Posts made by GiddyXray

Thanks! Still hope to come to your event next year if you have any!

Too bad this need to be done! I hate it if people spoil the fun for others!

September 23rd there will be a game of 1940 global at my place! If you’re interrested, let me know! There is still place for more players!
Location: Lelystad the Netherlands!

There is a change in the plan. The event is scaled down because there are apearently not enough enthousiasts around in this area! That specific day we will play Axis & Allies 1940 global at my place! Lelystad the Netherlands! If you’re interrested let me know!

You’re right that this rule is ambigious in this rule book. But to me the intention of the game makers is very clear. That shows not from this rule book, but from all rule books after this version. For example in the rule book from 1943 2nd, They state specifically that all strategic bombing raids take place first. This resolves any argument about who pays the IPC’s to the bank, the attacker or the defender! Since they solved this in the next rule book, i think it is quite obvious what they intended and tried to correct.

Yes, it is the three of us!  :-P
I can not make the transition to 42 2nd edition because it sucks in my opinion! Maybe anniversary edition will pull me back to present times!

Hi,
I made a video of my favorite Allied strategy. If you’re interseted you can see it at:
https://youtu.be/eOO_ePC0qg8

If you have any feedback or comments I like to hear it!

Sea Bottom Axis & Allies event

Play your favorite game and meet other A&A players!
23 September, Lelystad, The Netherlands

There will be different tables and different games. Sign up for any game you like most.

A&A Globel 1940 2nd
A&A 1942 2nd edition
A&A 1941
A&A 1942 Revised
A&A Europe (1999 edition)
A&A Pacific (2001 edition)

It is possible to bring your own Axis and Allies game if the game you like is full or your favorite edition is not in the list!

You can come with your group, or alone. Sign up by sending an email to: gtmaat78@gmail.com

For more updates also check out my youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMYLsTxrlW8dUltNWGJnOLQ

The entrance fee for this event is 15 euro. This is excluding food and drinks. Games start at 10am and end at 10pm.

I hope to meet you there!

TripleA Xray

sorry for your seasoned body! But indeed you need to role exactly the right number. This also makes the game fair! Other wise you would have a 100% chance to get jet fighters?

The thing is: i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i don’t do Ukrain R1. For a couple of rounds Russia can keep agressive. I would buy 2 tanks R1. 1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds. With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force. In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia. I don’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there. The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn. I use it as a base for my future fleet. Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet. If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence, or i combine with the US first! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point. After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most.
In the mid game Germany is focused mainly on landings from the Allies. Then Russia is starting to fight off the Japanese with his tanks. Russia has an income of around 26 IPC with which it can survive the mid game easily. End game he will be under great pressure from Japan! But if the Allies have normal luck and do nothing stupid, Germany is dead or close to it!
So my conclusion so far is that you sacrifice russian tanks for a chance on a german fighter, that would harm the UK a little bit. But the UK can counter this with a buy of an extra ship. In my philosophy that trade off is not so optimal.

I have my doubt about taking Ukrain in R1. So far I’ve not been lucky with this move! It cost me much more than i get for it! I wonder whether it is worth the risk! Why trading 2 tanks for this tank and fighter? The value of a russian tank seem much highter to me than a german one or even a fighter early game. I seem to be much better with Russia if i take WR and Belo Russia! Russia in my game is very well able to hold off Germany and Japan in the early game, until the Allies arrive!
Any thoughts on this?

We just had a discussion aboit this topic in the treat:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38594.msg1583593#msg1583593

You might want to look at it first.

Hi Dennis,
I’m from Lelystad. Little short on time, but if you have a question i can help. Which version of the game did you. Buy?

Hi Argothair! Cool to see your reply! Would be fun to see this in a real dual! Actually that would be the best way to proof certain ideas! ;) but for the sake of the forum discussion we can battle in words! I will share my comments on the points you make.

First of all I do agree that England should spend a considerable amount of money on building up a fleet. This will one way or an other revert pressure from the USSR to the west. Germany either need to build planes to deadzone the Atlantic, or it has to build a defense of infantry. Like in the real history a treat of an invasion already ties down a large force, but at some point you will need to execute it. Norway is still a good starting point. The downside of building the fleet early is that no fighters are going east to support the Indian contingent. This will take pressure off Japan.

Next to that England has to build infantry and artillery in India to at least maintain the stalemate with Japan in Birma. The role of England in the East would not be so big, but it can maintain itself. The pressure on Japan need to come from the US. But it can grab one of the money Islands when it sees a chance. Overall this means that Japan will take longer to conquer. But with Russia getting more support the Allies have more time. More time is equal to more chance to win.

