Dear fellow A&A players,

I have now played a few (50+) matches online and I have noticed that I struggle the most with the role and objectives of the UK. I find it hard to strike a balance between holding India and still support the USA by pressuring Germany (KGF). My question to more experienced playeres are:

• What is your opening buy and what does it depend on? My current opening consists of a Fighter in UK and a mix of 3 Infantry/Artillery/Tanks to India. Going cheap in India gives the option to spend more on UK2 for vessels in Europe, but I find it also releases pressure of Japan.
• The following are three options that I played around with:
  A) Kill transport and destroyer with Carrier and Cruiser, kill submarine near Pearl Harbor with Cruiser and submarine in order to soften the blow against the USA. Take transport and fighter to support northern african forces.
  B) Go all in and try to kill as much of the fleet on seazone 37 (don’t like that one myself, but it’s quite annoying to play against)
  C) Merge your split naval fleets in seazone 30
  Are these viable tactics or complete bollocks?
  Another general point I want to touch on is: what to do if Japan signals that it’s coming for India? Obviously UK cannot hold India if Japan wants to seize it, but the question remains how much effort should be put into defending India and if so how? Throw in 3x Infantry every round and hope for the best or actually pay some decent IPCs (mixing in tanks and fighters) to make the struggle harder?

Let me know what you think
cheers!

Hello again!

When I started A&A I solely went for KGF because I read it’s the “easier” strategy. However recently I have tried a few games with KJF which went both good and bad but certainly spiced things up.

I would like to show my observations of the games with one general question in mind:
What factors do you consider when deciding btween KGF vs. KJF?

1. Since a sucessfull attack on Japan relies on a UK1 attack on sz 37, I found it’s up to the UK to call the shots for the grand allied strategy. Attacking sz 37 with all you have (the fighter from Egypt is essential of course) you still need to pray for some good dice rolls. The chances of wiping the Japanese fleet are roughly 60% (source: aatoolkit.com) so the odds are far from reliable. My experience shows that if you manage to wipe the fleet and maybe save your carrier with a fighter or two you have a pretty good chance of winning. If Japan decides for a Pearl Harbor attack but you manage to get a good retaliation strike on US2 it’ still enough pressure to push them back on their island and consecutively take those juicy islands.
   The thing I find the most dissuading about this strategy is the fact that in 40% of the games you will not manage to wipe the Japanese fleet UK1 and moreover severely weaken your influence over the pacific giving Japan a good chance of becoming an IPC monster. With this outcome the Allies are more prone to losing compared to the KGF approach where you just take Japan’s transport and destroyer in sz 61 and maybe (assuming the sub doesn’t submerge. I found that most platinum players submerge their sub however) kill the sub in sz 44 (at Solomon Islands) dissuading Japan from doing Pearl Harbor.
   Subquestion: what’s your approach to stop Japan if the attack fails and maybe (probably) a Pearl Harbor attack severly weakens the US fleet.

2. As I mentioned earlier it’s at the UK player’s turn when the Allies need to make up their mind who they wish to overthrow. Thus we have some information about Germany’s plans and can take them into consideration when deciding between a KGF and KJF. There are three general approaches that Germany can take that have an impact on this decision:
   – Germany goes for some combination of land units signalling an attack on Russia
   – Germany buys fleet in either the Atlantic Sea => making it harder for UK to build up a fleet
   – Germany buys fleet in either the Mediterranean Sea => really wants to grab Africa

Observing all of this I am still unsure on what conclusions I should draw. Is it advisable to do KJF when Germany goes for fleet or the other way around? Under what circumstances do you go for a KJF? Have I overlooked anything important?
I’m curious to hear about your thoughts!

Cheers!

I’m sure that this has been discussed a few times (posting links to any existing insightful discussions is very welcome!), but I’d like to ask again for your take on whether Russia should indulge in buying 2 tanks (and 4 inf) or stick with the more conservative 4 inf, 3 art approach.

I played around with both approaches and subjectively feel like the artillery start has worked out better for me in general. Bear in mind that this just a personal feeling because I find it hard to explain any given win or loss by merely looking at my opening purchase. In fact, I find a far better outcome predictor for a game is a look at the West Russia/Ukraine battle. Especially if Ukraine goes poorly, I find it extremely hard to pull off a win against a decent opponent.

One observation I made is that, if I started out with tanks and got lucky with the dice rolls in West Russia and Ukraine I had a lot more momentum than if I started with artillery. Conversely, starting with artillery while having poor to mediocre results in the two opening battles, seemed to yield better results. Can anyone confirm this, or have I fallen into the trap of my own confirmation bias?

Pros/Cons tank:
The tank approach obviously focuses on the mobility which gives Russia more options to attack and defend. R1 tanks in particular can allow for an attack at Karelia R2, assuming Ukraine went well (and maybe was just strafed so 3 tanks are left in Caucasus). If Ukraine was captured (and all leftover tanks will most likely be destroyed in G1), the new tanks could come in handy, if Russia can afford to help UK in India against a J3 attack. However one could argue that the same can be accomplished by buying tanks R2 and placing them in Caucasus, so it’s definetely not the main selling point.
The cons are fewer bodies to defend against the German onslaught and every unit counts in a tight battle.

Pros/Cons artillery:
The artillery is less mobile than the tank but offers one more unit and at the same time elevates the offensive power of any existing infantry unit making medium to big fights more cost effective for Russia.
I would also argue that Russia doesn’t need very high flexibility in the early stages of the game since the main goal is most likely stack West Russia as much as you can and make small trades here and there. Japan won’t be a real threat that requires tank assistance before round 3, maybe even later.
Russia doesn’t have and can’t handle many fronts/stacks it can switch between so it’s probably better off building one big stack with maximum efficiency.

What has worked for you in the past and are there things I might have overlooked to evaluate the situation?

Hello there!

As an allied player my general strategy (for KGF) is usually this:
I whittle down German troops in many small battles using a combination of infantry and air support (in some rare cases I throw in an artillery piece) with the UK. At the same time I try to avoid fighting with landed US troops as much as I can in order to build up a big stack that actually can take on Germany for the final blow. Consequently it’s usually the UK that captures France since you can hardly hold ever hold it for even one turn in the early/mid game even with US support which would just give Germany the chance to destroy alot of allied troops with good odds and therefore delaying the US stack building in Scandinavia/Karelia. This of course assumes Germany has decided not to truly defend France (say 5 units or less) in the first place; which I found to be a prominent play among axis players (fyi, I’m silver tier right now).

My first question is: On a higher level is that even the “correct” play by Germany to allow trading of France rather than just commiting a full stack (eg. 8 troops+) basically denying any trading back and forth until the allies have build up their fleet enough (I’d say round 4 or 5 maybe). If Germany actually decides to keep a full stack in France early on it will definetely relieve some pressure off from Russia which can also be helpful to the allies.

The second question is: Can it still be a viable tactic to heavily trade France, accepting a better roi for Germany, with the aim to deter Germany from piling on the pressure on Russia? If Germany can’t fully retaliate and reclaim France, it’s probably in a really bad spot anyways (in this case in my experience the allies usually win the game, unless something went really awry in Russia).

Can you share your thought on how you approach this whole France situation?
What do you think about my general strategy of whittling down/stacking up?

Cheers!

Firstly thanks for your quick reply and input! Two things I can really take away for myself are that I don’t need to fully conquer Tokyo and if Germany goes for navy I’ll go for KGF.

Delaying the decision to the second round sounds quite reasonable but what are your best options for UK and US if you want to keep both KGF and KJF on the table?
Obviously you want to grab 3 units to bolster the defense in India and perhaps hold on for the rest IPC to spend in round 2 as UK. But what fleet moves do you make in the pacific then? As we established attacking sz 37 isn’t really a good option for the Allied player. Do you just refrain to killing the transport and destroyer with the cruiser and fighter and try to run with everything else and hope to fight another day? Is merging the two fleets in sz 30 an option?

What about the US? I can’t think of a US1 purchase that really leaves both options open. If you place your fleet on the west coast you can’t quickly change plans and shift them to the east coast and vice versa.

Lastly in which scenario would you rather go for KJF? Japan doing Pearly Harbor where the US gets a good chance of retaliation, basically reducing the fleets on both sides or Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor so both fleets stay untouched.

Hello again!

When I started A&A I solely went for KGF because I read it’s the “easier” strategy. However recently I have tried a few games with KJF which went both good and bad but certainly spiced things up.

I would like to show my observations of the games with one general question in mind:
What factors do you consider when deciding btween KGF vs. KJF?

1. Since a sucessfull attack on Japan relies on a UK1 attack on sz 37, I found it’s up to the UK to call the shots for the grand allied strategy. Attacking sz 37 with all you have (the fighter from Egypt is essential of course) you still need to pray for some good dice rolls. The chances of wiping the Japanese fleet are roughly 60% (source: aatoolkit.com) so the odds are far from reliable. My experience shows that if you manage to wipe the fleet and maybe save your carrier with a fighter or two you have a pretty good chance of winning. If Japan decides for a Pearl Harbor attack but you manage to get a good retaliation strike on US2 it’ still enough pressure to push them back on their island and consecutively take those juicy islands.
   The thing I find the most dissuading about this strategy is the fact that in 40% of the games you will not manage to wipe the Japanese fleet UK1 and moreover severely weaken your influence over the pacific giving Japan a good chance of becoming an IPC monster. With this outcome the Allies are more prone to losing compared to the KGF approach where you just take Japan’s transport and destroyer in sz 61 and maybe (assuming the sub doesn’t submerge. I found that most platinum players submerge their sub however) kill the sub in sz 44 (at Solomon Islands) dissuading Japan from doing Pearl Harbor.
   Subquestion: what’s your approach to stop Japan if the attack fails and maybe (probably) a Pearl Harbor attack severly weakens the US fleet.

2. As I mentioned earlier it’s at the UK player’s turn when the Allies need to make up their mind who they wish to overthrow. Thus we have some information about Germany’s plans and can take them into consideration when deciding between a KGF and KJF. There are three general approaches that Germany can take that have an impact on this decision:
   – Germany goes for some combination of land units signalling an attack on Russia
   – Germany buys fleet in either the Atlantic Sea => making it harder for UK to build up a fleet
   – Germany buys fleet in either the Mediterranean Sea => really wants to grab Africa

Observing all of this I am still unsure on what conclusions I should draw. Is it advisable to do KJF when Germany goes for fleet or the other way around? Under what circumstances do you go for a KJF? Have I overlooked anything important?
I’m curious to hear about your thoughts!

Cheers!

Great advise! Shifting fighters from UK to India wasn’t in my playbook yet. I will definetely adopt this move!

Three more questions just came to my head:

• What do you do with the rest of your navy at the coast of India if the cruiser and fighter are sent to sz 61? The carrier is doomed unless placed in seazone 33 and even there it can be reached by the fighters from the Japanes navy.
  Since Germany usually puts pressure on north Africa (most of the time attacking Trans-Jordan G1) I like to ferry 1 inf from India and 1 inf from Persia to Egypt. The transport is a lost after that maneuver most of the time obviously. Is that a reasonable move or should I try to hold on to India as much as possible and leave Africa to the Germans?
• This is a detailed one: what do you do with your one infantry unit in Burma? Send it to support the 2 US infantry in Yunnan and hope to slow down the Japanese’s way to India or send it straight to India and just let the two US units take the beating?
• What is your plan with the transport near Australia? I like to pick up one inf form Australia, the next one from New Zealand and ferry them to either Westafrica or perhaps even European shores.

Dear fellow A&A players,

I have now played a few (50+) matches online and I have noticed that I struggle the most with the role and objectives of the UK. I find it hard to strike a balance between holding India and still support the USA by pressuring Germany (KGF). My question to more experienced playeres are:

• What is your opening buy and what does it depend on? My current opening consists of a Fighter in UK and a mix of 3 Infantry/Artillery/Tanks to India. Going cheap in India gives the option to spend more on UK2 for vessels in Europe, but I find it also releases pressure of Japan.
• The following are three options that I played around with:
  A) Kill transport and destroyer with Carrier and Cruiser, kill submarine near Pearl Harbor with Cruiser and submarine in order to soften the blow against the USA. Take transport and fighter to support northern african forces.
  B) Go all in and try to kill as much of the fleet on seazone 37 (don’t like that one myself, but it’s quite annoying to play against)
  C) Merge your split naval fleets in seazone 30
  Are these viable tactics or complete bollocks?
  Another general point I want to touch on is: what to do if Japan signals that it’s coming for India? Obviously UK cannot hold India if Japan wants to seize it, but the question remains how much effort should be put into defending India and if so how? Throw in 3x Infantry every round and hope for the best or actually pay some decent IPCs (mixing in tanks and fighters) to make the struggle harder?

Let me know what you think
cheers!