Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon,  9 Nov 1992 13:08:29 -0500 
From: "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - Can Allies ever win (II)
Distribution: world

On 08-Nov-92 in A&A - Can Allies ever win
user Ingolf Markhof@ls12r.inf writes:
>First of all, I'd like to say "thank you very much" to all people which have
>answered my first posting via email or the news. Some of the told me that 
>Russia can't build a fighter and 6 armies in its first turn, because there
>are only 24 IP to spend. Right. This was a typing error. It's one fighter
>and 4 armies in the first turn, instead.
> 
>Most people cried "No! Building a fighter is stupid, Russia must build all
>infantry". I still don't believe that. Germany will retake Eastern Europe
>in the first year and attack the Ukraine in the second. Russia *must* retake
>the Ukraine. If not, Germany will send a large force to the Ukraine, including
>a lot of tanks, and it will palce its fighter there. From the Ukraine, Germany
>can attack either Karelia or Moscow and Russia, or the allies, won't be able
>to defend both. 
>

You have the right basic idea here--Russia must, in the long term, worry
about defense and not offense. However, the benefits of attacking German
forces quickly begin to dwindle. Also, as far as defensive units go,
infantry are better than fighters from a cost-effective point of view.
Consider that for $12 you can buy one fighter which (defending) hits 4
times out of 6 turns on average. However, you can also buy 3 inf, which,
on the average, over six turns, will get six hits. In addition, the 3
infs are also three cheap warm bodies you can take as hits, whereas one
hit and your fighter is gone.

Also remember that the basic idea to winning with the Allies is: BUY
TIME. The attack on Eastern Europe in the first turn theoretically
prevents a German first turn assault on Karelia. Also recall that
Caucasus lies in between Ukraine and Russia, so until Germany takes
this, you don't have to guard Moscow. Also, generally, if Germany does
not build mostly infantry (which is by far the most effective means of
assault for them), you will quickly attrition all their fighters and
tanks away, thus making the assault on Russia successively harder. 


>Russia needs some attacking power to prevent this. Infantry are not
well suited
>for this. And only two fighters are not sufficient, too. If Russia will not
>build any fighters, how will it be able to prevent Germany from placing its
>attacking force in the Ukraine?!?

Again, even if you want to attack (for some insane reason), the three
inf are better than the fighters anyway: although they both (with the
inf collectively as a group) get .5 hits each round, you can take extra
hits with the inf, as mentioned above.
> 
>Next, most people told me Britain should build a Carrier and a
transport in the
>first turn, and the U.S. should send two fighters and its transport to this
>fleet. Well, a good idea. But there might be a german battleship and a
>transport
>in the western mediterranian sea, too. So, germany will be able to
destroy this
>fleet, again. And everything the british or the U.S. forces will do to support
>the new fleet around England will not be available to defend Karelia...
>
The basic idea here is that Germany should not have a navy by the second
turn (when Britain usually dumps the navy in the sea). Britain will be
well advised to knock out most of the German navy, even at the risk of
incapacitating the RAF. Here is why: Germany will most likely NEVER
replace any naval units lost, whereas you will have ample time to
replace the air force. Basically, I've seen Britain save all its money
on turn 1, and then buy one carrier and as many transports as possible
on turn 2. The U.S. IGNORES Japan (for the most part) and builds
transports. When Britain dumps the fleet in the ocean, the U.S. should
fly the fighters in as mentioned, and move the transports in as well.
After two British turns there should be no German naval units in
attacking position. Then Germany has a choice: either lose all the
Luftwaffe in a last ditch attempt to take out the transports, or begin
shoring up the defenses for the coming invasion. Either choice is
basically a losing option. By lifting the pressure on Russia (and this
DOES happen fairly early on), it allows Russia to stall Japan long
enough for Germany to fall.
 
>So, I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Nevertheless, it's an idea. And from
>all proposals I've got, this seems to be the most promising one. I'll try it.
> 
>Some remarks have been made regarding the far east, i.e., to build a factory
>in India or even in China or the U.S. area next to China, or to use the
>brithish
>forces in India to attack the japanese area next to  India. For my opinion,
>any factroy in the far east will be taken easyly by Japan. Russia can't
support
>such a factory, it needs help by itself to defend Karelia and/or
Moscow, instea
>d.
>And to attack from India is a stupid idea, too. The british forces are not 
>strong enough. And even if they would win, Japan would retake any lost
>territory
>easyly.

I will generally agree that any factory built in the Far East is
basically a giveaway to the Japanese. However, if you consider the
Allied forces on the board at the start, it isn't much. If you wait, the
Japanese will roll right over them anyway. The key here is to stall. By
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). 

Just as an aside, I would like to mention a variant my friends and I
once played on the game, which sort of supports my Russia vs. Japan
opinion above. We REARRANGED the teams so it was Germany and Russia vs.
Japan, GB, and the US. With no Germany to worry about, Russia simply
rolled across Asia and had Japan completely off the mainland in no time.
Japan is simply just too hampered to keep shipping stuff over--Russia
has the advantage with two unlimited-production mainland factories.

> 
>Again, any comments are welcome!
> 
>Regards,
>Ingolf Markhof!
> 

Well, I guess I've said more than my share, and let me once more
recommend rearranging the teams. It's actually fun if you can get
balanced teams, because it alleviates a lot of the boredom that you see
in the normal game, because in the normal game, it starts to get to the
point where everything is "expected," whereas you can kind of regain
some of the excitement you had when you first opened that box....

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 
-----------------------------------------------