Tip of the hat to you for an excellent video Sir! Spamming infantry as Germany & Italy enabled me to stay alive until Japan came to the rescue after the dice were brutally unforgiving in G1 (lost all my units except the bomber without scoring a hit on the Brits in my attack on Egypt)👍
One other *other* thing I find interesting about Germany in this version compared to basically every other edition is their limited production. You touched on it here, but think about other entries in the series (even the spin-offs): Classic/Europe '99: Infinite production, so do whatever you want. Revised: 10 production in Germany + 6 in Southern Europe. AA50: 10 production in Germany until you secure Karelia/Caucasus *and* prevent the Allies from bombing it into the dust. E40/G40: 10 production in both Western Germany and Germany for 20 total. In 1st Edition you only got 3 in Germany (for a total of 13 production), but you could upgrade the factory to 10 production whenever you feel it necessary. This is a bit disingenuous though, as you capture Paris G1 and get 10 more production from that, which basically gives you infinite production (23 or 30) for the rest of the game. 10 production with 30+ IPCs gives you a chance to build something other than INF spam (at least one or two units a turn other than INF, anyway), which is both a blessing and a curse because, while you get to build high-value units like TANKs/FTRs/Bombers to project threat and form a strategy, or the occasional ART to push more efficiently, you also really miss having the large INF stacks Germany is used to in other editions of the game once the Western Allies start showing up around round 4.
One thing I would like your thoughts on is an aggressive turn one Russia. I recently played a game where I recreated your Barbarossa and the response of the Russian player I found interesting. He sent everything he could to the Baltic states and everything he could to Ukraine. Assuming the German player lost one infantry in each of those battles turn one, Russia has very good odds on both. Germany is then spread too thin on the east front and cannot take Karelia which now has 4 infantry on it (2 built, 2 from archangel), it is also quite difficult for Germany to take back both the Baltic states and Ukraine turn 2 without putting valuable armor units at risk to either Russian units or UK units turn 2. My response to this was on Germany turn 2, to send 4 infantry from Finland and a fighter from Germany to take Karelia (Norway fighter died to battleship) and then to use my remaining available units to take back the Baltic states. However this left my armor units open to a counter attack from Tanks from Moscow and UK transports. What would you do in that situation? Love the videos by the way so awesome how you connect with all your audience and actually respond to comments.
So I pulled up and ran the situation that you described above. If you took a single German infantry loss in the Baltic States, a counter-attack with all soviet assets (except the tank), comes to 78% chance of win with 3 inf and 1 arty remaining. In the Ukraine, 5 inf and an armor can take out the Germans 72% of the time with 2 inf and the armor left over. Overall, these attacks are something like a +3 in favor of the soviets in terms of value of material exchanged (kinda meh). Assuming average dice and that Soviets win both battles, one of the things I like out of the gate is that the Soviets have come forward and are now closer to all the German air units. Not knowing what the UK situation is, I would very likely counter-attack one of those two territories (likely the Baltic States). Sending in the 2-3 infantry German has in range and the artillery (possibly) heavily supported by the Luftwaffe. That counterattack has something like a 90+% chance of win with a +6/7 value of exchange for the Germans. Of course, I'd stack up in Finland with the Norway army (leaving a blocker in Norway). Wouldn't worry about the Soviets down south. The ten infantry push into Poland should already be taking the wind out of the sails of the Soviets (again, backed by the Luftwaffe air hammer). Just push an italian infantry into Bulgaria as a blocker. Don't lose the German tanks from eastern Poland though. If its safe to use them in a counterattack, by all means do but I'm okay with stashing in Poland or in Bulgaria with the Italians. I'd have to understand the rest of the board (namely what the UK did or didnt do) to be completely clear about G2 but that's my best bet.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks for your thoughts. I counter attacked exactly how you described however I made the mistake of moving the German tanks into the Baltic states on that counter attack and the uk sent everything in to wipe it out. As for German air I found it quite difficult because of the fact that without German air in France, France falls. Which isn’t the worst thing in the world, however France is a 6 IPC territory and after a few turns the uk will be struggling for IPC against a good axis opponent. Gifting that 6 IPC a turn to the uk is not ideal. However there’s just no way to stack France early game without it. Even sending Italian infantry and German infantry, German air is still needed in France in order to defend it. Yes it depends on the board however when the uk has 3 transports and air able to attack into France every turn and the US has 4-5 transports in range of France along with US air it becomes I would say impossible to defend Germany without German air. And this is all by turn 3-4. Touching back on earlier as well after that aggressive Russian push those German tanks are forced to fall back and even with all those German infantry pushing north Russia and the uk can defend kerelia for a very long time especially if the US continually pressures France. This means Germany struggles to take kerelia and push into Russia to any extent. The US is still able to do a med shuck it’s just the thread of 4-5 US transports and 3 UK transports all able to drop into France and take it. What’re your thoughts?
Thing to remember about national objectives, they become important targets for both sides. I personally don't believe they are overpowered at all, but I'll check your vid on it.
If you do (or even if you don’t), I offer to play you as many friendly games as you like to show you the problem. Or you’ll change my mind (which I feel strongly is less likely) either way, would be very fun. 👍
Hello,there. Excellent series. I have a question. What do you consider to be a long term game: 7 to 8 rounds? I ask that because if we are playing a timed game, such as 6 hour game, do you believe it is possible to follow this strategy or is it slow for a short game of 6 to 7 round long? Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.
@@nedfonseca79 a long term game is typically beyond 7-8 rounds. Playing a timed game - especially only six hours - would very likely not be enough time to play this strategy out (or many others). I feel a timed game of six hours would be very hard on the Allies without some kind of rebalance in their favor.
I actually forgot about sending the Germany Bomber to Egypt (I haven't played 41 in a bit, so I'm rusty). I forgot what a difference having it in Egypt makes for the odds. Similarly, I forgot how limited you are in mopping up UK's fleet when you divert the Bomber to Egypt instead of sinking ships with it. Don't get me wrong though, sending the Bomber to Egypt is almost definitely correct. You're never going to stop the UK Navy from showing up and killing off that FTR is vital to speeding up Japan's rampage in Asia + denying a potential extra Allied FTR in Moscow during the final battle.
The Germany infantries up there are needed to properly defend the German fighter and Norway itself from a potential UK attack. If the Germans fail to sink the UK transport in SZ 2, you'll be happy you have three infantry in Norway to protect your fighter. A blocker is needed in Finland to keep the Russians from picking it up for free. If the German transport removed two infantry from up there, a clever allied opponent could capture/kill everything up there on the first turn. I know Norway/Finland is doomed but in my opinion, giving it up as Germany on turn 1 is far too soon.
I've tried every which way to Sunday to use a carrier purchase turn one. But nothing ever worked. Would like a future video on this and other German Navel options (or lack thereof).
I don't believe it's viable on this map, given the tendency of Allies to go all-in for a KGF strategy. Since Germany is burdened with going first, I would discourage buying any navy round 1 as it only encourages the Allies (particularly, the US/UK) to send everything they have Germany's way. Any attempt by Germany to keep the Carrier afloat at that point will only accelerate their demise at the hands of the Soviets, who will outnumber the Germans in land units pretty quickly. That being said, if by some chance the Allies are trying a KJF strategy (as unlikely as that is given what I've seen over the years), bulking up Germany's navy starting round 2 may be an option. I've never explored it or even had the chance to, though. Similar to you, though. I've pulled my hair out trying to get the Bomber G1 build to work (to keep the UK Navy out of the game for as long as possible), but the lack of INF really hurts once the Allies get off the ground, and it makes it too easy for the Soviets to repel the initial German assault.
@@superilikeeggsyo Well said. In group play my opponents always KGF. I'm going to play some solo games, forcing US and Japan to focus on each other. Curious to see how this effects my German navel strategy in the Atlantic.
@@christopherwilson2606 and D Mac. I probably won’t mention this in any of my videos but I have yet to see ANY KJF attempt, even by new players. In fact, I have often had the odd experience as the Japanese player of never even being able to get the attention of the USA in the pacific. I wish you well on your KJF journey but feel pessimistic for you as there isn’t much money to be had out there and naval units are so expensive in comparison.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Personally, I think it's because of this map, Borneo and DEI are UK-owned with JP "control markers" on them. Which means that, even if you commit to a navy and take the islands, USA gets no monetary benefit from doing so (it goes to UK instead). Making matters worse is that, with NOs on, all you get for the time and effort it takes to actually beat the IJN and take some of the islands is turning one of Japan's NOs off. You don't even get any for yourself.
@@superilikeeggsyo I agree with the spirit of your comment and will just add that if USA gets the Phillipines back that’s +5 for them. And if they take an originally controlled Japanese island the UK gets another +5. Now that I’ve written that out, I realize that with NOs, the UK benefits quite a bit from a successful USA KJF strat, lol.
Agree or Disagree: My friend has played me as the Allies, both in 42 (twice) and 41 (once) He thinks both scenarios heavily favor the Axis. Economically idk how to disagree. Considering the bonuses, the Axis seem to almost always have a significantly higher IPC count. (Italy getting into the 20's is very key to slowing down America coming into Morocco), but with unlucky dice rolls in certain battles, the swing is real, and after a time, it's really hard to bully the Allies around if they work together efficiently, which I believe is their most important tactic. I'm wondering, if he is right, or if he just doesn't see the Allies the way they should be seen. I'm very curious now about the overall stats on which side wins (not including the victory cities, but taking 2 capitals, or opponent conceding, is my idea of a clear victory. I have seen one side down a bunch of victory cities, but up a Capital, which turned me off from using them) Yes, I like brackets. 🤣
Thanks for this question! I think I've played about 7-8 games of '42 so I won't speak for it but I feel strongly that the '41 setup is imbalanced in favor of the Axis even without national objectives. The first five videos in this series go through each of the optional rules and the National Objectives video is included so I recommend checking that out for the full argument. The final video in this series will likely be released in the next seven days and I will detail and argue the imbalance even without the N.O. optional rule. In that video I will also recommend how to "fix" that optional rule to make it more "fair". In case it wasn't clear how I feel: the N.O.s throw the game so out of balance that I am routinely shocked to find players who say they love to play with them. It's such an offensive rule and because the rest of the game appears to function so well, I'm convinced that whomever came up with it during development didn't playtest it thoroughly (or at all) and so it was decided to include it as an optional rule only (thank god). I think the game would be much improved if page 23 was ripped out of the manual and thrown in the trash.
I've found this whole series useful, but I keep wondering the particular reason you choose to reinforce Norway to a greater degree than Finland. Is it solely to protect the Norwegian fighter in game round one, or is it to provide a little deadzone power against a potential early Soviet incursion into Finland? Intuitively, I would have thought ending G1 with three infantry in Finland, with one fighter and one infantry in Norway, would be more beneficial, due to the increased force projection into Karelia on G2.
I also noticed in your US and UK videos, there were three infantry in Finland, instead of Norway, which you declare a good German opener, though this could just be a mistake rather than an endorsement of the 3I Finland approach.
Good question. It's to protect the German infantry up there just as much as the fighter. If Finland is reinforced, an aggressive/lucky USSR player can demolish (or even strafe) those vital pieces on their first turn (to say nothing of an aggressive UK player now striking a weakened Norway from the other end). All of the above is nullified with the move to Norway. A single infantry is left in Finland to ensure the Russians don't simply "walk in" and secure Finland. If the Russians enter Finland in force, there is now a robust German group to counter-attack with from Norway (infantry plus air from the rest of Germany). The UK and USA videos show an 'erroneous' G1 opener in Finland/Norway. I never noticed that until now...
It's not "free" - its been "deadzoned". in other words, if the UK moves in, the Germans can easily retake it on their turn. Additionally, the resources used to make this happen pull UK units away from other vital fronts and could potentially mean the destruction of the transport used to take the territory.
Haven't seen it done yet, nor have I attempted that. Four ground units (2 Finnish inf, 2 units from Germany) with a cruiser for support only score an 8% chance of win. Adding in two air units gives you something approaching 50/50 with low odds of actually capturing the territory (unless you're willing to lose air units to keep a ground unit alive). The use of those air units means a sacrifice somewhere else on the board. It looks a bit risky when I'd say the axis don't need to take risks on the first round and though its cute to shutdown the Karelia IC on R1, I'm not sure of the value of doing that (as Russia, I very rarely use the thing). It is a novel move though. And since I've not tried it, I won't discourage it outright. The only way hearts and minds get changed in these games is to try something new. Great question btw, thanks.
I'd build a plane turn 1. 1 fighter & 7 infantry or 1 fighter 3 artillery 3 infantry. Probably infantry is the better choice but some artillery piece is neat to enable counterattacks.
Very well put Good Captain, I found much in agreement, even saving $1 just to focus on infantry. I forget, there's no Russian air force so the German Baltic states pile is mostly safe from counterattack yes ?. I like the Africa plan, solid logic. the 40-20-40 sub attack is great for sure, nice focus up north and in the desert, the boats will come anyway...edit.., I like trying to save a boat building option for turn two, vision often is better, sometimes you can keep delaying, as victory approaches
Infantry are in such high demand on and after G1 that I prefer to have more of them up at the front immediately. I consider units like tanks and artillery “core” units and like to keep them protected by a healthy screen of infantry. The axis suffer from what I call a “poverty of infantry” in the early game.
Do you ever get people trying to take France on UK1 with this setup? As Germany I think I'd send one or two more more to France if the battles had gone this way! Germany being 1 fighter down, you could easily defend your navy with your first purchase as UK. Though I guess this is a perfect example of why NO's for the Allies are more beneficial than I think you give them credit! It forces Germany to be more honest in their defense.
Copy/paste from a similar question in this thread: no I’ve not seen it on G1. losing two ground pieces means UK doesn’t take France. Most opponents are turned off by AA fire against three air units for such an attack (42% chance UK loses at least one air unit out of the gate with that). The German navy is untouched with many options on the table. Uk air units can’t help out in Russia. Worst of all UK is behind a turn for shucking units by not prioritizing the sea zones. The more common option I’ve seen from others is to leave a single german infantry in France and displace the rest. Not my cup of tea.
I also don’t agree with the move to noncombat an infantry into Norway, no transports are even able to attack Norway turn one, and when they are Germany will not be able to defend it. Mind as well move all 4 inf to Finland.
Moving all four German infantry from Finland to Norway allows Russia to “walk-in” and take Finland for free. Leaving a single unit creates quite a problem for them at low cost for Germany. There are at least two reasons to displace to Norway in the manner I described. First, leaving more than one infantry in Finland can actually encourage the Russian to attack and wipe out more pieces. Second, the German fighter has to land in Norway and it’s not completely crazy to see the UK hit it with a bomber/fighter(s). Lastly, it’s not a guarantee that G will wipe out that transport that’s with the UK battleship.
didn't see this until now. Google TripleA and download this amazing and free program. If you'd like a friendly game, just let me know and well get it going.
Good strategy. You're right. Preserve the German front. Don't get over extended, hold the line until Japan can wreck the Russian far east. Japan can not get distracted by a strong American push across the pacific, because that's a losing endeavor by Japan.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 the game ended with Germany falling, Japan taking the entire East, including having a 70+ income. Japan and the West were pretty evenly matched. I took the West Coast of the United States once and then randomly the US attacked it with a ~25% chance of winning.. and took it back so I just gave up the game because it was already 2 hours in and I got bored. I like to play a little recklessly because my brain gets bored quickly if I just turtle in those 3 bordering USSR territories and then I keep messing up a move and then loosing a bunch of stuff and having a poverty of infantry or whatever, with the Americans and British stacking navy in the Atlantic.
@@flying0possum gotcha. well, as regards that first attack into Egypt, that's not a shocking result although more often than not the Germans will kill everything and still have a tank and bomber left over. The UK repelling the assault with a single piece left is not unusual - in this case, the Italians walk-in, the UK has less influence in that part of the board, the option exists for the Italian fleet to escape... etc etc.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Thanks! I have played a few games today, just offline (again.) I have some of those v3 variant maps downloaded which are really interesting and fun to play. One of them was a "Asia" vs "Anglo" vs "Nazi" game. Asia: Japan, China, Soviet Union allied Anglo: United States, United Kingdom allied Nazi: Italy, Germany allied I played as Asia, took out India quickly, had a initial edge in the Pacific until Turn 3 USA decided to do a Japan-Kill strategy, sending their entire fleet towards mine, and destroying it all. I only had like 26 income as Japan and had to rely on China to hold India but we had a presence in the middle east. As Russia, I played as usual but it was much more difficult mid-game because of no allied lend-lease. I only held Stalingrad and Moscow by turn 4 I am pretty sure. The Nazi Alliance were about to rekt me. The Anglos were putting pressure on Germany too however, but it wasn't enough to divert German attention from my frontlines. The IPP is in favor definitely of the allies early-game to mid-game while the Nazis have the edge if they play more aggressive, especially in Egypt and towards the drive on Moscow. The Asian Alliance could of done better but it was my first time playing the map so whatever. As Japan, you can't play casual AA50 anymore because your rival is the USA and they can haul things faster than you. It reminds me alot like Axis and Allies Pacific (2001) where it's a race against time for the Japanese player. Anyways, the Asians do best offensively in the short-term, and probably have to do the most thinking.
Of course it would depend on what they used on this hypothetical R1 and what the result was. Did they use their armor? their arty? both? In most cases (and almost certainly if they used their armor/arty) a counter attack is in order. You have plenty of tanks/fighters and at LEASTone/two inf and an arty to do the job.
I wouldn't rule out a strafe attack either (again, depending on the result of the battle and what/how much is in there - as well as what is behind it).
I'm not sure its a choice. If the Germans fail to capture it on G1, the Italians take it. The only case where you could 'decide' who takes it is if Germany retreated sometime prior to the elimination of all UK units. This is undesirable as it means the UK fighter would escape.
A turn one attack on France from the uk is very easy, artillery, infantry, 2 fighters, bomber, and a cruiser bombard. Very easy for the uk to take that out. Germany will lose a fighter turn one against any sort of competent uk player.
There are several glaring drawbacks to the attack as you describe it. It certainly is an option though - one that I never saw (or have seen) executed yet.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I recently played a game as Germany where I had this happen to me. Germany lost the fighter and 2 infantry while the uk only lost 1 infantry and an artillery. The uk didn’t even have to fully commit to it as they have plenty of attack power so they remained able to send a fighter to knock out the German transport.
@@hoodrekt5887 losing those two pieces means they don’t take France. Most opponents are turned off by AA fire against three air units for such an attack (42% chance UK loses at least one air unit out of the gate with that). The German navy is untouched with many options on the table. Uk air units can’t help out in Russia. Worst of all UK is behind a turn for shucking units by not prioritizing the sea zones. I have one offer from others I’ve seen play is to leave a single german infantry in France and displace the rest. Not my cup of tea, but if you play that fellow again, try that.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 the uk is still able to wipe out any remaining German ships with the cruiser and destroy they start with. The uk built a fleet turn one and was not slowed a turn, they started shucking the following turn. UK air units are not overly needed in Russia this early on in the game, yes they provide useful to deter some German attacks however if Germany does a Barbarossa as you described the Russian counter attack thins germanys front lines to the point that Germany is already deterred from pushing farther into Russia. The only real use of uk air would be in kerelia however if the German player does as you advocated and does not put 4 infantry into Finland than an attack in kerelia is already out of the question for Germany.
@@hoodrekt5887 What exactly do the British gain by taking France though? Its not a very decisive victory and germany can take it back on its next turn. I'm pretty new to the game, so im trying to understand the beginning options every couintry has.
I would love to see more about your thoughts on the Carrier and also keeping Norway-Finland past G2.
Sure thing. I'll go ahead and have a brief discussion of this in video 12.
Tip of the hat to you for an excellent video Sir! Spamming infantry as Germany & Italy enabled me to stay alive until Japan came to the rescue after the dice were brutally unforgiving in G1 (lost all my units except the bomber without scoring a hit on the Brits in my attack on Egypt)👍
Glad to hear you had a good game and were able to recover!
One other *other* thing I find interesting about Germany in this version compared to basically every other edition is their limited production. You touched on it here, but think about other entries in the series (even the spin-offs):
Classic/Europe '99: Infinite production, so do whatever you want.
Revised: 10 production in Germany + 6 in Southern Europe.
AA50: 10 production in Germany until you secure Karelia/Caucasus *and* prevent the Allies from bombing it into the dust.
E40/G40: 10 production in both Western Germany and Germany for 20 total. In 1st Edition you only got 3 in Germany (for a total of 13 production), but you could upgrade the factory to 10 production whenever you feel it necessary. This is a bit disingenuous though, as you capture Paris G1 and get 10 more production from that, which basically gives you infinite production (23 or 30) for the rest of the game.
10 production with 30+ IPCs gives you a chance to build something other than INF spam (at least one or two units a turn other than INF, anyway), which is both a blessing and a curse because, while you get to build high-value units like TANKs/FTRs/Bombers to project threat and form a strategy, or the occasional ART to push more efficiently, you also really miss having the large INF stacks Germany is used to in other editions of the game once the Western Allies start showing up around round 4.
One thing I would like your thoughts on is an aggressive turn one Russia. I recently played a game where I recreated your Barbarossa and the response of the Russian player I found interesting. He sent everything he could to the Baltic states and everything he could to Ukraine. Assuming the German player lost one infantry in each of those battles turn one, Russia has very good odds on both. Germany is then spread too thin on the east front and cannot take Karelia which now has 4 infantry on it (2 built, 2 from archangel), it is also quite difficult for Germany to take back both the Baltic states and Ukraine turn 2 without putting valuable armor units at risk to either Russian units or UK units turn 2. My response to this was on Germany turn 2, to send 4 infantry from Finland and a fighter from Germany to take Karelia (Norway fighter died to battleship) and then to use my remaining available units to take back the Baltic states. However this left my armor units open to a counter attack from Tanks from Moscow and UK transports. What would you do in that situation? Love the videos by the way so awesome how you connect with all your audience and actually respond to comments.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I completely understand!
So I pulled up and ran the situation that you described above. If you took a single German infantry loss in the Baltic States, a counter-attack with all soviet assets (except the tank), comes to 78% chance of win with 3 inf and 1 arty remaining. In the Ukraine, 5 inf and an armor can take out the Germans 72% of the time with 2 inf and the armor left over. Overall, these attacks are something like a +3 in favor of the soviets in terms of value of material exchanged (kinda meh). Assuming average dice and that Soviets win both battles, one of the things I like out of the gate is that the Soviets have come forward and are now closer to all the German air units. Not knowing what the UK situation is, I would very likely counter-attack one of those two territories (likely the Baltic States). Sending in the 2-3 infantry German has in range and the artillery (possibly) heavily supported by the Luftwaffe. That counterattack has something like a 90+% chance of win with a +6/7 value of exchange for the Germans. Of course, I'd stack up in Finland with the Norway army (leaving a blocker in Norway). Wouldn't worry about the Soviets down south. The ten infantry push into Poland should already be taking the wind out of the sails of the Soviets (again, backed by the Luftwaffe air hammer). Just push an italian infantry into Bulgaria as a blocker. Don't lose the German tanks from eastern Poland though. If its safe to use them in a counterattack, by all means do but I'm okay with stashing in Poland or in Bulgaria with the Italians. I'd have to understand the rest of the board (namely what the UK did or didnt do) to be completely clear about G2 but that's my best bet.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks for your thoughts. I counter attacked exactly how you described however I made the mistake of moving the German tanks into the Baltic states on that counter attack and the uk sent everything in to wipe it out. As for German air I found it quite difficult because of the fact that without German air in France, France falls. Which isn’t the worst thing in the world, however France is a 6 IPC territory and after a few turns the uk will be struggling for IPC against a good axis opponent. Gifting that 6 IPC a turn to the uk is not ideal. However there’s just no way to stack France early game without it. Even sending Italian infantry and German infantry, German air is still needed in France in order to defend it. Yes it depends on the board however when the uk has 3 transports and air able to attack into France every turn and the US has 4-5 transports in range of France along with US air it becomes I would say impossible to defend Germany without German air. And this is all by turn 3-4. Touching back on earlier as well after that aggressive Russian push those German tanks are forced to fall back and even with all those German infantry pushing north Russia and the uk can defend kerelia for a very long time especially if the US continually pressures France. This means Germany struggles to take kerelia and push into Russia to any extent. The US is still able to do a med shuck it’s just the thread of 4-5 US transports and 3 UK transports all able to drop into France and take it. What’re your thoughts?
Thing to remember about national objectives, they become important targets for both sides. I personally don't believe they are overpowered at all, but I'll check your vid on it.
If you do (or even if you don’t), I offer to play you as many friendly games as you like to show you the problem. Or you’ll change my mind (which I feel strongly is less likely) either way, would be very fun. 👍
Hello,there. Excellent series. I have a question. What do you consider to be a long term game: 7 to 8 rounds? I ask that because if we are playing a timed game, such as 6 hour game, do you believe it is possible to follow this strategy or is it slow for a short game of 6 to 7 round long? Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.
@@nedfonseca79 a long term game is typically beyond 7-8 rounds. Playing a timed game - especially only six hours - would very likely not be enough time to play this strategy out (or many others). I feel a timed game of six hours would be very hard on the Allies without some kind of rebalance in their favor.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks for your answer and for sharing your great experience with us!
I actually forgot about sending the Germany Bomber to Egypt (I haven't played 41 in a bit, so I'm rusty). I forgot what a difference having it in Egypt makes for the odds. Similarly, I forgot how limited you are in mopping up UK's fleet when you divert the Bomber to Egypt instead of sinking ships with it.
Don't get me wrong though, sending the Bomber to Egypt is almost definitely correct. You're never going to stop the UK Navy from showing up and killing off that FTR is vital to speeding up Japan's rampage in Asia + denying a potential extra Allied FTR in Moscow during the final battle.
Why do you use the Infantry from Germany instead of Finland or Norway?
The Germany infantries up there are needed to properly defend the German fighter and Norway itself from a potential UK attack. If the Germans fail to sink the UK transport in SZ 2, you'll be happy you have three infantry in Norway to protect your fighter. A blocker is needed in Finland to keep the Russians from picking it up for free. If the German transport removed two infantry from up there, a clever allied opponent could capture/kill everything up there on the first turn. I know Norway/Finland is doomed but in my opinion, giving it up as Germany on turn 1 is far too soon.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Okay I just thought since Norway and Finland were doomed why not just take the infantry from there but makes sense
I've tried every which way to Sunday to use a carrier purchase turn one. But nothing ever worked. Would like a future video on this and other German Navel options (or lack thereof).
I don't believe it's viable on this map, given the tendency of Allies to go all-in for a KGF strategy. Since Germany is burdened with going first, I would discourage buying any navy round 1 as it only encourages the Allies (particularly, the US/UK) to send everything they have Germany's way. Any attempt by Germany to keep the Carrier afloat at that point will only accelerate their demise at the hands of the Soviets, who will outnumber the Germans in land units pretty quickly.
That being said, if by some chance the Allies are trying a KJF strategy (as unlikely as that is given what I've seen over the years), bulking up Germany's navy starting round 2 may be an option. I've never explored it or even had the chance to, though.
Similar to you, though. I've pulled my hair out trying to get the Bomber G1 build to work (to keep the UK Navy out of the game for as long as possible), but the lack of INF really hurts once the Allies get off the ground, and it makes it too easy for the Soviets to repel the initial German assault.
@@superilikeeggsyo Well said. In group play my opponents always KGF. I'm going to play some solo games, forcing US and Japan to focus on each other. Curious to see how this effects my German navel strategy in the Atlantic.
@@christopherwilson2606 and D Mac. I probably won’t mention this in any of my videos but I have yet to see ANY KJF attempt, even by new players. In fact, I have often had the odd experience as the Japanese player of never even being able to get the attention of the USA in the pacific. I wish you well on your KJF journey but feel pessimistic for you as there isn’t much money to be had out there and naval units are so expensive in comparison.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Personally, I think it's because of this map, Borneo and DEI are UK-owned with JP "control markers" on them. Which means that, even if you commit to a navy and take the islands, USA gets no monetary benefit from doing so (it goes to UK instead). Making matters worse is that, with NOs on, all you get for the time and effort it takes to actually beat the IJN and take some of the islands is turning one of Japan's NOs off. You don't even get any for yourself.
@@superilikeeggsyo I agree with the spirit of your comment and will just add that if USA gets the Phillipines back that’s +5 for them. And if they take an originally controlled Japanese island the UK gets another +5. Now that I’ve written that out, I realize that with NOs, the UK benefits quite a bit from a successful USA KJF strat, lol.
Agree or Disagree:
My friend has played me as the Allies, both in 42 (twice) and 41 (once) He thinks both scenarios heavily favor the Axis.
Economically idk how to disagree. Considering the bonuses, the Axis seem to almost always have a significantly higher IPC count. (Italy getting into the 20's is very key to slowing down America coming into Morocco), but with unlucky dice rolls in certain battles, the swing is real, and after a time, it's really hard to bully the Allies around if they work together efficiently, which I believe is their most important tactic.
I'm wondering, if he is right, or if he just doesn't see the Allies the way they should be seen.
I'm very curious now about the overall stats on which side wins (not including the victory cities, but taking 2 capitals, or opponent conceding, is my idea of a clear victory. I have seen one side down a bunch of victory cities, but up a Capital, which turned me off from using them)
Yes, I like brackets. 🤣
Thanks for this question! I think I've played about 7-8 games of '42 so I won't speak for it but I feel strongly that the '41 setup is imbalanced in favor of the Axis even without national objectives. The first five videos in this series go through each of the optional rules and the National Objectives video is included so I recommend checking that out for the full argument. The final video in this series will likely be released in the next seven days and I will detail and argue the imbalance even without the N.O. optional rule. In that video I will also recommend how to "fix" that optional rule to make it more "fair".
In case it wasn't clear how I feel: the N.O.s throw the game so out of balance that I am routinely shocked to find players who say they love to play with them. It's such an offensive rule and because the rest of the game appears to function so well, I'm convinced that whomever came up with it during development didn't playtest it thoroughly (or at all) and so it was decided to include it as an optional rule only (thank god). I think the game would be much improved if page 23 was ripped out of the manual and thrown in the trash.
love your vidioes, keep them coming.
I've found this whole series useful, but I keep wondering the particular reason you choose to reinforce Norway to a greater degree than Finland. Is it solely to protect the Norwegian fighter in game round one, or is it to provide a little deadzone power against a potential early Soviet incursion into Finland? Intuitively, I would have thought ending G1 with three infantry in Finland, with one fighter and one infantry in Norway, would be more beneficial, due to the increased force projection into Karelia on G2.
I also noticed in your US and UK videos, there were three infantry in Finland, instead of Norway, which you declare a good German opener, though this could just be a mistake rather than an endorsement of the 3I Finland approach.
Good question. It's to protect the German infantry up there just as much as the fighter. If Finland is reinforced, an aggressive/lucky USSR player can demolish (or even strafe) those vital pieces on their first turn (to say nothing of an aggressive UK player now striking a weakened Norway from the other end). All of the above is nullified with the move to Norway. A single infantry is left in Finland to ensure the Russians don't simply "walk in" and secure Finland. If the Russians enter Finland in force, there is now a robust German group to counter-attack with from Norway (infantry plus air from the rest of Germany). The UK and USA videos show an 'erroneous' G1 opener in Finland/Norway. I never noticed that until now...
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Thanks for your detailed response, it's very helpful!
Awesome video!
Curious to hear more about not building an aircraft carrier on turn one
Okay, I will comment on this in part 12 of this series.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 awesome keep up the good work
Does the axis and Allie’s online version have the opportunity to play the anniversary edition? I would love to practice online.
TripleA should fit that bill. 1942 online …only 1942.
Why do you give Northwestern Europe to UK for free? In noncombat phase you leave it open?
It's not "free" - its been "deadzoned". in other words, if the UK moves in, the Germans can easily retake it on their turn. Additionally, the resources used to make this happen pull UK units away from other vital fronts and could potentially mean the destruction of the transport used to take the territory.
Is there any milage in invading Karelia first turn?
Haven't seen it done yet, nor have I attempted that. Four ground units (2 Finnish inf, 2 units from Germany) with a cruiser for support only score an 8% chance of win. Adding in two air units gives you something approaching 50/50 with low odds of actually capturing the territory (unless you're willing to lose air units to keep a ground unit alive). The use of those air units means a sacrifice somewhere else on the board. It looks a bit risky when I'd say the axis don't need to take risks on the first round and though its cute to shutdown the Karelia IC on R1, I'm not sure of the value of doing that (as Russia, I very rarely use the thing). It is a novel move though. And since I've not tried it, I won't discourage it outright. The only way hearts and minds get changed in these games is to try something new. Great question btw, thanks.
where did you get the counter tokens for the air units?
Historicalboardgaming dot com
I'd build a plane turn 1. 1 fighter & 7 infantry or 1 fighter 3 artillery 3 infantry. Probably infantry is the better choice but some artillery piece is neat to enable counterattacks.
Very well put Good Captain, I found much in agreement, even saving $1 just to focus on infantry. I forget, there's no Russian air force so the German Baltic states pile is mostly safe from counterattack yes ?. I like the Africa plan, solid logic. the 40-20-40 sub attack is great for sure, nice focus up north and in the desert, the boats will come anyway...edit.., I like trying to save a boat building option for turn two, vision often is better, sometimes you can keep delaying, as victory approaches
Very well done video
Why don't you send the German Artillery on the transport into the baltic states instead of a second infantry?
Infantry are in such high demand on and after G1 that I prefer to have more of them up at the front immediately. I consider units like tanks and artillery “core” units and like to keep them protected by a healthy screen of infantry. The axis suffer from what I call a “poverty of infantry” in the early game.
Do you ever get people trying to take France on UK1 with this setup? As Germany I think I'd send one or two more more to France if the battles had gone this way! Germany being 1 fighter down, you could easily defend your navy with your first purchase as UK.
Though I guess this is a perfect example of why NO's for the Allies are more beneficial than I think you give them credit! It forces Germany to be more honest in their defense.
Copy/paste from a similar question in this thread: no I’ve not seen it on G1. losing two ground pieces means UK doesn’t take France. Most opponents are turned off by AA fire against three air units for such an attack (42% chance UK loses at least one air unit out of the gate with that). The German navy is untouched with many options on the table. Uk air units can’t help out in Russia. Worst of all UK is behind a turn for shucking units by not prioritizing the sea zones. The more common option I’ve seen from others is to leave a single german infantry in France and displace the rest. Not my cup of tea.
What does "bug lite" mean? I've heard you say that several times I think.
Ah my bad. It’s an analogy that means “to draw in” or to incentivize your opponent to move in a certain direction.
Yeah that makes perfect sense, thanks lol.
Happy to help.
Good stuff 👍👍
I also don’t agree with the move to noncombat an infantry into Norway, no transports are even able to attack Norway turn one, and when they are Germany will not be able to defend it. Mind as well move all 4 inf to Finland.
Moving all four German infantry from Finland to Norway allows Russia to “walk-in” and take Finland for free. Leaving a single unit creates quite a problem for them at low cost for Germany. There are at least two reasons to displace to Norway in the manner I described. First, leaving more than one infantry in Finland can actually encourage the Russian to attack and wipe out more pieces. Second, the German fighter has to land in Norway and it’s not completely crazy to see the UK hit it with a bomber/fighter(s). Lastly, it’s not a guarantee that G will wipe out that transport that’s with the UK battleship.
Awesome
where can i play this used to be online?
didn't see this until now. Google TripleA and download this amazing and free program. If you'd like a friendly game, just let me know and well get it going.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 how can i contact you?
@@andrewfischer8564 ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com
Good strategy. You're right. Preserve the German front. Don't get over extended, hold the line until Japan can wreck the Russian far east. Japan can not get distracted by a strong American push across the pacific, because that's a losing endeavor by Japan.
you have played against 30 to 40 players? one, not against me.
Hah, well you know I’ll play pretty much anyone, anytime. Just let me know my dude 👍👍
Did the Egypt first move, UK killed every troop I threw at them besides the bomber. UK was left with one infantry, so Italy walked them over.
How did UK have an inf left in Egypt? Their last unit should be a fighter.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 it was against the AI and for some reason, they took off the fighter
@@thegoodcaptain1217 the game ended with Germany falling, Japan taking the entire East, including having a 70+ income. Japan and the West were pretty evenly matched. I took the West Coast of the United States once and then randomly the US attacked it with a ~25% chance of winning.. and took it back so I just gave up the game because it was already 2 hours in and I got bored.
I like to play a little recklessly because my brain gets bored quickly if I just turtle in those 3 bordering USSR territories and then I keep messing up a move and then loosing a bunch of stuff and having a poverty of infantry or whatever, with the Americans and British stacking navy in the Atlantic.
@@flying0possum gotcha. well, as regards that first attack into Egypt, that's not a shocking result although more often than not the Germans will kill everything and still have a tank and bomber left over. The UK repelling the assault with a single piece left is not unusual - in this case, the Italians walk-in, the UK has less influence in that part of the board, the option exists for the Italian fleet to escape... etc etc.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Thanks! I have played a few games today, just offline (again.) I have some of those v3 variant maps downloaded which are really interesting and fun to play. One of them was a "Asia" vs "Anglo" vs "Nazi" game.
Asia: Japan, China, Soviet Union allied
Anglo: United States, United Kingdom allied
Nazi: Italy, Germany allied
I played as Asia, took out India quickly, had a initial edge in the Pacific until Turn 3 USA decided to do a Japan-Kill strategy, sending their entire fleet towards mine, and destroying it all. I only had like 26 income as Japan and had to rely on China to hold India but we had a presence in the middle east.
As Russia, I played as usual but it was much more difficult mid-game because of no allied lend-lease. I only held Stalingrad and Moscow by turn 4 I am pretty sure. The Nazi Alliance were about to rekt me. The Anglos were putting pressure on Germany too however, but it wasn't enough to divert German attention from my frontlines.
The IPP is in favor definitely of the allies early-game to mid-game while the Nazis have the edge if they play more aggressive, especially in Egypt and towards the drive on Moscow. The Asian Alliance could of done better but it was my first time playing the map so whatever. As Japan, you can't play casual AA50 anymore because your rival is the USA and they can haul things faster than you. It reminds me alot like Axis and Allies Pacific (2001) where it's a race against time for the Japanese player. Anyways, the Asians do best offensively in the short-term, and probably have to do the most thinking.
What if R1 Russian takes back the Baltic states? They have the power.
Of course it would depend on what they used on this hypothetical R1 and what the result was. Did they use their armor? their arty? both? In most cases (and almost certainly if they used their armor/arty) a counter attack is in order. You have plenty of tanks/fighters and at LEASTone/two inf and an arty to do the job.
I wouldn't rule out a strafe attack either (again, depending on the result of the battle and what/how much is in there - as well as what is behind it).
@@thegoodcaptain1217 thank you, yes I understand better now
Is it better to let Germany or Italy take Africa?
I'm not sure its a choice. If the Germans fail to capture it on G1, the Italians take it. The only case where you could 'decide' who takes it is if Germany retreated sometime prior to the elimination of all UK units. This is undesirable as it means the UK fighter would escape.
A turn one attack on France from the uk is very easy, artillery, infantry, 2 fighters, bomber, and a cruiser bombard. Very easy for the uk to take that out. Germany will lose a fighter turn one against any sort of competent uk player.
There are several glaring drawbacks to the attack as you describe it. It certainly is an option though - one that I never saw (or have seen) executed yet.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I recently played a game as Germany where I had this happen to me. Germany lost the fighter and 2 infantry while the uk only lost 1 infantry and an artillery. The uk didn’t even have to fully commit to it as they have plenty of attack power so they remained able to send a fighter to knock out the German transport.
@@hoodrekt5887 losing those two pieces means they don’t take France. Most opponents are turned off by AA fire against three air units for such an attack (42% chance UK loses at least one air unit out of the gate with that). The German navy is untouched with many options on the table. Uk air units can’t help out in Russia. Worst of all UK is behind a turn for shucking units by not prioritizing the sea zones. I have one offer from others I’ve seen play is to leave a single german infantry in France and displace the rest. Not my cup of tea, but if you play that fellow again, try that.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 the uk is still able to wipe out any remaining German ships with the cruiser and destroy they start with. The uk built a fleet turn one and was not slowed a turn, they started shucking the following turn. UK air units are not overly needed in Russia this early on in the game, yes they provide useful to deter some German attacks however if Germany does a Barbarossa as you described the Russian counter attack thins germanys front lines to the point that Germany is already deterred from pushing farther into Russia. The only real use of uk air would be in kerelia however if the German player does as you advocated and does not put 4 infantry into Finland than an attack in kerelia is already out of the question for Germany.
@@hoodrekt5887 What exactly do the British gain by taking France though? Its not a very decisive victory and germany can take it back on its next turn. I'm pretty new to the game, so im trying to understand the beginning options every couintry has.