1941 Factory in Australia.

@Poptech said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

I am aware of that and the Europe, Pacific and Global TripleA maps restrict that kind of movement.

No, also on those TripleA maps TripleA incorrectly allows Non Combat Moves during Combat Move Phase.

@Poptech said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

I understand the idea behind restricting it but it is more for unit movement tracking in the board game.

One idea behind the rules only accepting combat moves during combat move phase is that some moves during Noncombat Move Phase are based on or enforced by results of the Conduct Combat Phase. You cannot know these results during Combat Move Phase.

For example:
As the (maybe unexpected) result of a combat a fighter needs a different than expected landing place on a carrier. Now in case you hadn’t moved a carrier in reach during Combat Move Phase (with a legal combat move) that carrier in the given situation must move during NCM to allow the fighter to land. If that carrier had been moved illegally during Combat Move Phase it would not be allowed to move again or would maybe be out of reach.

@Poptech said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

When playing digitally it only makes it easier to forget to unload or reposition troops.

TripleA cleary indicates which units have not moved yet so usually you should not forget any movement action.

@USS:

I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?

Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep)  theirs.  This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.

Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved.  Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports).  Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.

@smoke

Not a bad strategy, but as I said, it’s of the most importance that because all it really takes is for the British to act as some sort of annoyance to Japan atleast and hold the Money Islands or liberate the Philipines for America. Like I said the Culcutta crush doesn’t necassarilly mean the end of the game for me as Japan, but more over that the Americans will have to do KJF, which is what I normally do anyway since Japan can’t outbuild me as America for squat.

The basic idea is to start at the Solomon islands, and then slowly work your way West.

And of all else, all the U.K really have to do is instead of building a factory on India to just build a factory on Australia. While it’s not much to say where they build 2 units a turn, it’s still an industrial safe haven for the British to reevaluate, prepare for inevitable takeback of the Japanese controlled territories and win the game at the end of the day. Because granted, it’s really difficult to stop the Japanese from taking India on turn 2. This has been a serious pain I’ve had with axis and allies 1941 setup which is why I pay more attention to the 42’ setup as it’s much more balanced.

@Veqryn:

@cts17:

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

bids generally don’t allow more than 1 unit to a territory….

at least, that is what i’ve always been told

(a max of 1 unit to a territory, and you must have units in that territory already)

That’s a ‘house rule’ from the Triple A lobby, from what I understand.  Usually bid limits are listed with how the bidding works (i.e.  all cash (no immediate units), 1 unit per territory, etc).

In other words, bid rules are all over the board.

This thread has what you are looking for.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12873.0

/corbeau blanc

Agree with you on Karelia, even though Germany can take it sometimes it’s not too difficult to take it back by Russian counterattack and/or UK invasion. Only once Germany gets heavy inf reinforcement east can they hope to hold it, and if you do a good UK/US invasion combo into Europe there should be tied lots of Germans tied up manning the West wall. In my games, Germany and Italy often seem to end up being inf-heavy hedgehogs, leaving it to Japan to finish Moscow off.

India, on the other hand, isn’t easy to hold at all. This is due to Japanese number of transports and fighters, which will overwhelm you sooner or later. I think ICs in SAF and EGY are a better UK focus, better fighting a delaying action over India and reinforce Russia with aircraft to make it impregneable.

Yep, and it’s even more funny do it to the USA in a Polar Express campaign. Priceless

Also, western axis could make a try with SBRs on London if UK makes the error of not buying SAF IC. 16 damage on a country that is colecting about 25 or less? Deadly

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.