The Rules:

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
templeton
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:52 am

Post by templeton » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:32 am

But are we not making rules to counter-act bad play...

If the US under invests in the Pacific the Japanese go crazy and invade Russia, and Austrlia.

If the US over-invests, the Germans go crazy and invade Russia, but probably not Australia.


I've never seen a Europe vs Pacific problem... if Japan gets too far ahead, the US has to shift focus from Europe to deal with the Japanese threat - which then eases pressure on the Germans.

And so it swings back and forth until the Axis and ground into the dirt.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:22 pm

Interesting... comments noted

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:09 pm

FleetAdmiral wrote:At any given rate, most games I've every played, the US usually ignored Germany, and commits its resources against Japan.
Is this most people's experience?

Doesn't this lead to a quick death for the USSR?

In any case, isn't gaining dominance of the central Eurasian landmass area (Moscow-Caucasus) and driving east from there a more effective means of squeezing Japan than a risky and expensive naval campaign?

In my experience the cost of a large naval campaign, compared to the meagre resources available in the Pacific, means that such a strategy is a good option for neither Japan nor the USA.

The Americans would have to send HUGE fleets into the Pacific before they can discourage the Japanese from sending those tank coloumns towards India/Moscow.

TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:44 pm

most games i play.. the US buildings a navy in the atlantic to get as many units into Norway or Africa and then into Western Europe and they even move the pacific navy thru the canal into the atlantic

FleetAdmiral
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:32 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by FleetAdmiral » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:34 am

Flashman wrote:
FleetAdmiral wrote:At any given rate, most games I've every played, the US usually ignored Germany, and commits its resources against Japan.
Is this most people's experience?

Doesn't this lead to a quick death for the USSR?

In any case, isn't gaining dominance of the central Eurasian landmass area (Moscow-Caucasus) and driving east from there a more effective means of squeezing Japan than a risky and expensive naval campaign?

In my experience the cost of a large naval campaign, compared to the meagre resources available in the Pacific, means that such a strategy is a good option for neither Japan nor the USA.

The Americans would have to send HUGE fleets into the Pacific before they can discourage the Japanese from sending those tank coloumns towards India/Moscow.
We play with National Advantages. After some games lasting 10+ turns we still couldn't finish the game (lack of time). The USSR still remained in every case. The British always supply the Soviets with no less than 6 fighters and a bomber using Lend-Lease, Commit major resources in India, which prevents Japan from actually attacking it until turn 4 at the earliest, the Non-Aggression Pack keeps the peace for at least that kind of time. Meanwhile the US maintains a heavy Superfortress bomber force for strategic bombing. I've seen the British-US use joint strike for either completely eliminating all German naval assets or for an invasion against France.

Depending on what the British do with the Far East Fleet, the IJN may be drawn away for extended periods of time, forcing Japan to build defensively - such as large number of fighters. I had one game where the British Far East Fleet simply played cat and mouse for most of the game. When the Japanese Fleet was out of range, they'd invade an take over various Pacific islands. And with the Japanese Fleet participating in operations against India or the British Pacific Fleet, the US dumps large numbers of units into the Soviet Far East in preparation for a combined assault against Japan and seizing Japan's assets on the mainland.
Ever had the IJN have 4 BBs, 4 fully loaded CVs, 2 DDs, 5 TRNs, and 1 Sub -VS- 3 US BBs, 3 fully loaded CVs, 3 TRNs, 11 DDs and 1 Sub?

Commands: Galactic Empire Data Bank

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:50 pm

fun.. comments noted

TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:14 pm

Imperious leader wrote:I dont like 2 player USA but i like being forced to allocate money for each campaign. It would open up more strategy than having USA be mostly a supporting role to her other allies.

good idea.
How about starting the US with more naval units in Pacific and a Japanese presence that forces you to deal with it rather then forcing the US player use X amount of IPC's for East and West.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:17 pm

I said this?

wow... it must have been a stunt double.

I would think that a minimum of funds should be spent on each campaign and the larger share up to the discretion of USA
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest