Had some team debates in a recent game over how US & UK should open against Japan in the Pacific/Indian Ocean.

My thoughts for US was:

US has the most troops, the most production, and it's job is not only to "hold" China against Japan but kick out and take as much of the Asian coast as possible attacking in from behind to maximize punch. (This kinda assumes a Japan first strategy. But, if you don't at least attack out from China there seems to be nothing from stopping Japan from flanking Russia.)

Then if possible combine with Britain to go after the Southern Islands NOT the home island itself. 

The Asian coast is worth 9 (18 point production swing + protecting Russia), the other islands combine for 12 (24 pnt swing). Both are worth more than Japan itself, which most players will fight tooth and nail for. And, with the other Islands the defender will have to guess which you will hit and for how much (Forcing tough choices/predictions).

My thought is that US should be able to do this with only the starting troops from UK and little from Russia in support.

UK:

Still torn by whether the UK fleets in the Indian Ocean  and South Pacific should attack all out.  Or, primarily defend India/Australia.  Attacking all out could put Japan on the defensive, but risk losing your southern possessions and threat to Japan's flank. 

Thoughts? Suggestions? Rebuttals?

Hey Tumor,

There are so many options.  I would say that a good starting point for the US is to keep a presence in Asia.  From there you can either supply Russia to help against Germany or protect the flank or capture territory in Asia or block Japan from getting into Africa or all of the above.  Depends on the Allied strat.  In the Pacific you can push towards Japan and in the Atlantic you can harass Germany or help the UK.  So much to do.....

My preference is to stay solid in central Asia and spread out from there, since you can hurt Germany and Japan and help out russia.

As for the starting positions, do you have a list of starting armies, I think they lead in production but I thought Germany and Japan had more units on the board, I forget.

In general the UK shouldn't spend too much focus in the Pacific.  There are much more pressing objectives elsewhere on the map so I always favor UK playing a supporting role to US in the Pacific.

Agree with Attila, especiaally in the Classic version.

Furthermore, a compitent UK is essential for the Allies success as that role has to make many correct decisions on where to prioritize. Solid UK play makes things really tough on the Axis, even when the Axis players are of equal skill.

SquintGnome wrote:

Hey Tumor,

There are so many options.  I would say that a good starting point for the US is to keep a presence in Asia.  From there you can either supply Russia to help against Germany or protect the flank or capture territory in Asia or block Japan from getting into Africa or all of the above.  Depends on the Allied strat.  In the Pacific you can push towards Japan and in the Atlantic you can harass Germany or help the UK.  So much to do.....

My preference is to stay solid in central Asia and spread out from there, since you can hurt Germany and Japan and help out russia.

As for the starting positions, do you have a list of starting armies, I think they lead in production but I thought Germany and Japan had more units on the board, I forget.

Hey Squint,

Germany and Japan start with a bunch more troops, and I think US production first turn is 5, but the 2nd rnd starts at 42 about the same as Germany, but highest of the allies. 

Part of why I was wondering is one of my first A&A maps here I witnessed Britain blitz the southern islands, while US (Me) poured everything into the Asian coast, Russia hit Manchuria, and Japan was forced to try and defend everything at once. He was crushed in 3 turns. Some sea fleets and the home island were all that was left and with that production swing Japan's fleets couldn't counter hard enough to take anything back for more than a turn or two.

Britain lost lost UK a couple turns later, but already had 12 pts of Japan's islands in exchange. 

I guess I'm wondering if this would be easily repeatable or if Japan just didn't counter well enough.

itsnotatumor wrote:

SquintGnome wrote:

Hey Tumor,

There are so many options.  I would say that a good starting point for the US is to keep a presence in Asia.  From there you can either supply Russia to help against Germany or protect the flank or capture territory in Asia or block Japan from getting into Africa or all of the above.  Depends on the Allied strat.  In the Pacific you can push towards Japan and in the Atlantic you can harass Germany or help the UK.  So much to do.....

My preference is to stay solid in central Asia and spread out from there, since you can hurt Germany and Japan and help out russia.

As for the starting positions, do you have a list of starting armies, I think they lead in production but I thought Germany and Japan had more units on the board, I forget.

Hey Squint,

Germany and Japan start with a bunch more troops, and I think US production first turn is 5, but the 2nd rnd starts at 42 about the same as Germany, but highest of the allies. 

Part of why I was wondering is one of my first A&A maps here I witnessed Britain blitz the southern islands, while US (Me) poured everything into the Asian coast, Russia hit Manchuria, and Japan was forced to try and defend everything at once. He was crushed in 3 turns. Some sea fleets and the home island were all that was left and with that production swing Japan's fleets couldn't counter hard enough to take anything back for more than a turn or two.

