• Fun strategy to think about, but the main problem is that egypt falls 100% on gerant0 or 11. That is game over… Even if uk had 50 units there and russia had 20 it still wouldnt be enough. Germany will have at least 60 ground and 30 planes.


  • @theROCmonster:

    Fun strategy to think about, but the main problem is that egypt falls 100% on gerant0 or 11. That is game over… Even if uk had 50 units there and russia had 20 it still wouldnt be enough. Germany will have at least 60 ground and 30 planes.

    Well, in your opinion, how long will it take the Allies to get Tokyo… should the play go as described…
    ie: Around which turn?  ( Assume Egypt and London are still in Allied hands)


  • @pokemaniac:

    My initial thought, which hasn’t been addressed at all, is: how is the UK gonna protect London? In your strategy they are putting 19 IPCs minimum a turn into Egypt. What does that leave for London?

    On R1, Germany is gonna see a Russia that is going aggressive in the East, but maybe ignores it. After R2 it is very obvious to Germany that Russia is selling out Moscow to try and crush Japan. At this point (after a G2 build which was probably all German fast), Germany might need one more turns worth of fast units for Russia, but that’s it. Thus starting with the G4 purchase, German can be putting at least half of its income at London. With a strong Italy also pressuring Egypt, I just don’t see how London is holding both VCs.

    Even if Germany is still sending units east, they can use their air-force to max bomb the London factory while subs convoy. I don’t see how the UK can possibly hold out against this onslaught. I haven’t played it out, but I’m really having a hard time imagining the UK (which is making less than 30 because of convoys and losing its NO) being able to hold out against half of Germany (turn 5 income somewhere around 60, but that will jump to 90 very quickly once it takes Moscow and the wealthy Russian territories) and all of Italy (making at least 25 since there are no ships in the med and they should have Gibraltar). Egypt probably falls before any Russians even get there, or if it doesn’t then London will fall sometime around turn 7.

    Japan’s air-force and fleet aren’t something that is going to go down easily either.

    Fun gambit strategy that would possibly work against an axis player that always goes G4/J4 and won’t be able to adapt effectively, but against a good axis player who will recognize that Germany can throw a lot of its resources against the UK I just don’t see it ever working.

    BRAINWAVE No#1 -  Keep German Income Low!

    What if G1 buy is whatever… and USSR 1 buy is nothing.
    What if G2 buy is fast land units… ( may or may not DOW) … If No DOW … USSR Stacks everything ( land units )  in Leningrad and Rostov …and USSR buys 6 SBs  ( 3 in Leningrad, 3 in Moscow)
    What if G3 ( definite DOW) buy is more land units and USSR buys 3 more SSB ( Leningrad if safe) …
    .Counterattack Baltic States with 6 SBs and all inf+ Art in Leningrad…  3 SB’s land in London … 3 SBs in Leningrad ( if safe) … put new buy in Leningrad if safe
    G4 will take Baltic and hold for sure…  STRAT BOMB GERMANY+ W. Germany  with 9 SSB  ( 3 from London + 6 from Leningrad)
    R4 buy 3 more SBs… these go via North to Scotland on R5

    Each turn thereafter…12 SSB will hammer Germany for average loss of 48-60 IPC a turn  ( yes… there will be a loss of SBs over time…!)

    Hopefully allowing UK to survive till ANZAC 10.

    BRAINWAVE #2

    OK… lets go with putting more on UK… and less on Egypt.

    UK2 for $34  ( assuming No Sealion buy from G2) can be IC + TR+2 Inf in South Africa + 3 Inf in UK  ( UK India TR goes back to India from Sumatra…if it survives… if not buy TR on UK3 in India if safe)
    UK3 for $36 - 3 Inf in Egypt + 2 Inf in South Africa + 7 Inf in UK 
    UK4 for $36 - 3 Inf in Egypt+  2 Inf in SA +  7 Inf in  UK … India TR starts moving load 2 Inf from India to Ethiopia… up also … ( gig is up!) ( Inf from SA start marching on foot)
    UK5 for $36 - 3 Inf in Egypt +  whatever in UK…  India TR helps get guys up to Egypt…
    UK6 onward…  build in UK only…

    Egypt will have about 22 Inf + few planes…  London will have 30+ Inf by - - - -  UK 6

    Now… lets look at Japan.

    If J2 DOW…,
    Japan gets DEI on J3 …
    and then it will start concentrating around Phillippines by J4…and Hawaii Fleet will be SZ 16 by US4…
    and Japan will have to make a decision… make a stand … go to Carolines… or retreat homeward… or go on toward India on J5… 
    If they retreat… ANZAC takes Islands…  Japan is bottled up… and all US  needs to do is to keep them bottled up…
    The US5 buy of 6 SB can be on Atlantic… and sent to London on US6… and they can help keep up the pressure to reduce German Income.

    So German attack on UK is delayed… but Japan will not have to deal with Soviet SBs…and 1 US turn of buys…
      but the attrition in Pacific leans on side of Allies…  while in Europe … on that of Axis.

    Japan has to deal with US, ANZAC, UK India, China and USSR…  It’ll be 4 economies to one…

    Which side will win first?!

  • Customizer

    One thing that really strikes me with this strategy is the idea of sacrificing Moscow. In our games, we kind of expect Moscow to fall but only with a strong, dedicated German push and a massive defense with Russia holding it as long as possible so the Western Allies can put the hurt on Germany from the west. Sometimes Russia will go more offensively and actually attack the German armies pushing into Russia. Sometimes if Germany doesn’t have quite enough in the east, due perhaps to building more defense against the west, then it works for Russia. They either wipe out a German army or leave it weak enough that it no longer presents a real offensive threat.
    However, I never thought of Russia making no defensive buys and basically giving up on defending Moscow in order to make offensive moves elsewhere to hurt one or more of the Axis.
    Using strategic bombers from Russia to pound German industry is really interesting. Especially if the UK and US can add to it. Germany could end up spending a lot of money to repair factories instead of buying units.

    One thing I am curious about. I see a lot of references to something called “TMG”. I must have missed this in earlier posts. What does “TMG” stand for?


  • @pokemaniac:

    Fun gambit strategy that would possibly work against an axis player that always goes G4/J4 and won’t be able to adapt effectively, but against a good axis player who will recognize that Germany can throw a lot of its resources against the UK I just don’t see it ever working.

    Exactly why the allies have such a difficult time!
    They can conjure a counter for every axis strategy but then the axis are flexible enough to move into the allied weak spots that inevitably came with their strategy. And the magic word is: aircraft. German air (for example), are able to quickly change position. Turn x they can threaten to take Egypt and/or Gibralar, turn x+1 they are already in place for an attack on London if they so desire. RAF can defend Egypt turn x, but cannot be in place for defending London turn x+1.

    This basically means that the allies have to be cautious during the first ~7 turns so that the axis can always play out what they had planned.
    That’s why exotic strategies, however fun they may be, usually have such a short life. There’s too much both sides can do to each other and after a short but volatile game the axis usualy win simply because they start with a better central position.

    I just wonder how this one would play out, as it definately qualifies as ‘exotic’.
    I seriously think it cannot be dismissed or declared a universal panacea either, before it has been tried. Still always fun to discuss it, just to gather as much ideas as possible before trying it out.


  • Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

    So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.


  • @ChocolatePancake:

    Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

    So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

    The gambit isn’t necessarily for the allies to win by taking Tokyo (just part of it), but rather to take Japan out of the picture by round 9-10 and own the Pac side (somehow wipe out the Imperial Navy and Air Force?). This will allow the US to switch gears to the Euro side by say round 8-9 (ready to make a difference by round 11-12).

    It might even be possible for the allies to own the Pacific side w/o actually taking Tokyo (we know that Japan can easily make their capital a fortress). If the allies can overload Japan in Asia (kick them off the continent), and gain control of the islands they will take away most of Japans income. Add to that heavy SBR/convoy and the Japanese will be dropped to 0 income, even if they do still hold their capital. The thing is that the Japanese would have to had to made a deadly mistake and lost both the their navy, and most of their air force. This is where I take exception, say Japan doesn’t play into your hands, and decides to play defense, and basically runs the navy to safety, while stacking its capital with Inf and half the air force. That navy, and the other half of the Imperial Air force, along with say 8 loaded transports floating towards Africa/Mid East could cause some havoc.

    While all this is happening on the Pac side, the Russians have given up the center (Moscow) so they can participate in the destruction of Japan (maybe even doing some SBR runs on Germany as well). So now the race is on, and the allies need to make sure that while this is happening Euro axis can’t get a VC win in Europe by round 10-11. Round 12 or so is when the US would be in full force looking to make a difference or start def/grabbing VCs.

    The thought is to take Tokyo (or at least neuter Japan and the Pac side), while not losing the game to an 8 VC win on the Euro map. Once Japan is out of the picture, and if the Euro axis don’t have the 8 VCs (or can’t keep them for an entire round), the allies will over power the Euro axis soon after. Once the allies have the Pac side in the bag, and can 100% focus on Europe map……at some point the axis would just surrender.

    I’m not convinced it will work, but it could win you a game or two until the axis figure out ways to counter it. Like any risky strat, it could also cause you to look the fool if the axis players adjust well on the fly LOL


  • What if Germany helps Italy get Egypt early? A common G1 buy is 2 bombers 1 sub, with the intent of flying the most of the Luftwaffe onto Italians that advance to Tobruk. They will then blast Egypt G3 if the British don’t retreat (losing several planes, but still worth it) for an easy walk in by the Italians I3. G4 the remaining Luftwaffe (that landed in Greece) can now make attacks on the USSR. Italy with Egypt in hand and no American or British naval spending to counter will surely be a monster.


  • @ChocolatePancake:

    Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

    So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

    I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

    It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.


  • @knp7765:

    One thing I am curious about. I see a lot of references to something called “TMG”. I must have missed this in earlier posts. What does “TMG” stand for?

    " THE MAHATMA GAMBIT " This was the nick name MeinHerr gave to this tactic taken from one of his earlier threads.

    The gist is that the UK Pac positions naval units while not at war w/Japan. It either places surface war ship(s) as future blockers, or into a sz where Japan has empty transports (the units are on land). Then the Anz DOW on Japan and now the Japanese are at war w/both powers. The UK ships now act as blockers to the Japanese fleet, and any sz that the UK moved a surface warship to is now hostel and the Japanese can’t load their transports. Of course the US would most likely be held out till it can DOW on its own (end of US3). This tactic has been around for a while, and I’m sure you have seen it knp.

    There was some other stuff about getting the Brit BB to the Sea of Japan, referencing the BB working as a mission of peace hence " THE MAHATMA GAMBIT ". UK BB moves to Kwantung UK1, then UK2 moves to Sea of Japan to possibly stop the Japanese from loading transports there on J3. I assured him that if that BB moves to Kwangtung UK1 (giving Japan a second look at it) it won’t be going anywhere UK2 because there is noway the Japanese don’t attack J2 especially if they can also sink other UK/Anz ships and transports (of course the US would now be at war).

    You can read more about it here (if you want).

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34893.0


  • @MeinHerr:

    @ChocolatePancake:

    Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

    So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

    I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

    It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

    I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 3
  • 15
  • 6
  • 13
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts