In this video, I demonstrate what I've learned (in my online and offline playing experience) to be the most robust UK opener for Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition, 1941 setup.
I think the concept of "Center Board Control" (i.e. what you're doing by moving all of UK's air assets into/around Russia + pulling back the India troops into Persia) could have been touched on here, but I imagine you're saving it for a broader video later on in the series.
I think its a safe move. Prepare a counter attack against Japan in India or save the Suez. Britain can't have both. Then second round get a industry in South Africa and start the slow grind of infantry and Arty up through Africa. So slow but it works. Same time hitting Norway, Finland and Poland, even if you lose, and then the Americans show up in some strength round 3ish.
Good video. Just wanted to pop in and say that as a *very* casual player of A&A (I just play it with my family and some friends, I have played it on and off for the past 10 years or so) your videos are very insightful and entertaining. It's always interesting to hear the perspective of someone much more competitive and experienced.
Another great video. I’m just coming off an A&A axis win because my buddy and I watch your videos. I was wondering if you could expound on the rational to buy an aircraft carrier on turn one for the UK? Thanks again for great content!
Dude. Awesome to hear. Thanks for posting and ya, I’ll add a few lines about the UK carrier in either the next video (USA) or the final video (part 12)
A turn 2 shipment to Karelia could be game changing, 4 extra units every turn from then on, I'd have to be tempted to build an Australian factory to work on building a rebel fleet, assuming a few other things. east indies is a nice payday and should be denied to Japan whenever possible, and there's more $$ very close by
Good video. Yeah, the British are absolutely indispensable in this game, but they have some really agonizing choices to make. I know what you're saying about the IC in India being a huge risk, but I don't know of any other effective way to build up forces in Asia to stymy the Japanese advance. Yes, you can consolidate them In Persia, but not without abandoning other areas that will become weakened, and if the Japanese take India, they will almost certainly put an IC there anyway, so I don't know if you're really doing much to help yourself by just letting them take it. There are many ways the situation can play out in that middle east/SE Asia corridor, and it largely depends on how Japan decides to approach Asia. I've played at least a couple of games where Japan chose to ignore SE Asia on their first turn and direct their advances towards east Russia and China, and I actually bought *_two_* ICs for the UK, one in India and one in Burma. If the Japanese decide to continue their assault through east Russia and China, those ICs can be hugely influential in redirecting them and slowing their advance. And yes, those ICs can fall into the hands of the Japanese, of course, but again, with no units being built up for the allies, there's nothing stopping the Japanese advance at all. Also, if the UK decides to build air units in those ICs, they can go after Japanese sea units that might be facilitating their assault on either mainland Asia or the islands. If Russia feels confident enough, they can also send a couple of tanks down that way for added defense, but that's pretty risky. Your idea of putting an IC in South Africa is something I've never heard of before. Seems to me that's too far away from the action to be effective unless you're only building air units there to send over to Asia. Is that what you do?
I'd like to think the allies have units either marching across Africa towards Japan and or down from Karelia. also, if the allies can put together a rebel fleet in the Pacific, that might take a dutch east indies factory for their own advanced logistics, if that works possibly a Siberian shipping operation can begin, helping Russia and hindering Japan
I have to agree with this comment. I fail to see how a complex in SA is effective. It’s far from the action and doesn’t have the production capacity to do much. One thing I will add is that against a wise and determined Japan, the factory in India is not defensible. They should position themselves to take it J2 and if you place it you won’t get a single unit out. I feel this is so crucial as Japan, yes Siberia is important but Russia can’t effectively build up there, so the situation doesn’t change (just take it turn 2 or 3) while if UK gets an Indian complex it makes it much harder for Japan. Even if they don’t take it J2, if they build a complex on the money islands you don’t stand a chance as UK and your gifting them a free complex.
@@davidbenson5385 The SA factory is almost a necessity against an experienced axis or Japanese opponent. Passing on building it opens up that resource rich area of the board to the Japanese from the IJN dominated Indian ocean. If UK does not build this factory, Japan can make a real mess down there - one the Allies really cannot afford to expend the effort to clean up.
Consolidating your forces is not "letting them take it" though. The bomber and UK airforce in combination with the forces in Persia are now 'dead zoning' both Trans Jordan and India. Also, by consolidating in Persia, what areas have been abandoned or becoming weakened (?) because I don't see that at all, nor has it been my playing experience...
Isnt a south african industrial complex risky? What if japan puts 2 infantry in east indies (from caroline) instead of one? Those two plus the japanese fighters could take that factory, effectively securing africa right? Also do you have any thoughts on home rules to make the pacific more competitive so that theres fighting there as well?
@@edwardnguyen7213 a transport can’t reach South Africa from East Indies until J3. Additionally, the USA can stage a fighter in Brazil on USA 1 as well… but that’s for the next video. :)
The first A&A Pacific game has airbases and naval ports already on the map, they each have interesting things that they add to movement, adding more $$ on the islands should attract more attention as well. Another popular slight change to the A&A classic map was a submarine patrol sea zone surrounding Japan and the USA west coast. effectively making sure the distances between the two Pacific powers was increased by 2 spaces to buy more time. to set up blocker boats while building more, or scooting out through the panama canal. Cheaper fighters for carriers and the Pacific only. it was an expansion by gamers paradise, they included a Doolittle raid. Give every player one free technology per turn, saving the stronger ones for later. A list of many technologies and other gaming abilities is not too difficult, there's many, rolling the dice to see what they got, shipyards in the Pacific
I'm a bit rusty at this point, but is there a reason you only leave 1 FTR on the SZ2 Carrier, or does the math just work out that the navy you have there is too much for Germany to bother attacking?
It’s been discussed a little below, but could you elaborate on how the SA complex works? One of the great challenges I find in the game is effectively slowing down Japan, but I don’t see how the SA does this.
In the fewest amount of words: it incentivizes Japan to stay out of Africa in the mid/long game which for the Allies is a necessity imo. Not building it leaves a critical and remote area of the board open to Japanese capture. If that two IPC territory (the only one in Africa outside of Egypt) should fall to the Japanese (likely via amphibious attack) the chances of an Axis win just went way up. The allies are not positioned well to clean up that area of the board as it is so remote. Allied IPCs are already barely able to keep up with the Axis in the mid/long game and that would turn the economy solidly in the Axis favor. Good question. I didn't realize there was so much chatter in the comments about this until now.
As to your comment about "the great challenge" being to effectively slow down Japan, I highly recommend the USA video in this series and then the final video in this series about balance. Otherwise, were all with you there brother - the Japanese are a monster.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 so do you build mostly infantry and slowly push them along the coats up to Egypt? With only 2 production I don’t see you being able to do anything naval unless Japan is sleeping.
You're never going to need cruisers or battleships for the UK?? I would definitely not say that. If they're ever going to be able to mount an amphibious assault on Europe, they need strong naval units to accompany the transports, and the seaside support shots are critically important. On turn one for the UK, I usually buy an AC, fighter, transport, and cruiser. I consolidate all my surviving sea units in sea zone 7 and place my new sea units there so that they're all together and are ready to mount an attack on France whenever enough forces are built up. That is unless, I've decided to place an IC in India, in which case I typically plan on directing resources that way in the way of new fighters.
I believe 1 infantry. 1 artillery and 2 battleships can attack any size army and still have $7 to $6 losses. with a few more dollars on their side. the allies could neutralize 1/3 or more of the German per turn purchases, the USA and England both doing this could help Russia noticably so. Cruisers are cheaper than battleships and build up faster, england landing 8 ground and 8 cruisers early enough every turn into France will bear fruit as Germany may turtle and France is now available as allied income too. probably paying both or could France pay $6 three times in a round 🤔
I agree with this….right off the bat I’m buying units with (the UK AND US) for D-Day and immediately letting the German player know I’m coming, I’m coming soon, and you can’t stop me lol.
I hate to have to say this, but I strongly disagree with everything in this comment and in the subsequent thread. It really is just "not correct" by the numbers. Given that offshore capable units are limited to however many units are involved in the amphibious attack, and given the expense of cruisers and battleships relative to additional transports/ground units - this is simply not a winning strategy. Further, in this version of axis and allies in particular, the allies cannot afford to be so flippant with their IPC. It might be fun to do playing solitaire or with a small group of friends, but it simply will not survive competitive play. As always, I leave an open (and absolutely friendly) challenge to anyone who feels otherwise.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 So you think it's a viable option to just let transports sit and wait to die, with no accompanying seacraft to defend them from attacks? All it takes is one air unit or any kind of sea units other than transports to destroy an entire fleet of transports without even rolling any dice. I really don't see where you're coming from here at all.
l'm wandering, why isn't the industry in India a viable strategy? l mean, it will definatly be conquered eventually, but it buys a bunch of time for the japanese player to take it
It takes away pieces that are vital so early in the game, namely Russians. Also, in my playing experience, it appeared to hold for an extra two turns maximum and then that IC went over to the Japanese. As the Japanese player, it feels/felt mildly annoying to be slightly delayed in that area of the board - but at least you don't have to invest the 15 IPC needed to build it once you get it. It seems you get a better outcome as the allies by dead-zoning India and making the Japanese buy the IC instead.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 l've also wandered about south africa having an IC, even though it doesnt seem like much of a strategy, but the fact of not building any IC with the UK means that the only consistent resistance to the japanese will be the green wave coming from morocco which will only be functional in round 5-6
I have to disagree with the purchasing phase, when l play the uk l found that the best thing to buy as the uk is (other than the carrier and transport wich you mentioned) a IC in south africa and another transport, l think that the best turn to build the IC as the UK is the first since its the only one where you have money to spend, it depends, but if the germans did well in egypt l think its vital to build it the first turn to build up a resistance against the axis in africa, and doing it the second or third turn l think is a waste of time for the beitish player
Barring a German wipe of Egypt on G1, what two British units do you consider so vital on turn 2 in South Africa that the IC must be purchased on turn 1? Those 15 IPC are quite vital on turn 2 in the north and will be missed in my experience (against a competent axis player anyway...)
@@thegoodcaptain1217 in all the games l've played so far l've always found myself having to fight with 1 or 2 german tanks in egypt, the italians and , later on, the japanese, and in my experience building an IC turn 2 isnt ideal because while in the first turn you have 43 IPCs in the second you have about 31 and all of those are needed for the mainlkand Uk and cant be spared for an IC, plus having an army of only 2 infantry in africa means that the germans could potentially (along with the italians) overrun the british forces there and take the ic
@@thegoodcaptain1217 l always build 2 infantry in south africa on turn 2 which are able to defend the IC against the germans and italians, because if the german survive with 2 tanks, which is very possible, they can easily attack the IC defended by a mere 2 infantry, and if the germans manage to get the south african IC it will cause a massive headache to the allies and set the axis to a possible win
@@pasbafYeah I've seen that a good amount of times and am not convinced an IC is the best response. (Unless the Germans more or less survive the G1 Egypt attack with all their pieces.) There's just too much space between Egypt and SA. The two infantry that start in SA are present to hold the line and counterattack any German tank(s) along with the UK bomber from Caucasus. FEA and Belgian Congo are exposed to amphib attacks from the sea and the USA fighter that should be in Brazil can be used in an emergency. I've def made the Turn 1 UK IC purchase, just not for two German tanks.... Otherwise, I'm all for the UK2 purchase so long as it looks like the Axis are making efficient moves.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 that's fair but the problem l've encountered with the IC UK2 is that l struggle to have the money to afford it because by either turn 2 or 3 l've got 4 transport to fill each round and that's about all l can afford
I've always thought USA should be the power the most experienced player should play, as I find them to be the power people screw up the most, and have so much purchasing power that can be highly mismanaged (I also have heard the most complaints about them by less experienced players. Generally that they are boring, too slow, have the least impact, etc. etc.. Which is clearly all wrong.) But I also play with NO's, which leaves UK lacking. But it also really depends on how much "advice" your fellow players want (And a bad Russia can make for a rather quick loss! Conversely a skilled player can often squeeze blood out of a rock with a well played Russia. So for me Russia is a close second.).
Hmmm. I suppose I can get on board with ....most of this. I feel the USA is boring and slow but has a critical impact in stopping Japanese expansion via what I articulate in the USA video as "the green wave". And that strategy is not my own - that was learned from the online community. I have seen and tried a lot as the USA but no longer do anything but the green wave. Boring but critical.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Yeah, but in the hands of a less skilled player I find they are really prone to sending too much power to the Pacific, messing up with their transports, and committing either too much or too little to NOs. As long as I can dissuade my UK ally from doing silly things with Industrial Complexes, and can urge them to properly defend their fleet, I feel it's much harder to get UK wrong.
