Axis & Allies

[Warpiglet-7]

It is my experience that there are no optimal moves. Optimal strategies? Yes, especially for the smaller games.

But doing the exact same things the same way over and over again? Only works until someone discovers what makes it weak.

Point well taken but in a general sense there are a few strategies that win at a high rate. Global was bad at first with Japan in particular

 

[Rune]

Point well taken but in a general sense there are a few strategies that win at a high rate. Global was bad at first with Japan in particular

If we’re talking about strategy, there’s really only two strategies that worked consistently with all of them (especially pre-global): Kill Germany First or Kill Russia First.

In 1st edition Global, Kill UK First was a no-brainer, but that was a balance issue that got corrected by 2nd edition.

As for Japan strategies, I’ll just say that our table, over years of play, has consistently never matched the prevailing internet/you-tube wisdom about how it supposedly plays out. But then again, our table has always been aggressive in the Pacific with the US in Global games.

 

[dragoner]

For axis it was always pile on the USSR with both Germany and Japan; otherwise it was to take out Germany first as allies. We tried different things, but those were the basic strategies.

 

[ccs]

As for Japan strategies, I’ll just say that our table, over years of play, has consistently never matched the prevailing internet/you-tube wisdom about how it supposedly plays out. But then again, our table has always been aggressive in the Pacific with the US in Global games.

I hear that. When I play Japan the only defensive thing I do is put 1-2 infantry onto Japan proper each turn. Other than that every action I take is some sort of offense.

 

[Rune]

I hear that. When I play Japan the only defensive thing I do is put 1-2 infantry onto Japan proper each turn. Other than that every action I take is some sort of offense.

The problem we’ve found playing Japan in Global is not that it can’t gain territory and resources quickly (although, bringing the US into the war early is a problem, given how aggressive it always is in the Pacific). The problem is largely that Japan is outnumbered 5 turns to 1 in the theater (and, unlike Germany/Italy, Japan will never have a can-opener option in the theater).

That, and the short pipeline from West Coast US to Australia (and from there, the money islands, or other strategic locations) via naval bases.

Add to that the fact that (in our experience) US can afford to throw carriers in the Pacific (many of which ANZAC can load) while still maintaining a supporting presence in the other hemisphere.

(Fun fact: ANZAC or UK fighters that are loaded on US carriers effectively gain a range of +2 seazones over the course of the round, assuming the carriers move.)

And the subs! A constant supply of US subs will choke Japan’s economy every time! Especially keeping in mind that the money islands are right along that naval-base pipeline I mentioned earlier.

Edited to add: The convoys are actually another major problem for Japan. It is the only power whose resources (both starting and through conquest) are almost completely subject to convoy raids. And no matter how well they’re doing, building one sacrificial sub-hunting destroyer for every submarine-group that USA spreads across the map is not a war of attrition they can win. Not to mention that sub-hunting also ties up their air-force which might otherwise be used to take territory or attack fleets.