@USS:

I would like to add that I haven’t played without National Objectives so maybe my advice means nothing. The US benefits from NOs a lot, so maybe that will help the Allies?

Actually, the allies lose their National Objectives quickly, whilst the Axis attain (and keep)  theirs.  This makes playing with National Objectives more advantages to the axis.

Overall, no NOs means IPC income is less for all involved.  Units are more valuable, especially reusable ones (like planes and transports).  Once the allies make this initial investment(s) in these type of units and does not lose them, the can have a fighting chance in the game.

The Axis do have an advantage. Japan 1941 is a beast.
I do reccomend using National objectives.

We let China be controlled by The Soviet 1941 and use money (starts with 7 ipc and same movement/build options). If hoj watt give China objektivet "No foreign ally in China except starten fighter inom +1.
It helps China a lot.

I suggest adding a Soviet AA in The far East too.

The most effective allied strategy is to KGF.  For this main reason, Germany should fatten up and not lose the war by ensuring many infantry as part of their buys.  Japan will be unstoppable by round 5 (at the latest) since There is no good way to slow Japan enough that really makes a difference.  Japan can even fly a ftr or two to Europe to help keep the allies off Fortress Europe.

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

Thinking about this comment, imagining how this would go:

“I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 12.”
“No way, I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 14.”
“Chump change, I’ll play Axis against an Allied bid of 15.”
“All right, I’ll take the Allies with a 15 bid.”

-Midnight_Reaper

As this topic has fallen asleep, I want to discuss the allied bidding strategies in aa50-41, no tech, low-luck, bid: 13 IPC

I - Russian fighter

a) fighter on the western front, maybe on Caucasus to eventually kill the German transport in the med or to Karelia to make a German assault to expensive (high losing risk and forgoing too many other targets) and eventually killing the lone German transport (if the cruiser attacked the UK destroyer)

The 3 IPC left can be used for any allied country, e.g. an infantry in Egypt

b) fighter on the eastern front to Buryatia to kill the transport in SZ 62

b1) With 3 IPC go to the US and buy an infantry on the Philippines, land the fighter there. 3 Inf + 1 Fighter is hard for Japan lacking one transport and having no shore bombardment
b2) With the 3 IPC go to UK, e.g. Egypt, land in Yakut und go to the western front against Germany
b3) With an infantry bid in Burma or India: land in Yunnan. Yes, this is a sacrifice, but 3 Inf + 2 Fighters just allow the Japanese to clear the country, but probably not conquer it. This will slow the Japanese very much in moving against India.

II Anti-Manchuria

Bid: 1 Inf to Buryatia and 1 tank to Soviet far east and one to Stanovoj C.

attack Manchuria with 4 Inf + 2 Tanks - 2,5 units left is the expected result in low luck, means 2 tanks or 2 tank + 1 inf
a hard punch against Japan but no bid for Africa/Europe

III-UK fleet

IIIa destroyer in SZ2

While SZ 2 is still attractive, only 2 subs + fighter + bomber is a safe deal.
Which means Germany has to sacrifice one fighter in SZ 12 for at least one battle round to secure the Italian fleet.

IIIb destroyer in SZ12

in SZ 12 the italien fleet is endangered severely so Germany must attack here.
both attacks, SZ 2 with 1 sub+fighter+bomber and at the same time SZ12 with sub+2 fighter make both somewhat risky, probably losing a fighter for Germany too.

the 5 IPC remaining will probably be a UK tank in Egypt or a Russian tank on the front against Germany

IIIc a sub in SZ12 and a sub in SZ 35

the one in SZ 12 is to threaten Italy, while the one in SZ 35 wants to harrass Japanese ships or lone transports

Buying both at the same time is one option, the other is buy only of of those subs and some ground units

IV - pro Russia

buy any units for Russia for 13 IPC placing them on the front with Germany

V pro UK

buy any units for 13 IPC for UK, maybe to strengthen either India oder Egypt/Africa

Have I missed some good allied bids ?

@Argothair:

Gain 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control at least three of the following territories:
Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France, and/or Gibraltar.

You’re right, again. I apologize for the mistake. OK, so even if you control Gibraltar and Morocco, Italy could conceivably collect one of its NOs. That’s important, because it means that if you’re not at least trading France with the UK, then taking Egypt back from Italy is a 9-IPC swing. I would say that in roughly half of your games, you’re going to have an opportunity to retake Egypt a turn or two before you can wisely/safely start trading France, so that’s an important rule that makes fighting for Africa more attractive than I had originally realized.

I am glad I was able to clarify the Italian National Objectives.  The $5 NO is very big for ‘little brother’ as that’s a 50% increase from their base income of 10 IPCs.

@Argothair:

Surely you can further attack Russia underneath (sz16).  That can wait until round 2 or so, once a few units have eliminated the UK forces in north Africa.

I don’t fully understand what you’re trying to say here. If you’re saying that Italy can use its Med fleet partly to ferry troops to Africa and partly to attack Russia, well, sure – but then your attack on Africa will be less effective. A full attack on Africa requires the use of at least one transport for at least three turns, so that you can ferry to Egypt, then ferry to Ethiopia, then ferry to South Africa. If you don’t have the transport available, your attack will be slower, and you’ll earn less income from your attack.

Along the lines of your summary below:
strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio”

If the allies do not move units into Algeria (or are not set up to do so), then the Axis do not need more than 2 turns of transports (Germany round 1, Italy round 1, Germany round 2, Italy round 2… maybe, maybe not)

@Argothair:

I propose that NO German or Italian planes will be lost in Africa if a proper retreat is made.

I mean, possibly, if you are both skillful and lucky about your retreat.

A safe Axis retreat is not as difficult as you may deem.  If the odds are against you holding, play safe, fall back either into Africa further or into Trans-Jordan on the way to pressuring Russia thru Persia.  At the very least, you will now force Russian units to kill your African units.  Not a good thing for the allies (or Russia).

@Argothair:

It is interesting to see you try to put an exact cost on everything.  There are the ‘costs’ of free/original units that are not costing a country anything further versus newly purchased/added units.

I certainly find it interesting! I acknowledge that all costs are only crude estimates, but I find that the effort of at least trying to put a numerical price on my tactics helps clarify my thinking. Thank you for helping me do that! As far as original units not ‘costing’ anything, I think that’s a more convincing argument when it comes to underpowered units like cruisers, or ill-placed units like the Australian destroyer. Sometimes a unit is comparatively useless, so any use you manage to put it to is ‘free’ relative to your (near-zero) opportunity cost of leaving it in place. However, the infantry, tanks, and planes that start in Europe (or could easily be evacuated to Europe from north Africa) are nowhere near useless – they’re perfectly useful for the Barbarossa (eastern Europe) campaign, and if you divert them away from Barbarossa campaign, you will feel the burn.

Hence it is very hard to accurately tally these costs/value of these units.  When we think of the Med fleet, we look at how much damage it will do when it is destroyed.  Will it cost the allies 3 planes?  Perhaps a couple of destroyers and a plane?  As the Axis, we want to make it as costly as possible, sometimes even moving a Japanese carrier into SZ15/SZ16 to help protect that fleet.

@Argothair:

What are the allies going to be doing with their forces if they do not go into Africa?  A defensive Germany can delay any effective D-Day for a few rounds.

Well, that’s a fair point, but even if you don’t literally invade France, having extra infantry/transports available with which to threaten an early D-Day still forces Germany to garrison France (and NW Europe, and Italy, and the Baltic States, etc.), and that pulls troops from the eastern front, which allows Russia to make some favorable trades. One set of troops and transports that are focused and stockpiled in London can force Germany to defend four or five territories, which is very efficient for the Allies. Those same troops and transports committed to Africa and spread out across the African territories don’t require any particular German defense other than a token roadblock of 1 inf in Libya followed by 1 inf in Egypt.

True.  You are describing the main issue that the allies are forced to overcome.  How to help the Russians as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Bringing the fight to the short lines of supply in western Europe might tie up some units, but are short term gains that the Germans can usually absorb moreso that the allies.  If Japan flies some planes (2-4 fighters) to Europe by round 3 and 4, this greatly helps German fend off the usual KGF allies strategy employed.

@Argothair:

My take is that a minimal investment by the axis can return much, especially early.  It is THEN that these units can be brought back out of Africa if the allies have decided to not any units to this theatre.

That may be. The strategy of “send a small mission to Africa so that you can exploit any opportunities that arise there, but be ready to retreat at a moment’s notice, and keep an eye on the cost-benefit ratio” strikes me as way more useful than “send a steady stream of units to Africa because you can’t afford to lose it no matter what.” On the forums, I think I see people recommending the “win Africa at all costs” strategy, but maybe I’m just not picking up on the full context.

There are many variables at play, so strategic discussions on a grander scale often overlook some of the details you are bringing into the discussion.

WWII (and this game) was won based on mobility and reusability of resources.  So tanks and planes are better than artillery and infantry.  But you need some infantry to take the hits, so you can’t just buy all tanks and planes.  So fighting Africa with tanks, fighters and transports are the most efficient way (for both sides).  Why was Africa lost for Germany?  Lack of resources, mainly due to no control of the Med.  The European axis lost many, many men by NOT falling back via a safe retreat.  Don’t make that mistake.

@Argothair:

Thanks for having this debate with me! I am / have been really enjoying it. :-)

You’re welcome.  I love talking strategy

@Fizz:

Ive played about 10 games of this and axis has won all but 1 soo my question to all of you is there. A strategie that yo guys do to win with allies… any tips would be nice thanks  :-o

One simple rule change that we implement is a Restricted Dardenelles straight: 
Bulgaria is the only territory accessible via transport(s) in sz16.

This helps keep some of the axis med fleet off Caucasus, helping Russia on that front.

More ideas that we use

Here are our Chicago Rules bid rules:
Bids under Chicago Rules

Add units before game play begins.  Only one additional unit per territory/sea zone.  The territory/sea zone must already contain at least one unit to permit a bid unit to be added.  No Bombers, Battleships, or Aircraft Carriers can be placed as part of any bid.

Russia may not place more than $10 worth of units (no tanks may be bid) in the following combination of territories:
Karelia, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Archangelsk, Urals, Russia, Caucasus, Kazakh, Novosibirsk or Evenki National Okrug.

Chinese inf may be also be bid units, at a cost of $2.  Other Chinese bid units are regular cost.

Bidding Rules:

Allies may bid $28, with a maximum of $25 being placed as instant units, remaining $3 can be split amongst the allies, being added to their first round IPC bank.  Dardanelles straight is closed. The allies can bid to Open the Dardanelles straight, with the resulting bid increasing to $30.  Same restrictions apply. If the allies have not opened the Dardanelles straight (bid option #2), the axis can ‘force open’ the Dardanelles Straight, but the bid level is now $36 (as a penalty for forcing open the canal).  $4 of that bid must be an artillery for Russia in the Caucasus.  The Caucasus artillery must be included in the $10 limit of Russian bid units.  The $25 unit limitation is still in effect.  In other words, the bid is $25 in units, $4 (Russian artillery in Caucasus), and $7 in cash to be split amongst the allied countries as the allies deem fit.

@wodan46:

Here is a Germany specific strategy, 1941, NOs on, Techs off or ignored.

G1build(31): 1 Carrier(land 2 Fighters on it), 2 Transports, 1 Infantry
G1attack: Take Baltic States, East Poland, and Ukraine.  Use transports to move an additional Infantry and Artillery to Baltic States and Ukraine.  Make sure that all Tanks are in range of Karelia, and that at least 3 Tanks are in Baltic States or otherwise near water.  Use Subs, Fighters, and Bombers to wipe out all British Naval units save the Destroyer/Transport pair.  Use African units (2 Infantry, 1 Tank) defensively only, to protect Libya and Algeria.
G2build(45): 1 Transport, 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Cruiser
G2attack: If you can kill Britain with 3 Infantry/Tanks, a Cruiser, and your Airforce, DO IT.  If Britain to tough, hit Karelia, transporting as many Infantry/Artillery as possible there.  Retain control of the 1st NO as well, using your air force ideally.
G3build(52): 8 Tanks, 1 Cruiser
G3attack: If you can kill Britain with 4 Infantry/Tanks, 2 Cruisers, and your Airforce, DO IT.  If Britain to tough, ship the G2 Build from Germany to Karelia.  Retain control of the 1st NO as well, using your air force ideally.
G4build(52): 2 Tanks(in Karelia), 3 Bombers, 2 Infantry
G4attack: Retain control of the 1st NO as well, using your air force ideally.  Move the 8 Tanks to Baltic States, and advance your Karelia forces to Belorussia, capturing Archangel as well if possible
G5build(55): ???, dunno
G5attack: Forget Britain, you should be able to hit Moscow with your builds from G2, G3, G4, and a good portion of your starting forces

In short, threaten both Britain and Russia at once with the Baltic Fleet.  The transports can be used to either to attack Britain, or to allow you to shorten the distance Infantry need to travel, allowing you to build Infantry on Turn X, Tanks the on X+1, Bombers on X+2, and have them all reach Moscow on X+3.

First of all, the fleet idea doesnt work. Ive tried it. All GB has to do is build 5 subs and 1-2 fighters and blow your fleet out of da water. when your fleet is gone, your russian stratagy falls imediatly. Russia reenforces Karelia and your lack of tanks (because of your 1 turn purchases) becomes a problem. so you are left with a smaller army then russia’s and no fleet. Figure out how dat works.

The axis can/should have Egypt G2.
Allies can/should build atlantic navy to land in Africa UK2/US2 (operation Torch)
marching east to threaten Egypt counter attack on UK4 (aggressive), more likely on UK5.

This gives some major IPCs to the European Axis and out of UK’s hands, with not too many resources to do so.  What happens round 5 will decide who ‘wins’ the African dollars.

Personally, I prefer to be in a better strategic position, forgoing some economic gains to ensuring that my units are achieving the game winning moves that are needed.

It is very hard for the allies to be everywhere, so they usually focus on Germany.  In this sense, both the Germanys and Italians need some quick and early money to help build up enough units to keep the Russians at bay, and the western allies from consuming units in France.  Japan will eventually get her IPCs and unit count up high enough that the Russians will most likely not be able to stop them.

Yes, having more money can be good, but not necessarily the main focus to win the game.

@thespaceman:

the trick is to keep the 2 tanks in poland in reserve so that when you break the baltic states, you can move the 2 tanks trough to Karelia as reinforcement in the non-combat phase. ) Not my idea, but awesome

pretty sure you can’t move into newly captured territory in non combat moves.

You can not move AIRCRAFT into a territory you have just taken.  You can, however, move any other units that have not been used in combat into a territory you have just taken.

Great idea this worked out very well Germany only took a couple places in Africa and Kerouac and east Poland at this point I put an IC down in France and Europe became very hard nut to crack and then japan did it’s thing the America went KGF so japan did what ever it wanted and took India Australia and Hawaii by this point Italy had Stalingrad so it was over only place allies landed in Europe was Norway but I pushed them back into the sea didn’t hurt that Germany had 10 figs and 6 bombers most of the later rounds I will keep playing a consertive Germany tilli see it fail

Ya your global guide was great made napa a monster I would like to see one

@Aegis:

Hi, just go through the threads here. Lots of good discussions. I personally, dont think a bid is necessary and feel the game is pretty balanced. You just have to play with differing strategies from revised.

Are you playing with the optional rules of National Objective and/or weapons development?

These change the game greatly.

@Dylan:

If you play that shorter game method, and your the Axis in this one, if you have some bad dice rolls and don’t take a city, you lose! I’ve been thinking if I should post it, but I thought it was an issue that should be mentioned!

Hmm.  The allies START the 1941 with 12 VCs:

United States:  Washington, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Manila
United Kingdom:  London, Calcutta, Sydney, Hong Kong, and Ottawa
Soviet Union: Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad

I think your premise is incorrect.

@Nixonium:

China is also the shortest path to Russia.

Take another look at the map.  A chain of Japanese units thru SFE is the shortest path to Moscow.  New inf units take 5 turns.

Glad I could help.

As my opinion:

The US has to harass Japan as fast as possible, while Germany has its weak times, just in the first three rounds. germany usually lacks infantery on turn 2 to push their offense against the USSR.
So the US builds up a medium sized fleet in the Pacific. (including at least 2 loaded transport). Keep the fleet slightly out of range of the main japanese airforce/fleet but position to take a money island or two, remove a national objective from Japan, etc. Force them to defend a lot of places (eventually leaving one vulnerable for an attack) or force them to try to come after your fleet (1 turn the japanese fleet/airforce moves out of position) and fall back. Therefore you do not need a decesive victroy, but distract Japan from its main objectives. Maybe you have to sacrifice your pacific navy to an combined airforce and naval attack by Japan, as major distraction.
The difficult seems to be, when to turn your attention to the atlantic. If its too late then its game over.

The main point is the following:
You are forced to react on the Japanese opening round. Is Japan going straight after India, is Japan trying to take the islands first or is japan going for Russia?
UK and China should try to whittle down the japanese ground forces, while the US needs to build up some fleet, to force Japan to invest into expensive and not too useful warships.

I think you can do it, but the problem is, if you can justify building the Aus IC then you probably don’t need it.

In recent months I’ve seen more and more US all Pacific (or 90% Pac) strats and with strong US play in the Pacific you don’t really need the Aus IC.  It would help, but the US can protect Aus and take EI.  Bor is a little harder, but once those islands are taken there really isn’t much need for UK support.  It’d be nice to have a little more UK support but its not necessary and certainly not at the expense of letting Russia get crushed by Germany.

I’d consider it under a few circumstances but never in rd 1.  I’d wait until UK can get at least one of its NOs.  And in this case probably the Pac NO.  With the initial UK trn and Aus troops, if you time your taking of Car Is correctly then the US can reinforce with Naval protection.  At this point if you are guaranteed to be able to count on that NO for 2-3 turns.  You might be able to afford the investment.  This would replace the potential IC in Norway.  UK can usually afford an IC in rd 3 or so.  Most cases it probably gets put in Nor, but with a strong Pacific game you can substitute it in for Aus instead.
But again if it looks that good to potentially place in Aus, you might be able to do an Indian IC instead, which is probably better.  And finally if the US was able to take EI, you might be able to place it there.  It really depends on how patient you are and what the overall board looks like as well as your overall strategy.

In my experience, KGF is not surefire in 1941 setup.

If you have a meticulous player for Japan and a player with a good strategy for Germany, The Allies focusing entirely on Germany Leaves Japan free to roll over Asia.

Fast forward to 1944/45 And the Allies circling in on Germany.  Yes, Germany will likely fall, but if Japan has meticulously managed her troops up to this point, Russia will have fallen or be about to fall to hoards of Japanese tanks.

My experience is that in any 1941 game with strong players, something has to be done to slow down Japan before she becomes a juggernaught, and this take away from the KGF.

Of course, this is my opinion only and my group of players is 6 strong leading to a heavy bias due to the low sample number.

I normally put my IC in Man, but I’ve been considering going for the islands on turn 2 if it looks like a KGF strat.