@Tahweh While your tips are generally helpful as a fellow top 200 plat player (got into top 70 as Allies at one point, but I haven’t been playing much lately due to life commitments) I’d give the following caveats:
USSR can afford to build a Tank or two. The ability to move two spaces instead of one is sometimes vital for transferring forces from one part of the front to another.
Absolute buys should not be suggested. There are multiple openers for each country that compliment different overall strategies. However, I can also see that you’re tailoring this guide towards beginners, so a basic, low-risk KGF/Russia Crush strategy is probably best for just starting out.
Germany needs to buy Tanks to make up for the longer “supply line” (as you called it) between Berlin and the Eastern Front Vs. the Soviets’. Of course, you don’t do anything silly like buying all Tanks, but 1-3 Tanks each turn while you’re ahead is recommended, unless you’ve scouted that the Allies are going for a KGF and you don’t see yourself breaking Moscow anytime soon.
India falling should not be accepted as a given. It’s a likely outcome, but if you go in with a defeatist mindset that India will fall, then you’re also effectively conceding the game, as once Japan takes India their IPC income usually hits critical mass. India should be fought for tooth and nail so that, once it finally falls, Germany will be near-defeat anyway.
Pearl Harbor is not something you should do in 100% of your games. Over-committing to it means you’re not making progress in Asia fast enough and under-committing means whatever is still in the Sea Zone gets counter-attacked A1. Whether Japan does Pearl Harbor or not should depend on what the UK does B1. If UK is committing heavily to India you should ignore Pearl Harbor and focus on Southeast Asia before UK builds momentum there.
The build you recommend is valid, but building 1-2 Factories in Manchuria/FIC is also valid. Capturing Moscow before Berlin falls to the Allies is the goal of the game, and you need to accomplish it as quickly/safely as possible based on what the Allies are doing. If the Allies are fortifying Asia, you need to take your time and build INF, but if they’re leaving Asia totally bare, then start building Tanks and make for Moscow as fast as you can.
Ignoring Japan in the Pacific lets them turn into an IPC monster extremely quickly. Some naval presence in the Pacific is recommended. You don’t need to contest the Pacific, you just need to force Japan to actually spend some of their IPCs on Surface Vessels so they’re not flinging 45+ IPCs towards India/Moscow every turn.
Japan can buy 1-2 factories a game. However I wouldn’t recommend that a beginner try doing such a strategy.
Great article otherwise. Avoiding these common pitfalls + learning the optimal opening(s) for each country are the two biggest hurdles to “stop being bad” at Axis & Allies. The road to “getting good” involves learning how to play out the long game and not panic when individual battles go badly.
@DoManMacgee Really great reply thank you. This guide is definitely a work in progress so I will look at making some edits. I will say though, for beginners it is hard to imagine a scenario where they should not just go ahead and do pearl harbor light. If the US fleet is left alone and the British get a bunch of fighters and potentially some sort of navy near India things can go south very quickly.
@Tahweh That’s why I conditioned all of my comments with something along the line of “this makes sense when addressing a beginner BUT…”. The game gives you a little leeway to venture outside of the normal opening moves, but if you don’t have a solid plan when you’re going off the reservation things are gonna blow up in your face.
The most common one I see is Germany going for Sealion. It’s a somewhat viable strategy to build an Aircraft Carrier G1, but you have to leave it at that and maybe buy 1 Destroyer a turn to defend yourself against the UK/US or at least delay the inevitable.
In the lower ranks I saw people plopping down 2 Carriers G1 and then following it up with additional heavy navy buys G2-G3. Meanwhile as USSR I scouted this, started building Tanks, and was in Poland/Balkans by R3 while Germany was still trading losses with my UK fleet and being unable to actually invade London. There’s trying something different and then there’s going way overboard, which I think is why a guide like the one you made is a really good baseline for newer players to work with.
EDIT: Cleaned up formatting a bit.
@DoManMacgee yeah definitely, I am hoping that the guide will form some sort of script for players to at least be aware of. As you said many of the “other” ideas do not work without the proper knowledge and follow-through.
A very good article for beginners. This is certainly a must read for anyone trying to make their way out of Wood, Bronze, Silver, and even Gold. I will personally be changing my Japan strategy to the Pearl Harbor Light, as recommended.
I’m looking forward to more articles, and more skill from you :)
These tips were great for little tweaks to my strategy and are appreciated!
Why cant ladder system be set up for 4-5 players? What’s this 2 player garbage? 2 player is nothing but a game for control freaks. The beauty is to watch how others win with you using different methods that you never though possible and the creativity found in another interpretation of play style. If you want 2 players , you might as well play yourself because your learning from only ONE other person.
@Imperious-Leader It’s ranked, thus the 1-on-1 requirement. In a team game if my partners suck and I lose because of it then why should I be penalized with a loss on my record?
That being said, a separate ladder for team games would be a nice addition to what’s already in place. Ideally you’d be required to form a pre-made team with you and 1 (Axis) or 2 (Allies) friends to participate so you’re not stuck with random teammates.
Its ranked and what? So you lose and everybody loses…and? Everyone get a 0-1. They win and all go 1-0. The Lakers win and go 1-0. They lose and all go 0-1…and?
Over time you accumulate wins and loses …yea its ranked and other people may suck or not. Just like any other team sports. The game isn’t 1 v 1, it never was.
@Imperious-Leader Because team sports are crap. If I wanted to play a team sport I’d go play a sport. I value proving that I’m good at A&A without other people backing me up, hence playing 1v1.
Also, the rulebook for every A&A edition provides player assignments for 2-X players, where X is the total number of countries in the game. So the game is designed just as much for 2 players, 1v1 as it is for 3v2, 5v3, or however many people you can get to sit in your living room for 6+ hours.
The game does not account in the rule book for more than 5 players so your statement is without merit. The game may allow 1v1 but it is also a simulation and most of the tests to demonstrate how well a player performs will be when he can successfully navigate the strengths and failures of each of the the different players including ones on the other side. The diversity of such trappings allows for a greater sense of this skill, whereas an easier choice and lesser ability is evident when fewer players are involved. Therefore, it is a much more difficult and compounded task awaits players where their skill is put to the test with as many players as the game allows.
In the real war, this same mechanism awaited the very combatants as they had to interpret how to fight a war with many different personalities running countries and that same problem is totally absent when 2 men run every country on Earth. I know it’s difficult to appreciate this ‘problem’ but it is the best problem to have!
@Imperious-Leader No A&A games exist that allow for more than 5 players? That’s a new one.
A&A has so many factors that make it unrealistic that claiming that it’s a “simulation” and using that as a jumping-off point to claim that you should need to play with more players to “navigate their strengths and weaknesses” is a complete joke. This a strategic-level wargame, and it barely classifies as a wargame at that.
IRL if you play with multiple players in some kind of tournament setting, the good players are going to dictate to the lesser players. I would not trust myself to make any decisions if I were on the same team as people who are actually good at this game (like Black Elk, Cow, etc.) and similarly, I would not trust the weaker players who post their games on youtube to make any major decisions in a game where I was on their team. In either scenario, my success or failure would be entirely anchored to the people I’m on a team with, rather than my own actual skill level.
tl;dr if I wanted to experience the puzzle of a real war I’d go play GW36 lol.
@DoManMacgee said in [GUIDE] How to Climb the Ranked Ladder A&A 1942 SE Online Beamdog:
IRL if you play with multiple players in some kind of tournament setting, the good players are going to dictate to the lesser players.
Not necessarily true, lessor players have no idea who a “better” player would be unless they watched their games and this kibitzing feature is not possible on 42 online. You can always send messages, but nobody has to follow. And Psychology of how you approach other players is one of the traits that was part of the real war. AA being unrealistic has zero to do with it being a simulation. It is a simulation, albeit unrealistic but painting the broadstrokes of History. It is not an abstract game.
