Everything comes down to infantry. Infantry are the cheapest unit in the game. Whether taken as casualties to leave more valuable attackers alive, or taken as casualties and lending weight to defense, it's all about infantry.

All other units are only useful insofar as they help control infantry flows. Artillery are useful as they may help a stack of infantry threaten an opponent's forces. Tanks can be redirected to reinforce friendly infantry stacks at different locations, or threaten enemy infantry stacks away from locations. Subs, navy, and air are used to control the flow of transports that control the flow of . . . that's right, infantry.

It's all about infantry.

The game comes down to stacks of infantry with the appropriate support.

Support needs to be built ahead of time so it's in position when needed.


Suppose a player can attack an adjacent territory with an infantry and a tank for minimal good odds, or with infantry and artillery for slightly worse but still acceptable good odds. In the first case, the attacker commits 9 IPC of units. In the second case, the attacker commits 7 IPC of units.

Artillery are far cheaper but require time to get into position. If an attacked territory is two spaces from an industrial complex, the artillery had to be produced two turns ago and move into position last turn to attack the territory in question on this turn. A tank produced last turn, though, could attack this turn.

Artillery early, tanks later if at all.


This is only important as it affects fleet movements that affect transports that carry infantry.

If submarines are in position before destroyers, submarines "win". If destroyers are in position before submarines, destroyers "win".

Imagine an opponent has submarines and air that can hit a sea zone, and a player puts a destroyer down. Now the opponent can use 6 IPC subs that attack at the same value that the 8 IPC destroyer defends at, plus superior weight of numbers with air to probably win without the defender even being able to score a hit - and if the defender gets lucky and hits, even then it's trading a 8 IPC destroyer for a 6 IPC submarine.

On the other hand imagine an opponent has destroyers and air that can hit a sea zone, and a player builds submarines. Air can hit a submarine if an attacking destroyer is present, so the destroyer and air attack, all defending subs defend only at 1 so have a hard time hitting, even if the attacking destroyer is destroyed the air can't be. So the opponent is likely to kill quite a lot of subs worth 12 or 18 or maybe 24 IPC at a cost of an 8 IPC destroyer.

Submarine and destroyer zoning is crucial to fleet movement. If moving away from friendly industrial complexes and towards opponent industrial complexes, it's a good idea to have an extra destroyer or two around to hunt subs in case the opponent builds some.

Destroyers are also likely to be the cheapest effective naval fodder. Subs can't be hit by enemy air unless the enemy is attacking with a destroyer.


Make best use of the ones you have, because you shouldn't get any more. Neither battleships nor cruisers can hunt down subs, both are far more costly per casualty taken than destroyers, and unlike carrier/fighter combinations, neither is much use against land targets. Both can bombard, but it's a single bombardment that unlike other versions of Axis and Allies doesn't kill units like submarine Surprise Strikes do. Fighters on the other hand can keep fighting, and can also fly inland to support as needed (while other fighters are flown up if need be).

Battleships and cruisers might theoretically be useful if there were loads of antiaircraft guns all over. But antiaircraft guns have no defense value against ground targets and are quite expensive so even if an opponent builds antiaircraft guns you're still probably better off with fighters and carriers.

Do not be lured by the "free" hit that battleships can take then repair. Optimal naval battles use sub/destroyer and air zoning. An opponent does not leave naval assets around to be blown up one by one, they retreat towards a nearby industrial complex while producing submarines, then air when submarines can no longer be safely produced. At the crucial point that a fleet must fight, sheer attack and defense with weight of numbers are what determine the outcome; battleships do not have an edge there.

Overextending means leaving stuff out where an opponent can mess them up at little cost.


Say a player leaves six infantry on a territory near masses of opponent units. Maybe they think "well there's six of us, we'll probably get six of them". Or something. I'm not sure.

But if an opponent attacks with overwhelming force that's actually unlikely. If an opponent attacks with 18 infantry 12 tanks in this scenario, probably the attackers lose about 2 infantry, while the defenders lose 6.

Even if attacking numbers aren't incredibly overwhelming, superior weight and composition of attackers usually means more defenders than attackers are killed.

So don't overextend.


This is used by some Axis and Allies players to refer to attacking, then retreating and moving reinforcements up.

Imagine 12 defending infantry, against which an attacker brings 8 infantry 8 tanks. 4 fighters. On the first round of combat, perhaps the defender kills 4 and the attacker 7, which is nice for the attacker. Say the battle goes another round and the attackers wipe out the defenders, leaving 1 infantry 8 tanks in control of the territory.

That might seem good, the defender lost 12 infantry for the attacker's 6. 36 IPC were destroyed at a cost of 18 IPC.

But the surviving attacking infantry and 8 tanks are worth 51 IPC. Suppose the other player then destroys those infantry and 8 tanks on their turn, at a further cost to them of 18 IPC. Then the attacker's original attack does not look so good. Net, the attacker lost 72 IPC, the defender 54. That's bad for the attacker, even if the attacker temporarily controlled a 2 IPC territory or whatever, it just wasn't worth it.

But suppose the attacker didn't press on to take the territory and instead retreated after the first round of attacks. More units were killed than were lost so there's a net gain. If the attacker moved in reinforcements so the position couldn't be cheaply attacked, then the defender doesn't have any overextension to exploit, and it's a net gain for the attacker.

Strafing is risky. Too few attacker hits and too many defender hits mean net losses. Too many attacker hits can result in taking a territory outright. So use with caution.


You don't have to hide under a rock all game. But don't risk your valuable units if you don't absolutely need to.

You might use a few artillery here and there to bolster an attack and be lost in turn to enemy counterattack (be careful not to spend more than you really need even with cheap artillery).
But for anything like tanks, or even more so for fighters, or generally anything else that's more expensive than infantry (which is everything), be very careful and think about whether you can really afford to lose it.

There are a very few exceptions to this, generally involving blowing up enemy support that they couldn't really afford to lose either.

Try not to leave your valuable infantry support where it can be destroyed. Don't even let infantry die if they're not going to get good value.