Just a note that Larry Harris actually developed the original Axis & Allies games, and the 1942 version as well. The Gen Con 3.0 initial placement setup was developed by the Gen Con tournament team and they asked Larry if he'd review it for them and agree to putting his name on it, to give it a bit more credibility with players. It's a close as you can get to an official update as you can without it also having the manufacturer's approval. Thanks for the video series, very helpful.
Thanks for these videos; they are great. I am torn about the idea of building 3 tanks each turn on India. On the one hand, it seems to be the only way to prevent Britain from taking India, but on the other hand, doing it will definitely hamper the UK's ability to attack Germany, at least quickly. Building 3 tanks per turn means you only get 19 IPCs to use against Germany. What do you think?
Yeah, it's definitely a rough start for the UK if you build 3 tanks on India for several turns, what I do with the remaining IPC's depends heavily on how Germany looks as a whole. My usual go-to allied strategy in the Atlantic tends to be banking those IPC's and waiting until turn 3-4 when the US can set up a massive invasion force into France or northwestern Europe, but if I see that Germany isn't putting fighters on their western front to fend off any shipping, I'll sometimes try to ferry a couple of units down into Africa to solidify that area and prevent Germany from overtaking all of those IPC's. I've -sometimes- tried incursions into Norway / Finland, but in my experience that tends to be a somewhat weak attack and really just more of a nuisance for Germany, but my troops always end up being repelled after a turn or two. I'm going to have to try and figure out another strategy for creeping into Scandinavia and assisting the USSR that way. My intial thought of banking the UK's IPC's for a few turns usually means that by round 3 purchase phase, I can pump out a nice defensive fleet into the Atlantic, and set up a decent invasion force as well to work in tandem with the US. But, like everything in this game, it all comes down to the rolls :P
@@Sevaekor Good stuff. Would you like to play a custom game with me? I would love to sit at the feet of the master (that's you) and learn some things. We don't have to play it in one sitting, but gradually over a couple of days.
Ha! Yeah I've played several games where, when Japan REALLY wants to take India very quickly, it can be very hard to stop them from it. Thankfully, some of those times they massively overexpose themselves in other areas allowing the US to have a nice Pacific conquest.
Looks to me like UK got extremely lucky to hold here. I think realistically UK would have had to hold back at least couple of extra tanks from going into Burma to get this result. Which still should clean up Burma well enough. With an extra fighter or two from US or UK flying in from across the board this would be even stronger. Nice video. If there's no pearl harbor attack the US can easily land a fighter in India by round 2 to help. Seems even with the Gencon 3 adjustment this is a pretty strong strat from Japan and you pretty much have to treat every game as if it's a J3 till you know otherwise. Which will most certainly give Germany room to run wild in the Med and greatly pressure Russia and limits what UK can do in the Atlantic and to support Russia so there are definitly still major problems for the allies in this scenario. The bright side I see is at least the UK will have a tank force to swing up into Russia when Russia starts to crumble.
As UK should you retreat if Japan has very strong odds of taking India? Those troops could split and take Africa, support USSR, or loop around and put pressure on asia?
My only issue with that is that it's way too short-term of a strategy. By mobilizing your UK fleet into the sea zone off the coast of China like that, you doom it to certain death as the Japanese player will almost certainly completely wipe it out and probably not even take a single casualty due to both battleships tanking a hit. The Sea Zone 37 battle is a risky move for the UK, but you have a statistically probable chance of wiping out 50% of Japan's Pacific power in round 1 if you use the additional fighter from Egypt. In my own opinion, sacrificing so much UK power in the Pacific for 1 transport just allows Japan to dominate faster than usual, and also freely opens them up for a factory on the East Indies strategy, a video I'll be posting some time. I'm also working on a video right now (a Japan strat video) that is an absolute failure for the Axis because of how strongly the UK performed in the Pacific and eventually versus Berlin... arguably not a great Japan video, but like anything else in this game, it all depends on how the dice roll. Thanks for the comment! I love theorycrafting strats for this game!
