Hello all!

My name is Colin and I just joined this forum so that I could discuss strategy with Aardvark Pepper who I have met on AA online through Steam.

This is a great web site and I have read most of the strategy articles posted here. Shout out to Black Elk for his work which was very enlightening to me. I also think the AA calculator from this site is a great tool!!

I started playing AA original edition back in the 1990s. At one point the game was on clearance for $5 a box at Target. So I bought 6 boxes of those to have more pieces. I also had Fortress America another version of the game at that time.

I made my own version of the game combining some other rules from war games that I was playing and made a new map for this using Rand McNally Atlas and pasted it to the boards, outlining new territories and IPC values for each of these. After doing this I became interested in polar origin maps as perhaps a better type of map for my modified version of the game. As it turns out this is what Larry Harris has done with his new version of the game War Room. Great ninds think alike right?? XD

I have not yet played war room but I would like to at some time.

I was a topographic analyst for the US Army 2001 to 2009. I will say that my interest in maps was greatly encouraged by my experience with this game as well as other war games I have been playing since I was 8 years old.

I was recently reintroduced to the game by it becoming available on Steam by Beamdog. I find it very enjoyable and I think this newer version of the game is very well balanced.

Although I have been familiar with the game for a long time I still consider myself pretty new to it compared to many of you. I only got to play the game with other people perhaps 20 or so times before being able to play it online. Now I have over 300 games under my belt and I have learned a lot but still learning.

I look forward to reading more of peoples posts here on the forum and discussing theory with you all.

Hello mkgionet

I had Shogun too! I forgot about that one. Good times!!

If we assume a average capture of WR with 6 infantry surviving there and Germany stacks Karelia this battle is 61% to capture Karelia for Russia with the 2 tank build, assumes 2 infantry move from Okrug to Archangel as well, pretty normal. https://aa1942calc.com/#/E0q7VObBHRhUzhT3InP0sA

Note that this battle is not really a option without the tank build. That would only be 18% to capture instead of 61%. So 2 tanks better right?

The average results of this battle will only leave 2 to 4 ground units in Karelia if it succeeds at all, a third of the time it won’t. And it’s easy for Germany to then take it back and wipe out the Russian tanks again which will basically leave Russia with its round 2 build to work with after this.

Meanwhile if Russia builds the artillery instead and does not attack Karelia but puts everything into defending WR, maybe a light trade of Belarus or Ukraine round 2 it will face more German tanks on this attack round 2 but it has enough numbers to hold if UK and/or US help defend WR sending fighters there.

https://aa1942calc.com/#/A5EJBsZsBIWRk6bEB9L3CQ

You can fool around with these numbers but I do think you have more options with the artillery build in the case of below average results of the round one attacks than with the tank build, but you also are giving up the option to attack Karelia before Germany can go.

So it’s really up to you. Do you want to trade aggressively with Germany? If so I think you need to be doing KGF. Or do you want to play more defensively with Russia? Which does give Allies more options I think.

I would say your assessment of the difference is correct.

This has been discussed and tested many many times, and while the current Meta favors the 2 tank build over the artillery, if the WR and Ukraine attacks do not go well the tank buy being one less unit than the artillery buy does make a huge difference in the possibility of defending WR round 2.

If the attacks go very poorly that still may not be enough to hold WR round 2 but it does give Russia more options.

The tanks as you say give Russia more options with average to above average results from these attacks for counter attacking Karelia or Ukraine which Germany will almost always try to stack one of these territories round one. However the attrition Russia takes on average for doing these battles is very high. So these builds are a bit of a bluff that the Axis opponent may call anyways for the purpose of destroying a large number of Russian forces right away so Germany can make more progress after this.

Germany does get to counter attack as well and has more units to do so with.

I just read over your post again and it’s funny how with a different point of view other things stand out.

You said that US fighters to India does not synergize well with US Med Shuck plan. In some ways this is true. The fighters go to India and are not protecting US fleet in sea zone 15 or sea zone 13 on that round. That means 3 starting fighters out of circulation on this round.

However what US can do is round one build of carrier destroyer fighter transport infantry round one for 42 IPC.

UK positions Egypt forces in Trans Jordan round one US fighter from China lands there to support it. US waits in sea zone 11 for its build. Possibly moving starting destroyer and transports to sea zone 10 with 4 ground units moving north to east Canada for additional flexibility if that is safe from German ships in Atlantic.

Then round 2 US moves in to sea zone 13 with 2 destroyers cruiser carrier 2 fighters landing in Morocco. The carrier that went to sea zone 45 round one comes back around south America from there. It will arrive in sea zone 13 on round 4 filling that part of the escort chain at the same time as the Battleship and destroyer from the west coast arrives as well. It should be noted that if the PH carrier did not take this side route to sea zone 45 on round one and makes a bee line for sea zone 13 immediately through the canal it could arrive there on round 3 instead, but because of US needing to buy escorts, transports and ground to fill transports it doesn’t really have the resources to do all of that anyways. Other builds are higher priority and getting fighters to the center higher priority as well instead of having them idle around waiting for that carrier to arrive round 3. The one round detour does not take much away from that in terms of timing.

The US fighters in India have done their job of shoring up defense there vs J3 timing. This may cause Japan to not make the attack because it is unfavorable. Importantly this gives UK one more round to do another build round 4 and shore up its defense there. This may include UK fighters going to West Russia which can transition to India from there and take their place.

US fighters in India can be freed up from India round 3 to go to West Russia, possibly providing air support to attack on Kazakh along the way. Maybe they go to Caucus instead.

Then round 4 they can land on carrier in sea zone 15 and fighters from that carrier go to the carrier now arriving in sea zone 13.

It’s an option and how the transition lines up and actually does work together.

Those fighters may be needed in India or Russia still in which case US builds more fighters round 3 to land on the carrier reaching sea zone 13 round 4 instead. Depending on the board state and what the Allied needs are.

The focus here is to get US support to the center as quickly as possible and then once there to have the flexibility to shift them to where they are most needed afterwards in response to what Axis has done.

The key to all of this is getting units to where they can most help when they are needed. US and UK can do a form of fighter swapping between West Russia and India so that they are always present in the numbers required on Germanys turn, then transitioned to India as required on Japans turn.

UK fighters to India from WR and US fighters from India to WR. Somewhat doubling their defense capabilities by using the turn order against Axis in this way. While also making attacks of opportunity while transitioning.

You make a good and simple point about the starting aircraft that Axis starts with and therefore what that requires on Allies part to get enough escorts to secure transports against them, in either ocean.

So the more cost effective way for Allies to do that is to pick one rather than needing escorts for both.

Allies want to get in the fight as quickly as possible. So splitting resources slows that process as well.

Although the US begins the game rich compared to other powers, it almost always loses its income in China to Japan in the first 2 rounds. So replacing that by taking other territory quickly can balance that and US maintains this IPC advantage. Ships are expensive. Transports needed as well, expensive, and these resources are not able to directly interact with ground forces themselves (much) which is needed to take territory and gain income.

Logistics to Europe or Africa for US are much faster than Logistics to Asia. On top of that Japan has a much stronger fleet to contend with than Germany. So naturally the path of least resistance and quickest pay off/economic gain is in Europe. It requires much more investment and time to overcome Japans advantage in the Pacific.

Trying to do both at once makes the progress of each slower than it already was.

Despite these inherent problems and inefficiencies, I still find it intriguing and I want to continue to explore ways to try to optimize this, while accepting that it will never be as fast or as focused as choosing one ocean would be.

Or you could skip PH attack dead zone sea zone 45 and have a stronger position to attempt J3 India attack, enough force in position to cause Allies continued withdrawal from Asia and secure income Japan desperately needs. Sustained sea battles with US does take Japan away from doing that somewhat and then leads to more expensive ship builds to try to stay ahead of US navy.

Usually if they do that they build more ships to counter your counter with.

Now Japan is trading expensive ships with US and they don’t have them in position to keep taking territory in Asia as a result of that.

