• I am one of the crazy few who think AA50-41 is balanced. Funcioneta asked me to post what I was doing with the Allies so here it is. Is it the greatest Allied strat out there? Probably not but it has worked for me. I also think it avoids the mistake of ignoring Japan and then trying to fight them with 3 nations that have half the map when they are one nation that has half the map and tons of units in the territories they control.

    Stacking Bury is fine but I only send 1 infantry into an open Manchuria instead of the whole bunch. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate this stack leaving the entire Northern approach vacant. While I do this I pull back all but 1 infantry from Buryatia to Stanovoj. This forces Japan to commit a few forces to retake Manchuria if taken and to take Bury. If I think I can delay the Japanese for a turn or two, I will attack their forces in Bury with the Stanovoj stack. This entire front is fought as a delaying action. That means I will attack, withdraw or hold as the situation appears to warrant. I attack Finland with an eye at taking Norway on round 2 and Deadzone Karelia. I find that Russia can generally not hold Karelia but it can deadzone and set it up for trades. As long as Germany is not producing anything in Karelia, other than the NO and 2 IPCs for the territory they have not gained anything that will immediately harm Russia. At a minimum the Novosibirsk Infantry are going to China and if at all possible the Kazakh duo as well. The longer Russia can hold up Japan in China the more free infantry China can produce, the Japanese income expands more slowly, and Russia has some less concerns with defense. I try to keep a steady stream of 2 or so infantry headed this way backed up by an armor or air power if such looks favorable.

    Normally the UK Atlantic fleet is reduced to practically nothing so I will spend round 1 and 2 building this up. I will also buy up to 4 transports for this new fleet. This is what goes against the normal thinking, but the Pacific Transport should load 1 infantry and 1 Artillery from Australia and sail east. On turn 3 it and the new Atalantic fleet can dump up to 10 units in Algeria. The 4 Atlantic transports can send in 8 units on round 4, while this transport can bring over the Canadians for a second dump of up to 10 units. Depending on what had to be purchased for the Navy there may even be additional units in the UK for it to ferry over on subsequent turns. More than likely though it will be of better use sailing south and liberating sub-Saharan Africa. By doing this a steady stream of 8 units can be landed from the UK in Africa every turn. If this transport is used in the Pacific it will most likely only be of an actual benefit for one turn. The UK proceeds in force across North Africa to fight Japan in Persia and India. While it will take some time to get there, I have found that when it starts to encounter Japanese forces it will have numerical superiority. Also the UK may find itself in a position where it can start to think of IC purchases for Egypt and or later India.

    Other than the initial Eastern US troops going to Africa to reinforce the British and the starting bombers being used for SBRs it is 100% against Japan in the Pacific. With the US actively fighting in the Pacific it should maintain its second NO and make 48 IPCs per turn. This works out very nicely to 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 transport, 2 fighters, and 1 carrier EVERY turn. Naturally there will be turns where other ships or perhaps additional bombers are called for but this is THE primary purchase. While it will go against all traditional Axis and Allies thinking to be purchasing a transport every turn I have found that this is vital in the Pacific. The chances of setting up any transport chain are almost nil and many times an entire fleet may have to be sacrificed. Many times the transports themselves WILL be sent to take islands where they will be destroyed by air power, while fleet strength itself is preserved. Any island Japan has to retake is troops not headed to Russia, or Africa, or anywhere else of great concern for the Allies. If Japan engages in a naval race with the US that is fine as well, as it reduces the amount of troops available in Asia. Also there are many islands Japan would LIKE to cover but most likely can not. While you may find yourself in a position where both neither Navy can eliminate the other by sending out a steady stream of transports it overloads Japan. In my opinion if the US wants to contest the Pacific they need to do so with a credible navy. Subs alone are to easily countered and mostly ignore by Japan with a few cheap destroyer purchases.

    That is the basic ground work. The situation may dictate for the Allies to start assisting Russia directly which by the time it is needed if everything went according to plan the UK will
    be able to do with some or even all of its stream of troops across the mid-east starting to divert north. The US may also have to start sending some units across Africa as well. While in my mind this is not A KJF because the US is really the only power actively engaging Japan it can become one. It has been my observation that the Allies can hem up Italy or Germany and they can wait for Japan to take out Russia and come to their aid. However if things go bad for Japan there seems to be very little the Axis can do, even taking out Russia with Germany may not be enough. Keep in mind that Japan does not have to be taken. If Japan is reduced to Japan and not much else they can be penned in with just enough forces to keep them there and sticking to defensive buys.

    I am sure the detractors will be along shortly to shoot a million holes in this, so here is my challenge. Instead of thinking about what he Axis can do and bitching about what the Allies can not do; think about what the Allies may be capable of. That is the only way Allied strategies will be furthered.

  • @a44bigdog:

    However if things go bad for Japan there seems to be very little the Axis can do, even taking out Russia with Germany may not be enough.

    This is definitely wrong. If Moscow falls to axis, it is game over 100% certain, if axis does not lose any capitals, but I’d rather have Moscow than Italy.

    The reason why axis will win more games than allies, generally, is that the axis side will not get bad dice more than 50% of all games. So it is very possible to win a few games with allies, but it is not possible in the long run, assuming 1vs1 and experienced players. More than 50% of all games, axis will have Africa for several rnds, and while axis can win w/o Africa, allies will suffer dearly if Africa is lost.

  • @Subotai:


    However if things go bad for Japan there seems to be very little the Axis can do, even taking out Russia with Germany may not be enough.

    This is definitely wrong. If Moscow falls to axis, it is game over 100% certain, if axis does not lose any capitals

    But if Japan is reduced to 8ipc, it is like if the Allies got it. So, no it is not 100% certain. Because in the scenario described by A44 (Japan has been reduced to its island and after Germany took Moscou), UK will have Africa and a lot of units on the road between Algeria and India. Allies will get Pacific. So we are speaking of US at around 60ipc, UK around 55, and there is a big stack in Chinghai (China is producing 4inf a turn). Italy is reduced to Europa, so between 9 and 15 (if they took some Russian territories), and Germany is really big (around 70-80).

    For sure Germany will be hard to contain, and they will make some progress in Asia to balance the game a little more. But it is definitively not a 100% victory for Axis.

  • If a US pac strat is successful, and Moscow doesn’t fall, the allies win b/c of much more $.

    But if Germany takes Moscow, and Japan sees that it start losing the pac war from rnd 4-5, Japan will be stacked so it can’t be captured until 6-8 rnds after (if) japan loses most or all of its islands, maybe more. In that time, Germany will have all of (mainland) Asia and all of Africa, with a little help from Italy.

  • Subotai for your information I have seen a few games where Japan was reduced to Japan or Japan and East Indies and Germany took Moscow and it was not enough for Germany to win in the end.

    As an aside to that I think often people give up to soon. I know I certainly have seen some strange reversals in games that were played out until the bitter end.

  • '16 '15 '10

    If UK doesn’t land in Europe, how does Russia survive?  Germany is at 50+ every turn, possibly more with an Africa blitz.

    Germany should have Moscow before any UK infantry landing in Africa reach Persia.

    Once that happens…Subotai is correct, the Allied position is untenable.  There are probably cases out there of Allied KJF wins w/o capturing Tokyo, but I predict that in many of these Germany focused on fleet buys after taking Moscow rather than first securing Asia and helping Japan.

    How do the Allies win?  Take an Axis capital before Axis takes Moscow.

  • The interesting point with your strat is purchasing one loaded trannie each turn. I see the point with it, and I have seen that approach with another rival. Not convinced yet, but I agree if Japan falls before Moscow, allies have a chance

    Now my question is if you taken into account a german baltic navy. If both UK and Japan are slowed, is a stalemate again and that’s good news for axis due superior economy

    But at least is an imaginative approach with US, and I discovered such approachs have advantage in this version

  • @a44, I think you should try some TripleA live games in the unstable lobby. I have seen games w/o bids, but there are very few no bid games compared to the “agreement” that allies need 6-9 ipc to balance the game.

    And for the record, in the TripleA lobby, there are both n00bs and expert players.

  • '16 '15 '10


    The interesting point with your strat is purchasing one loaded trannie each turn. I see the point with it, and I have seen that approach with another rival. Not convinced yet, but I agree if Japan falls before Moscow, allies have a chance

    I like the combo of the loaded AC and the loaded tranny.  Seems like the most common mistake in Pacific offensives is not buying sufficient transports and not contesting the national objectives every turn.  If eventually the USA has more loaded ACs and thus more mobile air power at sea, then Japan’s navy is positionally constrained and has to sit in 1 or 2 clusters.

  • Hi, Subotai, I just joined the daak AA50 tourney (well, as sub, it reached the limit of 32 dudes), and they are bidding for axis, go figure! At least they allow negative bids …

    Seems there is not a consensus after one year, I wonder what type of strats are using in daak to think axis need a bid  :? And it’s a tourney with NOs, normal dices and no tech … I’m still amazed, seems they copy-pasted bid system from Revised to Anny

  • The largest problem I see with your strat idea, is if germany goes for a quick takedown of Russia.  How many turns can Russia survive against 10 tanks a turn coming out of berlin?  And with Italy making 20+ for 2 or 3 turns even there navy can be powerful.

    I don’t think pacific is the problem, it is true that if the US goes 100% pacfic, and the UK/Russia send a bit to annoy Japan, Japan can be stalled/slowly torn apart.  The problem is, the UK/Russia cannot handle the G/I monster for very long without the US’s aid.

    A simple 9 Inf, 1 Art, followed by 9-10 armor a turn by germany, will result in Russia hiding out in Moscow alone as early as turn 3, and moscow would fall a few turns after.  And with Italy making almost as much as the UK, it just writes itself.

    Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

  • @Vareel:

    Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.

    Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.

    The core issue here is that neither a pac strat nor a KGF strat is very powerful in a no bid game.

    The only powerful allied strat in a no bid game is bad dice for axis :-)

  • Customizer

    with the USA going 100% pacific (minus the stratbombing and original 2 trannies + destroyer), that means it is up to the UK and Russia to defeat Germany and Italy.
    without a bid, UK will lose Egypt either round 1 or 2.  without a bid, Russia will definitely lose karelia round 2.
    without USA naval assets, germany can sink the UK navy round 1 (as usual) but ALSO can sink them round 2.  you say you are buying 4 transports?  that will not work, at least not on the first 2 turns, because germany will crush your navy.
    if you are buying navy with the UK, you will not be sinking the italian navy any time soon, so italy will be getting her NO’s for a while.

    I just do not see russia surviving past turn 5.  And Japan can still get her 3 NO’s and stalemate with USA if needed.  At the very worst, Japan does not get her island NO, then stalemates with USA.

    I will give you strategy a try, but i’ve seen pretty much the exact same thing tried a hell of a lot of times and never seen it win or come even close to winning.  Germany and Italy with NOs are just too big for Russia.

    (ps to Zhukov4: I updated the China mod, so you have to download it again.  Did you get it working?  I never heard back from you.  Please go download WW2v3 and the china mod again.  version number is 1.2.2 for both.  http://n2.nabble.com/Version-of-WWv3-with-China-going-first-tp4464141p4464141.html )

  • @ Subotai I might give TripleA another chance, I tried it years ago and just did not care for the program. The view of the map was to small and the handling of carriers was a pain. I alos don’t particularly care to play Axis and Allies where I have to constantly be at the computer and can not even wander off to smoke a cig.

    @ Vareel Yes Germany buying 10 tanks a turn will probably call for some changes. There is nothing that says the UK HAS to land in Africa instead of reinforcing Russia or landing in France or NW. Europe to draw off troops from the Eastern Front. When the US navy moves out into the Pacific many times Japan has at least 2 loaded carriers that can hit seazone 56. These are turns that the US can buy ships and troops for the Atalantic if they desire.

    @ Veqryn The UK has the seazone 9 transport and destroyer in probably 95% of games I have played at least. That leaves 3 more transports to be purchased in the Atlantic over 2 turns. So some capital ships being bought is a given. The German air force sinking them in round 2 is complete BS if they are parked in SZ2. If there is any more than 1 bomber and 1 fighter in Norway then seazone 12 was not attacked.

    I am also not buying that if the Allies did not place 2 to 3 infantry somewhere on the board, that may not even have been in Egypt, that Germany AUTOMATICALLY takes Egypt round 1 or that Italy AUTOMATICALLY gets both its NOs for the first few rounds. Sorry fellows I have played a few too many AA50 games to buy that. I have also played too many no bid games where Karelia did not AUTOMATICALLY fall round 2 either.

  • the latest TripleA unstable has very few bugs, and is very playable, imo.

    It is not generally a big problem with some players who play to slow, although it can happen. I once played a game against a player on this forum (one of several players), he had never played a livegame before, so it would be somewhat unfair to blaim “too slow play”, but it can be a concern, yes.
    Imo, a  country can take 5 mins, maybe 10 mins, this is variable, but A&A in the TripleA lobby is not regarded as “lightning chess”, but for players who have never played live games I think they must think faster than in PBM/PBF games.

    I also suspect that in some games that is not part of a league or is recorded in a series of games, maybe some players will be too cautious with axis b/c it is seen as a single game. The axis must be very aggressive, and this will pay off usually, but in a single game, it can be more tempting to do Egy and/or Kalia G2 instead of G1. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, but compared to Revised, it is easier to win as allies in a no bid (+NO) game in AA50 b/c it is much more likely that battles go wrong for axis during the first rnd. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, imo.

  • '16 '15 '10

    One more thing to add in favor of TripleA is its easy to save maps and resume games in PBEM format or another day in the lobby.  Unlike other live formats, there are no timers and most players have no problem saving games and resuming them another time.  It really is just about everything one could ask for in a war-game software program.  The most significant defect is the poor aesthetics of the WWv2 (revised) map.  But fortunately WWv3 is much prettier.

  • Well I checked out the latest version of tripleA and  I still don’t care for it. While the map zoom  can at least be changed now the portion of the screen devoted to the map is still to small for my taste.  I much prefer ABattlemap. As far as time constraints on moves that I don’t have a problem with, I regularly play face to face and am used to making moves based on about a 5 to 10 minute cycle. I do that here with forum games anyway.

  • '16

    I have to agree with A44, in my face to face experiance the game is pretty balanced.

    Allied planning and co-ordination is critical, because it is reactionary.  A44’s plan is a broad “outline”, because the Allies always start the game reacting to the Axis.  Accepting that Japan needs to be stalled is the foundation of a solid Allied plan, and only America is in position to do that.

    Otherwise, my contribution to Allied strat is to focus less on removing Axis $$ and more on maintaining Allied, especially UK, IPCs.

  • It’s been a while ago I tried to get opponents in the TripleA lobby, as axis in a no bid (+NO) regular dice game. I was laughed at… :-)

    So there are two possibilities, either the TripleA players all have bad allied strats, or the PBF players here on this forum all have bad axis strats, and neither can disprove the others, b/c the TripleA players won’t use Abattlemap and you won’t use TripleA. So we’re stuck…  :-)

  • Customizer

    Well… I don’t play online, though I do play against a wide variety of opponents, and I’ve been playing A&A games since the Nova edition.  I’d have to agree with PG and A44, from my experiences the game is pretty balanced.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 19
  • 5
  • 18
  • 22
  • 10
  • 36
  • 60
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures