I think General Hand Grenades strategy is the ultimate strategy for the UK right now. And although it has a heavy focus on the Middle East, that obviously is not the only place where he is saying to play the game. An IC in Persia, and a shuck triangle between South Africa, Cairo and Persia may take up a few IPC’s to build the infrastructure, and get the cycle going, but at the end of the day, if by round 3/4 the UK is spending 20-25IPC’s on units in that theater of war, it leaves them with another 10-15 IPC’s to bolster England defenses. And by turn 3/4, barring a late Sealion, the UK is usually in a position to starting converting its England force into an attack Europe Expeditionary Force.

The path that the Axis takes is always going to be your number one focus, over your pre-game strategy. However, using this UK strategy as a base to play your game off of, gives the UK player plenty of options to work off of as the game progresses. Be it solidifying control of Africa, closing off the Suez, backing up Calcutta, resupplying the Caucusus, or doing whatever is needed from England… all of these options are available, heck if Germany is not threatening UK territory at all you could spend a whole rounds purchase on a Indian Ocean navy and go at the Japs even.

If the strategy becomes a success, a grey beard could be the way to go haha

Weddingsinger, valid point, I agree with the first statement. I have seen some very successful Barbarossa’s from a G1 standpoint. I would lean towards your option number 2, as a reasoning behind the strategy. I would also work with the Japanese and have them go for a J2, maybe even J3, focused on a Malaysia -> Calcutta hop. If the G4 or G5 Russia attack is the plan, Japan would ideally focus some of their forces on taking the far eastern Russian territories, from J1 or 2 as well.

Has anyone tried this / been successful?

Success in my games, as the axis, has had a high correlation with two factors. 1) Italy being strong, and 2) Japan taking India. The late Barbarossa is geared at maximizing German resources on a German/Italian Afrika->Middle East campaign, and building a fortress in the Med.

Hello All,

Does anyone wait to attack Russia on G4, or even G5? I am not a new player, so I am not looking for a lecture on all of the early attack strategies, I have gone Cobra Kai, and many G2 Barbarossa’s, with varying degrees of success. The group of players that I usually play with have tried out many of the strategies from our games great leaders, and we have developed a few of our own.n I have not tried a late Barbarossa strategy yet, and I want to mix things up.

Does anyone have any advice? Any examples of attempts, and how they transpired?

My plan would revolve around getting another 15-20 infantry to the front line for the start of the invasion, get German navy in the Med and give Italy a serious chance at taking Egypt, and the Middle East (and eating through Africa), Italy would have strong enough can-opener force for at least one major Russian attack (probably to open a hit on Leningrad or open up the south depending on Russian defenses and reaction to initial attack). I would add faster movers and planes to my purchases closer to the attack turn (usually do not need planes on first wave of any Barbarossa attack, so I would build them to have access for second wave once Leningrad and Ukraine become the targets).

Thanks for any responses to this, I am looking forward to discussing some ideas and experiences!

I have seen Russian success with a few tactical fighters being added into the mix in the early rounds. The accordion effect that Garganuta is the perfect way to explain the USSR’s ability, and need to counterattack the Germans. If you can slow them down/or force them to rely on Army Group North and the Leningrad route, by the time they have secured their position and line up for an assault through Smolensk or Bryansk, you will have a counter attack force supported by air in Russia that can decimate their entire attack.

Assuming the US and UK are starting to put the pressure on either in Italy or France, the German momentum comes to a dead halt on the Eastern front.

Another deviation from the turtleing Russia strategy is also to asses, and possibly stack around 4-6 infantry in Bessarabia, in anticipation of an Italian can-opener move. Yes, it leaves those infantry susceptible to complete annihilation if the German Lufftwaffe decides to spearhead the assault with the Wehrmacht on the ground on a G3/G4 DOW, however, that ultimately is the objective. If the Italian can-opener is not used to give the German fast movers and aircraft quick access to the Russian secondary defensive positions, the risk on attack for Germany goes up enough that they cannot just steamroll through to Moscow.

I know that I have a minimal amount of posts in this forum, however I have been playing A&A for roughly the last 20 years, and I consider my group to be “advanced”. Our games have gone from favoring the allies heavily, to favoring the Axis heavily on G40, but they are now going back to the favor of the Allies, and that is with no bid, and a house rule implication of research tokens.

UK Pac aircraft carrier is one of my favorite under rated UK moves, contingent on whether there is a J1 or not. If no J1, depending on the Jap staging, drop an AC in UK pac, ANZAC aims for the NO money in New Guinea, and that UK2 declaration of war is a strong consideration.

