Posts made by Hamar

1. less set-up time
2. faster play (at least in my experience)
3. less complicated rules/simpler play (less units, less special circumstances, one standardized rule set)
4. ???  i’ll add more as i think of them

:-D

jen - yes i’m playing classic, and yes i meant bunker as a verb, as in “to bunker down”.  and if the axis bid 22 then germany can easily have 10inf on ukr and 33ipc for an 11inf purchase on germany 1.

maddog - the calculator says my odds of whipping you any time soon are 0%.  but only because i’m too damn busy to play.

:-)

my odds calulator shows that germany has about an 11% chance of holding karelia if they only took with 3inf, 3arm (and captured an aa gun) when the uk attacks with 3ftr, 1bmb, 2inf, 1arm, 1bb.  so as long as uk takes it back with 1arm (sacrificing air to do so if necessary, which, i admit, could be costly), then usa can land a bomber there and russia can build 9inf there, move in the 2inf from russia that originally came from eve, and the 1arm from nov (and maybe move in the infantry from cau if he’s still alive and not doing anything important).

that leaves 11-12inf, 2arm, 1bmb, aa to defend against a best case scenario of 4inf, 5arm in eeu (if russia doesn’t get any defensive hits) and whatever air germany has left (probably 2ftr, 1bmb at the most).  unless germany bought 6arm in g1 then uk will always be able to effectively counterattack karelia (5-6inf, 1arm, 1-2bb, + whatever air they have left).  if germany did buy all armour then uk and usa should be able to move as many as 10inf, 2arm, 2ftr, 1bmb to weu by usa2.  then, when germany does take russia on round three, BAM! the allies storm berlin and raid up to 60ipcs.

the 7inf ukraine bid ain’t that tough - many players are now bidding 24 and are perfectly willing to face 6inf, 1arm or 8inf in ukr.  here’s what i do as allies:

turn: russia 1
purchase: 8inf
combat:  3inf, 3arm, 1ftr vs eastern europe; 1ftr, 1sub vs bal sz

results:  russia has an ok chance to win all three battles (about 50% by my estimation), and if it does the game is basically over for the axis.  taking eeu cuts off much needed armour in seu and ger from the round 1 karelia assault by germany.  wiping out the german navy ensures that either both uk transports survive or that the germans have to divert airforce from the karelia battle to take them out.  if eastern europe turns into a great strafe opportunity (say, 4 attacker hits to 0-1 defender hits) then leave that ftr alone, retreat, and stack karelia.  in that particular case germany won’t be able to crack karelia without spreading itself way too thin.

noncombat: unless there is an obvious dice disaster (you don’t take eeu, or the german trn in bal sz survives) then place everything in karelia and send the siberian units west.  karelia should have 16inf, 2ftr, aa; russia 2inf, aa; nov 3inf, 1arm; yak 1inf; sfe 1inf; cau 1inf  move your trn to hud sz to help out the canadian trn.

turn: germany 1
purchase: depends on how russia did.  maybe 10-11 inf and bunker, or maybe 6arm and go out in a blaze of glory. 4inf, 4arm is a good purchase for moderation
combat: ??  if russia has won all three of its attacks i welcome the german assault on karelia.  an attack of 13inf, 3arm, 4ftr, 1bmb (everything) wins about 75% of the time, but doesn’t take with enough land units to defend against the uk’s counter attack of 2inf, 1arm, 3ftr, 1bmb, 1bb.  germany can sacrifice planes to take with more ground units, but that’ll get them in trouble quickly.

turn: uk 1
purchase: ?? likely 2trn, 3inf, 1arm
combat: ?? with 8 (maybe even 9) or less german units in karelia attack with everything (2inf, 1arm, 3ftr, 1bmb).  taking the territory is critical because you want russia to be able to build there next turn.  if the germans sacrificed air to put more in karelia then eeu, f/n and weu should be ripe for the picking (killing any armour that germany used to retake eeu from russia).  in that case i move all my air to russia and build boats and infantry quickly to pressure germany asap.  even if russia and uk lose their entire airforces but russia holds karelia at the beginning of russia 2 i think they hold it for the rest of the game.

turn: japan 1
purchase: ?? likely 2trn, 3inf
combat: ??  japan can’t make really significant gains too quickly with out a bid.  they will attack china, but if they go for all those attractive targets (chi, ind, haw, haw sz, yak, and sfe) they will do more damage to themselves than to the allies.

turn: usa 1
purchase: ?? maybe 4trn, 1inf; maybe 3trn, 4inf
combat:  this should be a fun turn.  usa gets to take whatever uk left over in europe (f/n or weu).  there might also be a really good chance for a counter in pearl if japan attacked lightly so they could send more units into asia.

