Friends and I bought 1941 edition a week ago and got addicted and just purchased this edition and this video has been very helpful to what my first moves might be. Game is like crack!
Haven't finished watching the video yet, but I just wanna drop by to thank you for making the video and tell you that I'll be playing a few games with my play group this week. I'll tell you how whatever strategy (or strategies if we get to play multiple games) I/my team/"The Allies" play (probably the one in this vid) plays out.
Anytime! I hope this video is helpful to you. I'm very curious to hear how things turn out with you and your group both in terms of what worked and what didn't. If there are things I've overlooked or the strategies I've outlined are more easily countered by the Axis than I would have supposed, understanding those deficiencies will help us further refine our Allied strategy.
Hey. Finally getting back to you on this like a week and a half later, but I got to sit down with my play group and grind out a game the other day. It was a 4-player game, with me taking the good ol' Commies. Used a bit of an odd, passive Russian opening to throw my axis friends off immediately. I may or may not have discussed this one with you previously: 1.) Send all Ukraine units to West Russia. 2.) Send all Russia Inf and Art to West Russia. 3.) Send the Archangel units and Russia tanks to Karelia to reinforce. 4, and here's the kicker.) Send the Russia Fighter and the Karelia Fighter to sink the Baltic Fleet. 5.) Send the Evenki Inf to Archangel. 6.) Standard stuff in the east/Atlantic. Send the Sub to the British Fleet, stack Yakut and send an extra Inf to Szechwan. The plan is to turn Caucasus into a dead zone for the unsuspecting German player, while leaving Karelia and West Russia well-defended enough to hold out for a turn. Noteworthy is that one of the Russian fighters were lost, but the German surface fleet was successfully sunk. Germany responded as hoped. Not having the Baltic Fleet gave them cold feet in diving on Karelia, and they were all too eager to take Caucasus and "declare gg" on turn 1. The British Fleet was sunk, but without the Cruiser Germany had to send the bomber and the Norway Fighter to win the fight and the only surviving naval unit was 1 submarine (thanks to some lucky dice rolling). Egypt did not fall, as our German player was too nervous to commit to a risky fight in Egypt without the bomber for support. Instead, they stacked Lybia, giving the British a chance to evacuate. Of course, Germany stacked Baltic States with an intimidating 7 Inf and 10 Tanks, also being sure to keep 3 Fighters in-range of Leningrad. A good amount of stacking would have to be done to hold the poor city for another turn. My UK/USA ally followed our typical Allies strategy, but we disagreed on some of the finer points. UK landed at Solon Islands, attacking the Japanese Fleet there. UK evacuated Egypt, moving the artillery south, ferrying the Inf+Tank to India, and sending the Fighter (along with the UK Bomber and the Indian Cruiser) to defeat the German Battleship (which had just finished defeating the SZ16 fleet). UK also dealt with the remaining German Sub in SZ7 with the Canadian Fleet (which had not been sunk on Germany's turn), and defeated the SZ61 Japanese Transport Fleet with the Indian Aircraft Carrier+Fighter. The fighter was sent to Szechwan in an effort to save the US fighter (and, by extension, the Russian Inf, the 2 US Inf and the UK Fighter itself) from the Japanese onslaught. Lastly, UK ferried the Great Britain fighters to Karelia. The hope is to hold it for a second turn before pulling back to West Russia. My friend's build irked me a bit though... A Destroyer+Cruiser to SZ7 (for a total of 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser and a Transport) and a Fighter to India. I tried arguing for the Aircraft Carrier, but he insisted on building it with America instead. (He was, however, willing to give the SZ13 Combined Fleet strat a chance, so it was better than nothing.) Japan got diced, failing to take Yunan and losing a fighter in the process. Other than that, nothing eventful happened. Japan rolled up to Burma and started pushing into China and Russia while also pulling back the fleet to... ... ...SZ61? That's right, the IJN decided to really go overboard in sinking the one UK Carrier. They didn't even go for Pearl Harbor. US responded by joining the UK Pacific Fleet at Solomon, evacuating China and building up the Atlantic Fleet with a pair of carriers. They even swung 3 of the 4 starting Fighters to meet the shiny new carriers (I think this was a bit of a bad move, but it was mostly a response to the timidity of the Japan player). Only really odd move here was the flying of the East US bomber directly to Karelia. *ROUND 2* I did the math in my head, moving everything I needed to Karelia so that I could either hold Germany off or take their Tank Stack down with me. I swapped Belorussia to prevent the Tank Stack from trying any shenanigans. I was able to spring my trap on Caucasus, using the Winter Cold to snare a good 3 Inf and an Art from the poor German player. I dead-zoned West Russia next, daring the Inf pair in Ukraine to try to take it. Germany stormed into Africa, wiping out my ally's Art in Sudan. The British Bomber in the Middle East was spared, fortunately. Unfortunately, Germany didn't take the bait, stacking Baltic States with a fearsome challenge: 17 Inf. 3 Art. 8 Tanks. 5 Fighters. 1 Bomber in range of Karelia (in Germany). No way in hell was I going to be able to hold that, even with a ton of luck. I very bluntly informed my teammate that we had to get out of Leningrad, and fast. UK pulled the fighters, rallying to West Russia after strafing the Inf blocker in Ukraine. My ally did a bit of a boneheaded move in Africa, charging Egypt (2 Inf + 1 Art) with 2 Indian Fighters and the Inf + Bomber left in the Middle East. To my great surprise (and Germany's great horror), not a single UK unit was lost in the attack, and Egypt was saved. UK also landed an Inf in a completely undefended France. Germany was clearly betting everything on the Karelia push succeeding. UK reinforced the Atlantic fleet and started fortifying India with some Inf (and a Fighter). Japan moved on China, swapping Burma with the UK. The early successes with holding China has mucked up the Japanese charge on Russia quite a lot. The IJN moves to SZ48, threatening the underdeveloped Pacific Fleet. The US has to pull the Pacific Fleet back to the West Coast and fortify it a bit to prevent total disaster. The Carrier ball charges into SZ13 along with 4 Fighters bound for Russia. To buy the Allies more time, America sacrifices its lone Pacific Transport to take Borneo. *ROUND 3* The Yakut Stack has to pull back to Evenki. The Karelia stack turns tail and runs to West Russia. Germany makes a foolish mistake, one you covered in your video actually. A successful attack on the UK Atlantic Fleet turns the mighty Luftwaffe into something of a "Luft