Wrong subforum - this one is for the coming 2nd edition of Axis and Allies Spring 1942.
The one you’re looking for is below, Axis and Allies 2nd Edition. Please wait until the mothership teleports this message to the relevant subforum. Thank you.
Axis Victory, Possible?
-
Also DarthMaximus is right. Axis and Allies is a game of numbers, and whatever side can outproduce the other has the greatest shot of winning. I don’t think the Allies have the advantage at the beginning of the game (unless you base this only on starting IPC income) but the Axis in terms of striking point. Germany and Japan (especially) need to press this point by attacking as many areas as possible and netting absolute IPC income each turn. Whenever you have loss the momentum (ATB) for the Axis, then the game is lost. However, that doesn’t mean making foolish attacks. Germany shouldn’t bum rush Russia and Japan should risk not outrunning themselves in Asia in the first turn (and I see this happening a lot). It all comes down to sustained operations under the optimal of attacking conditions.
-
Problem is, although they have a huge force on the board, the Axis powers are bottlenecked. Japan needs a few turns to purchase the needed Transports to get themselves in force onto the Mainland. Germany needs to reinforce Africa, but besides that there is really no place for the German player to go.
-
True. But at the start of the game, the Axis have so many more options than the Allies. The only Allied power that can really attack a territory on the first turn is Russia, and that’s with no RR. As the turns increase the Allies’ options increase immeasurably. That is why the Germans and Japanese most strike as quickly as possible. Even with such a limited transport fleet, Germany and Japan can make huge land grabs on the opening turn. For Germany, up to three Allied territories (4 IPCs) and Japan up to two territories (4 IPCs).
-
I recently had a great axis win, controlling Eusope, then ferrying bombers from French N-G to cuba, and launching a mass air offensive. Mostly used Japan as a sheild, harassing more than anything else the Russian and U.S resources
-
Hmmm. Germany taking Cuba and using it to conduct mass bombing raids?
Anonymous, hats off to you as you just received my coveted “Noprize” for your insane tactics. :razz: It’s moves like these that really make Axis and Allies great, and break away from the traditional move. It seems you got a pretty tight strategy going on, though be sure to fortify Cuba against any likely American air raids on those defenseless bombers.
-
Another good spot for an Axis bomber base is Brazil. It’s worth 3 (that’s always a nice bonus) and you can bomb the heck out of every Atlantic sea zone plus a few territories in Africa. Of course Germany can already do that from Western Europe, so I guess I meant to say a Japanese bomber base.
-
Corporal Punishment,
I use the same idea, too. :smile: What I do is defeat the Americans at Pearl Harbor and move my forces all the way into Brazil. But with the IC, I’m more intent on build Subs and causing carnage to Atlantic waters. With the Japanese Navy serving as back up, I longer have to worry about pesky fighters! I find this a surefire way of making sure the Allies don’t attempt to reconquer Africa from the Germans, giving them the economical boast. Once I’ve thoroughly ruined whatever American ships exist (by blockading their coast), I then move in for the kill and wreck havoc all over the North Sea. Great game we had, the Germans and Japanese teaming up to manhandle UK and USA back to ports of Karelia.
-
yes, my friends and ihavewn wit the axis…first, we built japas lad troops on kwangtung, thenwhen we had over 26 inf, 16 armors, and 8 bombers, as well as 17 fighters, we went after the russin front, we eigned victorious onall frots we faced, an when i reached the oher side of russia, my friend and iteamed up to take out UK, then teamed our navies, ine bilt to the max, and deeated USA fro all land, and ruled te gme…bu, we are only15
-
8 bombers and 16 fighters!? Well they say nothing suceeds like excess. But what were the Allied Players doing? I’m more of the type where a good plan right now is better than an excellent plan 5 minutes from now.
-
I disagree, I think Brazil is a horrible Axis base. It is too easily taken by America. South Africa is better, America can’t get there right away.
-
That is why you need the full strength of Japanese Imperial navy to back it up. Also the problem with South Africa is that you can’t threaten Atlantic Waters immediately as Brazil and give the Allies an opportunity to build up.
-
You do realise Brazil is on the exact opposite side of the board as Japan? Until you capture Brazil, Build an IC, and finally build something there, you are exposed. Thats 3 turns.
-
And to get a Japanese transport from Japan to South Africa it takes 4 turns. So what is your point?
-
3 turns, 1 to Capture, 1 to Build IC, 1 to Build ships. The Difference? South Africa is 4 spaces way from the US, Brazil is 2.
-
So what you are saying is that it’ll take 8 turns before I can even engage the American-UK fleet from South Africa with newly built units. I think that the game should be drawing to a conclusion by then. Also, are you telling Germany not to take South Africa in 4 turns? It seems like a waste of IPCs not to do so.
-
Yanny: “South Africa is 4 spaces way from the US, Brazil is 2.”
An IC in South Africa sucks. Even when you build the ships, it gives the US ample time to prepare its defenses and still attack into Europe. A Brazil IC, being that it is so close to the US and to the war in the Atlantic, forces the Americans to attack it as soon as possible or they will face some stiff comepetition in the Atlantic.
-
Yes, but I can hold the South African IC for a long period of time, I can hold Brazil for 2 or 3 turns. And, a South African IC doubles to help Germany hold Africa.
-
Does it matter if the US takes Brazil? They really gain little advantage from an IC there, and any sea forces built (say 3 subs)would still be alive after Brazil falls. If building an IC in Brazil can add even 3 subs to the remnants of the Japanese fleet (A Battleship or two, maybe a carrier) you have a strong force to guard Africa or wreak havoc on the US waters. And this force is able to strike much sooner (and with more units) than a force from South Africa. I’m not saying an IC in Brazil is always a good idea, but I think it’s a strong placement and occurs enough to be worth mentioning. Besides, it’s fun and just looks neat.
-
By the time you secure South Africa, an A&A game is reaching its climatic point. It doesn’t matter how long you hold South Africa, it is what you can do from there to change the course in the war. So what you can hold South Africa two maybe three times as long as Brazil, but you can be more of a nuisance to the US in Brazil than in South Africa. And the whole point of the IC in the first place is to distract and hinder the US from Germany. An IC in Brazil can do much much better.
-
“By the time you secure South Africa, an A&A game is reaching its climatic point.”
Listen to what the Candyman says. You’re planning too far ahead of the future when it’s already mid game. What you need to know is that if you’re looking for long term, the Allies can outpace you through IPC count. Axis and Allies is a game of numbers and in more ways than one. You have to factor in number of IPCs, number of turns, number of units, number of percentages, and many other “numbers.” When I see an IC in Brazil or South Africa, three numbers: number of IPCs, number of turns, and number of units. And at all three, I see faults.
If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, thumbing my nose at You Know Who. - Bokonon
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-06-02 13:26 ]
Suggested Topics
