• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Oh, it’s a beautiful thing when done right.  You really should see it, LT04.

    6 Transports get’s America 12 units a round into Africa.  12 Transports get’s America 12 units a round into N. Europe.  Also, the 6 Transports in SZ 12 can hit S. Europe, W. Europe and Norway as well as drop down the coast of Africa to fend off potential Japanese assaults there.

    Once America gets Persia, Russia can move out and turn over the reigns to Patton and Bradley to hold the land.  Then, as America adds 12 units a round to the defense, they can make plans to invade India, FIC and the Rest of Asia Minor or split off forces to assist in Europe.  Either way, Japan is very bad off and Germany’s looking at the decimation of her empire.

  • I imagine it would be. I would suppose you would land all INF on the first wave series, then all ARM on the second wave series. then bring any air support after that. All of this assuming that Algeria is Allied held, and that the mission is all about Persia.

  • Also a strong allied presence in Africa early, perhaps both a UK and US landing in Algeria, forces Germany to allocate precious resources if they want to supplement their IPC’s with the  UK’s.  If both the UK and US drop a R1 load in Algeria you are looking at 3-4 inf 2 ARM and 1 ART ready to go.  Not the largest army in the game but enough to make Germany think about not taking Africa.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Personally, if I go N. Africa, I land with British forces for two rounds, taking Algeria and Libya so that England has more money.  As I said, America doesn’t NEED it, they have 37 pretty secure IPC already, England has 12 secure IPC.

    As for landings, I find 5 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 2 Armor (37 IPC) to be a good stack.  Yes, that’s only 10 ground units a round not the adverrtised 12, but you can easily get 11 infantry, 1 artillery and have 12 ground units as well.  I just like my mix for personal reasons. (It’s a math thing, I don’t expect anyone on this board who has not taken MATH 416 Modelling, to understand.)

    Obviously, that’s flexible.  If you engage the enemy and lose a significant portion of infantry, you can focus on more infantry.  Maybe going 9 Infantry, 2 Armor for a round or two to get your infantry back up.

    Later you can take all the unspent money and augment your transport fleet so you can jump from E. Canada to Algeria and then from Libya to Caucasus or Trans-Jordan each round to cut the walk time.  But that’s later on, after you’ve established a beach head in T-J and later Persia.

  • I defiantly think you would curb Germany’s appetite for N Africa if the Allies insist that they must have it. But do you think that you would rather give Germany the illusion the allies are not intrested and then pounce like a rabid junkyard dog?

    I’m just saying if I was Germany and I thought the Allies were going to put up a fight for Africa I would rather consintrate recourses in other avenues, for example a Navy or a kick a** Luft Waffe.

    What do you think?


  • If the Allies do take the N. Afican route it takes some time.  So if I am Germany and I see the allies securing N. Africa I am building more tanks than usual and pound Russia into submission as fast as possible.  I would hope that japan could block the Allies 1 turn or 2 in Persia.

  • There is no fixed COUNTER to a “West Russia stack”, because a West Russia stack is not intrinsically weak, and the rest of the board position is not defined.

    As always, the Axis must play depending on board position.

    Japan can go through the southern route, but to do so effectively, it will very probably need to have a factory in India, plus transports to increase flexibility of infantry movement.

    That means - if it looks like the Allies will ALLOW Japan to attack through Africa, then Japan SHOULD do it.

    If it looks like the Allies are making a strong attack on Africa, though, Japan can and probably should instead run tanks to Novosibirsk.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Navy and Airforce are expensive and cannot take and hold land.  If you can convince Germany to make heavy fleet or airforce purchases, I think you are miles ahead in the game.

    Furthermore, if you can kick Germany out, even if you give Japan Africa, you are miles ahead.  A germany collecting 35 IPC or less a round is much easier to defeat then a Germany earming greater then 40 IPC a round.

    And anyway, if you don’t go heavy from round 1, just give it up for the classic furlough in London followed by assaults on Norway/Karelia route.  You need the round 1 landings to get to Persia before Japan is strong enough to repell you.

