Got a game coming up this Saturday. Yipee

If they J1, then I would suggest buying an extra carrier and having these guys hang out with the USA, making the main fleet much less vulnerable to a pre-emptive attack. With a sub or two, and a tac, the ANZAC forces can usually mop up the Japanese fleet if it survives an initial attack by the US.

If they dont, then your planes can land on java, usually, they find a good way to cross, and at least as far as the Japanese TTs are concerned, you can screen those out (even if they have an NB)

The idea of sending the 6 planes to moscow, however, denies you alot of other milestones in the game; without the grey and tan planes in theatre, Bombay is easy to take, and if not, Sydney will be. Players who are not cautious about building reserves with ANZAC can easily find both capitals under threat, esp. once Japan can use Malaya’s base. Whichever one you defend, they attack the other (now that you can’t cross back). If you dont defend either, they can take both.

Another fine plan is to marry the UK air force from India with the one from the Med, assuming that one survives. That roving force can do alot to wreck the Axis, or it can defend the factories in the core area (persia, Iraq–the axis mundi of the board. pun intended).

No matter what you do, its still more than one turn from India to Moscow, and this is very intentional on the part of the game designers. At that juncture in the game, the areas around Moscow are under threat, so you can’t land planes alone anywhere but moscow.

Sending all your auxiliary planes from the minor allies to rescue Moscow will probably save it, but you’ll lose the game when the Japanese dominate that board, or the Italians/Germans take Africa and the 2$ Russian zones. For all these reasons, I prefer to leave most of those planes nearer to where they start, using them to tear Japan apart, rather than sending them on a long range adventure that prevents them from attacking and expressing threat. If Japan is threatened by the USA, there are plenty of times that they have to weaken their westward push, and at that point, UK planes can join whatever Russian stacks are still fighting, once you see the outcome (save Bombay, we hope).

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You might remember my “11 conclusions” thread from a few weeks back, where I explained I thought we should develop a “strategic framework”. My thought is essentially that we should push the meta-game to a final state of maturity by determining what the best Allied response is to the rapid Axis push, and use our conclusions to help support a theory of the board.

The strategy I described earlier (combining the Russians in Africa, the Canadian / U.S. push for the money islands and concentrated British support of Moscow) is the best I can come up with for an Allied response. I am interested to see if you agree or would be willing to test it in your games as well, or if you have any objections that I should consider.

I am buying the following units as part of this strategy:

Russia:
7 artillery, 4 mech on turn 1 followed by straight infantry unless special circumstances demand a fighter or some artillery. I am sending 6 mech, 2 tanks to Africa. Remember the idea is that these forces will be replaced by the British in short order.

America:
4 bombers turn 1 (for Europe) followed by fleet for the foreseeable future (carrier, loaded transports, assorted warships but very few aircraft as ANZAC will provide these).

UK Europe:
6 infantry, 1 fighter turn 1; minor IC’s in Persia and Egypt turn 2; mech infantry turn 3 followed by fighters and mechs 4+

UK Pacific:
3 infantry, 2 artillery turn 1; continue building infantry and artillery until Japan is thrown back, then switch to mechs and fighters to support the defense of Moscow.

ANZAC:
Straight fighters unless Japan is doing some crazy kill Australia first move. These fighters will land on American carriers and/or journey to Moscow.

The general strategy begins by coordinating Russian, Chinese, British and American stacks so they are all hurtling towards China and the money islands at once. Japan can annihilate one or maybe two of them, but then they’re stuck just trying to hold on to their gains. At that point Second Russia is born and the tan blob can begin to move on the Germans. America sends fleet to blockade Italy and/or provide cover for a Grecian beachhead using Egyptians and Brazilian-American forces, who have been marching across Sub-Saharan Africa this whole time.

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

Thanks, the table is 8’X4’ and the map is 72"X33".

Well i was misinformed then.Do you think there is going to be a “global edition” or something that improves on AAG in the near future or do you think that AA42 is the standard and AAG is the deluxe for the next 5+ years ( excluding AA50 reprint )

Germany, Japan and Italy have to be aggressive. While also taking calculation on when to go to war with certain countries. So if you just sit and build without moving, you’re doomed.

@Spade632:

Sergente Nella Neve,

I actually am using your sheet as a template, I like the way it was designed.  I’ve changed a couple things though.  And of course I am adding the Europe board spaces.

Let me know if you’d like me to credit you on the sheet itself in any way.

Yes, of course! Thank you!!! :D

Thanks very much.
Cheers!

E_D