I never see an Egypt that is statistically possible to liberate with England anymore. People generally hit them with the entire German Army and stack it like it’s the end of the world (mainly because I never get more then one hit, but bids have gotten up to 9 IPC for 3 infantry in Libya so that’s a 5 infantry, 2 armor, fighter, bomber attack on Egypt now. No way England’s killing 4 infantry, 2 armor with 3 infantry, fighter, bomber.)
Given that, I’m more inclined to move the fleet to SZ 30 and dare Japan to attack it if I am going KJF. Followed by an IC in S. Africa and 5 Infantry in England to protect against Sea Lion, I can move the British northern fleet out to the Pacific if I want too.
As for Japan in SZ 45, yea, that could be annoying. But no more so then Japan’s Battleship in SZ 52.
Question is, what does Japan do on Japan 2 when you have:
SZ 35 (Bottom of the board, halfway between Australia and S. Africa): 2 Transports, 2 Infantry, Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, 2 Fighters (UK)
SZ 55 (Los Angeles): Battleship, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, Transport
You’ve got a BB, AC in SZ 45, BB, AC in SZ 60 and 5 Transports scattered around. (Assuming you lost the submarine and destroyer on J1.)
@Cmdr:
I never see an Egypt that is statistically possible to liberate with England anymore. People generally hit them with the entire German Army and stack it like it’s the end of the world (mainly because I never get more then one hit, but bids have gotten up to 9 IPC for 3 infantry in Libya so that’s a 5 infantry, 2 armor, fighter, bomber attack on Egypt now. No way England’s killing 4 infantry, 2 armor with 3 infantry, fighter, bomber.)
I typically play TripleA ladder, where you there are bid restrictions on placement. Anglo-Egypt is sometimes too stacked for a UK1 counter, but a fair amount of time it is not. Note this IS for TripleA ladder.
Given that, I’m more inclined to move the fleet to SZ 30 That’s west-southwest of Australia. and dare Japan to attack it if I am going KJF. Followed by an IC in S. Africa and 5 Infantry in England to protect against Sea Lion, I can move the British northern fleet out to the Pacific if I want too.
As for Japan in SZ 45 Solomon Islands, yea, that could be annoying. But no more so then Japan’s Battleship in SZ 52 Hawaii; this presupposes Pearl Harbor heavy, which is quite possible given THOSE UK moves…
Question is, what does Japan do on Japan 2 when you have:
SZ 35 (Bottom of the board, halfway between Australia and S. Africa): 2 Transports, 2 Infantry, Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, 2 Fighters (UK) Well, we’ll get to that in a moment.
SZ 55 (Los Angeles): Battleship, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, TransportYou’ve got a BB, AC in SZ 45 Solomons, BB, AC in SZ 60 East of Japan and 5 Transports scattered around. (Assuming you lost the submarine and destroyer on J1.)
Mm . . . not rly. First, the beginning of J2 you describe would hardly be my Japan move in any event, given that the US can attack the Solomon battleship and loaded carrier with 1 battleship 1 bomber 1 fighter 1 transport. True, these are not great odds for the US, but considering that US has little to lose and much to gain with a little swing of the dice, it is a fairly nasty risk for Japan to take, considering that movement of the second Japanese carrier to Solomons should cost the Japanese little. Note that I do see this beginning of J2 sometimes, but that’s only when the UK has used some of its UK fleet to assure that position.
Second, here’s the situation - if the UK has bought 5 inf 1 IC at South Africa, this is a strong signal for KJF. However, without an IC at India, and with UK splitting IPCs between UK and South Africa, Germany and Japan should both be able to expand into Europe/Asia with relatively little problem - although late Africa will be a problem for the Axis, the lack of UK and presumably US support to Russia will be a countering problem for the Allies.
Third, Japan is not locked into Pearl Harbor, and the Kwangtung transport is alive. Although it is costly because of the UK AA gun, Japan can attack India with up to 1 battleship bombardment, 4 infantry, 1 bomber, 4 fighter. That’s quite a bit. I assume that UK will not want to attack Japanese forces of 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 transport with 2 transport 1 carrier 1 destroyer 2 fighter (they are perfectly welcome to, but will at the least suffer a horrible drain on their resources, and India will probably - almost certainly - be lost forever) And if you want to say that Russia sent fighters to India after a W. Russia only attack, why, that too is perfectly acceptable, as this opens the line for KGF Kitchen Sink attack with surviving Belorussian AND surviving Ukraine infantry available to power an early tradeoff with Russia, either German aircraft can attack West Russia with no problem (if the Russian AA gun is at Russia), or the Germans can strategic bomb Russia (if the Russian AA gun is at West Russia, the Germans can fly and bomb, and fly back over the W. Russia AA gun during noncombat at which point the Russian AA gun will not fire, so no risk).
Fourth, EVEN attacking India, Japan can likely still afford to hit Pearl Harbor with the Pearl Heavy version, as the Japanese sub has survived. It’s 1 carrier 1 sub 1 destr 1 battleship 2 fighter at the very least, and Japan has a discretionary transport.
Of course, Japan can’t do everything. Japan only has a limited number of air available to crack India, attack Pearl, and crack China on J1. Still, it is clear that Japan has a good number of choices that can be bad for the Allies, particularly a J2 industrial complex in India.
Even then, I haven’t mentioned the possibility that Japan simply does a normal Pearl light / China. Britain’s got a lot of interesting possibilities stemming from the fact that the UK carrier allows the UK fighters to harass unescorted Japanese transports (note the UK bomber is probably in the area too), but there are Japanese lines that I think work out quite decently, probably starting with J2 Solomon fleet splitting 1 carrier to east of Japan and rest to New Guinea, Borneo, or East Indies, still threatening and probably preventing an early US attack on Solomons, but also threatening the UK fleet at India.
To answer the original question, I think it is possible, but that doesn’t mean Africa should be ignored, but you don’t want to continue to send tons of units to Africa every turn or you’ll get too thinned out in Europe. And in most cases I assume I’ll lose my med fleet on either G3 or G4 so I don’t anticipate having anything grey in Africa beyond G5 or so.
I do agree with Nix that when Germany is kicked out you can have Japan set up to reclaim some of it or at least be an annoyance with part of its fleet stationed in sz 34 (BB, ac, ftrs).
With an Power Africa bid (8-9 ipc all to Lib), you can look to take Egy on G1 with enough force to prevent a counter. On G2, you blitz your armor while using your trn/bb to take Trj. You should have all of Afr (except for possibly Alg, Safr, and Ken). By the time G3 rolls around you lost Lib, but should be able to pick up Ken and now you are looking to either defend Egy with enough to get your original tanks out of Afr and into the Mid east or write off those tanks and use them to eventually take Safr while you get your ships into the Indian Ocean (assuming the Allies have planes within range of Sz 15) and look to take Mad or maybe threaten India or Aus depending on your Japan strat.
In this case all you spent with Germany is the bid (8-9), 2 units on G1 and 2 more units in G2. Everything else you bought should be used in Europe and this gives you about 4-5 turns of gaining some Africa income and gives Japan time to get to at least 5 trns and 1 IC for their Asia push.
So as Germany is getting kicked out of Afr, (if you can retreat your German troops through Egy to Trj and to Per that is a bonus), you want to make your push in Europe so as you move to Ukr any remnants of your Africa core hit Per with Japan reinforcing and in position to take either Kaz or Novo.
Even with the restriction of 1 unit per territory for the bid, you can EASILY see an Egypt stacked with 3 armor plus an infantry or two/or artillery after attacking with:
2 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor, Transport, 2 Fighters, Bomber.
Yea, the old trick (armor to alg, inf to lyb). 1 unit for territory limit don’t do much at Africa (is better at Ukrania, of course)
Still I think 8 bid is tempting the luck and 9 almost suicide against competent axis player… too many sneaky plays for axis…
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
1 unit per territory does hamper Ukraine, but that’s no big loss. I don’t know a single player who plans on having 6 fighters at the start of their turn. We all almost assume we’ll lose Ukraine to Russia.
Yea, the old trick (armor to alg, inf to lyb). 1 unit for territory limit don’t do much at Africa (is better at Ukrania, of course)
Still I think 8 bid is tempting the luck and 9 almost suicide against competent axis player… too many sneaky plays for axis…
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa. That is a significant difference in playing the Germans. I completely disagree that in a situation in which you are limited to placing one unit per territory, that a placement in Ukraine is better, particularly when you can gain the advantage of G2 tank blitz through Africa.
(edit) - Or turbo India with 1 inf at French Indochina and 1 tank at Kwangtung. Although I haven’t seen this variation much, due probably to its vulnerability to Russian/UK moves (/edit)
As far as 9 bid, that is the TripleA standard bid - restrictions are that enemy capitals cannot be attacked except by strat bombing on first round, and that no more than one unit can be placed per territory. At the time my old record was retired, I had 8-9 wins and 0 losses playing with Allies, against some of the strongest ladder players.
