From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:36:23 GMT

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.

>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,
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.

>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.

>>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?

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!!!!!

>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).

OK?

See ya!!		Dewey
Newsgroups: rec.games.board