• Hi everyone,

    Long time casual player, mostly Classic, Revised, and Anniversary, and a little Europe and 1914. Love the forum - first time poster.

    Anyway, it may be mostly my inexperience, but it seems in both the 1941 and 1942 scenarios I always see Germany losing pretty quickly. It seems that almost every game goes the same way: Japan gets very powerful (India, Australia, etc.) and pushes all the way to Russia, but Germany makes almost no progress and eventually falls and Italy is not far behind.

    Typically the German strategy is to push for one of the Russian VCs, either Stalingrad or Leningrad. If they go for Stalingrad, the general Axis strat is a “Meet in Persia.”

    However, it seems that Russia always can counter Germany relatively easy, or at least not lose anything too important until the US/UK show up in Europe. It seems Germany almost never is successful in this game.

    Would you say it’s a better idea to push for Leningrad? or Moscow? or am I missing something completely?


  • I concur that an allied game plan of KGF (Kill Germany First) is employed by most allied players.  One way to counter this is to initially set-up Germany/Italy to be more in survival mode as opposed to an expansionistic tact.  Take advantage of early game gains, but build defenses off of these.  In other words, fatten up (via infantry/tanks) and hold fortress Europe.  Wait for the inevitable overwhelming build-up of Japanese units to defeat Russia, hopefully before Berlin falls.  If not, at least the trading of capitals (Moscow/Berlin) creates a whole new dynamic (2 on 1 versus 3 on 2, apologies to Italy’s lesser role).

    Some may argue that Germany should do the heavy lifting with it’s early advantages, but they can over extend their supply lines and be bled dry by the western allies.  Much depends on early battle successes or failures.  It is probably best, in the long run, to conserve German resources and make the allies have to pay dearly to continue their march on Rome/Berlin.


  • Interesting - seems unique compared to most versions, in that Germany is the “minor” Axis player while Japan does the majority of the attacking and “wins” the game for the Axis.

    I agree that a lot depends on the first 1 or 2 turns for Germany. In my experience, barring very lucky dice, it’s unlikely that Germany will ever take Stalingrad or Moscow. They may take Leningrad but will probably not be able to hold it.

    What are your thoughts on German/Italian naval builds? Is it worth it for the sake of holding off UK/US landings in Morocco/France?


  • @EvenkiNatlOkrug:

    Interesting - seems unique compared to most versions, in that Germany is the “minor” Axis player while Japan does the majority of the attacking and “wins” the game for the Axis.

    This is mainly the case because the only allied country that can really get after Japan is the USA, and there is not much to gain for them to fight such an expensive war in the pacific.  The return is just not worth the investment there, as it is much easier to go after Germany  a 3 on 1 fashion.

    @EvenkiNatlOkrug:

    I agree that a lot depends on the first 1 or 2 turns for Germany. In my experience, barring very lucky dice, it’s unlikely that Germany will ever take Stalingrad or Moscow. They may take Leningrad but will probably not be able to hold it.

    Agreed.  Conquering/taking is much different than holding.

    @EvenkiNatlOkrug:

    What are your thoughts on German/Italian naval builds? Is it worth it for the sake of holding off UK/US landings in Morocco/France?

    Generally I would think naval builds in AA50 (1941 set-up) is a poor return for the European Axis dollars.  ESPECIALLY against the typically run KGF.  Now if America gets caught up trying to delay Japan, then the reduced pressure on the Med might allow an additional transport to increase pressure on Russia through the black sea.

    Now, the 1942 set-up is an entirely different set of circumstances.  I believe that a Baltic fleet is a great buy for Germany.  Others may not quite share my enthusiasm, but I know I have had some great success in my '42 games utilizing this strategy.


  • Hmm - based on your that, I’m wondering if my Axis losses are more due to not being aggressive enough with Japan. Seems that the majority opinion on the forum is that the OOB game favors the Axis, primarily due to Japan becoming a monster in the early going.

    So the overall idea is limited offensives by Germany with a focus on holding out long enough for Japan to take Moscow? Does this mean Japan should focus on Siberia and/or China on J1?

    We usually play the 1941 scenario, and Japan often focuses on some combination of Philippines, Hong Kong, and the high-value UK islands on J1, with India and/or Hawaii on J2. I also often see a UK IC in India on UK1.


  • I definitely agree with a lot of what’s already been said regarding the Axis in AA50. An aggressive Japan is absolutely essential to victory. It may seem like spreading yourself thin but ideally by the end of J1 you want to have eliminated all of the starting Chinese units so you can steadily push through towards Russia. Taking India is definitely worth it, particularly if the UK tries to build a factory there, but invading Australia is in my opinion usually a red herring, as is engaging in any costly arms race with the US in the Pacific. Just keep the US from invading Japan proper or otherwise devastating your production in the spice islands. American capital warships don’t matter unless they have the accompanying transports to actually threaten your home islands. Throw everything manageable as Japan towards Russia as quickly as you can, while ensuring that India, China and any other Allied strongholds on continental Asia pose no threat against you.

    With Germany I think a mixture of defensiveness and steady progress is important. I generally slowly build my forces in Africa and ensure that my Italian fleet and German transport in the Mediterranean remain together and I don’t attack Egypt until I’m reasonably certain of success (usually G2 or I2). I also build almost exclusively infantry my first two or sometimes even three turns. On G1 advance along the entire Russian front as normal (Baltic States, East Poland, etc.) but by turn two I feel you need to consolidate your forces in a single Russian territory that isn’t vulnerable to counter-attack. You should time your purchasing of tanks so that they’ll meet up with your initial infantry purchases at the precise moment when you’re ready to seize Moscow. The idea is to position your infantry adjacent to Moscow to prepare the way for your tanks. By this point Japan should be putting considerable pressure on Russia as well, which will reduce the overall number of Russian units being produced. Never underestimate the value of an Italian tank or two on the Eastern Front as well, since they can do wonders in punching a hole through the Russian lines for your German tanks. I think the most essential thing to remember is that if you buy exclusively tanks early on they won’t have the numbers necessary to crack Moscow and will likely get whittled away through Russian counter-attacks. In that sense for me the question of Stalingrad or Leningrad is kind of irrelevant; I only really care about taking Moscow. I often bypass them entirely and rely on the tendency of Russian players to obsess over defending them, even if it means losing their capital.

    Regarding the US and UK meddling in Europe, I find when I play as Germany that if I purchase a fighter or bomber each turn and conserve my air force it’s a pretty large deterrent against any Allied invasion fleet. Often by the time the Allies can land in force to threaten France or Berlin the Axis have already taken Moscow or I manage to get lucky in an all-out air assault on their fleet. Take advantage of your shorter supply lines in Europe. Remember that the Allied navies are all vulnerable at the start of the game. Use Germany and Japan to try to eliminate as many Allied transports as possible early on. Force the Allies to play a near perfect logistical game if they want to land in Europe. I hope this helps. Good luck!


  • Interesting - that makes sense. I think I’ve usually seen Japan play in more of their Classic/Revised role, in which they serve more of a “distraction” - diverting American and British focus from Germany while Germany takes on Russia.

    That means that Japan has focused on the islands, Australia, Hawaii, etc, expanding slowly in China, and leaving India and Russia for later in the game. Basically they leave mainland Asia alone until it’s too late. Seems like a better idea is to prioritize China and India immediately like you say - thanks for the input.


  • The shortest route to Moscow without building a new IC is thru Russia.  For $1 cheaper than an IC in Manchuria, 2 transports moves 1 more unit than the IC produces.  Move inf and tanks thru Soviet Far East.  4 turns to Moscow from drop to conquest  :lol:

    The Manchurian IC is also 4 turns to Russia, so there are many proponents of this Japanese strategy as well.

    I prefer to spend my IC investments farther away from Japan (like Sumatra, Borneo, Burma, French Indo China or India {down the road}) since those units would have the longest ‘supply’ route for units to get to those regions.


  • Recently tried out some of these suggestions in a game, and it turned into a pretty convincing Axis victory.

    My takeaways:

    1. Taking Moscow was more important than Leningrad or Stalingrad. Germany pretty much ignored the southern half of the Eastern Front and just played defense in Bulgaria/Romania.

    2. It’s pretty essential that Japan takes out China completely in the first turn, which allows Japan to focus land forces on Russia and India.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 22
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
  • 4
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

50
Online

15.7k
Users

37.1k
Topics

1.6m
Posts