So I think I know what I’m talking about when I say that a 9 bid is really the minimum an Axis player needs against a competent Allied player under those strictures. You could say my opponents were incompetent, but I was I think ranked about 17 out of 320 or whatever the total number is when my account retired, and you don’t get there by playing against retards.
The most abusable 8+ bid strategy (unusable in TripleA) is Baltic transport followed by long range aircraft tech roll for invasion of London. Apart from that, though, the Axis really need a good sized bid just to stand a chance in hell. The Axis can “sneak around” all they want, I will just ram units down their throats until they choke - which I wouldn’t be able to do if they had those extra starting units.
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
@Mazer:
1 inf at Libya 1 armor at Algeria lets Germany hold Anglo-Egypt past the end of UK1, allowing G2 tank blitz throughout Africa.
Tanks are STRONG!
If I could only keep ONE change from AA 2nd to AAR, it would be tanks defending at 3.
And yes, the tank blitz of Africa is great. Which is why you need to make sure Egypt falls with 4 or 5 ground units left. I’ll even kill off a fighter if it means Egypt has 5 ground units (or 4) because it stops England from winning, and most likely keeps you with 2 or 3 tanks.
Fighters can fly to Africa. Tanks need a transport. So that’s a double benefit.
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
@Cmdr:
Nah, bids are going up lately. I’ve been winning a lot of AAR bids at 12 IPC which makes me wonder what my opponents are bidding.
Ugh! :-o Wining bids with 12? :-o It lets you sub at z8 plus 1 inf at lyb (or ukr) and 1 ipc to japan (for buying IC+2 tra). What bid the opponent? 13? :-o
Sure there are more wicked combos with 12 ipc bid, but that knowlegde is too dangerous for human mind. Better if keeps unknown 8-)
Edit: hope no one is planning bid 16 or more. 2 trannies at baltic? :-o
D***it, Funcioneta, I keep saying that the bid is a function of the ruleset under which the bid is placed.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that Jen’s talking about one of those sites that only lets you preplace half your bid. I’m pretty sure AAMC goes that way.
No, I’m talking full placement bid, but you can only put one unit per territory.
FIDA bids, which are 50/50 with any remainder being cash not units, the bids I’ve been placing and winning are closer to 18 IPC.
And yes, it allows the submarine to SZ 8, but most players who get a naval unit make it a transport in SZ 14, which I feel is much more function able than 2 ground units in North Africa, if you ask me.
Anyway, bid 12 IPC, for me, is:
3 Infantry in Ukraine
2 IPC to Germany
1 IPC to Japan
This allows a round 1 purchase of 14 infantry for Germany and saves the fighter in Ukraine (which is more important then the 3 infantry, btw. 3 Infantry = 9 IPC, 1 Fighter = 10 IPC. So it’s like upping the bid by 1 without actually upping the bid!)
14 units G1… scary :-o
Even with half bid you can try things as 2 inf to ger, 1 ipc to japan, 5 ipcs to ger (that lets you, say ac, 1 armor, 8 inf G1, or 2 figs, 8 inf … pretty huge boost to axis anyway).
Of course, bid system changes the … bid… :-)
for me FIDA means 16 IPC.
Transport in SZ 14
Germany + 8 IPC
Gives me 48 IPC to spend on G1 which is 16 Infantry, full production in Germany and S. Europe. I can still hit Egypt with 3 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Fighter, Bomber (maybe a second fighter if Ukraine lives) which is way over kill.
UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.
I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think) and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think) then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened). After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
Different situations call for different measures. There have been times that I hunt the UK navy on Jap1.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think)
I typically see the UK bomber in Africa following a UK retake of Anglo-Egypt. And instead of seeing the UK bomber in Siberia, when I or other Allied players I see send the UK bomber east, it’s usually to China. But, I understand your point, yes. Although I don’t personally see it a lot, it is tactically sound, particularly if the Germans didn’t offer UK a target for the UK bomber (Anglo-Egypt stacked and Baltic sea build), but even then sometimes UK may choose to do it regardless of German move.
and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think)
Not so much. Because with 1 batttleship 4 transport east of Japan, any Allied attack first has to overcome that free hit on the Jap battleship, then hose the transports, and that means any particular Allied attack will probably fail at the cost of 1 or perhaps 2 Jap transports. This applies to both the US1 and the UK2 attack, and after that, Japan has considerable freedom of movement with its fleet. In other words, yes you can land there, but why would you carry out such an attack in the first place?
then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened).
As previously mentioned in this post, you CAN attack the Jap battleship and 4 transports east of Japan that I advocate with US1 fighter and bomber, and you CAN attack the surviving Jap battleship and 2-3 transports with UK2 destroyer and bomber, but it’s a pretty bad attack. The UK destroyer doesn’t count for much, but you’re trading two Allied fighters and a bomber for 2-3 Jap transports that Japan just builds next round. And the UK sub should not be able to hit the Jap fleet on UK2 barring extraordinary circumstances. (It is likely that UK sub attacked Japanese Solomon sub and possibly survived, but Jap1’s move combined with light Pearl has a good probability of seeing that UK sub sunk, barring a UK Australia transport block or other such move - which granted, you do see, but I think rarely due to its quick weakening of the UK Pacific fleet). In other words, yes - you can THEORETICALLY come up with some nasty Allied attacks, but I think in practice the Japs have sufficient resources and flexibility to counter, barring extraordinary Allied measures (in which case I think Germany would benefit from the diversion of Allied resources against Japan).
After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
If you want to go aggro with a US Pacific fleet, by all means, go ahead. You’ve already killed off a US fighter and bomber and hence reduced your hitting power, while knocking off a few Jap transports that Japan can easily afford to lose - PLUS, remember that after the US1 Pacific build, Japan can see the US coming and can start with its 1 fighter a turn build. With 2 trns 1 fighter 2 infantry (Japanese income on J1 will probably be 32 after it probably takes China), Japan’s on its way both to expansion in Asia and on its way to defense of the Pacific. You can be just as aggressive as you want with US, but if you try to force the issue in the face of Japan’s two battleships and two carriers, you WILL see the awesome power of the Japanese air force and navy; it is hardly “game over” for the Japs.
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]
Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure, but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns. We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
Unfortunately most of my losing games involved some mismanagement of Africa, for either side !
What I think:
Controlling it with not too much investment is the true key. A balance of IPC’s invested vs. IPC income flow between all theaters of action: Africa, Europe, Asia and everywhere…
I think a whole “treatise” may describe the possible complexities here… land, sea, air, ally cooperation…
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure
I’ve played plenty of games, and I’m sure enough for both of us.
but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns.
UK doesn’t have a Pacific fleet without giving up stuff to do it, and can’t unite that UK fleet with the US fleet without giving up even more stuff. In other words, you have this great plan about how US and UK are going to go together and bring justice to the people, hand in hand. Unfortunately, Japan has this plan too, and it involves kicking the Allies in the 'nads.
We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
Jenforces much?
Unless the Jap player sucks balls, it isn’t going to be all that easy. Moving that UK fleet around to join the US fleet is a pain in the ass. Try it in a game, and you’ll see what I mean. And then you want to just drop an IC in Borneo or New Guinea? Fighter overbuild? Suddenly popping a UK factory in India? Just what the hell are Germany and Japan doing all this time? Sitting around staring at the wall? Because if they are, your plan is going to rock their socks.
Planning on your opponents being super retarded is - well, let’s just say that maybe that ain’t such a great plan.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
I have no problems with the goals you put forth. But I get the distinct impression that you expect all this to happen very quickly - unification of the Allied fleet, invasion of Borneo/New Guinea, then UK5ish setup of IC at india. I’m saying it just isn’t going to happen like that. The US eventually muscles over Japan, but it takes a fair amount of time to secure a 4 IPC island, especially if the Jap player knows what he/she is doing.
Uniting the American and British fleets isn’t as hard as NPB suggests. He hates dealing with KJF because he’s not used too it and it makes him think instead of following one of the more established counters to Allied dominance.
First, unification in SZ 30. Switch has shown it is possible to sink the British fleet in SZ 30, but he’s also been too chicken to do it himself. Reason is, it also destroys most of the Japanese fleet and almost the entire Japanese Air Force to do it by the time America counters you may as well have started the game with no Japanese ships at all.
Second, sail UNDER Australia while building up the Americans.
Third, unify at will. Though, I’d recommend using the British submarine as a block against the Japanese fleet which will most likely have put in a 3rd carrier at the least, maybe even some more submarines.
That said, unless you get A LOT of practice, I would NOT recommend KJF tactics for league or tournament games. It is very unforgiving for the allies and you have to really KNOW what you are doing with Russia and England to pull it off. Not to mention, it all kind of hinges on what Germany does and how well it does it.
After all, you are not going to see a lot of KJF if Germany has 40 tanks in Egypt on Round 1. (Using ridiculous numbers on purpose.)
Likewise, if Russia takes out Ukraine and W. Russia without loss and England sees a soft target in W. Europe that can kill off another 2 fighters reducing the German air force in half, then you wouldn’t want to go KJF either.
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
