Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - Can Allies ever win (II)
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:37:27 -0500 
 <EezeYRK00iV443bpFV@andrew.cmu.edu> 	<1druh9INNq3v@gap.caltech.edu> 
 <0f0YUwG00VoqMI2Eda@andrew.cmu.edu><1dubbiINNf57@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>>One of the most effective ways to stall is to build an IC in India.  Britian
>>>can get quite a force their pretty quickly.  Nothing that Japan can knock
>>>out right away.  It is particularly effective if the Russian planes and
>>>perhaps some American units get sent there.
>
>>Waste of effort, British should be using transport to help take out
>>Germany, retake Africa, and garrison Karelia (so the Russians can fight
>>the Japanese on the mainland, reducing the use of the Japanese navy).
>
>It is all a matter of timing.  You don't want Japan to expand too quickly...
>After that, why does it matter who stops Japan?  Russia or Britian can
>do so.
>
It does not matter who tries to stop Japan, if someone does.  Britain
can build 3 units per turn at its factory, japan can sip over 8 inf, and
would like a factory in India.  Meanwhile, if Britain and US build lots
of transports, it makes the fleet that much harder to sink (typically I
think US builds 4 trans first turn, UK builds lots second, allies never
build any capital ships... Germany can attack 11 transports with 4
fighters and a bomber if it wants).

>>>>attacking with almost anything there you can go a long way towards
>>>>gaining time for Russia. And let me point something else out, as well.
>>>>If the U.S. and Britain have Germany on its knees, Russia can almost
>>>>singlehandedly hold off Japan until the other two can come. Japan is
>>>>limited in mainland forces, whereas Russia can just pound away with
>>>>infantry (although you are most likely advised simply to put them in the
>>>>way since they are twice as better on defense than on offense). 
>
>>>Most Japan players seem to build industrial complexes on the mainland
>>>rather right away.  It is probably a good idea to build a large number
>
>>Then you are not playing against people with the proper plan.  If you
>>build a factory, it will be stratbombed till you get an AA gun there,
>>hence factories cost 20 each.  For 16 you can build 2 transports which
>>will bring over 4 inf per turn.  Notice the transport inf are not a turn
>>behind, since you can build the inf the same turn as the transport, then
>>bring the inf to the mainland the next turn.
>
>Again it is timing.  Bombers are expensive.  As soon as the allies build
>a few, Japan can easily buy an AA gun.  IC's on the mainland are very
>effective, especially if you are building tanks.  Also, they allow
>deportation to a wider area more quickly.  Timing also comes into play
>when you consider the building or aircraft and navies..

Forget building a bomber.  The allies start with 2, which I think is
plenty for this purpose!  2 dice of $ gone per turn till you build your
AA gun.  Since the bombers are kept near this area, you will have to
immediately build or transport an AA gun, instead of building an inf, or
transporting 2.  More reasons to use transports till you want lots of
armor.  Since most battles of yours use lots of planes, you do not need
much armor.  Even at 2 inf + 1 armor, tranports are as good as
factories, and cost less (since the factory needs an AA gun).  One of
the best places for your factory (when you are Japan) is India, so the
allies building on there , spending that much less effort against
germany, and quickly losing to your vast inf superiority is helpful.  Of
course the allies could combind this with a big pacific fleet, but that
would leave Germany in great shape.

Note that the UK having a fleet with the Americans makes Germany have to
leave more units to garrison its capital.  The Uk can do some damage
(maybe wipe out 7 inf or so) in the first battle, though Britain take
horrible attrition, but still conquering the Germans is worth a lot.


Erik
---=
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA