AA42 axis "Strategy" video

I think the strategy is there and works well i win more than i loose against good axis players.  Wondering if maybe we could setup a team to test and get the timings down.  Figure out how many fighters Russia needs to survive Japanese and German non stop Blitz on Russia.  Also how many bombers are optimal to avoid purchasing too many.  I am not sure if you can have too many bombers they have dual roles to industrial bomb and to support attacking\landing infantry in Western Europe.  Figure out what turn USA needs to quit buying bombers and switch to Naval.

You do get diced once in a while, but it is not necessarily game over G1 if sz2 or Égypt fails.

Germany can really be a tough nut to crack, and even if the German players dream of Africa and Moscow takes a serious blow on G1, he can really dig in and make it very difficult for the allies to get a foot in in Europe.

A chunk of armor in E. Europe, stacks of inf in western and Germany and an airforce threatening to take a shot at that essential transfer fleet can take a long time to crack.

When I feel I am behind, I often take more risks than usual - going for that 50% UK Navy battle, or making risky strafing attacks on an exposed USSR stack.

You can also try to advance faster with Japan - maybe try to take India J1 or by doing the risky pacific double move hitting both sz52 and the US battleship+transporter at the western us shore on J1.

@Uncrustable:

@Hobbes:

@Uncrustable:

The one thing i generally dont know when to do is build ICs in India and/or FIC .?
And what is the best way to move air from japan to germany? Carriers in the indian ocean ? Or FIC -> Egypt -> Europe. Most of my games Germany is not yet prepared to hold Ukraine on G3 so japan cant land its fighters there.

IC on FIC is less efficient than getting 4 transports for J to maximize usage of Japan’s starting IC and using 2 of those transports to bring units from Japan to FIC. 2 transports cost 14 IPC, carry 4 units, 1 IC costs 15 builds only 3.
India on the other hand should have a Japanese IC as quickly as possible, but without risking it to fall to an early Allied (Soviet) attack from Caucasus.
Air, depends on the situation. If you keep a carrier on SZ60 and another off Egypt you can move newly build fighters to Europe in 2 rounds. Bombers can be sent through Egypt or India (and if you build an IC on India then any J bombers built there can hit SZ5 on the next round), fighters India can reach Balkans or E. Europe  - really depends on the situation.

Yeah i agree. Thanks for all your help Hobbes ;)

Something else I remembered. Sometimes an IC on FIC is a good option if the Allies go KJF.
If the UK has built 1 IC on India on UK1 then Japan needs to focus everything on conquering it and it is a quicker way to place units on FIC than shipping them from Japan. However, there’s a risk that the Allies may conquer FIC instead and then its former IC will be used against Japan.
If the US go with a Pacific strat an IC on FIC may also be a good option since it allows to add additional ships/ground units for Japan away from the main battle.

@Hobbes:

A trick I’m willing to share that I think is a game changer that I don’t see discussed on here is to take your Australian trans with sub, bring an Aussie and the INF in NZ and head to africa the long way. You’ll get there in 3 rounds/ Japan may come after you but it will be at the expense of doing other, more important things.

To me that move is risky. The Japanese can attack it with their sub with better odds. And you’re leaving Australia/NZ easier to be conquered by Japan, which means less 3 IPCs per round for the UK permanently. The 2 Inf can help on Africa but if Japan goes for it then you will need more units (usually the Americans to deal with the situation).

It is risky but for some reason when me and my friends have gone after it, we either got sunk, or it was mutual and the trans lived. It must be a cursed square on our board. They don’t do much staying in Australia. If Japan really wants it they can send whatever they need. They’ll still be in range of India so it’s not that far out of their way.

Also, it’s not a bad a idea to leave Norway for Russia. Those plane purchases can pot shot the germans in Karelia and Russia can blitz a tank round 2, assuming there’s only one or two germans in Karelia.

Has anyone made a victory city tracker for AA42 similar to this:  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/308716/axis-allies?size=large  from the Revised game but using the AA42 color scheme and 2 victory conditions? I would try it but I do not have the programs to do such a chart. Thanks.

@nutbar:

Buy tanks. They work well with offense and defense, and they move 2 instead of 1. I also reccomend buying 1 fighter per turn to stock up and destroy Germany. Stay defensive until you have a monster military and then attack Germany.

Another nutbar quote:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22573.15

Yes, Japan’s setup needs to be changed in order to weaken them. Germany’s setup should be weakened OR the allie’s setup be strengthened.

No wonder you think Japan and Germany need to be weakened if you think a plan of 1 Russian fighter a turn is a good one.  If I could make the Russians spend 10 IPC on a fighter every turn, I’d agree Axis have an advantage.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

The entire basis of the changes to North America in 1942 is to “fix” the ease of conquering North America in previous versions, which in terms of historical accuracy should be nearly impossible for Japan to do.  The above suggestions are the best way to go for Japan in the current game, however.

Fuck that. Japan should break out of the Soviet Union into Alaska and base them self there fight with might for West Canada then take West US

Id say that the axis, despite being down…26, give or take, do not need extra IPCs, though it wouldnt totally unbalance the game if they did. They just half to take advantage of things like the british being so spread out.