Posts made by MarineIguana

Cow’s explanation regarding Germany attacking France makes sense from me. It seems much more profitable for Germany to commit against Russia, which is isolated. Allies defending france can combine France, UK, and Italy in a way that seems unrewarding for Germany to attack.

Disclaimer is that I’ve only played 1 game of this, but I’m very experienced A&A mechanics with hundreds of games with top tier players.

@Preussener: I hope you don’t take offense, but it’s very likely your opponents aren’t strong. I note repeated mentions of destroying large numbers of units or surprise. This is evidence that opponents are placing units in a deadzone allowing the opponent to make profitable attacks/trades. Evidence of highly competitive play is a drawn out game with opposing stacks and trading border territories with minimal troops. An experienced player also can project purchases and movements 3-10 rounds out, such that “surprise” doesn’t figure into the game.

As a very experienced A&A gamer who has played 1914 once here are some of my questions:
1. Optimal purchases by country on the early rounds.
2. What are the stronger (my guess inf, art, fig, trans) and weaker (my guess tank, naval) purchases? Do tanks have a niche role or are they overpriced?
3. What are the main considerations for axis to pressure france, Italy, or Russia?
4. UK allocation between atlantic and ottoman
5. Important contested territories.

Regarding balance: I’m a little surprised that experienced players haven’t come to a consensus on which side has the advantage. Establishing an exact bid is harder, but at least deciding the stronger side seems easier. On second thought, maybe this isn’t surprising considering this game is new. Revised has an 8-9 bid given to axis and 1942 2nd edition is between 8-11 given to allies. The balance issue isn’t necessarily germane to a strategy guide though, and I don’t think it’s important to dwell on it.

Overall, I think we’re in agreement that KJF could work against top players, but it’s at a handicap compared to KGF. My response below elaborates on my thinking.

@Zombie69:

I agree that KGF is easier, but I have to disagree about two points that have been made here about KJF by MarineIguana.

First, the best purchase for Japan to contest the US fleet is subs, not fighters. For the same cost, they’ll perform better than fighters on both defense and offense by giving you more units to take as hits. Their only drawback is their inability to counter attacking planes, so you’ll need a few carriers as well, but the bulk of your fleet as Japan should be made up of subs.

Okay, I should have taken a more nuanced position between fighters and subs. A mix fighter and sub purchases is ideal for Japan against a KJF allied strategy. Overall, I favor fighters because the 3/4 range of fighters allows Japan to pressure on land while deadzoning sea zones. For example, you can place 4 fighters on 2 carriers and an additional 4 fighters in china. These fighters have great coverage of both land and sea.

Subs are straight out better than fighters on naval attack and slightly better on defense. On defense, subs are slightly better in a mixed force mostly because of the hit advantage (60 IPC buys 6 fighters vs 10 subs). The main disadvantage of subs is that they’re only naval and it doesn’t protect against air.

Secondly, yes it does take a big naval purchase for the Allies to contest the Pacific, but the US doesn’t have to contribute all of it. I’ve had a lot of success in one game going KJF using US carriers with UK fighters on them. UK bought 2 fighters each turn, plus 3 land units for India. The UK fighters went to West Russia, then India, then onto the carriers. Japan was hard pressed to compete against two nations on the water and ended up losing big islands quite early.

I’ve put a lot of thought into that scenario with a US R1 3 carrier buy and intention of merging US and UK in one of the big islands R3 or R4 latest. Allied naval defense R3 ideally would include 4 US carriers, 4 US fighters, and 4 UK fighters. It’s not a terrible strategy, but there’s 2 problems on closer examination that I believe makes it unreliable in top play:

1. Japan positioned off china is very likely to take India the round UK moves the fighters from India. Japan can be expected to land 6 land units into asia per turn starting R2, while India produces 3. The UK fighter purchases are critical to defending India. It seems reasonable for UK to retreat and deadzone India the round the fighters move to support US; however, trading India really reduces the land pressure on Japan.
2. Japan always has the option for a profitable R1 pearl harbor trade. This really sets back US pressure with KJF. Japan attacks with 2 fig, 1 bomber, 1 sub, and 1 cruiser. Expected loss is US 1 fig, 1 carier, 1 dest, 1 sub vs Japan 1 cruiser, 1 fig, 1 sub.

I’ve played about 30 games of 1942 2nd edition and over 300 revised games, many at high levels of play. In 1942 2nd edition, the KGF favor isn’t as obvious as Revised, but going KJF is still a significant Allied disadvantage with optimal play on both sides. KJF works against intermediate players to take advantage of unfamiliar play.

The fundamental reason is that the US makes less progress in the Pacific vs Atlantic given similar investments.
KGF: US can start contesting europe/africa territories in R2 or R3 latest with a 2 carrier R1 purchase.
KJF: US needs at least 2x the navy investment (4+ car, subs, fig etc.) to start contesting Asia territories. With optimal play, US doesn’t start contesting Phil, Eindies, Borneo, and SE Asia until R5-7 unless Japan makes a mistake.

Japan KJF strategy:
1. Purchasing - A good Japan recognizes the allied intentions with the US1 buy and UK1 movement. If UK commits to a risky R1 SZ37 attack and sinks the 1 car, 1 bb, 2 fig, this signals KJF and Japan should buy 2 fig & 3 inf R1 instead of a more standard 2 trans, 2 inf, 1 fig. R2+, japan buys something like 4-6 inf & 1 fig or 2 subs.  Fighters are the best overall unit for naval battles with 3 attack/4 defense/ 3-4 range for 10 cost. Submarines are slightly better on attack, but have weaker defense and a huge disadvantage in range.

2. Positioning - Japan can center the navy off china coast and continue ferrying all the infantry into asia. Each carrier can project 4 fighters (2 on deck, 2 within 4 striking distance) against every sea zone within 2 of the Japan navy. This allows Japan to deadzone the surrounding sea zones for about 5-7 rounds even with full US commitment. If US is able to move in to threaten Japan’s navy, either move to Japan and reinforce with naval purchases or retreat the Japan navy to the indian ocean. Seek to maintain income as long as possible in Asia with existing land and air.

Note on pearl harbor: Pearl harbor is profitable to attack with 2 fig, 1 bomber, 1 sub, 1 cruiser. Make sure to the 1 fighter as a loss, so that you don’t need to place a carrier there. Many people aren’t aware, but in A&A rules, the carrier doesn’t need to actually move to Pearl in non-combat if the fighter that moved 4 is taken as a loss.

I feel that the proposals are largely changes around the margins that don’t really address some glaring flaw (in my view) or make the game better.

To contribute constructively:
I think each territory should have a differentiated role that it makes sense to place units there.
I think each unit should have a differentiated role that makes sense to purchase

Sheltering Berlin makes the france and baltic territories clearly the best territories to position troops, and Berlin less useful except enough to hold the capital. Less tradeable territories also makes infantry more valuable, detracting from the variety of unit purchases. The change isn’t that huge, but I feel it does reduce the differentiation and detracts slightly from dynamic gameplay; however, the change does make the map more historically accurate.

I largely feel that by sheltering Berlin from naval threat, it makes Allies naval purchases even less valuable and makes germany infantry more valuable.
1. The UK navy threatens less coastal territories
2. With less threatened territories, it becomes more advantageous to create static german stacks.

Regarding production, I generally like the idea of reducing production to create real costs to purchasing infantry. Taking an extreme example, Germany with a production limit of 3 would almost never buy infantry. Currently without production limits, infantry are clearly the most efficient.

Overall, listen to Demandr3d. He makes excellent points and recommends strong moves.

Sorry fyllefanten, but the suggestion of reinforcing the Germany Baltic fleet or UK India IC are not viable against strong opponents. There are easy ways of punishing both moves.

Germany baltic carrier buy: UK buys 2 fig a turn, and germany has to either commit even more resources there or have the navy sunk in a very uneven battle. Germany’s baltic fleet starts off in a terrible position because any movement option is towards a UK position of strength. The best option is to move out to sz7, force UK to attack, and hope to destroy a uk trans or fighter.

UK India IC: Japan can take the IC by round 2 no matter what the allies do. R1 attack with just enough to destroy US pearl navy and China. Move everything else to French Indo-China (including the remaining japan transport). R2 attack india with everything, and use the tranport to ferry 2 inf from east indies.

@Roman:

Hey Guys,

A group of US are just getting back into Axis and Allies and we also have a few new players. I have a list of common questions that I thought I would share, any help would be awesome as the older players are hopeing to excellerate the new guys skill levels.

Russia: Viable first turn purchases/combat moves?
Purchase: 3inf/3tank purchase is standard. 4tank/1art if germany did not bid any infantry to Europe. The purpose is to deadzone karelia in R1, so germany is unable to stack there safely. On subsequent rounds, Russia should buy almost all infantry.
Combat: Nomally Ukr & Wrus. Ukr with 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 2 fig if germany did not bid an infantry to Ukr. With an infantry bid, attack with 3 tanks instead of 2. You can also attack Belo instead of Ukr, which is safer.

Germany: What should Germant do with their Fleet if it manages to meet up in SZ 13 or 8?

UK: Is not puttting an IC in India viable? If so whats the alternative?
Never purchase an IC. Japan can always take India R2 without exception. UK1 has a lot of flexibility, but 1car, 1 trans, 2 inf is probably safest. The only required move for UK1 is to sink the baltic fleet.

Japan: Is attacking India J1 possible and how is it done without being left exposed?
Almost all good UK players evacuate India R1 because it’s in a deadzone. R1 Japan can project at least 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 3 inf, and a battleship minimum. I won’t go into details, but I guarantee you that Japan can safely take india R1 or R2 no matter what allies do.

US: Best purchases and movement to get the US involved Atlantic/Eurpope was asap?
2 trans/6 inf/2art optimizes US land deployment. 1 Car/1trans/inf is safer and probably recommended if you’re not experienced. R1 and after, generally buy 1 trans and land units. The first priority for USA is to land units in africa and remove Axis from Africa.

Rule: Can a player place a naval unit during the placement phase in a hostile seazone?
Yes

Some of these quesion may seem basic however, including myself the returning players have not played for years and we want to help the new guys as best as possible. Asking for some different options will do this as some of the older players are stuck in their turn 1 ways.

Thanks

I think the proposed change might improve historical accuracy but at serious expense of dynamic gameplay. I prefer the latter over the former given the trade-off considering Axis & Allies is foremost a game of strategy and planning. For example, I prefer both sides to have a 50/50 chance of winning even though historical accuracy would be more like 98/2 in favor of allies.

Proposed territory change: This is bad in my view because it removes allied pressure on germany. Currently, NW Europe, france, baltic, finland, italy, and southern europe are tradeable. Removing pressure on germany gives germany more potential to shift infantry to stack these trade-able territories. A protected Berlin also makes it even less rewarding for allies to have a strong navy.

Increasing germany production:
This is actually a big deal because germany is currently limited to 13 or 15 production. Infantry are the single most overpowered unit in Axis and Allies. Germany normally produces between 42-52 income, and in many circumstances I end up buying a couple less efficient units like art, tank, fig, or even a bomber to fit the 13-15 production cap. By increasing production, pure infantry buys become the obvious buy.

Both proposed changes significantly favor Germany. Axis already have an advantage on this map.

Yes, #1 is the optimal move in most games. Destroying the sz61 transport is essential for delaying Japan’s take of India. With the sz61 sunk, UK can hold out in India until R6 even with optimized Japan pressure. The carrier and transport can be reliably brought to UK by round 4 to start pressuring Germany.

#2 is very risky. The main problem with #2 is that it uses the entire UK pacific fleet to destroy some of Japan’s naval fleet. Unless the US follows up with a full pacific commitment, japan can use the extra transport and absence of UK naval pressure to aggressively pressure and take India by round 4-5.

A third option to consider is to move the india fleet into the Med if germany failed to deadzone the seazone next to egypt. This allows UK to destroy the med fleet R2 and allows the UK fleet to travel to UK as early as R3. Often, germany will sacrifice air to sink the UK ships in the Med which is also a good outcome for the allies. Overall, this provides the most possible pressure against germany. This is probably the best of the 3 options in my view, but is contingent on a Germany mistake of failing to deadzone sz15.

80+% of my games against good axis players, I do #1.

I agree with zombie that reinforcing trans-jordan is unnecessary because of the threat of a profitable 2 fighter & 1 bomber counter. I think that bidding egypt with 1 infantry or 1 sub in the adjacent sz makes sense. This deters a slightly profitable attack by germany R1 with expected result of UK losing all 4 units in egypt and germany left with 1 bomber.

UK moving the Indian fleet to the Med is the optimal choice in some situations. It’s optimal when the UK wants to destroy the germany med fleet R2 and is willing to lose India earlier because SZ61 isn’t sunk. The critical factor is that Germany hasn’t deadzoned sz 15 so that UK carrier, cruiser, and 2 fighters can safely move in. R2, UK can project at least 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 cruiser, and 1 carrier which Germany is hopeless to defend. The main issue is that most good German plays will deadzone sz15, so this move normally isn’t an option.

Those modifications completely change the game. Specifically, bombers with a 2 cost are so good that every country should make an all bomber buy and Russia, UK, and USA  will produce no IPC from round 2 forward. The game will be determined by whether Japan or us gets hit by SBR. Very likely Japan through bury.

While we are going with game modifications, why not make all units free with unlimited movement and 6 attack and defense? That would make things most simple.

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific…

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can’t make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

Purchases:
1. R1 best purchase is 3 transports and 2 inf. This maximizes Japan’s land deployment into Asia and the transports serve a double purpose of strengthening your navy.
2. R2+ The only purchases you should consider for naval battles are fighters, subs, and carriers. Fighters are significantly better than subs mainly because fighters have a potential striking range of 4. Cruisers, destroyers, bombers, and battleships are too expensive for what they provide. Never buy these. I can elaborate if people are interested.
3. Don’t buy a factory. With just Japan production, Japan can push 6 land units into Asia without a factory. Japan with 35-45 income simply can’t afford to produce more land units while defending against US naval builds. If Japan doesn’t buy enough fighters/subs to deadzone the sea zones, US can move in and take east indies, borneo, and phillipines.

In summary: Don’t lose the Japan fleet, and buy mostly infantry and fighters.

Artillery is a niche purchase, mainly because it generally compares unfavorably to an infantry and tank mix. Artillery paired with infantry provide the greatest attack/cost ratio of any unit.

The major drawbacks are:
1.Artillery has the worst defense/cost ratio of the 3 units.
2. Artillery also only projects the threat of deadzones one territory away instead of 2 for tanks
3. Artillery attack ratio drops to 0.5 (below a tank) once infantry are exhausted.

Artillery definitely have a place in purchasing, where these drawbacks are mitigated. Ignoring artillery completely is a mistake.

Prime examples I can think of:
1. UK amphibious landings. The battles usually conclude in 1-2 rounds with all UK land units dying or taking the territory in a dead zone. Artillery provide the same offensive punch as a tank at 1 less cost. Transport provide the mobility to project the artillery’s threat of deadzoning the same range of german territories as a tank.
2. Germany or Russia situations where land offense is needed to trade Caucasus or Italy. This is the case when the country is forced back to the capital and only a couple territories. It’s critical to continue trading these territories as long as possible, or losing the capital is further accelerated. In this situation, you only need to project the deadzone one territory out and provides the most offense for least cost.
3. Early R1-R2 buys for USA. It’s a priority for the USA to remove the axis from africa. Buying art in early R1-R2 rounds, then tanks later in R2-R4 rounds maximized the pressure on egypt on R5-R6.
4. When a country has a leftover 1 IPC and wants some offense.

attack/cost:
infantry - 0.3333
tank - 0.6
artillery - 0.75

defense/cost:
artillery - 0.5
tank - 0.6
infantry - 0.66

Note1: i’m aware that hits/cost ratio also matters, but analyzing it quantitatively is complicated. It’s fair to discount the tank and art ratios a little to reflect the differences in hits.

Cruiser at 10 seems about appropriate for me, largely for the reasons other people have explained compared fighters and destroyers.

On the other hand, I would be very wary of reducing the cost of battleships. The 2-hit mechanic has the potential to make naval battles oppressive and not fun. At a cheaper cost, it becomes very viable for US to stack battleships and battle and retreat with little consequence. 6 BB with say a mixed fleet of 1 car, 2 fig, and 1 dest can deliver 5-6 naval hits with no losses then retreat.

For me, a fun naval game involves naval positioning, deadzoning, calculated fighter support from land, and smart blocking (using destroyers). I would hate to see a naval battle devolve into stacks of BB with a winner takes all battle.

What makes me qualified to answer: I’m an experienced player on Triplea, having won something like over 30 games of revised and 1942 2nd edition in the last 6 months without a loss. I’ve played about 2 dozen games of 1942 and have studied the map carefully. I don’t have a map in front of me so I apologize for territory ambiguities/misspelling

1. Is pulling the Indian fleet back into the Mediterranean a viable course to take?
Yes, it’s the optimal path to take in 90+% games. In my opinion, SZ37 is a bad trade unless US is committing everything to pressuring japan. It’s not a positive TUV battle, highly risky, and prevents you from profitably trading your fig and cruiser vs japan dest trans (sz61?)

Most preferable: sink german fleet if it goes adjacent to egypt/trans jordan with 1-2 fig and 1 bomber.
If not: Send cruiser and fig to sink japan’s dest and trans and land the fighter in sinkiang. Move egypt fig, car, and trans off africa towards UK. This joins up with Aus fleet to make Europe landings starting round 4.

2. What should be done with the Australian fleet?
Send to UK, for similar reasons to #1

3. what can I profitably do with my destroyer and transport off of Eastern Canada?
Generally take out the german subs off UK with dest and move trans off US east coast. This is to prevent Germany from deadzoning the SZ off morocco. Those 1-2 subs make the fighter, bomber, and battleship much more threatening to the US atlantic naval fleet. Assuming germany subs attacked EUS, those can be mopped up by the US fleet bought in R1.

4. Would UK/US focusing on Strategic Bombing be enough help to keep Russia in the game vs. Germany?
Yes, but land and trans apply more pressure to Germany at similar cost. I speak from experience rather than an easy way to quantify it. UK and US can start trading france, nortwest eur, italy, southern europe, baltic. Russia can trade belo, ukr, and sometimes karelia. This forces germany to expend 2 land units to counter and quickly exhausts Germany. Overall though, you’re right that SBR is more profitable in this version, and it’s not clearly inferior to trans and land.

5. Would it be sound for the US to just ignore the Atlantic altogether?
I think it’s viable to ignore Germany. If so, you need a strong Russia. It’s absolutely key to deadzone Karelia if you try this. Without a bid, only attack Wrus round 1 and buy exclusively inf and art. Doing this, russia can hold off germany alone for about 5 rounds before ceding the important Wrus or cauc territory (Russia produces 7 land units vs 10-13 germany).

A large bomber fleet is an interesting proposition. At 36IPC, you can get 3 bombers with 12 points of attack. Japan’s best response with naval is to buy carriers. 1 Carrier and 2 fighters provides 10 points of defense for 34IPC. Based on this, heavy US bomber purchases can threaten Japan’s navy IF left exposed.

As a Japan playing against this US tactic, I would make it difficult for the bomber fleet to reach the Japan navy. Without US carrier buys, US can’t secure aggressive (such as borneo, east indies, FIC) to threaten Japan’s naval. US can’t reliably field land units in Asia. My bet is that heavy bombers will work if Japan makes a mistake and exposes the navy. Otherwise, US will make a big investment and end up camping 6-15 bombers in Australia or India not doing much while japan continue pushing inland through safe landings near Japan.

Zombie, forcing Germany into those 3 options are essentially my assessment of the impact with a UK sub bid. The UK sub either destroys or diverts significantly more than its 6IPC cost.

Stacking Bury with Russia in Round 1 is honestly a terrible idea. In this version, it’s not very favorable for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This means that the battleship and at least 2-3 fighters are free to attack Bury.

Just compare the potential starting forces:
Russia can possibly present 5-10 inf and 2 fighters
Japan has 5-10 land units, 2 battleships, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber.

This means that Russia has practically no hope of pressuring Japan and units sent towards Japan will likely be lost in an unfavorable battle.

As a general principle, a bid is most useful when used to decide very close battles. Based on the initial 1942 second edition starting setup, the most impactful potential bids are (in no particular order):

1. Destroyer - Increase chances that US East Coast fleet survives
2. Inf - Defending Egypt
3. Sub - Threaten Germany Med fleet
4. inf - Attacking Ukraine
5. sub - Attacking SZ37
6. Art - Attacking Belo to prevent germany from stacking Karelia

There might be some okay bids, but these stand out as top tier most effective bids.

As a very experienced revised player, playing 1942 second edition is a refreshing change. The India factory, change to make Pearl Harbor attack unfavorable, and favorable germany attack of US east coast on round 1 combine to make the Pacific more attractive. After playing 30+ games, some at a high level, I believe a bid of 8-12 to the allies is appropriate.

Compared to revised, Germany is much stronger because UK and US can’t exert much less pressure early. The Karelia factory also raises the likely prospect that Germany will be able to stack Karelia and solidify the position with unit production from that factory.

7-8 bid: inf in cauc, art in karelia. 4 inf attacking into ukraine means you have a very good chance of taking ukr with only 2 tanks. art into Wrussia allows you to take the battle in 2 rounds, reducing losses.

9 bid: inf in cauc, sub in sz15. Inf for the reason described above. The sub gives a huge headache for germany’s naval fleet. Thinking about the possible scenarios with optimal play on both sides, I don’t believe there’s any way to keep Germany’s Med fleet alive past round 3 without a carrier AND destroyer buy. Losing the Med fleet is a huge blow to the Axis achieving income parity.

10+ bid: you can start considering a ukr, belo, wrus triple attack.
e.g. with 2 art and 1 inf bid.  4 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 2 fig Ukr ; 3 inf, 2 art, 6 inf, 2 art, 2 tank to Wrus. These are all favorable battles and will force germany to buy all infantry for many rounds.

–-
I don’t think an egypt inf bid is necessary. A germany R1 attack to egypt practically guarantees losing the battleship and transport to a 2 fighter, 1 bomber attack.

The SZ37 bid, even with a sub isn’t worth it in my opinion unless US plans to commit everything to the Pacific. By attacking, UK loses all opportunity to swing around and form an atlantic fleet in rounds 5+. Japan loses ~1/3rd of the naval and air fleet but the remaining fleet remains unopposed without US building a fleet. My point is that attacking SZ37 weakens UK more than weakens Japan.

I have been thinking through different US openings, and it seems difficult for Germany to defend the sea zone adjacent to italy.

With a US1 buy of 1AC, 1 sub, 1 transport, 2 land
The US, with support from Rus sub, appears able to take the sea zone in R3
(1AC, 2 dest, 2 fighters, 3 trans, 2 sub) and hold it in subsequent rounds. This creates a problem for germany because it opens up italy to attack.

I was wondering how some experienced players handle this pressure.

Some options I’ve thought of:
1. buy an AC in G3
2. maintian 6 fighters (or buy replacements) to dead zone the sea zone
3. cede the territory

Thanks