First game help!

It is best to buy Mechs and can open and support Germany on the East Front. If the opportunity arises, and the U.K. and US player allow it, buy a DD to keep your convoying down. Don’t make it easy for the Allies to deny you income. German Fts often have to park in Rome to scramble to sink Subs.
Playing Italy is about bothering the Allies, forcing them to spend in the Med, when they want to go East, towards the ME.

If the fighters die, Taranto is weakened.

Its a small exaggeration, a couple of my bombers always die, you’re going to want 6.  And I agree with you im building mechs and tanks and going east.

Gargantua said hes buying 6 tanks with Russia, I haven’t tried that.  Seems like so few infantry you only have like 20-23? or so to start with its tiny.

I’m going to get routed south in my current game (167 Axis) but im still going to take novogrod on G3 with ease, whatever his posture that’s a gimme.  Italy has 3 tanks and 3 mechs on the continent.  Attacking the Syrian air  stack left after Taranto wasn’t a good idea I lost 2 bombers.

Usually best to build 1 mech for each tank.  Build artillery in Ukraine.

@Black_Elk:

Here’s a little something I do, that I’ve found really helps to shave a few minutes off every turn.
It might seem simple, but you’d be surprised how much time can be spent digging and returning pieces to their trays, if you don’t have a good system in place…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35904.msg1411574#msg1411574

You can see an example image in there at the bottom using 1942.2 but I adopt the same system in G40. Once I started doing this, I never went back. Now I’m a big proponent of grouping by shape, and trusting in color differentiation for easy recognition, rather than the other way round. Hard habit to break, for the OCD sculpt collector, but it works. Even chainsmoking degenerates like me can make the extra effort to be better orgnaized haha.

Also, like others have mentioned before and elsewhere too, my group separates combat movement, and combat proper with the purchase phase. So the phases like this…
repair, combat movement, purchase, combat, non com, placement, collect.
If you want to pick up the pace it’s highly effective for focusing your players. It doesn’t change anything compared to the standard phase order of “purchase, combat movement, combat proper” other than the speed with which your players will make decisions.

interesting, i like the idea of sorting by unit type instead of faction, i may toy around with that in a smaller version to see how it feels before doing it with the G40 units (it’d be a huge pain to re-sort them again after, lol)

That is indeed the strategy, and it relies on the allies having pretty bad luck to smash up those stacks without losing 50% of your starting planes.

Germany can replace the planes, but not at the same time as it builds mechs, armor stax
Japan has even more planes, but it needs even more than Germany does because without them, its a paper tiger.

The problem with doing these stub attacks is if you lose more than 50% of your starting air power before turn 5, you will not be able to force your victory cities and strategic objectives.  The consequences are felt several turns later (7,8), when you cant smash stax because you lost your mobile strikeforce.

@cyanight:

I found you… Im SteelerLou, lol… I had made an account for a Steeler give-away sometime ago, lol.  Actually plan to use a couple of your house rules this weekend.  The NO’s, Strategic Bombing from AB, Neutral Blocs and Groupings of minor countries with majors.

Awesome, I see you, and if you’re not on twitter often I can always come here and inform you of scheduled game days so you can get the in game updates. Thanks for trying my house rules, the best one of all is the Strategic Bombers needing to leave from an Air Base in order to get the +2 damage bonus… I can see a rule like that fitting in nicely with the official rules.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)