Finally was able to afford to pre-order my Italians… now I can breathe again!

Personally, I think this is brilliant!  I hated the old unrealistic system of Bombers being able to hit IC’s pretty much at will with only a 1-in-6 chance of an AA hit.  It used to frustrate me to no end to have Fighters in a territory with an IC just sit there and be unable to do anything about it.  And I’m glad they made it an official rule instead of just an option.  Now if you want to pursue a real strategic bombing campaign, you better make a real investment (fighters for escort and extra bombers to take your losses)!  And the fact that defending fighters roll on a 2 is ‘accurate’ in the sense that they are defending their own territory and can sortie multiple times as opposed to the escorting fighters having to fight far from their own bases.  LOVE this rule!!!

So far, I think UK has been my favorite.  I love the challenge of trying to come up with strategies to use and coordinate it’s far-flung pieces and territories to make a final impact on the outcome.  Well-played UK is the key to Allied victory IMHO!

Kudos to Omega (if I had a karma to give I would  :-)). :-) The more I play, the more imperative a Ger1 CV seems to become.  It is SO valuable in so many ways! Be sure that if the UK concentrates on Germany that you are taking full advantage of the weaknesses they WILL be leaving elsewhere across the board.  Remember, every IPC you take away from the UK is one less they can spend on attacking Ger. or defending the USSR.  I also agree that heavy inf buys with Ger. can assist, especially around turns 3-4.  Don’t forget to defend France and you should be okay.  IMO trading France with the Anglo-Allies is a mug’s game.
All the best,
Kevin

Well, actually I was both joking and pointing out an historical ‘anomaly’ in that it DOES say “Italian” Africa and yet it starts under UK control.  Agreed, it may be both unbalancing and out of line with the spirit of the game in that an Italian infantry starting there might be too advantageous to the Axis, (not to mention to having an Axis foothold in East Africa in fairly easy reach of Japan), but it could be interesting to see how it might play out.  Certainly, if the Italians were allowed to start there, a UK unit(s) must be added elsewhere in Africa in order to maintain balance (perhaps Rhodesia or Sudan). 
Gamewise, I think it would be great fun to have another “mini” theatre that would add strategic depth to the southeast Africa/Indian Ocean theatre if it could be done without detracting from the battle for Egypt.
Thanks for your replies!
Kevin

I do!  Have a Dark Elf and Lizardman army for Warhammer, and Eldar, Tyranid, Chaos, Space Marine and Genestealer Cult for 40K.

Okay, call me slow, (hope I don’t lose Karma for this!) but the 1941 scenario starts Spring 1941.  Italian Africa should be just that, an Italian controlled starting territory with at least one inf.  If this has been addressed, I apologize, but considering that, including native troops, the Italians had almost 300,000 men under arms and didn’t surrender until November 1941 (with guerillas fighting on for another year or so), shouldn’t that UK symbol be an Italian roundel?  After all, the Italians achieved their only victory against the Allies without German assistance when they captured British Somaliland the previous year and they deserve some recognition!  :-D 
I’m sure there must be pretty good reasons why it’s not, game balance, etc…  Anyone know for sure?  Also, it might make for an interesting variation at least.
Best regards,
Kevin

Very good points!  Just out of curiosity, does anyone think in terms of ‘misleading’ an opponent into believing you’re going one way (KGF for example) and actually intending KJF?  If so, how do you cover your deception, table talk?  Indirect moves?  Or does anyone do purposefully ‘bad’ purchases like two UK IC’s or a lot of US1 subs? 
Often in chess, especially if you’re familiar with the way your opponent plays, you can try and move the game into middle game  positions they’re uncomfortable with.  (If they like to attack, close the position; if they prefer playing closed or semi-closed openings, force exchanges to free the center up… etc). 
Thanks for your replies!
Kevin

Saint Charles, Mo (Just west of St.Louis)

From a lot of posts and forums I’ve read, both here and on BGG, it seems like many players keep searching for ‘optimum’ or ‘perfect’ opening moves for each of the major nations, and while this is a great thing, sometimes it seems that the forest of overall strategy gets lost in the trees of specific purchases/moves for turns 1-3. 
As the great Savielly Tartakower said a chess game is divided into three stages; the opening, when you hope you have an advantage; the middle, when you think you have an advantage; and the endgame, when you realize you have lost!  The point he was trying to make is that chess (like A&A!) is a dynamic game of fluidity and pressure and he who makes the second to last mistakes, wins. 
It seems that many A&A players are searching for openings that can force a win for one side or the other.  While the search for truth over the board is commendable, a forced win in A&A, like chess, is a chimera or will-o-the-wisp that can lead one to overlook long-term goals that may be much more productive.
A case in point (look at the forum subject) can be taken from the ‘Romantic’ era of chess.  Players attacked at all costs, sacrificing pieces right and left in a glorious bid for victory.  It was not until the Age of Steinitz that things calmed down and players began to re-appraise the value of defence and the cautious accumulation of small advantages which would eventually convert into permanent postitives leading to wins.
As time went on, the pupils of Steinetz developed what became known as the Classical school of Chess, promoting conservative play, control of the center of the board (optimum moves) and a reluctance to take chances (ie, trading material for less tangible positives like pawn structure, space or time).  This seems to me to be where A&A strategy had gotten to over the last decade with A&A Revised.  Such as an “optimum” strategy based on a quick KGF with all Allied resources bent to that end and the Axis going all out for Moscow …and many alternate strategies being discarded to the wayside as inneffective.
In Chess, the Hypermodern school, led by Breyer, Reti and especially, Aron Nimzovich, proposed that one can approach the game from an indirect point of view and attack strategically from the sides and edges, enticing the opponent into building an overly strong main attack in the center and then hitting them from the flanks.  While the Hypermoderns were effective in presenting new ideas into the game, they bent over backwards too far sometimes and that, eventually, led to a “fourth” or ‘the modern’ approach.
“Pragmatism”
The Romantics wanted to attack, the Classicists wanted perfect moves, the Hypermoderns wanted depth and exoticism.  Each school has pluses and minuses and the “pragmatists”, Lasker, Alekhine, Fisher and Karpov wanted to play, not perfect or deep moves, they wanted to play complex moves leading to complex positions, moves that could allow them to use their knowledge and skill to give them an opportunity to win!!  Basically, the “pragmatists” took the best of all of the above and tried to discard the dogmatism of the above in order to bing about a new paradigm in which skill, not memorization, determined the victor.
Stepping forward a few decades (and with the introduction of AA50) it now seems time to move toward a more “pragmatic” approach to long term strategy in our game. 
Is a UK IC the ‘perfect’ move?  No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is a Ger. CV the ‘perfect’ move? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is there an “unbeatable” strategy for ANY nation? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
And THAT’s what this post is about!  :-)
Agree?
Disagree?
Let’s talk…