well that’s about it.  can’t strategize more than one turn out.  and i probably forgot something so fire away at my strategy.  but i think that if everything goes average (and by that i mean that half the scenarios are better for the axis and the other half are better for the allies) then i think the allies have about a 55% chance of winning this game.  and if you are making a bid as the axis where you only expect to win 45% of the time then you are making the wrong bid!

no, it doesn’t happen too often (almost never), but when opportunity knocks you have to be ready to open the door no matter how unconventional it might seem.

jennifer - in germany’s combat they violate mongolian neutrality with a bomber for 3ipc leaving it empty but controlled by germany.  if england can’t occupy it with a ground unit then japan can blitz armour through and support with air to bypass a stacked yak.  neat trick if you can get it to work.

@Bashir:

Actually let Germany violate neutrality in Mongolia it will open up the way for the Japs.

actually, that can work.  i once had a russian opponent leave armor+air in nov, while stacking yak with inf.  germany overflew mongolia with a bomber (i think it was in aes at the time) leaving a nice open path for the japanese air+armour in manchuria to attack the russian units in nov.  since the british were unable to either retake mongolia or fortify nov the russians lost their entire airforce and some armor for the cost of 3ipcs and a few japanese armour.

oh yeah, one more thing.  i recently got m84 on round two against a good opponent with a big asia bid (1inf man, 1arm kwa, 2inf bur, 2inf lib, 1inf eeu).  rus 1 was terrible, meaning the germans were able to take karelia and hold weu.  still might not have been a done deal, though, without the extra units in asia.  if it had been a power africa, then i think the british and americans in asia might have been able to hold off the japanese long enough to help russia, or maybe even force the germans back to eeu.  seems like when russia 1 goes bad (and most of the time that will happen in europe) then extra units to lock up asia early really helps.

of course russia could hold nov by putting lots of units there, but then that lets germany hold eeu.  and if the americans are diverted into africa, then germany can spread to ukr (maybe even cau) in an m84 lunge.  is it worth holding nov just lose eeu and ukraine?  either way the allies have tough decisions to make.

in a well played game (and with decent dice - can’t win without those no matter what) i see the game going in either one of two directions by turn 3-4:

scenario 1:

germany controls:
ger, weu, seu, eeu, ukr, aes, iea, ken, saf, syr = 35
japan controls:
all japanese original territories, aus, nz, haw, ind, per, sin, chi, sfe, yak, and let’s say three of cau, nov, eve, kaz = 47

scenario 2:

virtually the same, but here the allies choose to keep germany from holding eeu.  the only power that can do this so early is russia, and the only way that they can do it is by letting japan have a good shot at getting all four of cau, nov, kaz, eve (and maybe having an amphib opportunity on ukr from the red sz).  and it doesn’t necessarily matter if russia can do it - if you time it right they’ll never get the chance because the game will be over.

all of these can be held completely safe from american liberation.  and this total (82) doesn’t include the marginal territories, which the allies have to be sure they can liberate just to save the game: con, lib, fea, ala, pan/mex.  when the allies are forced to liberate these areas it takes them out of position, for example they may have to move a transport (or an entire navy) to con sz to liberate congo which means they can’t get land units to europe on the next turn, or they may have to land ftrs in wca after liberating ala, which only weakens karelia.  this is a game of inches, and any small advantage is another increment towards victory.

i’m not saying power asia bids always work, just that i have beaten two high and mighty iaapa generals lately, and i believe power asia to be an equally valid bid to any other, provided it is used properly.  just use those extra japanese units to eliminate the western allies from asia.  then push russia back, and calculate the M84 lunge for the turn where the allies can’t counter you in nov, kaz, eve, cau, ukr, africa, ala, pan all at the same time.  sacrifice your air units, especially with japan, to make sure you take with enough ground units to hold.  and on the last japanese turn throw all tech dice - you won’t be needing any more ground units and it is a wonder what HB, JP, and especially LR can do to bolster an M84 lunge.

i will continue to bid power asia (of course with other bids mixed in for variety).  i think it’s a winner, and also it’s tons of fun to have stacks of japanese troops swarming asia after round one!

only problem is that russia can’t defend against m84 - if japan can take eve, nov, kaz it doesn’t matter if russia can mount a strong counter attack, since the game could be over before they get a chance to react.

can’t say i’d write off the power asia bid that quickly.  i’ve been using it a lot lately with considerable success.  for a bid of 23 you can get some good power asia combinations:

2inf man
2inf bur
1arm kwa
2inf lib

or:

2inf man
2inf bur
1arm kwa
1inf lib
1inf eeu

the armour could also be placed in bur, but i find that it is more useful in kwangtung to deter the russians from stacking yak.  the main benefit of a power asia is that you should be able to completely remove the usa and uk from asia on turn one:  the indian forces counterattack egypt (or else the germans run free in africa) while the japanese take out sinkiang and china, plus whatever other asian territories are easily available (usually two out of soviet far east, yakutsk and india).  on round two the germans retake egypt with 2inf + air that they noncommed into libya, and japan takes whatever it can get its hands on (yak, sfe, nov, kaz, ind, per, syr in asia + aus, haw, nz, mad).  by round three the axis can have a real threat of m84 (since there are no americans in asia to make the game saving liberation).  generally the allies have to be very careful to avoid m84, and often are forced into making suboptimal moves with russia until the first americans arrive in asia about turn 5.  by that time the axis can have the upper hand.

how about this:

every I.C. on the board is actually a liability, but some are less costly than others.  in many player’s opinions, maintained strategic bombing raids by heavy bombers is the most powerful attack possible in the game, since it has the greatest potential to unbalance the game in favour of the attacker (followed closely by sudden attacks on stacked naval units by newly acquired heavy bombers or long range aircraft).  such an attack allows a player to remove his opponent’s units from the board at a faster rate than the opponent can replace them, and at a greater rate than his opponent can remove his units from the board.  in other words, it is a winning strategy that can only be countered if the opponent is also able to acquire heavy bombers.

Since I.C.s do not produce any value in and of themselves, it follows that owning any I.C. is costly rather than profitable.  unfortunately, most original I.C.s are located in capitals or other tactically important territories (karelia, etc.), so abandoning them is impossible (not to mention that they are important for getting new units into play).  therefore it follows that instead of building new I.C.s, alternative methods of supplying units to the front line must be used.  the standard method of doing so is by using transports with usa, uk, and japan.

the least costly I.C.s in the game are in japan and both eastern and western usa.  these cannot be easily reached by bombers from the opponent’s territories, unless the opponent has captured, say, alaska or mexico or manchuria, at which point the game is probably decided anyways.  somewhat more costly is the I.C. in the uk, which can easily be reached by bombers from germany, and slightly less easily by bombers from japan.  in the middle of the spectrum are the I.C.s of germany, russia, southern europe and karelia.  all of these are very easily accessible in that any of the powers can easily send bombers to run SBRs on them.  however, since some of these I.C.s are allied and others are axis neither side is intrinsically in a costlier position than the other - there is a balance maintained by an equal level of susceptibility to SBRs.

by far the costliest I.C.s are the ones which japan and the united states build that increase their susceptibility to SBRs.  for these otherwise isolated and protected nations, building I.C.s in manchuria, india, burma, sinkiang, finland, alaska, etc. makes them tremendously more in danger of a long-term bombing strategy.  in order to maintain an equal playing field players must not build I.C.s in those locations.  if someone does build there, i would suggest that it is an immediate advantage for his/her opponent.

all that aside, certain I.C. builds might actually be profitable.  losing a british I.C. in india to japan might seem to be a terrible prospect, however since it could provide an otherwise unavailable target for bombing it could just be a winning tactic.  the same might go for an american I.C. in china or sinkiang.  i have even seen a move by a top pbem club player  in which the americans built an I.C. in mongolia knowing that japan would have to take it in order to advance their lines towards moscow.  japan was trapped by either allowing allied units to be built directly in asia or by opening themselves up to a brutal SBR campaign.

i never build I.C.s with japan or the usa.  as soon as i see my opponent build an I.C. with either of those countries my strategy shifts towards tech rolling and a quick win.

lots of option:

1. russia strafes eastern with everything to get maximum exchange value out of the strafe.

or

2. russia attacks ukr with everything opting to take it if they get to destroy a stack of german armour (maybe 8-10 armour would make it worth it), or if it looks as if they can take with enough units to hold against a counter from eeu.

or, more optimally,

3. uk amhibs eeu guaranteeing that option #2 can happen

is there a diceserver on this site?  if not which diceserver would you be using?

the problem with a bid of 2 trns in rr is not the G1 attack on uk.  that can be easily prevented by sending infantry and air from russia to uk for a turn.  the real problem is an all air clearing of uk sz (4ftr vs. a maximum of 1bb, 2trn, 1sub) and wmd sz (1ftr, 1bmb vs. 1bb).  this allows germany to noncombat 4trn, 2subs, and 1bb into wsp sz on G1 where they are an impediment to allied shipping and are a direct threat on both london and washington.  the allies will probably have to commit to a total air force sacrifice to deal with that navy, by sending first 2ftr, 1bmb, 1trn against it with the uk, and then 1-2ftr, 1bmb, 1trn with usa.  a lot of things can go terribly wrong for the allies in that situation.  imagine if the battleship survives but the allies lose all air units!

in general, i won’t engage in a strategic bombing campaign.  the economics of the situation are relatively simple:

an aa gun hits a bomber one in every six times. this costs the axis 15ipcs in losses.

the remaining 5 times that the bomber gets through it averages 3.5ipc damage per round.  so a bomber does 3.5ipc x 5 rounds = 17.5ipc damage before it gets shot down.

so, by bombing russia, the axis actually does make a 2.5ipc profit every five rounds per bomber (or a 0.5ipc profit each round per bomber, or 1ipc for two bombers, etc.)

there are, however, three major problems with this situation.  firstly is the unpredictability of the dice.  that bomber is as likely to get shot down on the first bombing run as it is on the sixth (or the twelfth, or twentieth, if it gets that far!).  this means that an sbr plan is as likely to fail before it can really get off the ground (because of an early aa hit) as it is to fail later on.

secondly is the opportunity cost of using the bomber for sbr.  that bomber could be used in other (conventional) attacks to create a greater probability that a territory is taken.  it is often important to “ensure” small battles in order to tip the economic scales in your direction.  for example, 2inf, 1ftr vs. 2inf will hold about 30% of the time if you intend to retreat your air unit if you’re outnumbered.  add an extra bomber to that battle and the chance to hold goes down to 10%.  consistently “ensuring” one extra battle every turn (by throwing in a bomber) could add more than 0.5ipc to your bank (and thus take it away from your enemy).  i always try to figure out a better tactical use for my bombers before gambling with an sbr.  if you want to work towards economic superiority make sure, above all else, that you take your opponent’s territory!

thirdly is the fact that bombers are possibly the most important unit in the game.  at the very least they are the only units that can change the direction of the game completely (which almost always happens when heavy bombers are gained).  i always try to keep on pace with my opponent’s number of bombers.  if he buys one with usa i buy one with japan.  this means that if he gets a lucky tech roll then i am ready to catch up with him quickly.  i almost never risk my bombers in attacks where it is possible i will lose one, whereas i will often send 2ftr vs. 1inf or armor if i think it will give me a clear tactical advantage (say for instance the axis drop off a lone armor in egypt and i have no land units anywhere near).  i am also willing to sacrifice a bomber to kill an opponent’s bomber, as long as i know i can build another one immediately.  in a recent game i sent my american bomber against a lone japanese bomber on italian east africa, knowing that i could only land it unprotected in a territory that germany could strike.  he thought that i wouldn’t trade my bomber for his, but i prepared for this by buying a bomber that round - instantly i had a 1 bomber advantage over japan.  risking my bombers to aa gun for a marginal 0.5 ipc per round doesn’t seem to be worth the the probable tactical loss of having less bombers than my opponent.

some people think that the axis (especially japan) have more than enough air to ensure all ground attacks.  sometimes this may be true, and then i might try an sbr.  but, more often than not, with a well placed bid you can create more than enough opportunities to use ALL your airpower to ensure land battles.

ok…despite everything i have just written there are times when i will engage in an indiscriminate bombing war.  most often this happens when russia has a brutal start and the axis are almost certain to take karelia anyways.  early in the game (when every infantry counts) a 4-6ipc bombing raid can turn a 60% chance of taking karelia into an 80% chance.  this is obviously a risk that the axis should take, especially with the japanese bomber.  another instance i can think of might be if the allies neglect to build a navy on UK1.  that extra turn advantage could isolate russia enough to make them vulnerable to an all-out sbr war.  the germans won’t likely need their bomber that badly (the uk sea zone will be impenetrable on uk2, i can guarantee that!) so it might be ok to risk it to aa fire.  still, i’d rather send it to africa to punish any british who might have survived GE1.  the only other time i might try it is if i am losing badly.  if i feel like i need everything to go in my direction in order to even have a chance to win i will increase the number of battles i do (including sbrs).  if i don’t get the results i’m looking for then i haven’t really lost anything.  if i do get what i’m hoping for then i’m that much closer to clawing my way back into the game.

that’s all i can think of now, but if anything else comes to me i’ll let you know.

@ncscswitch:

@Hamar:

until you have played some email games it is pointless to talk strategy.

I consider that to be HIGHLY insulting.

ok, so i was a little rough.  i apologize.  i was actually hoping that i could instigate you to try a game or two against some experienced opponents.  you obviously are interested in discussing/working out ideas and strategies, and i am impressed that you are so willing to listen when others critique your ideas.  everyone could learn a little from you in that respect.  anyways, i’m going to offer a few ideas on the other topics that you have posted!

@ncscswitch:

@madscientist:

Have you ever played Soon_U_Die or the other experienced players at this site in an internet game?

I have never played an internet game of A&A.Â

until you have played some email games it is pointless to talk strategy.  most of the finer points of strategy and tactics for this game have been worked out through tens of thousands of games in the play-by-email (pbem) clubs.  there are so many variations in gameplay for this game that it is impossible for one player to work them all out by himself.  reading these forums is a good start (i wish i had studied a little more before i started playing!), but they are no substitute for playing lots of games against experienced players.

With a 8 inf PE bid spread over Ukr/EEU those units might be trapped in Fin.

that is why i will never bid more than 23!

for the allies:

1. take it quickly! every ipc in this game is critical (even madagascar)!
2. don’t build an industrial complex there! transporting troops is much, much, much cheaper and faster in the long run.
3. don’t build an industrial complex there! i know i already said this, but there is another major problem. many, if not most, games come down to teching in the end. what often saves the allies behind is that the usa is generally very difficult for the axis to sbr with their heavies. building an IC in f/n negates this advantage.
4. try to think of the situation in tactical terms. attack when it is most convenient - in most games it doesn’t matter too much which ally is collecting the extra 2ipc as long as they didn’t give up much to get it.

for the axis:

1. consider every turn you manage to hold onto f/n as a gift. germany’s reign in scandinavia is doomed to failure!
2. elaborate plans to hold f/n for an extra turn or two (like landing the entire luftwafe there, retreating into sweden or reinforcing with any remaining transports) usually involve giving up more than you get. (although, there is a time and place for just about every strategy).
3. we just have to accept that usually the most effective use of those 3inf, 1arm in f/n is to keep russia from heading east one turn earlier. when russia takes f/n on R2 adjust your japanese plan to take advantage of the lack of russian troops on the eastern front. for that reason alone (and usually for many others) the german strafe and retreat to eeu is often a bad idea. don’t regard your units in f/n as just a bunch of guys who are going to get picked off! make the allies work for it!
4. if germany takes karelia but the allies insist on stacking in f/n use it to your advantage! usually germany can pull off an extremely efficient strafe in that situation, allowing them to keep maximum pressure on russia.

happy hunting!!

there are times when it is more appropriate to take finland with one of the allies than it is with any of the others.

when to take with russia:

1. on R1 when the axis have bid a PE (7 or 8 units in eeu/ukr) and the allies decide they want to try a “backstep”, that is abandon karelia and stack in rus, f/n and/or cau to create a nightmare counterattack for any germans wishing to take and hold karelia.
2. on R2 when dice have gone “average” and russia can afford to not stack every unit in karelia.

when to take with britain:

1. on B1 when the germans have had a weak or mixed start. maybe one uk battleship and transport have survived and/or africa has gone badly. on B1 the priority should be to deal with the german navy, and then with germans in africa. if the germans have lost their entire navy and africa has gone poorly (or even if africa has gone too well to deal with on B1) then sending 2-4inf, 2ftr, 1bmb, 1bb against 3inf, 1arm in f/n really frees up russia to have a BIG R2.
2. rarely on B2 if the russians have their backs against the wall in karelia and need to stack everything in karelia on R2. even in such a case, it is usually a better idea to try to take lightly with russia on R2.
3. if an R2 attack of Xinf, 3arm leaves only 1 german armour in f/n with no losses for the russians, i will sometimes, retreat and let the british mop up the mess. that way the germans have no threat on karelia, even if the russians build mostly in moscow to meet the sprawling japanese monster on turn 2.

when to take with usa:

1. on U1 when britain has cleared but not taken f/n.
2. on U1 when germany as somehow managed to take karelia on G1. this allows britain to concentrate on weu on B1 and weu/eeu/kar on B2.
3. in any game that looks desperate for the allies from the get go you need to concentrate as much wealth as possible in the hands of usa. if the axis get off to a great start tech is the only thing that will help the allies. when fighting a tech war consolidate as much money as possible in the hands of one nation (usually usa or japan) and hope for the best.

when to take with usa or uk, but not russia:

1. in any game where russia is in jeopardy of falling to the axis. if russia holds f/n, but the axis have moscow, the allies will often miss out on collecting 2-4 ipcs while they struggle to get back or at least trade f/n.

disclaimer: i never plan to take with one particular ally. i always attack when i sense i can do the most damage for the least cost or for the least opportunity lost. most often, i find that i take on R2. but i like it best when i get the opportunity to take on B1/U1!

hope this analysis helps!