Map for 1941 axis strategy

with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning

@taamvan Can you say a bit more about what Japan is doing in your games? It’s true that with a well-executed KGF Germany will be contained to the core territories of France, NW Europe, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania – but that’s still worth $30 a turn and it takes the Allies a very long time to build and load enough transports to crack it.

Meanwhile, a pure KGF usually leaves Japan free to take India, then the Caucasuses, then Moscow – the Allies can certainly rush a few fighters to Moscow, but sending even one ruins the only practical Russian national objective, and if you build too many then you never get enough Allied ground troops to crack the German turtle – fighters in Moscow can’t reach to support an attack on France.

In my experience, without a bid and with NOs on, the Japanese attack on Moscow is much faster than the American attack on Paris, let alone Berlin. How does the Pacific play out in your games?

@smoke

Not a bad strategy, but as I said, it’s of the most importance that because all it really takes is for the British to act as some sort of annoyance to Japan atleast and hold the Money Islands or liberate the Philipines for America. Like I said the Culcutta crush doesn’t necassarilly mean the end of the game for me as Japan, but more over that the Americans will have to do KJF, which is what I normally do anyway since Japan can’t outbuild me as America for squat.

The basic idea is to start at the Solomon islands, and then slowly work your way West.

And of all else, all the U.K really have to do is instead of building a factory on India to just build a factory on Australia. While it’s not much to say where they build 2 units a turn, it’s still an industrial safe haven for the British to reevaluate, prepare for inevitable takeback of the Japanese controlled territories and win the game at the end of the day. Because granted, it’s really difficult to stop the Japanese from taking India on turn 2. This has been a serious pain I’ve had with axis and allies 1941 setup which is why I pay more attention to the 42’ setup as it’s much more balanced.

/corbeau blanc

Agree with you on Karelia, even though Germany can take it sometimes it’s not too difficult to take it back by Russian counterattack and/or UK invasion. Only once Germany gets heavy inf reinforcement east can they hope to hold it, and if you do a good UK/US invasion combo into Europe there should be tied lots of Germans tied up manning the West wall. In my games, Germany and Italy often seem to end up being inf-heavy hedgehogs, leaving it to Japan to finish Moscow off.

India, on the other hand, isn’t easy to hold at all. This is due to Japanese number of transports and fighters, which will overwhelm you sooner or later. I think ICs in SAF and EGY are a better UK focus, better fighting a delaying action over India and reinforce Russia with aircraft to make it impregneable.

i think it’s fairly balanced to be honest. i’ve seen both sides win, and i’ve won with both sides. anyone who thinks one side has a much larger advantage needs to play the game a lot more  :-P

a good Russian strategy depends on what the Allies are doing overall. everything i post is assuming Dice because dice allows the probablity factor unlike Low Luck.
Also it is important that the Brittsh will kill the Itlian fleet R2 or R3
KGF
Buy 4 tanks 1 fighter you have enough inf for turn one not to buy any.
A basic strategy I like is to give up Karelia leaving one man behind and regroup in Arch(with AA gun from Kar) then R2 counter
As well as take back the Ukriane R1.
my buy round two varies but if i can one figther that  being the last one i will buy for Russia heres how i would get the money if going for a fighter buy R2, on R1 i attack Finland with Kar if doable and take ukraine. leaving baltic states and East Poland to the Germans + getting your bouns  for no allies in your country which is a given R1, giving Russia 35 Ipcs on hand. then buy my 4inf 2 art 1 tank 1 fighter giving me two fighters to swap territories with. Fighters act as permanent tanks and don’t die when the territory you just took is recaptured, From R3 out i buy twice as many inf as i do art or tanks and i try not to buy more than two tanks that way i get the most units down so i can hold my capital and still have enough boots to swap with, when The Japs arrive on scene i pick my battles wisely. now at this point the Brittish and the US should be set and start destroying Germany by round 4 which means less pressure against Russia,R5 should be the last German push then you focus mostly on the Japs. russia’s goal now is to swap persia and kill the intial Jap force that will be coming north which won’t be there in force until Round 6. All they have to do by R7 is survive swap novo, persia, Kazak, and Evenki there shouldn’t be any German/ Italian Offense at this point and if there is your done for.

KJF
I do the bury stack and along with a India IC (KJF) is going to be built by the Britts I would go with 4tanks and a fighter(or 2inf 1 art) 3 tanks in Caucus R1 then R2 back the inda IC with those three tanks, so India has 4 britt inf 1 britt art and AA gun and 3 rus tanks. versus 4 jap planes and 4 inf Defender wins 73% with 2.78 units left (three tanks). If at all possible I bring those three tanks back R3 by then jap should be buying navy to fight the  U.S.  A KJF means to me three tanks a turn by the britts in India and the Britts killing the Itlian fleet, along with the Britts fighting for Karelia via SZ 4. I then try to back chinghai with one inf a turn from russia.
My Russia KJF then starts to look more like my KGF but now there is no Japs and all you have to do is just swap one teritory away.

In all Russian Strategies it is Key that all of your offensive battles take place at least three teritories away from Germany that way you don’t get your guys killed by a spawning tank/German airforce combo.

Also, Reading this I see alittle bit about a navy and I know for a fact that no surface ships that Russia builds will stand to a german airforce. and subs seem like a waste to me.

I have yet to try to the bomber strat because I like the fighter defence over the bombers because russian offense isn’t always an option especially if the Italians try a one two punch with the germans and stop the Russian one man blitz blockades.

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.

I see it as this romania put it as a french complex more men can be made anyways taking karelia ipc will save time/money do the math 15 going a nother place i like that better