• I was just thinking, if Japan, Germany and Italy focus against the US with decent fleets from both sides, would that be a decent treat/challenge to the US player?
    I don’t think so, but I’m not as experienced as someone here, how would you play that?

  • That would be hard. You would have to start on Italys turn so that all Axis would have units on America soil before their turn, and some time before round 4 ( round 3 of Italy, round four of Germany and Japan) when they can start attacking first. Japan and Germany have the transports if they have been looked after but to try and divert at least 3 Italian Transports may be a stretch if you dont want to compromise Africa. A landing in Alaska for Japan, Quebec for Germany and Southeast Mexico for Italy after taking Gilbrator. Germany would take 2 turns to get there- take Iceland then Quebec. You would only have one shot,  Russia is in Germany in Round 4 and you would need Americas cash to start building. It would be cool to do just for the sake of doing it.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    It really relies on total surprise.

    And if you go for it and lose, you lose.

    It’s possible to win, but relies on a few conditions,  you would have to land on the 3rd round of the game.  You would have to emalgamate Italy and Germany around Gibraltar, and it would require a coordinated effort, and be dependant on early success in several battles.

    It would be forecast, for any player with experience.  It would pretty much HAVE to be a capital shot, with Italy first, Germany second, and America not expecting it,  Japan could then land in WUS with the entirity of the Japanese Fleet in tow.

    With America out, you still however have to deal with Russia, and the U.K. who you have essentially ignored…  tough call, worth a try if you are crazy enough 😛

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    And remember, USA can only buil 9 units TOTAL in USA until at war…  unless they spend 20 to upgrade…  aslong as you use that to your advantage, and don’t get navaly blocked… you should be fine.

  • If you pulled this off thats 3 VCs that the allies will never get back. Too much effort. 56 more IPCs to the Axis and 1 less Major Allies power. Gargantua is right it would be a one time only, if it fails thats it.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    But if it suceeds, no one will EVER forget it. or you, or how awesome your plan was.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The surprise aspect would be easy to achieve.  What I am struggling with is how to do it in a timely manner.

    I suppose a unified Italian/German fleet in Gibraltar wouldn’t be overly alarming.  I suspect that all this equipment in SZ 91 would make America pay serious attention for a bit, as would England.  Not to mention, you are cost yourself N. Africa with Italy by moving out of the Med.

    I would like to try it, however.  Having spear headed the Kill America campaigns of AAR and the America ignores Germany entirely campaigns of AAR, this would be a great pleasure for me. ^_^

  • The main problem with the kill-USA strategy as I see it, and perhaps where there is opportunity for dscussion, is that there are little rewards for the Axis if they fail in their ultimate goal of taking Washington.

    In other words, the Axis powers are rewarded with both territorial IPC and NO gains for going after the other Allies. An attempt at Moscow, although it may fail, will at least gain some IPCs for the Axis. A failed attempt at America could leave the Axis with nothing gained for their massive effort.

    I would suggest that the Axis need one if not several secondary objectives to pursue should they fail to capture America in order to make the strategy more successful. For Germany and Italy, a strong push West in the early game should net them control over Gibraltar and the Med. Another benefit is that the required strong Axis naval force will keep the UK defensive. Japan should probably focus on removing as much of the US pacific income as possible, and should still take the DEI in order to finance the war effort.

    A more fanciful idea would be for the Axis, in a scenario where they have deployed heavily, but are unable to take Washington, to instead drop their forces in South America. This could be part of a global neutral crush strategy…or the Axis could pile everything in to Brazil and use DD blocks and their existing forces to build a minor.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    A nice counter point to this strategy, is that like sea-lion.  Any Capital/Major Factory SACK, destroys the factories back down to minors.

    LOVE IT! 😛  So if you have an impulse attacks, like a round 1, they take it back, hit em again, it could really mess em up.

    Russia becomes the biggest problem, but nothing MEN and PLANES couldn’t solve.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, wait, it is not like if Germany/Italy fail to take and hold significant portions of North America they are doomed to a quick death.  In order to even threaten North America both England and America have to be either fleetless on the Atlantic board or with such small fleet numbers as to be insignificant.

    That alone allows them a great deal of relief on that side of the map.  Sure, N. America may be barricaded to such an extent that ever taking Washington is a pipe dream, but all that “stuff” are wasted units if you do not attack.  They cannot hurt you, they cannot threaten you, they cannot do anything to you if you ignore them.  Meanwhile, the fleet you need to do these attacks is still very useful to you.  You can use it to take Africa or just to prevent America and England from ever putting boats in the water, eventually allowing you to focus solely on Russia.

    After all, with no destroyers in the waters, you only need 6 submarines for England and 6 for America to keep it that way.  (Gotta convoy raid too, right?)

    Quebec 2
    Nova Scotia 1
    Scotland 2
    England 6

    To cap dmg, you need 6 submarines. (Not to mention, you should easily have enough firepower - via planes and subs - to sink anything he puts in the water.)

    E. USA - 20
    C. USA - 12
    Mexico - 1
    C. Amer - 1

    On the Japan end of things, going for Kill America First should net him at least 2 more Victory Cities (Hawaii and Philippines) because he’ll have to knock those out to even have a prayer of having enough cash to out-punch America.

    But that too is not a lost cause if you dont do KAF because you should have enough firepower to win by VCs
    Need 17 submarines to cap here, but that’s a bit ridiculous.  Why would you put 102 IPC worth of submarines off the coast of America anyway?  I don’t thinki you’d be able to do that AND hold back Russia.

  • I have actually been working on this strategy for months. It relies heavily on several things: massive u-boat interdiction (preferably with the -3 instead of -2 option rule), a big airforce, an incredibly competent and successful Italy, a huge amount of surprise, a shitton of luck. I don’t really know quite yet how I’m going to stop Russia from just rampaging all over the Eastern front but so far the plan calls for Italy to take the prime defender role on the East after gobbling up as many North African territories and Middle Eastern Oil territories as possible as quickly as possible.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I am very hesitant to use any tactic that requires “luck” and you said yours needs a “shitton of luck” which has got to be a gawd-aweful mess and very stinky too…how much is a shitton anyway?

    If I am in a desperate situation, I am more than willing to go all or nothing in hopes of getting better dice.  IMHO, it’s better to go out like a nuclear weapon than to be slowely suffocated to death so if the game is a lost cause, and there is an iota of probability I could do something crazy and win, I’ll do it.

    Now, in regards to surprise, I LOVE surprise!  I hate winning games the conventional way. “Infantry Push Mechanic” YUK!  Kill America First, before they even know they’re in trouble, OH YEA!

  • I mean it requires a shitton of luck just because its such a crazy plan. It is a sound plan in my head. It hinges on a big string of successes and the American player not seeing it coming.

  • i personally pefer a UK focused attack but if the usa doesnt build a navy in the atlantic it is possible to hit them

  • @Cmdr:

    a “shitton of luck” which has got to be a gawd-aweful mess and very stinky too…how much is a shitton anyway?


  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator


    I mean it requires a shitton of luck just because its such a crazy plan. It is a sound plan in my head. It hinges on a big string of successes and the American player not seeing it coming.

    I understand, but in my opinion, the pharse has too many “if” statments.

    If I get a string of successes
    If The string of successes is big
    If the American player does not see it coming

    And if I may add,

    If the American player does not know how to counter it.

  • All of those “ifs” are completely necessary to successfully invade and capture the mainland U.S. I really cannot envision a scenario where those don’t occur. The plan has to be watertight. When you are pulling off something so ambitious you can’t have parts of your plan fail because the whole thing is so dependent on being able to move forward as planned. For example, if I get bad dice and lose a bulk of my transports, the plan is finished and I will have 0% chance of being successful. Or another example. If the U.S. player gets worried I’m coming for him early and starts to build up there is nothing I can do to match that. I have to bring troops 2 moves away from where they are built and still defend other territories whereas the U.S. player can just stack. So if you can think of a plan to invade the U.S. with the axis that doesn’t involve surprise and a large string of successes you are literally a tactical and strategic genius.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Perhaps it is inevitable in this version of Axis and Allies.  I don’t know, filmatleven to be sure.

    However, I would feel more comfortable removing as many if statements as possible.  This is why I never went in for “Canadian Shield” but rather devised a more secure plan to invade from the Carolines.

    Sure, IF America had been building right from the start, I wouldnt have gone to Carolines to begin with. - IF statment neutralized.
    Sure, IF America saw the threat and countered it, I wouldn’t attack W. USA, rather take Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia - IF statment neutralized.

    If we could somehow alter the plan so there was an option to be useful when KAF seemed im-plausable, then it would be a golden thing to set up.  Why?  Why not, if it gets derailed you still have options for your units on the next round, without having to redeploy first.

  • Oh, then you misunderstood me. I’m not saying my plan isn’t flexible to go after other targets. I am saying that if I want to go after the U.S. then those certain things must always occur. I never meant that if for some reason I lost an important battle that I would lose the game, merely that I would likely be unable to complete my objective of taking the USA.

  • What about conquering PANAMA with the Japanese navy and bring both the Italian navy and then the germany nave on the other side of panama?
    Of course the Japaneses must leave a blocker to counter a counter attack there.
    Will you have a decent position there to treat W, E and C america with all three forces?
    What are the IFs?

Suggested Topics

  • 21
  • 11
  • 10
  • 17
  • 5
  • 35
  • 5
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys