• @ncscswitch:

    I prefer a mid to late game IC as UK instead of an early one…

    AFTER UK is collecting in the mid to upper $30’s of income (minimum).  And then I prefer to place it in Western Europe :-)

    Switch is 100% correct here.


  • @Scalenex:

    I’m relatively new to Axis and Allies having played two games.  Both of which Japan takes India the turn after an industrial center is built there.  I’m told that was a fluke.

    If you take India right after UK builds an industrial complex, one of two things is true.  Either your opponent is a dumbass or inexperienced, or you got lucky.

    In any event, I found four strategies on UK and industrial centers

    1. India
    2. South Africa
    3. India and South Africa
    4. Sticking with the one in London

    What are the pros and cons of these choices and what do experienced players tend to do?

    The point of an Indian IC is, in the long term, the BAD thing for the Allies is seeing Japan funneling units through Persia into Caucasus and Germany funneling units into Caucasus through Ukraine and/or Mediterranean transports.  Once that happens, the Axis will be sitting on Russia’s doorstep right up until the end of the game.  So if you hold India, that prevents Japan from funneling through Persia.

    The point of a South Africa IC is if you have no confidence in your allies at all.  India requires Russian support to hold, even with an industrial complex.  Africa requires US support to hold unless you have an industrial complex there (and even then).  So basically, if you think Russia doesn’t want to help you in India (that’s OK, it’s reasonable), AND you think the US is a dumbass and isn’t going to help you with Africa, you have two choices.  Forget about Africa and its juicy 11 or so mainland IPCs, or pop an industrial complex there.  If you put an industrial complex in Africa, it’s like saying to your Allies “the hell wid u guys, Imma do my own thing lolz”, because a South African IC isn’t good for much else than defending Africa against a good Axis.  (Japan should crack India, then you have to keep units in Africa to defend against Japan dropping transports into South Africa - it’s a long route for Japan, but once Japan gets a South African IC, that place is probably gonna stay Japanese.

    The point of a India and South Africa IC is, well, usually there isn’t one.  The problem is, you have to control the waters in the Indian Ocean to make this two-IC strategy work, and it is VERY DIFFICULT to do that with Japan’s stupid-sized fleet and air force flying around - especially if you blew 30 IPCs on those industrial complexes to begin with, AND considering you only have 3 fig 1 bomber (I assume you lose Anglo-Egypt on UK1).  I mean, okay, there are ways to MAKE this work, but it isn’t easy because neither of those industrial complexes is that close to Russia, and when you have to reinforce Russia you have to leave India, and when you leave India, you will probably lose Africa soon, and then the Axis have the economic advantage . . . basically, two ICs are difficult because you have to defend them both and reposition your forces around which is pretty tricky.

    Sticking with London - It’s a KGF, and you lose Africa swiftly.  While you wait for the US to reclaim Africa, you don’t have a lot of IPC to spend.  So get your 4-5 transports, and start chucking out eight infantry (if you have the IPC) a turn.  Nice thing about London, once you have a few transports, you can drop eight infantry from London straight into Europe EVERY TURN.  (the US needs TWO transports per transport load; one from E. Canada to London and another from London to Europe, but the UK’s straight London to Europe).

    There are a few interesting UK1 IC build strats, but generally I leave 'em alone.

    If you START with a UK1 IC (with Colonial Garrison), the India IC can be pretty nasty for the Axis to play against.


  • In my experience with Colonial Garrison India is the best location but requires a US IC in Sinkiang. Not that this is a bad thing. Australia seems to just keep japan from waltzing into Australia but that only saves England from loosing 3 IPCs. South Africa is just too far away from the action to be of much use.

    Non Colonial Garrison Egypt can be quite nasty for the Axis a few rounds into the game if the conditions are favorable for such. And trading it back and forth with Germany can even work to your advantage.


  • @JWW:

    @ncscswitch:

    I prefer a mid to late game IC as UK instead of an early one…

    AFTER UK is collecting in the mid to upper $30’s of income (minimum).  And then I prefer to place it in Western Europe :-)

    Switch is 100% correct here.

    yes, both of you are specialist at it

    you defeated me in our crazy game, in which you have built scores of units there

    and you Switch are threating Berlin real hard in our game, and have beated me a few times already with the Allies  :wink:


  • @Scalenex:

    I’m relatively new to Axis and Allies having played two games.  Both of which Japan takes India the turn after an industrial center is built there.  I’m told that was a fluke.

    In any event, I found four strategies on UK and industrial centers

    1. India
    2. South Africa
    3. India and South Africa
    4. Sticking with the one in London

    What are the pros and cons of these choices and what do experienced players tend to do?

    ….5)Australia

    -very hard to defend( especially in the first few rounds, later becomes much easier if well played)

    if it falls to Japanese hands, the game is more or less over for the Allies, if it sustains and you play well with UK( Allies ) you can smash Japan with combined UK&USA forces in the Pacific and the combined Allied forces on the Mainland Asia

    the two things to say more
    -the ˝smashing˝ of Japan should be
    1)Economical-simply to reduce Japanese production to very low-levels
    2)Naval decline-attack Japanese navy, break it, ,and to threaten Tokyo itself
    3)well…cant say it all, goota keep something for myself  :wink:


  • There is one thing good about Australia IC.
    Its not all that useful to Japan if it falls to Japan?

    Any decent strategies around Australia IC?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t find it particularly useful for England either.


  • @tekkyy:

    […]
    Any decent strategies around Australia IC?

    Readed these strategy some time before (CaspianSub website ?!), tried it one time for myself. It worked for me, but …

    Buy IC in the first round. Save money. Merge navy in SZ 30. US buys two carriers and a little tranny fleet.
    Buy FIG and battleship. Move navy to SZ 38. Insert BB there. US invade Solomon islands.
    Move UK navy to Solomons. Buy one more BB (if you can afford). From now on the UK follows the US navy and spend most of their income in europe/africa.

    Island hopping and IC build on East Indies and/or Borneo. Got control of aisa from there.

    One problem could be: If England is under german pressure (tranny buy), you will perhaps not enough IPC to build the BB.

    Don’t know exactly how I stop the germans. Moved UK and US to algeria first round. The german player was not as aggressive as he should be in these scenario, and if I remember right I got some lucky dices in afrika.

    After all, not a solid play, I think. Win only because the axis player was totally suprised from KJF. But it can work. Perhaps more than one time, too … ;-)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Honestly, I have built about 7 British Industrial Complexes in S. Africa and have had none of them fall to Japan or Germany.  I’ve done it in both traditional and free for all games.

    I think it sounds easier to take S. Africa then it is.  Bear in mind that England has 3 rounds to build up before you can land even the first couple of Japanese troops, and that’s assuming the SZ 59 transport lives and makes a B-line for S. Africa on Japan 1.  Then add in complications from America landing in North Africa and Russia heckling Japan here and there.


  • Honestly, I have built about 7 British Industrial Complexes in S. Africa and have had none of them fall to Japan or Germany.  I’ve done it in both traditional and free for all games.

    Seems you already forgot when I took that complex and the rest of Africa with Japan in one of our quickie games?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Okay, one game.  Sorry, I did forget ONE.  But if I remember right, you got lucky and the game was already pretty much over anyway.

    If England wants to keep the complex, at all costs, then there’s no way it’s falling before, oh, just to guess at a number, let’s say round 12.


  • Hi all,

    Long time reader, first time poster.

    Personally, I think the UK IC in India can be an excellent idea if co-ordinated into a clear allied strategy against Japan. Quite frankly, I don’t understand why so few people believe in targeting Japan and instead focus on Germany.

    Japan is clearly the weaker axis player both economically and militarily. Besides its fleet, it has little other substantive forces necessary for taking the mainland in early rounds - no tanks, few troops and only 2 transports.

    Allied T1 should target Japan - look at the accesibility of its key territories compared to the German turtle.

    Russia: the setting up of American bases should be the goal. Move the eastern forces (6 men) into Bury to form a landing site for US avaiation. 1 Russian fighter to Sianking for defence and offense, and if you feel unsafe 1/2 men. Its range is good - it can support the six men into Manch next turn/ and or into Uk/WestRus/etc and land in Cauc. The threat to Russia from Germany is at its most minimal in the early rounds of the game and any decent Russian player should be able to handle Germany trades early on.

    UK: IC into India. The UK is in many respects the key - its primary task, the most important of the game perhaps, is to sink the lone Japanese transport off the coast. At least the fighter, even the destroyer from India. What happens next depends on how Egypt transpired. Whatever occurred, move anything thats left to India. If the fighter has survived, very big bonus. Move your bomber to Moscow. Has range over Manchurian coast.

    Jap: now has problems. It has one transport - the mainland cannot be effectively supplied, Russia will take Manchuria no matter what (suicidal 3 men + planes is gold for the allied player to watch a desperate Japan player do). Its fleet now has 3 big problems -  Pearl Harbour, India fleet (at least carrier, plane, transport - hopefully Egypt destroyer  and plane too), and planes threatening home waters - UK Bomber, India fighter can attack Manchurian coast and land in Burit; US Bomber, Hawaii fighter, Hawaii carrier fighter Japan’s pacific coast). Japan must take out Pearl Harbour - but must also send capital ships to Japan to protect transports built (2-3 on average). The India fleet is unlikely to be attacked - if it is, US fleet will rapidly dominate. In the end, will split forces and protect Japan and do Pearl Harbour light.

    US: IC in Sianking. Counter-attack remaining Jap fleet at Pearl Harbour  with BB, trans, fighters from Haw, LA and Bomber. Haw fighter and bomber to Bury. If Japan did not protect its new transport airforce attacks there. Build carrier and transport in LA, 2 transports East (for pressure in Africa/WEur/ or eventually Norway).

    This strategy works very well because it targets the weaker Axis player - Japan has only 30 IPCs!!! It cannot afford to lose territories, capital ships or boats.

    Long-term - the US fleet on t2 to Solomons, t3 to big island. BUILD another IC. UK also tries for a big island too. Japan will be left with big problems due to US airforce and russian base. Its only long-term avenue is through far east. That will take 4-5 turns. US and UK to trade Japanese mainland territories, keeping their main forces in India and away from the coast.

    The further advantage of this strategy is this: a good German player will obviously play defence from turn one and thus not be able to adjust quickly from a 8-10 inf build (plus either carrier/transports/tanks/fighter). They lack mobility from turn one onwards, withdrawing into the turtle.

    Focus on Japan. They are weak and allies can co-ordinate all forces into Japanese territories. Once its loses its islands, it basically can’t get them back.

    Cheers


  • I’m hoping I face someone who tries that some day, all I’ve got is theories to counter it without experience. Would you care to try it against me Mattpun in a test game? I don’t take Axis at less than 9 IPCs.


  • @Mattpun:

    Japan is clearly the weaker axis player both economically and militarily. Besides its fleet, it has little other substantive forces necessary for taking the mainland in early rounds - no tanks, few troops and only 2 transports.

    I agree completely…Japan is a far easier target than Germany.

    Russia: the setting up of American bases should be the goal. Move the eastern forces (6 men) into Bury to form a landing site for US avaiation. 1 Russian fighter to Sianking for defence and offense, and if you feel unsafe 1/2 men. Its range is good - it can support the six men into Manch next turn/ and or into Uk/WestRus/etc and land in Cauc. The threat to Russia from Germany is at its most minimal in the early rounds of the game and any decent Russian player should be able to handle Germany trades early on.

    UK: IC into India. The UK is in many respects the key - its primary task, the most important of the game perhaps, is to sink the lone Japanese transport off the coast. At least the fighter, even the destroyer from India. What happens next depends on how Egypt transpired. Whatever occurred, move anything thats left to India. If the fighter has survived, very big bonus. Move your bomber to Moscow. Has range over Manchurian coast.

    Solid moves all around…but I’ll point out one problem towards the end of my post.

    Jap: now has problems. It has one transport - the mainland cannot be effectively supplied, Russia will take Manchuria no matter what (suicidal 3 men + planes is gold for the allied player to watch a desperate Japan player do). Its fleet now has 3 big problems -  Pearl Harbour, India fleet (at least carrier, plane, transport - hopefully Egypt destroyer  and plane too), and planes threatening home waters - UK Bomber, India fighter can attack Manchurian coast and land in Burit; US Bomber, Hawaii fighter, Hawaii carrier fighter Japan’s pacific coast). Japan must take out Pearl Harbour - but must also send capital ships to Japan to protect transports built (2-3 on average). The India fleet is unlikely to be attacked - if it is, US fleet will rapidly dominate. In the end, will split forces and protect Japan and do Pearl Harbour light.

    There are two problems with this that I see…

    1. UK spending is going to have to include units in India for at least a few rounds until the Allies can contain Japan fully…and Japan WILL be gunning for that IC. You will be spending very little in Europe.

    2. If, as an Axis player, I see a Russian fig to Sinkang, and a British Bomber to Moscow, plus an India IC, I know that the Allies are gunning for Japan. My German press on Russia will be greatly intensified, especially with so much British income being sent to the Pacific.

    US: IC in Sianking. Counter-attack remaining Jap fleet at Pearl Harbour  with BB, trans, fighters from Haw, LA and Bomber. Haw fighter and bomber to Bury. If Japan did not protect its new transport airforce attacks there. Build carrier and transport in LA, 2 transports East (for pressure in Africa/WEur/ or eventually Norway).

    The best counter for this is to hit Pearl as light as possible and use the Capital ships to hit Bury…even if it can’t be taken, it’s worth eliminating the Russian threat and forcing Russia to defend his eastern front.

    I like hitting Pearl with the DD, the sub if it lived, the bomber, and the Caroline fighter…none of the pieces are vital in the long term, and it means your two BBs and two ACs can be in SZ 60 to guard your trannies, as well as spank the US if it counters with fleet.

    Long-term - the US fleet on t2 to Solomons, t3 to big island. BUILD another IC. UK also tries for a big island too. Japan will be left with big problems due to US airforce and russian base. Its only long-term avenue is through far east. That will take 4-5 turns. US and UK to trade Japanese mainland territories, keeping their main forces in India and away from the coast.

    A sound strategy, but I think it’s underestimating how vulnerable a Buryatia airbase is, and overestimating just how much the UK can bring to the fight.

    The further advantage of this strategy is this: a good German player will obviously play defence from turn one and thus not be able to adjust quickly from a 8-10 inf build (plus either carrier/transports/tanks/fighter). They lack mobility from turn one onwards, withdrawing into the turtle.

    If Germany breaks through in Egypt, is not countered, and UK spends heavy in the Pacific…little is left to stop the Germans. A second round tank build can catch up to a first round infantry build. Combined with luftwaffe support, and little to no UK/US pressure, by round four the Russians will be yelling for help.

    Focus on Japan. They are weak and allies can co-ordinate all forces into Japanese territories. Once its loses its islands, it basically can’t get them back.

    True enough…but if the Allies are delayed, which is certainly within Japan’s capabilities, it is extremely difficult for the Allies to switch focus to help defend Russia.

    Japan can also go all out for the Allied ICs and focus on aiding Germany against Russia, giving up on the Pacific…letting the Allies blow their money on a large navy while Russia stands alone against the Axis. Japan might fall before Moscow, if the Allies can reduce their income fast enough, or they don’t get a chance to expand on the mainland…but I wouldn’t count on it, it takes a lot of fully loaded transports to crack Japan if any effort is made to defend it.

    As much as I agree that Japan is the easier target, I think going all out against them causes many problems for the Allies in the long term. Grind Japan down slowly…don’t gun for a Borneo IC on US 4…instead ensure that Africa is retaken and Japan is booted off the mainland…THEN gun for their islands and their fleet.

    Cheers.

    Right back at ya!  :-)


  • I too would thoroughly enjoy such a game–pretty much just KJF, right?–but it’s not gonna be me who initiates it.

    I’ve heard KJF can be useful because it catches people offguard. I suppose that can be true, but anyone who has played A&A for a long time (or AAP at all) will probably have a good idea of how to react with Japan.

    And I still think KJF is majorly sub-par:

    1. The Western allies spend a lot of money building those SAf/Ind/Sin/Aus ICs, and really any supply of Japanese troops whatsoever will be able to hold orange territory and take at least one or two ICs back.

    2. Germany will effectively have carte blanche in Europe and Africa. Sending a few US troops to Africa or a few UK troops to Europe (even each turn) is awfully similar to sending none. Not just that it’s not more than 0 troops, but also that Germany will just blast the US/UK troops away with it’s airforce, battleship, and massive numbers of inf/art/arm.

    3. The US/UK will still have to provide cover for their Atlantic transports if they want to keep them very long.

    4. Even with a counter-Pearl Japan will end US1 with 2bb 1-2ac 4-6ftr and home-team advantage (its naval builds reach the front faster than US/UK’s). Good luck.

    5. UK will have to leave troops on its mainland doing lots of nothing to prevent Germany from just building 5-6 transports and taking London. Add up that (at least like 8inf) and 2 ICs and you have two rounds of UK spending and no troops in Asia to show for it.

    I love the idea of KJF, but unfortunately :cry: it’s only any good in AAP or if you just wanna have fun. I’ve never played out an AAR KJF game, so I could be dead wrong, but those are some pretty strong arguments.


