Howdy!

I live SW of Fort Worth, Texas.

I started playing A&A (original) with my uncles back in the 90s and didn’t pick it up again until a couple of months ago. There’s a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in this game for me - those holiday nights (my uncles all lived out state) were the only nights I was allowed to stay up much past the 10 O’clock news.

Being stuck in doors with Covid19 with stir-crazy kids for the last several months proved a great opportunity to pick up the old habit again. We purchased the anniversary reprint and have really enjoyed playing the '41 setup with restricted or closed Dardanelles and a bid of 9 to the allies.

I’ve enjoyed reading through a number of the posts on this forum - there’s a lot of good content.

Thanks to the mods for keeping up with the website.

We have gravitated to the 1941 OOB with the Dardanelles closed mod and an allies bid of 9. This variant has led to the longest (most balanced) games.

Take this with a grain of salt as I mostly play with my 3 younger sons who are prone to gamble on tech and make ill-advised attacks occasionally.

What we have found is that the European front is well-balanced (especially if the US doesn’t go full KGF - hard to justify KGF given the Japanese power imbalance in the far East in 1941 Anniversary) but the Japanese can easily steamroll China and nearly all far-East, middle East and Pacific UK assets in a few rounds. The combined pressure from Japan and Germany in Russia then becomes overwhelming a bit too early in the game. To extend the grace period for Russia dealing with only Germany, the 9 IPC bid for the Allies typically go to one inf in Yunan (otherwise, it is a priority target J1 and the Flying Tiger squadron is lost) and the other two inf at Allies discretion between Egypt and/or India.

I make no claim to having reached some Panacea of balance but these mods have resulted in some rich games for us.

Alternatively, 1941 OOB (Dardanelle’s closed) and no NO’s has been pretty balanced. This is easier to execute, especially for newer players, but takes away from the experience in my opinion. NOs add a nice layer of depth to the game and can result in some interesting variation in strategy for both sides.

We’ve taken to adding 1 extra infnatry in Yunan province. Japan can still smoke the flying tiger but it requires trading initiative elsewhere by bringing at least 2 fighters to the battle. The OOB build makes the J1 demise of Yunan a formality.

I’m interested in trying out the variant (mentioned in a previous post) where the US can move the fighter to another province at setup.

Good discussion. In my playgroup, NO’s off/Dardanelles closed/escort & interceptor allowed/tech allowed (but rarely used)/6-12 bid to allies (typically +2inf on eastern front, +1inf in Egypt, +1 inf in Yunan) seems to provide a fairly balanced game.

When we played with NOs on, the ability of the axis to couple their starting hardware advantage with near economic parity by round 2 or 3 (before the US is even “in the game”) always resulted in axis win. We didn’t take the time to figure out what the bid for the allies needs to be to have a balanced game with NOs on but I suspect it might be between 25-30 IPCs. Of course, our predictable play might be the actual issue!

Thanks for the info! I’ll try this out on 3A. Whether over the board or on 3A we don’t tend to go that tank heavy (although at 5 IPC a piece, it’s been tempting) - too hard to get away from the old habit of stocking up on infantry.

Have you tried this method over the board yet? We tend to play no NO’s and Dardanelles closed - would this adversely affect this strategy in your opinion?

We’ve taken to adding 1 extra infnatry in Yunan province. Japan can still smoke the flying tiger but it requires trading initiative elsewhere by bringing at least 2 fighters to the battle. The OOB build makes the J1 demise of Yunan a formality.

I’m interested in trying out the variant (mentioned in a previous post) where the US can move the fighter to another province at setup.

Howdy!

I live SW of Fort Worth, Texas.

I started playing A&A (original) with my uncles back in the 90s and didn’t pick it up again until a couple of months ago. There’s a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in this game for me - those holiday nights (my uncles all lived out state) were the only nights I was allowed to stay up much past the 10 O’clock news.

Being stuck in doors with Covid19 with stir-crazy kids for the last several months proved a great opportunity to pick up the old habit again. We purchased the anniversary reprint and have really enjoyed playing the '41 setup with restricted or closed Dardanelles and a bid of 9 to the allies.

I’ve enjoyed reading through a number of the posts on this forum - there’s a lot of good content.

Thanks to the mods for keeping up with the website.

For purely defensive purposes, buying infantry cannot be beat. When you can swap in an offensive piece (artillery or tank) without decreasing the number of units you’re putting on the board, this is well-advised. The relative cost of units and their defending capability seems to be balanced such that quantity is quality.

For example, Russia starts the '41 version with 30 IPC. For that money you can buy 10 inf OR 8 inf and a tank, etc, etc… OR 3 fighters. If you benchmark every 30IPC purchasing combination against an attacking force of 4inf and 5 tanks (nearly a 50/50 battle with about a 2% chance of mutually assured destruction if you purchased 10 inf), the results are telling:

10 inf - 49% chance of winning [2 * 10 = 20 hit points or 20/6 = 3.3 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 38% chance of winning [2 * 8 + 1 *3 = 19 hit points or 19/6 = 3.2 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter - 16% chance of winning [5 * 2 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 4 = 17 or 17/6 = 2.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 fighters - 0.02% chance of winning [3 * 4 = 12 points or 12/6 = 2 average hits]

No combination of possible purchases perform better than 10 inf in this scenario.

However, when playing against a German Goering that likes to over-extend poorly defended fighters or bombers to gain a couple of IPCs, it’s nice to have the offensive capability to wipe them off the board. I have found this is best accomplished by pushing infantry forward (protecting your offensive pieces from overwhelming counter-attack) and keeping a mix of infantry, artillery and tanks within striking distance of the front line.

For offensive purposes, the best mix of units for the same 30 IPCs, baselined to a 50/50 battle of your 10 infantry against a defending 6inf + 1 artillery (approximately 1% chance of a draw):

10 inf - 50% [10 * 1 = 10 points or 10/6 = 1.7 average hits]
8 inf, 1 tank - 60% [8 * 1 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
6 inf, 3 art - 81% [3 * 1 + (3 + 3) * 2 = 15 points or 15/6 = 2.5 average hits]
5 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr - 42% [5 * 1 + 1 * 3 + 1 * 3 = 11 points or 11/6 = 1.8 average hits]
.
.
.
3 ftr - 0% [3 * 3 = 9 points or 9/6 = 1.5 average hits]

For purely offensive considerations, the optimum combination of units in this scenario is 6 inf and 3 art at 81% chance of victory with 4 inf, 2 art and 2 tanks in close second at 80%. No combination of purchases which include a fighter score better than 53% (4 inf, 2 art and 1 fighter happens to be the specific combination in this case). Again, there appears to be a quality in quantity that supersedes just quality. It may go without stating, but if attacking a territory with an AA gun, the numbers will be even worse for the fighter purchases.

For the two scenarios above, the most balanced purchase (averaging the %won for each purchase in its offensive capacity and defensive capacity) is 7 inf, 1 art and 1 tank. This particular purchase is the second best defensive purchase (next to 10 inf) and only 4% less potent than the best offensive purchase (6 inf and 3 art).

I’m not against fighters or bombers, they certainly have their place I just haven’t found justification for purchasing them when playing as Russia (or Germany for that matter) - especially in the early rounds.

Similar conclusion are drawn with respect to naval units - more cost-effective units (subs and especially destroyers) are typically better than fewer high-powered units (battleships and especially cruisers).

Excepting special circumstances (such as no time to get infantry to a developing hot-spot on the map or needing to sandbag funds for a massive naval build against enemies squatting in your sea-zone) a good rule of thumb seems to be to maximize the number of attack/defend points your are bringing to the board, first, and spread over as many units as possible, second.

We have gravitated to the 1941 OOB with the Dardanelles closed mod and an allies bid of 9. This variant has led to the longest (most balanced) games.

Take this with a grain of salt as I mostly play with my 3 younger sons who are prone to gamble on tech and make ill-advised attacks occasionally.

What we have found is that the European front is well-balanced (especially if the US doesn’t go full KGF - hard to justify KGF given the Japanese power imbalance in the far East in 1941 Anniversary) but the Japanese can easily steamroll China and nearly all far-East, middle East and Pacific UK assets in a few rounds. The combined pressure from Japan and Germany in Russia then becomes overwhelming a bit too early in the game. To extend the grace period for Russia dealing with only Germany, the 9 IPC bid for the Allies typically go to one inf in Yunan (otherwise, it is a priority target J1 and the Flying Tiger squadron is lost) and the other two inf at Allies discretion between Egypt and/or India.

I make no claim to having reached some Panacea of balance but these mods have resulted in some rich games for us.

Alternatively, 1941 OOB (Dardanelle’s closed) and no NO’s has been pretty balanced. This is easier to execute, especially for newer players, but takes away from the experience in my opinion. NOs add a nice layer of depth to the game and can result in some interesting variation in strategy for both sides.