I think the factory in Egypt would be an ok investment. Especially if Germany leaves it alone. Though i doubt if it is a better investment then a fleet in the Atlantic. The Allies need to spend their IPC’s wisely. It can not do both. It could serve to send a few units to help defend Moscow or Caucasus. Though i believe it would be too less by the time it is needed. I like the idea of making a second front in Europe. That can be more effective because Germany need to spread his armies. If you only fortify Moscow Germany can stack into one big army.

Also i agree with your argument about Russia taking Karelia with force if Germany puts down 4 inf in every border territory. But this depend a lot on the outcome of R1! Did Russia get diced in the opening round? Then there are not enough troops in West Russia! Did Russia get a bid? Or did Russia do a Ukraine straffe? What did Russia buy first turn? There is a big chance (i don’t know a percentage) that Russia can not even take Karelia without being wiped out! If Germany would have bought 10 inf as i had suggested and spend the rest on offensive pips, then Germany could have bought 2 tanks. That means Germany had 12 to 13 tanks in range, plus at least 6 inf (2 from Norway plus 4 from Belo Russia plus anything from Baltic), plus 5 or 6 planes. The chance is huge that Karelia is deadzoned! So you should have had luck with the dice and smart with bits and buys to make this work! And it will be tricky still! Even if it works, Germany would take West Russia in stead, and also Russia would not be able to maintain 26 IPC.

What i do not believe is that Russia is able to send units east. Because Germany comes in too strong. For Russia to survive the first 6 rounds against Germany it needs every unit it can get. Even if England decides to build a fleet and harass the coastal territories, then it takes time before this gets some momentum. Overall this means that more inf stay behind to guard the coast. Here i think you overstate the possibilities of England and underestimate the possibilities of Germany. If it wants to maintain its stalemate in Birma, then it can not build much more then about 6 units in Europe. Or it need to buy inf only, which is an army without teeth. At the other hand Germany stays at at least 40 IPC to turn 6 even if they don’t do well. That is because whatever England takes from Germany, they either take back, or they compensate with Russian IPC’s. Most probably making 40+ every turn. By turn 6 the more and more Inf need to stay in the West to fight England. Then around that time it need to be clear whether operation Barbarossa was successful. By that time roughly 50 to 60 inf had been send East. Giving Germany a good possibility to take Moscow. Plus, if the German plan was successful it can continue the pressure with the Caucasus factory.

So i do believe the battle is won between turn 6 and 8. Then it need to proof if Germany was successful in taking Moscow without loosing other terrain to much. And you are right with you comment that it matters with how much Army Germany has left after the sack of Moscow. Are that 20 tanks or 4 tanks? If Germany lost his entire stack of inf but kept the offensive force, then it is not too difficult to swing South and take India and Egypt. After that the Allies go down hill, or does Germany has a few tanks left over and does it need to start build up a force while it need to fight England at the same time? Then probably it is a down hill battle for Germany, which will not get any help from Japan.

At the side of Japan i’m not so sure whether you are right about how quickly it will fall. Obviously the fighters need to stay at sea or close to sea. Japan starts with one bomber and should purchase at least one more. The bombers have a great reach and can both threaten sea zones and help doing some territory trading.

So, the main focus for Japan is defense. It does mostly naval purchases. And you are right that after a couple of turns Japan can not keep up with the US anymore. That shouldn’t be the 4th turn but later if you do it well. That is because the US need to sail their ships across the ocean first. And further: Japan starts with a little head-start, so it has an advantage over the US with a couple of turns. Its best bet is to deadzone the important zones around the Japan with cheap subs. That is cheaper then a balanced fleet, so it can hold of the US fleet for 1 or 2 turns longer than it otherwise would. However, once the US fleet is defensive stronger than the Japanese is offensive, all hope for Japans naval ambition is lost. It can probably buy itself an other turn by retreating a zone closer to Japan. After that it can do two things: wait and see how it will be destroyed, or be opportunistic and attack the US fleet. A lot depends on how the board looks like. Japan might be able to kill all ships except for planes, or just decimate the US fleet. Whatever Japan does, it is not allowed to loose its planes! At the turn you decide to strike, you should be wise to purchase a IC on the mainland, because after that there is no shipping troops possible anymore. This should be about the sixth or seventh turn, depending on a number of factors. Those factors are besides luck and skill, chooses in purchases and early attacks, like the SZ37 attack.

After Japans fleet is gone, Japan need to turtle even more. If the game is in favor of the Axis, then Moscow should have been fallen and Germany starts to pressure England. Japans only income comes from the mainland now. And the US might be busier helping defend India against Germany then it is to sack Tokyo. If that is what is happening, then those are bad days for the Allies. If the situation is that Germany did not take Moscow, while the UK/US are taking territories in the mainland from Japan, while building transports to threaten an invasion of the Japanese homeland, then it are dark days for the Axis!

In a OOB scenario i’ll put my money on the Axis for sure. With any bits the odds might change in favor of the Allies. Also a lot depend on luck in the first round. If Russia looses too much units in the opening round, and the UK doesn’t kill a ship in a SZ37 attack, you might reconsider whether KJF is feasible! But if you see the opposite happening, then KJF strategy can be a very good alternative!

Very interresting post again! I think in general all the strategy will work out against most players depending on your luck. But i believe there is quite easy to counter by an experienced player. I can be bad at Russia or good at German play, but for me this strategy result in an early lose of Moscow.

This is how:
There is a weakness in the strategy that Germany need to act according to your expectations. He need to invest a little in the African theater and slow push into Russia, doing light trading along the line of controle. And that is how i played Germany for the longest time. But i discovered that in this edition of A&A Germany can make a much stronger offensive against Russia! This is how:

First of all the allied fleet in the Atlantic gets diced 90% of the time. And with a little bit of luftwaffe pressure this will not rebuild soon! If the Allies choose to spend a majority of their cash in the pacific theater, it will not happen anytime soon that the Allies have a fleet in the Atlantic that can do any significant pressure on Europe. This means that Germany does not have to spend much IPC’s in building an atlantic wall or so. At best the UK is able to secure Africa and maybe eat 3 IPC’s in Scandinavia. That is minus 6 IPC’s for Germany at best. But most likely this strategy does only allow to take the 3 African IPC’s.

Second: Germany starts with a great offensive power and a significant number of infantry. Even if Germany would not buy any offensive units, he likely will start with more tanks and planes than Russia will have end game. So Germany does not need to invest a lot in offensive power, and can buy loads of infantry.

Back to the assumption that Germany is behaving like you expect: in fact Germany should do the opposite! I would ignore Africa completely! I would try to hold on to the 3 IPC I own from the start as long as possible, but spend no dime on keeping it long term. Africa is a long term strategy, but the Axis can’t afford a long war. That makes Africa a wrong investment! But that also means that Germany has about 40 IPC to spend in Europe. And since Germany has little treat of an invasion it can invest every IPC in pressuring Russia. If England succeeds in taking 6 IPC’s from Germany, it still has at least 35 IPC’s to spend from its original territories, plus what it gets from occupied Russian territories. But since Germany most likely does not loose Scandinavia, it will have a stable income of 40 IPC or more! With that it can easily buy 10 inf every turn and spend the rest on offensive power.

The second thing Germany should not do is the light trading! As you correctly point out: the most profitable trade for Russia is if Germany has 1 infantry left on a territory. So Germany should try to prevent this. Because Germany can easily send 10 infantry to Russia every turn, Germany can and should let Russia bleed for every time it trades a country! I would leave at least 3 but preferable 4 infantry on every territory with the tanks in reserve to kick Russia back when they get bold. Since most of the time there are 3 adjacent German territories to Russian territories, Russia need to choose 1 territory to trade in stead of 2. Simply because he can not afford to attack 2. To trade 1 he need at least 5 infantry and 2 fighters to succesfully take the territory. 6 infantry is what Russia is buying every turn, so this is a war of attrition that Russia will quickly loose! Plus he will not keep his economy up at 26IPC after his first turn. Second turn Russia lost Buryatia, it controls West Russia, and need to choose from taking Karelia, Belo Russia or Ukraine. It will likely take Karelia to prevent the use of the factory by Germany. So it ends with 25 IPC. Second or third turn Germany moves his main force into Karelia, so trading chooses are now Archangel, Belo Russia or Ukraine. In the mean time no infantery is going to the East, so the Soviet Far East falls, and most likely Russia retreates to Evenki, giving 3 IPC to Japan. At the mean time Japan can probably threaten Kazakh and Novosibirsk. So at this point the income of Russia is down to about 21 to 22 IPC in turn 3. Now it depends a little on luck and guts, but then Germany can move into West Russia turn 4 or 5. Now Russia need to retreat its army into Russia to not loose its capital and start trading for Caucasus. Here Germany does the same thing. Move as much infantry in Caucasus as you can miss. The limit of what you can miss is based on what you need to keep in West Russia to defend against a counter attack by Russia. Russia can not continue trading Caucasus because an attack will cost to much, after which Germany will crush Russia. So Russia is hanging by its fingernails turn 6 or 7 with an economy of about 13 or 14 IPC!

Turn 6 the US is just pushing up the money islands! As soon as the axis see that all allied IPC’s are spend in the Pacific, Japan let go on its ambitions to expend, but need to consolidate. Most likely Japan can spend 30, 33 and 35 IPC’s in the first 3 turns. It can be less if the UK waste a transport on taking an island first turn. In the 2nd turn Japan should be able to see what the Allies are doing, so it will spend no more than 12 IPC’s on land units for as long as it can. The rest it spend only on a few bombers and all subs. He positions its fleet at Formosa. From there he can deadzone all important sea zones for a long time. It has a big starting fleet and can buy more ships and planes for about 18 to 23 IPC every turn. That is a big disadvantage for the US which also need to move its purchases across the ocean, taking a few turns. Japan is 1 move away from its preferred position but can move to a sea zone next to Japan if required for survival. Last resort is to give up the fleet and turtle. If you buy a factory on the mainland you can still be an annoyance for a long time!

Japanese land forces lock the territories of preferably Birma or otherwise Yunnan as soon as possible. It can drop 3 or 4 infantry in Yunnan every turn for a long time. This will be enough to create a stalemate with the UK. That is more then enough for Japan. He can send 1 infantry north so now and then to push Russia to at least Yakut. That is all Japan does! Japan can not hold indefently, but long enough for Germany to overpower Russia. That will be at turn 7 or 8. By that time Japan is perhaps just pushed back from Yunnan. And the fleet pushed back to Japan!

If Russia falls while Tokyo is still alive then the Allies are doomed! For Germany will have a big income and factories in excellent positions. It can take all the mainland easily and conquer all the victory cities it needs.

My conclusion is that any strategy which does not contain Germany well enough is not feasible against an experienced Axis player. That also means that there is not a quick way to win a KJF game for the Allies. As a matter of fact, since the OOB set up is what it is: allies have a stronger economy and axis have a stronger army, there is not such a thing as a quick way to win for the allies. The only possibility for the allies to win is if it is able to contain the axis before their economy got too big. So the opposite is true! The longer the allies survive, the better the chance to win the game!

In this version of the game i do like to do a KJF strategy. But the first 8 or so rounds are focussed on forcing Japan to build navy in stead of tanks, while all remaining income is spend on containing Germany. If Germany is kicked out of Africa, the Allies are landed in Scandinavia, and Germany is not in West Russia then the balance is in favor of the allies. But i did not see this happen without a significant bid for the allies.

I like to hear any feedback, experiences or counters!

I agree that in this version Russia is the least fun to play! Yes you have a few tanks, artilery and fighters, but your economy is too small to keep your defence up for a long time. Plus by the layout of the territories, it is more difficult to defend. Plus it is harder for the allies to start to pressure Germany on time. Without a significant bid Russia is doomed to capitulate quickly!

Interesting ideas! Like to read more! What is your idea about Germany and Russia? Is the chance not to big that Germany will overrun Russia when you focus so much resources on Japan?

Thanks Baron for looking up the facts. This supports the suggestion that planes should have an opening shot at subs.
At the same time this would change the dynamics of the game a lot. But after all this was not a discussion about changing the rulebook!

I understand the feeling of being screwed after a bad dice role. But does it not reflect what happened in the real battles? Not some, but quite a few war changers happened against all odds! Just one example is the battle of midway where Japan traded 3 carriers for 1 US carrier. I can imagine Japanese admiral blame an other: that is why you need to play low luck!
In my opinion you should be able to handle some unexpected outcome. For me that is part of the game. Even if that causes to loose in some cases. Some other time you have more luck and you win. Nothing in this world is 100% based on skill!!!
I do agree that a bad first round has a big influence on the rest of the game. Much bigger than any other round! But that is part of the dynamics of the game!

Light tanks weren’t exactly obsolete. In fact, most of the tanks when the war started were light tanks. Germany had tons of Panzer Is and eventually Panzer IIs. Also tank manufacturers continued to produce new light tanks throughout the war. Look at the American line of light tanks, M2A2s, M3 and M5 Stuarts, M22 Locust, M24 Chaffee, and the M42 Walker Bulldog, which was actually produced after WW2.

Militairy planners made mistakes too. It becomes more and more clear that the US made horable and deadly choices when planning their armor. And yes light armor was obsolete at the outbrake of the war. Germany was the first to acknowledge that, but it is a second thing to stop production immediatly. You need to change your production lines, make new designs etc. That cost years! The US choose not to do that, but in stead keep production output high of obsolete models. At a deadly cost. The models you mention are revisions of the standard design. The USSR was lucky to make some good design chooses before the war. They could modify them and became the best tank builders of the war.

I’ve considered a houserule including heavy tanks. My version would give the USSR heavy tanks from the beginning for historical accuracy and for balance purpose!