Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that for allies there are no half measures…

At least playing against equal or stronger opponents

In any case, Japan must be crushed (above all) as well as Italy.

If you aim for a KGF and let Japan rage in the Pacific there is always the risk that with a coup they will be able to take the 6 VC and the game is over… even if the Allies are close to taking Rome or Berlin

Of course if you only tighten up on the Pacific perhaps also using the Russians (right @MrRoboto? :))… you have to be very organized in Europe to avoid Hitler arriving in Cairo (or London)…

Very expert players are able to do this of course… but in my opinion there is always a percentage of risk that the game predicts (like all clashes on A&A) but which you can try to avoid.

And above all the Allies should fight in a more aggressive way (which I have not yet learned to do) but not recklessly… aggressive in the sense of making the Axis risk more than necessary in certain battles (land and naval) because otherwise the the outcome is almost always for the Central Powers of the board.

thank goodness then.  So then its an even bolder (and less incorrect statement of)

Taking the 3 soviet far east territories that don’t border Mongolia has few, if any consequences for Japan.

Thanks to the editorial staff

That is one of Germany’s best options. The problem is that Russia can have a ton of units before you can even start bombing moscown

The only thing that has deterred me personally if the German opener where they skip the SZ111 attack and use 3 Subs in 106.  One plane goes to Italy and the rest land in a manner that they can be used to hit the surviving British ships wherever they go in the Atlantic.  If the UK wishes to try and make sure their ships go down fighting G2 then the SZ97 attack will be skipped in order to keep air assets available.  The Bomber (might) be used with the 109 DD to try and hit the German Subs off Canada, which is a big impact already on the odds at SZ97.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

we don’t play with Victory cities, as we have never done.
Russia can be making into 50 IPC if they have installed well into slovakia
the US lands in a chain between canada and ireland (a direct push to retake England has never worked for us)
perhaps they can build IC in brazil, and support remaining allied forces in africa.
play evasive in the pacific

i know it’s very hard, but the key lays in japan being halted for a few rounds (allies attack B2 to have all objectives) and germany losing a lot of forces in england, and keep producing there to keep the territory.

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like the rule either, I think that so long as you have a factory you can earn and spend ipcs.  After you lose your last factory then you hold onto your unspent ipcs until you or an ally liberates one of your factories.  This seems more realistic to me, but I think the current rule is there more to prove that once your capital is captured you might as well surrender.

That’s an interesting idea.  So all nations would be treated like China and keep their unspent IPCs with hopes of one of their factories getting liberated, even if it’s not necessarily their capital.

Actually, there is a kind of historical precedent for having to capture the Axis capitals.  In the “Why We Fight” series, at the end of each film it shows a quote from the Secretary of War Henry Wallace that said “Victory can only be acheived by the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.”  So, as far as the game goes, if you have Japan surrounded but your Japan player doesn’t want to surrender, then you just have to keep pounding him with SBRs until you build up a big enough invasion force and take him out.

Delay of fame, five yard penalty! Lol

have japan pay attention to when they want to get america and england into the war.

Pay attention to the neutrals

Have fun!