Britain lost lost UK a couple turns later, but already had 12 pts of Japan's islands in exchange. 

I guess I'm wondering if this would be easily repeatable or if Japan just didn't counter well enough.

 

With an organized Allied assault on Japan I think you could repeat that scenario.  Japan's holdings are not compact and so can get stretched thin very quickly.  The key to defense of this is that Germany would have to quickly recognize what is going on and make quick progression in their area of the globe.  Since this is a common German tactic (quick expansion) anyway, the chances of heavy Allied losses on the German front are high and the reward is also high (high bonus European territory + access to the USA east coast).

Bonuses on the Russian/German border are worth more armies, and are more easily accessible than Japanese bonuses.  If UK and Russia focus on helping US against Japan, a competent Germany will break through in Russia and Africa, and the game is over.  Consensus among experienced A&A players is that the opposite strategy is more effective: US funnels troops to the Russian front (usually by taking Khazak) while fencing with Japan in the Pacific.  Russia retreats in an orderly fashion along the highly defensible Japanese front, and UK does his best with limited resource to hold onto India and harass japan in the south pacific.  Meanwhile the Allied machine is focuses on containing the Germans, who are certainly the real threat.

BlackDog wrote:

Bonuses on the Russian/German border are worth more armies, and are more easily accessible than Japanese bonuses.  If UK and Russia focus on helping US against Japan, a competent Germany will break through in Russia and Africa, and the game is over.  Consensus among experienced A&A players is that the opposite strategy is more effective: US funnels troops to the Russian front (usually by taking Khazak) while fencing with Japan in the Pacific.  Russia retreats in an orderly fashion along the highly defensible Japanese front, and UK does his best with limited resource to hold onto India and harass japan in the south pacific.  Meanwhile the Allied machine is focuses on containing the Germans, who are certainly the real threat.

Hmmm...

Something to think about. So far I've had the opposite experience to date, when the Allies were successful it was by breaking Japan while containing Germany.

I concur with Blackdog.

Itsnot, you need to factor in the competency level of the player in the Japanese role. A highly competent Japan is tough to trap. It can happen if the dice are unfavorable or if the player is trying something new or too greedy on turn 1. However, the Japan-first strategy is generally recognized early and can be dealt with. An inexperienced Japanese player goes offensive in the wake of the combined assault against him and quickens his demise, thus putting too much pressure on the German ally.

As with most maps it comes down to where you apply your resources.

I would love to see A&A in the execution Squintgnome had proposed before (which is more true to the board game) where factory and supply lines are important and limit the ability to plop 50 units at any point in the globe.  This would certainly force Axis/Allied teams to pick a strategy and go with it and would most likely make a mutual Japan first/German-contain really difficult.

Yep, I agree...that would be a fun concept. I will look into introducing a scenario with factories (WG is great!) in the near future. I imagine it would take a lot of play-testing to balance it out.

It's amazing how AnA is just about the only board where hunkering down in Australia just doesn't seem like a viable strategy =P

Hey Attila,

The full blown AA board as you describe was next on my list.  I introduced AA matchup Stalingrad as a mini version of what I expected the full board would be like.  However, there has not been a lot of interest in this board.  If there is interest I will scale up the AA matchup board to the full blown AA board, this has been my dream for a while.  I would love to make it if others will play it.

SquintGnome wrote:

Hey Attila,

The full blown AA board as you describe was next on my list.  I introduced AA matchup Stalingrad as a mini version of what I expected the full board would be like.  However, there has not been a lot of interest in this board.  If there is interest I will scale up the AA matchup board to the full blown AA board, this has been my dream for a while.  I would love to make it if others will play it.

Sounds great.  I would recommend scaling up the full board but only by introducing factory/supply-line functionality.  The artillery, airplanes, and submarines are good in concept but I think the complexity is driving folks away.

Introducing the supply-line gameplay would be, in my opinion, the biggest bang for the buck and would keep both the overall board image change and complexity to a minimum.  Should be pretty quick to create, too.

Let me know when you're ready to test...happy to see you follow your dream! :)

Good points Attila, the graphics would be 80% of the work.  I will see if I can 'get 'er done'

Squint, I feel you'll have to open the territories to have no max unit count toimplement a factory version.

Thingol wrote: Squint, I feel you'll have to open the territories to have no max unit count toimplement a factory version.

Agreed, the idea is to expand from the AA Stalingrad board concept removing the armor, air, and sea specialty zones.  So, it would keep the same no unit limit for the territiories as the current board and placement only on territories with factory icons (not a factory the way the word is used here for board design)

You should also implement a feature to allow players to "construct" new factories, perhaps by having a separate factory territory within the normal territories that has placement enabled, but which starts with a big stack of neutral units.

That is a very good idea.