  • @Bean:

    I’m hoping I face someone who tries that some day, all I’ve got is theories to counter it without experience. Would you care to try it against me Mattpun in a test game? I don’t take Axis at less than 9 IPCs.

    Sorry pal, 9 bid is too much advantage for Axis. Even with KGF. It would prove nothing.


  • hear is a talk on bids, i’m sure i grabed the right one. any way i think it shows that a bid 9 isn’t as one sided as your making it out to be.


  • The turning point is 8 IPC.  At that point, Axis have enough to bid either a transport or infantry and tank.

    Infantry and tank in Africa allow high probability G1 hold of Africa past UK1.

    Transport build in Baltic combined with immediately effective tech rolls allows high probability G1 invasion of London.

    Infantry and tank in Asia allow J1 invasion of India.

    Invasion of London with Long Range Air tech and a transport bid is why bids of 8+ are rare.  But most of the organized play sites I’ve seen in the United States prevent invasion of enemy capitals on the first turn; TripleA’s ladder rules state you can’t invade enemy capitals on the first turn, LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) delay tech from becoming effective until the end of the turn, preventing the G1 invasion of London again.

    Note that the TripleA ladder also forbids placing more than one bid unit per territory.  Under some places’ bid placement rules, though, a bid of 9 allows for 3 infantry in the key territories of Libya and French Indochina (or possibly Borneo or Ukraine or Belorussia for safety/future attack), so can be very effective.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I just want to say, FROM EXPERIENCE, that it is much too hard to set up Allied Industrial Centers near Japan.

    A)  You draw away resources needed to hem in Germany.
    B)  You create target points for Japan to stack against.
    C)  You create points you must defend so as to not have wasted the money on the industrial centers.

    Now, with that said, may I humbly suggest the following:

    1)  You put an IC up in Africa.  This way, you don’t need to worry if the English fleet is sunk because you can still maintain control on Africa.

    1a)  I have found that Germany almost always has such a large army in Egypt after G1 that it’s statistically impossible for England to liberate anyway.

    1b)  I have found that an Industrial Complex in S. Africa combined with reinforcements from India can effectively end Germany’s conquest of Africa without the British Navy having to run the risk of being hit by the Med Fleet + Air Force.

    1c)  If you are building in S Africa to hold Africa, this frees your fleet up to land in North Asia (Generally pretty safe from Luftwaffe Attacks)

    1. Russia works on Infantry and Tanks.  Yes, you read that right!  TANKS.  If Russia does NOT have at least 16 tanks by the mid-point of the game, you are not building enough.  And yes, 29 IPC on Round 3 is 3 Infantry, 4 Tanks, not 8 Infantry, Tank.  The point is to scare Germany out of stacking in trade zones to own it for the long term.  (Because they cannot land the fighters to help defend.)

    2a)  I feel Russia should go pretty infantry heavy for a couple of rounds and play conservatively.  Why risk hitting Ukraine and W. Russia on Round 1?  Just hit W. Russia. :P

    2b)  I feel the Russian submarine should make a run to the Pacific.  It’s an extra unit to block the Japanese navy or to assist in defense with the American navy.

    3)  America:  NAVY!

    3a) Screw Sinkiang and China.  Let the Japanese have them.  Industrials are just free income to Japan.  It’s like giving Japan a 15 IPC bid for each one you build.

    3b) The Submarine Strategy: Buy Submarines, lots of Submarines

    3c) The Destroyer Strategy: Buy Destroyers almost exclusively.  This doesn’t work as well if you are in a no tech game, because, like Submarines, once you own the sea, they serve no purpose.

    3d) The Battleship Strategy: My personal favorite.

    3di) Battleships have innate damage control in so much it takes two hits to sink them.

    3dii) Battleships can shell the shore, despite a no-tech game.

    3e) Every round, if the money allows, get a transport and/or some infantry to fill them.  A fleet with no transports is ignorable.


  • Hi all again,

    Thanks for the discussion…

    In defence of the India IC and US IC in Sianking (they must both occur), both of them block what is the major allied weakness of the game: the ease and accesibility of Moscow and Russia generally to Japanese invasion.

    Whilst many focus on what the 30 IPC (plus money spent on reinforcements on the ICs) could be spent on - navy, troops and trasports, airforce etc - the idea is to PREVENT the invasion of Russia.

    In games I’ve played with advanced opponents, the threat to Russia comes from Japan for two critical reasons:

    1. Most important and most overlooked, the economic strength of Russia in this game is its eastern provinces that stretch from behind moscow to behind Cauc. Excluding Moscow and Cauc (with 12 IPC value and ICs) where is the rest of Russia’s income? Besides Karelia and Archangel, everything else is EAST.

    2. The accessibility of the eastern provinces means that the US and UK need to build ICs. Russia, as I was saying, if played by a competent player, should be able to hold Germany off barring massive disasters. Russia gets into MASSIVE problems when assaulted by Japan AND Germany. If we look at the income, for example, though Germany could be earning somewhere between 45-49 ICs fairly easily a significant portion of that must be spent (I’d say close to half) on defensive purchases in WEu and Ger - especially if the Baltic is lost or through luck/bad planning German aviation totals less than 5 aircraft. Thus, Russia can almost match production with Germany and is greatly aided by the accessibility of its ICs to the front. This is further enhanced by the R1 russian turn into West Russia. A good Russian player will hardly ever get overun there unless they get reckless with trades - especially in EEu. Bringing Russian troops into EEu unless WEu has been held by the allies is tantamount to a death sentence, even on T1. It negates the natural Russian advantages close to Moscow and gives them to Germany.

    3. The Key to the IC builds is this: as Russia will only fall when Japan is at the gates of Moscow - because Russia now fights on two fronts AND has lost almost half of its income - the defence provided in Sianking and India cuts off two routs to the Capital. If Japan is in India, it can blitz to Cau; if Japan is in Sianking, it can blitz into Moscow - both aided by the always superior Japanese airforce. The IC builds block the two most vulnerable routes into Russia. It makes Japan crawl through the East, one turn at a time.

    I also think people underestimate the fleet advantages that the allies have in the east on the first turn. Adding to what I said earlier, I’ve even played this ultra-aggressive KJF centred on UK:

    T1
    Russia: as before, with a lone tank to India
    UK: Destroyer off india to lone transport; India 3 men and one figther to FIC (2 men 1 fighter); Australian trans/sub/2 men into water off New Guniea (no attack); non-combat moves transport picks up anyone left in Persia/Africa, egypt destroyer to India.
    US: as before.

    The UK attack into FIC is an extremely aggressive move but often effective (out of four units, at least one hit often two - this leaves Japan with no units that can attack India on t1). FIC is often not taken, but it does not matter because no Japanese troops are left to fight. Japan is left with only men in Manchuria and Kwantang - hardly enough to take on the ICs or the Russian troops.

    The UK navy also create big problems for Japan. Unless the Aust transport is taken out either the Phillipines or Borneo will fall. The destroyer of Kwantung must be attacked too to allow reinforcements into FIC from Japan. The UK Navy of India also has a transport that can attack Jap islands when the 2nd Japanese Navy moves home to protect transport build from aviation. Plus, Japan must do Pearl Harbour. Significant difficulties.

    Regarding other suggestions:
    1. Pearl very light (dest, sub, fighter, bomber) is very risky - if the carrier is not destroyed, Japan faces significant invasion problems very early.
    2. 9 bid is way too high (5-7 depending on skill)
    3. Though its cool to discuss, does anyone actually fear a German invasion? Come on, even with India IC ( say 3 men build) that gives 6-7 men, plus 2 fighters, fleet to block, US reinforcements, and at least 10 units from starting and t1 builds. If Ger wants to try, good luck

    I think the emphasis on how the KJF weakens Allies into Europe is also overated. UK can go into Norway very easily, and push across to Karelia. The US can very easily get into Africa in T1. Germ, though having airforce in WEEu, must have some airforce in Eastern Front. If I’m allies, I’ll often send destoyer and 2 trans on first turn into Africa even if in range of Ger aviation. I can replace this very easily ( panama destroyer/ build 2 transports) and will slowly but surely drain Germ eco by fighting in Africa AND shooting down 1/3 planes.

    In essence the US into Afrcia plus Sianking IC, and UK into Norway plus INDIA IC is a giant containment strategy. And, as we know, the longer the game goes - ESPECIALLY with UK not losing all its cash - the harder it is for Axis to win. Send Japan backwards on T1 and everything that comes later is easier.

    Cheers

Suggested Topics

  • 21
  • 18
  • 12
  • 5
  • 44
  • 26
  • 59
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts