What are some good strategies for newer players?

@pacifiersboard They used both DC-3s (aka C-47s) and gliders for heavier units.

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

I’ve played third reich. There is both an 80s version, and a 90s version of that game. They are quite different. However, it is alot simpler and smaller than WiF. I am currently playing a game called Scorched Earth, Urals Mod in the Europa System. This game has baseunits being divisions and regiments. It playes the entire war on the eastern front. Each space is a hexagon at about 25 km accross. you usualle have about 3000 pieces on the map at any given time, when only playing the eastern front. If you play once a week, you will actually use like 8 years to play the 4 years from 41 to the end of 45.

I can’t say the best plans as Axis as I am usually USSR when I play but when you use the term Asymmetric Warfare, you do know that means when two armies that are not equal fight each other like a professional army vs a militia would be an example for Asymmetric Warfare.

Germany helping Italy in the Med all depends on if you are looking to knock Russia out with a quick punch or throttle them slowly to death. If you’re taking the long game approach, a German fleet in the Med is worth every IPC. It creates an incredible headache for the Allied player who expects to dominate the Med early. Then it becomes an arms race, and guess who is closer to their supply lines?

And once the Med becomes an arms race, the Allied player often stops buying as much with the US in the Pacific… and Japan can wear down Russia from the back.

Just general thoughts - game by game will obviously be variable.

@calvinhobbesliker Japan_1942_NO.png Germany_1942_NO.png Russia_1942_NO.png Italy_1942_NO.png UK_India_1942_NO.png France_1942_NO.png China_1942_v1_NO.png ANZAC_1942_NO.png US_1942_NO.png

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Procas:

A couple people have mentioned it, but you cannot scramble a tac bomber from Egypt unless you build an AB there.

I’m assuming they wanted to build an AB there on UK1.

The only way I can see the UK spending for an airbase UK1 is if there was a J1 attack allowing the Americans to help prevent Sealion.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.