Posts made by Aretaku

My friends and I have only played a few games of A&A…and already we are hooked.

I am, however, getting a little bored with one thing.

I don’t like that the game starts out the exact same way every time. Sure, theres some historical accuracy involved, but it makes for a degree of predictability that I don’t much like in strategy games.

So I thought of something.

I added up IPC value of all the units that start on the board, minus one infantry in each territory that has at least one infantry.

I forget the exact numbers, but Russia had about 110 IPCs worth, US just under 200, and UK, Germany and Japan all had somewhere around 220-230 IPCs worth (UK was actually highest, with 4 or 5 dollars more than Germany).

I figure that people should be able to choose what they want to place, aside from the minimum requirement of one infantry where the game dictates.

You should only be able to place in sea-zones that units normally start in, but would have flexibility in exactly what naval elements are located in those sea-zones.

You also should place your units in reverse turn order. US first, then Japan etc. This is mainly so that Germany has to react to US/UK, rather than just put his whole economy on the Russian border in the hopes of a swift victory. It also allows Russia, with a much smaller starting position, to react to Germany’s placement, rather than the other way around.

I think this could make for some extremely interesting games, not to mention the multitude of new options that might be available in terms of tactics. Ususally, games follow the same basic structure. Germany and Japan double team Russia, Japan goes after India, Germany after Africa, and the US tries to be everywhere at once.

This startup could completely change that pattern.

Thoughts?

I get to be the Axis in my next game, and I’ve been mulling over a Japan strategy in my head.

It requires that I dedicate just under half my starting income (1 tranny + 2 inf) every turn against the US. It also requires a J1 IC build in mainland Asia.

Turn 1, I build the IC (probably in Kwantung), 1 tranny and 2 inf.

My combat moves should be to take China, and do my damnedest to destroy both the US and British Fleets. (assuming the Brits haven’t moved out) taking Hawaii, while difficult, is in the realm of possibility.

Now, it almost goes without saying that the other half of my income after turn 1 will be dedicated to tanks in mainland Asia to put the pressure on Russia and possibly take India.

EVERY turn, however, I will be building a tranny and 2 inf. These will be sent piecemeal towards the US. While it is entirely likely that I might lose some to aircraft or naval action, it will force the US to protect itself, rather than attempting to help Britain and Russia against Germany. While 2 inf are unlikely to hold anything for long, if I keep my transports spread out, utilize my fleet effectively, and keep a steady stream of transports heading for the US west coast, I can keep the US focused entirely on Japan.

I am certain I can kill Russia and Britain with just Germany, provided the Japanese can use those tanks effectively to stab Russia in the back. The question is, can this strategy keep the US from aiding in Europe, or will this be a big waste of money that will result in my utter defeat?

OK…a new question.

If UK and US BOTH take an original Axis territory with Joint Strike…who gets the territory? The US? Or can the two players choose which one gets the territory?

I found the rule on Avalon’s site…so I’m set. Thanks for the reply.  :-)

For the Russian national advantage, can an IC still produce units on the turn it was moved?

OK…first post here, and I’m a fairly new A&A player…some explanation is needed.

I got the revised edition for Christmas, and me and two friends have spent the last week playing the game.

Our first game was me (all three allies!  :-o ) against my two friends. We were playing only eight victory cities, and a horrible run of luck with both the USAF and UK AF essentially left Russia on it’s own, and Russia was completely elminiated by combined German armor and Japanese infantry.

Our second game was me as America and one friend as Russia/Uk against our other friend. A KGF strategy was going well (Kill Germany First, right? I still don’t quite have all the acronyms down…), until our noobishness resulted in overproduction (more units per turn being built than is allowed) in mainland Asia. Rather than try to rework the massive fight in India that had just occured, we decided to start over.

Now I am the Axis!  :evil:  I have some ideas, but I want to hear what people think.

First things first…we’re playing with the original National Advantages…ALL of them…so I have “invincible” American bombers to worry about by round 4-5…I was making excellent use of Heavy Bombers against Germany in the previous game, so I know Germany has an uphill battle economically.

