I’ve recently gotten into playing competitive A&A1914 (with the help of fellow user @Slip-Capone, who has helped me playtest extensively). After playing several games and doing research, we’ve noticed that the Entente is heavily favored by most players. We are not here to dispute this assessment, and we are also not here to disagree with the typical Entente strategy of “UK kills Ottomans, Russia defends, Italy fights Austria, France fights Germany, USA goes where it’s needed”. This Entente strategy works well because, if everything goes well, the resulting endgame will see the Ottomans bleeding IPCs, Russia being battered but still holding on, and Italy/France/USA winning the game for the Entente in Italy/Germany/Austria.

What we do disagree with, however, is the typical Central Powers strategies that we have observed. From what we’ve seen, there are only two approaches typically taken for the Central Powers: “Kill Russia first” (where Austria/Germany/Ottomans gang up on Russia and go for a quick knockout before pivoting to France) and “Kill France first” (where Germany aggressively attacks France while Austria and Ottomans defend). After working together with @Slip Capone, we have refined a third Central Powers strategy that has viability, which is the point of this thread. As the thread title says, we are dubbing this strategy “Kill Italy First”. It should be self-explanatory at a high level, but further discussion is needed to make our point.

What is Kill Italy First (“KIF”)? As the name implies, you direct the Central Powers to defeat Italy first. Italy is by-far the weakest member of the Entente, only boasting 14 IPCs of starting income, and having a very small standing army on the first turn of the game. Additionally, if you are playing under LHTR, Italy also boasts a pathetically low threshold for collapsing (7 Economic/9 Political). However, Italy’s geographic position, coupled with their powerful starting navy, makes them a serious threat to the Central Powers if the game drags on into the later rounds. Left alone, Italy can bridge units into the Middle East (mostly Smyrna/Trans-Jordan), and can even make a run on Constantinople if the Ottoman player makes a mistake. Furthermore, Italy’s meager economy is just enough to be an annoyance to the Austrians, especially once you consider that Tyrolia and Trieste, both worth 4 IPCs, are directly adjacent to Italian territory (Venice). Rome is also a mere 4 tiles away from Vienna (Rome -> Tuscany -> Venice -> Trieste/Tyrolia -> Vienna), making it a source of Entente units that’s extremely close to the front lines.

I went through such lengths to describe Italy’s position above because I’ve found that most players regard Italy as an afterthought, dismissing their role in the game with claims along the lines of “they’re weak and have to harass Austria”. My point here is that, if the Central Powers, specifically Austria and Germany, can take advantage of Italy’s weak starting position and politically-collapse them early, the Central Powers can seize 13 IPCs (not 14, since the last pesky IPC is in Libya) of Victory Points and income, which almost makes up for the 20 extra income USA will bring to the table starting turn 3 (turn 4 OOB). Defeating Italy (under LHTR) also has the added benefit of removing the Italian Navy from the game, which takes a large amount of pressure off of the Ottomans and also opens up the possibility of the Central Powers gaining control of the Mediterranean (more on that later).

Hopefully, my ranting and raving has given you an idea of why I’m advocating this approach. Next, I’d like to talk about what steps you can take as the Central Powers to achieve this. This is something resembling a recommended build order/opening move guide for Austria and Germany. I won’t be discussing the Ottomans here, since their only role in this plan is to survive the onslaught that Russia/U.K. will try to throw their way.

Bid: Assuming you get a bid, throw it in SZ18 (Adriatic Sea, where the Austrian Navy is). Ideally, you want a 12 bid so you can get a Battleship there (mostly for the 2HP, but the extra bombardment helps your consistency in the opening as well). A 9-11 bid (to get a Cruiser in SZ18) is also acceptable, but not really recommended. You really should try for a 12 bid.

This bid will enable you to keep the AH fleet alive, barring good dice by the Entente. This may seem a bit odd, but ensuring you can continuously amphib into Tuscany will cut off the Italian supply line to Piedmont and Venice, two territories that are mission-critical. Maintaining a strong navy in SZ18 will also protect Trieste from amphibious assaults by Italy/France/UK, and will also give you the opportunity to break out of the Adriatic and into the Mediterranean in the mid-late game, which will prevent the Americans/French from sending their fleets to harass the Ottomans or liberate Italy. This can make the difference between winning and losing in a tournament setting.

AH1: Buy: 4 INF/2 ART/1 TT for 26 IPC. The extra TT is for SZ18, which will become important AH2 for ferrying as many units as you can into Tuscany. Everything else is going to head towards Russia to defend against whatever trick they try R1.

AH1: Move: 2 INF from Trieste get on the TT in SZ18 and land in Tuscany. As stated earlier, the idea here is to cut off Italy’s main army in Rome from reaching Venice, guaranteeing its fall. Everything else from Trieste + everything from Tyrolia goes into Venice. If you’re lucky, you can kill Venice in one battle, but if you don’t it’s fine. Germany will pick up the slack.

Meanwhile, send everything from Vienna and Bohemia + 1 INF/2 ART from Galacia into Trieste in particular. Trieste is within two spaces of several important territories in this part of the board (Venice, Piedmont, Tuscany, the TTs in SZ18, Serbia, Galacia) which is why you want a stack there.

Finally, send 4 INF from Budapest to Galacia to hold the lines, but everything else into Serbia (the game rules demand you attack Serbia AH1).

These moves accomplish the following:

A: Clearly and definitively reposition Austria’s starting forces into a posture where Italy is being relentlessly attacked. Italy’s starting forces are no match for this force, meaning you can send most of your buys towards Russia to make up for the units you took away from that front.

B: Fortifies Galacia against Russia. The hope here is that Russia overextends and attacks you, which will allow Germany to send its starting forces to attack G1. This, plus an about-face from the Austrian stacks in Trieste and Vienna, will totally destroy that Russian army. If Russia doesn’t take this bait, you can commit the Trieste stack to destroying Italy as-planned while playing out the Russian front based on what the Entente does.

G1: Buy: 5 INF/2 ART/2 FTR. Germany is going to be buying the FTRs for the Central Powers. Air Superiority is absolutely critical to obtain in this game, due to it allowing your ART to roll @ 4 while also DENYING this benefit to your opponent. The latter is just as important as the former, if not more so.

G1: Move: Everything from Munich + Alsace attack Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland. Switzerland is adjacent to Burgundy, Alsace, Piedmont and Venice. This positioning disrupts France’s first turn, as they now have to properly position their forces to prevent Germany from moving a large stack into Burgundy (which is adjacent to Paris), and also puts Germany within striking distance of Italy’s high-value territories (Piedmont, Venice, Tuscany).

The troops from Ruhr will move in a strange direction. 1 INF goes to Alsace to prevent a walk-in by France. The rest go to Tyrolia. Yes, Tyrolia. Tyrolia is similar to how I described Trieste in my section on Austria. Tyrolia is within 2-spaces of Tuscany/Piedmont/Venice/Alsace/Ruhr/Galacia/Silesia/Budapest, all extremely high-value or strategically important territories.

Silesia and Prussia leave one INF behind each and move everything else into Galacia to join the Austrians. Everything from Hanover goes there as well. We’re trying to hold the line against Russia with just enough to put up a fight while the bulk of the troops go towards Italy.

Last but not least, everything from Berlin and Kiel move down to Munich. Munich, like Tyrolia and Trieste, is a good central location that covers all of your options for the second round.

What you do in Africa is up to you. It’s not relevant to the overall strategy.

NOTE: A lot of this goes out the window if Russia attacks Germany, Silesia or Galcia R1. If Russia makes such a move, which is an over-extension, you should absolutely abandon the “KIF” strategy and crush Russia as quickly as possible.

Now, with those very-specific first moves covered, I will give a general overview for how the rest of the game should play out. No specific moves this time, as you’ll mostly be reacting to what your opponent does at this point.

AH2: Finish off Venice (if you couldn’t break it AH1), defend yourself against Russia as best you can. Build all land units, leaning towards ART (Germany will give Air Support).

G2: Push into Piedmont and Tuscany (2-move from Tyrolia -> Venice -> Tuscany). Defend yourself against France and Russia appropriately. Build at least 1-2 FTRs to maintain Air Superiority across the board.

If you got lucky, or if France played poorly, Italy will Economic-Collapse after their turn. If you’ve accomplished this, you’re on your way to a win.

AH3: Push into Rome if possible. If not-possible, move the Tuscany guys into Naples/Piedmont as appropriate. Don’t press combat in Piedmont, you want to minimize France’s chances of saving Italy from Political-Collapse. Continue building land units and sending them towards Russia.

G3: Push into Rome/Naples if Austria couldn’t manage it. Most of your attention should be on stopping France from saving Italy/defending the Ruhr/Munich line from France’s assault. Keep buying FTRs.

At this point, Italy should Political-Collapse. If you got Italy to die this quickly, you’ve basically won. If you didn’t manage it yet, you still have one last chance in round 4 to finish them before the Americans start really giving you trouble.

AH4: You may want to build navy at this point, if your fleet is still alive. You should mostly be focused on attacking Russia at this point. Hopefully after 3 rounds of buys from Germany/Austria Russia will be on the defensive.

G4: Same advice as G3. If you didn’t finish off Italy yet this is your last chance.

After this point, Italy is dead (hopefully), and the Americans have arrived. Your objective at this point changes dramatically. Austria should start buying navy and attempt to dislodge the Entente from SZ17 in particular. Taking this critical Sea Zone will prevent the Americans from making any last-minute plays into the Middle East or Italy, securing the IPCs you’ve gained there. Meanwhile, do your best to evacuate the German/Austrian armies from the Italian peninsula and reposition them to beat the French out of Germany before the game ends. Between whatever gains you made in Russia while all this was going on, and the gains you secured in Italy, you should have done more than enough to offset whatever IPCs you lost in the Ottoman-U.K. front and win the game.

@Tahweh While your tips are generally helpful as a fellow top 200 plat player (got into top 70 as Allies at one point, but I haven’t been playing much lately due to life commitments) I’d give the following caveats:

1. USSR can afford to build a Tank or two. The ability to move two spaces instead of one is sometimes vital for transferring forces from one part of the front to another.

2. Absolute buys should not be suggested. There are multiple openers for each country that compliment different overall strategies. However, I can also see that you’re tailoring this guide towards beginners, so a basic, low-risk KGF/Russia Crush strategy is probably best for just starting out.

3. Germany needs to buy Tanks to make up for the longer “supply line” (as you called it) between Berlin and the Eastern Front Vs. the Soviets’. Of course, you don’t do anything silly like buying all Tanks, but 1-3 Tanks each turn while you’re ahead is recommended, unless you’ve scouted that the Allies are going for a KGF and you don’t see yourself breaking Moscow anytime soon.

4. India falling should not be accepted as a given. It’s a likely outcome, but if you go in with a defeatist mindset that India will fall, then you’re also effectively conceding the game, as once Japan takes India their IPC income usually hits critical mass. India should be fought for tooth and nail so that, once it finally falls, Germany will be near-defeat anyway.

5. Pearl Harbor is not something you should do in 100% of your games. Over-committing to it means you’re not making progress in Asia fast enough and under-committing means whatever is still in the Sea Zone gets counter-attacked A1. Whether Japan does Pearl Harbor or not should depend on what the UK does B1. If UK is committing heavily to India you should ignore Pearl Harbor and focus on Southeast Asia before UK builds momentum there.

6. The build you recommend is valid, but building 1-2 Factories in Manchuria/FIC is also valid. Capturing Moscow before Berlin falls to the Allies is the goal of the game, and you need to accomplish it as quickly/safely as possible based on what the Allies are doing. If the Allies are fortifying Asia, you need to take your time and build INF, but if they’re leaving Asia totally bare, then start building Tanks and make for Moscow as fast as you can.

7. Ignoring Japan in the Pacific lets them turn into an IPC monster extremely quickly. Some naval presence in the Pacific is recommended. You don’t need to contest the Pacific, you just need to force Japan to actually spend some of their IPCs on Surface Vessels so they’re not flinging 45+ IPCs towards India/Moscow every turn.

8. Japan can buy 1-2 factories a game. However I wouldn’t recommend that a beginner try doing such a strategy.

9. Great article otherwise. Avoiding these common pitfalls + learning the optimal opening(s) for each country are the two biggest hurdles to “stop being bad” at Axis & Allies. The road to “getting good” involves learning how to play out the long game and not panic when individual battles go badly.

For having good taste and going with the Revised-style map instead of that atrociously ugly design they use in the actual 42SE game.

Yo.

Apologies for not being active lately, Christmas season was extremely busy in my line of work, so I had to put A&A on hold to juggle work/family (as I’m sure most of you had to do as well).

Anyway, I finally got my hands on AAZ, undeniably the most controversial game that the franchise has ever seen, and I would like to take the next few days to share my thoughts on it.

To anyone reading this, know that I was originally supportive of this game in the face of the massive backlash it received from the community when it was originally unveiled a few months ago. I’m not bringing this up to re-fight any flame wars. I just want to make it clear that if I end up criticizing or disliking this game it is not because I believe that “Wizards of the Coast ruined my childhood” or “They made fun of veterans” or whatever. Some people have those opinions and that’s fine, but I’m going to look at this game from a more objective standpoint (or at lease from as objective of an standpoint as an opinion about a dice-rolling abstract wargame can be).

Anyway, this is my first post of 3 on this topic, a quick discussion of the components of the game. I’ll try to be brief, as components are relatively unimportant to me in these games (I own almost every edition of A&A at this point, and I just kind of keep all my unit sculpts, dice, etc. together in one massive collection). However, most members of this community highly value the sculpts that come in these games (for customization purposes, historical reasons, or otherwise), so I am going to take the time to address the quality of the product.

The Units themselves aren’t much to write home about. They’re just reprints of sculpts from other games (1942SE and possibly G40 I think, but I’m not an expert on this so someone correct me if I’m wrong). Other people can detail this much better than I. One odd note is that my British Units came out a darker shade of tan than I’m used to seeing. Not sure if that was a printing error or if it was intentional.

The Zombie units look fine. Their color being pale is probably why the British Units were made a darker shade. They’re relatively generic-looking too, which is a bonus if you want to use the sculpts in other games (HBG Global War, house rules for your G40 setup, etc.) as Partisan/Resistance/Civilian Units. I certainly plan on doing so.

I was disappointed to see that they cheaped out and didn’t print Industrial Complexes/AA Guns, but we are finally seeing the triumphant return of Paper Money to the A&A Series, so I’ll take what I can get on this front.

Anyway, on to the last bit for this part, the map.

