• 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?


  • @marshmallowofwar said in Axis are underpowered.:

    Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?

    Because Andrew asked a question about it.

  • 2022 2021 '20

    @marshmallowofwar said in Axis are underpowered.:

    Why are you talking about 42 in a Global 1940 forum?

    Didn’t you read the thread?

    • We were talking about controlling the Med in Global 1940.
    • Which led to a comment about GenCon only having $20 OOB bids.
    • Which morphed into a statement that those GenCon games were actually 1942, not 1940.
    • Which resulted in my question about how GenCon works.
    • So actually we were talking about GenCon in a 1940 thread, not 1942.

    Hope that helps!


  • @squirecam why no J1? How should Allies react to a J1, go KGF?


  • @cornwallis said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @squirecam why no J1? How should Allies react to a J1, go KGF?

    This is just my opinion, but a J1 eliminates most options for Germany. Whether or not it’s a good idea, a J1 ends any reasonable chance of a sea lion working as US gets involved early. For the same reasons a J1 ends any reasonable chance of holding onto the med as Italy because the US can move right in. So you are basically reduced to trying to get moscow before the US crushes you.

    Germany isn’t ready for the US on turn 1. They have to pivot troops to Russia but the US can be landing in Africa or Gibraltar t1 which is really bad. So they have to help Italy which weakens the moscow push.

    A J1 might work out fine for Japan. But I certainly dont like it as Germany. I absolutely hate the idea if I’m Italy.


  • J1 DoW doesn’t change Europe very much as the United States still needs to invest heavily in the Pacific on the first turn to have a fleet reach the action on USA3. A bit more American Pacific fleet has to be built to make up for the units sunk by the Japanese on that turn 1 attack. I always do a standard Cow opener for Japan in every out-of-the-box match, and have never regretted it except when getting diced in Yunnan. Bad luck happens.

    For someone struggling to win as the Axis, I highly recommend standard Germany and Japan openings as you have the ability to follow a simple script for the first two rounds, giving a foundation for later turns. Getting income up is so crucial in the first six turns. Way too often, I see people playing scared as the Axis and focusing on defense instead of setting strategic targets to capture territories in the early game.


  • @arthur-bomber-harris so your Allied reaction on the first turn would be for the US to built in the pacific and from turn2 on going more in the Atlantic?


  • @cornwallis I always favor at least one USA carrier to be built in the Pacific on turn 1, and two is usually preferred. If I am doing a KGF strategy, turn 2 has more build in the Atlantic.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @squirecam This is a lot more reasonable than some people are giving it credit for. A G1 fleet build helps you move on Leningrad, raises the cost to the UK to take Scandinavia, and does not by itself wreck your chances of winning in Moscow/Cairo. Similarly, taking southern France costs you a mech or two at most and gives you some extra income as compensation. Is a German fleet build literally the most efficient attack on Moscow possible? No. Does it prevent you from taking Moscow? Also no.

    You can’t always follow up that opening by building even more German boats on G2 and G3 without throwing away Operation Barbarossa, but sometimes you can, and it’s nice to have the flexibility.


  • @argothair I see so many novice players spend way too much income on German & Italian fleets. Definitely an early fleet build by the Axis is useful when done in moderation, but most people don’t know when to stop. It is often a vicious cycle with more fleet being built to protect the high previous investment in Axis fleet.

    People who fail to cripple Russia by G6, complaining that the Allies are overpowered, should focus on ground forces for the first couple of turns, and a mix of ground + air for the next few rounds. Losing Normandy or Sweden to an entrenched Allied force is not as bad as failing to push deep into Russian territories by the sixth turn. There should be no excuse for losing the Eastern Front in a out-of-the-box game without an Allied bid.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @arthur-bomber-harris No argument from me! All very true.


  • @argothair said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @squirecam This is a lot more reasonable than some people are giving it credit for. A G1 fleet build helps you move on Leningrad, raises the cost to the UK to take Scandinavia, and does not by itself wreck your chances of winning in Moscow/Cairo. Similarly, taking southern France costs you a mech or two at most and gives you some extra income as compensation. Is a German fleet build literally the most efficient attack on Moscow possible? No. Does it prevent you from taking Moscow? Also no.

    You can’t always follow up that opening by building even more German boats on G2 and G3 without throwing away Operation Barbarossa, but sometimes you can, and it’s nice to have the flexibility.

    I like flexibility and options. Much better to me then planning on a G6 or bust taking of Moscow. Generally I’m not even attacking until J3 so I’m never planning on being in Moscow on turn 6. But I’m also not weak against the Allies in either europe or Africa or the Middle East.