If I’m repetetive in explaining National Advantages, that’s only because I don’t know how much people use them, and I know a lot of people tweak them…so I don’t know how familiar people are with NAs as they are printed in the rulebook.

Germany

• I see a lot of people are fans of naval build up with Germany in t1, either an AC or trannies. Two of Germanies national advantages, however, are very nice for subs (wolfpack and economic drain on US & UK). Might it not make more sense to focus on subs (if anything) for a navy? The economic impact is negligible for some time, but if I spread out my subs all over the Atlantic, he’ll have to use almost his entire AF and Navy in the Atlantic to hunt them down and clear a path for a landing, and he can still only kill them one by one.

• Infantry is always a good buy, but the Fortress Europe advantage gives my artillery a defense of 3 in all initial German territories. I’m thinking I might want to spend the extra money on artillery, if only to ensure that a Russian breakthrough will be more trouble than it’s worth.

• As far as I see it, taking Africa is essential to crippling the UK economy. Is there any concievable way to hold it without focusing on excessive naval development? Would cranking out an airforce be worthwhile if it could help me hold Africa?

• For tech research, super-subs are obviously a nice buy, but would long-range aircraft be better suited to Germany long term? I know any navy I buy is likely to be sunk sooner or later, but those aircraft could ensure that Africa remains a battle zone long after any significant German ground presence there is eliminated, and would also help against allied shipping.

Japan

• The UK gets an extra factory as a national advantage, and so far it’s always been in India. Is it worth an early push to try and take it, even if it costs me strength in mainland Asia?

• Since the UK gets and extra factory for free, Japan is the only nation that starts with only one factory. Obviously a second is needed, and most people here seem to favor mainland Asia. I, however, am seriously considering either Borneo, East Indies or Phillipines. Japanese infantry defends on a 3 on islands (national advantage), and the slightly higher production in Borneo and East Indies might come in handy. Is it worth it to ensure a solid hold in the Pacific at the expense of greater striking power on the mainland?

• If Germany can do it’s job against the UK fleet in the Atlantic on turn one, and Japan can sink the US sub in the pacific, I’ve been seriously considering sending one transport around South America to take Brazil. If nothing else, it will force American attention elsewhere for at least a round or two at the cost of only 6 IPCs (14 if I lose the transport, but it will be escorted if possible, and can possibly flee to the Med). Anyone think this is a particularly bad idea??

• Japanese infantry attack on a 2 as long as nothing else is attacking except shore bombardment (national advantage), and Japanese destroyers can transport 1 infantry (also N.A.). Because of this, I’ve been thinking of almost exclusively building infantry and destroyers. If I research combined bombardment, then destroyers can act in their tradional anti-sub role, as well as acting as transports AND shore bombardment, all in one ship for 12 IPCs! One infantry isn’t a lot…I know I’ll still have to buy some transports, but with all those islands around, I think it might be worthwhile. An airforce will be needed, but as far as I can see, as long as Japan doesn’t lose much by the end of round one, it’s starting navy, plus it’s infantry advantages on offense AND defense, pretty much make armor useless for Japan (except for defense in mainland Asia). Is an airforce/infantry/destroyer focus a bad route for Japan?

• We’ve decided on 10 Victory Cities, which means that unless I can take all four of the UK/Russia VCs, and invasion of America will be necessary. People here don’t seem to be too high on invading Hawaii or Midway. Would an early excursion into Alaska be quickly crushed? Might it be worth it to give America something else to focus on? Would combining this with a move into Brazil be enough to take the pressure off of Germany?

• Lastly (a lot, I know), in the last two games, America’s Pacific fleet (me in both instances) has either: gotten killed in the Pacific OR transferred to the Atlantic. If this is the case again, might it not be a good idea to take my entire Japanese fleet and park it along the American coast? Two ACs, two BBs and a dest (minimum) would help ensure free reign in the Pacific as long as I make sure the canal stays closed. Is this too risky a committment for my fleet?

I’ll likely have started this game before I get a response (bright and early, 8am!), but I’d appreciate any and all comments, good or bad. I’m still new at this, so any advice is helpful!  :-)