Wow I didn't expect that much action in the Pacific. Makes a lot of sense, as you pointed out the two fighters can swing over to support the navy in the Atlantic need be.
Another vote for the Pacific rearguard strategy. Anything that slows Japan down gives the allies more time to build up Russia. One of your better videos.
I haven't played the Anniversary edition as my only exposure to A&A is the online version of the 1942 second edition (I don't mean the 1942 setup of this version). But I find it interesting that many of the principles and strategies mentioned here still apply to that version as well
Another well done plan Good Captain, I often try Africa with a English south Africa factory supported by a USA Brazil factory, after the English have a north Atlantic convoy established, Brazil shipping 3 units per turn. The Pacific is more fun as well with an Australian factory supported by a rebel USA Pacific fleet, usually on the run for a while. Once Australia has enough ground unit confidence. a transport will appear with some air support and or a English aircraft carrier if you feel lucky. Joining the English north Atlantic convoy with at least 2 boatloads per turn is very helpful for wearing down German strength, giving Russia relief.
I appreciate your comments but feel strongly that the only opportunity to do anything with Australia as regards a UK IC would be as a result of very poor/inexperienced/incredibly unlucky play on the part of the Japanese. Australia should fall very, very quickly.
Glad to see someone else out there that doesn't like 100% abandoning the Pacific half of the board. Even if you're going KGF, I still feel it's important to at least put up a token defense in the Pacific with USA if for no other reason than to force Japan to spend money on fleet to force the US Fleet out (which slows down their ramp to spamming land units bound for Moscow). This is something I feel applies across all versions of A&A. KJF is completely non-viable on this map, as you said. The map geography and Japan's income level is just too much to deal with and with Italy as its own country keeping them out of Africa (to keep UK relevant) is just too important to half-ass.
In anniversary I used to have USA focus on Japan because if no one else did they just go out of control. Its good to see a way to annoy them without having to full on commit to them.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Ah right, I almost forgot Classic. You caught me. Classic's Money Islands (DEI/Borneo/Philippines) are worth too little to warrant any type of USA Pressure, since it ultimately wouldn't actually mean anything. I think we discussed this back in the comments on your Classic Videos, even.
@@Miniature_Mike The only issue with that is, with the OOB setup, if USA 100% fights Japan Germany/Italy will beat UK/USSR in the 2v2 (specifically, Italy will stalemate UK in Africa while Germany eventually gets to Moscow). USA takes like 3-4 turns of full builds to catch up/overtake to Japan's fleet (assuming Japan is also building fleet) just because Japan starts with such a massive advantage. Meanwhile, Japan still turns into an IPC Monster by grabbing China+Money Islands+India and there's not a whole lot you can do about it as USA until round 4-5, by which point it might already be too late to save Moscow.
Hi Good Captain, In your opinion what is the proper counter to the American Operation Torch for the Axis? Whether it be sinking the navy, then picking apart the troops, or vice versa? Or is there no short term success feasible for the Axis against this strategy, and perhaps hold on long enough for Japan to get rolling into the Middle East?
IMO, I think the best counter is to leave it alone and festung Europe with ground units and fighters. However, building an additional fighter or two in the course of the first six turns as Germany can force response purchases by the USA and UK players. In other words, if some or all of the Luftwaffe is in range of either UK/USA fleet at any point - the allied player(s) may be forced to increase protection of the vital transports by building more DD or fighters or whatever. I would only attack one of those fleets with the Luftwaffe if it was 75%% or better chance of success I kill everything. The Luftwaffe is too vital for defense/attack to risk on anything less.
@@anthonyvines6984I love these types of comments / questions. It makes me feel like the video is understandable to others - something I always worry about.
How did you get a Chinese specific fighter I bought my game used so maybe the owner before me lost it so i us a USA fighter and it’s kinda an eye sour just wondering how you got it
that piece is a P-40 from axis and allies 1941 (the current introductory version of axis and allies). I primed and painted it, then threw on a couple decals.
I like the idea of pushing through Africa with the USA, but it takes a long time to shuttle troops back and forth from eastern USA, and it's not hard at all for the Italian navy to move westward and blockade their entry. I would say it would take at least 3 turns for the USA to build up an invasion force large enough to make the strategy viable, and that's only if they've also got a large enough naval force accompanying the transports to withstand the potential attack from the Italian navy and any German air force within reach. Otherwise, it's all for nothing. I don't think one destroyer and one AC loaded with one plane (or even two) really cuts it. I would say the UK would need to send down whatever navy they can for additional support. It would be great for the allies if Egypt had a value of even just one more IPC, because having an IC there would be hugely influential. I've considered putting one there, but it's always on the edge of being taken by Italy, so it could be a huge waste of money and time. But yeah, if the USA can manage to land a sizeable invading force in Africa and push through the middle east, that's a great strategy. It just takes a lot of resources and commitment- and takes more time than simply attacking France directly. Needless to say, all this forces the axis powers to divert resources in that direction to manage the threat, which helps take some pressure off the USSR. Also, you probably already covered this in your video on the UK, but every non-Russian allied unit in the USSR causes them to lose their 5 IPC bonus point, which I think is quite significant. I've done it myself numerous times, and I wouldn't say it's not a viable tactic per se, but it comes at a heavy cost. 5 IPCs per turn lost for the USSR means significantly less defense being built up for the inevitable axis invasion from both fronts. But bombing raids on Japanese ICs can really help slow their roll, and planes make for awesome defense. It's all risky. It's all a big balancing act. I'm wondering if this strategy might only be effective if the UK puts an IC in India in turn one to help build up a strong resistance there, which could consolidate with the US forces upon arrival. There's not much the allies can do to stop Japan from bulldozing their way through China, but if a significant allied force can assemble in the middle east and India, that might effectively stymy the Japanese incursion. If the Japanese make it all the way to the western end of China with a significant invading force and Russia and Caucasus is already weakened by Germany without any other allied forces to stop them, you can pretty much say the game is won for the axis. But if the USA and UK can jointly build up forces in that region, that could be a real game changer (excuse the pun). I think I just might have to try this strategy the next time I play as the allies.
The comment about the size and strength of the USA fleet vs the Italian fleet and how it "takes more time and resources to move into Africa than simply attacking France directly" make me feel you either didn't watch this video in its entirety or that you believe this is not Anniversary Edition. The comment about the UK IC in Egypt/India also makes me feel you haven't played many games of Anniversary. At the very least, if you're inspired to try this strategy in your next game, I feel that it has not been communicated to you effectively and that may be my fault.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 No, I definitely watched it all the way through, and I know you're talking about the anniversary edition. This is a situation I've dealt with many times. The USA has to make a tough choice of whether to go for the less defended west African coast, or go directly for France, which takes a lot longer because they have to build up much more of an invading force. And I don't know what you mean about my idea of putting an IC in India. Obviously, you didn't discuss that idea in this video. I was just saying that by the time the American forces have fought their way through Africa into the middle east, it would make sense to build up the UK's presence there, so that it's not just one country trying to fight off both Germany and Japan. It would take an enormous American force to fight through Africa and still have enough left to make a real impact in the middle east and elsewhere in the surrounding area, I would think. I think the idea is unrealistic unless you're going to have the UK invest in an IC in India to assist with more troops. That's my initial assessment anyway. I can't say anything more insightful until I try the idea out. I don't know, maybe you weren't talking about the idea of pushing into the middle east, but I thought that was the general idea. There are other avenues the USA could take after they establish a presence in Africa, of course, such as going for Italy.
@@dirkdiggler9482 I’ve read and re-read this. I can see you’re not trolling me but I’m still scratching my head over much of it. I would really like to play a game with you not for either of our egos but bc I might stand to learn something from you (and/or vice versa). If even part of what you say is true, I would love to make a new video detailing a new strategy…or dismantling this one. Consider this an open, and absolutely friendly, invitation.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 You alluded to a “push _through_ Africa” by the USA. I could only imagine that you meant pushing through Africa into the middle east, if that’s going to be the main strategy that you’re going to outlay for the USA. Surely you don’t mean that they just land in Africa, clear out the Germans and Italians, and stop there? I mean, that’s a fine objective in the short term, but it doesn’t even begin to address their long-term concerns. I guess I’m just not sure where you were going with this.
@@dirkdiggler9482 correct. They drive through Africa into the ME and confront the Japanese. Little or nothing stops them in my many games of playing online against many different opponents. This is extremely reliable.
After enough playing experience, an axis player can deny both as an afterthought. Against an inexperienced player - sure. And I have done so but it (usually) disrupts the supply stream to do so. Check out the Germany and especially Italy video for more info on the Atlantic wall.
If the US is going for Africa I think the Uk should build a factory turn 1 in South Africa. With transports it can reach the Middle East and tanks move two anyway so... It seems to me Russia will burn though?