    I’m also not buying transports for Sea Lion unless the UK player makes a huge error. But having 3 transports being able to drop 6 units into Lenningrad helps the Axis because you can buy inf/art rather than mechs. More offense although a little bit slower.

    People don’t want to play long games so they rush to Moscow and win or lose if they fail. It works but it’s never been fun for me. I’ve done fleet builds in revised and AA50 and 42 and the options available make the game enjoyable for me.


  • @squirecam Germany needs to rush towards Moscow and have a credible attack planned for G6. That forces Russia to primarily build infantry to maximize defenses AND the UK to stack fighters in Moscow if they want to hold the Capitol.

    If both events occur, Germany pivots to plan B of sending a few fast movers towards Siberia to capture more territory and move the bulk of their tanks/mechs towards the Middle East with some infantry support. The Allies can block the advance somewhere around Iraq, but the Axis will usually win in the long game if this is an out-of-the-box game with no bid. The ability of the German Air Force to project power in so many directions simultaneously is the superpower that allows victory given equal income with the Allies.

    There shouldn’t be much luck required beyond the first turn as few battles will have much chance of failure. You always can have the bizarre instance of a lone Russian unit going Rambo against an overwhelming attack, but rarely will a single turn prove totally catastrophic. I would give a 95% chance for an expert Axis player to win an OOB game played by email where it is easier to battle calc and avoid dumbass mistakes. Probably 85% in a face-to-face game.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @arthur-bomber-harris In an OOB Global game with no bid, the Axis are just favored to win, period. It’s the Axis’s game to lose. The Axis can attack Moscow, or London, or Cairo, or focus on winning in the Pacific, and as long as they make reasonable purchases and attacks, the Axis are still going to win most games, regardless of their grand strategy.

    In a game with a healthy Allied bid, or in Balanced Mod, the Allies have options – they’re not forced to defend Moscow at all, even if Germany directs 100% of its offense there. The Allies could focus on an early attack on Paris, or Rome, or Tokyo, or the money islands, and just resign themselves to the fact that Moscow will probably fall on turn 6. This means the Siberian Russian infantry can go south to Chinghai and/or Manchuria, and the British air force can focus on supporting landings on the western front. If the Germans have no fleet and send their air force east toward Moscow while building mostly mechs and tanks, that forfeits control of the sea zones around France/Italy early enough in the game for the Allies to make a meaningful attack in the west. If the Allies can take 2+ of France, Italy, and Scandinavia without being in danger of a loss in the Pacific, that’s often better than even compensation for losing Moscow. Germany’s income will be somewhere in the 70s, the British will be earning something in the 30s, and the Americans can send 60 IPC or so a turn to the European front.

    I think part of what @squirecam is getting at is that he’d rather have the strategic flexibility as the Axis to choose when and where to attack vs. follow a script that the Allies can easily predict and give the Allies the freedom to choose where they want to attack.


  • @arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @squirecam Germany needs to rush towards Moscow and have a credible attack planned for G6. That forces Russia to primarily build infantry to maximize defenses AND the UK to stack fighters in Moscow if they want to hold the Capitol.

    If both events occur, Germany pivots to plan B of sending a few fast movers towards Siberia to capture more territory and move the bulk of their tanks/mechs towards the Middle East with some infantry support. The Allies can block the advance somewhere around Iraq, but the Axis will usually win in the long game if this is an out-of-the-box game with no bid. The ability of the German Air Force to project power in so many directions simultaneously is the superpower that allows victory given equal income with the Allies.

    There shouldn’t be much luck required beyond the first turn as few battles will have much chance of failure. You always can have the bizarre instance of a lone Russian unit going Rambo against an overwhelming attack, but rarely will a single turn prove totally catastrophic. I would give a 95% chance for an expert Axis player to win an OOB game played by email where it is easier to battle calc and avoid dumbass mistakes. Probably 85% in a face-to-face game.

    Germany does not need to do so. It can of course. But it can win in other ways.

    I would be bored if every game was G6 moscow attack or bust strategy.


  • @argothair OP is talking about his challenges winning an OOB game with no bid. Recommending lower-odds gambits is not helpful for people who are struggling with the standard playbook.

    In regards to hiding the Axis’ plans, how many places can the Allies choose to attack in W Europe even when they do know the German strategy? There are only a few obvious landing spots that can be held, and it is only a matter of when the Allies have sufficient forces to grab those territories. Normandy… Norway… Greece? Maybe a few more logical choices if the Axis is played poorly.


  • @arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @argothair OP is talking about his challenges winning an OOB game with no bid. Recommending lower-odds gambits is not helpful for people who are struggling with the standard playbook.

    In regards to hiding the Axis’ plans, how many places can the Allies choose to attack in W Europe even when they do know the German strategy? There are only a few obvious landing spots that can be held, and it is only a matter of when the Allies have sufficient forces to grab those territories. Normandy… Norway… Greece? Maybe a few more logical choices if the Axis is played poorly.

    And maybe the German player would be doing better if Japan didnt attack J1. But having them follow a script is a bad idea. It doesn’t teach them to think for themselves. It’s better to learn through options and discussion rather than following a map script.


  • @squirecam do you recommend a J1 in OOB with no bid?if not, why not?


  • @cornwallis cow provides an in-depth benefit of J1 over J2 in his pinned playbook. He also outlines the perfect execution for both. On average, attacking on J1 is advantageous to the Axis. However, the battle in Yunnan is slightly dicey and very bad rolling can leave China out of control with minimal Japanese land forces to counter it on the second turn.

    If matched against an opponent of equal or superior skill, J1 DoW is clearly the best option. If facing a significantly inferior opponent and you want to minimize variance, J2 becomes a better strategy. Those advocating J3 DoW make me question why they are playing a strategy game and posting strategy tips on this forum.


  • @cornwallis said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @squirecam do you recommend a J1 in OOB with no bid?if not, why not?

    Well, first of all I would not play OOB without some bid to the allies, at least a fighter scotland and med sub.

    That said, no I dont use a J1 for the reasons I mentioned earlier. It takes away German and Italian options.


  • @arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @cornwallis cow provides an in-depth benefit of J1 over J2 in his pinned playbook. He also outlines the perfect execution for both. On average, attacking on J1 is advantageous to the Axis. However, the battle in Yunnan is slightly dicey and very bad rolling can leave China out of control with minimal Japanese land forces to counter it on the second turn.

    If matched against an opponent of equal or superior skill, J1 DoW is clearly the best option. If facing a significantly inferior opponent and you want to minimize variance, J2 becomes a better strategy. Those advocating J3 DoW make me question why they are playing a strategy game and posting strategy tips on this forum.

    Yeah, the fact that I’ve played every version of A&A winning tournaments at Gencon, Origins, the WBC etcetera probably means I’m very poor at strategy games and shouldn’t post any tips whatsoever.

    Sorry.

    You should only listen to those masters of the game who advocate a J1 apparently.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @arthur-bomber-harris I know you’re good at this game, but you’ve got to at least partly back up your claims when you’re throwing that much shade – otherwise it’s just rude. It’s not obvious why J3 DoW is a bad strategy; either tell us why you think it’s shit, or link to someone who did.


  • @argothair The Axis starts out with less than half the income of the Allies. Even with excellent tactics, it is difficult for a player to find battles with better than 1.2 : 1 exchange of unit value over the long run. The Axis must catch up with income and it cannot be just in the European theater. Find a top League player who consistently waits until J3 for DoW… you won’t. Easy to get away with it in face-to-face games where you can wait for dumb mistakes but not a reliable strategy in games where the opponent will battle calc every possible response to moves.

    Most inexperienced players, like the OP, focus on defensive strategies and fail to expand economically. Eventually the opponent will have superior forces that inevitably will find a weak spot to successfully attack. The trend towards more aggressive Axis strategies has pushed the needle from the game being almost balanced, into a point where Allies need a 40+ point bid to achieve parity.


  • @arthur-bomber-harris said in Axis are underpowered.:

    @argothair The Axis starts out with less than half the income of the Allies. Even with excellent tactics, it is difficult for a player to find battles with better than 1.2 : 1 exchange of unit value over the long run. The Axis must catch up with income and it cannot be just in the European theater. Find a top League player who consistently waits until J3 for DoW… you won’t. Easy to get away with it in face-to-face games where you can wait for dumb mistakes but not a reliable strategy in games where the opponent will battle calc every possible response to moves.

    I could just as easily say the following then:

    If you need to rely upon battle calculators to tell you what to do then how good are you? If you need four hours between moves then stay online because you may risk losing in a ftf game when you must play without the crutch.


  • @squirecam I can battle calc just fine in my own head, getting the odds on critical battles with plenty of accuracy. I have no problem playing f2f matches and making the right choices. My opponents, on the other hand, are quite bad in such situations and I can quite reliably wait until they goof in live games.

    League matches is where you go if you want to really test your strategy since you can’t count on them doing something stupid. It is such a higher level of competition. Top guys like Axis Dominion or Adam or Cow will take advantage of your minor mistakes and give you few openings to catch back up.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 16
  • 13
  • 7
  • 40
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts