You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Yeah, I am not a fan of an IC on India. It basically becomes a free complex for Japan, since 3 units a turn isn’t enough to stop them. I’d rather buy 3 dice.

If you focus so much of Russian offense against Germany, are you basically trying to trade Moscow for Berlin? The main reason I build planes is the eventual need to attack the Japanese (Since I find defensive stacks almost never work.).

I just want to have one game where Axis takes Greenland.

I tried buying an Italian carrier once. It was an interesting strategy, and eventually helped to solidify the Suez, which allowed me to get Japanese ships in the Med to defend them even more. But I think the problem is that in the end, the loss of ground troops to buy it, meant the allies could afford to purchase more air or ships to wipe it out. True, Japan was able to help them, but that’s because my opponents were not as aggressive about taking them out as I would have been. Thankfully my opponents don’t value Africa as much as I do, so I usually win it regardless of which side I’m playing. And them playing around in the Pacific really helps me out as Axis in Africa, be it Germany, Italy, or Japan that takes it - it’s usually a toss up for me.

Initially, SZ 12 is pretty safe though, because you can combine US and UK navies. Then once I build up the proper navy/air force, I hit the Italian navy. But I like to get troops to Algeria asap to stop the Italian NO. Usually by US2.

If Japan pushes hard through the southern route, then that’s usually when I send US troops from Africa to Syria. But usually I can delay India being held by counterattacking with Russia. My last game I even brought 2 UK bombers to Syria (After they wiped out the med fleet) to help dead zone India. You’re most certainly not going to stop a determined Japan from taking it, but you can delay them. Also, for them to hit India hard early, they are usually making less gains somewhere else. People claim you can ignore China, but that’s a load of crap. :D

The more I talk about this, the more convinced I am about buying air for Russia instead of tanks. I’ve found one of the best ways to counter Japan, is taking advantage of a good stack of air units to assist your infantry in attacking them. You can’t win a defensive war when they have 10 planes - you have to attack them after they gain a new territory. This forces them to slow down and let more infantry catch up, which buys you even more time for the Anglo-Americans to do their thing. But I’m still on the fence over whether to buy fighters or bombers….I’m still leaning towards bombers, because without the 6 range, you can’t as easily cover the west and east front. I used to get by just fine with fighters in Revised though, I guess. Maybe next game I will give it a shot (And try out my Balkans shuck.).

I’ve been trying to explore more Pacific play on the Allies’ part, and actually have employed a little of what was mentioned earlier, with putting bombers on Western USA. I usually have done it to counter Japan easily taking away the second US NO.

I’ve looked into using lots of bombers to try and take out Japan’s navy, and though they can be pretty effective for their cost, it still takes a crap-ton to really pull it off. You’d need like 10-15 bombers to take out a decent sized navy (assuming a couple battleships and a couple carriers, with some fodder). If USA poured all of their money into bombers, it would take 3-4 turns, and they’d lose most of the bombers.

Maybe if you used the SZ 44 fleet with a couple extra ships, you could try and split their fleet, and then bomb the best target. You’d need to buy at least a transport or two, though, otherwise there’s little threat.

But then I think about the strength of taking Italy, or Balkans, or France, and dropping 8 troops per turn, and it just sounds so much better than playing around with Japan….

One thing I was trying to figure the logistics for, is UK/US shucking troops to Balkans. The problem is you’d need like 9 transports, to shuck 3 transports worth of troops a turn (swapping 3 transports with each other per turn between SZ 12 and 14, and the other three picking up from Canada and UK and dropping in Algeria.). But now I think I have a decent idea. USA would defend SZ 14 with its navy, and UK would defend SZ 12 (Both navies would need to be able to overwhelm German air assaults.). You could shuck 8 troops per turn, by spending one turn moving troops from Algeria to Libya, and then ferry them across the Med. This would only require 8 transports and would get you 4 transport loads per turn.

Of course, taking France is soooo much easier, and you’d certainly take it if it was possible.

Another strategy is to delay a turn, and drop 8 transports on France in one turn. But I like the Med shuck idea, because it forces them to have to defend 3 territories, and they almost certainly won’t be able to defend Balkans no matter what they do. And any France defenders can’t be used to counterattack Balkans, so Germany won’t have as much to counterattack with, and Italy would risk losing their capital if they counterattacked.

Funny how in the war, Japan stalled out in Burma! :D

I think if Japan went heavy southern route, I would consider bringing some American aid. But I usually try to rely on Russia to hold in. In fact, I usually try to retake India, which is why I like having the bombers (Though fighters can reach from Caucasus.). My opponents that tend to prefer the Siberia route, with transports and an IC in Manchuria. But maybe that’s because I’ve given them such a rough time over India in the past.

But it does weaken my Russia having to send away so many infantry. If I can’t take France or Italy with UK/USA, then I’m probably in big trouble, since Germany can send more troops East. One thing I’ve thought of doing, is getting 6-8 US transports on SZ 12, and having the troops ready to fill them all. Then you can do a really big landing if needed, with 8 inf 8 tanks. The threat alone won’t let them send as many troops to Russia.

I also, when feeling bold, I like to bombing raid Italy, not Germany, to really make them a non-factor, and give them a rough time defending themselves.

One thing I don’t do, is go for tech, which is maybe something I should be doing. The last time I did, I bought two dice, and didn’t have a tech by turn 8. Whereas my opponents will buy one die, and roll a 6 the first turn! :D I just hate bringing the random factor into it, so I tend to avoid them. But early on, I often am stifled by UK’s production limit, so perhaps that would be the ideal moment for me to buy dice.

Oh, and about carriers, this is my opinion: The problem with carriers, starting with UK, is that I often need to land my planes off the carrier. And as I said, I like to buy cruisers so that they DO help me in my land battles (Which are pretty much never inland as UK.). The same goes for USA - I usually use my planes to defend territory that UK took (Like France), or to defend in Asia. I used to buy carriers if I was trying to take on Japan, but destroyers are better now, for that. A carrier is also terrible in an offensive naval battle, which limits your options.

I do play with the straight closed.

I also think, as I said, that the game is more balanced than Revised was, so I’m not complaining about balance. Granted, I never played with bids in Revised either, so I’ve never really been hung up over imbalance.

And why bring Risk into this? As if A&A itself is even close to being an accurate representation of WWII history!! :D

Unfortunately, I can’t ever get anyone to play the more accurate ones with me, or I’d be playing those instead. I have a game of Unconditional Surrender I manage to coerce my wife into playing every now and then. We started the game last November and aren’t even past Summer 1940!

So here I am trying to work on my A&A strategies instead, since I want to see if there is perhaps a better meta for the allies that I haven’t tried.

Sorry, I was talking about the 1941 setup here. Attacking Finland is 5 infantry and 1 artillery vs. 2 infantry, and Norway has 2 infantry. Usually I take it with just 1 casualty. It does cut off counterattack options because of sending all those infantry away, but that extra 2 income is a huge blessing for Russia. Even better if you can manage to take Norway as well!

I guess Germany could stack units on Finland, but usually they go for SZ 2, so they have to land in Norway, and so they usually opt to protect it with some infantry. Maybe transporting there is an option, but I haven’t seen Germany do it before. I guess Germany could attack Finland with 2 infantry (From Norway) and planes on G2. I guess it’s doable, but may come at a cost.

If you take Finland, and UK takes out the German navy, then they don’t usually have a large enough force to take and hold Karelia on G2.

I know Germany can take Karelia turn 1, and eliminate that infantry stack. But I personally think this is an inferior move for Germany, since you waste your chance to wipe out most of the British navy by sending so many planes to take Karelia. No one I play does it, anyways.

But actually, maybe that is another reason why the bomber is valuable to purchase R1 - It can help with taking Norway. That extra 5 IPC’s is a godsend for Russia if they can get it. Granted, it doesn’t always work out that way, since you usually need to use those forces to retake Karelia.

But part of me is wondering if it would be better to go all out tanks and infantry, have UK take Norway, and push hard for the +10 NO.

After playing a few games of Anniversary Edition, I was convinced the Axis seem to have an advantage in this version, and after getting on these forums I realized it wasn’t just me!

Godzilla getting 10!!! planes, Russia getting 1 tank and no planes, England and US having 0 battleships after G1/J1……talk about crazy! I like the whole concept of Axis starting off with more power but less economy, but I think the issue is that because of Godzilla and Axis having better NO’s, the Allies can’t just hold out and survive and then let their economic advantage turn the balance - If they do that, they will LOSE the economic advantage before they know it. The Allies have to fight hard and make gains, or they will easily lose their economic advantage (Especially UK. Their NO’s are absurd.).

But, this post is not about the balance issues, but to discuss how to overcome them. Honestly, though the Allies have the disadvantage, I actually feel it’s much more balanced than Revised edition is. I also don’t want to play without NO’s, since I love the extra dynamic they add to the game.

Personally, it’s my opinion that going all out in Europe is the best strategy for the Allies, mostly because of Italy. My reason for thinking that, is because Italy’s NO’s seem to be by far the easiest to stop. Whereas if you don’t stop them, Italy goes from being a very small factor, to actually becoming a problem. The Pacific has a lot of NO’s to be gained/lost, but it seems to take a massive investment to accomplish anything.

Typically what I do with USA, is place my transports/navy on Sea Zone 12, and move my purchased ground units from Eastern US to Eastern Canada, where they can be transported to Algeria each turn, once you pay the 1 turn moving them. Pretty much the same thing I did in Revised. UK doesn’t change much either, from my old Revised strategy, and I build up 4 transports + navy.

But there’s more to it than just that, now. For example, what to do about the Italian navy? What ships do you purchase for UK/USA? From my calculations, destroyers are the best bang for their buck, but for UK I have also been buying cruisers for some bombardments (But even at the reduced cost, Battleships don’t seem worth it. Are they?), and sometimes a carrier. But the carrier requires me to keep planes there, which I don’t necessarily want to do.

Also, where to park the UK navy? I tend to keep it in range of Sea Zone 5 to keep a threat on the Eastern front, but I think next game I might try having them sit at Sea Zone 12 with USA, to threaten Italy/Balkans/France. One very large issue I’ve had, is that since Germany is filthy rich but can only produce 10 units (Unless they bought an IC, which my opponents never do.), they buy a lot of fighters/bombers, which forces me to buy even more navy. I think if I combine the US and UK navies, it will ease that burden a lot, as well as put them at a further range.

But what about sending troops to Africa and into Asia? Worth it? I’ve thought of trying to send US tanks, but infantry would be too slow to make a difference I think.

But what I am really unsure about, is what to do with Russia. My typical strategy has been to buy 2-3 bombers over the course of the first 3-5 turns, and the rest infantry and a tank or art depending on any extra change. Then I funnel 2-3 infantry every turn into Asia (Persia or China depending on the situation. The reason I like the bombers, is they can help in China, Siberia, India, and Eastern Europe, depending on the need, and they are not lost when capturing dead zones.). But they are costly, so I’m still on the fence about their value. Maybe tanks would be the better option, but I just hate not having planes for capturing dead zones, because then you have to lose tanks and/or artillery (I’m not a fan of artillery and only buy them when I have 4 IPC’s left over. I just find tanks to be a superior buy.). Once I have my 2-3 bombers, I usually buy mostly infantry with a few tanks (The amount of tanks vary depending on my losses. Usually 2 or 3, sometimes 4.).

But what about fighters? The one issue with bombers is they don’t help you hold key defensive positions. I’ve thought of maybe buying them instead of bombers, but then range becomes more of an issue.

Another thing I have been doing, is sending my Karelia units to take Finland turn 1. I find that stacking infantry on Karelia leads to their death without many hits in return, so I prefer to set up for a counterattack, and take some territory while I’m at it. Other than that, I don’t usually do any other attacks on R1.

Eventually, once Godzilla shows up, I basically have to focus 100% of my efforts to holding them back, and so hopefully the Allies were able to keep Germany and little brother at bay by that point.

I’ve read about some people purchasing navy in the Pacific as USA, and I’m wondering if it’s really worth the investment. It’s 22 IPC’s just to fill 4 transports with tanks/infantry every turn, so that leaves room for like 3 destroyers a turn if you choose to buy them. But at least for the first two turns, I need to buy navy in the Atlantic, so it seems like forever before you could put together any fleet of note in the Pacific. My mentality is that every American boot you put into Europe, is 1 more boot that Russia can put into Asia. When I play as Axis, my opponents have always bought fleet in the Pacific, and I always love it, because it takes them like 500 turns to put any real threat on me, and by then Little Brother is making 20+ IPC’s.