From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 03:03:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:

>In article <1b5iriINNeth@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>A good german player will probably be able to take out any small navy that
>>is produced.  To counter this, the US could save some money, and then
>>build a big navy at once, or it can move in its pacific fleet, if it hasn't 
>>been destroyed. 

>Depending on the game scenario played (with or without the USSR no
>attack option), the Germans can have lost 3 or even 4 of its 6 air
>units, as well as all it's navy (except the battleship and transport in
>the Med) by the time the US starts building transports (which is turn
>1).  If that's the case, then I believe it to be possible to build only
>transports, no carriers, and lose some to the aircraft.  With enough of
>them, the German aircraft will die with only a few losses for the
>allies.

Well, I play the Russia no-attack rule.  I think this is used in most
of the tournaments.

>>It is important that the US take back Africa from Germany as soon as possible.
>>If Germany gets the cash for too long, the allies are in trouble.
>>(Note, I am assuming that Britian is spending most of its money defending
>>India, and thus halting the expansion of Japan).

>Again, "X has to do Y" does not work.  I have the UK take Africa back,

Well, I think that there are a few thigns that each of the countries have
to do.  There are also some things that need to be done if another country
has done some certain thing...

>if taking back is the right wording.  It's hard to take back that which
>you never lost.  It all depends on the players and the strategies.

I am assuming that Germany has transported over at least two infantry to
Africa, which should be enough to cause German domination at least for a 
few turns.

>>What islands, exactly, are worth the effort to take them?  I think the US
>>has much more improtant things to do than go island-hopping.  In order
>>for the US to threaten Japan in the least, he'd have to spend quite a bit
>>of money that should be used to hinder Germany.

>As I said, hinder WITHOUT spending money.  The US has a transport, and a
>few infantry.  It might only take one or two islands to hurt Japan, even
>if you define hurt as merely necessitating the use of resources to go
>deal with it.  I say go island hopping with only those units you have
>available.  After those are gone, you're done island hopping.  What if
>you get into the Phillipines?  That's 3 IPCs (not much, but it could be
>the difference in a round's purchases, which might affect things) that
>the JApanese probably don't get on the next turn, but will get back
>after that.  Accomplishing that is better than doing nothing.

Well, the US fleet certainly wouldn't be doing "nothing" if it moved into
the Atlantic.  I'm assuming that Japan has attacked the Hawaii seaspace,
anyway, so there is not really a US fleet.  Time is of the essence.  Island
hopping is not the way to make the best use of it.

>>>You simply cannot state "Country X must do Y" in this game.  It all
>>>depends on the strategies used.  Perhaps in your gaming circles, the US
>>>navy becomes very dangerous to the Germans, in which case the Japanese
>>>might be better off attacking it.  I, on the other hand, would prefer to
>>>LET the US navy run.  That gives me uncontested control of the Pacific,
>>
>>What is in the pacific that is so valuable?

>If the Germans have control in Africa, not all but most territories,
>then the taking of Australia and New Zealand can be VERY valuable.  Many
>times I've seen the UK with more transports than loads, and this can be
>exploited by taking those UK provinces in the South Pacific.  Not to
>mention an extra IPC from Hawaii, perhaps Mexice (when I do this, it's
>usually the case that the US has to build something in West US to deal
>with it, which takes away from Germany for a short time, then I leave.
>I get 4 IPCs for this, as I'd have Mexico 2 turns, and the US would NOT
>have Mexico for one turn.  That's 6 IPCs difference between us).  From
>Mexico, you can go to New Zealand or Panama.  If you get to and through
>Panama, you can probably get Brazil.  IT goes on and on.  Granted, this
>usually doesn't happen, but it's nice when you can do it!!!!!

I don't see Japan having enough force to keep Mexico a whole turn, unless
the US player is pretty oblivious to what is going on.  After Japan would
land, it'd be crushed by the US forces, and the the fleet would have to
go back and pick up some more men.  This will take quite a while.

>>It just doesn't seem very useful to have the Japanese fleet wandering aimlessly around in the Pacific.  The allied assault on Germany is inevitable,
>>probably, so why not try to delay it as long as possible?

>By taking all these little measures, you ARE delaying the assault on
>Germany, and I don't do it unless I have the Asian theatre under control
>(ie, well on my way to Moscow).

There are some pretty interesting things that Japan can do.  Attacking
the US, however, doesn't seem very effective, from my experience.

keith