• Here’s a game I and Perry played with the GENCON set-up and National objectives and techs. After turn 4, the Allies surrendered when realizing that Moscow would fall in two turns and even though the Italian and Japanese navies were about to be overcome this wouldn’t hinder the Russian collapse. The whole game can be viewed on this thread, here are some highlights:



    Germany bought a CV and a TRS on turn 1 to get infantry into Russia quicker. Baltic states, East Poland and Ukraine were each taken with 2 tanks on each. On turn 2 Germany could take Karelia even though it was defended by 11 russian infantry and artillery. Vs. UK the jerries were lucky, wiping out the battleship of home fleet and taking Egypt with 2 armor on turn 1. After the initial naval builds, Germany mostly built 4-5 tanks, 4-5 inf/art and the odd fighter or bomber. A tactical mistake on the eastern front meant that a force in Ukraine was wiped out on turn 2, but still the Germans were plodding forward and the combined infantry landings in Karelia and builds in that IC meant that by turn 4 Germany had built up two third of the infantry and artillery forces of the soviets, double the tank force and 3 bombers. France was about to fall by then but this wasn’t decisive since Germany had enough force to finish off the Russians and with an IPC count of 55-60 IPCs it was very hard to keep up the pace for the soviets.

    Russia retreated inland and constantly built up its force of land units and was able to keep off the Germans from Caucasus the entire game and even sending 2 infantry to India. Some counterattacks were successful and building a bomber was also felt to be needed as many territories were exchanged rather than taken to be held. Germany was mostly content with taking its 3 NO territories and Karelia and then built up for a slow advance vs. Moscow. The Russian suffered some SBR damage from turn 3 on. The Japs never advanced more than 2 areas into Russia and most Siberian units went west.

    Japan choose JTDTM as a strategy and decided to forgo a VC victory and try to help vs. the Russians. An IC in Manchuria was built and on turn 1 seized Kwangtung, 2 chinese territories, Burma, Phillippines, East Indies and Borneo. Rather than focusing on India a full-out attack on China was chosen combined with a landing in Australia to get that last NO bonus. But China didn’t collapse: rather it retreated in good order and on turn 4 had 5 infantry and 1 fighter in the last territory bordering Russia. Japan was about to take this area but probably only on turn 5. In the Pacific Japan was defensive and only built up fighters and some extra naval units when USA was getting closer, helped by its 50-55 IPC count. If a clash had come in the Pacific at this point, Japan would have lost most of its fighters so the land thrust would have been much weaker but still something that contributed to the Allied player giving the game up. India was attacked on turn 3, a miserably failed attack, and on turn 4 would have fallen but this wasn’t very decisive for the game.

    UK put its forces together to attack Italy, both with SBR and by collecting a naval stack that could both withstand German air attack and the Italian naval thrust. However the German naval presence in the Baltic made an attack on Scandinavia too risky and thus contributed to the fact that German production was very strong whereas UK was dwindling to something around 28-30 IPCs. On turn 4 the Italian navy would have been wiped out and amphibious landings possible both in Italy and France, but this was only possible after some US fighters supported the UK force by landing on a carrier.

    Italy had very few offensive operations in the game. After seizing Transjordan and profiting from the fall of Egypt, it landed some troops in Ukraine that were wiped out and then had to keep its navy in CMD to protect its capital. A German fighter adding onto a carrier made the Italian navy survive a bit longer but it was playing a losing game with sometimes less than 10 IPCs actual production due to SBR.

    USA focused on naval production for most of the game, together with some fighters and bombers to use against the Germans. By turn 4 Japan had to withdraw fighters from the land front to the carriers and a clash then would have meant a victory for the USA since it had more naval reserves. It was felt though that this kind of exclusive focus on Japan was a bit too much since USA couldn’t help out as much as needed vs. the European Axis more than the usual Algeria landings.

    All in all, a strong Axis advantage in this game. NOs were felt to really benefit the Axis since Germany and Japan could easily get all three bonuses. Soviet Union was strong in production and could keep the Germans back for a large part of the game. That Arkangelsk bonus is really good and actually very hard for the Germans to stop! The Allies lost not because of poor Russian play but due to a lack of focus in the European theater. If the US player had chosen to go for a Pacific strategy, building one bomber/turn and sending it to Germany should have been a minimum contribution to the European campaign. And UK should have put some more focus on getting Scandinavian and African IPCs to keep up a more dangerous production. Also, striking against that Baltic Sea navy wouldn’t have been too hard and would have made the Germans regret that carrier buy.

    The total impression is that the Axis is stronger than in AAR. Japan can pursue a land strategy but it remains to been seen if a “Kill Germany First” strategy can stop this strategy in its tracks. Maybe Japan will have to threaten all three of Hawaii, India and Australia to force USA into producing more on the Pacific front? Italy is nice little power but can easily be stopped cold. China is not as weak as can be imagined but still little less than a larger roadblock but the extra time it takes to take China can be the time needed for the Allies to make significant advances, even though this wasn’t the case in this game.

    Techs weren’t effective in this game but a Heavy bomber campaign vs. Germany might have changed the outcome. Being random, they can’t really be a part of a strategy but USA at least should put some IPCs into it since it could benefit from several different techs which isn’t really the case for any of the other powers.

  • Thanks alot, that was an interesting read.

    So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds?

    Sorry for questions just curious on how to get used to them.

  • As we cant say yet what strats will be good and not, but ppl also tried building fleet with Germany in AAR in the beginning. its a suboptimal strat. Dont get me into KJF. I know AA50 is AA50 and not AAR, but there’s great deal of similarity. The same overall concepts that works for AAR also works for AA50, because AAR is not overall very different from Classic. For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds? Lynxes, I think some choices that was made was not very good, in the manner of doing everything to win the game.

    US shouldnt buy much naval units, as should any power more than it needs to ship units to mainland.
    I start to think that a J1 move to kill the Chinese ftr is as important as the sz59 attack in AAR.
    I agree that Italy cant usually do anything after rnd 2 than defend itself.
    In my AA50 games with gencon setup allies had start bonus ipc which we now know is wrong. And I played w/o NOs.
    In my game I went all out KGF and it worked…
    Another AA50 game I played axis, and as Japan I choose to attack a russian stack of infs in bury rather than killing the US navy, that was not a good move…
    But the impression that axis may have advantage with NOs, this could very well be true.

  • '10

    Good report. Thx.

    …but I don’t trust this dice calculators.

  • So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds?

    Italy built 1 trs and 1 CV and then mostly land units, adding 1 DD later on. Africa wasn’t important, Germany sent a tank down there which manoeuvred to avoid 2 UK infs (landings in West Africa were not done but probably would have been a good idea). Italy was a factor in that it distracted from attacking the Germans and I think a balanced approach by the US and the UK is probably more effective, i.e. landing in both Norway and Algeria, having fleets both in North/baltic sea and West Med, SBR against both Germany and Italy, and this necessitates a lot of US involvement.

    For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds?

    In this game there was no India IC, India survived because Japan focused on China and Australia. In an other game an IC was built and defended with the help of some Russian troops but the jury is out on if this really is viable if the Japs really go all-out vs. India. I hope there’s more UK ships to start with since that would make defending a built IC so much easier! We’ll see very shortly when we get the UK set-up.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures