Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

@waxenhen4 said in Allies getting destroyed every game?:

@Contango thanks for the pictures

So is the most optimal counter for an all in Russia attack really abandoning EVERY thing except Moscow? I suppose this would deny the VC but give Germany almost all of Russia’s ipc value for free.

the UK advice seems pretty strong but what do you think makes a better permanent main landing for the allies: Normandy, north/south Italy, or south France? (assume your not playing a mod that appears to have made southern France neutral)

For Russia it might be a bit strong to say to abandon absolutely everything. I think you can justify deviating from a full on retreat under certain circumstances:

You can make a case that your deviation stands a good chance of actually helping your Moscow odds.

Examples:

Trading units to re-take Novgorod, Ukraine and Volgograd -> not only kills German units but also denies factory usage Sending some mechanized units to kill small groups of German tanks/mechs trying to do a Northern run-by to gobble up income If Germany moves ahead too quickly, or splits up and leaves you an opportunity to strafe his army and still be safe afterwards, (a strafe is where you make an attack with intentions of retreating on purpose) or otherwise leaves you a lucrative unit trade Germany has allocated resources away from Russia, so Russia can now flip to offense.

Examples:

German production switches heavily to the Atlantic Germany decides to do a mid-game Sea Lion Germany goes hard with mechanized units into the middle east leaving you outnumbering his slower army

As for my thoughts on an Allied permanent landing:

Normandy is probably the best:

Free factory Opportunity for UK ground troops to use US transports easily UK Air cover (watch the Italians taking out your airbase before Germany’s turn) UK production of extra naval units if things get lively and it’s necessary Furthest from Moscow, meaning German planes have to pick one or the other German infantry/artillery have to move off of defending West Germany to get there Can quickly switch to the Med if you see opportunity Threat of sniping Berlin (US takes Denmark, UK follows up with transports to Berlin)

I find Norway is good, but kind of situational. You can sometimes really annoy Germany with a small investment of suicided transports and not taking your entire fleet out of position and away from air cover.

@Dafyd:

I think that any question when we are trying to improve our skills is a good question…especially if we are really trying to learn.  The Hessian and ShadowHAwk are right.  The key to the Pacific are the two power fleets of Japan and the U.S.  The U.S. must go after the Japanese fleets.  Carriers loaded with planes are very important as well as the subs and detroyers.  As a side mission and with the permission of your Soviet ally, land troops in Siberia and help take back Soviet territories from the Japanese if they have begun to starve out the Soviet Far East.  It takes resources from the Japanese and can alter the attention of the Japanese player a turn or two if they are interested in defending Korea or pressuring the Soviets.

Good stuff here.  I’m a fan of 3 part attacks on Japanese fleets.  As an example:

Japan leaves a chunk of its fleet in SZ42 (off Java) for whatever reason.  They’re not worried about an attack because America doesn’t have the fleet off of Queensland to come after them.  What I’ve done in those situations is attack with the American ships, then follow up with India planes and Anzac ships/planes to finish them off. You’ll lose your American ships, some India planes and Anzac ships/planes, but if you wipe out half of the Japanese fleet it’s brutal for Japan because, as dominate as they can be, they can’t afford to lose too many major pieces.  America can lose a mini fleet and replace it; Japan cannot afford to be spending multiple turns rebuilding its fleet.

@Rocmistro:

One gripe: I almost feel that the bonus income stuff forces you to play the War exactly how it played out in reality. That’s a bit of a bummer, as I would like to see different scenarios play out.  Oh well.

Yeah, the national objectives are based more or less on historical objectives of the actual war. Think about this though; you had Japan capture Alaska, Italy captured Cairo and Germany conquered Russia without having to face an Allied invasion of France. You DID play it differently from reality.
Plus, believe it or not, a lot of Allied strategies end up being vastly different from the real war. Most successful Allied strategies I have seen involve the US taking out Japan first, then dealing with Germany/Italy. In one game, Germany took London then went on to attack Russia. The US managed to take care of Japan then took Rome and liberated Paris. Germany used so much to take London that they didn’t really have enough to take on the Russians and did very poorly in Russia. Berlin fell to the US and London NEVER GOT LIBERATED!

@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.

axis advantage boardgame, just like the new 41 and 42.

Just be desperate, hope for the best.

Thanks.

Next time I draw Germany and I have 2 or 3 Carr.'s I might just try for the USA especially if they dump in the Pacific to counter Japan. I dont think it’s lack of experience on our table 4 of the 6 players have been playing this game and others like this (W.A.W. the grand Daddy, Carr. war , Panzer Blitz and others) since the mid 80’s  the other 2 have about 15 yrs exp  Hey if it doesnt work out its only a game and we reset, we average about 2 games a weekend,