i know another commentator mentioned it, but it seems to me it's still better to take out the US Atlantic Fleet rather than the Canadian Fleet. It's true that the Canadian transport can go more places, but really with only a tank which is pretty pitiful....and they are naked to the breeze to the luftwaffe or your subs on G2. By contrast the Americans can land 2 inf, 1arm, 1 arty on turn 1 if need by but more importantly the US can consolidate that with a Surface ship heavy US 1 build. This puts Germany under severe pressure a whole turn sooner (esp since that Cruiser in the East Pacific can join the US Atlantic Fleet on US1). If the US player tends to be Japan first, then I get it. Otherwise I think it's better to take out the US Atlantic fleet because it hurts Allied transport capacity more and forces the American to spend more and devote more to the Altantic ....and it's the US that will be providing the bulk of the troop transport. Anything that slows it down a turn is gold for Germany
Not as cheep as fighters, but Germany is primarily offensive. Thoughts on later defense? Or does it not get that far usually? (As in you use them to counter attack instead of relying on defending territories)
Jonathan. Have also found taking Egypt in Rnd 1 highly beneficial. Did you know that you can get the FTR in S. Europe in on that battle using one of the rules for neutrals in the Classic Game. The way it goes is you ask your opponent if he will agree to flyover rights for neutrals. If he agrees, you pay the bank 3 IPCs to cross over Turkey in one move. Assures victory in N. Africa. Tef
That is an excellent idea! I've never tried that since in this game neutrals are technically impassable, but rules can always be overridden if all parties agree. I have a feeling my Ally opponents would never agree to it again after experiencing the move you described on Egypt haha
Germany first round purchase: Aircraft Carrier Cruiser 2 transports. Land 2 fighters in sea zone near Germany. Send one sub to the American fleet; send everything else at the fleet above England. England would have no fleet to counter the fleet you purchased. If they buy tons of infantry they leave India exposed. With three transports, a large of amount of fighters and off shore from either the cruiser you bought or the battle ship if you’re lucky enough to still have it you could possibly take England on the second turn. I’ve tried it plenty of times and it worked 4/5 times. Either way it pressures England to focus on Germany initially and same with the us. Japan was able to attack From the other side and pressure Soviet Union if they take India. What are your thoughts?
Interesting tactic, I like it and might try it. What happens on the front with Russia? Can you hold it if you focus on England like that? Or are you able to even go offensive?
Theres one issue that I have with your north african offensive. If you attack the destroyer with your battleship you cannot bombard. If you end up attacking that destroyer, the Brits have the fighter in egypt, a fighter on the carrier, the carrier, a cruiser, and I'm pretty sure the bomber can get there too. It's a little bit risky trying to win in africa bc it drains too much out of the economy to attack the soviet union. This is my input on a north African strategy for the uk.
I like sending my Mediterranean BB against the cruiser instead. If you send a fighter against the DD it has a better chance of surviving 2v3 instead of 3v3. You could send two if you really wanted to. Then the BB would be positioned to support an Egypt invasion with bombardment on turn 2 or move up to join the Baltic fleet to try and deal with any ships Britain builds with fighter/bomber support.
The Africa strategy for Getmany is critical. Over the course of a game it can boost German IPC by about 25 and deny Britain 25. Maybe more depending how successful. And usually it requires America to turn its attention away from the Pacific , freeing up Japan to gobble up Russian territory and take out India. If your the Axis and that succeeds then the IPC advantage the Allies have swings to your side. And thats what its really about.
What I like to do with the German transport in sea zone 5, Is move it with the cruiser into sea zone 3 , with at least 1 infantry taking Iceland not giving the U.K a strategy to land there and move to Moscow or Western Russia in turn 2 with their fighters. gonna have to fly the longer route through Gibraltar (if not in your plans to already cripple the landing zones) then begin the advance East with the counter attack. Again as you said Germany has a variety of ways to go about global conquest just thought id share what else that transport can accomplish
Interesting proposal, Daniel. Do you typically find Russia needing to defend Moscow from a direct large-scale attack on Turn 3? When you've applied this strategy, what does England typically do to counter your move on Iceland? What is your opinion on an England Turn 1 move north, landing fighters in Archangel?