Waffle." Every German Fighter is destroyed, reducing the once alarming German Air Force into a mere 1 Bomber and 1 (newly built) Fighter. UK finally sees a hole in the German strategy, a pair of unprotected tanks in Ukraine. The RAF pounces, making short work of the Germans before returning to the West Russia stack. They also swap the Middle East and push the Germans out of Africa. Unfortunately, the dive on the Tanks went a bit poorly, and 2 Fighters were lost instead of the expected 1. The guy playing UK/US is a bit of a risk taker... Stumped, all Japan can do is once again swap Burma and advance through a few more 1 IPC Russian/Chinese territories. Japan was rolled up to Novobrisk though, so I was going to have to stop ignoring them soon. Noteworthy is that the IJN was too out of position to retake Borneo, meaning that the sacrificed transport was well worth the cost. America started the conga line of Fighters to Russia. Somehow my teammate expected to ferry 3-4 Fighters a turn to Russia. I appreciated the effort but I think devoting essentially 100% of the US economy to the German Front may have been overdoing it a bit. *ROUND 4 AND BEYOND* The opening was basically done at this point, so I'll just give you a quick rundown of how things played out: Russia balled up in West Russia with the help of the RAF and USAF. Germany stacked in Karelia. Russia and Germany played the swap game in Ukr/Archangel/Belo. The USAF and RAF made the swap game a lot easier on Russia by strafing the German ground forces every step of the way, allowing Russia to take territory with 1 Inf, or even a Tank blitz. Japan continued the march towards Moscow and India, at odds with the allied air force and whatever troops Russia could spare. America continued shuttling planes to Russia each and every turn. Occasionally, Japan and America would send a sub or two to the Pacific to test the other, but the situation devolved into a stalemate. *THE WINNER* Eventually, Germany caved, and had to retreat from Karelia. The allies proceeded to stack Karelia and use it as a linchpin to seize Norway, putting a huge strain on the German economy (5 less IPC per turn between Norway, Finland and Karelia). This, coupled with the constant US/UK harassment of Western Europe/Northwest Europe/Southern Europe, brought Germany to its knees, ending the game in favor of the allies. Japan kept the pressure on Russia the whole time though, but was never able to break through thanks to the power of the large UK Air Ball (1 Fighter/Turn) and the positively massive US Air DeathBall (4 Fighters/Turn). All in all, I attribute the Allied victory to the early passivity of the Japanese player, whose withdrawal of the fleet early on bought the Americans the time to succeed in the bizarre 2 Atlantic Carrier Opening. *************************tl;dr************************** Russia stacked Karelia for two turns before withdrawing the West Russia and having a dead-zone-off with the Germans all game long. UK/US funneled fighters to Russia all game, abusing the central location of Russia to keep the Germans and Japanese from making any real gains. Japan had a slow start, giving the Americans time to set up an extremely slow strategy which allowed them to essentially spam Fighters all game. Allies Won. Let me know hat you Let me know what you think, I know it's a bit of a long post but tell me how you like it.
Thanks for that thorough rundown! Sounds like you had an interesting game. Ultimately, I know you were having trouble with the Allies and the Allies ultimately won this game so that's a good sign. Now, onto my analysis! Round 1: Interesting opening move for Russia. In retrospect, how do you feel about piling more units in West Russia and leaving Ukraine be? Do you feel that was more effective than attacking Ukraine, too? I do like a hit on Ukraine Turn 1, but extra troops in West Russia really had a big impact later on. What are your thoughts? Your Russian air force assault on the German Baltic fleet is definitely thinking out of the box. Do you feel that the move (which both helped England and pulled a German bomber and fighter West rather than East) which is pretty helpful to Russia. Looking back do you feel like those benefits are worth the loss of a Russian fighter? I like the UK's strategic awareness shown when they took advantage of their Suez Canal control to destroy the German Medit Navy early. Do you feel like the evacuation of Egypt on Turn 1 was beneficial? Japan was doing some things, but I didn't get the vibe that these units helped out much on the Indian front. Or were they necessary to trade Burma back and forth? With regard to the UK purchase, I would have liked to see the UK/US carrier strategy play, too, but it is what it is. We can't always count on Japan moving its fleet to SZ 61 because it's not a very good strategic position. On the other hand, the chance to take out a carrier is such a juicy opportunity that more than a few Japanese players will take the bait. Even if it was just for temporary impact, I like that the UK and US moved aggressively toward the Solomons on Turn 1. It's one more thing for Japan to worry about. A two carrier purchase for the US can work, but that means they don't have transports prepped for Turn 2. Round 2: Good foresight with regard to Leningrad. You've gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em, or so the saying goes. By having a stand-off with Germany Turn 2 and then recognizing afterward that you couldn't hold Turn 3, you saved your troops to fight another day. From what you've described, this proved to be an invaluable move as those units became critical later on. Betting on the stack or not, Germany's move to leave Western Europe undefended was not smart in my opinion. England can (as they did in your game) pop in with a single infantry. Sure, they'll lose that infantry next turn but now not only does England have a net gain of 3 IPCs (collect 6 for the territory, minus 3 for the sacrificed infantry) but Germany has to pull forces away from more important endeavors, but I digress. While not normally a fan of sacrificing transports, I support the US move on Borneo. It's worth 4 IPCs and follows the strategy of keeping Japan reeling. It's another distraction for them to waste a move or two to chase down while the Allies take care of more important business, as you aptly pointed out. Round 3: I'm glad to hear that our Allied navy trap came to fruition! The loss of all those fighters is devastating to Germany. Was the American navy also destroyed in the attack, or just the UK navy? It sounds like Japan was not being particularly effective this game. If they had not been so passive, do you think that would have noticeably impacted the results of your game? Let's say the roles are reversed next game. You're playing as Japan and you see the European theater shaping up much like it did in the game you described. Aside from not falling for the SZ61 trap, what move/s would you make as Japan to better deal with the developing situation?
