Try your strategies out in the league

Germany would allow you to scramble 6 against a british attack if US took out Denmark and Germany felt the scramble to support the Danish invasion would fail.

Idk. I’d probably just buy dudes instead but could see it’s advantages. Maybe after you whack moscow and are cash heavy and facing heavy allied pressure in the west

I can’t say the best plans as Axis as I am usually USSR when I play but when you use the term Asymmetric Warfare, you do know that means when two armies that are not equal fight each other like a professional army vs a militia would be an example for Asymmetric Warfare.

I agree with Taamvan but in one game I did build an airbase in Shan State later in the game which helped to crush Japan. As it happened, Axis won in Europe in that game, rather narrowly. I think SZ37 had the USN parked in it, just with assistance from the UK.

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

@SS:

:cry: KISS  :cry:

Said otherwise, to lose IPCs in Convoy Disruption Phase, the enemy need to capture one of your originaly held valueless Islands AND put in the surrounding SZ a single submarine (-2 IPCs) or warship (-1 IPC).
Those penalties cannot be cumulative, even if there is more units in SZ, it is either -2 IPCs or -1 IPC, no more no less.

For instance, once Guam taken by Japan and having as many IJN Subs as you want in the surrounding SZ of Guam, it will cost 2 IPCs to US until all IJN Subs move elsewhere or are sunk by Allies.

A different NO, simpler but probably costlier to original owners, based on my suggestion made earlier:
All valueless Island groups controled by at least one stationed unit (Ground, Air, operational Air Base or Naval Base) gives 2 IPCs.
But cost 1 IPC to any original ex-owner, this penalty applied during Convoy Disruption Phase of this ex-owner.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355089#msg1355089

@ozimek1:

I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.

What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. � BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?

There’s no yes or no answer to that.  Even on G1, where I move the aa guns depends on what went down on G1.  I’ll still be making those choices on G2-G3, depending on how the game is playing out.  The aa guns in the East have limited utility because they have no attack value–their utility is to lessen Russia’s odds of a successful counter-attack.  Whether Germany needs them out there depends on what Germany and Russia are doing.

I would avoid buying new aa guns mid-game as Germany.  With that in mind, I’d keep half the aa guns back, barring exceptional circumstances.  There’s the possibility of moving east until G3, and then turning back, in time to protect Berlin.

@strategic:

I am trying to devise a wonderful strategy, for both sides, so I need to collect data. Just copy/paste the survey and write 1-5, 1=worst/least important, with 5= best/most important. Do as many, or as few countries as you would like, and include details if enhancing. Thank you in advance.

Survey:
Infantry
5 for everyone except:
Japan 3
ANZAC 2

Mech Infantry
Germany 3
Russia 2
UK India 2
Italy 2
Everyone else 1

Artillery

Russia 3
Germany 3
UK (both sides) 3
Italy 3
China 3
Japan 2
ANZAC 1

Tank
Germany 5
Russia 4
Japan 4
Everyone else 3 except:
ANZAC 1

Fighter
Japan 5
Germany 5
UK 5
ANZAC 5
US 4
Russia 3

Tac Bomber
Japan 5
Germany 5
UK 4
ANZAC 3
US 3
Russia 2

Strat Bomber
Germany 4
US 3
Japan 3
Everyone else 2

I am in a Global game now.  We just finished Round 9 and decided on a break for a while.  I am playing Germany and the Russian player is also handling China.
Germany captured Paris Round 1, forced a Sealion Round 2 and was successful but at somewhat high cost.  Round 3 took the 3 big neutrals - Spain, Sweeden and Turkey - which also took a fair amount of resources.  Therefore, I don’t think I was able to build up enough in the east for Barbarossa like I would have preferred.  I had a good force by end of Round 3, but it certainly could have been better.
Italy really struggled with Britain in Africa and the Med.
Japan took a gamble by bringing USA into the war Round 1 by attacking Brits and the Philippines.
As for Russia, first three rounds she spent building a lot of infantry along the border with a few artillery and tanks.  Round 4 Russia actually attacked Germany, which I really was not expecting.  Sank all my transports and took an unoccupied Sweeden from me.  Round 5, she had destroyed all three army groups in Europe, took Warsaw and was only frustrated by Finland with a bloody repulse.  Round 6, she threw a massive army at Berlin.  Lucklily, the last couple of rounds of combat went my way and Berlin survived with just 1 fighter unit left.  Both sides were severely depleted but Germany still had her capital.
Fast forward to Round 9. 
Now Germany is getting strong again, starting to advance into Russia itself and threatening Leningrad.  German Navy has been sunk by the US Navy and they keep fighting back and forth over Spain, which US currently holds with a fairly strong force. 
Italy finally finished off all British and French troops in Africa and has a tank running around blitzing territories.  Most of Italy’s resources have been spent trying to help Germany with Spain and threatening Russia with a small force from the south.
Japan has all but destroyed China – 1 territory and 1 infantry unit left.  They have grabbed Calcutta and control Eastern Asia and the DEI.  However, both the Imperial Navy and the US Navy have been slugging it out and are almost non-existant.  Also, Japan has tanks creeping west toward Russia.
So, while Russia is still a ways from being “out of it”, they are in pretty bad shape.  I have seen this in other games as well.  Russia is just too dang big and can’t seem to get a decent number of reiinforcements to the front.  When they start a big offensive, if it runs out of steam then it seems like Germany always grinds them back.  Unless the US can get over there with a large enough force to really threaten Germany in Western Europe, Russia will be taken out and then Germany will have plenty of money to deal with the US and push them back out of Europe with help from Italy.