Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time. Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians. So I go Pacific whenever I can. But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy. The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.
KJF etc.
-
KJF is intriguing. The Allies can actually create incredible pressure early on, which I don’t think Japan can handle efficiently. It comes down to Germany being clever and ramping up surprise transports to threaten the US and UK. I wouldn’t say to rely on KJF, but it is an interesting excursion.
Specifically, the way to create pressure is this:
Russia: your only attack will be West Russia. You will attack with 1 fighter, and all inf/art available, but all tanks will not participate nor will the other fighter. The other fighter flies to Buryatia, 2 tanks from Moscow go to Yakut, tank from Caucasus to Sinkiang, tank from Archangel to Novosibirsk, the fighter from W Russia goes to Yakut as well. Your builds will be mass infantry as you prepare for the German onslaught.
Note: at this point the Germans could say oh boy a KJF, I better make some transports and force a KGF. If the Germans prepare a perfect advance counter of a KJF, then go ahead and reverse directions with the Russians. You haven’t really lost any positioning, just move all your tanks/fighters back.
But if the Germans play more conservatively with a mass inf build, go buy 2 complexes with the UK. 1 goes down to S Africa tip, and the other goes to India. You will need the S Africa complex to easily contest Africa, which can quickly become a sore problem if you don’t do this. Fly your fighters from the UK to Moscow, and bomber to Sinkiang. Attack the Kwang transport with your Indian navy, but send the fighter to attack the Solomons sub along with the Aus sub, with the intent to land the fighter on Pearl Harbor’s carrier. Move infantry towards India.
When Japan’s turn comes along, they are under massive strain from all sides. They cannot possible address all avenues of attack. Attacking Pearl Harbor is probably unwise, especially if the Solomons sub is lost (happens 2/3 of the time). They would have to attack China or risk that becoming another super-hardpoint from all the reinforcements arriving there. And it would be also wise to get rid of the Kwangtung UK navy before it met up with the US. But that is all Japan can do safely, and it still presents some issues.
On US 1, they will immediately invade Solomon Islands. The Japanese will not be able to break off the spearhead here because many of their fighters are on land and also half of their fleet is off of Kwangtung. The US starts with a build of 1 car + 1 bb.
The Russians follow by mass invading Manchuria with 6 inf + 2 tanks, and counter attacking China with 2 tanks + 2 fighters if there’s ~3 inf or so, or at least beefing up sinkiang with 2 tanks.
The UK follows with a build of 3 tanks in India, and attacks New Guinea with the Australian transport + 2 inf + their fighter from the US carrier off of Solomons, then flies their 2 fighters from Moscow into Sinkiang.
When it comes back to Japan, they are in massive trouble again on all fronts. Where will they attack? Personally I’d say they’d be forced to deal with the 8 units parked in Manchuria. They can’t really attack anywhere else, actually. India is too strong as you haven’t positioned any units to help attack it, China is also too strong, and invading Buryatia is a fairly bad move since you only get that 1 IPC and are way out of position to defend your mainland territories. Merely reinforcing Kwang/F Indo will provoke a massive Russian/UK counterattack which you can’t handle. So you wipe out Manchuria with 4 tran of equips + mass fighters + 2 bb shots + bomber, great.
But now, again the Japanese navy is way out of position, they are in the inner seazone of Japan.
The US assaults East Indies with 2 inf + 1 fighter + 1 bb, and sends their turn 1 build along with the panama destroyer to the Solomons seazone. (build another bb)
The Russians at this point are probably spent. They can use their remaining 2 tanks to blitz a lightly defended area or just hold Sinkiang, and retreat the fighters.
The UK can now strongly assault F Indo, which hasn’t received any reinforcements in the first 2 turns. 5 inf + 3 tanks + 2 fighters + 1 bomber will take out anything sitting there. At the same time, they take out Borneo with 2 inf + 1 fighter.
The Japanese should be absolutely flustered at this point. They’re missing Borneo, East Indies, New Guinea, F Indo, and all they have to show for it is possible China. The Americans now have a solid naval force jaunting about (2 car, 2 bb, 1 dest, 1 tran, 1 sub, with 4 fighters), which means the imminent loss of the 3 IPC island. The Japanese can take F Indo back, but do you see how they’re being absolutely contained? Their first 3 turns they can’t even hold their starting territories, and now they’re losing islands as well. They might be able to scrounge up the money for another carrier, but the US navy is now unbeatable defensively and the slow addition of BB’s means they will soon strafe the Japanese fleet to death and then BB shot the infantry out (after making sure the Japanese income is as low as possible).
Of course, this isn’t to say that the Axis will lose. After all, Germany is off the hook nearly completely. A smart German player will quickly threaten a Sea Lion to negate the UK’s ability to use their 2 IC’s. Actually, the Germans can completely undo a KJF. But this is a fun theory that shows the Japanese are very very containable; they are not omnipotent in spite of their large starting navy + fighters, and in spite of there being no Allied factories within the proximity of Japan’s holdings.
-
I can agree to that allocating more against jap than in a straight kgf strat could work, but still don’t work as good
as pure kgf.
And by rnd 4-5, all powers must both gain and contain or else the opponent powers will win eventually.
To go all in pacific with UK, often means jap don’t do pearl. Then US can land in SFE.
I’ve seen some games where this seems to work, at least as good as US landing in Norway and threatening WE, or
algeria.
But with players on same level I never seen IC in India not taken by jap, or IC in sink also not taken by japs by rnd 3-4, 5 latest. I guess few players dare to risk more russian units against jap than they already have to, within the
kgf doctrine.
I’m convinced that UK IC in India would not work anyhow, but a different kjf could work, played by good players
that is. -
Taking the India IC has its own problems.
Turn 1
UK Builds IC, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to Moscow
Japan Builds 3 transportsTurn 2
Uk Builds 3 tanks, walks 1 inf over, fighters/bomber to India
Japan lands 6 inf 1 art 1 arm into F IndoTurn 3
UK Builds 3 tanks, now has 5 inf 6 tank 3 fig 1 bomb 1 aa
Japan attacks with 6 inf 1 art 1 arm 6 fig 1 bomb 2 bb shots. A tricky battle.Now to be fair, both sides can have more troops. Japan can use infantry from the mainland, and the UK can have allied figs landing in India.
In either case, Japan has to commit a lot of forces to get that IC. And while they’re doing so, that little monster force from Russia walks behind them and chews up manchuria/kwang/findo, and china is back in US hands. Japan maybe can get India, but loses 9 IPCs of mainland in the process with no quick fix. It quickly becomes the US outproducing Japan at 2:1 which means they lose the naval battle soon.
-
Never seen Russia take jap tt’s with decent players.
Even if UK can hold India to rnd 4, G have 50, maybe more ipc.
That’s too tough for Russia to handle. And with Caucus colored grey, G will also threaten India…
The most imortant issue is not that India IC will fall to jap.
Other factors count more. But why is this doomed to fail for allies?The reason is obvious, to me.
In fact, I’m better at analyzing than playing :-D -
A KJF would take a long ass time actually. Just because Russia falls doesn’t mean Germany can end the game. By that time the Japanese are just building inf on their island waiting to die from US bb shots. And then what do you have? US now owns Japan and where would we go from there? I suppose Germany would start by pushing out to sea so the US can’t dump factories, then start trying to research destroyer bombardment and shell the UK out? O_o It’d be so weird to see the late stages after the capitals have fallen in a KJF; what’s the next step for US and Germany O_o?!
-
Back with a vengeance I see Wes…
-
It seems that KJF is an easy way to take Japan out of action.
I do not thing so.In my attempt to KJF, there always a resulting struggle with USA that cause a lot of losses and a slow results achieving.
Britain assistance against Japan is appointed to be decreasing with the passing of rounds. German advance in Africa, so decreasing British income, and Russia increased danger, enforce British attention to Europe and to Germany.Even firts turn all-infantry build is useful for Germany to counter KJF. Slow infantry start to move to URSS from G2 on, while new tanks are built to quickly join the assaulting infantry. I do not thing that spending money in TRN is a wise startegy for Germany. For me it is better to go all land units and assault Russia Head on.
-
Problem 1 with 2 IC Build for UK:
Operation Sea Lion becomes a very tasty opportunity for Germany. Just like Russia can turn her fighters back to Europe, so can Germany turn her fighters back on Asia. Meanwhile, Germany has 6 Fighters, Bomber, 2 Transports, Destroyer, 2 Submarines and a Battleship in Range of London. You’ve built nothing to stop her attack and have removed all the goodies for your defense. (2 fighters in particular.)
Solution? Build 5 Infantry, 1 IC. Put the IC in India. Russian tanks from Caucasus can easily defend India with your British Infantry.
Problem 2: You are worried about Africa!?!?!
Solution? American transports and destroyer coupled with British transports and Battleship land 8 units in Africa a round walking across to India in a train if need be.
Also, you can easily set up a nice British fleet in SZ 30 on UK 1 then take E. Indies on UK 2 followed by Borneo maybe. That’s 8 IPC and Africa is only worth (from UKs start up) 9 IPC. Those two islands, easily protected with massive British and American fleets almost make up all your losses in Africa and you’d need them anyway to reduce Japan to an island nation again.
-
But I already mentioned Sea Lion as a problem. Besides, Germany goes before UK, so UK gets the option to build 2 ICs when it’s feasible, not always.
Africa is a valid concern. The Germans could have a fairly big fleet because of the way I leave the Baltic alone, which would easily screw up a small shuck to Africa.
-
To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself. I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.
That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.
-
To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself. I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.
That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.
Yeah I’m starting to think that too … the game with you helped me realize that :lol:
-
To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself. I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.
That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.
I think the intelligent way to hit the Baltic is to strafe it. Don’t stay there after you take out a couple of units; all you need is to take out a couple of fodder units so that a suicide becomes a bad investment since German aircraft is at risk.
-
This thread was originally about the KJF…. :-)
Anyway, tonight was the second time in a couple of months that I lost a multiplayer game cause US went to pacific.
G bought IC WE, 4 trans.
I played UK, rnd 5 US had 5 BB, 1 AC, 2-3 DD, tanks+inf in Solomon doin nuthin :mrgreen:I did not play well, but with KGF there is possibillity for allie gameplay that makes room for playment, movement, buying that is not 100% perfect at all times.
My philosophy is to play to win, and the 2 cases here where I played UK (not very good) if US went for baltic or italy, allies would win anyway. Even with 8-9 bid for axis I still think allies is easier to play.
-
@AJ:
To be honest, I never saw the financial gain of attacking SZ 5 on UK 1 myself. I’m risking 3 aircraft to enemy fire (and they have a GOOD chance at getting all 3 of them) for a fleet that’s at most annoying, at best impotent.
That, and I’m much better suited to killing it on UK 2 if no carrier is present, UK 4 if one is.
Yeah I’m starting to think that too … the game with you helped me realize that :lol:
LOL, another convert to the “dark” side!
-
There isn’t much reason not to strafe the Baltic navy at least, thinning out the subs. The odds aren’t in favor of the Germans.
-
50/50 you’ll lose at least 1 fighter in the first round of combat.
17/83 you’ll lose at least 1 fighter to the transport in the first round of combat.That’s a potential of 2 fighters for what?
50/50 + 50/50 + 67/33?
