- DIRTY TIP! when playing face to face. Don’t chip your units up, leave them in a messy pile on the board. Move the clump of units around, and no one will know quite whats in there… I’ve seen this work many a time.
We’ve had a house rule for over 20 years that you must use chips. Just to prevent this sort of thing.
Yeah, if I don’t like the pile, I will ask that person to chip there units or I will chip it for them. Good house rule to chip all land units at the very least.
@Young:
Know your enemy
So many times during a game I hear “Dam…. I didn’t see that coming”, or “I didn’t know you could reach me there”. It happens because, players don’t take the time to study their enemy before they move their own units. I compare A&A to Chess all the time, and a good Chess player will always scan the board and determine everything his opponent’s pieces can do to harm his chances of winning. Same thing in A&A, as it only takes 3 to 5 minutes to put yourself in your enemy’s shoes, and ask yourself… "what can my units do, where can my units reach, and how can my units be used best. Once you know where your opponent’s power lies, you can sabotage their ability to wage war effectively, and prepare yourself to do what needs to be done. Many of you may say, “thats just a given, and it goes without saying”… I disagree. Many players are so jacked up on their own strategic juices, and eager to show their enemy their powerful offensive wrath, that they can’t see what’s about to happen to them.
Tip: Instead of getting all excited and taking his knight with your pawn, you should study the board and realize that, by moving that pawn, you are allowing him to take your queen with his bishop. Take the time, and put yourself in your enemy’s shoes… you will be surprised how often the insight will effect your purchases and movements. Which brings up another point…
Minimize your mistakes
Those of us who are highly experienced and play the game well, will still make a blunder that can shift the balance with a single combat move. There is a lot to do in A&A, especially during one on one games (which is the most common format by far). However, I have seen even the most skilled players, playing 1 nation in a 6 player game, make the biggest errors you can imagine, point is…. mistakes are going to happen. You may forget to buy a destroyer which was very important to your campaign, or you may realize that you haven’t been collecting that $5 NO for the past 4 rounds, and maybe you will buy 4 infantry and 2 transports for ANZAC, only to find out that you can only place 3 units. Most of these are newbie mistakes, but no matter how good you are, you will eventually forget to do things that you wanted to do during the course of a game… guaranteed. Some will be minor and unnoticeable, but it only takes one major mistake to prolong victory, or threaten defeat.
Tip: Don’t be arrogant, you will make mistakes, and once you accept this, the cure is simple… minimize them. Â Â Â Â Â Â
Very good post. I agree wholeheartedly. :-D
Grasshopper, I agree as well with the need to minimize mistakes. Especially between two relatively equal opponents, mistakes can mean the difference between a win and a loss. It means that (especially with the online format) you need to take your time and analyze your moves.
A good example was a game in which I had brought a US Pacific fleet south, raided the DEI, and thinking I was clever, kept going into the Indian Ocean to raid and control the Med. It was a great idea in theory… but I had never taken Italian Somaliland with Britain… so… aircraft that I never counted on were able to use it to get just in range, and destroyed my fleet. From that point on, the game was over.
I fumbled the ball on the goal line.
The more I’ve cleaned up my fumbles and interceptions, the more competitive I’ve become. When you play largely mistake free (and have a relatively good grasp of strategy and logistics) you force your opponent to play at the same level.
So. To the point, make sure you take Italian Somaliland. :-)
Grasshopper, I agree as well with the need to minimize mistakes. Especially between two relatively equal opponents, mistakes can mean the difference between a win and a loss. It means that (especially with the online format) you need to take your time and analyze your moves.
A good example was a game in which I had brought a US Pacific fleet south, raided the DEI, and thinking I was clever, kept going into the Indian Ocean to raid and control the Med. It was a great idea in theory… but I had never taken Italian Somaliland with Britain… so… aircraft that I never counted on were able to use it to get just in range, and destroyed my fleet. From that point on, the game was over.
I fumbled the ball on the goal line.
The more I’ve cleaned up my fumbles and interceptions, the more competitive I’ve become. When you play largely mistake free (and have a relatively good grasp of strategy and logistics) you force your opponent to play at the same level.
It’s OK to make mistakes and learn from them, but I knew someone who never learned from his mistakes, and just chalked up losses as bad luck. It takes mental effort to try and become a better player, and those who think there is no room for improvement, will continue to make the same errors.
Well,
I’m paraphrasing, but the quote goes something like: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes”.
“Tall Paul”
Enjoying the thread, I have a few things to add:
1. Don’t be so quick to take hits on your carriers, esp if you are on the defense. If you don’t have a landing zone with in one move and you take hits on your carriers, the attacker can just retreat and you lose your airforce. I have done this a couple of times on my unsuspecting Japanese opponents. I have attacked with my large American navy against their large Japanese navy and after first round of combat Japan took damage on all of their carriers so I then just retreat and they lose all their airforce. Now America is in a nice defensive position with all of it’s air and navy and japan only has surface ships and damaged aircraft carriers to counter attack with. I have done this move enough that my opponents only take hits on AC after they have taken hits on aircraft.
2. It is better to be the attacker than defender because you can retreat and also neutralize your opponents air power. This has been mentioned with China attacking Japan, but also works well for Russia. One way around that for Germany is to have Italy take the land then reinforce with Germany and their massive airforce. Make it nearly impossible for Russia to counter that force with out risking its entire force.
3. As Russia don’t lose your big starting force. There is no point in keeping 20 inf in Leningrad if Germany can attack it and wipe out that force. Instead give up Leningrad and either counterattack (depending on German force) or move that force closer to moscow to help defend the only spot in Russia that absolutely must be defended.
good points 1024
I think fleet is better on the D though unless you have a pile of subs
stay next to an island and you have extra cv’s worth of defense or is it defence? with scramblers
also if you have a base you can repair your one hit carriers
Enjoying the thread, I have a few things to add:
1. Don’t be so quick to take hits on your carriers, esp if you are on the defense. If you don’t have a landing zone with in one move and you take hits on your carriers, the attacker can just retreat and you lose your airforce. I have done this a couple of times on my unsuspecting Japanese opponents. I have attacked with my large American navy against their large Japanese navy and after first round of combat Japan took damage on all of their carriers so I then just retreat and they lose all their airforce. Now America is in a nice defensive position with all of it’s air and navy and japan only has surface ships and damaged aircraft carriers to counter attack with. I have done this move enough that my opponents only take hits on AC after they have taken hits on aircraft.
I have been in games where players take lots and lots of time deciding which casualties to take in the middle of a large naval battle (great fun).
2. It is better to be the attacker than defender because you can retreat and also neutralize your opponents air power. This has been mentioned with China attacking Japan, but also works well for Russia. One way around that for Germany is to have Italy take the land then reinforce with Germany and their massive airforce. Make it nearly impossible for Russia to counter that force with out risking its entire force.
If you have 10 infantry against 20 tanks and 20 fighters, it really doesn’t matter if you’re attacking or defending. The can opener strategy can be applied in many areas of the game, I agree its very useful for Italy and Germany against Russia.
3. As Russia don’t lose your big starting force. There is no point in keeping 20 inf in Leningrad if Germany can attack it and wipe out that force. Instead give up Leningrad and either counterattack (depending on German force) or move that force closer to moscow to help defend the only spot in Russia that absolutely must be defended.
100% Agree. You can usually defend Moscow with 60+ infantry, 2 tanks, 2 mechs, 4 AA guns, 1 tac bomber, and 6 fighters against anything Germany can get there.
1. As the Soviet Union, build up your industry on the first round (either Leningrad or Ukraine to a major IC). All Soviet IC’s aside from Moscow only produce 3 units. This is not enough to slow or halt Barbarossa. You want to stop the Germans at the front, not on the welcome mat to Moscow.
2. As the Soviet Union, do not build all infantry or all tanks. Infantry have no attack counter attack capabilities alone against the German onslaught and your tanks will be too few to stop a German assault. Instead, buy infantry & artillery combos so that you can counter attack as well as defend. Build a few tanks to help out with counter attacks.
3. As Germany it is essential that you keep Britain out of your hair so that you can focus most (if not all) your resources on the Soviet Union. If Germany does not capture Moscow before the Americans arrive then it is game over. Either capture London or drain UK’s economy with bombers and subs before your initiate Operation Barbarossa.
4. As Italy your biggest role in the war is to oust the British from Africa and the Middle East. If you do not achieve at least two of your NO’s by the second round, you are not doing well. If Germany has to send forces to North Africa to help you get rid of the British, you are failing your part of the war. You might as well be as counter productive as the real Italians in the war.
5. As Japan it is vital that you take control of the Dutch East Indies as soon as possible. This is where your economy will be boosted to a level that you can actually compete against the Americans. Do not be afraid of an American intervention. It may be in your favor to bring them in early if you can get Hong Kong, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies within 1-2 rounds. Remember that you are the Primary opponent of the US. Keep pressure on them so that they do not kill Germany.
@Hitlers:
1. As the Soviet Union, build up your industry on the first round (either Leningrad or Ukraine to a major IC). All Soviet IC’s aside from Moscow only produce 3 units. This is not enough to slow or halt Barbarossa. You want to stop the Germans at the front, not on the welcome mat to Moscow.
You are not allowed to upgrade these minors to majors because the IPC value of these territories is 2; you need to have a territory value of 3 to place Major ICs
Instead, you could perhaps build a minor IC in Rostov or Ukraine.
I see a lot of different points that I can see people have done. Frankly though, as an Axis power, I’m more and more surprised to see how many people look at Calcutta as a primary target. Half the time, I actually ignore Calcutta, and focus on other targets. For example, on Japan turn 1, if they are not going to go to war with the US and the other allies right away, I only advance into china and don’t intervene with anything else. I leave a decent fleet outside of Japan, making all my groupings ready to engage wherever I need them. Japan builds a Minor IC and 2 transports turn 1. I think this should be the most common buy in order to fortify your position. Turn 2, I decide how to invade the big islands, and what to use against the United states. I will make 2 fleets; 1 that will fight the English and ANZAC resistance, and the other that will focus on securing their defense against America. I believe it’s almost better to be defensive with the Northern Japanese force, since at the end of turn 2, Japan is pretty thin. The last thing you want is United States focusing directly on Tokyo and you losing simply because you didn’t have enough to defend with.
The Money Islands are obviously important, but as some people play, they realize that the faster China is gone, the easier Asia becomes to take. As Japan, I constantly work on trying to shut China down as much as possible. I realized that Japan has much more success when trying to build units on the ground rather than at sea. IF China is eliminated, then They can redirect to Calcutta if the capital number hasn’t been reached. This forces them to step away from any kind of naval force they were going to originally build, and keep their forces on the ground.
I generally go for Sydney, because it holds a lot more strategic value (in my opinion.) When you take Sydney, you don’t have to worry about the southern forces at all, and reduces you from 3/4 fronts, to 2/3 fronts (Depending on the way you look at it.) Germany generally has an easier chance of winning, simply because they have the opportunity of throwing themselves at Russia without really thinking of what they’re going to protect themselves with IN COMPARISON. There is Immense thinking on both sides, but I find it much more difficult to keep the supply lines going with Japan, than I do with Germany.
All in all, I think that Calcutta is actually a waste of time. If you take the Philippines, Hong Kong, Sydney, and Honolulu, then you can win. This also allows you to focus more on navy, which poses a bigger threat to the US, which will stay off of Germany’s back. These are just things that I have discovered while playing the game.
I know this is an old thread, but someone else rezzed it… still, I saw this and had a chuckle…
@Hitlers:
4. As Italy your biggest role in the war is to oust the British from Africa and the Middle East. If you do not achieve at least two of your NO’s by the second round, you are not doing well. If Germany has to send forces to North Africa to help you get rid of the British, you are failing your part of the war. You might as well be as counter productive as the real Italians in the war.
Like invading countries they can’t beat (Greece)
All great stuff! Glad this thread got resurrected.
All I want to add
Know when to retreat from a battle. I’ve seen (and lived) it so many times now: you roll into a semi-big battle with the numbers in your favor and victory is imminent, until that first round where you under-roll by three and your opponent over-rolls by four. You no longer have the numbers but dammit, you’re mad and you’re not going anywhere. You know how this story ends.
Just retreat. Better to lose a territory than an army.
That depends on a lot of things! One of those is how vulnerable you are after retreating. Now your opponent can bring his airforce and maybe additional mech/tanks, amphibious assault units to crush you even worse
That depends on a lot of things! One of those is how vulnerable you are after retreating. Now your opponent can bring his airforce and maybe additional mech/tanks, amphibious assault units to crush you even worse
Agreed. Of course everything depends on what the board looks like at that time, which is why I rarely agree with absolute statements made about the game.
You make a great point about stubbornness of human nature and continuing an attack out of emotions and not wanting to admit defeat - I do it sometimes
Sometimes you get lucky and it pays off though :-P
You make a great point about stubbornness of human nature and continuing an attack out of emotions and not wanting to admit defeat - I do it sometimes
Sometimes you get lucky and it pays off though :-P
I tilt easily when taking a bad beat in poker and losing a big pot.
@Young:
You make a great point about stubbornness of human nature and continuing an attack out of emotions and not wanting to admit defeat - I do it sometimes
Sometimes you get lucky and it pays off though� :-PI tilt easily when taking a bad beat in poker and losing a big pot.
And as a fellow gambler you know that, even though this can’t be mathematically proven, it’s true: luck comes in bunches.
How often does anybody play this game and it goes good roll, average roll, bad roll, repeat?
When sizing up how successful any one battle will be, take into account 3 factors:
1. Total punch. The most obvious one - how strong your attack is by adding the strength of dice for all your units.
2. Number of hit points. How much fodder you have is usually a more decisive factor than total punch. Amur attacking a stack of 12 guys in Manchuria with a punch difference of 18 to 24 will win 2 out of 3 times.
3. Strength distribution curve. This is the least acknowledged, but very important. I’ve seen defenses think they’re safe with a higher total punch and more hit points get completely crushed with average rolling. Say for example Germany is attacking with lots of planes and inf/mech, and Russia is defending with a lot of inf. Russia has the highest punch on round 1 of combat, but loses a lot of 2’s while Germany only loses 1’s. On round 2 Germany now has a higher punch and by round 3 more hit points as well.
Defense: make a stand or counterattack? Without taking into account tactical considerations and just looking at the economics of attrition, it depends on the balance of ground troops to planes your opponent has. If he has a lot of planes, retreat and counterattack. If he has more ground troops, better to make a stand (unless you feel you can make a stronger stand somewhere else). Usually I split my forces along this criteria: keep just as many units into defense as is necessary to whittle his ground fodder down into something I can take with my counterattacking force. If he has a regular supply chain, you’re screwed, but this will take down as many of his inf as possible with you. But if he can’t follow up with reinforcements… I played a game where UK2 and Japan traded India back and forth over the course of 3 rounds, our respective stacks in West India and Burma slowly dwindling, because neither of us could bring in reinforcements and to take India with full force would have been suicide considering the other side’s aerial counterattack.
Most people in this thread understand that this game is about force projection: put yourself in position to attack multiple fronts and force the enemy to defend itself asymmetrically. But the response to that is: don’t defend yourself asymmetrically. You can’t prevent your opponent from making any and all strikes. Force him to choose one and then plan your strategy around that. The classic example is a German fleet off 91 and control of Gibraltar. From there he can strike at Washington, London, subsahara, and most seazones in the Atlantic and Med. Allies will lose the economic game if they try to deny him all options by simultaneously beefing up US fleet and UK fleets and stacking South Africa and Egypt. Instead, you can use it as an opportunity to direct where you want Germany to go by creating paths of least resistance. Leave London just open enough to make a late sealion tempting (only to be retaken by America), meanwhile securing the MidEast. Or let him waste his time scoring points in subsahara, even taking South Africa, meanwhile consolidating an Atlantic fleet that can make mince meat out of a divided German fleet. Or leave your Med fleet as bait only to trap him in the Med by taking Gibraltar afterwards, thus allowing you to commence D-Day. Or as US, focus on Pac, putting just enough troops to prevent an invasion from what is probably a minimal drop. Or leave some high profile boats behind to lure him into a counterattack. If Germany wants to take advantage of any of the wonderful opportunities his strategic position affords him, he has to give up said position. It would be a terrible mistake to allow him to continue projecting that much force round after round by defending every front.
Props to whoever suggested extending fighter ranges by placing them on allies’ carriers; I’m going to start doing that. I don’t see it so useful for G/I, but it can be invaluable for US/AZ. Anzac fighters from 33 (off Carolinas) can reach unsuspecting transports as far away as the coast of India.
