I might have said this before, but most allied players might not be using the best strategies.  They typically take the allies at too low of a bid.  And then they win by either extremely good luck or they are playing a newer player who can’t take and hold the two key non-capital points on the map by round 4 or 5.  I’ve won probably 90%+ of my games as axis lately by a simple strategy:  use an odds calc to determine the ipc value gained by destroying allied units +2 *(times) territory value gained by these attacks + national objectives gained by axis + national objectives lost by allies.  If a player does this math for the first two rounds, they will have a very strong opening strat as axis.

Did you attack the 8 undefended tanks in Baltic States?

@Baron:

@JDOW:

And I admit that I am a bit disappointed that nobody either falsified my calculation/conclusion or gives me the credit that I prove AWN to be wrong about tanks :)

Being able to bring 12 additional Infantry, would have been better for odds of victory for Germany.

But I suppose you are assuming there is only M2 units types available.
I don’t have Triple A Calc, but is it possible that 3 MechInf with 4 Tanks would have been better for Germany’s success?

Main things is that skew is always better and in very specific conditions a few Tanks maybe needed.

Yep, the extra movement is of course a special value, otherwise 9 arty would be the by far most powerful addition to the army :-)

And also yes, a mixture could be the optimum.

Option #3 is not legal.

You must unload any units loaded in combat movement in the combat movement phase.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it happens, there was some confusion about when the planes actually landed, so it turns out both my opponent and I were correct in a sense.

The UK planes actually landed on Greece during Italy’s turn after an adjacent UK carrier was damaged, so the move was legal after all.

My bad for incorrectly believing the planes landed on Greece during the UK turn, and neither of us realized what the other was talking about.  :-D

Good to see our fellow AAAers always ready to help out with good answers, though, so thanks again all.  :-)

By the way, if you want to read Don Rae’s excellent essays about winning in Classic A&A, they are still available online.

You can find them here: http://donsessays.freeservers.com/axisand.htm.

And now you can learn for yourself.

-Midnight_Reaper

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

Yes, this usually get abused by the Allies since they have more aircraft and more carriers to move around, sometimes I will let US carriers just carry a single plane so ANZAC and UK can launch raids on weak targets to have a place to land.

Or worst, have 1 anzac, Uk plane on a US carrier, carrier moves 2 spaces in non combat plane can safely attack 4 spaces away.
You really sure those transports are safe because of your blockers?

Carriers are awesome like that, it’s one the reason why I build the Graf Zeppelin on G1 just encase I sent the Kreigsmarine to back up the Italians.

@JDOW:

@taamvan:

Malaya is too vulnerable, and it takes too long to secure.   HK is far stronger for your later-game strategic defense (free NB), hidden square)

The opposite is the case for Malaya. Yes, it is vulnerable but strategically Malaya is the by far most powerful IC Japan can place.

I think you’re taking FIC as a given there. I can’t see how the Malaya IC is more powerful than FIC. Doesn’t need a naval base built to reach Calcutta?

I’d only just discovered these rules like a day before this thread popped up.  My buddy and I started a game on AAA a while ago to prep for our FtF this weekend:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41587.0

This would seem to be a counterpoint to the UK/ANZAC 2 DoW.  I was doing some goofy stuff in Europe but basically a G4 Sealion is coming.  I’ve got a US Atlantic Navy ready for London Calling which would have moved to sz102 but now there’s an interesting conundrum.

If my buddy does a J3 DoW that lets my US forces retake Gibraltar and to stage my UK fighters and STB there.  If he doesn’t J3 that’s another whole turn where he isn’t taking Money Islands or India (he’s been content to take SFE and China but I suspect an ANZAC crush coming on – he likes to do them).

So not doing the DoW I think I’m in a slightly better position (although still horrible position overall).

@Flashman:

For us history pedants I’m putting together a spreadsheet detailing the historical allegiances of each Global40 territory as of June 1st in 1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942.  May add December 1941 to this.

Some problems here, for example do I treat “Bessarabia” as Bessarabia proper (Romanian in 1940) or Transnistria?

Also, Poland in 1939: strict neutral or pro-Allied?  Can we treat the Soviet invasion of East Poland as Stalin “activating” a friendly territory?

My Global 1940 map analysis contains dates that might be useful for your project:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

I haven’t set up a board with the first two turns of moves to see possible Allied counterattack’s, but I am skeptical that you can take the Money Islands and Australia during the first four turns, while still holding most of Mainland Asia and threatening India. You must have very weak opposition if you can execute all of those strategies simultaneously. At some point you will have to deal with leaving sufficient forces to deter the 18 Russian ground units in Amur, opportunistic attacks in the Money Islands, counterstrikes against your W Australia landing force, and an ANZAC blocking ship that is very hard to clear out on J3.  You would be playing a weak opponent if you could do all that you stated by J7.  Having everything collapse like that by J4 is not credible. The only way you could achieve this time schedule is if the Allied Pacific forces are cowering out of incompetence.

@AxisAndAllies1940:

I frankly agree. Sail into sz92 I1, take Gibraltar I2, sail off I3. You can be off the coast of Queensland by I7. (If anyone actually does this, Larry Harris will likely award them a medal for Most Original Global 40 Game)

In that situation, you might as well jack several loose colonies along the way, get Brazil while you’re down there.

@Karl7:

In some 300+ G40 games, I’ve never bought a battleship unless the game was already won I could do whatever I wanted.

I can’t remember the last time I bought a battleship in a game. If I am going to spend 20 IPCs on fleet, I consistently purchase a destroyer and a cruiser – this hits on average more often than a battleship, has the possibility of generating two hits on both attack and defense, and might increase the number of units required to successfully attack my fleet (the math on this one is a bit fuzzy since there are so many variables involved in fleet attacks), and gives me an extra unit that I can detach for a separate mission if necessary.

On the other hand, I have purchased AA guns occasionally, when I expect the number of planes attacking to exceed the number of AA shots I currently have available and/or when I need to empty the treasury because I know the capital is going to fall. Other than that, AA guns would be my second least purchased unit.

Tactical bombers are also rare purchases for me, but I do purchase them occasionally (more often than AA guns).

Marsh

The combined UK economy could always upgrade the Calcutta minor, like a tax on 1st turn purchases to prevent radical changes to first turn moves. The important thing is the UK Pacific economy wouldn’t collapse if Calcutta fell.

I had a good bid once for China- a tac bomber and another fighter, to be used as part of the Flying Tigers.

From many games of trying both J1 and J2, I have found that the former is more advantageous if you have average luck.  The latter is a better choice if you are worried about getting diced by a stubborn UK battleship that never misses while your blind Japanese pilots circle around hopelessly.  J3 just plain stinks and is usually a sign of a novice Axis player.

@KGrimB:

I think that because the US has the potential to build a naval base in Morocco and the sz is always 1 turn away from 2 major complexes the proposal to turn off the naval base there indefinitely is impossible to sustain. Even if the base is bombed the US can still land in southern France and pass through to enter the med. if you conquer the territory you cannot hold it against determined American effort.

If the US is completely focused on the pacific than the bombing is still inconsequential. What bombing Gibraltar really does is divert planes from the critical path to Moscow. Their absence will cost additional units on the eastern front that are needed in that fight.

Not to mention that if a single aa gun hits you lose money because the base caps at 6 damage. Attacking the Gibraltar base is an interesting idea but is ultimately a vain effort.

I agree with that, its almost worthless. The only way to turn it off is to do a Sea lion and bomb Gibraltar and not take it and Morocco. The only problem is if the US decides its going to violate the Neutrality of the True Neutrals and Builds a Naval Base in Spain. Doesnt matter what you do, the US will find a way to make it work.

Holding Yunnan prevents the war in China from being an endless whack-a-mole situation. Capturing Yunan also allows you to send fighter escort when strategic bombing the factory in India.

The design of the map makes Yunnan a territory that is easy to reach from many allied areas, the problem for the allies being that Japan has the initiative to prevent China from fortifying. Japan typically loses Yunan t1 but has the opportunity as already mentioned to take out the Chinese fighter and main stack the following turn

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

As Japan starting turn 2 I buy 1 warship of some kind….typically a DD…Turn 1 I buy a Navy base so I can shoot my fleet back to Japan from SZ 36

My moves are very methodical with Japan…I will not bring the US at war until their factories automatically become majors…reason is…he can only put 3 into the pacific…I know how to play Japan without the need for factories…my 1st factory might be turn 5 in Indochina…I make the US mirror my fleet

with the US…I try and match the Japanese ship for ship…problem is positioning my fleet…attacking is not an option until way later in the game…usually turn 7…I know I am better off with defending…so Hawaii…3 plane scramble is economical and easy to reinforce
If I move into SZ 54…now I have to rely on the Anzac and work in tandem

Caroline Islands is good but now I am independent and longer supply path…so vulnerability is there

So my favorite spot is Hawaii…a lot depends on what Japan does and where I position my fleet