Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Most AA players have a preferred strategy. But not every player gets to go first. Meaning that the later going players may have to adjust their strategies, based on what has gone on before. Or do they?

Germany: If Russia doesn't get to attack on the first turn, you (effectively) go first, and have your choice of Russia, Africa, or both. But suppose Russia gets aggressive (if allowed a first turn attack). How would that affect your choice of target?

UK: Germany can either go after you (in Africa) or Russia, or both. How, if at all, would those choices affect your opening moves?

Japan: The UK and Russia can go east (India, Sinkiang, Yakut etc.) or west (Africa, Norway). Does this affect your posture vis-a-vis the U.S. in the Pacific?

US: You have your choice of Atlantic or Pacific strategies. Is this choice affected by foregoing moves, caliber of players, or other considerations? Or do you just use an Atlantic "shuck-shuck?"

Russia: You're "last" if you can't attack on the first move. Is Germany or Japan the more dangerous enemy? Under what cirumstances?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

As Germany, my preference is to invade (UK's) soft African "underbelly" first, then take on Russia second. But if Russia gets aggressive and possibly overextends herself with a first turn attack, I'd go after Russia first. (I would not play allowing a Russian first turn attack unless I got some compensation under house rules.) Can We Find a Middle Ground on the Russia First Turn Attack Rule In Allies and Axis? In Axis and Allies, could a house rule upgrading the German navy finally "balance" the game?

Basically, I'm "renting" Africa for an attack on Russia, but my real object is the latter. Russia has 24 of the 27 IPCs needed for an economic victory. Sacrifice my two African IPCs, and the bar rises to 29. Japan has probably captured China and Sinkiang for 4 IPCs, which, added to Russia, is 28. ANYTHING else gives us victory.

As the UK, it would largely depend on what my ALLIES wanted to do. In descending order of preference, the strategies are 1) a North Atlantic "shuck, shuck," (withe U.S.) 2) a rescue Africa strategy, if Germany concentrates on building naval power instead of occupying Africa and 3) a Far Eastern strategy beginning with a "Kwabang" attack, but only if Russia and the U.S will back me up.

As Japan, I really want to head west. In the Pacific, I may make a spoiling attack against Pearl Harbor, but that's all. My preference is to fight the UK (India, Australia, and later Africa). But if Russia gets aggressive, or Germany prefers this, I will go against Russia (reluctantly), instead.

As the US, again my preferences would depend my allies, and my choices (in order of preference) are similar to the U.K.'s

As Russia, I prefer a Germany-first defensive strategy. If allowed, my preference is for a live and let live policy vis-a-vis Japan.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.