A&A: Why does America fight Germany?
Hassink Brian John
America ignoring Japan and concentrating on Europe. Why?
In the many games we've played, America ignore Germany (except to
possibly ship a couple of units to Africa if Britain gets lousy
rolls) and concentrates entirely on Japan. We've found that Russia
and Britain alone are more than enough to keep Germany penned in,
and eventually to overrun her.
I suppose this strategy allows the
allies to eliminate Germany much faster, but then Japan does'nt
need to worry about protecting its homeland and can even threaten
North America the way I see it.
Hmmm, I need to think about this strategy. It's certainly different
from anything we've tried.
Erik Lauer
>America ignoring Japan and concentrating on Europe. Why?
Here are some good reasons:
1) Pacific rim has little production
2) E. US is closer to Germany than W US is to Japan
3) Japan starts with a fleet advantage over US, Germany's fleet gets
crushed if it comes out.
4) Russia has a faactory on the mainland closer to where Japan is fighting.
5) If US and Britain both fight Germany, they can form one big fleet
which is much more difficult for Germany to fight.
Basically this leads to US and UK build transports to fight Germany (the
closet opponent they have). When their land units arrive, Russia starts
fighting Japan.
>In the many games we've played, America ignore Germany (except to
>possibly ship a couple of units to Africa if Britain gets lousy
>rolls) and concentrates entirely on Japan. We've found that Russia
>and Britain alone are more than enough to keep Germany penned in,
>and eventually to overrun her.
Think how much faster it would go if the US would help.
>I suppose this strategy allows the
>allies to eliminate Germany much faster, but then Japan does'nt
>need to worry about protecting its homeland and can even threaten
>North America the way I see it.
If Japan makes a serious bid against the US (ie. more than a nuisance
atack on Alaska), Japan is deciding to use its production to fight the
player whose disadvantage is remoteness.
>Hmmm, I need to think about this strategy. It's certainly different
>from anything we've tried.
>
>Brian
>has...@cs.ualberta.ca
Erik
---=
Phil Abel
focus their efforts solely on Germany, they are hoping that
they will be able to overwhelm it before Japan becomes too
powerful.
As for the Americans, they never really seem to get much done
fighting Japan. It takes too many turns to deploy a decent
invasion fleet over there, and an industrial complex in
Ssinkaing is a risky endeavour. It may fight off the Japanese
for a couple turns, but no doubt it will soon fall into the
wrong hands... Discovering this inefficiency, many players
have opted to stage an actual "D-Day" and attempt to land a
force in Europe.
I agree with you that Japan shouldn't be ignored completely.
However, I find it very difficult for the Americans to stop
them outright. My strategy as the US is to try to delay the
advance of Japan as long as possible and to try to gain some
sort of foothold either in Europe or Asia... The former is a
much easier task.
Jonathan T. Moore
fight.. Hassink Brian Jo...@cs.UA (744)
Yes. I think the basic idea lies behind the belief that if you get
Germany tied down fast enough, Russia can hold off Japan. Really, it's a
matter of which ally is best where. Britain obviously must concentrate
on Germany. Russia must also by default (out of sheer self-defense). Now
U.S. basically has two choices; get Germany or get Japan. Let me put it
this way--the Atlantic is a lot easier to cross than the Pacific.
Really, if Japan tries to do anything in the Pacific, it can't really do
much on the mainland, which is good for the Allies and bad for the Axis.
Also, long before you could menace North America, an astute American
player would see you coming. You really couldn't do much, especially
without sacrificing mainland Asian advances. Anyway, America is best
served in the Atlantic anyway. If you want to get Germany, obviously you
just base off Britain (as in the real war). If you want to go to Asia,
you ship to Africa and go (perhaps cleaning up any excess German units
left there to menace the grand old British Empire). Really, I think that
is pretty much the basis for why the Allies do what they do.
Jon
Hassink Brian John
Well, I'll have to give this strategy a try. It looks as though it
will make it even tougher for the Axis to win with this method.
In all our previous games, the US goes full scale against Japan.
Basically, Japan will get the coastal territories of Asia but not
much beyond that. Japan can't produce enough units on the mainland
(even with two factories in mainland Asia) to adequately take the
entire continent over. Japan also needs to keep large forces in
Japan itself, as well as the northern coastal territories. The large
US production capability gives the US a much stronger navy within
two turns, after which she moves the whole fleet to Alaska and can
then start shipping troops across. America can either go after
Japan or land in Asia. In either case, Japan can't withstand this
type of strategy for long and eventually she'll either lose her
capitol or all of Asia.
In the meantime, Germany has been kicked out of Africa. Russia has
captured east Europe, Britain has grabbed Norway and probably been
able to take western Europe at least once.
This is generally the approach that's been taken in our games. I'll
have to try out this "America goes after Germany" thing in subsequent
games, that is if I can convince anyone to play this lopsided game
again. In any case, it looks like an even better way to assure an
Allied win. This game really needs some fundamental re-working if
it's to be an equal contest for both sides.
Phil Abel
it many times with smashing results. If you find yourself up
against a ruthless German player, though, you might want to
have the US focus on the Atlantic instead. As far as speed,
the US can have a whole flotilla of transports off Germany by
the end of the second turn (faster than building a shipping a
fleet in the Pacific).
My current obsession is trying to devise a means by which
Germany can counteract this strategy, and it has been a
difficult task. I have found a way to get through Karelia
before the UK/US fleets land troops, but still must commit a
substantial force to the defensive... meaning I have less
forces available with which to keep driving into Moscow.
Jonathan T. Moore
Please, please elaborate. What's your strategy to take Karelia real
quick? And remember, Erik the Enforcer is watching....
-----------------------------------------------
Jon Moore (jm...@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
-----------------------------------------------
Phil Abel
somewhere, but will elaborate here...
TURN1:
As per your games, the Soviets take E. Europe and then put
everything in Karelia save for an infantry in Caucasus.
Germany's first turn is to take E. Europe back (no problem).
ALSO:
Germany can attack Caucasus with units in Ukraine (I will
leave one infantry in Ukraine behind) and possibly commit
a fighter to help. On this turn I buy all armour.
TURN2:
The Soviet dilemma is now clear. German forces are threatening
the empty capital. They must counterattack Caucasus. Moreover,
since all their armour were forced to remain in E. Europe for
certain death, they now only have a couple fighters with which
to do the dirty work in an attack. Therefore, they will have to
commit a substantial number of infantry (4 or 5?) to ensure
they get the job done. Moreover, they may also get greedy and
attack the sole infantry in Ukraine. There's a couple more
infantry. Bottom line: Soviets must commit precious forces from
Karelia.
Now, there are still a load of men in Karelia, and a fighter or
two (depending on what they do with the fighter in Asia) but
I have found that if Germany commits EVERYTHING against it, there
is a fine chance of surviving with a fair number of armour.
From here I am uncertain what to do... I'm still experimenting
with what Germany should buy on its second turn, and the avenue
it should take the following turns. The best option is to try
to wipe out the now pathetically weak soviets, but is
compromised by the impending invasion from the west.
Basically, the soviets now need outside help to throw off the
German juggernaut. The brits/US can help out by possibly
landing fighter(s) in Karelia, but the combat there usually
only lasts a few turns, lessening the overall effect of their
presence (and we hope the allies will be greedy and save their
aircraft).
Variant: If you feel lucky... Instead of transporting armor to
Africa, use a fighter, and use transport to move Southern
European AA gun into Caucasus. The soviets now may lose one or
both of their fighters, causing them to commit more infantry
there. The result: Karelia even weaker! tee hee...
This certainly isn't a sure thing, and calling it a big risk is
an understatement. There may be an obvious counteraction to
this that I have overlooked as well. But the way I figure, might
as well try an all or nothing gamble instead of waiting for slow
and certain death...
Maarten Bodlaender
>I talked briefly about my Karelia strategy in another message
>somewhere, but will elaborate here...
>
>TURN1:
>As per your games, the Soviets take E. Europe and then put
>everything in Karelia save for an infantry in Caucasus.
>Germany's first turn is to take E. Europe back (no problem).