With an order of loss of Submarine, Submarine, Transport, Destroyer you have the following odds:
Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
11.34% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bom. no units. : 0 IPCs
29.26% 2: 1 Fig, 1 Bom. 1 Fig. : 10 IPCs
26.55% 1: 1 Bom. 2 Fig. : 20 IPCs
32.85% 0: no units. 2 Fig, 1 Bom. : 35 IPCs
Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
0.31% 4: 1 Tra, 2 Sub, 1 Des. no units. : 0 IPCs
2.13% 3: 1 Tra, 1 Sub, 1 Des. 1 Sub. : 8 IPCs
7.57% 2: 1 Tra, 1 Des. 2 Sub. : 16 IPCs
13.2% 1: 1 Des. 1 Tra, 2 Sub. : 24 IPCs
76.79% 0: no units. 1 Tra, 2 Sub, 1 Des. : 36 IPCsPlease notice you have almost a 60% chance to get cleaned out of RAF to get that 75% chance to sink the German fleet, a fleet that’s mostly impotent and just waiting for you to bring out a battleship and some fodder to sink it with less loss.
-
It allows you to board much earlier. If you have to dance around building a carrier/destroyer just to deal with all that naval fodder, that’s going to set you back a turn or 2, which isn’t good. Weren’t you of the opinion anyways that UK airforce isn’t very useful, since they can’t immediately defend territories? I don’t mind giving up a fighter or two at all, if it means no more threat of luftwaffe strafing.
Please notice you have almost a 60% chance to get cleaned out of RAF
That’s somewhat misleading, since you don’t count the bomber as part of the RAF. I would be disturbed if I lost 2 fighters + 1 bomber, but I do kind of like 66% chance of winning with 1 bomber or more.
If I gave up 2 fighters to clean out the Baltic, then I could land on Norway or Karelia on UK2 without breaking a sweat. The baltic can prevent a crucial landing for a turn.
just waiting for you to bring out a battleship and some fodder to sink it with less loss.
How much less loss, versus the amount of time needed to accrue fodder? Fodder still costs money. Naval units aren’t cheap, you’d probably overbuild 2 tran which is 16 IPCs worth, not a whole lot less than 20 IPCs, but it also took you longer to assemble this fodder and it also required more care in where you deployed your navy so it doesn’t get stung by a massive aistrike with naval fodder.
Also, you never addressed my point - strafing. With strafing, you can limit your losses for the most part. Yes in the 1/12 times you will lose 2 pieces of airforce in one defensive roll, but 1/12 is fairly small (roughly two of these chances equals 1 AA roll). I would point out that there is a 1/6 chance that the UK will strike 3 times, which means it is twice as likely for the UK’s strafe to be more damaging than it is for the Germans’ defense to be more damaging.
-
I love fighters. If the allies don’t have a 3:2 lead in fighters over the axis, I don’t think you have enough fighters!
And no, I wasn’t counting the bomber. But if you do, you still have a 33% chance to clear out all British aircraft.
Meanwhile, you don’t have to build any navy with England. Just focus on Africa for 3 turns and bring the AC, DD, TRN, TRN, SS from the Pacific/Indian oceans to the Atlantic.
-
Have to back Jen up on this one…
UK FIGs are more valuable to UK long term than the Baltic fleet is to Germany. Losing FIGs to kill the Baltic Fleet is a waste of Allied air power.
-
I used to pull Indian fleet back to Atlantic, while relying on USA fleet for coverage of the UK Home Fleet, ferrying units to Africa in first turns.
Problems arise. Russia is alone against German. USA is alone against Japan in the Pacific. UK fleet cruising the Africa is doing nothing of useful for more than 4 turns.
Last times I played England, I used my Indian Fleet against the Japanese, and slowly built up the English Home Fleet.
My objective is to estabilish US shuck to Algeria from the first turn, supported by British, and by 3rd turn swith UK landings to Norway.
Elimination of Baltic Fleet may be executed on 2nd or 3rd turn.For the strafing argument I agree with Jen, those British fighters are precious for British.
Suggested Topics
