US strategy : Alaska IC

My purchase and exact unit allocation will depend on Russia’s move and how it went. I prefer to build only land units on G1. If I’m able to stack Karelia or Ukraine, I’ll build 2-3 tanks. No matter what, here’s what I attack in no particular order:

1. Gibraltar Battleship: sub, 3-4 fighters
2. Karelia: minimal force or full stack, depending on counterattack
3. Egypt: 2 inf, 2 tanks, maybe a fighter, bomber
4. East Med Destroyer: battleship, loaded transport, fighter

If Russia attacked Ukraine or Belorussia, I will always counterattack. An attack on Ukraine changes where I play my fighters. Attacking West Russia on G1 is a risky play that I’ll only consider if Russia had really lousy dice.

@Yoper:

I am especially interested in this simply because of how this will affect my use of it in the A&A tournament that I run.  Being that it is a timed event for the individual games, I am curious as to how the extra need for naval units will slow down the Allies in building up for their attack into Europe.

I’d say it can slow down the Allies from 1-3 turns. It really depends on how many naval and air units G has at the start of G2. It might be enough to sink the AC and 2 DDs that seems to be the regular UK buy for UK1, depending on where they are placed. It also depends if the US landed on Algeria on US1 or not and how Africa is going for the Allies.

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

In a good KJF, Germany will be stopped before getting 50 IPC, Switch.  Any layman player who puts some thought into it can easily slow Germany enough to prevent them from being at the doorstep of Moscow before Round 10, at which point, Japan should be castrated.

The trick is to put 2-3 transports of troops into Africa a turn.  Easy to do without building a single extra transport.  Actually, odds are, you’re putting 4 transports in a round.  Maybe more, if England is focused on Africa and fighters for Russia.  America can take Japan without England’s help.  Just use the English fleet to make it near impossible to sink the American fleet and let America take the islands.

It was… and he lost :-D

I as Russia only send the units east of russia and caucasus on the first turn to asia the rest to concentrate on germany

Hi Hannibal (ante portas),

In fact, I agree with pretty much you said. Surely I couldn’t keep up with your tactical understanding when A&A was new to me. So congratulations at first.
Nevertheless there’s some more input. Just my humble opinion:

Except of the Baltic AC in your first round, ships usually don’t buy for Germany. If you really want to build 1-2 Subs/Trans in the Baltic each turn you’ll have to stay there with your own navy or they’ll be sunk immediately with british airforce. UK and US can together close you up in the Baltic and wait for your attack, of course it will be costly for them, but usually more expensive for you.

You are quite right about going through the north is a superior strategy. Karelia is a very strong position for both sides. As the axis you should take and hold it in the first round. UK has different options to support Russia. His support in NWY can be strafed to death by your forces in Karelia. Better to cut of your supply lines in EEU after your Baltic fleet is removed. Or, most likely, he can support Archangel, so you’ll meet the main UK/Rus forces in ARC.
If you wanna go south through UKR, Russia will concentrate it’s forces in CAU and the UK can take a lot of your income away from you. You won’t be able to trade more than one territory with Russia (WRU), but it’s harder for Russia to trade a lot of countries (due to the max. of 3 Ftrs)
In fact, I most likely wait in KAR until the japanese player puts preassure on Russia which forces the allies to retreat on my front, then I take a step into WRU.

Don’t underestimate a US counterattack on Pearl Harbour. Especially if the go KJF it’s very hard to replace your lost navy again. An aggressive british opening in the Pacific and a Pearl counter, 2 ICs in IND and SIN and Japan is in big trouble.

You are quite lucky that your Russian player is rather predictable. Maybe he should be more aggressive, attack UKR, build some tanks or even a Ftr, etc.

These are just my opinions and can, of course, vary in different games and against different ways to play. I hope this gives you some input.