Mr. Meyers It matters how Russia has progressed with it's turn and whether casualties exceed expectations. Germany and really every player should analyze the situation and develop a build that leads to the most out of your country's production 41 IPC gives Germany flexibility and a creative way of randomizing some strategies you can go about executing in game. I know though with proper coordination and execution with Japan experienced players as the Axis are very difficult to defeat. With the U.K my opinion after iv'e watched players's make videos speak and give input on ideas that a seem like legitimate good standard moves. 1 would be a British save majority of its IPC in the first round buys 3 infantry in India or 1 artillery and saves the 22 or 21 like you suggested for that Naval Build deployment at the end of turn 2. that's a common build and ive done it some games as the British (again this doesn't mean its a 100% guarantee that's what you should do plenty of other ways to try and win as the Allies) but in order to build transports a Royal Navy needs to exist with the help of the U.S. they can pick up the slack as U.K will need some time and of course every turn U.K isn't devoting fresh forces from London allows troops in France Italy move east also meanwhile Germany and Japan slowly pick off production from China Africa and parts of Russia becoming stronger gradually so its in U.K's best interest to move as quick and efficient as possible to build transports with protection why i assume the save turn 1. A possible counter to this strategy ive tried and recommend you try once if you haven't already, is save your 41 turn 1 and beginning of turn 2 spend the 82-86 you've collected on either a heavy air force or a heavy navy deploying before the U.K allows you time to re position if necessary your current land units even more, who've probably come close to a semi depletion slugging it out with the Russians its a more defensive strategy in terms of the eastern front Conquest so positioning is very critical.Germany can go for U.K. first if it wanted to without worrying about the Russians too much or vice versa which is really why i love this 1942 second edition Also ,Great Videos ive watched 3 out of 5 so far really interested in the other ones Professor let me know if u wanna 1vs1 lol
After a naval battle the battleship can not provide bombardment in Egypt. You can get the German bomber into Egypt only for support. Likely the remaing Germans will be few and exposed to counterattack from the Indian Ocean (UK moves before Japan right...).
Hi Peter, thanks for the comment! You are correct about Germany's Turn 1. I was referencing post Turn 1. The coastal bombardment would be an advantage on Germany's Turn 2 especially if England counter attacks as you described. Thinking holistically as an Axis player and not just a German player, I would welcome such a move from England. It means Japan will be able to take India and that factory much more easily and either a) the British Indian fleet has moved to an inconsequential position, or b) Japan can kill a lone English transport for free.
At 8:10 you attach the British destroyer north of Egypt with your Mediterranean cruiser & transport. That move leaves Gibraltar wide open for use by American & British aircraft. I’d like to understand why that doesn’t concern you? It can wreak havoc, in my experience.
Thanks for the comment, Timothy. Gibraltar has never been an issue in any of the games I've played. However, if it is for other gaming groups than some revisions to the strategy I've outlined could be made. What forces do the Allies typically have in Gibraltar by Germany's second turn in your experience?
Jonathan, not sure I like giving up the TT in Baltic so easy. Couldn't I build one DD and buy IN in Rnd 1 and then buy one FTR and AR in Rnd 2? Also wouldn't it be better to kill the US DD and TT in Rnd 1 so your subs can survive and go after the U.K. TT/DD in Rnd 2? Finally, would you attempt Sealion in this game? Tef
You could definitely do that. I would be concerned, however, how useful that DD is going to be after Turn 1. I prefer to start off building a fighter a turn beginning on Turn 1 because I'm likely to lose at least one fighter in my combat moves (so it replaces that) and it helps prepare myself to deal with the UK/US navy as early in the game as possible. I don't want to be three or four turns in and feel like I need to spend all my production on fighters to catch up. If you want to be a bit risky, you could try sending 1 sub against the UK TT/DD and the other against the US Atlantic fleet. I'm usually a little more cautious than that, but I do prefer to go after the UK. The reason being that the US could go either way. They might decide to focus on Japan and not devote resources to the Atlantic. The Brits, on the other hand, are almost guaranteed to focus on Germany. If Germany wipes out their navy Turn 1, at worst it delays the Brits and at best the UK player decides to start dumping production into India. That's something Japan can usually deal with and is hugely beneficial for Germany since it can potentially result in a one vs one grudge match with the Soviets, a war Germany should be able to win. I've never been big on Sealion, but it could be done. If I wanted to try it, I think I'd feign that my naval buildup is meant to go after the Soviets or to ensure my long-term control of Africa (or both) and then I'd swing around when the time is right and attack England. I'd want to position myself in such a way that if England got wise to my plan, I could still use my navy effectively in other theaters.
Is there an effective strategy with decent odds for Germany to take London? If so, That would be a good strategy to explore. I've also found that even if Germany takes Moscow, is able to hold it, and pushes all the way to the pacific coast of Russia and China, it was still not enough (in my experience) to dominate the world when Japan is gone and the remaining allies roam freely. Finding a good strategy for taking out Britain might be the holy grail of strategies for Germany if it works.
Great questions, Alex! Whether we're looking at 1942 Second Edition, Axis and Allies 1914, Classic Europe, etc, that any German strategy focused on taking out England as primary goal must move quickly and requires a high degree of surprise. If England sees you coming, you're doomed to failure. Yet, to succeed you must build transports (1 or 2) which should alert any British player to your intentions. The key to this is getting the British player to believe the transports are for the war against Russia, perhaps to open another front in Northern Asia, perhaps to get troops to the Eastern Theater faster. It doesn't matter what they believe about your Turn 1 transport purchase as long as they don't perceive it as a threat to their island. So long as it doesn't destroy your ruse, you'll also want to position as many planes as possible such that they can hit England on Turn 2. If all goes well, you will have lulled England into a false sense of security and it won't buy much island defense on it's Turn 1. On your Turn 2, you hit it with everything you have. I've seen this sort of thing work, and I feel that it's your best bet when it comes to an England First strategy. However, this kind of shock is likely to make the British player quite paranoid in the future. They're unlikely to fall for this strategy a second time.
Jonathan Meyer Thanks for your input! I'm a relatively new player (10 months) and I can use every bit of info that I can. Most games I play just with myself, but every chance I get with other plays I take it. If only more people liked playing this game as much as I do. Even lifelong Risk players can find this game super long. So about 20-25 games by myself and 5 games with others. Britain only ever fell once and I wasn't Germany at the time, so I can't claim that success. Also is it just me or does it seem that the Axis powers always seem to win the take and hold two enemy cities for a turn (short game) whereas the Allies almost always seem to win the all out war games (I had 3 invasions of north america in 3 different games; only one was a success)? I'm not very good with either of the Axis Powers, but especially with Germany. I think I'm best at Britain since they are in such a crucial role, right in the asian continent, and are semi- isolated and safe on their island.
The Allies have an economic advantage in this and most other Axis and Allies games. In contrast, the Axis normally starts out with a stronger military. It's an interesting, yet simple dynamic at its heart. Can the Axis secure enough IPCs early in game to offset the initial Allied advantage? If so, they usually win in the end. If the Allies can prevent the Axis from securing enough IPCs in their early game pushes, the Allies' production advantage tends to win the day. Of course, this does assume all else being equal (equal skill, equal luck with rolls, etc).
You were right about the fighters. If fighters can have a suicide mode, (where they don't have to return; this depends on the game's individual set rules I guess) then Germany could have a good chance of taking Britain on their first turn.
I like to play Germany very aggressively. Throw tanks and fighters at Russia, weaken them and take them out. Replenish the navy and wreak havoc in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. This keeps the UK from threatening you too much. Also, like you said, taking Egypt can hurt the UK a lot.
@@spencerjensen1993 Keeping subs in the Atlantic forces the Allies to spend on destroyers. I think a little IPC for that helps. But not too much spent in the water.
Jonathan, you are wrong. this game is designed to last more than 3 or 4 turns, no matter how aggressive you are. if Germany goes balls to the wall. they lose. better strategy is to take what you can hold. get more powerful, then move like a bitch on Russia.
Both are decent moves with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Going after the American navy would destroy an additional transport, for example. Overall, I prefer destroying the UK Canadian navy for a couple reasons. If left alone, England can hit Norway, Western Europe or Morocco on its first turn which means I might want to consider leaving a couple troops back in each location to prevent such an attack. The only place the US can attack is Morocco which means if only the US navy lives, I can divert more forces East, even if just for a turn or two. Should I go after the US and any of my navy survives, the UK can now devote its air force as well as its surface fleet (admittedly just a destroyer) to wipe out my remaining fleet. They might also consider devoting all their production into navy, then combining their surviving destroyer with their new purchases to make a navy that will be difficult for Germany to destroy turn 2. If I go after the UK, the US could attack my subs but then it would either completely forego an attack on Morocco or split its navy in which case I could dispatch the undefended transports on turn 2. There's also a chance that the US might move its navy East to fight Japan or that it'll send its starting Atlantic fleet against Germany but otherwise focus on Japan for much of the game. In contrast, there's virtually no chance that a UK Atlantic fleet has any goal in mind other than being a thorn in Germany's side.
i know another commentator mentioned it, but it seems to me it's still better to take out the US Atlantic Fleet rather than the Canadian Fleet. It's true that the Canadian transport can go more places, but really with only a tank which is pretty pitiful....and they are naked to the breeze to the luftwaffe or your subs on G2. By contrast the Americans can land 2 inf, 1arm, 1 arty on turn 1 if need by but more importantly the US can consolidate that with a Surface ship heavy US 1 build. This puts Germany under severe pressure a whole turn sooner (esp since that Cruiser in the East Pacific can join the US Atlantic Fleet on US1).
If the US player tends to be Japan first, then I get it. Otherwise I think it's better to take out the US Atlantic fleet because it hurts Allied transport capacity more and forces the American to spend more and devote more to the Altantic ....and it's the US that will be providing the bulk of the troop transport. Anything that slows it down a turn is gold for Germany
I have found that bombers work very well for Germany. They can attack both USSR's army and UK's ships and they hit at a 4 of less.
Not as cheep as fighters, but Germany is primarily offensive.
Thoughts on later defense? Or does it not get that far usually? (As in you use them to counter attack instead of relying on defending territories)
Jonathan. Have also found taking Egypt in Rnd 1 highly beneficial. Did you know that you can get the FTR in S. Europe in on that battle using one of the rules for neutrals in the Classic Game. The way it goes is you ask your opponent if he will agree to flyover rights for neutrals. If he agrees, you pay the bank 3 IPCs to cross over Turkey in one move. Assures victory in N. Africa. Tef
That is an excellent idea! I've never tried that since in this game neutrals are technically impassable, but rules can always be overridden if all parties agree. I have a feeling my Ally opponents would never agree to it again after experiencing the move you described on Egypt haha
Germany first round purchase:
Aircraft Carrier
Cruiser
2 transports.
Land 2 fighters in sea zone near Germany. Send one sub to the American fleet; send everything else at the fleet above England.
England would have no fleet to counter the fleet you purchased. If they buy tons of infantry they leave India exposed. With three transports, a large of amount of fighters and off shore from either the cruiser you bought or the battle ship if you’re lucky enough to still have it you could possibly take England on the second turn. I’ve tried it plenty of times and it worked 4/5 times. Either way it pressures England to focus on Germany initially and same with the us. Japan was able to attack From the other side and pressure Soviet Union if they take India.
What are your thoughts?
Interesting tactic, I like it and might try it.
What happens on the front with Russia? Can you hold it if you focus on England like that? Or are you able to even go offensive?
Theres one issue that I have with your north african offensive. If you attack the destroyer with your battleship you cannot bombard. If you end up attacking that destroyer, the Brits have the fighter in egypt, a fighter on the carrier, the carrier, a cruiser, and I'm pretty sure the bomber can get there too. It's a little bit risky trying to win in africa bc it drains too much out of the economy to attack the soviet union. This is my input on a north African strategy for the uk.
