My reasoning behind abandoning Africa is that you can at least save a tank and an infantry.  You will lose an IPC or two each turn but Germany really wants to hit Russia hard and quickly and two units can make the difference.  Also, it is somewhat difficult to defend Western Europe while putting pressure on Russia so it makes sense to put extra defense there instead of Africa.  After all, Western Europe is worth 6.  When the axis start throwing a lot of units into Africa it gives the US a chance to get into the fray more quickly since they are only 2 sea zones from Africa so they can start dumping units there every other turn if they want to.  If you stack up tons of units in Europe it can take a really long time for the allies to start beating down Germany.  It might even take long enough that Japan can get to Russia.

I have played around a little bit more with bids.  I tried playing a game with a bid of 12 and it basically ended in a stalemate.  I think if I were to play against someone else I would take 12 to play the axis.  I might make that number lower at some point.  I dunno.

I can see how the extra transport in Japan would be pretty nasty but my instincts tell me to put it all in Europe.  I will have to play a few games to see how it plays out.  Who cares about Egypt?  Killing the fighter is nice I guess but I always take my units from Africa and put them into Europe…

Also, maybe I am super skilled with the allies so a bid of 15 would be the only way to challenge me 

I was reading older posts on this subject and I have been seeing answers in the 8-9 range.  Perhaps I am a much more skilled allies player than axis player but this seems entirely too low.  The axis are so readily slaughtered that I can’t image 9 IPCs making much of a difference.  I would think 15 would be more reasonable but I think I could pretty easily defeat that too.

Two questions:  Is it most common to limit one unit per territory?  Do the IPCs carry over if someone doesn’t want to spend them all.

This is slightly unrelated but it goes along with different first turn strategies.  Why in the world would Germany ever build any kind of sea unit, such as the ACs that people suggest.  Am I missing something?

@Fleetwood:

In practice, infantry and tanks are better than infantry and artillery for the added defense and mobility. However, infantry and artillery are more cost effective offensive units at distance 1. The problem with your artillery analysis is that you’re assuming that the attacker will have a huge battle, then their artillery are one step ahead of their infantry and therefore inefficient. Let me tell you, this doesn’t happen. Offensive units that Russia and Germany purchase are 90% of the time purely for threat and in the case of tanks, mobile defense. And with the Soviets, if supply lines ever become a problem, you’ve won. Any time a truly big battle happens and the infantry are depleted, either someone made a mistake that will likely cost them the game, or a capitol fell.

I am definitely assuming that the attacker will have a huge battle.  I am coming from the standpoint of a very risk averse player.  I hate losing any units except for infantry so my battles tend to be of the sort where I can definitely take the territory and then hold it until the next round without being attacked by an army larger than mine.  I don’t like battles with small amounts of units because that leaves a lot to chance and since I assume that I am the better player taking chances is the only way to lose.  In my experience capitols fall in big battles and taking capitols is the way you win.  Often I will take a few turns to take the capitol by attacking and retreating and doing it again.  I do this because I always have a stream of infantry coming and I don’t want to get into a situation where I barely win and end up losing tanks and fighters.  I totally agree that if Russia is worried about supply lines then they have already won.  It is different for Germany though because they have to fight on two fronts.  That is why I would ALWAYS rather have 4 tanks than 5 artillery when I am getting close to a major battle.  I also think that infantry pose more of a threat than most people realize.

Certainly Germany is well served by lots of infantry but if changing 5 infantry of my build to 3 tanks will keep the Allies out of Karelia for a round, why not do it? That’s one more round they aren’t trickling units into Russia, one more round they aren’t trading Belo, and one more round that Eastern is under relatively minor pressure. In the same way, if an artillery build will delay Japan from holding Novo another round, I’ll do it.

Who cares about Karelia?  There is no IC there, and it is worth 3 IPCs.

Having the UK build up Norway until a Karelia stack is safe is the basic strategy and I do the same. Often, I’ll send the Brits to Algeria first.

I never bother squabbling over Africa.  The main struggle is to take Germany or take Russia.  Germany can stand to lose 2 IPCs.  In fact I always transport my guys from Africa back to Europe.  I would completely abandon it except that my transport gets killed before I can use it the second time.

@Papasmurph:

I am reluctant to criticize any strategy with Germany because you can play perfectly and still lose badly.  They are doomed.  My issue with offensive units is that you start with plenty.  As long as you never expose them to risk then you will always have them and so you are capable of taking a territory without losing too many infantry.

