Old Axis strategies what were they and how did they work?

Japan has to go to War by turn 3 or sooner, but having the 10 IPC for leaving the US out of the war and not touching FIC are vital, not a fan of J1 in any circumstance. With Japan my goal was to reduce the UK income ASAP and hold Yunnan turn 3, drive to Shensi and Kansu, foot hold in and Kweichow by 4, Money Islands completed by 5, hold the Carolines at all costs till turn 7

Early strategy with Germans was to kill Russia ASAP so a factory in Romania was vital as you strategically hit the UK (Subs and Bombers) That meant a G1 into Southern Russia.

The conventional wisdom in prior A&A games was for Germany to buy inf/art for the first few turns.  So alot of the early strategies aimed for an attack on Moscow on G8 or G9 (these players built artillery for a few turns and then built mech, creating an invincible but not particularly mobile army)….which gives Allies more time to make gains in other regions or retreat the Siberians.  Alot of times the Russians could simply abandon Moscow on R7 or R8 and still win the game if Allies were doing well in the Pacific.

Another factor was that in prior games the conventional wisdom was that Axis needed to move quickly and decisively to win the game while the long game favored the Allies.  It took us awhile to figure out that (with the help of National Objectives, dual victory conditions and map dynamics) Axis could win the long game without having to capture any Allied capitals for the first 10 turns.

It took alot of us awhile to realize that J1 and J2 were generally better than J3 (although this shouldn’t have been hard to figure out given the superiority of J1 in the standalone Pacific game).  This is closely related to the fact that most of my early games were Sea Lion games (so waiting till J3 keeps USA out of the Atlantic).  Allies generally have a better chance in a Sea Lion game than in a Barbarossa game.

The optimized German attack on the UK navy, and the following attack on by UK on the Italians (Tobruk and Taranto) are probably optimal moves, but that hasn’t always been the prevailing view.    Our early games gave Italy some breathing room and if this happens in a certain game then all sorts of options are on the table that normally aren’t.    The games played separately are quite different than the linked “Global” game and after our first 10-20 plays we stopped playing them individually.

We also played around with various G4/J4s where 1) Japan takes Alaska and Germany lands on them (via Iceland) Hollywood 2) Germany and Italy get in USA face and japan goes through panama via Hawaii 3) Germany heads for south Africa or enters the med 4) or heads towards south Africa 5) or the classic, double sea lion where Italy throws itself at UK and Germany follows up.

All of these are really fun but they aren’t very good ways to win the game, especially if they aren’t novel or your opponent isn’t a noob, and the number of noobs is lower since we all were, at some point.

Also there are whole run of exploits and nuances that open new strategies that it took a while for the community to circulate.  Some wise souls pointed these details out early on, but they weren’t necessarily discussed at that time and so they pop back up in discussion from time to time–some of these are so cheesy/fluffy fun that you can make an entire strategy out of them.

In the older games, the “leapfrogging” strategy meant that a player higher in the turn order would take a land territory, then a player later in the turn order would land all their air there in defense.  This was been complimented by the “can opening strategy”, where the fact that Italy goes right before Germany without a real ally in between means that Italy can pick off blockers and Russia just has to run it cant stack.

So like chess, its just a deep, nuanced game and the community here is basically developing and discussing the ideas that are your toolkit.    Many players don’t consult this resource and have to see these strategies used against them in order to respond, which can take years of casual play.

What do you mean by dual victory conditions?

Dual victory conditions means that either Germany/Italy or Japan can win the game for Axis.  This was a big change from the traditional way A&A games played out, where Allies would generally go either KJF or KGF.  In these games, Axis only had so much time to take out Russia before USA gets to either J or G.  Dual victory conditions force the Allies to adopt a balanced approach or risk losing on one side of the board or another.  This gives Axis more time to achieve economic dominance.

