Neutral countries

When I played it was almost always with the same two people so I usually got stuck with Germany. I got to play the US once and that was a lot of fun.

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

“The race for quality has no finish line- so technically, it’s more like a death march.”

That’s hilarious LT!!

I got all of these quotes from here:    http://despair.com/

They have a line of “demotivators.”  The creator modeled them after the successories you see in fancy offices.  He says that true motivation comes from within so only companies with a band-aid fix it approach and disposable income use them.  (like large US car companies and banks  :lol:)

one questions….what?

This isn’t so crazy but I think it would work best in lieu of fleet purchases and not with them.  I’d say one should either commit almost completely to a naval approach to supplying guys or an IC approach, and one can start building ICs on Japan1.  If for example Japan builds an IC in Manchuria on turn 1 they are no worse off than if they bought 2transports and 3inf since on turn 2 Japan will have moved a total of 10inf arm to Asia or will have moved and built 11inf into Asia.  Turn 2 you can build a factory in FIC or Manch depending on where you built one on turn1 and turn 3 in India.  From there you would want to probably wait and a little and build some in either Sinkiang, Yakut or China as a less desirable option.  Japan should be able to crank out 13+inf which is where they normally would be, but also don’t have to worry about the lag between Tokyo and the front and don’t have to invest 40ipcs in boats.  While 4 factories would cost 60ipcs it should be remembered that 7trns don’t actually achieve full mobilization which is very hard for Japan to do with a naval approach.

Downsides of this are as follows…First since India becomes necessary to produce and will build guys it also becomes a nice target and its not too hard for the allies to slip guys into Persia so this with armor in Syria/Cauc can threaten to take it or strafe it, and since you’ve invested heavily in India you can’t afford either.  Secondly, as alluded to it does cost a little more, but this comes with the gain of quicker mobilization.  Also this approach necessitates that you leave these factories vulnerable to SBRs since you are building so many that it will be cost prohibative to cover all with AA guns.  On the flip side the free SBRs will be tempting for the Allies and will reduce pressure on Germany which is what most say a good Japan strat will do.

Upsides as follows…Quicker mobilization=more pressure on Russia, as well as double stacking infantry and armor.  Usually with Japan under such aproach I only build infantry for a few turns say up until turn 4 and then switch to all armor.  This means units build on turn 4 would move to pressure Novo on the front while the build is placed into FIC/Manch,India.  If you have factories in Yakut or Sink they can build guys and depending on how many transports Japan has you can dump 2-3 armor from Tokyo.  In otherwords this allows you to take and hold Novo while creating and maintaining longterm pressure on Russia, even without a lot of fresh infantry purchases.  Ultimately with this approach the game can be forced into a battle over Karelia/Russia, and the Allies must keep all their troops here while still risking getting hit too hard in a strafe of either.  Should one happen then the Axis can take Moscow whether it is by Germany or Japan.

Death Head, I think you are discussing Revised, not the original version of Axis and Allies.

I would not spend the 3 bucks with Russia if I did it, but UK bucks… But the German fleet shouldn’t exist anymore after R2-R3 so actually unrelevant…

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute! :-? We’re starting to make sense here. Have I slipped into an alternate universe!?!

I voted for UK. Here is my take on the countries.

Germany - Fun to be the aggressor, but really you are pretty much always confined to the same winning strategy. Plough east with Tanks and aircraft, and blitz through Africa. You don’t get much chance to be creative.

Russia - You don’t get to explore the map much. You are basically trying to get lucky in the West while doing enough to hold off Japan in the East.
Not much strategy either, just sit back and hope to get lucky or that your allies save your ass.

Japan - I find playing as Japan WAY too easy. As soon as you build a factory on the mainland you WILL take it. Pacific is really only a secondary concern. You won’t take U.S. until Russia is done, and you won’t get to Russia before Germany does. Really you just have to blast through India, China and Siberia then spend the rest of the game walking into empty territories.

U.S.A. - By the time you have finally mobillized the game is already decided. Of course it is always a challenge to try and change this, so U.S. is somewhat fun to play

U.K. - The best to play because you are the most important factor in the Allied effort. Russia turtleshells 75% of the time. U.S.A. takes too long to get in the game. Really your strategy with the U.K. is what decides the game. Because of the huge expanse of British territory, you can fight on multiple fronts all over the globe. In my opinion, playing U.K. gives you the most chance to be creative, and still have to watch your own ass.