Have you played with bids to even the game yet? Germany isn’t completely doomed. Typical ranges are from 6-9 IPC’s in pre-placed units and any unspent bid money becomes extra IPC’s to spend in the first round. How do you define “plenty” of offensive units? If building 2 tanks G1 allows Germany to hold Karelia until the infantry waves arrive starting G3, so be it! Infantry is the best buy but I think you underestimate the tactical value of tanks. 44 IPC’s to me is 13 inf, 1 tank - not 14 inf, save 2.

No, I have never played with bids and I can see why that would make for a much more interesting game.  I define plenty as whatever Russia and Germany start with.  I guess about 20 for Germany and a dozen for Russia.  I agree about the 44 IPC situation.  I would not, however, buy 12 infantry and 2 artillery.

Have you used your Japanese fighters to hold German territory or taken Africa with japan?

My basic strategy with Japan is to take Asia as quickly and decisively as possible.  I buy infantry the first round with two transports and then tanks and infantry and then nothing but tanks.  Every now and then I get to Russia in time to be relevant.  I do fly my fighters when it becomes clear that Asia is wiped out.  No, I never go after Africa period.

Do you have time for a play by forum game of Revised? If you haven’t done it before, I can show you the ropes. It’s hard to evaluate someone as a player by just their posts. All I know so far is we both have diarrhea at the keyboard.

I would love to play a game some time.  I would have to find some time to do it though.  I think we are both good enough that the game will take about…. a week.  Also, I don’t really play with the victory cities.  I usually just play until either Russia or Germany falls and then call it quits.  If we did a 10 victory city game I would have to seriously reconsider my strategy.

@BigPapaSmurf:

Ok so I finally found my Axis strategy,

Germany

1. Buy Battleship and Carrier round one, remaining rounds buy all tanks(until they arent needed). Russia may get all the way to Poland before being driven back but thats part of the plan.

2. Save the plane in Germany for the carrier(the rules dont forbid using planes in combat landing them in Germany and then loading them on the built carrier, but I dont allow this)

3. Ampibious assault Gibraltar, with the sub and battleship in tow(and french plane if needed) This prevents planes from the UK from hitting the south fleet on turn one.

4. Re-take Ukraine if nessisary with minimal forces.

5. Land all planes in France.

6. Don’t waste attack material on Russia till you get the tanks in play, just slow their advance down.

7. Leave the North fleet in port, destroy the russian sub with planes if it blocks.

8. On turn two kill any boats which block the path of the two fleets to sea zone 7 with planes and minimal boats. This will allow your fleets to converge at 7 in the non-combat phase. Leaving you with a massive fleet of 2Bats/1Car/2Fight/1des/+1-3 subs, use this fleet and the land planes to waste any transports that are built. It should take the allies three hopefully four turns before they can get rid of your fleet and start buying transport materials.

Japan
1)Buy two factories, Secure two of the East Asia zones for your factories.

2)Send all Asia Infantry to china with planes. Keep them alive to join the six tanks you are going to send through China each turn. If Germany holds off the transports long enough you should be able to overwhelm Russia on turns 5-6 with the aide of the first German tank waves… Obviously take any factory built in India and if America decides to build all out on the West coast then the Germans will have no trouble keeping Briton out of France.

Sorrry no time to go into more detail.

2

this is an interesting idea but I have a couple of problems with it.  First off, what is the point? You can stop the allies from accumulating transports at first, but, what is to stop the uk from building an AC and a fighter and having the US land a second fighter on it.  There is absolutely no reason why UK should attack your navy at any point.  My philosophy on naval battles is that after like round 2 they are a really bad idea.  Which naval pieces attack better than they defend? None except for bombers.  If I thought your navy was super formidable I would buy nothing with uk on the first turn and then buy two carriers with planes.  The uk would be more than happy to trade blows on the defense in a naval battle.
My second problem is the tank purchase.  Buying nothing but tanks will not allow Germany to take Russia even if you started on the first buy.  I have tried many times.  If you had your fighters available there would be a chance, but without fighters there is no chance at all.
All and all I think this is a pretty good strategy though.  IMO Germany is doomed no matter what against an experienced allies player but this move would seriously throw off the usual ally strategies.

@Fleetwood:

Don’t worry, I haven’t heard anyone else espouse that sort of Russian strategy.

I will challenge your assertion that units that don’t ever see battle should not be purchased. Why do people buy carriers for the US in the Atlantic? They are there so that Germany can’t safely attack US transports. Why do I often buy 3 inf, 3 tanks R1? I buy them so that Germany can’t stack Karelia without being decimated. A smart German player won’t stack Karelia or make any suicidal advance for that reason, those tanks probably won’t see largescale battle(until a Japanese attack on Russia) but they still served the useful purpose of containing Germany to Eastern Europe.

Good point.  I had in mind a group of like 8 infantry that are not near the front.  I think my assertion still stands there.

@Fleetwood:

I will disagree that pure infantry buys are the way to go in Revised. They are certainly the most cost effective defensive units, nobody will dispute that. Russia especially needs the mobility and a Classic 8 infantry buy will allow Germany to stack Karelia first turn. My response as Germany against that build is to commit 1-2 cardinal sins in your book. On G1 I will build something along the lines of 10 infantry, 2 tanks or worse - 6 infantry, 3 artillery, and 2 tanks. In any case, I will be able to hold Karelia first turn unless you have 9 inf, 2 art, 4 tanks, 2 fighters able to counter. The two tanks are to provide immediate reinforcement to Karelia next turn as well as landing fighters there. Depending on how significant the threats are to Western Europe and Karelia, I may even abandon Western Europe on G2 and turn it into a trading zone so I can continue march east on Russia.

The rationale behind the Soviets building offensive pieces isn’t necessarily to attack a forward Axis stack, but to delay that stack from advancing by turning territories surrounding West Russia for example into deadzones. Stationing tanks in Russia with an infantry stack in West Russia, and a handful of infantry in Caucuses and Novo will allow Russia to simultaneously threaten Karelia, Ukraine, Belo, Persia, Sinkiang, and Yakut.

Abandoning Western Europe is a very reasonable thing to do.  I am reluctant to criticize any strategy with Germany because you can play perfectly and still lose badly.  They are doomed.  My issue with offensive units is that you start with plenty.  As long as you never expose them to risk then you will always have them and so you are capable of taking a territory without losing too many infantry.  I have played the stack infantry with Russia strategy over and over again and I have always succeeded in holding Russia.  My strategy with uk is to start dropping guys into Norway until i have force big enough to put a lot of pressure on Germany.  They simply can’t win a two front war.  I have gone to Russia with as much force as possible with Japan and they never get there in time.  I always stack 10 guys in East Russia off the coast and that can hold for quite a while.  When it gets threatened I just back up.  Also with the US I build transports, tanks, and infantry until I can bring over like 30 guys.  I have a more in-depth analysis on why artillery are the worst unit in the game to buy.  You are right about my specific example of attacking tanks.  That example was more to illustrate the efficiency of infantry.  An even better idea than infantry and artillery is infantry and tanks.  I’m not positive what the most effective ratio is but you have to keep in mind defense after you win.  Also the extra movement for tanks.

@jbriggs:

Most people I have played against, see’s russia as very weak, and they play them defensively.  I can’t play that way.  My first round purchases for Russia is 6 artillary.  This will do a few things for you……it creates options.  Doing this for your first 3 rounds along with attacking Germany every turn will make you stronger.  Buying the artillery adds an offensive option to you your stratagy.  First round combat movements should consist of attacking Norway with 2 fighters and 3 infantry from karelia.  You will limit the fighter from norway from attacking the british fleet in SZ2, and it gives you an easy 3 ipc’s.  Then attack west Russia with everything else from russia, your tank in archangel, and artillary and tank from caucas.  You should win both battles with little loss.  Your non combat phase, move 3 infantry from archangel into Karelia and land 2 fighters into karelia.  Move 2 infantry from kazakh into Caucasas.  2 infantry from yakut to Buryatia.  2 infantry from novosibursk into sinkiiang. 2 infantry from E.N.O into Novosibirsk.  Move your submarine from sea zone 4 to 2. Place your 6 artillary into caucasas.  What this does is creates a wall for germany to attack.  If Germany goes on the offensive they will be very weak for a counter attack by britian and russia.  Caucasas will have 5 infantry and 6 artillery to defend with.  Karelia will have 3 infantry and 2 fighters to defend with.  West Russia will have 3 tanks, artillery and at least 1 infantry to defend with.  If Germany attacks either one of these they will have to attack in force.  They will be hurt badly and then you’ll be able to clean up with your other units the next round.  Doing this will put you at +5 ipc’s for your next round, and will give you alot of firepower to attack Ukraine in round 2 from west russia and caucasas.

I couldn’t disagree more with this strategy for Russia.  First off, artillery are the worst piece in the whole game to buy and I will explain why in a second.  Secondly, dividing your forces is the worst possible thing to do when you are Russia.  There is a book called “the art of war” which gives a mathematical explanation for why you never divide your forces and it applies perfectly in this situation.  Basically it is being suggested that Russia spreads its units between Norway, Karelia, Caucusus, and West Russia.  This gives Germany the option to pick a battle that gives them overwhelming odds and does not put their units at risk of counterattack.  I would throw absolutely everything at Karelia, including two infantry i can transport over.  I would kill all of the Russian fighters that Russia will ever have and lose maybe two or 3 infantry.  I think the 3 “easy” IPCs make for a very big loss the next turn.
As for artillery, they are absolutely horrible.  At first glance people read artillery and they say, “Fantastic!!! They are like a tank when they are with an infantry and even if they aren’t with an infantry they attack at 2!!!”  Here is what is wrong with this analysis:  If you are attacking and you think that you are barely going to win, then you are going to eventually have fewer infantry than artillery.  This means that you have units that are slightly less expensive than tanks but significantly worse at attacking.  Once you win your close victory you have units that defend the same as infantry but cost more.  If you are going to overwhelmingly win then the concern is not so much how good they are at attacking but how good they are at defending a potential counterattack.  Here is another way to look at it.  Look ONLY at attacking.  Would you rather have 8 infantry and 8 artillery or 7 infantry and 7 tanks.  I would rather have the 7 infantry and 7 tanks every single time.  As you lose infantry artillery become worse but tanks don’t.  If you aren’t convinced then try some mock battles and see what happens.  Also consider what you are left with at the end of the battle if it is a losing battle.  Most people are convinced at this point but every now and then somebody says, “Yea I guess, but what if you make sure that you always have more infantry than artillery?  Then, like, they would be better than tanks cause they are cheaper.”  First, they would only be better at attacking, not defending, and they don’t have two moves which is not a trivial difference.  If you are attacking and winning then the new infantry will always be at least one space behind.  So then you would want to make sure that you will have as many infantry as artillery at the END of the campaign and not just after the first battle.  If you think that you are going to continue to attack and win then you probably want tanks that will actually make it to the later battles.  Units that never see a major battle aren’t very good purchases…  So replenishing infantry later on is not so practical.  Also, there is the issue of transportation.  You cannot transport an artillery with another artillery or with a tank.  This means that you may end up with transports that aren’t full because you don’t have enough infantry.  This happens almost never but it is one more disadvantage that I thought I should point out.

If anyone is interested I can also explain why subs, destroyers, battleships, and bombers should never be purchased

@frimmel:

It is a game of attrition.

You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.

It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.

Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?

This sums up my philosophy perfectly.  I am a very risk-averse, methodical and boring AA player.  I feel that the entire game boils down to the conflict between Germany and Russia. Germany and Russia want to create a horde of infantry that is so big that it is dumb to attack it.  In order to do this one should buy nothing but infantry and stockpile them all on the front lines in the same territory.  The only reason to buy a unit other than infantry is if you already think you are going to win and you don’t want to suffer through a 30 round game.  The reason why infantry are so good is because having twice as many units as your opponent is generally enough to win a battle no matter what the units are (if you don’t believe me attack 50 tanks with 100 infantry and see if the tanks ever win).  Also, all of the units you will lose will be… infantry so you can replace them cheaply. If you do not have twice as many units as your opponent then you do not enter into that battle.  This means not exposing small armies.  With Germany and Russia I always end up with exactly as many tanks and artillery I start with.  I simply do not put them within reach of a bigger army.  Usually a capital falls when something like 60 infantry and whatever other units attack about 40 infantry and whatever units.  This is an extremely low odds low risk attack and is exactly what I wait to do for the entire game.  Hopefully the opponent will buy tanks or artillery (artillery are the worst piece that you can buy) so that you can have double an army sooner.  Buying tanks and artillery is not going to keep up with your opponent buying infantry.  This means that you will never make an attack on their horde and your horde will be more susceptible to attack.  In summary:

build giant hordes of infantry because any time a giant horde of infantry goes against an army that is half its size the smaller army will suffer horrible attrition and the horde will not.  This results in a huge economic advantage in the long run.