    Axis has the gist of it.  By going N. Africa you force Germany to move faster then normal in an effort to break Russia before America can break Japan’s ability to wage war on the mainland.  This is also true of a KJF strategy, Japan is diverted leaving Germany solo against two powers.

    Though, I don’t think Japan has a chance in hell of blocking the Allies in Persia.  Not without stellar dice.  You have 8 units hitting Persia on Turn 5, 4 British, 4 Amiercan plus fighters and bombers they can bring in.  On Turn 6 you have 12 more, 4 british, 8 American.  After that it’s 10-12 per round from America.  You can see how Japan is going to get quickly bogged down in India with 100% of it’s mainland production and whatever else it can spare going to India, which is far away from Moscow, just to prevent America from taking her mainland industrial complexes.

    Who cares if Japan is making 50 IPC a round if all of it goes to hold America?  That leaves 60 IPC between Russia and England to hit Germany who is making 20-35 IPC a round depending on the dice.

    I’ll take that trade.  Sure, America never takes a single control marker out of her box the entire game, but who cares?  This is not a game of glorify America by making the world green, it’s a game of capture the flag!

  • I would comment to Jen’s post that if you take the Africa route and lets assume that Germany is now forced to reckon with Russia faster then they normally would that Germany now runs the risk of having to take gambles they wouldn’t have considered before thus also leading to the Allies favor.


  • I don’t think that the Allies going through N. Africa forces Germany to attack Russia quicker, it allows Germany to attack Russia quicker.  If the US sends its forces through Africa that means US troops aren’t landing in Western Europe.  So Germany should step up the attack on Russia because their income isn’t going to recieve the boost from Africa.  So looking at the map the most logical way to increase the German income is to take Russian territory, hard and fast.

  • I don’t know as I would ever advise an invasion of WE. Yeah it forces Germany to reinforce it in the event that could happen but I like putting US troops into Norway and moving them to the front line. I prefer this method b/c lets say UK forces on Russia’s front line make a strafe attack, US forces take the front line forward then Russia reinforces it before Germany gets a turn. This way all 3 allied powers can push together thus making their consolidated efforts more effective.


  • I like the idea of a 1,2,3 allied push but a WE invasion forces Germany to fight on 2 fronts.  I don’t like the idea of Germany going full force in one direction.

    Just an aside for multi-player games (what I usually play) all the allies combining forces on one front is a logistical nightmare.  I am sure it is different when you control all the pieces.

  • A Western Assault against a well played Germany creates a “rocker defense” that will tie up the UK and USA for a number of turns.

  • A well played Germany makes any allied strat difficult to pull off.  The allies have to have a solid focused strat in order to have a chance.  If the Allies are just trading WE with Germany it is not good but if Germany is focused on keepin gthe US/UK out then Russia has a little more breathing room.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Let me clarify, I was not recommending a Western or Southern Europe invasion by America.  I was recommending the increased threat.  The threat alone will die up valuable German resources as they now have to protect Eastern, Souther, Western and Germany from England and American assaults.  Leave it too lightly defended and run the risk of losing valuable resources on the attack and counter attack.  Leave it too heavy and don’t have enough resources to face Russia.  Leave it empty and give America and England free money on big ticket territories.

  • I guess the reason I have always taken the back door approach to attacking Germany via Russia is b/c from my experience US and/or UK can take WE but Germany just reallocates forces to WE instead of sending them to the Russian front. In the end I see it as Germany is going to buy those troops any way whats it matter where they are fought? So I pick the Russian front another reason being lets just say Russia and Germany are going one for one (not likely but for sake of debate lets just say its so) any UK or US forces are just icing on the cake to repel Germany. Then I tend to be bi-est to my Allied 1, 2, 3 punch. It also works when the Axis are taking down Moscow, lead with Germany and mop up with Japan before Russia gets their turn. I don’t think I would rather Japan have the capital I think Germany should take it in order to deal with Great Britain on their door step, but desperate times call for desperate measures.  :evil:

Suggested Topics

  • 49
  • 24
  • 21
  • 126
  • 7
  • 25
  • 60
  • 24
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys