Axis&Allies board game - Page 4

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:34

PBEM, I assume.

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:34

Except Ramo and I - we can play face to face.

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:36

I think russia hitting EE on the first turn is the best

why?

because it stops the tanks that germany has from being useful against anything but EE

and keeps Karelia very safe

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:37

I will say that I will only play Russia Restricted (ie, can't attack the first turn). Quite frankly, without that rule, the game is pretty unbalanced. The one rule of RR makes it MUCH more equal, if you know what you're doing.

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:38

I think that subs are too good

to try and ballance them, I am thinking of adding the house rule (for next time me and my freinds play) that planes get a free initial attack against Subs

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:42

Uh, subs can't fire back at planes, anyway.

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:43

I know

but they can retreat

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:44

Not until the plane shoots, though. The attacker always goes first (except in the case of AA guns).

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:44

as it is

planes attack subs, get 1 shot, subs retreat

my modification would be

planes attack subs, get two shots, subs retreat

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:45

Gotcha. I'm not sure how that is particularly fair or balancing...if someone wastes money on tons of subs they're gonna lose anyway, but it also isn't fair to be able to (virtually) guarantee that a German fighter can take out the British sub in the Eastern Med EVERY time.

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:48

in a lot of games I have seen, all sea battles are completely made up of subs

and I beleive that a fighter is 3 on offense

that means with my modification that it a 1/4 chance for the british sub to survive

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:53

In a lot of games that *I* have seen, the only sea battles in the whole game consist of the following:

G1: German naval units suiciding themselves as fodder to wipe out the UK navy, without losing any planes.

J1: Japan conducting the attack on the HawaiiSZ with as little force as possible, to take out the US carrier and fighter.

And that's generally it. Generally, people who spend money on lots of naval forces (other than transports, in the cases of US, UK, and Japan) end up losing.

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 22:54

Jon,

Yeah, but that sub isn't statistically significant, in the long run.

Oh, and usually the Brits need to build a carrier on UK2, to discourage German air attacks against UKSZ.

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:55

I didn't say I saw a lot of sea battles

I just said that the ones I have seen, subs were overpowered in

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · November 4, 2003, 22:59

subs can matter, it depends on how the game is played

(I agree that they shouldn't matter, but it depends on who you are playing with)

Jon Miller

David Floyd · November 4, 2003, 23:00

Hmmm. Maybe so, but I can't say that I've ever seen submarines be a significant factor in the outcome of any A&A Game.

nato · November 4, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Early on, I'd probably put at least 2 tanks in Novo, for a possible counter against an early Japanese gamble into India - make it so unprofitable for Japan that they won't do it, even when the KNOW the Brits will put a factory up.

Yeah a Russian tank in novo is a good move. I generally do that too with the one from SFE. The other three are too necesary for fighting in Ukraine and Norway at first.

Quote:

Actually, a British IC in India, if properly played, can often times tie down the Japanese for even 6-7 turns, and that's against a GOOD Japanese player.

An Indian IC? I haven't seen one of those since I started playing online. I'm more conventional, and agree with the general opinion that its a bad move.

I feel those Indian troops are needed to either counter Egypt or hit Kwangtung. Either of those moves are huge.

I use Britian for the normal stuff; build a fleet, retake Africa, get the shuck going.

Japan will get the IC eventually, and if you are pumping 15 IPCs or so into India each turn, UK has almost nothing left for the shuck. Recapturing Africa is much more important than slowing Japan and giving them an IC. Slowing Japan will lose you the game if you traded it for a grey Africa.

Quote:

In 6-7 turns, the US/British can be shoving a combined 20+ infantry per turn into Norway, France, or Algeria, and will have been doing this since around Turn 3.

Well that would be the shuck thing I keep talking about, basic Allied play. Like I said, you won't be doing this so well with most UK income going to an Indian IC.

nato · November 4, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
So what exactly are all of you guys talking about playing

The Hasbro computer game version is played at the Microsoft Gaming Zone. You sign up for a MS passport, and A&A has its own room, under Strategy. If you knew the Zone name of the person you wanted to play, you could just meet in the World at War room.

A lot of ppl do PBEM also. I've never done that so I know less about it. They use dice servers, I think the one most used is called Dicey, to mail eachother dice rolls.

There are several clubs for both kinds of play, such as Spring 1942, Balance of Power, IAAPA, AAMC, and Warclub.

These people have the game down to an absolute science, and are very competitive players.

The reason I can speak so confidently about strategies isn't because I'm some great player ... its because things have been so well tested that things are kind of proven and well known.

