Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:04:12 -0500 
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A Industrial Points Question
	<Ef1JZBC00UhWQ2UO47@andrew.cmu.edu>

 "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>On 14-Nov-92 in A&A Industrial Points
>user Hassink Brian John@cs.UA writes:
>>A friend and I have been playing Axis and Allies on and off for several
>>years now. We've always played it such that any remaining IPC's not spent
>>after the "purchase units" phase are lost. However, I've noticed in the
>>odd strategy post that remaining IPC's are kept. I've checked the 
>>instructions briefly, but could'nt find any clarification. What's the
>>general concensus?
>> 
>>On the strategy issue... In our most recent game, where I was the Axis,
>>I tried out a policy of damaging England and Russia as much as possible
>>with Japan, while fighting a holding policy against the US.
>> 
>>On the first German turn, I used the long range bomber to destroy the British
>>transport off Canada and thereby stranded the Canadian based unit. I used
>>Germanys fighters, along with the Baltic based sub and transport, to
eliminate
>>all remaining British naval units around England and the sub in the Atlantic.
>>(Note, Russian naval units were destroyed as well, since they were moved in
>>to support Britain but the combined fleet was insufficient against combined
>>German air and naval forces.) Then, taking the Mediterranean naval forces,
>>the last remaining British naval unit (the sub near Suez) is destroyed.
>>So, after the first turn, all allied naval power in the European theater
>>has been eliminated except for the sole American transport which is easily
>>dealt with by the bomber on the next turn. Germany is free for at least
>>two turns to safely bring troops into Africa and eliminate the British 
>>presence, and also pressure Russia.
>> 
>>On the first Japan turn, I did not open with the traditional Pearl Harbour
>>attack. Instead, I used a sub and did a sneak attack on the Aircraft Carrier
>>sinking it (also eliminating the plane it carried), and then retreating after
>>the US sub missed on return fire. I took the Battleship and transport and
>>invaded Australia, easily taking it with the Battleship's initial support
>>fire. On the Asian mainland, I grabbed India, one of the American-Chinese
>>territories, and the Russian far east. A factory was established on the
>>mainland, and some more air power flown in. On the second turn, I used the 
>>same sub technique to sink the US Battleship off California, grabbed 
>>New Zealand (using those scattered men which are wastefully positioned on
>>non-economic islands), and eliminated remaining US and Russian forces in
>>Asia. The US is almost completely cut off since the bulk of its offensive
>>navy has been eliminated, and Japan now has a free hand in Asia. A second
>>mainland factory is recommended as soon as possible so that you now have
>>the ability of 6 tanks a turn on the mainland.
>> 
>>So, my strategy of destroying as much naval power as possible coupled with
>>taking away as much British and Russian territory as possible (thereby 
>>hurting production), worked very well for me. The game progressed with the
>>US rebuilding its Pacific fleet, but unable to do significant damage since
>>I kept using long range bombers and cheap subs at every opportunity to 
>>keep him at arms length. Russia was able to hold off German advances, with
>>British support, but collapsed when full Japanese mainland forces were 
>>brought to bear. Germany was also able to make significant gains in Africa
>>since no British reinforcements could be brought in soon enough. 
>> 
>>I have to admit, the whole thing depends on lucky rolls in that crucial
>>first turn (especially on the sub sneak attacks). But, I got the rolls and
>>the allies just could'nt recover fast enough.
>> 
>>Brian
>>hassink@cs.ualberta.ca
>
>I find this interesting, because it seems to me that there are some
>errors in your interpretation of the rules. Well, firstly, to answer
>your question, I think it is made clear in the rules that you get to
>save what you didn't use as far as IPC's. Secondly, and most

correct

>importantly, you are doing sub sneak attacks wrong. While it is true
>that any sub-induced casualties cannot return fire, THE DEFENDER STILL
>GETS TO PICK WHAT HE LOSES. Thus, you cannot carry out a sneak attack
>"against the U.S. carrier" but merely against the Hawaiian fleet. The
>U.S. should merely lose his sub and then pummel you. Also, the fighter
>is NOT immediately lost (it is allowed to land in Hawaii), because
>fighters are considered to be flying off carriers in naval defense.

correct on both counts

>Now, about strategy. It is true that the German's best strategy is to
>use the Luftwaffe to knock out as much Allied (i.e. British  ;)   ) navy

unless you have the unlucky or stupid Russian scenario, and can take
Karelia the first turn.

>as possible. However, by the end of the second turn, good Allied players
>ought to have a British carrier, one or two British transports, two U.S.

Bah.  The fighters should be making sure the Germans don't get lucky and
take Karelia.  The allies can have 11 fresh transports (perhaps more
units if the axis did not kill everything), which the Germans can attack
with 4 fighters and a bomber.  Other than defending the transports are
far superior, and I don't think the battle is in Germany's best intrest.
 If Germany attacks this mess it is just trading $ with America /
Britain at a ratio < 1.

>fighters, and a slew of U.S. transports sitting off Britain (and before
>you can attack them, by the way), so if you don't watch out, you will
>quickly stop worrying about attacking Russia and start worrying about
>Berlin.... Also, it is very hard, once the U.S. gets going, to hold on
>to Africa. Your best bet is to try to pummel Russia as fast as possible
>and hope for the best.

Precisely why the allies don't build an AC.  The allies reinforce
Karelia on turn 3.  Turn 4 they go to north Africa, with the threat of
attacking Germany, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, or Southern Europe
the next turn.  Britain alone can use 14 inf + air against Germany, and
US can follow up, so Germany must be defensive.  Around now the Russian
start moving land units to push Japan back, so Japan either keeps using
lots of land units, or moves back.

>As for Japan, probably the whole reason your holding strategy worked was
>due to your misinterpretation of sub sneak attacks. Also, any good U.S.

That + the fact he got really lucky!  His sub hit, the fighter and sub
missed in counterattack.  Then (even with their messed up rules) why
didn't US air destroy his sub the next round?  The first attack alone
has <5% chance of working.

>player will simply IGNORE Japan (except for perhaps watching out for
>stupid things like taking Western U.S. for a turn): it is far better to
>concentrate on Germany anyway. About losing all American capital ships:
>well, most U.S. players are used to not having anything but Atlantic
>transports anyway, so this is no big loss (although it would be nice to
>have them if they can get away). There is absolutely no use for Japan to

Well there is a way to often get your BB across:  first turn retreat
transport 1 space, BB 2 spaces.  In order to sink the BB, Japan will
have to use planes, and probably lose 1.

>build a navy other than transports to ship inf to Asia (unless of course
>for the unlikely event that the U.S. takes a Pacific strategy (no pun
>intended)). 
>
>Also, someone recently mentioned the idea that Japan could force the
>U.S. to play in the Pacific. This is not true. Something about landing
>14 inf in Alaska was mentioned. As the U.S., I would be overjoyed to
>have the Japanese stay for an extended Alaskan vacation! Firstly, that's

Well, it can be a helpful manuver if you time it right.  The threat is
taking Western US the next turn.  If the US was planning on building
lots of inf in the east coast that turn, it could buy Germany a free
turn.  Staying in Alaska just for the 2 IPC is stupid (well, perhaps the
axis are making their final bid at economic victory).

>14 more inf that won't bug Russia, and I'll gladly take the 2 IPC loss
>if they stay there. If Japan hauls them back to Asia, leaving only a
>token force, then it only takes a little bit of effort to take it back,
>and then what has been accomplished by Japan? A couple extra IPC's for a
>few rounds (if that much) versus a huge loss in time against the fight
>against Russia--a very bad trade-off, if you ask me. 

If that is what the axis do, they really wasted their time.

>Well, let me know what you think, everyone.

OK.

>Jon
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>Jon Moore             (jmci@andrew.cmu.edu) 
> "What have I got in my pocket?" --Bilbo     
> "Let the truth of love be lighted,          
 > Let the love of truth shine clear." --RUSH 
>-----------------------------------------------


Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board