@DoManMacgee Hi DMM & thanks for the response… Really appreciate that these forums have experienced players who weigh in on things. It was OOB with a 12 bid.
That’s pretty much what Japan did - eliminate the threats and take back the 2 islands as advantageously as possible while still consolidating the fleet. I was just surprised how long it then took for Japan to have any pressure westward. India, in spite of losing 2 men on the initial Kwangtung foray, stayed around for quite a while (minimal investment for a KGF).
What helped, no doubt, was that Russia traded unfavourably in the initial Caucasus strafe (dice game, lost 3 inf to Germany’s 2, and took W Russia at odds) and the Germans (rather than push hard back immediately), decided to save the Med fleet with a carrier. This made the Egypt / Africa game interesting, but maybe a different buy on G1 and the Germans win sooner. Always tough to say.
But, as many have pointed out here, the Axis have such a strong start in this game it was nice to have a hotly contested battle!
Hello everyone. Very first post here. Myself with my group who play have learned from 1941 and just started playing this better version. We are usually 4 with one player controlling UK and Russia. Next game is my turn to play the two and I am asking for some advice. We are still new to the whole game especially this more complex one compared to 1941 but we all have the same issue. UK is spread out and gets it’s Atlantic navy wiped out before taking turn one. With the exception of SBRing Germany, what is another good Atlantic strategy? We all have waited for US Atlantic help while playing UK but have seen an Axis victory 4/4 times. We are all new and I know there has to be a better way. Also will take advice in terms of the Pacific situation for UK as well as Africa. Thanks.
Jagula last edited by
I tried posting a link to the topic but it didn’t work for me. Either way, the topic you want to read is called Allies Strategy and it’s only a few lines down from your post. In a nutshell from a 10,000 square foot level, UK should build fighters to fly them into West Russia/Archangel/Russia to keep Russia propped up for a few rounds while they also build 3 units a turn in India to stall the Japanese advance/etc… Once USA is really to roll, then they can start doing other stuff.
I would not recommend building a navy until the US is ready to roll. It takes up too much IPC’s to do so. You need to build some Fighters or Infantry, peferably both. A little Pacific strategy, if you want to crush J early, move the entire UK pacific fleet into SZ 37 taking 2 infantry from eastern Australia and 2 from India to take East Indies.
Look at this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36690.0
In addition to the link above, some random thought of UK I had in mind:
Africa is important if you want to keep Germany under control, at least in early rounds. UK can do a pretty solid job holding G from advancing with existing troops and additional help from Australia and India. I tend to fly a Russia fighter to help Egypt though I become doing this less and less over time…The hard part is when Japan and Germany working against UK as a team… In this case US is needed to come to rescue, or occasional Russia help at early rounds.
To deal with Pacific I normally build tons of fighters, enough to hold off J Navy. An aggressive Japan could push India really hard, UK likely need some help from Allies to gain some time for reinforcement.
But if you decide to go Atlantic, US commitment is needed. One way is let UK build a Carrier and have US fighters landed on it. This way you can have a quick Navy force while keeping enough income in India to spend. If Germany is spending all its air force for sz defence. UK needs to be patient and wait for US reinforcement first.
A warm welcome to the forum ProtesT.
The UK has much to do and limited resources. I think that makes it the most interesting Power to play.
An allied fleet off Europe is key, but the UK probably need US help to deliver it, plus perhaps saved ipcs from previous rounds, which presupposes that the UK has sufficient freedom to keep funds back.
In the meantime 3 builds per turn in India have to be funded. If one of those is a fighter each turn, the UK can switch between defending India / Egypt and reinforcing Moscow at will.
However the axis do have the advantage with the out of the box set up. Many use “bids” to balance the game. Some would use a 12 bid (say) to reinforce the UK in the middle east. If you want to know more about bids just ask.
I tried posting a link to the topic but it didn’t work for me. Â
Because of the forum’s anti-spam software, you need to have a certain minimum of posts (I think it’s 10 or 15 but I’m not sure) before the forum gives you the option to post links or attachments.
Thanks everyone. I played today but as only UK as we had a new fifth player join in who lost it for allies as he played Russia. Player is a RISK player and doesn’t understand the defence concept of Russia. Went for 4 territories R1 and rolled bad in two of those battles. Handed Moscow to Germany on a platter. The fighter concept would have worked if a better player was playing Russia. Or so it would seem. Although I still need to find a balance between fighters and infantry in India to hold longer.
And I would also very much appreciate an explanation on bidding. It doesn’t make sense to me as I tried to explain the concept to my knowledge but I don’t think I fully get the whole concept. From what I gather the lowest bid plays Allies. But do other bids still count? Meaning if I were to bid 11 and you had 12 and you let me have it, do you get your bid of 12 as well or is it just me with 11?
As you guys can tell we are still a group of greenhorns but are improving every game. I’m seeming to be the player improving the most but I am also the only player looking at videos and reading strategies on these forums.
You can think of bidding in 1942 sec ed as kind of auction that determines who will play Allies. The bid is descending, so basically you want to open high, say 20 ipcs or 18 ipc, then the opponent must determine whether they are willing to play as Axis if the Allies were to get that many ipcs extra on the bid. If not they can go lower with a bid of their own to play Allies, say 15 ipcs. It goes back and forth like this until one player/team decides they don’t want to go any lower. They say something like “ok you can have Allies for X ipcs, because I dont want to go lower.” Only one team gets the extra IPCs, the side wins the bid plays Allies.
Those ipcs can then be used to place additional Allied units on the gameboard before play begins, with the money split up between the 3 Allied powers however the Allied side chooses. Usually there are some restrictions about where the units can go. The way most people play, the bid units must go in a territory or sz that already houses a unit belonging to that Nation. So you couldn’t put a US bid unit in a sz or territory controlled by UK, or into an empty sz or territory. And usually this is limited to a single bid unit per territory or see zone. If there is no limit to the number of bid units that can go in a territory, that is frequently called an open or unrestricted bid, but those games are less popular because they can be exploited by the infantry or sub spam, where the player puts a bunch of cheap fodder units into one territory or sz to ensure that they win the battle.
Another way to expidite the process is to simply award an additional high value unit to the Allies in some specific pre-determined location. This is usually called a set-up change. For example I like to give the Russians a bomber in Moscow and just call it a day. Alternatively others will give the Americans a cruiser in sz 11 and call it a day. Then just flip a coin to determine who will take which side Axis or Allies.
Apologies for the late reply, been a hectic last few days. Thank you Black Elk for the explanation on bidding. We did in fact use this tactic on our last game. It’s a very good idea if the allied winner knows how to spend it.