@Zhukov44:

The conventional wisdom in prior A&A games was for Germany to buy inf/art for the first few turns.  So alot of the early strategies aimed for an attack on Moscow on G8 or G9 (these players built artillery for a few turns and then built mech, creating an invincible but not particularly mobile army)….which gives Allies more time to make gains in other regions or retreat the Siberians.  Alot of times the Russians could simply abandon Moscow on R7 or R8 and still win the game if Allies were doing well in the Pacific.

Another factor was that in prior games the conventional wisdom was that Axis needed to move quickly and decisively to win the game while the long game favored the Allies.  It took us awhile to figure out that (with the help of National Objectives, dual victory conditions and map dynamics) Axis could win the long game without having to capture any Allied capitals for the first 10 turns.

It took alot of us awhile to realize that J1 and J2 were generally better than J3 (although this shouldn’t have been hard to figure out given the superiority of J1 in the standalone Pacific game).  This is closely related to the fact that most of my early games were Sea Lion games (so waiting till J3 keeps USA out of the Atlantic).  Allies generally have a better chance in a Sea Lion game than in a Barbarossa game.

This was the old meta. Now the axis are far more aggressive. 2 bomber 1 sub g1, and slam egypt with 4 bomber 1 fig 1 tact etc.

There is absolutely no reason to play a slower paced axis. A more aggressive axis sees faster gains, higher income rates, and has the vc win down within 10 rounds.

The old meta the axis played slower and typically lost.

Yes Mr. Moo, and that is why the meta now pushes the allies to shore up Moscow as quickly and deeply as possible, even losing other strongpoints or plans, because the Axis odds in the Moscow battle rise from G5-G7 but each turn after that, their odds stop increasing.  Unless you can strangle Moscow $$ and stop it’s defensive power from growing (thus the relentless stratbombings, which have to be countered or deterred imo)

@Zhukov44:

Dual victory conditions means that either Germany/Italy or Japan can win the game for Axis.  This was a big change from the traditional way A&A games played out, where Allies would generally go either KJF or KGF.  In these games, Axis only had so much time to take out Russia before USA gets to either J or G.  Dual victory conditions force the Allies to adopt a balanced approach or risk losing on one side of the board or another.  This gives Axis more time to achieve economic dominance.

Gotcha, thanks.  I didn’t play the older games.  So before without dual victory conditions if the Berlin or Tokyo were captured and held a turn then the Allies would win?  Whereas now they need to capture both capitals, unless the axis concede first.

What does meta mean?

metagame.  “Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.”  Wikipedia.

younger people backronym this to Most Effective Tactics Available but this is not correct.    These aren’t tactics, they are strategies.  They include

1. what does my opponent like to do vs not do
2. what do changes in the perception of the game over time do to affect how people play in general
3. what might be best in a tournament, vs triple A vs, a live game
4. is it better to do something reliable, or unexpected?
5. is conservative play better in this scenario, or do I need to take bigger risks to win?

These things are key to success in any highly nuanced and evolved game (or business ;))

Italy Rage with 2 or 3 transports.

Hold Gibraltar and stack with defense.  Allies cant cross without getting attacked and they cant necessarily take the base back, either (esp. during KJF).  Once they can, you flee.  This works especially well in G42

Take the oil with style.    Italy could get 40+ money with Germany’s air help, inserting through Syria and taking all 3 oil zones.  Getting other NOs.

Double Sea Lion.  Throw Italy at UK and hope the sacrifice makes the Sea Lion odds work.  If they don’t, Germany still can fling a second round at Italy.

Deep Atlantic Wall Italy is making the troops to defend Germany, so germany can spend every dime on offense.

Egypt isn’t a safe zone when Italy is strong.  African ops are possible.    Can opening is Italys best use, Russia just runs for its life.  Africa is, as in real life, a black hole of resources that demanded an ever escalating commitment that reversed into cutting losses and admitting defeat.

“can fling another round of invaders AFTER Italy” not at Italy.  edit.

I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious.  No Taranto I believe.  Axis win in Europe