Allied opening strategy

My friend and I purchased 1942 about a week ago, and we are addicted.  We’ve already played 4 or 5 games.

Tonight I tried a new opening strategy with the allies and it worked quite well.  The general purpose of the strategy is to hold Africa and allow for a quick entrance by the Americans into the European theatre.  One tough sacrifice of this strategy is that you have to abandon India.  I find this acceptable because, against a half-decent opponent, India is bound to fall by the 3rd turn at the latest anyhow.

On R1 I purchased 2 subs (first time I had tried this) and spent the rest on infantry.  West Russia was the only territory I took.  I placed the subs in the Black Sea.  This prevented Germany from invading Egypt on their first turn, as my opponent found it too risky to expose his battleship and transport to an attack from the subs + a fighter on R2.

On UK1 I reinforced Egypt with the Persian infantry unit and 2 inf units from India via the transport.  I also moved the British fleet in the Indian Ocean into the med to join the destroyer.  I placed the fighter from the AC on Egypt, however it may have been better to leave in on the AC.

On US1 i invaded Algeria with the forces available (1 tank, 1 art and 2 inf, I believe).  The German African forces were now trapped between 2 armies and 2 navies, and Africa was won for the allies.  I then amassed a significant US force in Africa on the next few turns, eventually landing in SE before Japan had a crack at Moscow.

Can anyone outline an affective Axis counter-strategy?

@Concealer:

@The:

One tough sacrifice of this strategy is that you have to abandon India.  I find this acceptable because, against a half-decent opponent, India is bound to fall by the 3rd turn at the latest anyhow.

I think abandoning India is more of a sacrifice than you think even though, as quoted above, you call it tough. If you put a IC in there on UK1 you have the ability to hold out for a lot longer than turn 3, or so has been the cases in the games I have played. But allowing Japan to run through largely unchallenged doesn’t sit well with me.

Having said that, I think there is some serious value in taking the Med away from Germany so quickly. While amassing troops and naval units up in Africa I could see a thinly spread German defence making them much less effective. I would imagine they would become mostly defensive minded and play more like Russia does in most games.

I think the counter here for the axis would be a beastly Japan. They may need to put their own IC in India and build up a pipeline of reinforcements to harass the navy you place in the Med. Germany may also choose to invest in some bombers and subs to keep the invasion at bay, using the subs as fodder- though being spread so thin Russia could beat them on the eastern front of the UK might build up a sizable offensive. I’ll have to try it out and see what happens.

Interesting idea for sure.

It’s true that Japan’s strength becomes a bit unnerving with this strategy.  However, I was able to move my American and British forces through the Middle East and stall the Japanese advancement long enough to allow the bulk of my allied forces conquer Germany.

I am happy with this strategy for now, as it propelled me to my first allied victory after 3 defeats, but I know my opponent will devise a better counter-strategy the next time we play.  He did have a strong air force, but he committed them to the eastern front and didn’t harass my US convoys at all.  This will likely change next time, and, as you suggested, he will probably buy a few more subs as well.

A more risky German counter-strategy would be to go ahead with an amphibious invasion of Egypt on G1, even though it would likely mean losing his battleship and transport.  He would then have to build a transport and probably two destroyers on his first turn, so that he could reinforce his African troops at least one more round.  This would likely delay the American invasion until round 3, or even longer.

With the Japanese, my opponent built an IC on India, but no more.  I think it would have been best to buy an a second IC for mainland Asia, so he could have placed 6 tanks on the mainland every turn.

Any other ideas for axis counter-strategies?

@Paulzy:

Sounds good. The Black Sea, is that sea zone 16 ?

I have a decent Axis strat (for standard victory) envolves takeing Calcutta with Japan, Leningrad with Ger and then meeting in Moscow hopefully by the 3rd-4th round.

If you leave Russia too vunerable, the Axis may can get the 3 cities and hold them while still holding their own cities. Thats all they need for a Standard Victory, if you are playing Total Victory then that changes everything.

I am no pro, your strat seems interesting, i’ve been trying to work up an Allied strat too.

Yes, the Black Sea is sea zone 16.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does “KGF” mean?

@Grogtune:

My opponent used this russian sub strategy against me recently.  Germany countered by sending everything at Karelia on round 1 (including BB and trans because they could ignore the russian subs in the Black Sea).  Allied player laughed because I had allowed British navy to survive and didn’t attempt to go for Africa.  Because Russia was under-manned, Karelia fell on G1.  We swapped it back and forth a couple times, but eventually Germany kept it and took Russia on round 4 or 5.  Allied player stopped laughing, and this strategy has been abandoned.

That does seem like a prudent counter-strategy, however, I have a hard time believing that the reason for your victory was the 4 inf units Russia did not buy on R1 in favour of the 2 subs.  With an Allied-secured Africa by the end of round 1, the Americans are able to either reinforce Russia or threaten Germany by round 3, more than making up for the 4 infantry not purchased by Russia.  Furthermore, if you abandon the Mediterranean with your battleship and transport and do not purchase naval reinforcements, it means that the UK doesn’t have to reinforce Egypt on UK1, and can instead focus on holding India, thus slowing down the Japanese.  It seems to me that your Allied opponent just didn’t play very well.

Ps-was it really Karelia you went at and not the Caucasus?  If it was the Caucasus, that seems like a stronger counter-strategy.  However, with your BB and transport open to an attack on R2 from the 2 subs and up to 3 fighters (if the UK sends one to Russia on UK1), you’re still essentially giving up the Mediterranean to the Allies, and UK could still keep Egypt without having to abandon India.

@Grogtune:

Sorry you’re right, I meant the Caucasus.  My opponent is very good, but he was probably playing Russia a little too aggressively.  One thing that worked out well for me in taking Caucasus in G1, I killed both Russian fighters.  The Russian subs attacked my BB and trans on their own in R2 but failed, and the UK airforce was out of range, so the German BB and trans actually survived until round 3 and were able to dump a second amphibious assault on round 2.  I’m not saying this is a sure-fire strat, just something to consider if Russia is lax in their defense of their territories.

Yes, that’s a good example of how playing with the Black Sea open can be an advantage to the Axis as well.  So your opponent must have placed the fighter from Moscow on the Caucasus then.

@Concealer:

I should have asked earlier but did you build an IC in Africa with this strategy either in Egypt or South Africa? It seems like the idea of building an IC in South Africa isn’t so popular in AA1942.

No, I didn’t purchase any additional ICs as the Allies.  Once Africa was secure, I focused solely on Norway, then Karelia, and finally WE with the UK.  I had 6 transports running between the US and Africa, making an additional IC unnecessary.

The one time I saw the UK purchase an IC in South Africa it was used primarily as an airbase to harass the Japanese fleet, and the strategy seemed mildly successful.  I have never seen an IC placed in Egypt.