Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

No problem. I dont own it and havent played it. I did take the time to post the links (found them in my travels) and read them…to help you AND others that may be asking similar questions.

I’m happy to have been of service.

I’ve thought some more about the details of this strategy. Firstly, it is not advised against a G1 DOW. So if we proceed on the assumption there is no G1 DOW, I like these builds/moves:

place 2 inf in Stalingrad

move the 2 inf in Caucasus to Kazakhstan - China bound.

move a tank to Turkmenistan.

move a AA gun towards China

remaining 2 mecs + 1 tank + planes move towards China.

UK West India inf activates East Persia

That way you can still take Iraq with a G2/G3 DOW.

If there is no G2 DOW, move the Stalingrad inf + Turkmenistan tank to Caucasus and leave Persia for the UK. Take NW Persia USSR3 & Iraq USSR4. With a G2 DOW, Turkmenistan tank activates Persia and Stalingrad inf proceed to the eastern front with Germany. Tac bomber positions to support the attack on Iraq USSR3.

Downside - are too many troops being stripped from the Eastern Front?

I did read somewhere a post or repost where Larry agreed with adding the Rus bomber to the G40 starting set after the 2nd edition was released. He was just concerned how the rest of the world would know about the bomber. Could anybody confirm this and/or post a link?
Thanks.

@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.

never say never in the world of Axis and Allies.  I’m pretty sure I’ve found a way, but as stated, has enough drawbacks of its own.  I could show you in a friendly game.  8-)

Yeah a US IC would be ideal but how long would it take them to get there and build it?  Would it be too little too late?

UK could build one quickly but could they afford to build the IC and then produce units out of it?  What would they give up to do it?

Russia could take them quickly and they need the income but could they hold it?  I know this is a weird idea but suppose Russia were to take them and plow the money back into a Soviet IC, then build a couple infantry units there each turn.  The extra income would help it pay for itself and they get to deny Italy or Germany the oil NOs.  Or they could just build a coupld mechanized infantry each turn and drive them down from Volgagrad (2 mechs cost $8, which is what USSR would get if they can hold Iraq, iran and Syria)

Russia is a BIG bear! :mrgreen:

@cenator01:

I think this depends on how many new player you have.
If there are 3 veterans and only one new player, give him USSR.
If there are more newbies than veterans, then let them choose, but maybe dont go 150%.
To my experience:
DON’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO! Give them an overview of their possibilities and goals (USSR: survive, UK: harass Italy, Germany and Japan, US: Go by force, and finish them off)
Its easier for new players to play the allies, because of their very clear objectives (Do not loose), whereas the Axis have to figure out a way to win. Much more preparations have to be taken, to get you on the win. Its much easier to loose for the axis, due to stupid mistakes.

the national objectives are handy guide aswell…