To reply to your points: Not attacking Ukraine and committing the Russian Fighters to taking out the Cruiser/Transport may be the best way, in my opinion, to hold Karelia for as long as I did. I can't always count on Germany falling for the Caucasus trap, so it'll probably take some tinkering in TripleA to see whether the trap is what made the difference regarding Leningrad's survival. For the above reasons, and the salvation of the Egyptian units, I feel that the loss of one Russian Fighter was worth the extra breathing room time-wise (the main thing the allies are seriously lacking in this scenario). The pullback of the Egyptian forces was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allowed the UK to commit basically 95-100% of its resources to the Atlantic for the first 2 rounds (since the Egyptian Tank+Inf that was moved to India is basically 9 less IPC that Britain had to spend on reinforcements). But on the other, not holding the line at Egypt, or even attempting to dead-zone the territory, complicated the situation when Germany rolled in later. Britain even had to send the Indian Transport BACK TO EGYPT LATER ON TO STOP THE GERMAN DRIVE INTO THE AFRICAN IPCS (not sure if I mentioned this in the report or not). Because of that critical fact, I feel like the UK Transport could have been better used diving on one of the money islands to continue putting roadblocks in Japan's way. I attribute many of Japan's shortcomings to the player being a bit green. Personally, I would've stacked the Philippines/Japan Sea Zone(s) and spared only a Fighter or two and a destroyer to take out the Carrier (NCMing the planes to the Naval Stack). Our Germany player became extremely cocky due to my sacrificing Caucasus turn 1. He thought his victory was assured from the word go. With that in mind, it's not too surprising that Germany threw all of its fighters away and left France undefended. The German air force was crippled in an effort to take out ONLY BRITAIN'S Navy. By that point, the SZ12 US Fleet, thanks to the double carrier buy and moving the Pacific Fighters to the East Coast on turn 1, contained: -2 Carriers -Sub -Destroyer (to stop any nonsense with Subs) -4 Fighters -2 Transports. It goes without saying that the Atlantic US Fleet was effectively invincible at that point (to Germany, anyway). Most of Japan's army endlessly marched into the meat grinder that the US/UK Air forces were creating in the center of the map. If I were Japan, I would've focused more heavily on India. India did eventually fall before the game was through, but by that point it was far too late, as Germany was cornered in Germany/Italy/France, completely driven out of Russia. A few more tanks aimed at Burma rather than China/Siberia would've made Britain's life a lot more challenging, reducing the number of Fighters reaching Russia and the number of ground units reaching Europe each turn. Thanks for all the help though. AA42.2 might be a bit of a mess, but this strategy of holding Karelia has been the best I've ever fared playing strictly OOB (no bids).
After finishing the video, the only thing I really take issue with is taking the entire Indian fleet (the carrier/cruiser/fighter/transport) to kill the lone J transport/destroyer on turn 1. I find that just the carrier and the fighter are enough, and that the cruiser and transport find better use in either retaking Egypt. This keeps with the theme of "keeping pressure on Germany," because if Germany really wants Egypt and the African IPCs it's going to need to use the Mediterranean Battleship/Transport to send reinforcements. If Germany sends reinforcements to Egypt that gives Russia a breather turn, as that fleet is typically used to bombard Ukraine or Caucasus. As an added bonus, if the Medi fleet is pulled to the coast of Egypt for another turn the US Fleet may very well eliminate it on turn 2, saving the Soviets a great deal of agony. Good video though. I'd like to know what you think of a Turn 1 Carrier+Destroyer buy for Germany (the idea being to stave off the Allied naval buildup for another turn or two, buying the German Army more time to finish off the Russians). I suggest it because of the point you made about the turn 1 British Fleet being strong enough to dish out a great number of German planes if the latter attempts to engage on turn 2. With a Carrier+Destroyer backing up the attack, I feel like the boats could just be taken as casualties in the ensuing bloodbath, leaving G's air force alive to wreak further havoc and leaving Britain scrambling to get a fleet out.
All this is interesting but you assume that the Germans take out the Canadian Navy on G1. A far nastier move is for the Germans to take out the US Atlantic Fleet on G1 which completely ruins your strategy
To be more specific, those two german subs can easily take out the US Destroyer and two transports on G1 and that sets back your entire strategy by an entire turn because the Brits don't have the ground units to be a threat. That single turn is enough to cook Russia's goose.
Nice video... I don't have the rulebook in front of me, I was always of the impression newly built carriers enter the sea zone without any planes until a later turn... your example of loading planes on the shore onto a newly built carrier is specifically mentioned in the rules? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but found that wasn't my recollection (which could admitably be wrong).
Hi Mithrennon, while in at least one older version (Classic I think, but I'd have to double check to be sure) you can't, in this version you can. It's critical that England take advantage of this capability to rebuild its navy as quickly as possible. If it doesn't, it'll take an extra turn or two to really get back in the action. The Axis start off much stronger militarily so it's paramount that the Allies get their war machine in action as quickly as possible.
Another strategy I've been thinking about is assuming USSR takes West Russia on its first turn, for UK to use that territory as a landing base for its fighters from the UK on the way to India. This way, it strengthens USSR's defense while allowing those fighters to fly to India next turn if Japan threatens it.
Would flying WUS and EUS fighters to east Canada, then Iceland, then moscow work better? And pearl fighter to Australia, then India, then moscow? Or if india taken, to madagascar, then Caucus? 2-3 fighters on Moscow turn 3?
You would have to figure out a different 1st purchase to get a similar turn 2 move. Maybe CA, 2 FTR, TRN. And take CUS Inf and AAA to Morocco on turn 2. Don't need AAA in US pretty much at all.
I have recently watched a number of videos on the newer versions of Axis and Allies. I have my original game, which I haven't played since 93, unfortunately. The one thing I have noticed is that no one used the most powerful advantage the Allies have and that is to create a multi national force under a single player's control. For instance, US dumping bombers in England and giving the UK control or giving Russia control of the fighters sent to Moscow. This alone makes the difference. The Axis powers are too far apart to directly help each other. As long as the US keeps the Japanese fleet tied up and doesn't allow them to expand into the western hemisphere, the US is free to pump resources into Europe with little risk to itself. Both Germany and Japan need more infantry to push home successful attacks and hold the ground. Risking their tanks and aircraft could have short term gains, but long term losses. This means that they need three or four turns to move replacement infantry into position or lose tanks and aircraft. Germany and Japan can not afford to lose aircraft or , mostly for Japan, their capital ships. Crush the Germany air force and the Japanese fleet and the rest is mopping up.
@@LLMCxDak in the original rule set, you can place units in a multinational group under the control of one of the players. The original owner of the units can, however, disallow their units to be involved in an action. It's been some time since I've read through the rule set, which i did read multiple time. To distinguish the multinational units, the nation tokens, of all the nation's involved, are to be placed under the unit shacks. With only a handful of turns in the game, one would have to act quickly to set up this strategy.
@@Elderos5 That's interesting, I never knew you could combine different countries' armies to be controlled by 1 player in the classic version. It's not allowed in later versions, but it could make for a fun house rule to experiment with. Tho there should be limits to how many units from other countries that 1 player can control at once, so it isn't too op.
John were you in spring 1942 On the internet. Back in the late nineties/ early millennium. 4200 member. Is was ranked 16th Over all hit top 10 many times. #1 once. My name on there was Kirkmudstone
I played in a local league As well. 4 seasons. 4 play off appearances.... 3 Championship appearances .. 2 titles. 1 with the Allies. 1 with the Axis We are now working on getting more players. Ya need 8 to 10 at least for a good tournament This version here you can play on line. I will start next month Hope to see you out there!🙋♂️🌍
First off Germany has to take Africa , too many IPCs for Britain there and if things dont go well for Germany vs British fleet and Russia it can make up the difference for losses. If Britain holds onto it they can make up for those initial losses to Getmany. I have always as Germany hit Egypt as hard as I can and exploit it as quickly as I can , cause it pays off in long run. And if things go well vs Britain and Russia your in the drivers seat. Very hard for them to recover with the added IPCs Germany is getting from Africa. Usually forces America to come over and help out which allows Japan to exploit Russia in Asia.
I have always been able to win with Russia by buying tanks heavy from the start of the game. Either it makes Germany focus their attention elsewhere, or the front lasts long enough for your Allies to break their Eastern front.
It depends on how much the germans have left, and what the americans are doing. Remember you still have two fighters on land, so if you dump everything into navy you can get a aircraft carrier fully loaded, and two destroyers. However, I would try to make sure to position it so germany cant easly kill it
Soviet is clearly to weak. I think the game heavily favors the Axis. Give them a starting bomber in Moscow. Maybye also 1 free inf per turn (with or without capital) or let them buy some cheap infantry for 2 each per turn...
Russian bombers would be useless. Not to mention totally ahistorical. Might as well give them aircraft carriers. Soviet airpower in 1942 was minimal. What they SHOULD have is more armor, artillery, and AA guns to start with. More IPCs for their regions too. Agreed about your infantry ideas.
If the game was historical it whould never be fair Axis vs Allies, Allies whould have a HUGE advantage. Soviets should have more off everything. The "bomber in Moscow" is not my private idea, it's a game balancing method to let the USSR have some more attack power (but not to much, 1 unit can still only hit one enemy per turn). If adding IPC I whould put them in Russia/Moscow itself.
![Axis & Allies TIPS For Rookies [Part 1]](/img/n.gif)
Friends and I bought 1941 edition a week ago and got addicted and just purchased this edition and this video has been very helpful to what my first moves might be. Game is like crack!
Great! Welcome to the Axis and Allies family. I'm glad to hear my video was helpful for you.
Haven't finished watching the video yet, but I just wanna drop by to thank you for making the video and tell you that I'll be playing a few games with my play group this week. I'll tell you how whatever strategy (or strategies if we get to play multiple games) I/my team/"The Allies" play (probably the one in this vid) plays out.