Japan has always been my favorite power to play as, and I have done my own variations of the standard J1, and J2 attacks over the years. I haven’t attempted the Pearl Harbor J1 yet, which seems to be the new standard J1 move. My issue with it is that I believe it gives ANZAC and UK ample time to not only take a money island, or get the Anzac NO’s, but it gives them time to actually hold those targets, and money to continue building.

US fleet is always going to take 3/4 rounds before it is able to make a decisive strike against the IJN, as the Japs, I count on this, ignore them, and slowly reinforce my navy as I ground an pound Asia and money islands. The decisive battle always becomes imminent by the 5-6 round, and with some strategic alignment of my navy to take cover under the kamikazee zones, IJN usually comes out slightly on top. even a total annihilation outcome is sufficient though. The USA will take 2-3 turns once again to rebuild, and by then I have taken India, or broken through China and knocking on the back door of Stalingrad, and I can rebuild my navy at the same speed at the US.

As the US, my preferred strategy is joint operations with ANZAC, taking islands when available, and slowly closing in from all sides on Japan. I have always enjoyed trying to use a historical approach, when relevant, into my games, so the navy and air-force through the middle PAC, and the Marines and navy in the south, is always an option that I will work towards.

Russia can attack a Russian territory that has been captured. If the Germans move into that territory, after being captured, I think the assumption would be that they have also declared war on Russia.

If The Italians captured a Russian territory, and Germany did not go on a full blown offensive on their next turn, and instead decided to consolidate to the Italian captured territory, what would the purpose of this be? Show the Russians and ultimately the Allies exactly what direction you are going, and take it slow? Doesn’t make sense. And furthermore, the rules don’t make it very clear, but if the Italians attack the Russians and take a territory, and the Germans occupy it, that is a declaration of war. Total war in Europe begins.

Italians attack Russia, Germany is automatically at war with Russia, that is the assumption that my group has always used.

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

Hello all,

I know that the answer to this post is somewhere among all of the great posts and discussions, however I am having difficulty finding the answer that I want.

What is the most up to date, and widely used set of rules available for 1940 Global Second Edition? If there a PDF version? Would these rules be commonly used by all of the “Great Leaders” of this forum, such as GHG, YGH, Taamvan… etc etc to name a few?

Thanks in advance!

@Ichabod:

@tambo264:

@Ichabod:

@KGrimB:

@Ichabod:

I think it’s a great idea! (wink wink). If we ever play against each other on triplea and I’m axis. Please do this plan! The sun will rise across the sea.

Sarcasm off now. At least for me, I’m usually more successful against an opponent going to the Europe board as opposed to Japan. It’s easier to spam lots of infantry and mech infantry to defend everywhere, than for Japan to counter a full throttled allied attack coming at me from all point of the compass.

So do you think it’s a much better idea for the US to start off the game with fleet on both sides rather than committing all fleet to one?

No. IMHO, I think it’s better for the US to spend like 100% against Japan for the first 5-6 rounds. Then spend only the minimal amount for fleet/air to help the UK keep Gibraltar if required. The UK and Russia keep Moscow/Cairo secure while the US pounds Japan. Then once Japan is economically knocked out, then the US switches.

I disagree with the 100% on Japan spending. Of course every game is variable, however from my experience, a strong presence in the Atlantic is essential for Allied victory.

If the German and/or Italian navy’s happen to survive a few rounds after an initial G1 Royal Navy wipe-out, and after a Taranto raid (or any other string of events in the Med), they can make an Atlantic crossing treacherous. And this becomes a real issue in those mid to later rounds where Operation Barbarossa is rounding its second summer and the Americans need to start putting pressure on the Western front. Essentially, if the Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow, the last thing that you want to worry about with the Americans is getting troops across the Atlantic. You want to completely control the Atlantic, have a free flow of troops.

Take the Atlantic, and make it undeniably owned by the Allies first, then start ramping up the pressure in the Pacific. A few aircraft carriers and a few planes over the first couple rounds is a nice way to begin the Pacific buildup, and still have to mobility to solidify control of the Atlantic.

You’re describing what I said which is the US spending on the Atlantic around round 5 or 6. And IF the Germany player is spending on navy and stuff in the Atlantic to go after Washington late game, of course react to that. I doubt a solid axis player would do that. I think that description already means the axis won’t win that board game. Just my humble opinion.

I took your comment as a call to build only on the Pacific side until round 5/6. And that is what I disagreed with, as my belief is that dominance of the Atlantic is an absolute must in order for thew Allies to put any pressure on the Western/Italian/North African Fronts. Dominance in the Atlantic is also fairly simple, if you contain it right from the start.

Just my opinion as well, the Americans game is very reactionary. Holding the Atlantic opens up many strategic options in Europe that can be, and sometime need to be, acted on quickly.