Sometimes it is easier to spot a loser than it is to spot a winner. After playing Axis & Allies over and over again, I have noticed some trends that generally lead to defeat. Knowing that pride goes before a fall, I must confess that have also lost my share of games. Hopefully, I have learned something from my losses that have improved my play.

Defective Habit #1 - Banking on Technology

This habit seems to plague new players more than anyone one else. During the opening rounds of the game, no matter what the circumstance, the novice player spends all his cash on tech rolls. Sometimes "beginner's luck" prevails and the new player gets heavy bombers turning the tide of the game. More often than not, the odds prevail and the tech rolls fail to produce any real fruit, leaving the player several turns behind in material production.

Simply stated, if you rely heavily on weapons development to win most of your games, you will lose more than you win.

Is there a time for Weapons Development? Yes. When the game reaches a point where purchasing a few more units will not stem the tide of defeat and a new technology may bring you back into the game. Also, when your income reaches a high point and you want to put the game away. For example, Japan often times can have an income near the 50s. Buying one or two extra units certainly could help the Japanese cause, but getting Heavy Bombers could put the game over the top.

Defective Habit #2 - Neglecting the Infantry

Tanks are cool. They provide good offense at modest $5 a unit. But tanks are not infantry. Simply put, if you are capturing territories with armor, then losing that territory to your opponents infantry, your opponent could be gaining an economic edge.

Defective Habit #3 - Buying Battleships

There is not one IPC that can be gained at sea. That doesn't mean navies are not important. However, spending $24 on a battleship is rather extreme in almost any circumstance. If you are trying to defend a fleet of transports, then build an Aircraft Carrier. They are $6 cheaper, defend at a 3, and with 2 fighters on board, they are the most powerful defensive unit in the game.

Run the numbers... three transports are almost as effective on defense as one battleship.

Defective Habit #4 - Bombers, Bombers, Bombers

I have played many games where the British player builds nothing but bombers. Interesting strategy, but not one that lends itself to final conquest. The goal of the bomber strategy is to pound the German economy into the pavement via Strategic Bombing Runs. However, if no attempt is made to preserve British income -- by transporting troops to Africa -- then Great Britain will lose most all of her income to Germany and Japan. Once, again, check the numbers. According to the odds, the average bomber will do $3.5 dollars with of damage per SBR. On average, a bomber will be able to perform 5 bombing runs before dropping from the sky in flames. 5 SBRs * $3.5 per SBR = $17.5 worth of damage.

Don't simply build bombers and forsake building transports in the Atlantic to threaten Germany's Western Front, aid Russian and restore Africa to the Crown.

One final note, if you have Heavy Bombers, ignore everything I just said... Bombs Away!

Defective Habit #5 - Abusing ICs

The industrial complex has some very useful applications. However, simply plopping them on the board with no thought given to their effectiveness is a waste of funds and time. In many cases the purchase of two transports for $1 more can provide much greater flexibility than the industrial complex.

Russian ICs

If Russia is building an IC the game must already be in the hands of the Allies. Normally, the Russians should be buying almost nothing but infantry. I would be hard pressed to find an occassion where purchasing an IC would be more benficial than buying 5 infantry or even 3 armor.

German ICs

Most successful German strategies do not include a purchased IC.

However, in some circumstances a case could be made for an IC in Egypt, to help control Africa and funnel troops into Asia. This is a potentially dangerous move, because this IC may be difficult to hold should the UK and US land enough troops on the West Coast of Africa to create a threat.

I have also seen Germany build an IC in Western Europe. The following turn, the Germans will attempt to destroy everything in the UK sz and then place newly purchased naval units directly into the UK sz. This forces the British and/or the Americans to clear the sea zone before they can deliver more troops into Europe. Once again, this is a risky venture. If you should lose Western Europe, you have just given the Allies a free IC to build 6 units per turn in right next to Berlin... Ouch.

British ICs

As with all Factories, the British ICs must be purchased with an overall strategy in mind. Often times I have witnessed the UK player buying an IC and then not putting it into full use. If you are going to buy it, then you should have a purpose in mind for using it. Also, if you choose to buy an IC, especially in India, make sure you can hold it! As the Japanese player, I lick my lips when I see the British player buying an IC for India and not it supporting with any other troops. India is a prize for Japan. India with an IC is a treasure for the Emperor!

Japanese ICs

One way to look at the ICs vs. Transport purchases for Japan is to think of it terms of the types of units you want on the mainland. In very simple terms: ICs are for tanks and transports are for infantry.

Next question: when do you need tanks on the mainland?

If you have preserved most of your air force: 3 to 5 ftrs and 1 bomber, then you probably don't need tanks until you are strong enough with infantry to take and hold Novo. One turn before this might be the time to consider building an IC to deliver tanks into Asia.

The final question: What should I build next to insure the fall of Moscow in the shortest amount of time. It could be tanks or it could be bombers and more infantry. If I hold Novo, I can fly bombers from Japan on the next turn after they are built directly to Moscow. It may take longer for my tanks to have any impact.

American ICs

Why are you building an IC in Brazil? To deliver troops to Africa? $15 wasted, considering the troops could come directly from the East Coast. Why are you building an IC in Finland? To deliver troops to Europe? Those same troops could come from the Eastern U.S. via transports. And those transports can deliver those troops eleswhere... perhaps Berlin!