For anyone interested, here is the Spring 1942 links page, from which you can get to Spring or the other clubs:

http://www.spring1942.org/Resources/Links/

Jon Miller · November 5, 2003, 00:01

I actually like more complicated games like 3rd Reich better

it is just easier to find players for axis and allies (Almost as easy as risk)

JOn Miller

David Floyd · November 5, 2003, 00:33

Quote:

An Indian IC? I haven't seen one of those since I started playing online. I'm more conventional, and agree with the general opinion that its a bad move.

I feel those Indian troops are needed to either counter Egypt or hit Kwangtung. Either of those moves are huge.

The Kwangtung-Manch strategy, huh? That's too much of a gambit. Sure, it MIGHT work, but why risk losing when you can just play a strategy that WILL work - that is, build an Indian IC on UK1, save the remainder of the income, and start moving British fighters to India for defense, building a carrier, a fighter, 1 tank, and the rest infantry on UK2, putting 2 inf and 1 arm in India. From there, aggressively attack east, using UK builds of 1 inf and 2 arm in India each turn, with fighters to back them up.

Eventually, Japan will overwhelm the India IC, but not until turn 7, or even later, depending on the player, and 7 turns is MORE than enough time for the US and Britain to start to REALLY punish Germany. This can be done either by going straight after France, or by going after a more peripheral strategy - that is, dump one shuck worth of troops in Africa, to take down the German IPCs coming out of there, and then start dumping stacks into Norway, which eventually make their way to Karelia, freeing up Russian troops to head east to stop India, while maintaining a VERY credible threat against France, taking it at ANY opportunity, in order to force German armor to commit to France and come within range of US/British forces.

Quote:

Japan will get the IC eventually, and if you are pumping 15 IPCs or so into India each turn, UK has almost nothing left for the shuck.

Actually, here's the breakdown. By UK2, the UK is usually down to about 23-25 IPCs/turn. That gives them 10-12 to use for infantry for the shuck (assuming 2 arm, 1 inf to India). That isn't enough. However, let the UK take Norway (+3), and then let a US stack march across Africa, liberating another 5 or so IPCs. That takes the UK up to 18-20, which translates to between 6 and 7 infantry a turn - and that IS enough to mount a credible shuck, in conjunction with the US.

Dis · November 8, 2003, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Well, with all due respect thats wrong on both counts.

Its not a waste of time. Russia has the strength to attack on R1. It would, in fact, be a waste of time NOT to attack. In war you generally want to use resources as soon as they become available, and this holds true in games also.

German units aren't concentrated yet, you get to hit them before they do and weaken him. You may get to kill a fighter before it ever gets to attack, complicating Germany's many tasks on G1. And you get the swing of 6 IPCs.

Russia has a choice of three land targets: Ukraine, EE, or Finland/Norway. Each of these choices has its strengths and weaknesses. You could pick any of the three and be ok mostly, but I think on balance Ukraine is the best choice. To my understanding, it is the most popular, usual choice.

Compared to the other two, in Ukraine you get to take out one extra German tank. Compared to Norway, Inf there can still pressure EE next turn. Compared to EE, Germany has less in range to hit back with, so you can take it hard with tanks and get the extra fighter and swing of 6 IPCs.

On the second point, Russia Resticted IS NOT the default rules. Its a variant rule commonly used because even casual players realized the big advantage the Allies have (though as I said, even RR alone is not enough to balance it).

RR is common in casual, non league play. It might be considered the "default" in the World at War room on the Zone. However, it is definitely not the default for more competitive play. RR is not used in the main leagues/databases.

Therefore the bid is higher than in RR. Like I said above, the bid is around 18 without RR, 6 with it.

Russia can also attack Manchuria

Dis · November 8, 2003, 05:19

I like subs.

. They are a good value for the money.

The only time you really see them is in the Pacific. And usually only if the U.S. pursues an island hopping strategy.

I get the impression that none of you guys go after Japan as the U.S.?

I do. What I like to do is split my forces. I know that isn't the best strategy to do all the time. But as the allies I know the odds are in my favour

. I like doing a limited island hopping campaign (taking lightly protected islands) and concentrating most of my forces against France (WE). And subs play a part in my pacific campaign.

Dis · November 8, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

The Kwangtung-Manch strategy, huh? That's too much of a gambit. Sure, it MIGHT work, but why risk losing when you can just play a strategy that WILL work - that is, build an Indian IC on UK1, save the remainder of the income, and start moving British fighters to India for defense, building a carrier, a fighter, 1 tank, and the rest infantry on UK2, putting 2 inf and 1 arm in India. From there, aggressively attack east, using UK builds of 1 inf and 2 arm in India each turn, with fighters to back them up.

Eventually, Japan will overwhelm the India IC, but not until turn 7, or even later, depending on the player, and 7 turns is MORE than enough time for the US and Britain to start to REALLY punish Germany. This can be done either by going straight after France, or by going after a more peripheral strategy - that is, dump one shuck worth of troops in Africa, to take down the German IPCs coming out of there, and then start dumping stacks into Norway, which eventually make their way to Karelia, freeing up Russian troops to head east to stop India, while maintaining a VERY credible threat against France, taking it at ANY opportunity, in order to force German armor to commit to France and come within range of US/British forces.

Actually, here's the breakdown. By UK2, the UK is usually down to about 23-25 IPCs/turn. That gives them 10-12 to use for infantry for the shuck (assuming 2 arm, 1 inf to India). That isn't enough. However, let the UK take Norway (+3), and then let a US stack march across Africa, liberating another 5 or so IPCs. That takes the UK up to 18-20, which translates to between 6 and 7 infantry a turn - and that IS enough to mount a credible shuck, in conjunction with the US.

7 turns? No Way!!

If I'm Japan, and UK puts an IC up, I ignore Russia and China and go for that IC. Turn 1 if possible. And if you don't move the Australians up to defend India- you are toast. That IC is mine!

nato · November 8, 2003, 12:33

Quote:

Russia can also attack Manchuria

Thats true and a good point. I almost always strafe Manch on R1. You just want to make sure you only strafe it, and don't actually take it. Killing off 2 or 3 inf is great, but never ever take the territory. That sacrifices your Yakut wall of troops, because Japan can pound the coast much easier than inland.

Quote:

That IC is mine!

Thats my experience too, and the general opinion. If Japan really wants that IC, they can get it.

For a while I was trying to make the Indian IC work. The only way I found I could reliably defend it on the first turn was by moving a Russian fighter down to India on R1. This means that fighter can't attack on R1, can't help defend Karelia, and it telegraphs the IC purchase loud and clear.

It delays building a fleet, retaking Africa, and hurts UK income too much.

Dis · November 9, 2003, 03:04

I used to move the troops from Australia up to India to help defend the IC when I built it as UK.

I was in a phase when I always built it. Now I don't. It leaves Australia open. But it can't be taken on J1 if I recall correctly. The Japanese transport in the Philappines cannot reach (that's the same transport I use to help take India as Japan if UK builds an IC)

But it leaves Australia open on J2 for takeover. But if I'm UK I have to use everything I can to help protect that IC. Is it worth all that effort?

I say no. UK just doesn't have the resources as the U.S. to do the "dual" approach. It's best just to concentrate on Germany. As UK if Japan does leave an island (that has value) open, I may use 1 and only 1 infantry from Australia to take it. But that's pretty much all I do against Japan.

but like I said above, the U.S. has a little more resources to do the "dual" approach of taking on both Japan and Germany.

David Floyd · November 9, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

7 turns? No Way!!

It's highly possible.

Quote:

If I'm Japan, and UK puts an IC up, I ignore Russia and China and go for that IC.

If you ignore China, don't be surprised to see a US factory pop up in Sinkiang.

Quote:

Turn 1 if possible.

Probably impossible, if the UK does the smart thing and moves the IndiaSZ transport into the FIC-SZ on Turn 1. This blocks any amphibious landings and BB bombards for a turn, and gives the UK the chance to bring in an extra 5 defensive units by UK2, plus a couple of fighters - plus, if you ignore China, US infantry. PLUS, the Soviets have a counterattack set up, because they have at least 2 tanks in Novo and 1 infantry in Sinkiang.

Quote:

And if you don't move the Australians up to defend India- you are toast. That IC is mine!

Sorry, this just isn't true. The Australians only count for two infantry, and gives the Japanese a free shot at Australia. However, the Japanese can bring in far more power than 2 infantry by the sea, if you don't block that move with the UK transport. And sure, you sacrificed the transport, but you're gonna lose it anyway if you leave it in the India SZ, probably on the next turn, AND you'll be giving away Australia for free. At least with 2 infantry in Australia you force Japan to load up at least 1 transport with 2 infantry, and take down a battleship for a bombard, and use at least one plane - and you have a decent chance of killing 1 of the attacking infantry. This as opposed to simply letting the Japanese spare one transport and one infantry to take it for free - and the two infantry in Australia will probably have died in India on J1 anyway.

Dis · November 9, 2003, 17:50

well if the US puts one up in Sinkiang, then I go for that as well.

That's 5 units a turn Japan can put in Asia without transports. That's worth any loss of units to get that. I'll even sacrifice fighters even to get that.

I'll grant you that moving the transport to block a Japanese move with their transport is a good move. I haven't seen people do that in my games. Though not that many people put up IC's in India.

But it still can be taken. You may have to sacrifice a fighter or two to do it though.

David Floyd · November 9, 2003, 17:58

Sure, but it takes several turns, and the more fighters you lose, the tougher it is to take down Russia, too.