I would not want to play 2 player Monopoly or 2 player Risk because you lose everything in terms of a multi dimensional-- dynamic game. You learn alot more when you deal with more players who have their own way of playing and in turn you need to be flexible enough to interpret what they are doing.
So according to you its not a simulation but a ‘Wargame’ which means what? A wargame is a simulation.You mean they make abstract Wargames? I think your being disingenuous to say the least.
So you play 1vs.1. You beat a lessor player or lose to a better player. It’s the same as playing 4-5! You lose to USUALLY a dominant player who brings his team to a win, or vice versa. But playing 1 v 1 only gives you one player to learn from or a shallow win against that one other player. Also, note that conventions with FTF Tournaments ALWAYS HAVE TEAMS, so control freaks will have to learn to get along with others and learn compatibility in different approaches to the game. In these we play as a team, where all decisions are made together, but deference is granted to the controlling player. If you fail too many times in a team setting, the weakest player is YOU.
Now that you don’t buy AA as a simulation, playing 3-6 nations as one “robot” with perfectly syncopated parts in unison is even less than a simulation as you protest it is. I think the problem is you don’t play many games except with one other guy who lives nearby, if a bunch of people lived near you, you would enjoy such games more.
The Historical aspect of playing a game based on History 1940-45 is replete with examples of at times divergent and competing strategies of leaders fighting together! AA is a Historical based game and a wargame ( light) and you lose alot of what the game can be if you avoid multiplayer games.
This is really off topic
yea sorry it is. ok enough
Agreed that we’re way off topic and should stop. I already agree with @Imperious-Leader that 2v3 should be its own unique ladder. I just disagree with the idea that it should outright replace the 1v1 ladder so we’ll just leave it at that.
How bout we agree that the ladder should have a multiplayer division. Like in Tennis–singles and doubles…
To steer back on the actual topic of this thread: great post!
So I decided to try to do the total opposite of your recommendations with Germany. G1 I go with 3 bomb / 1 art. Future buys vary depending on the Allies’ actions, but usually involve one more bomber, and a mix of tanks and inf. The fighters are all stacked in NW Europe and the bombers serve as a mix of SBR on Russia and Atlantic fleet attacks/deterrence with the fighters. So far, only below average luck on SBRs or opening moves (eg disaster for Germany in sz7 or losing the bb to the dest in the Med) have seemed to lead to this strategy failing miserably.
I started in the silver rankings after placement games, and am now inside the top 30 in the gold rankings, and still creeping up, so I wonder if this seemingly ridiculous strategy with Germany can take me into the platinum rankings. I doubt it, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
Cheers!
@Nosho Hi thank you - glad you liked the guide. The 3 bomber start can be viable for sure, but I would still classify it as a fun opener and not something that will work at a highly competitive level. Great for crushing ranked (for awhile) as you mentioned it makes it difficult for the allies to get going at sea. Strat bombing as Germany when under the pressure of KGF seems very risky though. If you like bombers as axis, maybe consider some sort of 1 a turn playstyle of the axis power that is not being pressured. J bombers in KGF are useful, and G bombers in KJF are especially useful. Still think you could get to plat with your strat, especially if you just do pure inf after the greedy 3 bomber buy round 1.
@Tahweh Depending on the Allies reactions to the initial buys, sometimes I go one extra bomber and only tanks. That is only viable when Russia makes a mistake and I think Moscow is going to fall inside of 5 turns, which happens more often than I thought it would. Otherwise it’s mostly infantry and a few tanks. Now #5 in the gold rankings, so we’ll see if I can get any success later on if I make it to plat. It’s always a huge gamble though. For example, recently I lost my 3 bombers on their first SBR, and those games go south REAL quick.
What kind of strategy do you think works best for the allies against this German air power strategy?
