From: emullins@triton.unm.edu (Eric Mullins)
Subject: Re: A&A: Allied guide to crushing Germany
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 05:33:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In defence of the Allied Guide to Crushing Germany, I feel compelled to
mention that the opinions that follow are my own, and not necessarily
those of the original author, Tim Hsu.

Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
><USA 1st move.
><1) Destroy the remains of the German navy.
><2) Move 3P to E. or W. US
><2) Build 1C, 2TT, and put them in E. US.
>The carrier is a waste of resources.  By now you would not need it.

See Below.

><Russian 2nd move.
><1) Attack E. Europe with all the inf, 2T, and 2P.
><2) Build 9 inf in Karelia.
>
>Could be bad if germans took the caucuses the first turn, you would lose
>Russia.  If not, then there should be a lot of stuff in E. Europe
>(everything that can reach, including the aa gun, and 2 inf  or 1 tank
>from Finland).  By starting such a poor battle, you may just give the
>axis a resonable chance of winning.

Well, what exactly do you have Germany doing?  In the discussion below,
I'll assume you did:

1:attacked Caucuses with the land units from Ukraine.
2:attacked E. Europe with the infantry from Germany and a couple tanks
  from somewhere.  Note, it's awful to use all your tanks since every
  unit remaining will be destroyed by the Russians next turn.
3:destroyed all the naval units near you.  I'm not going to go into
  the details; but I'll even be generous and let kill every enemy
  boat, and incur no losses in the plane department.
4:used the inf in S. Europe to attack africa
5:land 4 fighters, and bomber in W. Europe
6:consolidate land units in Germany, save 2 inf in W. Europe.
7:build 2 inf S. Europe, 8 inf Germany.

if this isn't what you wanted to do, sorry. You gave me nothing
to go by.

On the next Russian turn, he does:
1:attacks Caucuses with 4 inf, and two tanks blitz-krieg through ukraine
2:attacks E. Europe with X inf and 2 planes.  X is the minimum
  number necessary to take the area.  I plan for leaving 3 units left
  with average luck, that way, with poor luck, I'm still ok.
3:build 9 inf in Karaelia, land fighters there.

><British 2nd move.
><1) Put 1P onto the US carrier.
><2) Build 1C, 4TT, and inf (will be 2-3).
>Wow, you really are into wasting lots of money on carriers!  One loaded
>carrier an lots of transports is plenty (the germans can throw their air
>force away to kill some transports, but the exchange in cost is poor,
>and the Germans lose by trading money with the allies).

It's called being thorough.  Against 1C, 2P, 4TT, Germany can if lucky
kill all the transports and loose only a couple of planes (by retreating).
If this happens, all the Allied efforts have been for naught, so more
naval strength is required to offset one slim chance the Axis may have.

><USA 2nd move.
><1) Move all naval units and transport as many land units as possible to
><   Britain.  Move 2P onto the UK carrier, and 1P onto the US carrier.  Shuffle
><   inf and tanks to E. Canada.
><2) Build 2TT, and inf in E. US.
>Well, after going through all the effort to make your navy safe, you
>build two transports, and allow them to be attacked by planes!

This is one of my quibbles with the plan, and why I recommend that Germany
land its bomber in W. Europe.  Normally, I just build 10 inf here and
wait to build the transports next turn, after the bomber is forced to
land somewhere else.  I'm not going to go into why.. If you try the
sceneario, you'll see why.

><Russian 3rd move: repeat Russian 2nd move.
>Stupider still, you have no tanks, may have already lost a plane, and
>are attacking more inf with fewer inf.  Seems like this is a program to
>lose the entire game!

more inf with fewer inf?  Please explain how Germany has more inf than
Russia at this point.  Also, in the above Russia/German conflict,
Russia still has two unopposed tanks in caucusses.

><There are now 2C, 4P and 6-7TT around UK.  A pretty nice task force.
><
><Germany is now faced with a group of Russian inf on the east front, a readied
><US assault into W. Europe, a UK player who could hit either Germany, E.
><Europe, or W. Europe.
>
>A group of Russian inf?  Is 8 inf a group?  Why doesn't Germany just
>squish Russia, now that Russia has thrown away all its infantry in lousy
>battles?

Again, your not supporting your claims.  I have done this battle
repeatedly, and Russia does have a substantial force.  Usually,
it's about the same strenght as the German force.  What you may
be missing is the fact that both Russia and Germany have the
same need to re-capture E. Europe.  Whether or not the battle
is lousy economywise is irrelevent, because both sides have to
make the same "lousy" battle as you call it.

><A Russian attack into Ukrane or Norway is really unnecessary, in fact, the
><Germans should be taking troops away from those territories to attack, so
><if the opportunity presents itself, take them, but don't forget that E. Europe
><is the focus of the Russian onslaught.
>The Germans don't more than one unit in both Norway and Eastern Europe
>unless they have Russia on the ropes anyway.  If the Germans are
>competent, your "onslaught" is just a way of trading inf with the
>germans at a poor ratio.

As I stated above, it goes both ways.

><If this Japanese force turns out to be larger than you had expected, putting
><most of the RAF on Moscow, along with the Russian inf and aircraft should
><keep the Japanese from progressing.
>With the $ the axis earn under this plan, the small amount of support
>you give the Russians (you spend so much on planes and carriers instead
>of more inf and transports), the way you throw away Russian inf, Russia
>will be dead very soon.

Bologna.  Russia isn't in any danger until Germany is Jailed to
one territory--Germany.  At that time, the units shift to Moscow
to thwart any Japaneese offensive.
-- 
   Eric Mullins			Internet: emullins@triton.unm.edu
Mars the God of War		Bitnet:   emullins@unmb.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.board