Anytime! I hope this video is helpful to you. I'm very curious to hear how things turn out with you and your group both in terms of what worked and what didn't. If there are things I've overlooked or the strategies I've outlined are more easily countered by the Axis than I would have supposed, understanding those deficiencies will help us further refine our Allied strategy.
Hey.
Finally getting back to you on this like a week and a half later, but I got to sit down with my play group and grind out a game the other day. It was a 4-player game, with me taking the good ol' Commies.
Used a bit of an odd, passive Russian opening to throw my axis friends off immediately. I may or may not have discussed this one with you previously:
1.) Send all Ukraine units to West Russia.
2.) Send all Russia Inf and Art to West Russia.
3.) Send the Archangel units and Russia tanks to Karelia to reinforce.
4, and here's the kicker.) Send the Russia Fighter and the Karelia Fighter to sink the Baltic Fleet.
5.) Send the Evenki Inf to Archangel.
6.) Standard stuff in the east/Atlantic. Send the Sub to the British Fleet, stack Yakut and send an extra Inf to Szechwan.
The plan is to turn Caucasus into a dead zone for the unsuspecting German player, while leaving Karelia and West Russia well-defended enough to hold out for a turn.
Noteworthy is that one of the Russian fighters were lost, but the German surface fleet was successfully sunk.
Germany responded as hoped. Not having the Baltic Fleet gave them cold feet in diving on Karelia, and they were all too eager to take Caucasus and "declare gg" on turn 1. The British Fleet was sunk, but without the Cruiser Germany had to send the bomber and the Norway Fighter to win the fight and the only surviving naval unit was 1 submarine (thanks to some lucky dice rolling). Egypt did not fall, as our German player was too nervous to commit to a risky fight in Egypt without the bomber for support. Instead, they stacked Lybia, giving the British a chance to evacuate.
Of course, Germany stacked Baltic States with an intimidating 7 Inf and 10 Tanks, also being sure to keep 3 Fighters in-range of Leningrad. A good amount of stacking would have to be done to hold the poor city for another turn.
My UK/USA ally followed our typical Allies strategy, but we disagreed on some of the finer points.
UK landed at Solon Islands, attacking the Japanese Fleet there.
UK evacuated Egypt, moving the artillery south, ferrying the Inf+Tank to India, and sending the Fighter (along with the UK Bomber and the Indian Cruiser) to defeat the German Battleship (which had just finished defeating the SZ16 fleet).
UK also dealt with the remaining German Sub in SZ7 with the Canadian Fleet (which had not been sunk on Germany's turn), and defeated the SZ61 Japanese Transport Fleet with the Indian Aircraft Carrier+Fighter. The fighter was sent to Szechwan in an effort to save the US fighter (and, by extension, the Russian Inf, the 2 US Inf and the UK Fighter itself) from the Japanese onslaught.
Lastly, UK ferried the Great Britain fighters to Karelia. The hope is to hold it for a second turn before pulling back to West Russia.
My friend's build irked me a bit though... A Destroyer+Cruiser to SZ7 (for a total of 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser and a Transport) and a Fighter to India. I tried arguing for the Aircraft Carrier, but he insisted on building it with America instead. (He was, however, willing to give the SZ13 Combined Fleet strat a chance, so it was better than nothing.)
Japan got diced, failing to take Yunan and losing a fighter in the process.
Other than that, nothing eventful happened. Japan rolled up to Burma and started pushing into China and Russia while also pulling back the fleet to...
...
...SZ61?
That's right, the IJN decided to really go overboard in sinking the one UK Carrier. They didn't even go for Pearl Harbor.
US responded by joining the UK Pacific Fleet at Solomon, evacuating China and building up the Atlantic Fleet with a pair of carriers. They even swung 3 of the 4 starting Fighters to meet the shiny new carriers (I think this was a bit of a bad move, but it was mostly a response to the timidity of the Japan player).
Only really odd move here was the flying of the East US bomber directly to Karelia.
*ROUND 2*
I did the math in my head, moving everything I needed to Karelia so that I could either hold Germany off or take their Tank Stack down with me. I swapped Belorussia to prevent the Tank Stack from trying any shenanigans.
I was able to spring my trap on Caucasus, using the Winter Cold to snare a good 3 Inf and an Art from the poor German player. I dead-zoned West Russia next, daring the Inf pair in Ukraine to try to take it.
Germany stormed into Africa, wiping out my ally's Art in Sudan. The British Bomber in the Middle East was spared, fortunately.
Unfortunately, Germany didn't take the bait, stacking Baltic States with a fearsome challenge:
17 Inf.
3 Art.
8 Tanks.
5 Fighters.
1 Bomber in range of Karelia (in Germany).
No way in hell was I going to be able to hold that, even with a ton of luck. I very bluntly informed my teammate that we had to get out of Leningrad, and fast.
UK pulled the fighters, rallying to West Russia after strafing the Inf blocker in Ukraine.
My ally did a bit of a boneheaded move in Africa, charging Egypt (2 Inf + 1 Art) with 2 Indian Fighters and the Inf + Bomber left in the Middle East. To my great surprise (and Germany's great horror), not a single UK unit was lost in the attack, and Egypt was saved.
UK also landed an Inf in a completely undefended France. Germany was clearly betting everything on the Karelia push succeeding.
UK reinforced the Atlantic fleet and started fortifying India with some Inf (and a Fighter).
Japan moved on China, swapping Burma with the UK. The early successes with holding China has mucked up the Japanese charge on Russia quite a lot.
The IJN moves to SZ48, threatening the underdeveloped Pacific Fleet.
The US has to pull the Pacific Fleet back to the West Coast and fortify it a bit to prevent total disaster. The Carrier ball charges into SZ13 along with 4 Fighters bound for Russia. To buy the Allies more time, America sacrifices its lone Pacific Transport to take Borneo.
*ROUND 3*
The Yakut Stack has to pull back to Evenki.
The Karelia stack turns tail and runs to West Russia.
Germany makes a foolish mistake, one you covered in your video actually. A successful attack on the UK Atlantic Fleet turns the mighty Luftwaffe into something of a "Luft Waffle." Every German Fighter is destroyed, reducing the once alarming German Air Force into a mere 1 Bomber and 1 (newly built) Fighter.
UK finally sees a hole in the German strategy, a pair of unprotected tanks in Ukraine. The RAF pounces, making short work of the Germans before returning to the West Russia stack. They also swap the Middle East and push the Germans out of Africa.
Unfortunately, the dive on the Tanks went a bit poorly, and 2 Fighters were lost instead of the expected 1. The guy playing UK/US is a bit of a risk taker...
Stumped, all Japan can do is once again swap Burma and advance through a few more 1 IPC Russian/Chinese territories. Japan was rolled up to Novobrisk though, so I was going to have to stop ignoring them soon.
Noteworthy is that the IJN was too out of position to retake Borneo, meaning that the sacrificed transport was well worth the cost.
America started the conga line of Fighters to Russia. Somehow my teammate expected to ferry 3-4 Fighters a turn to Russia. I appreciated the effort but I think devoting essentially 100% of the US economy to the German Front may have been overdoing it a bit.
*ROUND 4 AND BEYOND*
The opening was basically done at this point, so I'll just give you a quick rundown of how things played out:
Russia balled up in West Russia with the help of the RAF and USAF.
Germany stacked in Karelia.
Russia and Germany played the swap game in Ukr/Archangel/Belo.
The USAF and RAF made the swap game a lot easier on Russia by strafing the German ground forces every step of the way, allowing Russia to take territory with 1 Inf, or even a Tank blitz.
Japan continued the march towards Moscow and India, at odds with the allied air force and whatever troops Russia could spare.
America continued shuttling planes to Russia each and every turn. Occasionally, Japan and America would send a sub or two to the Pacific to test the other, but the situation devolved into a stalemate.
*THE WINNER*
Eventually, Germany caved, and had to retreat from Karelia. The allies proceeded to stack Karelia and use it as a linchpin to seize Norway, putting a huge strain on the German economy (5 less IPC per turn between Norway, Finland and Karelia).
This, coupled with the constant US/UK harassment of Western Europe/Northwest Europe/Southern Europe, brought Germany to its knees, ending the game in favor of the allies.
Japan kept the pressure on Russia the whole time though, but was never able to break through thanks to the power of the large UK Air Ball (1 Fighter/Turn) and the positively massive US Air DeathBall (4 Fighters/Turn).
All in all, I attribute the Allied victory to the early passivity of the Japanese player, whose withdrawal of the fleet early on bought the Americans the time to succeed in the bizarre 2 Atlantic Carrier Opening.
*************************tl;dr**************************
Russia stacked Karelia for two turns before withdrawing the West Russia and having a dead-zone-off with the Germans all game long.
UK/US funneled fighters to Russia all game, abusing the central location of Russia to keep the Germans and Japanese from making any real gains.
Japan had a slow start, giving the Americans time to set up an extremely slow strategy which allowed them to essentially spam Fighters all game.
Allies Won.
Let me know hat you
Let me know what you think, I know it's a bit of a long post but tell me how you like it.
Thanks for that thorough rundown! Sounds like you had an interesting game. Ultimately, I know you were having trouble with the Allies and the Allies ultimately won this game so that's a good sign. Now, onto my analysis!
Round 1:
Interesting opening move for Russia. In retrospect, how do you feel about piling more units in West Russia and leaving Ukraine be? Do you feel that was more effective than attacking Ukraine, too? I do like a hit on Ukraine Turn 1, but extra troops in West Russia really had a big impact later on. What are your thoughts? Your Russian air force assault on the German Baltic fleet is definitely thinking out of the box. Do you feel that the move (which both helped England and pulled a German bomber and fighter West rather than East) which is pretty helpful to Russia. Looking back do you feel like those benefits are worth the loss of a Russian fighter?
I like the UK's strategic awareness shown when they took advantage of their Suez Canal control to destroy the German Medit Navy early. Do you feel like the evacuation of Egypt on Turn 1 was beneficial? Japan was doing some things, but I didn't get the vibe that these units helped out much on the Indian front. Or were they necessary to trade Burma back and forth? With regard to the UK purchase, I would have liked to see the UK/US carrier strategy play, too, but it is what it is.
We can't always count on Japan moving its fleet to SZ 61 because it's not a very good strategic position. On the other hand, the chance to take out a carrier is such a juicy opportunity that more than a few Japanese players will take the bait. Even if it was just for temporary impact, I like that the UK and US moved aggressively toward the Solomons on Turn 1. It's one more thing for Japan to worry about. A two carrier purchase for the US can work, but that means they don't have transports prepped for Turn 2.
Round 2:
Good foresight with regard to Leningrad. You've gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em, or so the saying goes. By having a stand-off with Germany Turn 2 and then recognizing afterward that you couldn't hold Turn 3, you saved your troops to fight another day. From what you've described, this proved to be an invaluable move as those units became critical later on.
Betting on the stack or not, Germany's move to leave Western Europe undefended was not smart in my opinion. England can (as they did in your game) pop in with a single infantry. Sure, they'll lose that infantry next turn but now not only does England have a net gain of 3 IPCs (collect 6 for the territory, minus 3 for the sacrificed infantry) but Germany has to pull forces away from more important endeavors, but I digress.
While not normally a fan of sacrificing transports, I support the US move on Borneo. It's worth 4 IPCs and follows the strategy of keeping Japan reeling. It's another distraction for them to waste a move or two to chase down while the Allies take care of more important business, as you aptly pointed out.
Round 3:
I'm glad to hear that our Allied navy trap came to fruition! The loss of all those fighters is devastating to Germany. Was the American navy also destroyed in the attack, or just the UK navy?
It sounds like Japan was not being particularly effective this game. If they had not been so passive, do you think that would have noticeably impacted the results of your game?
Let's say the roles are reversed next game. You're playing as Japan and you see the European theater shaping up much like it did in the game you described. Aside from not falling for the SZ61 trap, what move/s would you make as Japan to better deal with the developing situation?
To reply to your points:
Not attacking Ukraine and committing the Russian Fighters to taking out the Cruiser/Transport may be the best way, in my opinion, to hold Karelia for as long as I did. I can't always count on Germany falling for the Caucasus trap, so it'll probably take some tinkering in TripleA to see whether the trap is what made the difference regarding Leningrad's survival.
For the above reasons, and the salvation of the Egyptian units, I feel that the loss of one Russian Fighter was worth the extra breathing room time-wise (the main thing the allies are seriously lacking in this scenario).
The pullback of the Egyptian forces was a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, it allowed the UK to commit basically 95-100% of its resources to the Atlantic for the first 2 rounds (since the Egyptian Tank+Inf that was moved to India is basically 9 less IPC that Britain had to spend on reinforcements).
But on the other, not holding the line at Egypt, or even attempting to dead-zone the territory, complicated the situation when Germany rolled in later.
Britain even had to send the Indian Transport BACK TO EGYPT LATER ON TO STOP THE GERMAN DRIVE INTO THE AFRICAN IPCS (not sure if I mentioned this in the report or not). Because of that critical fact, I feel like the UK Transport could have been better used diving on one of the money islands to continue putting roadblocks in Japan's way.
I attribute many of Japan's shortcomings to the player being a bit green. Personally, I would've stacked the Philippines/Japan Sea Zone(s) and spared only a Fighter or two and a destroyer to take out the Carrier (NCMing the planes to the Naval Stack).
Our Germany player became extremely cocky due to my sacrificing Caucasus turn 1. He thought his victory was assured from the word go. With that in mind, it's not too surprising that Germany threw all of its fighters away and left France undefended.
The German air force was crippled in an effort to take out ONLY BRITAIN'S Navy. By that point, the SZ12 US Fleet, thanks to the double carrier buy and moving the Pacific Fighters to the East Coast on turn 1, contained:
-2 Carriers
-Sub
-Destroyer (to stop any nonsense with Subs)
-4 Fighters
-2 Transports.
It goes without saying that the Atlantic US Fleet was effectively invincible at that point (to Germany, anyway).
Most of Japan's army endlessly marched into the meat grinder that the US/UK Air forces were creating in the center of the map.
If I were Japan, I would've focused more heavily on India. India did eventually fall before the game was through, but by that point it was far too late, as Germany was cornered in Germany/Italy/France, completely driven out of Russia.
A few more tanks aimed at Burma rather than China/Siberia would've made Britain's life a lot more challenging, reducing the number of Fighters reaching Russia and the number of ground units reaching Europe each turn.
Thanks for all the help though. AA42.2 might be a bit of a mess, but this strategy of holding Karelia has been the best I've ever fared playing strictly OOB (no bids).
After finishing the video, the only thing I really take issue with is taking the entire Indian fleet (the carrier/cruiser/fighter/transport) to kill the lone J transport/destroyer on turn 1.
I find that just the carrier and the fighter are enough, and that the cruiser and transport find better use in either retaking Egypt. This keeps with the theme of "keeping pressure on Germany," because if Germany really wants Egypt and the African IPCs it's going to need to use the Mediterranean Battleship/Transport to send reinforcements. If Germany sends reinforcements to Egypt that gives Russia a breather turn, as that fleet is typically used to bombard Ukraine or Caucasus.
As an added bonus, if the Medi fleet is pulled to the coast of Egypt for another turn the US Fleet may very well eliminate it on turn 2, saving the Soviets a great deal of agony.
Good video though. I'd like to know what you think of a Turn 1 Carrier+Destroyer buy for Germany (the idea being to stave off the Allied naval buildup for another turn or two, buying the German Army more time to finish off the Russians). I suggest it because of the point you made about the turn 1 British Fleet being strong enough to dish out a great number of German planes if the latter attempts to engage on turn 2. With a Carrier+Destroyer backing up the attack, I feel like the boats could just be taken as casualties in the ensuing bloodbath, leaving G's air force alive to wreak further havoc and leaving Britain scrambling to get a fleet out.
All this is interesting but you assume that the Germans take out the Canadian Navy on G1. A far nastier move is for the Germans to take out the US Atlantic Fleet on G1 which completely ruins your strategy
To be more specific, those two german subs can easily take out the US Destroyer and two transports on G1 and that sets back your entire strategy by an entire turn because the Brits don't have the ground units to be a threat. That single turn is enough to cook Russia's goose.
i know, for some reason no one thinks about that move, even though its much more effective
@@ianchapman6254 correct!