>ALSO:
>Germany can attack Caucasus with units in Ukraine (I will
>leave one infantry in Ukraine behind) and possibly commit
>a fighter to help. On this turn I buy all armour.
>
>TURN2:
>The Soviet dilemma is now clear. German forces are threatening
>the empty capital. They must counterattack Caucasus. Moreover,
>since all their armour were forced to remain in E. Europe for
>certain death,
I admit I'm a little bit shaky in my knowledge of starting
forces, but as far as I recall the Soviet can save his armour
for the second turn by allowing more hits on his infantry,sending
only air for firing power. This way, whatever the soviet attacks
will be undefendable by him, if indeed he captures it. The main
thing,though is that the Germans now lack power to attack
Karelia on their first turn. An alternate course for the Soviets
is to capture Ukraine and let the Germans attack Karelia on the
first turn. If the Germans seriously attack Karelia, they will
lack the power to destroy the Allied fleet.
>they now only have a couple fighters with which
>to do the dirty work in an attack. Therefore, they will have to
>commit a substantial number of infantry (4 or 5?) to ensure
>they get the job done. Moreover, they may also get greedy and
>attack the sole infantry in Ukraine. There's a couple more
>infantry. Bottom line: Soviets must commit precious forces from
>Karelia.
>
>Now, there are still a load of men in Karelia, and a fighter or
>two (depending on what they do with the fighter in Asia) but
>I have found that if Germany commits EVERYTHING against it, there
>is a fine chance of surviving with a fair number of armour.
A nice description you give here. Only I see some possibilities
for the allies you're not considering. In most of our later
games of A&A, England and USA pump as many infantry,air,etc as
possible into Karelia. Provided you have not completely demolished
their fleet in turn one, Karelia will now be far tougher, as
the fighters now will live long enough to eat up your valuable
armour.
>
>Basically, the soviets now need outside help to throw off the
>German juggernaut. The brits/US can help out by possibly
>landing fighter(s) in Karelia, but the combat there usually
>only lasts a few turns, lessening the overall effect of their
>presence (and we hope the allies will be greedy and save their
>aircraft).
As I said, this is the most favorite course for the Allied player
where I come from. Important is that the Allies really commit
themselves to the task of defending Russia. Half-hearted
approaches are doomed to fail.
>
>Variant: If you feel lucky... Instead of transporting armor to
>Africa, use a fighter, and use transport to move Southern
>European AA gun into Caucasus. The soviets now may lose one or
>both of their fighters, causing them to commit more infantry
>there. The result: Karelia even weaker! tee hee...
A&A is a game of economics. Karelia is 3 points, Africa is worth
(?) 9 or more. Both players do good to capture Africa, as it
usually requires only a small number of units. Plus, as the Allies
will destroy your Mediterranian fleet, it's probably the last unit
you'll ever transfer to Africa. If your land units die, you cannot
conquer land!
>
>This certainly isn't a sure thing, and calling it a big risk is
>an understatement. There may be an obvious counteraction to
>this that I have overlooked as well. But the way I figure, might
>as well try an all or nothing gamble instead of waiting for slow
>and certain death...
Well said, only too true for the axis player.
Maarten Bodlaender - Game Junk.
Phil Abel
armour (2 in Moscow, 1 in Karelia), and the three infantry in
Karelia, and the fighter in Karelia. Odds of winning with these
items are 90%. Any less and the odds drop substantially. Now,
this battle complete, recall that the rulebook says any unit
which moves during the combat portion of a turn may not move
during the non-combat portion (except planes). Thus all the
USSR tanks are stuck in E. Europe, doomed to destruction in the
German counterattack, and unavailable for use in recapturing
Caucasus.
As for the US/UK invasion fleet: This fleet is not operational
until the end of the second turn. My strategy pivots on the
ability of Germany to annihilate Karelia ON the second turn.
The basic plan is that USSR will divert enough units from
Karelia to allow Germany to more easily capture it. If Germany
can talk Japan into landing its Burmese fighter in Caucasus on
their turn, that's yet another threat which Moscow will have to
respond to with more infantry.
Dewey H Barich
>If USSR attacks Eastern Europe, they have to send their three
>armour (2 in Moscow, 1 in Karelia), and the three infantry in
>Karelia, and the fighter in Karelia. Odds of winning with these
>items are 90%. Any less and the odds drop substantially. Now,
>this battle complete, recall that the rulebook says any unit
>which moves during the combat portion of a turn may not move
>during the non-combat portion (except planes). Thus all the
>USSR tanks are stuck in E. Europe, doomed to destruction in the
>German counterattack, and unavailable for use in recapturing
>Caucasus.
Right. This is why I always attack Ukraine instead. You have an extra
5 infantry to take Ukraine with, while only having to fight an extra
armor. this is definitely worth it. The argument for attacking Eastern
is that it cuts the Germans off and prevents a turn 1 assault on
Karelia. I don't think it's that much of a concern, actually. By
capturing Eastern, you only prevent 2 extra armor from reaching (since
by taking Ukraine you kill an extra). Those 2 armor are not *too* big
of a deal. If no aircraft attack, and Ukraine is taken, not Eastern,
then the Germans can attack 2 fighters and 12 infantry (I attack Ukraine
with 8i 3a, thus moving 4i from Russia to Karelia and then producing 8
infantry in Karelia) with a force of 6 infantry, 5 armor. This has only
a 4% chance of being successful! Now, it takes at LEAST 4 of the 5
remaining German aircraft in the attack to make it favorable to the
Germans, and that leaves the UK fleet intact. I would gladly trade a
dismal attack (using all 4 remaining fighters and a bomber, germans can
only leave 3 armor in Karelia, 85% of the time), for the UK fleet. I
say dismal because even if the Germans sacrifice some of the fighters
to leave armor, the UK (assuming the fleet was ignored in order to win
this battle anyway) fleet can attack Karelia with 2i 1a plus whatever
aircraft it sees fit to use. Then, there are 4i 3a of the USSR's still
in Ukraine, which will then be able to take Karelia back. This is not a
good situation for Germany. So, why go after Eastern and sacrifice your
planes? I've never heard a good argument for this....
Dewey
Phil Abel
depends heavily on your opponents and relies partially upon
the luck of the dice... However, hypothetically speaking, this
would be my typical German response:
If USSR attacked Ukraine and I was Germany, I would send
everything into Karelia save for an aircraft or two to aid in
naval battles. I stand a fairly good chance of winning this
fight.
The allies would most certainly take Karelia right back. But,
as Germany, I would buy 6 armour on my first turn. Second turn
I would bowl into Karelia with the 6 armour, the two from
Western Europe, the 4 infantry left over from Germany, and any
aircraft I so desire. The final result is that I'm highly
likely to take it back for good.
The bottom line is that without outside help, Germany will
easily vanquish USSR. Thus, the USSR essentially must maximize
the time during which it can keep the German forces at bay.
I have even found that if USSR attacks Eastern Europe and buys
four armour and an infantry on its first turn, it can oftimes
take back Eastern Europe on the second turn with its remaining
forces. Risky, but effective.
Erik Lauer
>The whole russian front thing is a precarious situation, and
>depends heavily on your opponents and relies partially upon
>the luck of the dice... However, hypothetically speaking, this
>would be my typical German response:
>
>If USSR attacked Ukraine and I was Germany, I would send
>everything into Karelia save for an aircraft or two to aid in
>naval battles. I stand a fairly good chance of winning this
>fight.
Save an aircraft or two for naval battles, and still have a good chance
of winning? Is good chance < 50%? I don't know how others proceed
with attacking Ukraine, but my idea is attack ukraine with 5 inf, 3
tanks, fighter. Attack Baltic with fighter and sub. Bring tank back to
Russia, put all nearby land units in Karelia, land aricraft there, build
8 inf there. Put your transport with british fleet, clump inf facing
Japan. You battle would be 6 inf, 5 tanks, 3 fighters, bomber vs. 15
inf, 2 fighters, AA gun (assuming you sent 1 fighter to the naval
battles). This sounds like a poor battle.