The map quality was honestly my biggest fear coming into this edition of A&A. One of the first things we learned about AAZ is that it was going to be targeting mass audiences (simpler ruleset, 40 USD price tag, zombies added for flavor, etc.). The last edition of A&A that “targeted mass audiences” was 1941, which has the most abysmal map quality in the franchise bar none (except maybe the Nova Games version but honestly that doesn’t count). My obvious fear is that the map for this game would be hopelessly scrunched on an impossibly small board, making the game virtually unplayable.

I’m glad to report that I was wrong to be afraid on this point. The map isn’t perfect, but they’re pitfalls that most A&A games fall in to (lots of dead space in the ocean, Africa is too big, Russian chokepoints like West Russia and Ukraine are too small, etc.). The territories on the map are easy to distinguish from one another, and where one country’s territory ends and another’s begins is clear. This is due to the stylistic change they made with regards to the map design. The territories are no longer given the “terrain” style they’ve had since AA50 (which featured in AA50, 41, 42, 42SE, and G40), but are given sharp colors (more akin to what was in Classic, Revised, and 1914). In my opinion, this is an improvement, as my play group and I had difficulty distinguishing territories from one another when attempting to setup games with the former style for the first time.

The clutter of the board is not that bad, as the board was made reasonably large. Still, the map is not fantastic. It’s pretty small, and suffers from the clutter issues I mentioned previously. Because of this, I’d put AAZ’s components quality somewhere in the middle, better than abominations like 41 and 42 First Edition, on-par with the likes of 42SE and Revised, but below masterpieces like AA50 and G40. Yes, I called the maps of AA50 and G40 masterpieces. Regardless of my opinions on the art style of the map, AA50 and G40 have well-crafted maps that are big enough to actually play the game on, even if you need a special table for it in most cases. Is it fair to compare the quality of the components of AAZ, a game that retails for 40 USD, to games that retail for over 100? Probably not, but I did it anyway.

I would also like to address the design and structure of the map from a gameplay/balance perspective and compare it to other games in the franchise, but I’ll cover that more in a later part (or an entirely separate topic).

Stay tuned for part 2, where I post a review of the gameplay of this edition. I’m going to be meeting with my group tonight to play a game with Zombies enabled. My feedback will address the overall “feel” of the game, and whether I believe the Zombies actually have anything worthwhile to contribute to the series. That part will be out tomorrow probably. Thursday at the latest.

Part 3 I will upload later this week, and will cover a solitaire run or two I plan on completing after my initial play with others. I’ll be aiming to compare how this game runs with and without the Zombie Mechanic, to see if this game as a whole has anything worthwhile to contribute to the series. As a bonus, I’ll also be trying the “introductory scenario” that is in the rulebook. I haven’t reviewed it yet, but the concept of a 1939 start date is probably the single thing I was most excited for in this game, tutorial or otherwise.

If you actually read all this, way to go.

Just found this thread, so figured I’d throw my two cents in the ring, since Allies are more fun to play than Axis in this version (even if they have a much harder time winning).

Under LHTR (AKA “Gencon 3.0” or whatever they call it in AAO), killing the German bomber is the linchpin of the entire Allied opening, as you need the following chain of events to occur:

• USSR kills Germany’s bomber in Ukraine R1.
• No Bomber for Germany = Germany can’t reliably kill Egypt G1.
• Egypt surviving = UK gets an extra FTR B1 for use against the IJN off DEI (SZ37)
• Extra fighter for UK against SZ37 fleet = UK trades its entire Pacific fleet to take down half the IJN B1.
• Japan losing half its navy = Their offensive momentum is totally halted, giving the Allies a solid amount of wiggle room to play the game.

This necessity, coupled with the necessity of taking West Russia R1, as it is the most important tile in Russia in terms of what it connects to, means that you can’t expect to hold Karelia. Thus, I go for the following opening:

Karelia: FTR -> Ukraine, rest -> W. Russia
Archangel: All -> W. Russia
Moscow: Tanks + FTRs -> Ukraine, rest to W. Russia
Caucasus: All -> Ukraine

Despite this, you can and may lose the Ukraine fight. However, due to the default AAO Defense Profiles (WHICH YOU CAN CHANGE IN THE SETTINGS BY THE WAY, PLEASE DO THIS) being terrible, Germany by-default will lose the Bomber last, which means that pulling out after killing the Bomber is not usually an option.

For the Siberia guys, there’s more flexibility with what you can do, but you at least want the Kazakh guy going to Szechwan, move the Ural guys to Archangel, move the Novosibirsk guy to Moscow and to consolidate the guys in Yakut/SFE/Bury. I like to stick them in Yakut, but you can go for Buryatia if you’re planning on a KJF for whatever reason.

After the opening, as Black_Elk said, the strategy depends on the ebb and flow of the game. Things like how Germany/Japan are playing, how dice rolls are going, etc. This determines whether you build 1-2 TANKs with your land units, or all INF/ART. I don’t agree with the notion that the Soviets should be buying FTRs ever. Leave the expensive units to USA/UK.

Finally, I personally find Strat Bombing worthless. Bombers are expensive and don’t pay for themselves until a point where the game has usually been decided one way or the other anyway. For the price of the Bomber you’re gambling IPC value on, you can buy 2 SUBs, 4 INF, 3 ART, or 2 TANK, based on your needs. All of these options are blatantly superior to a Bomber. The only thing that’s worse for you value-wise is probably a Cruiser, lol.

EDIT: I’m specifically talking about purchasing a BOMB. Bidding for one is perfectly acceptable due to how the bidding rules work. An extra BOMB in Russia’s opener gives you much better odds in Ukraine, and you then have the ability to keep the Bomber alive for other roles on both sides of the map.

@thedesertfox From a purely mathematical standpoint, you’re correct. 4 TANK (or even 4 INF+2 ART) is a better combination than 2 FTR. However, the purpose of buying the air units is because they don’t have to stay in the territory they attack. This is an important point because most of the action on the Eastern Front is going to involve you sending 1-2 INF + 1-2 FTR against Germany territories containing 1-2 INF. In the 41 scenario specifically, the USSR starts with zero air units, so buying them on turn 1 (while you still can reasonably afford to) is a good idea. After Turn 1, you should stick to purely INF/ART (with maybe the occasional TANK if things are going extremely well for you).

@Argothair said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

Very interesting, thank you. So, digging a little deeper, can anyone articulate what it means for something to be a “wargame” or why G40 would scratch the “wargame hunger” better than Revised? In concrete terms, why does G40 feel like a wargame?

The gist of it is that G40 has a higher level of complexity and scale than Revised, in terms of number of territories on the board, distinct unit types, special rules/scenarios, how scripted the opening moves are (in the big picture, I mean), etc.

Take your average wargame. Hex-based Grid, super-historically accurate setup (with minor concessions for balance reasons), Chits corresponding to individual unit/battalions/whatever (this differs based on the game). Wargames also typically cover the full timeline of the war, with certain historical events more-or-less pre-determined (i.e. France will lose to the Nazi assault in 1940 every time. Germany will need to declare war on the Soviet Union ever time, USA will enter the war on the Allies’ side after either Japan attacks them or certain conditions are met, etc.).

Does this sort of thing sound more like Revised, or G40? Clearly the answer here is G40. Revised has a comparatively static initial board state set late in the war (~1942), that isn’t historically accurate (i.e. “Pearl Harbor” happens J1 despite the Germans already being more-or-less set up to make their doomed attack into Stalingrad, but somehow the Russians get to make the first move? Also Germany/Italy just gets to take Egypt at the start of the game?). Meanwhile, G40 starts you off in a relatively accurate representation of 1940 Europe, with things like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact, America’s Neutrality, and Japan not yet being at war with most of the Allies all being present and accounted for.

Revised, when played at a high level, looks nothing like World War 2 in terms of strategies used by the Players. G40 doesn’t either, but it comes a lot closer than Revised does. That’s why I call G40 “close to a wargame” rather than giving it the full distinction.

But what else are you going to do? Either the action has a central focus (in which case people will complain that the only thing to do is go right for the center) or the action doesn’t have a central focus (in which case people will complain that it feels casual and screwy and ahistorical and winds up in stalemates where you trade the same peripheral territories forever). Maybe I’m feeling too philosophical today to talk sense. I’m just trying to figure out what makes A&A games fun and what makes them frustrating, at a really abstract and general level.

What makes a A&A game fun/frustrating is a subjective question, I guess I’ll give you my take:

• Fun - Relatively quick compared to other wargames.

• Fun - Straightforward-enough rules, but not for babies like Risk or your typical Milton Bradley/Hasbro game.

• Fun - Exciting World War 2 Action.

• Fun - Decent-to-huge variety in strategic options available to the player. You’re not forced to follow history 1:1.

• Fun - While luck is a factory, the better player will usually win due to skill.

• Fun - Asynchronous Gameplay. The Axis start with more Power, but less Economy. The Allies start with more Economy, but less Power. The Axis have to try their best to gain the economic advantage over the Allies before the Allies’ superior economy allows them to overpower the Axis’ starting advantage. It’s like picking White or Black in Chess, but on a much higher level than just “who goes first”.

• Fun - Ability to make custom scenarios easily, as the simple rules lend themselves easily to modifications, as shown by the hard work a lot of people do on this forum.

• Frustrating - Once optimal play is found for a map, most games usually come down to arguments about bids and dice rolls.

• Frustrating - Because of the OOB system, games can be decided by single rounds of combat if one side rolls well.

• Frustrating - Grind Games. While some long, drawn out games can be breathtakingly exciting, more often than not you’re staring at 20 turns of swapping some clay in Ukraine/some territory adjacent to Moscow and waiting for something exciting to happen while looking at the clock. Face-to-Face rules that impose a strict turn limit do a lot to alleviate this, though.

IMO the change in OOL does nothing to prevent the main sources of imbalance in 42SE, namely:

• Germany’s starting forces are too powerful and will overwhelm the Soviets every time.

• The Soviet IC in Karelia is more of a curse than a blessing, as Germany will always seize it G1 and gain access to a free IC two territories away from Moscow, and adjacent to the main Soviet stack (West Russia). The most the Allies can do to oppose this is SBR the factory, but 4 IPC/turn is a small price to pay for the huge benefit that having an IC deep in Soviet territory provides.

• The UK IC in India is in a similar position, as UK is forced to spend 9-18 IPC a turn stacking land units there to deter Japan from seizing the territory. UK is forced into this position, because the moment Japan seizes the IC, they will be able to pump out 3 Tanks/turn from it. India is two territories away from Caucasus, a vital territory on the board, and Russia cannot possibly survive the pressure of a Japanese push on Caucasus AND the Germans stacking Karelia.

EDIT: Forgot the point of my rambling about the UK India IC. My point is that, because UK has to spend 1/3 - 1/2 of its income guarding India, its ability to send assistance to the USSR via re-assembling the Royal Navy is extremely impeded. This is especially troubling when you take into consideration the relative ease at which Germany destroys the Royal Navy on G1. It could take as many as 4-5 rounds for UK/US to just get into a position where they can start applying pressure to the periphery of the ETO (North Africa/Scandinavia), let alone actually do anything close to real damage. By G5 Germany will already have the Russians either dead or helplessly holed up in Moscow.

The only thing the OOL change impacts is naval battles (which is why I did not list the overwhelming power of the IJN as a problem) and fringe cases where Fighters/Bombers were left guarding key positions (France, West Russia, etc.)

tl;dr the key issues with 42SE’s setup arise from the land situation on the Russian Front, and land battles are generally unaffected by the OOL changes.

I haven’t played a PVP game yet, but I wanted to offer my take on the tutorial and the Vs. AI modes.

Hopped in today. Game is going for a certain aesthetic. I’m not big on it as I prefer minimalist designs, but I can live with it. The UI is cumbersome and overdone, but that’s not an issue for the most part as I can disable the animations and mute the music/SFX via the options menu. So far so good.

That’s where the nitpicks start for the UI, though.

• The lines each unit leave behind to indicate that they’re advancing from point A to point B can cause a fair bit of clutter. This is especially painful on turn 1 for countries with denser initial setups, like Germany and USSR. At multiple points I ended up accidentally not moving a Fighter simply because I though that I’d already moved it. TripleA handles this by actually having the units move into the territory you’re trying to attack, instead of awkwardly hovering halfway between the origin territory and the target like this game does.

• At the start of each new game phase, the camera warps back to the maximum zoom setting. I play the game zoomed out as far as I can by default, so needing to zoom back out for each and every phase of my turn was frustrating.

• I can’t select multiple units from a territory at once when trying to move them. It’s time-consuming to have to click on a unit and then click the target territory for that unit multiple times until I clear out the stack. I was trying to finish off Moscow G4 with a 12 INF/13 TANK stack and it took me almost 90 seconds to get the battle setup. In TripleA I just have to shift+click West Russia and then click Moscow and boom, done.

• Transports feel a bit clunky as well. First you have to click the transport you intend to load, then click on any units in any adjacent territories you want to load on the transport, then click on the destination for the transport, then click on the unload target. If you accidentally click on any other unit during this process you have to start over. It’s irritating. Additionally, you can’t click on a land unit then click on the transport. You have to click the transport first. It’s slightly counter-intuitive, but that’s probably just my years of reflexes from playing TripleA getting to me.

That’s it for UI nitpicks, but I’d also like to add that the game takes a while to play out. Can’t really put my finger on why, but everything just feels “slow”. I know I’m not exactly being descriptive here, so I’m sorry about that.

The tutorial mode was fine, loved the thick British Accent on the commander guy. It really needs sections on Naval Combat, Strategic Bombing, and Naval Bombardment, though.

The AI is complete crap (I could use more colorful language but that’d be rude) at the game. I was able to beat it as Allies on turn 5. Yes, I won 42SE as Allies with no bid on turn 5 (for reference, I’m not the greatest A&A player out there, and the TripleA Hard AI actually gives me a pretty rough go of things on 42SE no bid if I take Allies). The Germans attack into bad situations in a desperate bid to take VCs (Leningrad in particular), and the Japanese fail completely at taking out the initial British Fleet and have a tendency to hang their fleet. The AI just kind of sucks at naval combat in-general. When I was playing as Axis, the USN let my starting Submarines basically roam the board and snipe all of their transports without even trying to stop them. One turn they even built 3 Transports right next to my submarines with 0 cover.

Other than that, the game’s functional, and an accurate simulation of 42SE. Only issue I can see are the general balance issues for 42SE that have been talked to death already. Would appreciate it if the 42.3 balance patch was implemented and included as an alternate setup. It shouldn’t take too much effort, as it’s the exact same map and starting territories as the base game, just with different units assigned to each territory.

One last note is that I got tons of random JavaScript exceptions while playing. Can’t replicate all of them, but I know for sure that one of them was caused by me pressing the “back” key on my mouse. Might want to look into that.

Super happy to finally be playing this. Hoping to play some PVP tomorrow and provide more feedback.

I’ll also be posting this on Steam to try to get discussion going.

Just want to say that a new patch dropped today. It sped up things like combat and the pauses between phases/button presses considerably. I was able to play a turn just now in like 3 minutes, where before it would take 5-7 minutes.

Keep up the good work, @JuliusBorisovBeamdog and Co.

@the-spaceman A couple of things:

A1 - You might as well build a carrier because you start the game with a lot of free FTRs that can land on the carriers. Lots of free value + threat projection.

B1 - If Germany doesn’t take Egypt or Trans-Jordan G1, and if the UK Fleet off of Morocco survived, you might be able to send everything + the Bomber from UK to kill the Italian Fleet immediately. You’ll lose absolutely everything but the trade is absolutely worth it as it will secure Africa immediately.

B2 - You should be able to take Norway on turn 2. No idea why you’re waiting until turn 3.

A3 - If you built a Carrier A1 you can probably kill the Italian Fleet on A3 if it didn’t evacuate to the Indian Ocean/Pacific.

The Indian Fleet should not wait to link up with the Australian Fleet. If either of them survived, they should make a break for Europe ASAP to escape the Japanese.

UK in general should not be bothering with Africa. The general strategy should be:

US Navy - Camp out near Africa to threaten Italy/France/Scandinavia.
UK Navy - Camp out in English Channel to threaten France/Scandinavia/every territory bordering the Baltic Sea.

What you do from there depends on whether you’re playing with or without NOs (I would recommend playing without, but there are others who will vouch for NOs, so I’m not going to have that argument for the 4th thread in a row).

If playing with NOs:

-USA should build up to a 3-4 TT shuck. One group of TTs in US East Coast, one group of TTs in Morocco SZ, one group of TTs in the English Channel. Rotate them as needed to ferry troops from USA -> Morocco-Algeria and from Morocco-Algeria -> France. This forces Germany to constantly commit resources to defend/stack France (if they stack France, just land in Northwest Europe instead). By doing this, you’re taking away from the resources Germany can send east, which will take increasing amounts of pressure off of USSR and allow them to start fighting back around round 4/5 (and start transferring forces to fight Japan around round 6/7).

If playing without NOs:

-USA should focus on building a massive naval stack off of Africa so you can eventually seize Italy. You can send the occasional TT to France if it’s lightly defended but your main goal should be Italy. Killing Italy will force a response from Germany or they’ll lose the factory. And even if Germany does retake Italy, it earns them 0 income and you can just build up your landing force as many times as is needed to secure it.

No matter what, you should aim for the following general idea with UK:

1.) Sink the Baltic Fleet immediately (not possible if Germany did something weird like a Carrier opening, but if they do that USSR can punish them badly by being aggressive early).

2.) Take Scandinavia immediately, as Germany can’t reliably defend it until after they take Karelia, and even if they do retake it from Karelia, the units sent to fight over Norway/Finland are very far away from Moscow (which is great for the overall Allied cause).

3.) Once you have your fleet built up enough to not die to a German Air attack, aim to land in places where Germany either has no units or weak groupings of 1-2 INF. You want to force Germany to trade for as many small territories as possible (or big territories if they leave France unguarded), because it:

a. Detracts land units from the invasion of USSR.
b. Pulls Germany Air Power away from the USSR/potentially away from attacking your fleet.

4.) Once your fleet is at full power, prioritize attacking Baltic States and Karelia. If you attack Karelia, it gets rid of Germany’s ability to build units that are deep inside of Soviet territory and prevents them from being able to deadzone Archangel and Finland, which will secure the Soviet economy long-term. If you attack Baltic States,you’re cutting off the flow of reinforcements from Germany -> Karelia for a turn, as the Berlin stack will need to attack Baltic States before it can move into Karelia. This is good because it either gives USSR a breather from the German onslaught or might even give them an opening to either stack Belarus or outright attack Karelia.

That’s about all I can think of. Most of your other specifics seem good enough.

@argothair I would typically agree with you about ideal game length, but as someone who’s gone to a decent number of IRL tournaments, you have to consider a few mitigating circumstances:

A: Most tournaments (excluding stuff like the invitational tournaments @Young-Grasshopper and @siredblood have run out of their own homes) happen at large-scale conventions, so A&A only has a certain amount of allocated time to even hold its tournament.

B: The sheer number of participants in the tournament demands that at least 3-4 rounds of preliminary games (if doing a swiss system) and/or another 2-3 rounds of playoff games need to be played over the course of the tournament. If you run a 8-9 round game in every round, you would need to have your tournament running for a fairly long amount of time, which leads me to my last point.

C : Player fatigue. While stamina is a skill that should be factored in for Face-to-Face play, there has to be some level of realistic expectations of how much time players can allocate to the game during the tournament. People need to take time off of work/school to even attend a tournament in the first place, so realistically this only gives you 2-5 days to actually hold your tournament when you factor in travel time. A 5-6 turn game takes about 4-5 hours to play out (including the time it takes to set up the board/cleanup), and a 8-9 round game would probably take about 7 and a half hours or so unless the game is a one-sided curbstomp. Having matches go on for that long simply becomes unfeasible in a face-to-face environment (unless we one day have the honor of living in a world where A&A becomes as revered as something like Chess, of course, and corporations are willing to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at players to participate in large-scale tournaments).

EDIT: Grammar.

@argothair It depends on which battles failed.

Typically, if any battle is going to go sideways, it’s the SZ12 one (DD/CR off of Gibraltar). I don’t mind losing/drawing this one too much, as all does is gives UK an opportunity to either go all-in against the Italian fleet or consolidate their Atlantic Fleet (which Germany really has no means of stopping even if you kill everything).

In the extremely unlikely event that SZ2 or SZ6 (where the actual transports are) go badly, you’re probably in really horrible shape. Only real recourse at that point is to turtle up, by tons of INF, and pray for better luck on Japan’s side of the board.

@argothair As a counter, I’d argue that the logistics challenges that come from a forced 5-6 turn time limit make for an interesting an alternative way to play. Having to try to scrounge together forces to make a critical, last-second attack in a crucial territory results in games that are wildly different from the hyper-optimized INF stack showdowns that define how A&A is played normally.

One general piece of advice if you want to improve quickly at 42SE: Either play or look up footage of “Axis and Allies Online”. That game uses this game (42SE) as a base, so strategies used there will generally convert well to over the board play. To answer your specific questions though:

@raply112 said in New Players need help with the Axis:

I recently started playing A&A with 4 friends. We have played a few games so far and always play until Total Victory.

Don’t do this. Use the standard VC rules as with “Total Victory” it will takes the Axis literal hours to actually win, as London and USA are very hard to reach.

The Germans always fails to take Moscow without even needing help from the United States.

Not entirely uncommon. Germany has the income advantage over USSR but generally you need help from Japan in the east to actually break Moscow. Just as a sanity check, what are you typically building with Germany each round?

As a result, the Americans always concentrated on the Pacific and manage to push the Japanese back to Tokyo in a one-on-one battle.

This is (sort of) true. Japan starts with a much larger fleet than USA and it should take USA at least 3-4 turns to catch up to Japan if Japan is at least dedicating some portion of their income to maintaining their fleet. Given enough time, though, USA will surpass Japan.

When the Japanese then can’t get off their island because the entire American fleet is around Japan and the Japanese lost more and more IPCs

This sounds off. Before the game reaches this point Japan should have built a Factory in Manchuria. What is your general game plan as Japan? You should be primarily focusing on funneling land units into Asia and making a beeline for Moscow. If the UK Player is doing a poor job of defending India, you can take it, but if they’re playing properly you won’t be able to take India until after Moscow falls (or it’s about to fall).

The Americans begin to advance on Berlin with the other Allies. In the end, the last hours of the game consist only of defending Tokyo and Berlin.

As a hint, if the game actually reaches this point it’s probably for the best if the Axis Team surrenders. That way everyone can go home and get some sleep. Just because the IRL Axis fought to the death doesn’t mean you have to.

How do the Germans effectively take Moscow?
Build INF/ART only. Focus on maintaining large, consolidated land stacks and pushing slowly. Try to take Karelia early to take the VC and Factory there. If USA is ignoring Europe completely and going full Pacific, try spending some money on land units in Italy to send into Africa via the Mediterranean. Typically, USA’s job in the early game is to keep Germany out of Africa, but if they’re going 100% Pacific, Germany shouldn’t be met with much (if any) resistance in taking Africa. This is important because Africa will get you about 8 extra income, and every little bit helps.

And how do the Japanese manage to defend themselves against the Americans?

Spend J1 destroying the UK Fleet. Keep your main fleet in Philippines (to threaten any potential USA buildup in Solomon Islands) while building mostly land units (probably build 1-2 SUB + rest land units). The land units should be sent into Asia to gobble up USSR/China. If you can get Japan’s income high enough off of taking those territories, you can achieve economic parity with the USA and drain USSR’s income to the 12-14 range. This achieves two things:

1. Makes it easier for Japan to transition to building an increasing number of boats to further delay the US Fleet buildup.

2. Makes it possible for Germany to actually beat USSR, as Germany will be consistently in the 45-50 IPC range while USSR sits at 12-14. If you can keep up this advantage for 3-4 turns, it will become impossible for Moscow to hold on, and the Axis will win.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

Okay, but how do you get to Karelia to hold it? It can only buy two units a turn to place there as Russia, and to get from Moscow to Karelia requires going through either Belorussia (a dreaded “$1 territory” that, according to you, should not be fought for) or Archangel. I suppose you could do the later, but if you’re willing to fight for Archangel, why not Belorussia, which directly borders Moscow and is on the German’s critical path from Berlin -> Moscow?

As I mentioned you stack Archangel on R1 and buy two armor. You could buy three if you drop the two artillery down to infantry but personally I like the artillery for Caucasus for the southern defense/push.

Also why TANKs? ART are the more economical purchase for offense because they boost the firepower of paired INF.
2 INF/2 ART = 14 IPC, 4 HP, 8 Punch (offense and defense)
compare with 3 TANK = 15 IPC, 3 HP, 9 Punch (offense and defense)
I understand mixing in TANKs if you’ve hit > 35 IPC (the point you’d be able to build 5 INF/5 ART), but for the bulk of the game I don’t see your income getting that high. If USSR is consistently getting over 35 IPC then you’re “winning” (which lines up with my original post that says USSR should start adding TANKs once they’ve reached a winning position.

Yes, the two INF/ART pair are a better offensive buy but the two armor is a better defensive buy AND more importantly the mobility gets the armor to Karelia on R2.

Going purely by the numbers, INF/ART are better than TANKs odds-wise because they have more punch and more HP for less money. However, when you start factoring in your limited deployment spots for USSR (10-12), things start getting different. At that point, since USSR can generally count on getting their 10 IPC bonus for no foreign units + hold Archangel, it might be feasible to mix in a TANK or two. To me, it’s all about whether USSR’s income is over that 35 IPC level (since at 35 IPC exactly, you can buy 5 INF/5 ART).

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

As you say, rather than defending Karelia directly, USSR can stack a neighboring territory and go for a counterattack on R2 (when the German Air Force won’t be present). Let’s look into this scenario:
USSR can stack either Belorussia or Archangel to try setting up a dead-zone on Archangel. If they stack Belorussia, you can dive on their stack with extremely variable odds depending how G1 went + how USSR distributed its forces. Assuming that they either stacked Archangel or you just don’t like the odds at Belorussia, you can walk into Karelia here no problem. Using your R1 build, the biggest Russian response I was able to get was 12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. the German force of 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK. Of course, the German INF number is variable based on G1, but lets break down the calcs:
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 9 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 14% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 6 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 26% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 5 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 7 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 40% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 2 USSR Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 6 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 56% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 3 USSR Tanks survive
So, if Germany had particularly poor luck in the opening, then USSR can block an advance into Karelia on G2, but even in the scenarios where USSR wins, the odds are effectively a coin flip.
Germany can likely hold Karelia for G2 and G3, but by G4 they may need to withdraw in the face of UK’s naval buildup + how the rest of the game is going. At that point we’re way too far out to make concrete calculations.

Well that is a very interesting opening. Do you vacate Norway completely? What about the fighter that attacked the SZ2 BB? Do you leave it undefended?

Conditionally. It depends on how many INF Germany loses in the Baltic States fight in-particular. If things go absolutely sideways and they lose 2 INF then Norway needs to be 100% evacuated. I understand that this risks losing the SZ2 FTR to a British air attack but they’d need to send either 1 FTR/1 BOMB or send in a loaded transport from Canada + 1-2 FTR). If UK sends forces to Norway it (hopefully) means they’re missing out on either sinking the Baltic Fleet or are delayed a turn in sending their BOMB towards the center of the map (which is a more optimal position for it). Ideally, no INF are lost and you only need to send 1 of the 2 INF to Finland.

If you were to push that many infantry against Karelia than yes, it would take a bit for Russia to take it back. Also, your 4 armor + 1 infantry against East Poland is interesting. I guess you don’t worry about the 16% chance you lose an armor there?

Not particularly. That’s like saying don’t try for Egypt G1 because you only have a ~76% chance to actually take the territory (my math might be bad on that calc because I don’t have the setup in front of me right now), If that chance actually occurred taking/holding Karelia would probably be a bust and you’d have to shift to a different game plan.

Of course, if you are sending that much firepower north than as Russia I would push south to get to Bulgaria and the Russian $10 NO.

That possibility is part of while 4 of the TANKs go to East Poland instead of 100% all-in at Baltic States. If on R1 USSR positions its forces in either a balanced position or with a disposition towards the south, Germany is free to adjust how many troops its sending to Caucasus. Some of Italy’s started forces can also be used to plug the gap, as you don’t need to start spending 100% of their income on defending Rome/France until ~Round 3.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

You know AA50’s game flow very well (as demonstrated earlier in this thread in a post I didn’t respond to). Japan is the one who ultimately takes Moscow in most games rather than Germany. The role of Germany/Italy is to make as much money as possible during the early game and then turtle until Japan wins the game. My main gripe with NOs (and your Russian strategy of not actively fighting for space on the board) is that the easy money Germany gets makes this task much too easy.

I think we are in agreement the Allies definitely don’t want Germany taking and holding Karelia and/or Caucasus for any length of time; that is bad news. Our styles are different. I want lots of ground troops to eventually knock them out and your style seems to push for a faster more aggressive strategy that does not have as much firepower in the long run but has more in the short run.

Pretty much. The way I see it is that if USSR can punch Germany in the nose enough times during the opening turns, then their income will be stunted enough that UK/US have an easier time winning the war on their side of the map. Even if this causes USSR to lose enough units over time that Japan has an easier time taking Moscow, the Allies can usually still win as long as they take Berlin on or before the round that Japan takes Moscow.

