Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

There is an A&A game with similar rules. Axis & Allies Europe (the original one, not the Europe 1940 games) gave Germany 12 IPCs at the very beginning of the game, to spend as Germany saw fit. Then the Allied powers were given 12 IPCs to spend as the Allies saw fit. Then the rest of the game commenced.

So, I would guess you are suggested something like that for G40, with an Allied bid to go on top of the extra Allied money. If I were to do something like that, I would have the Allies go first, then the Axis, then the Allied bid. It would make for a wild setup, that’s for sure.

-Midnight_Reaper

Just finished up a game a couple days ago with some friends, and it always seems to come down to a valiant last stand at Moscow followed by either an admission of defeat or (as is the case with the game we played) Italy is contained and the Allies can still hold Egypt to some extent.

That is an interesting idea that could be considered when the Germans look as though they are a couple turns away from taking Moscow. I’m not sure I’d do it just because of the amount of time to move those infantry would make it totally obvious to the Axis what you were doing. At that point you are completely giving up Russia’s IPC income to the Axis which is not very wise. The advantage to this Alamo battle is that the Axis also lose a lot of units and Germany remains licking it’s proverbial wounds for a turn of the game at least.

So while it’s interesting and I have never considered it, I’m not sure it would be worth it.

@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%.

@AK_Grown:

Have not thought about Brazil though

If memory serves, Anzac is one move from Brazil (from NZ).  I’ve seen it done, it really didn’t change the outcome though.

It’s two moves.  Once in a while I’ve had ANZAC take Brazil, but never with an eye towards having them spend the money outside the Pacific.  It feels like a bad idea to do so if Japan hasn’t been neutralized yet.

Yes BILL, Mistakes were maid.  :P

Yeah too many rules too many games we keep catching ourselves saying " is that this game? oh no It’s the other one"

@Sgt.:

In AAP40 my one game as Japan resulted in a pretty easy win due to going all out on J1. But in Global you have to consider the USA getting that massive IPC boost if you attack UK/ANZAC. I find the best strategy is to focus on taking China and killing any Russian INF that get too close. Dare the UK to attack you early, if they do you get a free shot at the DEI.

That wont work as easily with alpha set up… J1 attack in Alpha is usually a bad idea if the allies know what they are doing.

Airbases should just be able to scramble to adjacent Seazones, thereby eliminating the island rule mumbo jumbo while allowing the UK to have SOME control of the English Channel.

AGREED!