As far as I know (and that is just 1 way to do it), allies must first make a decision: fly the Indian RAF over to Africa or not. If you do it, Egypt is a whole lot better to defend but Calcutta looses its teeth.
If you don’t, Egypt should be lost and Japan will have Calcutta anyway (the RAF will only buy 1 turn respite for India -if at all).

Second, The allies must pay very close attention to (and understand) German build-strategies. Come round 2, Germany will have revealed its targets by positioning but especially by production. If London is not the target, UK should start a FTR-production in SA. And if German support for Italy looks very serious (lots of bomber production), an IC in Egypt is also necessary.

Third, UK must prepare to move its starting FTR/INF into Egypt asap. Experiment with this but you can have all FTR in Egypt by UK3. If stacking two more INF in Egypt will help you keep it, but will cost the UK a TRS, do it.

Last but not least, Russia can help defending Cairo RU3 (landing its aircraft there after attacking Iraq). RU4 they may need to leave again (defending Moscow), but it gives the UK an extra turn of putting 3INF + 2FTR there (max; 3INF produced in Egypt, 2FTR from SA).

Strategic rationale: the combined German Luftwaffe + Italian navy + land units cannot beat this defence. Sure, if they attack, UK + Russia will loose all their aircraft and land units there, but Italy will loose all its land and aircraft units as well and Germany looses as much or even more aircraft than UK + Russia combined. And still this does not give them Cairo. And, after producing a lot of bombers and loosing all but a few over Egypt, the Axis cannot ever hope to take Moscow anymore. In fact, the Red Army could be marching into Eastern Europe by now because so many German luftwaffe is produced and lost.

+1 to all and everything JDOW said!
(Well, in his above reply, that is ;-)). Really 100% how I experience a German advance into Russia.

@knp,
I calculated it like this, assuming Russia does not loose a single unit to Germany prior to its attack on Moskou (sounds harder than it actually is, believe me. Agreed, Russia must think ahead and do some pretty maths for this):

*Russia starts with 41 units in Europe and can produce;
*RU1 7INF + 4ART (37 IPC)
*RU2 7INF + 4ART (37 IPC)
*RU3 10INF Moskou + 2/3MECH Stalingrad (38/42 IPC)
*RU4 10units in Moskou (30+ IPC) including some ARM if possible to increase defensive value, assuming a GE5 attack on Moskou.

The total hits 86 units without Siberians or RAF.

There are of course many variables to income, so the total number of units in Moskou can be a bit more or less. The earlier Germany DOWs Russia,the more income Russia can have. Russia can take Persia or not (and/or Somaliland). Japan can nibble on Siberian IPCs. Etc. etc.

Anyway, Russia will, should and must have more than 75 units in Moskou. There are too many variables to discuss so I 'd like to leave it in the middle if over- or under estimated whether the Russians can get this to even 80+ by GE5.

In another game that I play that is much more historically accurate it is very clear that Germany, if defeated Russia, can never overcome the Naval Power of the allies. The best the Axis could do is ‘turtle up’ behind the Rhine. In the real war you have to understand that the USA never had the economical disadvantage it has in A&A. The USA alone, easily produced as much as Germany, Italy and Japan Combined. And her limits were not even reached yet, while those of the Axis clearly were. But would the allies have sued for peace? Difficult to say. The Liberation of France would happen no matter what but after that, if Germany could successfully entrench behind the Rhine, who knows…

My guess is NO. Japan would have been neutralized, France would have been Liberated, Italy would have been forced to Surrender and then, after Completely isolating the turtled up Germany, Russia would have been Liberated as well  :-).

For historical information, Capital Cities (Moscow) were not as important is it is in A&A. Loosing your capital can work two ways: it can either enrage the nation into more furious resistance or it can cause a serious drop of morale. France ‘surrendered’ after the fall of Paris, but the French also had much less left to defend after that since their production capacity was crippled by the axis advances.
Russia was a completely different story: ‘Scorched earth’ did not oly mean there was nothing left for the Germans to use during their advance into Russia, it also meant the Russians moved their production capacity into safety in the Urals and Western Siberia.
With the loss of Moscow, Russia would have lost only a small portion of it’s Industrial capacity (about 1/10 is my guess) and ‘only’ 3 to 6 armies. They would have had about 150 armies left (Russia organized their units in armies rather than corps). Reasons enough to fight on I think!

I don’t think Japan is too strong.
Well, ofc., compared to its historical counterpart, yes, but not in the balance of this game.

If the Victory Conditions would be 14 instead of 8/6, the allies would win all the time, so no, Japan cannot be too strong.
With the VC set to 8/6, both axis powers are too strong because the allies must focus (the USA its income) on 1 axis partner in order to achieve anything meaningful and, with much less to nothing from the USA, try to prevent the other from winning at the same time.

The allies are always able to achieve meaningful victories on the map they’re focusing on (so also on the Pacific map), but the axis power that is not getting the heat is then skyrocketing into someting uncontrollable, and then they will get their required number of VC…

The way I see it now is the USA has 2 options:
1. Focus on Japan. Japan will then quickly (within ~7 turns) be reduced to 50-60 IPCs income, at which point the USA must refocus to Europe, to prevent a German win. If they don’t (refocus), the allies will crush Japan into oblivion, but loose the game on account of German successes in Europe/ME/Africa. If they do (refocus), this will enable Japan to make a comeback and in the end, the allies end up way behind in economic situation, achieving nothing.

2. Focus on Germany. The Nazi’s advance east (all into the Middle East) will be halted after turn ~7 or so, and the allies will crush them. Japan however, will win on the Pacific. Nothing the allies can do against that anymore. In order to prevent this loss in the Pacific, the number of turns the USA can focus on Europe is very limited. Only 2, maybe 2½, but that’s about it. After that the USA must refocus on the Pacific again. So much for Germany first, but if timed and calculated very precicely, the allies may have a small window of opportunity to land in Western Europe and if they can land without being thrown back at once, this usually heralds an allied victory. I can’t stress it out too often, that the landing must be calculated and balanced very carefully because otherwise it fails. This is very hard but in short it comes down to buying only as much escorts as needed (depending on the German airforce) and the rest transports with men and equipment. Lots of transports. Also with the UK. The allies need at least 11 or 12 transports (total togehter) to make a landing during turn 4 (more if forced to land turn 5 because of whatever axis delay-tactics…). This is when Germany has invested a LOT into the Luftwaffe and the allies are forced to buy more escorts for their transports. If Germany has invested more into troops and keeps them west, the allies will need even more transports…

Maybe there is another option that may be the solution to the allied problems of late, but I never tried it because I always assumed it cannot work: spread the US’ s income evenly between the two maps… I very strongly assume this will not work, but if some1 thinks otherwise, please come out ;-).

Yeah, that’s what I am hoping for: at least a sophisticated reaction from the developers, saying that we (especially the league gamers) are all wrong. Nobody knows how to play the allies ;-). OR… they fix the rules and/or endorse or acknowledge some of the houserules indeed.

@Tolstoj:
You are absolutely right! I am perfectly fine with a WW2 game designed to be balanced. This means 1:1 that I’m OK with the allies not having as much production capacity and have less military forces as they historically did and the axis have even more military forces than they historically did, but I have problems with a WW2 game where all this is the case and time is also the axis friend… I am struggling with my love for A&A for that very last reason.

I am disappointed by the fact that the community had to come up with a bidsystem to give the allies a boost, and all we hear is that this bid system is not officially acknowledged. I can agree if the devs don’t like the bid-system, but then give us an official alternative, please. It is much needed!

@Young:

@ItIsILeClerc:

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.

The 20 IPC bid could easily be incorporated into a per turn bonus for the Americans…

War Bond Campaign
The United States receives IPCs per collect income phase equal to what game round it is, even when not at war.

Therefore the United States will reach 21 IPCs by round 6, and it’s all gravy after that. Besides, the Japanese get Kamikaze units implemented, but there is nothing to represent the economical dominance of the “awakened giant”?

Yeah, I like this kind of time-pressure on the axis a lot.

As a historical correct comparison of the production capacity of the Allies compared to that of the Axis:

1940        1941      1942      1943        1944          1945
Allies      40            60          123      150          180            190
Axis        35            50          70        80            70            60

And the above allied production increase was NOT because they took a lot of IPC-rich territories, but because they  allocated more and more of their production capacity to the war instead of ‘bread and games’. A flexibility the axis did not have as much (their economy already was streched to the limit)!
These ratios were almost set in stone. Not much any axis plans could have done about it. Except perhaps a successfull Sea Lion but even without London the allies would still have a 1945 production of 145 (IPCs if you want to call it that) versus that axis 60…

I agree with Young Grasshopper.

I think the developers overdid their balance effort (from ‘allies unbeatable’ in edition 1 to ‘axis nearly unbeatable’ edition 2) and we need an official correction. I have (personally) no fun in playing house rules that I know no1 else plays. Or, for that matter, only a handfull of people.

I remember I had a much better time with the allies when the axis in our group felt a certain time-pressure and acted accordingly. Nowadays, with the axis treating time as their ally (isn’t THAT weird???), the allied job is just too difficult.
I think it is the 8/6 VC indeed, but whatever the culprit is, the axis fear factor (time) needs to be introduced again. This is the least a WW2 game needs to offer. I mean, the very name of the game (WW2) implies a minimum of historical ‘correctness’ but even if only very very hard to find, if it’s a WW2 game there has to be at least 1 historical factor that is correct: time should not be the ally of the axis!

If reinstating the 14VC again makes this happen, than so be it but if this means the axis cannot win anymore (most likely), tone this down to 13VC or 12VC or whatever number will work. 8/6 clearly does not do it for most.

@Nippon-Koku:
I am looking forward to your allied essay :-). I know you advocate a (limited) Atlantic focus and it is currently also (still) my only hope for the allies. Yet I reckon the allies still need an extremely well calculated and balanced force in the Atlantic with extremely well co-operated production from the UK and USA. 1 ship built by the wrong ally, or simply just 1 too many or 1 too few, can mean the difference between failure and victory for the allies. I know this approach very well and I don’t get this balance right every time only because of the wide variety of strategies and the flexibility the axis have at their disposal. Let alone the limited time the allies have to do it and the fact that the dice can still kill the allied well-balanced fleet. Now imagine the UK and the USA are 2 different players…

Maybe a full KJF or P80E20 approach can also work but I have not enough experience with that. And since I don’t want to be forced into a Pacific-first line of thought, I don’t think I will anytime soon.
I know for sure though that I have no faith at all in a full KGF and only a very small amount of faith in a limited Pacific focus (only a few turns of 100% USA spending here). Played it a few times, only to see how incredible easy things become for Germany, while Japan cannot be reduced below 50-60IPCs per turn, even if they make a few mistakes…

In this game, it isn’t only about the weaker player being on the defence, but also the weaker side (even if played by a stronger player).
If the axis play a strong game without tactical errors, the allies have no place they can get a grip on. They can attack but will be driven off again and the axis will come out of it only stronger than before and gain the upper hand economically in the mean time. OR: the allies do get a grip on a certain map, but then the axis win on the other map…

What A&AG40 needs (as a whole, so it’s not just Japan), is the re-introduction of that fear factor for the axis. They should fear the passing of time again. They should really feel the pressure to win before turn 10 (I just picked an arbitrary number here) or else loose the game for certain.
As it is now, if playing as the axis, I personally do not fear the passing of time at all. I use it to crush the allied economy where they are not opposing the axis, always getting on top around turn 12 or so…

Three basic allied strategies:
1. USA puts more focus in Europe -> Germany has a hard time crushing/isolating Russia, Japan can grow into a monster.
2. USA puts more focus in Pacific  -> Japan struggles, but now Germany becomes the monster and can crush Moscow and/or the Middle East.
3. USA divides their focus evenly  -> The allies will not get any grip anywhere.

In those three situations, this is what the axis can make happen economically (IPCs per turn):
1. Japan gets >100. Germany and Italy ~70. Total axis 160-170, Total allies 140-150.
2. Germany + Italy will get to ~125 together, Japan struggles to keep 60. Total axis 175-185, Total allies ~160.
3. Never mind. Axis will get even closer to 200.

I know the economical situation is not the only thing that counts, but with the economical game, the allies do not have the military to drive the axis off somewhere to rebalance the economical situation. In such a situation, the side that is on top economically, will win if played out till the bitter end.
So in global, the allies have a focus-issue they don’t have when playing A&A Europe40 or A&A Pacific40. In both other games they have less to spend, but their income is less easily overthrown.

Therefore I daresay that the real issue with Global, is the income of the USA. In global their income is almost halved compared to what they have in each of the standalone games. I can see why that is because if the USA can spend in global what they have in A&AEurope + A&APacific combined, they can focus all that on 1 map and the axis can never win (much like the real war). One possible solution to that is to also split the USA economies AND their armies as well (built in the Pacific has to stay in the pacific). Same for Europe. To correct for such arbitrary rules, the USA should eventually be allowed to move parts of their navy and/or airforce from one map to the other but I haven’t yet figured out how…

I agree with the gentlemen before me.

To add a little food for thought about your second question:

Japan attacks turn1 (J1) is basically meant to conquer India + money Islands asap. Best read Cow’s thread about how-to.
Japan attacks turn2 (J2) usually means the same as J1, only a little delayed. With extra time to prepare, this is perfectly fine.
Japan attacks turn3 (J3), or even turn 4 (J4) is mostly used for other things than conquering India fast. Best example I know is the economic game, where Japan takes everything east of Moscow fast (including China), but does not conquer India as fast. Since India should be isolated and economically crippled, this is no problem.

The uncertainty in all those plans is, ofc, what the USA is going to do. If the USA is heavily focusing on Japan, then I think J1 is the best option for Japan. Thing is, turn 1 Japan cannot tell what the USA is going to do (unless you know your opponent well)…

@Gamerman01:

Come play a few games in the league and test your skills.  We have players of all skill levels and every skill level in between, and the rankings show you how good each player is, so you can cherry pick your desired competition.

I can tell you from what I’ve seen: the guys playing in the league are real good.
League games take the opposition you’ll get to the next level. Still depending on what tier your opponent is, but if you are confident, I’d challenge at least a tier 1 player. You can always drop down a few if needed ;-). I have played about 5 private games with a tier 3 player and I was very happy about the level of opposition. I must say though, I suspect my opponent’s status as tier3 is not quite correct, because he played only 2 league games (2014), which he both won. As axis, but still…

Anyway, if I had more time to play league, I definately would. So JamesA if you have the time to do it, I’d pick up Gamerman’s gauntlet 8-).

And apart from that,

there is a certain threat that forces Germany to attack: if they don’t, the allies take too much of Europe, possibly even Berlin.

But it’s still a very, very hard thing to beat with the allies. They must calculate, work very closely together and make no mistakes. Two different players for the UK and USA are almost guaranteed not able to work as closely together as required. Unless each player defeated the bomberstrat individually already!

Yeah I probably gave it too much words, I’m sorry :-D.
I just should have said that the surprise moves I made so far (in the past), were all killing blows for my opponent, where a more standard move would probably have lost me the game.

Given, my opponents were not aware (and thus unprepared) of the possibility of each particular trick and knowing they are mighty opponents indeed (well for my skill level anyway), they will probably not be tricked by the same surprise again.

@Kreuzfeld:

Most supprise moves are not as good as the regular move, this is why it is a supprise. I always take great care to check out any possible suprises. You should always check what happens if my opponent buys all air/subs/rs/tanks and what happens if my opponent just goes for one of my capitols/key terretories with everything he has(…)

I don’t agree with that, kreuzfeld :lol:.
A surprise move can be much more devastating than regular moves. That’s the very nature of a surprise. But ofc it takes some vision and/or calculation to test the waters (because some conditions must be met to consider setting one up).
Germany can even set up a surprise without risk; not spring the trap if they deem the allied positions too good and spring it if the allies are indeed out position.

Example: Germany looks like going for Moscow and marches all the way into Stalingrad, keeping the Russians honest in Moscow. As Germany, I could be planning to take Calcutta with this very army, allowing Japan to focus much more on their naval power. Ofc there are certain conditions that must be met before setting up such a surprise move should be considered, but if you can see what the enemy can do to you ~5 turns ahead, you’ll be able to set up surprises that’ll kill (given an opportunity, ofc).
By the way, knowing the (allied) playstyle of some of my opponents IRL, I could say to them about this particular example that they won’t know what I am doing for the first 9 turns because I know they will think I’m coming for Moscow and will be surprised by my Germany taking Calcutta while Japan grabs Hawaii to achieve victory in the Pac… All because I know them to focus a little too much on Germany with the USA (a little, but not a lot).

So yes, the possibility that the axis crush the allies after saying “you won’t know what I’m doing till turn 4” can either be a sign that your opponent (thinks he) can surprise you as much as him being a fool ;-). Either case, better plan for the worst: that he is not a fool (and knowing your opponent goes a long way here).