@thedesertfox said in Allies strategy:

Even if you lose Karelia G1 by the Germans the UK landing in Norway and Finland will be inevitable so it won’t be permanent.

Generally, going for Karelia G1 via an all-in takes away too much from your overall gameplan (i.e. you’d need to send multiple air units that are better used taking out the British fleet + attacking Egypt).

@AndrewAAGamer One other thing I should note is that I don’t advocate swapping every single territory. Only the absolutely critical ones, namely:

• Karelia (as long as possible, to deny the German NO + use of your factory)

• Archangel (if playing with NOs, since you need it for their main bonus)

• Belorussia/East Ukraine (for as long as possible, as you don’t want a large German stack adjacent to Moscow until you absolutely can’t help it).

• Caucasus (things should never get to this point, but you never know)

The “first tier” of Russian territories (Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine), are not good for trading until later in the game, as they’re either too close to the German production center to be worth it (Baltic States/East Poland) or too far removed from Germany’s critical path to Moscow (Ukraine).

After re-reading the thread, I think I’m in decent-enough alignment with your USSR strategy, differences in build order aside:

Phase 1 (~R1-R3): Stack Belorussia/East Ukraine (based on where Germany’s stack in heading).

Phase 2 (~R3-R5): Fall back to Moscow/Caucasus, start trading Belorussia/East Ukraine/Archangel.

Phase 3 (~R6 onward, or whenever you get big enough that Germany starts pulling back to turtle): Take and hold Belorussia/East Ukraine, generally start counterattacking towards the south (leave Karelia/Scandinavia to UK).

Phase 4 (Whenever Japan reaches Persia/Kazakh/Novosbirisk): Start turtling Moscsow and hold on for dear life. Hope that the money you gained by counterattacking Germany is enough to survive long enough for US/UK to take Berlin/Rome.

EDIT: Grammar.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

Perhaps I have not been clear enough in my statements. I am not saying to buy only infantry. I am saying not to buy planes at all and to limit the amount of armor you buy to a minimum needed for counter attacking a major push by the Germans. You can’t stop the Germans from taking territory lightly but you do want to stop them from taking Karelia or Caucasus heavy and holding them.

USSR isn’t going to stop Germany from getting Karelia “heavy” completely on their own. That’s just downright unfeasible. You need to get the US/UK fleets up before that becomes a possibility.

You do not want to trade $1 territories. That is a losing battle for Russia. You do want to keep Germany from taking and holding Karelia or the Caucasus. If Russia has large stacks of infantry, with a few artillery and a few tanks, Germany does not have the ground forces to move in and hold Karelia or the Caucasus. The real danger Turns are 1-4 to 1-5. After that Russia starts pushing back and more armor purchases at that point are warranted.

Okay, but how do you get to Karelia to hold it? It can only buy two units a turn to place there as Russia, and to get from Moscow to Karelia requires going through either Belorussia (a dreaded “$1 territory” that, according to you, should not be fought for) or Archangel. I suppose you could do the later, but if you’re willing to fight for Archangel, why not Belorussia, which directly borders Moscow and is on the German’s critical path from Berlin -> Moscow?

Also why TANKs? ART are the more economical purchase for offense because they boost the firepower of paired INF.

2 INF/2 ART = 14 IPC, 4 HP, 8 Punch (offense and defense)
compare with 3 TANK = 15 IPC, 3 HP, 9 Punch (offense and defense)

I understand mixing in TANKs if you’ve hit > 35 IPC (the point you’d be able to build 5 INF/5 ART), but for the bulk of the game I don’t see your income getting that high. If USSR is consistently getting over 35 IPC then you’re “winning” (which lines up with my original post that says USSR should start adding TANKs once they’ve reached a winning position.

I would say R1 is a 2 armor, 2 artillery and 4 infantry build to give Russia a counter attack force. After that all infantry and 1 armor a Turn until there is enough infantry on hand to start pushing back. By the beginning of R5 that would give Russia 6 armor, 4 artillery and a ton of infantry to start pushing Germany back.

• Start = 1 armor
• Turn 1 = 2 armor
• Turn 2 = 1 armor
• Turn 3 = 1 armor
• Turn 4 = 1 armor
• Therefore, Turn 5 starts with 6 armor

I mean my flow isn’t completely different from yours. I just like having the air force for efficient trades.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory?

Because you kill at least one (sometimes two or three) $3 Germany Infantry and slow the German advance, which gives you more time for US/UK to get their fleets ready. You don’t need to swap every territory, just the ones on the critical path between the main German stack and Moscow. Even one or two good trades can be enough to delay the game for the one or two turns needed for the Allies to get their act together.

At what cost? 2,3 or 4 Russian infantry? Even at 1 to 1 exchange odds that is a bad deal for the Russians as the Russian infantry defends as a 2 while the German infantry attack as a 1.

USSR loses 1 INF at most, since you’re bringing the FTRs with you. The idea is that you burn German INF that are close to the front so that new German INF have to spend 3-4 turns walking to the front line, while your new Russian INF spawn on the exact location they’re needed.

Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

Because if Germany is using their planes to attack Soviet territories, they can’t use them to attack the UK fleet as it builds up. Almost the entire UK fleet goes down (maybe at most, you get one SZ of units that survive) on G1. You need at least 2-3 rounds of builds before UK’s fleet is ready to start landing troops in Europe. If you’re drawing the German FTRs into Russia to help their trades, they can’t destroy your budding UK fleet before it’s 100% ready.

Looking at the board the Germans can still hit the Baltic and hit Russian land troops. That is all that matters.

FTRs can’t attack two spaces simultaneously. 3 FTRs Vs. a fleet compared to 4 FTRs Vs. a fleet is a pretty significant difference unless you moved out with the UK Fleet too early.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

In addition, there is only a 53% chance a single infantry + single fighter will take a territory defended by a single infantry. That means I am losing out on taking the territory just as much as I am taking it and it is costing me valuable infantry that defend far better than the German infantry that are attacking me. Paying $10 for something that most likely is going to lose me money doesn’t make sense.

That statistic lacks context. This website’s calc and TripleA gave me:
1 INF, 1 Fig Vs. 1 Inf
A Survives: 90.5% D survives: 4.5%
Attacker Results:
52.82%: 1 Inf, 1 Fig
36.69%: 1 Fig
9.49%: no units
Defender Results:
4.48%: 1 Inf
95.52%: no units
I assume you got the “53%” figure from the percent chance that both the INF and the FTR survive, but even if both your and your opponent’s INF die, you still slowed their advance because Germany needs to put another unit in that position. Also, this only assumes 1 FTR. If you bring 2 FTRs, the odds improve to 61% chance the INF survives, 35.44% chance of both FTRs surviving.

Correct. I said a 53% to TAKE the territory. You said trade territories with Germany which implies taking the territory.

That’s fair, and I apologize for the poor wording on my part. Hopefully the bit above where I explained in slightly more detail why I favor these trades (tl;dr forcing new German INF to waste turns walking to the front) clarifies things.

1.) Stacking Karelia is impossible. You can only build 2 units/turn there. Germany will take it with their overwhelming advantage on turn 2 no matter how many INF you try stacking there.

I disagree. Germany can take it on G2 but they cannot hold it and then Russia can move in in force on R2 making a G3 attack a questionable move. Assuming a heavy German push on G1, on average, Germany can get 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 armor, 4 fighters and 1 bomber against Karelia.

Assuming UK sinks the Baltic Fleet G1 (meaning they can’t use it G2):

G1:
2 INF Norway -> Finland
Finland holds position (4 INF total)

1 INF from NW Europe + 1 ART from Germany -> SZ5 TT -> Baltic States
4 INF/ART/2 TANK Poland -> Baltic States (total is 5 INF/2 ART/2 TANK Vs. 3 INF)

2 TANK Czechoslovakia/Hungary -> East Poland
1 INF/2 TANK Bulgaria/Romania -> East Poland (total is 1 INF/4 TANK Vs. 2 INF)

1 FTR Poland -> Ukraine
2 INF/1 ART Bulgaria/Romania -> Ukraine (total is 2 INF/1 ART/1 FTR Vs. 2 INF)

G2 total threat on Karelia
4 FTR/1 BOMB from various
4 INF from Finland
4 INF/2 ART/2 TANK from Baltic States (assuming 1 INF was lost)

4 TANK from East Poland

total is 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK/4 FTR/1 BOMB Vs. whatever Russia tried to defend with. Obviously, Germany would win that battle, and you agreed with this position.

As Russia can only get 9 infantries, 1 artillery, 1 armor and 1 AA gun Russia has to pull out. However, on G2 Germany can only move in 4 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 armor to take and try to hold it. Russia can hit that force with 12 infantries, 2 artillery and 3 armor which means Germany has to go light or be annihilated. Then Russia takes it on R3 and holds it.

As you say, rather than defending Karelia directly, USSR can stack a neighboring territory and go for a counterattack on R2 (when the German Air Force won’t be present). Let’s look into this scenario:

USSR can stack either Belorussia or Archangel to try setting up a dead-zone on Archangel. If they stack Belorussia, you can dive on their stack with extremely variable odds depending how G1 went + how USSR distributed its forces. Assuming that they either stacked Archangel or you just don’t like the odds at Belorussia, you can walk into Karelia here no problem. Using your R1 build, the biggest Russian response I was able to get was 12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. the German force of 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK. Of course, the German INF number is variable based on G1, but lets break down the calcs:

12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 9 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 14% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 6 German Tanks survive

12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 26% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 5 German Tanks survive

12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 7 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 40% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 2 USSR Tanks survive

12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 6 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 56% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 3 USSR Tanks survive

So, if Germany had particularly poor luck in the opening, then USSR can block an advance into Karelia on G2, but even in the scenarios where USSR wins, the odds are effectively a coin flip.

Germany can likely hold Karelia for G2 and G3, but by G4 they may need to withdraw in the face of UK’s naval buildup + how the rest of the game is going. At that point we’re way too far out to make concrete calculations.

2.) Sitting in Moscow/Caucasus (and not at least East Ukraine/Belorussia) is a recipe for disaster. If Germany gets their main stack onto East Ukraine unopposed then they can threaten both Caucasus and Moscow simultaneously. This will force USSR to abandon Caucasus for Moscow, as attempting to defend both evenly would result in Germany walking into Moscow easily. Once Germany walks into Caucasus, USSR’s economy collapses and (especially in your version of the game where NOs are turned-on) Germany’s income explodes to such a level that the Western Allies no longer have any hope of taking France.

Losing the Caucasus for one Turn is not a game loser. Losing it the entire game is. Germany cannot take and hold Caucasus; they just do not have the ground troops for it. If they are going for Karelia they are not going for Caucasus and vice versa. I am okay trading, worst case, Karelia and/or Caucasus for one or two Turns, as long as the Germans cannot move in heavy and hold it.

I think I worded things badly here. My point was more that if USSR holes up in Moscow and is reduced to trading in Caucasus for 1-2 rounds while the USSR stack in Moscow grows large enough to dislodge Germany, the Germans will get enough NO bucks (or just the regular 4 IPC from Caucasus if playing without NOs) to keep their income afloat for long enough to survive against the allies (by steadily retreating in the east and stacking Berlin in the west) until ~round 8 or 9. If Germany holds out that long, Japan can get its air stack into Europe and start defeating the Soviets, which will increase the odds that Germany is still standing by the time that Japan takes Moscow.

You know AA50’s game flow very well (as demonstrated earlier in this thread in a post I didn’t respond to). Japan is the one who ultimately takes Moscow in most games rather than Germany. The role of Germany/Italy is to make as much money as possible during the early game and then turtle until Japan wins the game. My main gripe with NOs (and your Russian strategy of not actively fighting for space on the board) is that the easy money Germany gets makes this task much too easy.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?

I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory?

Because you kill at least one (sometimes two or three) $3 Germany Infantry and slow the German advance, which gives you more time for US/UK to get their fleets ready. You don’t need to swap every territory, just the ones on the critical path between the main German stack and Moscow. Even one or two good trades can be enough to delay the game for the one or two turns needed for the Allies to get their act together.

Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?

Because if Germany is using their planes to attack Soviet territories, they can’t use them to attack the UK fleet as it builds up. Almost the entire UK fleet goes down (maybe at most, you get one SZ of units that survive) on G1. You need at least 2-3 rounds of builds before UK’s fleet is ready to start landing troops in Europe. If you’re drawing the German FTRs into Russia to help their trades, they can’t destroy your budding UK fleet before it’s 100% ready.

In addition, there is only a 53% chance a single infantry + single fighter will take a territory defended by a single infantry. That means I am losing out on taking the territory just as much as I am taking it and it is costing me valuable infantry that defend far better than the German infantry that are attacking me. Paying $10 for something that most likely is going to lose me money doesn’t make sense.

That statistic lacks context. This website’s calc and TripleA gave me:

1 INF, 1 Fig Vs. 1 Inf

A Survives: 90.5% D survives: 4.5%
Attacker Results:
52.82%: 1 Inf, 1 Fig
36.69%: 1 Fig
9.49%: no units

Defender Results:
4.48%: 1 Inf
95.52%: no units

I assume you got the “53%” figure from the percent chance that both the INF and the FTR survive, but even if both your and your opponent’s INF die, you still slowed their advance because Germany needs to put another unit in that position. Also, this only assumes 1 FTR. If you bring 2 FTRs, the odds improve to 61% chance the INF survives, 35.44% chance of both FTRs surviving.

No thanks. I am going to stack Karelia, Caucasus and Moscow and, thanks to logistics, wait till the Germans run of of steam and have to start pulling back because I outnumber them and UK/US are beating down their western door.

1.) Stacking Karelia is impossible. You can only build 2 units/turn there. Germany will take it with their overwhelming advantage on turn 2 no matter how many INF you try stacking there.

2.) Sitting in Moscow/Caucasus (and not at least East Ukraine/Belorussia) is a recipe for disaster. If Germany gets their main stack onto East Ukraine unopposed then they can threaten both Caucasus and Moscow simultaneously. This will force USSR to abandon Caucasus for Moscow, as attempting to defend both evenly would result in Germany walking into Moscow easily. Once Germany walks into Caucasus, USSR’s economy collapses and (especially in your version of the game where NOs are turned-on) Germany’s income explodes to such a level that the Western Allies no longer have any hope of taking France.

That being said, I believe that the reason you feel obligated to sit and do nothing as USSR because you insist on playing with NOs on (which gives Germany a massive local income advantage over the Soviets and actively discourages US/UK from playing the game correctly by landing troops in Karelia/Baltic States). Thus, you feel like the only way to play the Allies is to land in France while Russia sits and waits for the Germans to (hopefully) reach a point where they can no longer send 100% of their build towards Moscow.