In Axis and Allies, When (and How) Would You Adjust Your Opening Strategy?

Question

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?

Answer 1

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 1942 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.

Answer 2

Effectively, these decisions depend upon variable inital starting conditions. In my case, If I am playing any power save Russia, My first move will depend on the actions of the other combatants. Russia is pretty well thrown on the defensive from the start. The correlation of forces on the Eastern Front suggest to the mind of the eager and bloodthirsty young Wermacht officer, that an all out attack will wipe the bolsheviks from the face of the Earth. And it CAN be done. All out attack purchasing only armor, the Germans can indeed drive an armored column through the streets of Moscow; at the price of the remaining Allies disecting your war machine with sugical precision at their leisure.  This is the big (nearly pathological from what I infer) fear that drives Russia to commit to total defense from the start. All the strategic thinking I have encountered seems to be based on the idea that all the players actions will be scripted for at least the first 3-4 turns, and that any deviation from the program leads to irrecovocable and ignominius defeat. I would suggest that if my opponents actions are known to me in advance, I will immediately look for a way to twist that to my advantage.

Suppose you are Britain. You've been playing for a while and feel pretty comfortable. Every body knows what's going to happen, so they are looking for that moment when the dice go to crap, or someone makes a mistake. Along comes a spider... Britain makes her stardard first buy, I.C. save the rest. You move your troops from Africa and the middle east, and fort up expecting help from America. By transferring every piece of readily available mililtary gear to India, I will end the turn with 3 inf/1 ftr/1 trns. I am expecting Japan to Pearl. That's the plan, right? The problem lie in the willingness of your opponent to cooperate. As the Japanese player faced with this scenario I experience several emotions. The first is a kind of avaricious lust to possess that factory. This leads to moment of calculation, a judging of the balance of power, if you will, followed by joyous realization. The final stage is a tactical tunnel vision. The only thing I can see is India. All my military goes there. After combat movement (assuming no battle) Japan can have poised to attack on turn 2; 10 inf, 5 ftr, 1 bmbr, plus naval support.I submit no amount of effort on the part of the Allies will prevent the fall of the complex, unless the Allies are willing to surrender the rest of the war. India can be a strategic pivot in the Pacific war, but only achieves critical status if the Allies build the factory. Approached as a delaying tactic to support Russia, it can be minimally effective. But after due consideration, the Indian factory can only be employed as a gambit nad not a strategy.