Ally deployment in UK

If Russia is aggressive in its first move, all things considered, it’s game over for the Axis. It’s why I favor a house rule that forces the USA to spend a certain amount of money in the Pacific Theater-and units purchased can only be used in that theater of operations…

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.

Why use the carrier for worthless battles?  Take out the Japan transport with it, and take out FIC (if you build and India complex, but hope that the Russians sent a tank, fighter and two inf to back it up…I know, I know…it will take two turns for inf to get there) with the fighter, two inf, and Cruiser.  Odds still are against you, but at least eliminate the two inf there if you can for any retalitory.  The goal with the carrier is hopefully you can sack a Japan fighter or get lucky with a BB with some rolls…plus this can leave other Japan trans vulnerable, so ensure your American and Brit bombers get positioned in Alaska/Hawaii and Caucus respectively on the first turn so you can possibly hit those trans.  If you can keep Japan troops off Asia, you’ve done your job.

@Bunnies:

I wonder whatever happened to this game.

Re:

So what makes you say it’s completely over?

If you’re trying to go KGF, and Germany controls/contests Africa on the fifth turn, and you’re asking for advice, it’s probably an uphill battle.  You would only be asking for advice if you were unsure that you could protect Moscow / crack Berlin, and with Germany fueled by African IPCs, and without a veteran’s perspective on how to run a tight logistic game with the Allies, I would guess probable loss for the Allies.  All the Axis need to do is pump out a bunch of tanks and run a bit of interference with Germany’s airforce, which as you mentioned was quite strong.

It sounds like Japan is screwing around (no industrial complexes by turn five), which means you may have a chance, but again, I lack context.

If US was building some Pacific fleet, and Japan went infantry with very light naval/air support (pumping IPCs into 1 destroyer, then subs and/or fighters to match the US threat) then the Allies really are in  trouble, because then probably Japan has some idea of what it’s doing.

If Japan was unopposed in the Pacific and built battleships and carriers, though, the Allies are probably going to win because Japan can’t just lay back and make Germany do all the work.  Same if Japan used its transports to screw with Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/etc. instead of establishing a fast hard unit core in Asia/India to help support Germany’s push against Caucasus.  You might see Japan doing both (i.e. hitting island targets plus hitting Asia/Africa) with five transports, but four transports on turn five with no industrial complexes built means SOMETHING weird is going on - like I said, either Japan was prepared to meet some unusual threat, or Japan was screwing around.

Yeah - what happened in the game?
I agree with Bunnies analysis - against a decent axis player, this game is probably over. But against novice players anything is possible, they may perform unfeasible or uncoordinated moves. In that case it is all about putting yourself in the position to exploit this. By this I mean armor for Russia, establish atlantic navy to threaten Germany, Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

@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.

And I’ll have to say that I played about a dozen of games with Axis where my opponent played the double IC strategy, they ALL went the way I said in the previous post (except I usually don’t lose the islands, I’m quite good dealing with naval fights).

Overall the changes are positive imho.  Revised is a classic game and deserves another run and the chance to appeal to a new generation.  AA42 takes the best innovations from Anniversary (ie naval rules and units) and applies them to Revised.  It should be interesting to see how the strategies change.  It’s also a good move to remove tech–Revised works better w/o tech because tech is about luck and detracts from the strategic aspect.  With dice, luck is already a sufficient factor in the game.

Could be a big hit.