>The allies would most certainly take Karelia right back. But,
>as Germany, I would buy 6 armour on my first turn. Second turn
Yes, british take, Russia clumps up there (or takes eastern Europe).
Assuming Russia just builds up (so you can attack), allies have about 13
land units there.
>I would bowl into Karelia with the 6 armour, the two from
>Western Europe, the 4 infantry left over from Germany, and any
>aircraft I so desire. The final result is that I'm highly
Your aircraft should be dead. How well do you assume you rolled?
>likely to take it back for good.
You must have rolled really well. Come on, the first battle was not a
great one, lets look at it assuming you do above average:
AA gun misses 3 fighters and a bomber.
Germany gets 6 hits, Russia gets 6 hits.
5 tanks, 3 fighters a bomber attacking 9 inf, 2 fighters.
Germany gets 5 hits, Russia gets 4 hits
1 tank, 3 fighters and a bomber attacking 4 inf, 2 fighters.
Germany gets 3 hits, Russia gets 3
1 tank 1 bomber attacking 1 inf 2 fighter.
Germany probably leaves, content that he rolled better than the Russians.
>The bottom line is that without outside help, Germany will
>easily vanquish USSR. Thus, the USSR essentially must maximize
>the time during which it can keep the German forces at bay.
>
>I have even found that if USSR attacks Eastern Europe and buys
>four armour and an infantry on its first turn, it can oftimes
>take back Eastern Europe on the second turn with its remaining
>forces. Risky, but effective.
I have not found this to be true. Perhaps your intution is the attacker
rolls better.
Erik
---=
Ron Hamaguchi
>I've read several posts now which seem to support the strategy of
>America ignoring Japan and concentrating on Europe. Why?
>
>In the many games we've played, America ignore Germany (except to
>possibly ship a couple of units to Africa if Britain gets lousy
>rolls) and concentrates entirely on Japan. We've found that Russia
>and Britain alone are more than enough to keep Germany penned in,
>and eventually to overrun her.
>
>I suppose this strategy allows the
>allies to eliminate Germany much faster, but then Japan does'nt
>need to worry about protecting its homeland and can even threaten
>North America the way I see it.
You it yourself here, that it makes G.B. and Russia take germany faster
with U.S. help. IMHO, Japan must, expand quickly and must win in its
first initial fights in east asia or else germany will eventually fall.
1) U.S. can ignore japan as if japan does ever build a big enough fleet to
threaten the west coast, I would be very impressed. Besides, you would be
able to see an attack on the west coast coming.
2) Russia, IMHO, is fighting a holding action, until the U.S. and G.B. can
come to help.
3) If I remember correctly, the U.S. has a carrier in the Pacific, that would
help keep the fleet in the Atlantic, specifically outside of G.B., intact so
much longer because of its planes in defensive mode, unless they changed this
rule.
4) Since I haven't playing in a while, I don't know if this would balance the
fight for germany, but, what happens if Germany is allowed to have the cheap
units from Tech Improvements, automatically.
5)If Japan cannot produce enough units in Asia to take pressure off of
Germany from Russia, Axis will lose. It is true that Germany has alot of
Armor and Inf. but, they also will have to hold off, essentially, 2 1/2
nations, while Japan deals with Russia from the opposite side. If the Axis,
can crack Russia, they will probably win the game. If not, the combined might
of the Allies will.
All of the Above is IMHO, of course. :)
>
>Brian
>has...@cs.ualberta.ca
>
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Ron Hamaguchi |One of the 50th's States' Little Known but|
| hama...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu |Loyal Lovely Angels Fans. |
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| WWWA We'll Solve Any Problem For You, And We'll Send You Our Best! |
| Yuri And Kei Are On Their Way!!! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Henry J. Cobb
Try this:
Forced "Midway" rule:
America can not land any units in Africa or Europe while Japan is holding
any part of the Americas or Hawaii.
--
Henry J. Cobb hc...@fly2.berkeley.edu SFB Tyrant
"Once it becomes possible to do something, it gets very difficult to
undo it. Whether its automobiles, computers or nuclear weapons, invention has
always been the mother of necessity."