on J1….completely eliminating the US from Asia. How would you respond?
2. ICs are already limited to production values, except starting ICs. Are you meaning that starting ICs are also limited? And if so, what are you doing to protect Karelia?
3. Why do you believe that Japan must build an IC on Kwang?
SUD
Let’s assume I have answered 3 already. The Japanese are forced to buy an IC in Kwangtung. The Russians have Manchuria. If the Japanese use all their forces against the U.S., they are taking a major gamble that if fails will result in disaster. To do so will require vacating Indo-china, and Kwangtung. This means Japan had only four infantry to do this move and risks losing all of the mainland. Set it up and look at it form Japans persepctive. Do you really want to take this gamble knowing the British can take Sinkiang back next turn? That being said many a game has been won by good dice on a poor descision.
Russia keeps taking EE to block German tanks form pouring in. If the Germans want to go all in with a 55% chance of winning while putting their entire airforce at risk to AA and allowing the British fleet to survive so be it. It only takes one set of good Russian dice to end this game immediately. The Germans invest all their air and tanks to possibly lose the territory on the next turn to counterattack. Not to mention ignoring the British navy means that the Brits can start landing troops into KArelia right away too.
Von Chirnin sucks because it doesn’t analyse the problem correctly. It has Russia wasting its money to buy an IC and the Uk commiting to two IC. This still leaves one IC for the Japanese to buy, which they will. My version has the Russians not wasting their money. B1, buy IC for India. On J1, the Japanese have to look at it this way. The U.S. can buy IC for Sinkiang. The Brits will then get another turn before the Japanese and can afford to buy the remaining IC’s. If the Japanese do not buy an IC on turn 1 they risk losing the game outright. With two aalied AC in Asia, they really need ARM to make any headway. They must buy an IC and typically it will be in Kwangtung because Russia will have taken Manchuria.
Who decided that the japs must have an IC ?? How about transporting a bunch of troops into the action?? What a novel idea!! I just came up with that idea folks. You heard it here first!!! :evil:
Who decided that the japs must have an IC ?? How about transporting a bunch of troops into the action?? What a novel idea!! I just came up with that idea folks. You heard it here first!!! :evil:
IC+ TP equal ARM+INF. TP= INF. Touchee!
limitedwhole, if all your strategic discussions are based off a no-bid game where starting ICs are limited to their production, with a moderately restricted Russia (but not totally), then everything that everyone is saying here is going to be completely invalid to you, and everything you are saying is going to be completely invalid to them. (I don’t consider the tech advantages you mentioned that important).
It’s like you’re playing two different games here. If I was playing chess against you while you were playing checkers against me, what sort of chaos would result?
Probably most of the people here are used to bid games, on the level I described before. At the very least you need to stick to out of the box rules: if you’re discussing strats based on some wacky rules your own play group uses, you need to be posting in the House Rules forum, not here.
Japan can easily afford to vacate FIC and Kwa, if they move in force to Man then Mongolia (or Yak), they can force the Allies to abandon SE without a fight or they end up losing Novo to Japan.
To Avin’s point,
it is a bit hard since everyone is probably comparing apples to oranges.
It is pretty much accepted that the Allies can employ any strat and basically win in most games (without a bid). I could probably win by buying US IC’s in both Brazil and Ala on rd 1 but I don’t think it would be feasible to do so in a real game.
I believe equalizing factors are something like (at least to be competitive)
For RR: 12 bid
No RR: 21+ bid
Anything strat talk that doesn’t take into account anything close to those levels probably isn’t that reliable.
It is just hard to weigh tech or production chages, b/c the Allies can still wreck havok on rd 1. Ukr will still fall on R1 (or be strafed) and KwangBang is also still an option. That will basically end the game right there no matter what the Allies decide to do.
limitedwhole, if all your strategic discussions are based off a no-bid game where starting ICs are limited to their production, with a moderately restricted Russia (but not totally), then everything that everyone is saying here is going to be completely invalid to you, and everything you are saying is going to be completely invalid to them. (I don’t consider the tech advantages you mentioned that important).
It’s like you’re playing two different games here. If I was playing chess against you while you were playing checkers against me, what sort of chaos would result?
Probably most of the people here are used to bid games, on the level I described before. At the very least you need to stick to out of the box rules: if you’re discussing strats based on some wacky rules your own play group uses, you need to be posting in the House Rules forum, not here.
I doubt evrything I say is invalid and everything you say is invalid because of differnet rules. Also Bids are house rules…duh. Also I note that you relate bid games to chess while IC limit is relegated to checkers. Bid games are lame. they lead to swingyness. Bid. Put crap somewhere. Go nuts. Duh. The rules I use simply make it so Russia can’t polp huge stacks at Karelia everyturn and make the game swingy.
Anyhow, I would still play most of the strategy I suggest even in a standard game WITHOUT BIDS.
you guys must some shit axis players if all you do is throw TP’s at Germany. You would get killed aorund here with that crap.
