A few more ?s

Death Head, I think you are discussing Revised, not the original version of Axis and Allies.

@madscientist:

Thank you for your thorough response.

No problem!

Would not have been worth posting unless it showed all the available info, including the initial negatives of the strategy.

@googie7745:

Well what would you suppose I do with my Indian infantry and fighter? Should I attack Burma with it? Infantry and fighters both defend better. And why not strafe WE? Two fighters against two infantry will win with one fighter gone, and the US can land two infantry and fighter to defend and your bomber goes to the UK. Your Rhodesian infantrywould also attack alongside your Syria-Iraq infantry. And Germany wouldn’t be able to build in Karelia in G2, because Russia would counterattack with four inf, four tanks, and a fighter. And if you would win every time as Axis, the how come I play as Allies and always win?

Several options:

1)  Kwangbang - take Man on R1 and attack Kwang on UK 1 with 2 inf, 1 ftr
2)  Send EGy forces and Ind forces to Per for and army of 4 inf, 1 arm (land ftr wherever)
3)  Counter Egy if germany took on rd 1 you can counter with 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bom
4)  Reinforce Ken/Rho with the 2 inf.
5)  Reinforce Sin with the 2 inf

Do not underestemat a tactical retreat in Asia (for the Allies).  This is often how you will need to play to win once you start introducing bids.

Don’t consider attacking WE rd 3 or later.

Round 1 (allies) - buy set up units (ie AC for UK, and trns for UK/US)
Round 2 - land in afr (buy more trans)
Round 3 - go to Fin
Round 4 - take WE (or continue to ship to Fin then move to Kar)
Round 5 - repeat rd 4, etc.

I prefer just threatening (bluffing at) WE and continuing to send troops to Fin and Kar so you can do a 1-2-3 punch on EE (or reinforce Mos if necessary)

man i need sum people to play on axis and allies, if ne of yall wanna play me and sum of my friends, juss e mail me at Confederate2348@yahoo.com

what are AA Active & Axis Advantage?

Ever heard of the old saying that it doesn’t matter who wins or losses, just whoever takes the most of a beating. I think that principle can be applied here. As for gearing up for the war, American industry just wasn’t fully mobilized. If you compare production rates of military arms of WWII vs. the Vietnam War (and the Vietnam War lasted how many heres), you’ll see the real story.

I agree, as well. It’s just I wonder at the investment: If you’re thinking pure Sea Zone defense, you’d think 3 SUB would be a better investment than 2 FTR: in an attack, the 3 SUBs would score about 1 hit consistently, same as 2 FTRs. But SUBs can defend in Sea Zones (at least against ships), where FTR’s (without a CV) cannot. SUBs are more survivable than FTRs because they have their submerge/withdraw abilities. SUB hits (unlike FTR hits) cannot be countered. And 3 SUBs represent 1 extra casualty you can take should the battle go poorly.

I guess the reason German SUBs never seem to appear in signifigant numbers is the threat of USSR. It’s easy to justify the money spent on FTRs because when you’re not using them to fight sea battles, you can use them against Russia. SUBs are virtually useless against the mainly landlocked USSR and so nobody ever purchases many of them…what a shame.

Ozone27

Hmmm, now that I think about it you may be right Yanny, Britian may have lost those transports already. With a little help from the Russians Britian might still have the transport from around the UK, and chances are the Germans will ignore the one off of Canada, so my plan still has a chance.