Hi, I recently found a new group of people to play with and they had never seen the allies win, and were aghast at the idea of axis advantage or Russia restricted. So naturally I politely offered to play as the allies without axis advantage or Russia restricted. My strategy was simple, Germany must die. First to fall was southern Europe from a UK transport they had forgotten, next the US invaded Western Europe, and to top it off Russia moved into Eastern Europe. Needless to say 4 hours after the game had started they were discussing whether or not to allow axis advantage and Russia restricted into the game.
Well, they have now stubbornly decided that they want me to be the axis and to see if I can defend against my beautiful stratagem, which quite honestly I am having a hard time figuring out how to do. I am not sure if I can convince them to allow me axis advantage or Russia restricted but I am hopeful.
I was wondering if anyone out there knew of a strategy that would stop all three allies going against Germany without bids and possibly without axis advantage and Russia being able to attack the first turn.
My thoughts were to build all infantry and one fighter every round with Germany (praying for axis advantage) and after a first turn extension of power simply trying to hold mainland Europe. With Japan completely ignoring the US, building an I.C. in either French indo china or Kwangtung (possible both), and essentially taking as much of Asia and Africa as you possible can. I do not really see this being very effective however.
Anyways, thanks for reading my post, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
It will be tough, but not impossible.
Germany will have to survive. Thats about the only goal the have. Dont buy ftrs, but only inf, and an occasional arm (1st round 9 inf, 1 arm). Dont let the allies hit EEu or WEu while it is underdefended. Dont trade many units. If you cant secure WEu or EEu, leave it empty and setup for a counterstrike. For instance, if you cant hold EEU, than send all arm, ftrs and a few inf to WEu (say 5 inf, 8 arm, 3 ftr) and the remaining units in Ger (and 1-2 inf in SEu in case its threatened). Now EEu will likely be a deadzone. Leave it a deadzone, untill you are strong enough to move into it. Same procedure for WEu, in case pressure is too high. This way Ger has a chance to survive if allies dont play too well.
Jap has to focus on the Russians. That will be main focus. Afrika and Mad/Aus/NZe/Haw are side theaters. Only go after them if there is nothing else to do. Decide wether you want to go for IC’s or transports. Transports are more flexible and a better choice if you expect a tech war… If you are going fors industrial complexes, then dont place them in Kwantung. Its a waste of time. Go for Bur and if save Ind as well. Again focus on inf, and an occasional arm. Focus on getting the allies out of Nov. If you succeed, you have a chance to win the game.
A.
One thing I have seen is that Japan lands its fighters in Germany to help defend it from the Allies. You should consider this even at the risk of losing your fighters because if Germany falls, Japan is not going to win.
I’d also seriously consider rolling for tech as Japan once you reached a point where you can do so and still send 10+ inf into Asia a turn. I’d hope to get Industrial Technology (turning 10+ inf into 15+) and/or Heavy Bombers. These two technologies can really help if you get them.
The problem is that
But with good Allied play, the Axis is going to need something to overcome the economic advantage of the Allies.
It may be possible to trick the player of the US into engaging into the Pacific. They might not know the “shuck” routine well enough and maybe can be unbalanced by a Japan going Pearl Heavy, invading there and jumping on to Mexico … directed at Panama and the threat of somehow getting that fleet into the Atlantic.
Of course, Japan can’t really afford to send away a transport … but it might pay off.
Of course, for the Axis to win, generally Russia must die. So all efforts should be directed towards that end. Falks idea of tricking the US to engage in the Pacific reduces the reinforcements the US provides to Russia.
You might also want to consider if the Axis can “lurch” to an economic victory by taking territories that cannot be kept for more than one round. But if at the end of a round they hold enough territory, the game is over. I’d only do this if I thought it possible in the course of a game due to how it played out. I wouldn’t intentionally try for this because its unlikely the Allies will allow the Axis to get close to this.
While the above suggestions are good and I would agree with most of them, I think your best solution is just to lose :)
After a few games of the allies beating the snot out of the axis, the axis will be provided with an advantage. I’d prefer the bidding strategy, but anything but plain jane 2nd edition is a good start.
I have had to convince a few people that the allies were vastly superior. I look at it as a 20 hour debate (4 games) I know I’m going to win. Not all that much fun, but still satisfying, and I feel like a god.
I agree with Cimber; however, I would take a different approach : refuse to play Axis unless they give you a bonus. Unless you desire a handicap (I sometimes do when playing against new opponents: play Axis without any advantage on purpose, because a new player usually won’t be able to win with the Allies still), playing Axis yourself without a bid isn’t going to accomplish anything. If you try your best to win, it’s entirely possible that you’ll actually win (since I’m assuming you’re a much better player) and they will think that it isn’t quite as unbalanced as you claim it is. If you lose on purpose, they might think you did it on purpose to prove your point.
The ideal scenario is that you get them to agree to a bid. That way if they still think Axis isn’t as poor as you think, they’ll just bid less and always end up with Axis, and lose as a result.
if these people played in such a way that the axis always won before you arrived on the scene then i question their understanding of the game’s strategic principles. if this is true, then i think you have a good shot at beating them in a straight up game.
from what you said it seems that they are just going to use the strategy you used in the first game against them right back at you. great! now you have a good idea on what they are going to do. knowing your enemies moves before the fact is to your advantage. did you shuck-shuck them the first game? then that’s what they’ll probably do to you.
the best way to counter this (at least against guys who counldn’t manage to win straight up with the allies) is to defend western europe weakly and invite them to attack there. they’ll probably make the mistake of not building up enough before attacking since they’ll see only 1-2 infantry gaurding western europe. they probably won’t even bother to calculate the counter-attack potential you have from germany and so europe before hitting western europe. after you take out the first allied wave, by the time they build up to take western europe again japan has a good shot of taking russia.
Theduke has it right on, I have seen beginners hit western europe repeatedly. I would also invite them to hit southern europe for the same reason, except southern europe is even more out of position for them.
In any event, as an add on to theduke’s suggestion, I usually pull my AA gun from southern to eastern, then my AA gun from western to southern. In this way you have an aagun on your bulkhead which may be weak at the beginning, and an aa gun on each of your IC’s. Leaving western lightly defended will invite an attack, and since you removed the AA gun you can counter with some infantry and your planes. I prefer this approach because if you counter with infantry and armor, there is the potential that you are hit next round and lose some armor if you don’t hit hard enough. I know there are others who prefer to just move the bulk of their armor back and forth between western and eastern, in force enough so that it repels assaults in western. It’s a fine enough strategy, but personally I just like having those armor in a position where the russians have to think that I might actually attack karelia. When they are in western then the allies can fool around a bit since there will be no legitimate threat against karelia.
Well, here is a strategy that I have used to success when the Allies concentrate on Germany: ignore UK and USA.
Yep, you heard that right. Let UK have it’s navy, let the US fly in all the forces they want to. Russia will be gone before they matter.
Attack Russia with EVERYTHING. Use Finland and Ukraine forces plus air power to attack Karelia. Counter-attack Eastern with everythign that can reach. Use your Med navy, Southern infantry and perhaps your bomber to attack the Caucuses. Do not engage Britain in Africa, just walk into and blitz open territories for IPC’s, never massing your forces (make them pick your forces off one unit at a time while they grab an available IPC territory each move).
It is a VERY risky strategy, and relies on a strong effort from Japan. Japan pulls back all that it can from the Pacific and goes after Russia and ONLY Russia (except targets of opportunity that do NOT pull any forces off the Russian territory attacks). Strategic bomb Russia every round you can with the Japanease bomber, and with the German bomber once their air force is otherwise obliterated, unless it is essential to support an infantry counter-attack). Even with perfect Allied support, Russia cannot sustain continuous assaults east and west. Their IPC’s will quickly plummet to 4 or 5 INF a round production, all Germany has to do is pin down Russian forces at Karelia (either defending it or re-taking it) for Japan to hold all eastern Russian territories in 3 rounds. By this point Japan’s navy has been out of a job in the Russia campaign and has started grabbing remaining island infantry to use on an IPC grab in the Pacific and around the Indian ocean, pulling US forces out of USSR support to defend Western US and whittling away at UK’s money. Russia falls after the third concerted Axis attack (usually Japan 1st to weaken Russia, then Germany out of Karelia on a suicide mission, then Japan takes Russia). One more round of clean-up in Asia and you have Axis IPC victory, or if you play it out, Japan’s transport fleet starts invading US territories while Germany does one or 2 more Infantry buys to secure Europe before slowly building a Navy in the med and taking Africa, then an air force to destroy allied navy around UK, and finally a UK invasion fleet that may or may not reach London before Japanease forces do coming our of Eastern US.
@ncscswitch:
… let the US fly in all the forces they want to. …
… By this point Japan’s navy has been out of a job in the Russia campaign and has started grabbing remaining island infantry to use on an IPC grab in the Pacific and around the Indian ocean, pulling US forces out of USSR support to defend Western US …
Whoever plays the US like it is proposed here deserves to lose :)
First of all I would just like to say thank you all, you’ve given me some great ideas. As to my game, in the end my friends wanted to try a rematch me as the allies them as axis except this time with axis advantage and russia restricted. Unfortunatly for them I am still a superior player, and I crushed them even after a devestating first turn where the germans had 7 tanks and 2 infantry in karelia.
Next time my friends have decided I am to be the Axis. :)
@ncscswitch:
Well, here is a strategy that I have used to success when the Allies concentrate on Germany: ignore UK and USA.
Yep, you heard that right. Let UK have it’s navy, let the US fly in all the forces they want to. Russia will be gone before they matter.
What round does this usually happen for you? I am curious if you are saying that is is round 2, or round 5. Since you say after three combined attacks, I would assume that it would have to be at the earliest round 6, assuming a complete pullback to moscow by russia, the quickest you could really reach moscow would be round 3. I think the sentiment of ignoring the UK and the USA is a good one, especially in plain 2nd edition.
As the axis I have tried to ignore the UK and the USA, but there is one problem. For some stupid reason, the allies always, and I mean always, want to roll for the infantry they have placed in karelia. Since I have been ignoring them the whole time, it is usually quite a sizable force. I swear, if just once they would let me ignore the UK and USA forces stacked with the russians I could probably pull it off.
What round does this usually happen for you? I am curious if you are saying that is is round 2, or round 5. Since you say after three combined attacks, I would assume that it would have to be at the earliest round 6, assuming a complete pullback to moscow by russia, the quickest you could really reach moscow would be round 3. I think the sentiment of ignoring the UK and the USA is a good one, especially in plain 2nd edition.
Usually, the assaults on Russia proper start in round 4 and finish in round 5. Round 1 Germany has to re-take Eastern. Round 2, they assault (and sometimes take but cannot hold) Karelia. Round 3 they take and hold Karelia. All this time they are doing a heavy INF build with a few tanks to keep assault strength up. Also, if Russia stripped the Caucuses to defend Karelia, take it using the Med navy if it still exists in either round 2 or round 3; if Russia re-takes it, that simply weakens Moscow, if they don’t, it is extra land units for round 4). Meanwhile, Japan re-takes Manchuria in round 1 (if they still hold Manchuria on J1, subtract 1 from all that follows, and slap the Russian player around for bad gaming :-) Round 2 they take Yakut (and Soviet East Asia), round 3 they take Novosibirsk. Generally, both Japan and Germany have bombed Russia in round 3 also.
So in Round 4, Russia has very few IPC’s left (average is enough for 4 INF, 6 if they still hold Caucuses and bombing was poor). Germany throws EVERYTHING against Russia, even letting the UK or US have Western Europe if they took it in round 3. Bomber on ground support, remaining fighters, every ground force that can reach. They lose. More tanks and infantry are built in Karelia, and more land forces are moved up from Eastern. NOTE: If the Allies are played well, Germany will be securing Karelia this round instead of attacking Russia,
Japan follows up with another strike (or launches the first assault if Germany had to take Karelia this round). Usually 2-3 fighters, the bomber, a couple of tanks, and a few infantry; in short everything that can reach. If Germany assaulted Russia earlier in the round, suicide all airpower to kill as many INF as possible. If Germany did not assault Russia in round 4, save your air power… Move more land forces forward.
Round 5 Germany hits with everything in a VERY weak Russia (they only built 3 or at most 4 INF this round). If Germany was able to attack Russia in round 4, Russia falls. If not, Germany is now spent of offensive power (no air force, navy probably gone, one or 2 tanks at most) and is building INF to stave off the US and UK as they attack Germany proper. Allies may now hold both Eastern and Western Europe. The good news is they are building 10 or 11 units a round.
Later in round 5, if Germany did not take Russia earlier, Japan takes it with air forces to spare (but very few ground forces).
If Germany took Russia, they then build land forces for a couple of turns to kick the allies out of all of Europe, then air power to start whittling at the allied Navy. If Japan took Russia, they may need to build some tanks in Russia to assist in kicking the allies out of Europe.
Once Europe is re-secured, you either have an economic victory, or you start a war of attrition on the US and UK that will take quite a few turns while Japan sets up massive transport fleets in the Pacific, and Germany builds up enough air power (fighters work best since they also help defend against ongoing invasions) to blast the allied fleet around Britain, then a slow Naval build up in the Med, out of reach of UK airpower, to invade London (unless Japan is already there via Washington).
My win rate with this strategy is 100% vs. any of the AI opponents, and 70% with human opponents. Some games it takes a round longer, but that is rare (bad dice from time to time). On those human opponent games when it fails, is usually because of a combination of less than average dice, a significant technology hit by the US (heavy bombers especially) or an EXTREMELY aggressive US (not going to give away secrets here, it is a cruel strategy of non-intervention for 3 rounds, then two coordinated attacks on opposite sides of the world at just the right place). And to be honest, I have NOT found a counter to this non-intervention strategy as yet.
Russia should attacks Ukraine iso Eastern Europe (w/alll avaibable land units), and kill Bal fleet.
What about Norwa/Finland … probably lost by G2 if you neglect the western allies. How many more Infs will sit in Karelia by G4 then ?
Nc,
Do you honestly believe that the general assumption of everyone who has played axis and allies for years that the game is unbalanced towards the allies is wrong? Or do you believe that your strategy is unique? It is not a bad strategy, but you are making what I believe to be poor assumptions of what good and bad play is. For example, manchuria is NOT a bad move. I may agree that it’s not the best move, but you are kidding yourself if you believe it hasn’t been used frequently by very good players, to great affect.
Your detailing of what the allies does is also generally incorrect for an allied team that wants to win. You assume that russia will attack eastern europe, whereas the more likely first move is a strafe against ukraine. The caucus is a simple retaking the next round with whatever you put into it, by using air power. Your attack relies on the UK and US attacking germany proactively, whereas I very rarely do that. Lets say I do shuck shuck (because i’m unoriginal) on you. As the allies by round 3 I will have finland norway stacked with a couple of tanks and about 12 infantry. My fighters from the UK and the US would also have been sitting in karelia for quite awhile.
Ugh, actually I am pretty tired of arguing this, so I’m sure I will let you go on believing what you will. I would just say that I have very different ideas of what “GOOD” play is. In my mind, good allies would be helping karelia, not playing around with western and eastern europe. In my mind, a good russia will not just let you storm across their continent. In my mind, even when you take moscow if as you say the allies hold western and eastern the game is certainly not over if berlin is taken that round.
I would suggest you test your strategy on http://www.tripleawarclub.org/, as actions always speak louder than words.
Your attack relies on the UK and US attacking germany proactively, whereas I very rarely do that. Lets say I do shuck shuck (because i’m unoriginal) on you. As the allies by round 3 I will have finland norway stacked with a couple of tanks and about 12 infantry. My fighters from the UK and the US would also have been sitting in karelia for quite awhile.
Ugh, actually I am pretty tired of arguing this, so I’m sure I will let you go on believing what you will. I would just say that I have very different ideas of what “GOOD” play is. In my mind, good allies would be helping karelia, not playing around with western and eastern europe. In my mind, a good russia will not just let you storm across their continent. In my mind, even when you take moscow if as you say the allies hold western and eastern the game is certainly not over if berlin is taken that round.
OK, so UK and USA pour everything into Karelia, making it one tough nut to crack. Lots of Russian infatry, and lots of UK and US forces there and nearby in Norway as well. So you are pouring it all on to save Karelia and thereby the Russians. And a build up of that magnitude is kind-of obvious no matter how you try to hide it by the end of round 2 (either the units are there, or they are not, and if not, I attack Karelia as planned, with Japan heading west).
All those allied forces in Northern Europe… all that money poured to defend essentially ONE territory.
Strategy is fluid. Anyone bound to a set pattern at the start of a game deserves to lose.
That transport fleet can just as easilly shift to the Indian ocean and grab IPC’s from India, Persia, Syria, and Africa very quickly, as well as move on Australia (if I did not already take it), New Zealand, and perhaps Hawaii. Maybe even a transport bound for Brazil. Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska. Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany. And I just pull back and send those forces elsewhere, like back against Russia leaving you with idle forces in Western US…
The point is, if you overload THAT heavy on a Karelia defense, I simply change plans, pump Japan up to about 45-50 IPC’s production while knocking UK down to the mid teens or less, keepign Russia in the 4-5 INF range, and dropping the US into the upper 20’s. All Germany has to do then is HOLD while Japan builds whatever it wants… like 10 tanks a round to be poured against Russia’s back door, or into Alaska heading for Western US.
And an economic victory is in easy reach if Germany managed to hold onto much of anything against your overload in northern Europe…
Just please remember, my original post was as a potential counter that the Axis can use to thwart a “kill Germany first” strategy: a way of upping the ante and forcing the Allied hand by a concerted push on Russia. It is an option, a different way of looking at available moves and strategies… and one that has worked for me on more than one occasion.
@ncscswitch:
Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska. Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany.
Actually, each and every built in a shuck-shuck is going towards Germany, while defending both parts of the US. I have the feeling you have not seen it being played properly.
@ncscswitch:
All those allied forces in Northern Europe… all that money poured to defend essentially ONE territory.
Strategy is fluid. Anyone bound to a set pattern at the start of a game deserves to lose.
That transport fleet can just as easilly shift to the Indian ocean and grab IPC’s from India, Persia, Syria, and Africa very quickly, as well as move on Australia (if I did not already take it), New Zealand, and perhaps Hawaii. Maybe even a transport bound for Brazil. Or maybe I decide to shut the US down on support in Europe by landing all those Russian bound forces in Alaska. Sure, you can counter with one build, but that is one build NOT going against Germany. And I just pull back and send those forces elsewhere, like back against Russia leaving you with idle forces in Western US…
The point is, if you overload THAT heavy on a Karelia defense, I simply change plans, pump Japan up to about 45-50 IPC’s production while knocking UK down to the mid teens or less, keepign Russia in the 4-5 INF range, and dropping the US into the upper 20’s. All Germany has to do then is HOLD while Japan builds whatever it wants… like 10 tanks a round to be poured against Russia’s back door, or into Alaska heading for Western US.
And an economic victory is in easy reach if Germany managed to hold onto much of anything against your overload in northern Europe…
Just please remember, my original post was as a potential counter that the Axis can use to thwart a “kill Germany first” strategy: a way of upping the ante and forcing the Allied hand by a concerted push on Russia. It is an option, a different way of looking at available moves and strategies… and one that has worked for me on more than one occasion.
Falk and aaf sound like veterans to me. I use nearly the same allied KGF strategy. The overloaded KAR becomes a UK/US launchpad for the double amphib attack on EEur. The US follows, so the USSR can leisurely march in to support the defense. Rus also has the blitz option into a lightly or undefended SE if there are arm in Kar. The other option is to park the allied transport fleet off of Spain. $3 by the UK lands a full boatload followed by the US marines and air defense. before Ger can counter. This sets up the amphib attack vector to SE and the joint ground + amphib attack on WE. The UK has a choice of which to take it in the following turn.
The well defended allied transport fleet is a severe menace and the key to KGF. UK can set it up even G1 sank all her ships. UK1 buy AC +trn. US lands ftrs from E & W US on the UK AC. US also moves in trn from EUS. US buys 3 trn and some inf. By US2 troops are flowing into F/N reaching Kar on US3. UK ftrs on Kar make it hard for Ger to win an attack. While they defend Kar, the allies are free to attack Cauc and Ukr as needed. This becomes attritional to Ger. So US/UK will spend 2 rounds to build up the fleet, 1-2 rounds supporting Rus, and then stage either
1. the immediate EE amphib w/ground sppt from Kar, or
2. Stage on Spain.
3. WE being poorly defended would invite immediate attack.
This starts the Ger collapse by round 6 at the latest, given average dice. They should be able to get Berlin by round 9, so if Jpn plays well, they may take Rus by then.
The added UK/US forces allow Rus to maintain EVO, Novo, and Kaz against whatever Jpn has. The main objective is to prevent Jpn from landing ftrs right next door to the capital.
The idea of KGF is also meant to preserve Rus. Defense often costs less than offense. In Europe, I would favor attacks when my net offensive dice force is 40+% more than the net dice strength of the defenders. For capital attacks I would allow 25% overstrength and allow the other allies to mop it up… when I am desperate. Otherwise, I will wait and outbuild until the attack odds are sufficient. There are other leisurely means, such as Battleship amphib attrition and SBR’s when an opponent is stubbornly stacked on a capital.
You should search the web sites for Don Rae’s essays about infantry push and especially strafable dead-zones. There is also some math and art to strafing, which most A&A veteran’s are familiar with.
