From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Date: 10 Oct 1992 03:32:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

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


>In article <1b3cjpINNasl@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>The United States' navy must be prevented from moving into the Atlantic.
>>The Japanese must destroy the navy, or else Germany is in trouble.

>Well, I disagree.  The US does not NEED to take its fleet to the
>Atlantic.  I don't think that I've ever done that, and I have wonderful
>success with the Allies (who doesn't?).  I prefer to use the US navy to
>hamper the Japanese as much as possible, without spending any money on
>it.  All US resources go to the defeat of the Germans.

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. 

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).

>I still prefer to keep the Japanese navy intact as the Japanese  player
>(especially if the UK builds a complex or two in Africa).  The worst the
>US can do, if spending no extra money in the Pacific, is capture a few
>islands.  If and when this happens, the Japanese can attack with more
>air force and more navy (using transports that might be expendable at
>this point) to defeat it.  Then, the Japanese can retake the islands,
>which have precious few infantry defending them.

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.

>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 tha tis so valuable?

>and it takes at least 3 turns for the US navy to reach the German coast.
>In those three turns, I can get the Japanese navy to Hawaii, New
>Zealand, Australis, and be headed for the south end of Africa.  I could
>also get to Mexico, Panama, then Brazil or who knows where?  No, I think
>that's giving the Japanese too much.  At least make them work for what
>they take... so long as you don't spend new IPCs on it.

The Japanese never really have much of a landing force.  Usually, the planes
are needed inland.  Sure you can go for Mexico, but the US will take
it right back.  You could help Germany hold Africa, I suppose.  That's
like three or four turns, though (to get to Africa).

>I'm leaving out that I could make an assault on the West US as I'm
>running around the Pacific, as I think just about anyone will see that
>coming and take the appropriate precautions....

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?

keith