India survives longer to be a thorn in Japans side. With that 2 bomber set up UK might start adding subs or other things to attack Japans weakened and out of position fleet with. Sometimes attacking PH round one leads to KJF strategy. Which based on the UK and Russia set up you described they are already somewhat set up for.

A good thing if you do the PH attack is that positioning your fleet in sea zone 60 does allow you to protect your transport build from UK and be in position to counter US counter if they do go after your surving aircraft from there as well. Just be aware that this might lead to US building more ships to counter your counter.

Yes as far as reading your opponent goes I think that is a good assessment that if their positioning with UK and Russia so far looks good to you they are also likely to do some good things with US as well and they have a plan that will synergize well together.

Where I somewhat disagree with you is about doing the PH attack simply because you don’t have any other juicy targets available to you.

I think you need to have a plan that works well together also and not have the opponent make that decision for you.

That said I don’t think the PH attack is bad. When opponents do this against me I wish they wouldn’t as I do have plans for using those ships if they don’t.

At the same time if they do it I also know that their J3 timing on India will be a bit weaker than it could be and that allows me more freedom in other locations.

There is a thread here started recently that perhaps you have seen where I am looking for other ideas of things to do after the opponent does the PH attack and I am still seeking more ideas about that. So this does go over at least some of the reasons why doing the PH is good.

As far as the decision I think its close. I see many good players make the attack but there also many good players who don’t.

Personally I rarely do that attack as I prefer to save that fighter and even the cruiser and some are useful units I would prefer to keep. It makes it so I do not really need to invest in ships with Japan at all in the early rounds or some games at all, especially when opponents are doing KGF strategy.

What I prefer to do is dead zone sea zone 45 instead as I already talked about somewhat.

Saving that fighter that would surely be lost in the attack makes my J3 timing on India stronger as well as Japans overall set up. I don’t have the risk of PH going too well and losing other high value assets such as the carrier as possibly more aircraft as well. Sometimes the battle does not go well and you get more hit backs.

Sometimes your aircraft landing after the battle are vulnerable to counter attack as US wants to trade ships with Japan and will sacrifice their Battleship to kill those aircraft even if you have a counter set up to get the Battleship if they do.

The reason I think this is a good time to add one destroyer is because Germany will know that their window of opportunity to attack with the sub fodder will be closing quickly. So they may choose to attack at even less favorable odds instead of allowing Allies with that extra destroyer to split off and take out those subs the next turn, or if destroyer already in range why not do that now and have the replacement destroyer take its place?

Germanys options with those subs are very limited if US fleet is in sea zone 8.

Either way you are likely reducing Germanys odds to successfully airstrike the fleet.

I am guessing the counterpoint to this is that the Allied player WANTs Germany to attack their fleet to kill aircraft and if they build an additional escorts maybe Germany won’t do that.

To me this would be fine if they don’t. Its still likely wasted IPC for the sub buy that does not end up doing anything then.

The extra escort puts Allies ahead in the number count (which is close if they have 50% odds) should Germany decide to answer with additional air buy or the extra destroyer after dealing with the German subs can split off to help support another fleet in another sea zone.

Based on the Allied players comment they were already conceding some tempo by not bringing transports forward.

Then final comments of concern about not being able to land in Finland after losing their fleet.

Ships are expensive and take time to rebuild securely and so landings are now further being delayed at a pivotal point of the game. Pressure is off Germany in the meantime. They have a window now to focus ground forces east again.

Allied player says they had follow up, however based on what I see they only have follow up to sea zone 13 not sea zone 3 which their transports are in position to move to but now cannot do so safely.

To me this is following a decision tree too rigidly. The 50% attack offer rather than adjusting that pattern to the board state.

I can sort of understand the reasoning in a general sense that Allies would really like to reduce Germanys air power because of the cascade effects that has on Germanys ability to trade territory efficiently with fewer aircraft and that losing any aircraft makes it less likely that Germany will attempt an airstrike on Naval escorts after the first airstrip because they have fewer to trade with the 2nd time they might have the opportunity to do so.

The more Germany does this vs Allied fleets the more it helps Russia in terms of tempo. There is the 1st round where Germany did not have any air support for their trades of territory because they used it vs Navy, and Germany does want to use all its air when it does attack navy to try to reduce the hit backs.

Then the 2nd Round Germany has fewer aircraft to help them trade territory efficiently because of the aircraft they lost.

In a KGF scenario it is difficult for them to buy more air because they are already being outnumbered on the ground. In a defensive position Germany typically wants to maximize its ground buys every round to keep its numbers up because they are losing many to trades.

However this situation was not a general one. Germany had subs available and those subs are somewhat useless if not used for attacks when the opportunity presents itself. It is signaling that it WILL do an airstrike because of the subs. At least one attempt until the subs are gone. If Germany had aircraft only then they might not attempt the naval attack at all.

So presenting fair odds when you already know that Germany is likely to do it seems a bit brazen to me. That seems like a time to add escorts and see if Germany will take worse odds on a naval attack than 50%

Attacking Pearl is not terrible. In my experience about half of the Axis players attack Pearl Harbor. Maybe more than half of them. However some top level players do not do this attack. I for one prefer to not do it for many reasons I wont completely cover here. You have already mentioned many of them. The risk of having to expose a Japanese carrier in that sea zone is the main thing I don’t want to happen.

I want all of my initial attacks with Japan to be as efficient as possible. I am trying to prevent Japan losing any ground units to hit backs. So while only attacking the 2 groups of US infantry may not seem like high value compared to other targets, doing so with decisive attacks that are somewhat overkill is what I want to do.

Often there are UK ships in range somewhere around here to consider attacking as well. I prioritize killing UK ships with Japan over US ships because of the turn order.

The main goal is for Japan to finish round one with zero casualties or as close to that as possible.

The other set up I did not mention is 1 infantry 2 fighters in Kwangtung. Many reasons for this as well such as being able to land in Ukraine or West Russia if German can take them round 2 or even Caucus sometimes and then have the fighters land to help them hold that position. If you can safely place a carrier in sea zone 48 (instead of sea zone 60 to protect vs bomber in India) then the fighters in Kwangtung can still reach sea zone 45 from there because of the carriers position.

This is up to you and your goals with Germany round 2. But it is a good place to be. It also denies US or Russia from a quick 2 IPC boost from trading Kwangtung.

You might want these fighters to be in Manchuria for the potential counter attack if Russia does use its fighters to attack Buryatia. This is up to you. Killing those Russian fighters if they did do this I think is well worth it. But you need to consider if anything else might be able to reinforce Yakut with those fighters as well? Is there still an infantry in Okrug that could?

Pearl Harbor attack does help somewhat if you think the opponent is going to do KGF. Its fewer escorts that US gets to start with. I will sometimes do that attack for this purpose. It does stop the sea zone 45 move pre-emptively as well. There are just so many things that can go wrong with this attack.

If you do it I recommend 1 sub 1 cruiser 2 fighters 1 bomber attack. Sometimes referred to as Pearl light as you are not bringing the carrier into the battle as well. When you do this take the first hit on the fighter that does not have enough fuel so that your carrier does not have to catch it. This is part of the long list of things I don’t like about doing the attack. Automatically losing a fighter.

As far as building factories round one with Japan? I never do that. Japan has enough build capacity and expensive things it wants to build in the first few rounds that it does not need another factory until round 3. I prefer that first factory to be India. I go for j3 timing attack on India. I think most if not all players know this attack pretty well by now. But if you don’t I could explain that in further detail.

As far as building a factory with Japan I prefer to build it in East Indies. If there are no UK ships in Indian ocean to threaten it you can even build it round one and still go for India round 3 but you will be 2 attackers short of what you could have if you dont build it. Having it built does give you follow up attack options and many other options to use production there for taking Australia and Africa after you take India though. It is nice to have. I just dont really recommend it round one until you see what the Allies are actually up to.