EMWIG nice reply you’re right it’s about 61%. For my playstyle I just can’t afford to lose those fighters. Looking forward to the East Indies video most of the high ranked players I know don’t suggest factories for japan, but I’ve always wanted to see that idea proven wrong. In case you don’t know there is a discord group of players for this online edition discord.gg/TcGfry
@@dr.4453 I love the discord, it has a bunch of great discussions with regards to strats! And you're right, a factory for Japan is a risky move in R1 due to their already low IPC income, I usually don't recommend that Japan go for factories in Manchuria for instance, and instead be a heavy transport power from mainland Japan and ferry troops every turn. That's my main strat at least, but if the door swings wide open for a factory in one of the 4 IPC southern islands, then I weigh the options to see if it's viable.
So for the record I think that Briton can hold India indefinitely. (With coordination from USSR and USA.) however this video feels a little pointless . As he admits we aren’t even moving for the other nations here. Normally the reason that UK can hold is because of the balanced pressure form the US fleet in the pacific. PS. I do love that sea-zone 37 attack though. It’s a staple opening for UK and it is invaluable for giving America enough time to amass a fleet.
I feel like this British strategy leaves India ridiculously vulnerable to the large japanese navy/transports in Sea zone 61 from moving quickly in to attacking india from the sea.
That battle yyour doing in sz 37 is completely ahistorical. In 1942 Japan dominated the British in that area and for most of that year was striking out into the Indian ocean. Its a killer move against Japan that never happened and it comoletely unbalances the game in the Pacific.
Just a note that Larry Harris actually developed the original Axis & Allies games, and the 1942 version as well. The Gen Con 3.0 initial placement setup was developed by the Gen Con tournament team and they asked Larry if he'd review it for them and agree to putting his name on it, to give it a bit more credibility with players. It's a close as you can get to an official update as you can without it also having the manufacturer's approval. Thanks for the video series, very helpful.
I think Japan on turn 1 just goes all in attacking burma and suddenly india is looking vulnerable again.
Great videos, I'm glad I watched the part 2 video on the counter move before I got my ass handed to me haha
Another great video!
Thanks! I have pretty much fully incorporated this strategy into every time I play the UK.
Thanks for these videos; they are great. I am torn about the idea of building 3 tanks each turn on India. On the one hand, it seems to be the only way to prevent Britain from taking India, but on the other hand, doing it will definitely hamper the UK's ability to attack Germany, at least quickly. Building 3 tanks per turn means you only get 19 IPCs to use against Germany. What do you think?
Yeah, it's definitely a rough start for the UK if you build 3 tanks on India for several turns, what I do with the remaining IPC's depends heavily on how Germany looks as a whole. My usual go-to allied strategy in the Atlantic tends to be banking those IPC's and waiting until turn 3-4 when the US can set up a massive invasion force into France or northwestern Europe, but if I see that Germany isn't putting fighters on their western front to fend off any shipping, I'll sometimes try to ferry a couple of units down into Africa to solidify that area and prevent Germany from overtaking all of those IPC's. I've -sometimes- tried incursions into Norway / Finland, but in my experience that tends to be a somewhat weak attack and really just more of a nuisance for Germany, but my troops always end up being repelled after a turn or two. I'm going to have to try and figure out another strategy for creeping into Scandinavia and assisting the USSR that way.
My intial thought of banking the UK's IPC's for a few turns usually means that by round 3 purchase phase, I can pump out a nice defensive fleet into the Atlantic, and set up a decent invasion force as well to work in tandem with the US.
But, like everything in this game, it all comes down to the rolls :P
@@Sevaekor Good stuff. Would you like to play a custom game with me? I would love to sit at the feet of the master (that's you) and learn some things. We don't have to play it in one sitting, but gradually over a couple of days.
Also, I'm here to testify that Japan can definitely take India by turn 3, even in the Larry Harris GenCon version. I just had it done to me!
Ha! Yeah I've played several games where, when Japan REALLY wants to take India very quickly, it can be very hard to stop them from it. Thankfully, some of those times they massively overexpose themselves in other areas allowing the US to have a nice Pacific conquest.
Looks to me like UK got extremely lucky to hold here. I think realistically UK would have had to hold back at least couple of extra tanks from going into Burma to get this result. Which still should clean up Burma well enough. With an extra fighter or two from US or UK flying in from across the board this would be even stronger. Nice video. If there's no pearl harbor attack the US can easily land a fighter in India by round 2 to help. Seems even with the Gencon 3 adjustment this is a pretty strong strat from Japan and you pretty much have to treat every game as if it's a J3 till you know otherwise. Which will most certainly give Germany room to run wild in the Med and greatly pressure Russia and limits what UK can do in the Atlantic and to support Russia so there are definitly still major problems for the allies in this scenario. The bright side I see is at least the UK will have a tank force to swing up into Russia when Russia starts to crumble.
As UK should you retreat if Japan has very strong odds of taking India? Those troops could split and take Africa, support USSR, or loop around and put pressure on asia?
Attacking that Japanese fleet off of India is too risky in my opinion. The better move is to attack the extremely valuable early game transport
My only issue with that is that it's way too short-term of a strategy. By mobilizing your UK fleet into the sea zone off the coast of China like that, you doom it to certain death as the Japanese player will almost certainly completely wipe it out and probably not even take a single casualty due to both battleships tanking a hit. The Sea Zone 37 battle is a risky move for the UK, but you have a statistically probable chance of wiping out 50% of Japan's Pacific power in round 1 if you use the additional fighter from Egypt.
In my own opinion, sacrificing so much UK power in the Pacific for 1 transport just allows Japan to dominate faster than usual, and also freely opens them up for a factory on the East Indies strategy, a video I'll be posting some time.
I'm also working on a video right now (a Japan strat video) that is an absolute failure for the Axis because of how strongly the UK performed in the Pacific and eventually versus Berlin... arguably not a great Japan video, but like anything else in this game, it all depends on how the dice roll.
Thanks for the comment! I love theorycrafting strats for this game!
EMWIG nice reply you’re right it’s about 61%. For my playstyle I just can’t afford to lose those fighters. Looking forward to the East Indies video most of the high ranked players I know don’t suggest factories for japan, but I’ve always wanted to see that idea proven wrong. In case you don’t know there is a discord group of players for this online edition discord.gg/TcGfry
@@dr.4453 I love the discord, it has a bunch of great discussions with regards to strats! And you're right, a factory for Japan is a risky move in R1 due to their already low IPC income, I usually don't recommend that Japan go for factories in Manchuria for instance, and instead be a heavy transport power from mainland Japan and ferry troops every turn. That's my main strat at least, but if the door swings wide open for a factory in one of the 4 IPC southern islands, then I weigh the options to see if it's viable.
Good work
In your original video England took Borneo
So for the record I think that Briton can hold India indefinitely. (With coordination from USSR and USA.) however this video feels a little pointless . As he admits we aren’t even moving for the other nations here. Normally the reason that UK can hold is because of the balanced pressure form the US fleet in the pacific. PS. I do love that sea-zone 37 attack though. It’s a staple opening for UK and it is invaluable for giving America enough time to amass a fleet.
I feel like this British strategy leaves India ridiculously vulnerable to the large japanese navy/transports in Sea zone 61 from moving quickly in to attacking india from the sea.
Thats why I buy a factory on french indo china
That battle yyour doing in sz 37 is completely ahistorical. In 1942 Japan dominated the British in that area and for most of that year was striking out into the Indian ocean. Its a killer move against Japan that never happened and it comoletely unbalances the game in the Pacific.
I have the board game and i have no one to play with 😢
Sorry to hear that. Where are you?