I like sending my Mediterranean BB against the cruiser instead. If you send a fighter against the DD it has a better chance of surviving 2v3 instead of 3v3. You could send two if you really wanted to. Then the BB would be positioned to support an Egypt invasion with bombardment on turn 2 or move up to join the Baltic fleet to try and deal with any ships Britain builds with fighter/bomber support.
The Africa strategy for Getmany is critical. Over the course of a game it can boost German IPC by about 25 and deny Britain 25. Maybe more depending how successful. And usually it requires America to turn its attention away from the Pacific , freeing up Japan to gobble up Russian territory and take out India. If your the Axis and that succeeds then the IPC advantage the Allies have swings to your side. And thats what its really about.
What I like to do with the German transport in sea zone 5, Is move it with the cruiser into sea zone 3 , with at least 1 infantry taking Iceland not giving the U.K a strategy to land there and move to Moscow or Western Russia in turn 2 with their fighters. gonna have to fly the longer route through Gibraltar (if not in your plans to already cripple the landing zones) then begin the advance East with the counter attack. Again as you said Germany has a variety of ways to go about global conquest just thought id share what else that transport can accomplish
Interesting proposal, Daniel. Do you typically find Russia needing to defend Moscow from a direct large-scale attack on Turn 3? When you've applied this strategy, what does England typically do to counter your move on Iceland? What is your opinion on an England Turn 1 move north, landing fighters in Archangel?
Mr. Meyers It matters how Russia has progressed with it's turn and whether casualties exceed expectations. Germany and really every player should analyze the situation and develop a build that leads to the most out of your country's production 41 IPC gives Germany flexibility and a creative way of randomizing some strategies you can go about executing in game. I know though with proper coordination and execution with Japan experienced players as the Axis are very difficult to defeat. With the U.K my opinion after iv'e watched players's make videos speak and give input on ideas that a seem like legitimate good standard moves. 1 would be a British save majority of its IPC in the first round buys 3 infantry in India or 1 artillery and saves the 22 or 21 like you suggested for that Naval Build deployment at the end of turn 2. that's a common build and ive done it some games as the British (again this doesn't mean its a 100% guarantee that's what you should do plenty of other ways to try and win as the Allies) but in order to build transports a Royal Navy needs to exist with the help of the U.S. they can pick up the slack as U.K will need some time and of course every turn U.K isn't devoting fresh forces from London allows troops in France Italy move east also meanwhile Germany and Japan slowly pick off production from China Africa and parts of Russia becoming stronger gradually so its in U.K's best interest to move as quick and efficient as possible to build transports with protection why i assume the save turn 1. A possible counter to this strategy ive tried and recommend you try once if you haven't already, is save your 41 turn 1 and beginning of turn 2 spend the 82-86 you've collected on either a heavy air force or a heavy navy deploying before the U.K allows you time to re position if necessary your current land units even more, who've probably come close to a semi depletion slugging it out with the Russians its a more defensive strategy in terms of the eastern front Conquest so positioning is very critical.Germany can go for U.K. first if it wanted to without worrying about the Russians too much or vice versa which is really why i love this 1942 second edition
Also ,Great Videos ive watched 3 out of 5 so far really interested in the other ones Professor let me know if u wanna 1vs1 lol
That's Daniel; I appreciate that. I won't be at GenCon this year, but perhaps next year we can meet up for a game out in Indy.
Great video, but I got a news flash at 8:28... that's not India.
Good catch Mith! I misspoke; I was talking about Egypt at that point in the video.
I saw that too! We all make mistakes, but how much it stands out to all us viewers is incredible! haha!
@@keegsalex6285 Good video but just proves, they don't teach world geography in US schools. haha
After a naval battle the battleship can not provide bombardment in Egypt.
You can get the German bomber into Egypt only for support. Likely the remaing Germans will be few and exposed to counterattack from the Indian Ocean (UK moves before Japan right...).
Hi Peter, thanks for the comment! You are correct about Germany's Turn 1. I was referencing post Turn 1. The coastal bombardment would be an advantage on Germany's Turn 2 especially if England counter attacks as you described. Thinking holistically as an Axis player and not just a German player, I would welcome such a move from England. It means Japan will be able to take India and that factory much more easily and either a) the British Indian fleet has moved to an inconsequential position, or b) Japan can kill a lone English transport for free.
Ah, I thought you were talking about taking Egypt on turn 1 as well, but it makes much more sense now.
Awesome video.
Thank you!
The problem that I’m having in the game that I’m playing Is that there’s only 4 players and on player is both uk and also Russia
0:58 aged well
At 8:10 you attach the British destroyer north of Egypt with your Mediterranean cruiser & transport. That move leaves Gibraltar wide open for use by American & British aircraft.
I’d like to understand why that doesn’t concern you? It can wreak havoc, in my experience.
Sorry.... I meant Battleship, not Cruiser.
Thanks for the comment, Timothy. Gibraltar has never been an issue in any of the games I've played. However, if it is for other gaming groups than some revisions to the strategy I've outlined could be made. What forces do the Allies typically have in Gibraltar by Germany's second turn in your experience?
Usually fighters/bombers and it is expensive to get to them if Germany doesn’t have a transport to attack with infantry supported by air units.
Jonathan, not sure I like giving up the TT in Baltic so easy. Couldn't I build one DD and buy IN in Rnd 1 and then buy one FTR and AR in Rnd 2? Also wouldn't it be better to kill the US DD and TT in Rnd 1 so your subs can survive and go after the U.K. TT/DD in Rnd 2? Finally, would you attempt Sealion in this game? Tef
You could definitely do that. I would be concerned, however, how useful that DD is going to be after Turn 1. I prefer to start off building a fighter a turn beginning on Turn 1 because I'm likely to lose at least one fighter in my combat moves (so it replaces that) and it helps prepare myself to deal with the UK/US navy as early in the game as possible. I don't want to be three or four turns in and feel like I need to spend all my production on fighters to catch up.
If you want to be a bit risky, you could try sending 1 sub against the UK TT/DD and the other against the US Atlantic fleet. I'm usually a little more cautious than that, but I do prefer to go after the UK. The reason being that the US could go either way. They might decide to focus on Japan and not devote resources to the Atlantic. The Brits, on the other hand, are almost guaranteed to focus on Germany. If Germany wipes out their navy Turn 1, at worst it delays the Brits and at best the UK player decides to start dumping production into India. That's something Japan can usually deal with and is hugely beneficial for Germany since it can potentially result in a one vs one grudge match with the Soviets, a war Germany should be able to win.
I've never been big on Sealion, but it could be done. If I wanted to try it, I think I'd feign that my naval buildup is meant to go after the Soviets or to ensure my long-term control of Africa (or both) and then I'd swing around when the time is right and attack England. I'd want to position myself in such a way that if England got wise to my plan, I could still use my navy effectively in other theaters.
Is building up a navy for Germany bad for the second or third round to stop American transports or should I buy fighters and bombers to destroy them?
Generally, if say go fighters and bombers. They will be more useful defensively (the fighters anyway) and can also be used against Russia.
Is there an effective strategy with decent odds for Germany to take London? If so, That would be a good strategy to explore. I've also found that even if Germany takes Moscow, is able to hold it, and pushes all the way to the pacific coast of Russia and China, it was still not enough (in my experience) to dominate the world when Japan is gone and the remaining allies roam freely. Finding a good strategy for taking out Britain might be the holy grail of strategies for Germany if it works.
Great questions, Alex! Whether we're looking at 1942 Second Edition, Axis and Allies 1914, Classic Europe, etc, that any German strategy focused on taking out England as primary goal must move quickly and requires a high degree of surprise. If England sees you coming, you're doomed to failure. Yet, to succeed you must build transports (1 or 2) which should alert any British player to your intentions. The key to this is getting the British player to believe the transports are for the war against Russia, perhaps to open another front in Northern Asia, perhaps to get troops to the Eastern Theater faster. It doesn't matter what they believe about your Turn 1 transport purchase as long as they don't perceive it as a threat to their island. So long as it doesn't destroy your ruse, you'll also want to position as many planes as possible such that they can hit England on Turn 2. If all goes well, you will have lulled England into a false sense of security and it won't buy much island defense on it's Turn 1. On your Turn 2, you hit it with everything you have.
I've seen this sort of thing work, and I feel that it's your best bet when it comes to an England First strategy. However, this kind of shock is likely to make the British player quite paranoid in the future. They're unlikely to fall for this strategy a second time.
Jonathan Meyer
Thanks for your input! I'm a relatively new player (10 months) and I can use every bit of info that I can. Most games I play just with myself, but every chance I get with other plays I take it. If only more people liked playing this game as much as I do. Even lifelong Risk players can find this game super long. So about 20-25 games by myself and 5 games with others. Britain only ever fell once and I wasn't Germany at the time, so I can't claim that success.
Also is it just me or does it seem that the Axis powers always seem to win the take and hold two enemy cities for a turn (short game) whereas the Allies almost always seem to win the all out war games (I had 3 invasions of north america in 3 different games; only one was a success)? I'm not very good with either of the Axis Powers, but especially with Germany. I think I'm best at Britain since they are in such a crucial role, right in the asian continent, and are semi- isolated and safe on their island.
The Allies have an economic advantage in this and most other Axis and Allies games. In contrast, the Axis normally starts out with a stronger military. It's an interesting, yet simple dynamic at its heart. Can the Axis secure enough IPCs early in game to offset the initial Allied advantage? If so, they usually win in the end. If the Allies can prevent the Axis from securing enough IPCs in their early game pushes, the Allies' production advantage tends to win the day. Of course, this does assume all else being equal (equal skill, equal luck with rolls, etc).
You were right about the fighters. If fighters can have a suicide mode, (where they don't have to return; this depends on the game's individual set rules I guess) then Germany could have a good chance of taking Britain on their first turn.
True. Since suiciding fighters is not allowed under the normal rules I did not consider factoring that into my strategy lol
I like to play Germany very aggressively. Throw tanks and fighters at Russia, weaken them and take them out. Replenish the navy and wreak havoc in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. This keeps the UK from threatening you too much. Also, like you said, taking Egypt can hurt the UK a lot.
Agreed, have you found that investing in a navy is worth it as Germany?
@@spencerjensen1993 Keeping subs in the Atlantic forces the Allies to spend on destroyers. I think a little IPC for that helps. But not too much spent in the water.
Hi I just got this game
Great! I hope you are enjoying it!
Jonathan Meyer thanks
Good luck! Enjoy!!
Jonathan, you are wrong. this game is designed to last more than 3 or 4 turns, no matter how aggressive you are. if Germany goes balls to the wall. they lose. better strategy is to take what you can hold. get more powerful, then move like a bitch on Russia.
Also can't use the med fleet to attack the Caucasus as the Straight of Hormuz in Turkey is impassable.
isnt it better to use the subs in the atlantic to destroy the american transports?
Both are decent moves with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Going after the American navy would destroy an additional transport, for example. Overall, I prefer destroying the UK Canadian navy for a couple reasons. If left alone, England can hit Norway, Western Europe or Morocco on its first turn which means I might want to consider leaving a couple troops back in each location to prevent such an attack. The only place the US can attack is Morocco which means if only the US navy lives, I can divert more forces East, even if just for a turn or two. Should I go after the US and any of my navy survives, the UK can now devote its air force as well as its surface fleet (admittedly just a destroyer) to wipe out my remaining fleet. They might also consider devoting all their production into navy, then combining their surviving destroyer with their new purchases to make a navy that will be difficult for Germany to destroy turn 2. If I go after the UK, the US could attack my subs but then it would either completely forego an attack on Morocco or split its navy in which case I could dispatch the undefended transports on turn 2.
There's also a chance that the US might move its navy East to fight Japan or that it'll send its starting Atlantic fleet against Germany but otherwise focus on Japan for much of the game. In contrast, there's virtually no chance that a UK Atlantic fleet has any goal in mind other than being a thorn in Germany's side.
Interesting points about the US being inclined to focus more on Japan if you don’t attack them.
Great Video
Thank you!