Nice video... I don't have the rulebook in front of me, I was always of the impression newly built carriers enter the sea zone without any planes until a later turn... your example of loading planes on the shore onto a newly built carrier is specifically mentioned in the rules? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but found that wasn't my recollection (which could admitably be wrong).
Mithrennon of Aegwynn it's in the rule book
Hi Mithrennon, while in at least one older version (Classic I think, but I'd have to double check to be sure) you can't, in this version you can. It's critical that England take advantage of this capability to rebuild its navy as quickly as possible. If it doesn't, it'll take an extra turn or two to really get back in the action. The Axis start off much stronger militarily so it's paramount that the Allies get their war machine in action as quickly as possible.
Another strategy I've been thinking about is assuming USSR takes West Russia on its first turn, for UK to use that territory as a landing base for its fighters from the UK on the way to India. This way, it strengthens USSR's defense while allowing those fighters to fly to India next turn if Japan threatens it.
Germany takes its turn before the UK and will likely have reconquered West Russia by the time the UK goes.
Would flying WUS and EUS fighters to east Canada, then Iceland, then moscow work better? And pearl fighter to Australia, then India, then moscow? Or if india taken, to madagascar, then Caucus? 2-3 fighters on Moscow turn 3?
That could certainly help.
You would have to figure out a different 1st purchase to get a similar turn 2 move. Maybe CA, 2 FTR, TRN. And take CUS Inf and AAA to Morocco on turn 2. Don't need AAA in US pretty much at all.
I have recently watched a number of videos on the newer versions of Axis and Allies. I have my original game, which I haven't played since 93, unfortunately. The one thing I have noticed is that no one used the most powerful advantage the Allies have and that is to create a multi national force under a single player's control. For instance, US dumping bombers in England and giving the UK control or giving Russia control of the fighters sent to Moscow. This alone makes the difference. The Axis powers are too far apart to directly help each other.
As long as the US keeps the Japanese fleet tied up and doesn't allow them to expand into the western hemisphere, the US is free to pump resources into Europe with little risk to itself. Both Germany and Japan need more infantry to push home successful attacks and hold the ground. Risking their tanks and aircraft could have short term gains, but long term losses. This means that they need three or four turns to move replacement infantry into position or lose tanks and aircraft. Germany and Japan can not afford to lose aircraft or , mostly for Japan, their capital ships. Crush the Germany air force and the Japanese fleet and the rest is mopping up.
well in the newer versions players cant control other players units
bob helger in the old one also not .. :)
I know I'm necroing but did you not even read the rulebook?
@@LLMCxDak in the original rule set, you can place units in a multinational group under the control of one of the players. The original owner of the units can, however, disallow their units to be involved in an action. It's been some time since I've read through the rule set, which i did read multiple time. To distinguish the multinational units, the nation tokens, of all the nation's involved, are to be placed under the unit shacks. With only a handful of turns in the game, one would have to act quickly to set up this strategy.
@@Elderos5 That's interesting, I never knew you could combine different countries' armies to be controlled by 1 player in the classic version. It's not allowed in later versions, but it could make for a fun house rule to experiment with. Tho there should be limits to how many units from other countries that 1 player can control at once, so it isn't too op.
John were you in spring 1942
On the internet.
Back in the late nineties/ early millennium.
4200 member. Is was ranked 16th
Over all hit top 10 many times.
#1 once. My name on there was
Kirkmudstone
I don't believe so. That was right around the time I was first introduced to Classic. Played a lot in those days but only ever in person.
I played in a local league
As well. 4 seasons. 4 play off appearances.... 3 Championship appearances ..
2 titles. 1 with the Allies. 1 with the Axis
We are now working on getting more players.
Ya need 8 to 10 at least for a good tournament
This version here you can play on line. I will start next month
Hope to see you out there!🙋♂️🌍
First off Germany has to take Africa , too many IPCs for Britain there and if things dont go well for Germany vs British fleet and Russia it can make up the difference for losses. If Britain holds onto it they can make up for those initial losses to Getmany. I have always as Germany hit Egypt as hard as I can and exploit it as quickly as I can , cause it pays off in long run. And if things go well vs Britain and Russia your in the drivers seat. Very hard for them to recover with the added IPCs Germany is getting from Africa. Usually forces America to come over and help out which allows Japan to exploit Russia in Asia.
I have always been able to win with Russia by buying tanks heavy from the start of the game. Either it makes Germany focus their attention elsewhere, or the front lasts long enough for your Allies to break their Eastern front.
How hard do u think it is to rebuild the British navy after turn 1??
It depends on how much the germans have left, and what the americans are doing. Remember you still have two fighters on land, so if you dump everything into navy you can get a aircraft carrier fully loaded, and two destroyers.
However, I would try to make sure to position it so germany cant easly kill it
i like to float UK fighters into moscow from india
Soviet is clearly to weak. I think the game heavily favors the Axis. Give them a starting bomber in Moscow.
Maybye also 1 free inf per turn (with or without capital) or let them buy some cheap infantry for 2 each per turn...
Russian bombers would be useless. Not to mention totally ahistorical. Might as well give them aircraft carriers. Soviet airpower in 1942 was minimal. What they SHOULD have is more armor, artillery, and AA guns to start with. More IPCs for their regions too. Agreed about your infantry ideas.
If the game was historical it whould never be fair Axis vs Allies, Allies whould have a HUGE advantage.
Soviets should have more off everything. The "bomber in Moscow" is not my private idea, it's a game balancing method to let the USSR have some more attack power (but not to much, 1 unit can still only hit one enemy per turn). If adding IPC I whould put them in Russia/Moscow itself.