Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
If you are playing against an Axis player who knows what he is doing and axis get average rolls for the first turn then KFG is the best strategy. But sometimes the player taking Germany goes completely on defensive against a possible KGF right from the start and that can give enough time for the Allies to reduce Japan before Russia falls.
On Classic KFJ it is nuts to use. On Revised it is barely better. But on 1942 there are a few new factors coming from the new unit rules that help out the Allies: the inability for the Japanese transports to be used as fodder and the new submarine rules.
with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…
Alaska complex costs 15, is cheaper than ONE BB. The next turn, it allows you to build TWO BB’s each turn. Skipping the IC will give you 3 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, and 2 you built in turn 1 in Western US), building the IC will give you 4 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, 1 built in turn 1 in Western US, 2 built in turn 2 in Alaska). Who’s threatening Japan faster?
Edit: I’m not saying this is ideal, but considering aggressiveness, it’s faster with the IC. Hell, it’s just a fun strat, it’s not trying to break the game, just providing a fun alternative to KGF or sub+ftr war in the Pacific.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
2 IC’s for UK? After G1, the only naval unit they have is the Z1 transport, which will get killed by the German SS’s once they move to Z7. The India IC will fall to Japan
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
If Russia is busy defending India, what’s stopping Germany from killing Russia?
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Russia doesnt need to defend india for this to work… but it is a bit riskier than other strategies… it all depends on the prior moves, wether or not germany takes Egypt (if they dont you possibly got another fighter)
also Uk could possible buy the India IC in the 2nd round again depending on the moves
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Sometimes as the allies all you need do is make the game last longer than 6 rounds. usually the allies have a better chance of winning in longer games
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Japan keeps its fleet in Japan? Then the complex has proven its worth… Apart from that, you don’t have to buy it on A1, I was just giving an example how with IC could be faster than without. If you buy it at the right time, when you know Japan doesn’t want to / isn’t able to prevent you building 2 BB’s next turn there, then it’s a good idea, because you get 1 extra BB threatening Japanese waters. Ofcourse, the BB-strafing idea doesn’t need the IC, but it can be a boost at the right moment.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Lol, the hole Alaska-IC + BB’s isn’t about being efficient, it’s about a cool game. If you want efficiency, go KGF :roll:
One house rule I play with is Colonial Empire. Basically, on the first turn only, Britian can build an industrial Complex in one spot for the cost of 10 IPCs that can produce it’s units immediately that turn on these territories–
India
South Africa
Australia
Eastern Canada
Maybe it’s unbalanced, but Britain is in a position to be immediately screwed by Germany in Africa and Japan in Asia/Australia.
This would help the USA by making it easier for Britain to defend a front, leaving the US capable to fight on the other Theater or double efforts on that front.
Thoughts?
My thoughts are that it is over powered. You could establish quickly and easily a foothold in both areas. It would make taking Africa or India a hard task for the axis and most likely costly if they do take it. I feel it would give the Allies a noticeable advantage.
I agree with Concealer. Allies already have a noticeable advantage in 1942 economically and the only way for the Axis to make up that is to be able to take Africa (with either Germany from the North or Japan from the East or both). If you allow UK to get an advantage like that it will allow the Allies to focus completely on (1) hammering Europe and (2) reinforcing the Soviets. 1 means that Germany gets crushed quickly (as opposed to slowly as in a normal game) by the Allied boa constrictor, and 2 means that Japan is left out in the cold on the eastern side of the board.
The Axis strategy in 1942 is to either take Moscow quickly before the Allies can get the constrictor set up, or to bleed the UK dry in Africa so they have no ability to get the crush running. Either way they have to use their superior positioning and economic advantage over Russia before the greater US/UK economy can overun them, which becomes impossible if the US/UK gain better positioning from the get go and can focus completely on overunning the Axis.
Yea after 2 test games we decided to change that to only the 10 IPCs part. When I normally play the best 2 people play Axis so the Allies get beaten up pretty badly.
[US IC in Sin: Pre-Requisite]
I’m in the middle of a game where J1 failed to take Chi in an attack, so on US1 I decided to build an IC in Sin now that there existed a 1 territory buffer (Chi) for my IC; moved the 1 Russian inf originating from Nov (on R2) down to Chi along with the 2 US inf in Sin to Chi. This seems to me to be the only reasonable basis for building an early IC in Sin - J has to fail to take Chi. Otherwise, you have to perform an all-in strategy centered around it from the beginning. Is this the general agreement on the forums?
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. True in the older versions and AA1942. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
Bidding Japan 10 may make things different and make a better game. That would make it interesting. I played a game like that using my normal strategy of KGF. Moscow has fallen and Germany, very weak, but still lives.
But my counter to the next time is not going to be in inefficient use of my resources by going naval on them. It will be a more careful coordinated attempt to take out Germany. KGF in all AA except AA Global (and I am not even quite sure of that yet) is the only way, unless you are playing with inexperienced players or house rules that change the structure of the game.
AA games have always been broken and unrealistic in the Pacific. China is way to weak and Japan is way too strong. It is just broken that way. AAanniversary attempted to fix that I hear. AAPacific did a very poor job of fixing it but went in the right direction. It still requires a house rule of China going first and its infantry only costing 2IPC’s.
If Japan fails or merely pulls off a J1 CHN invasion, a US1 SIN IC is a very good choise.
First of all, the China pass (CHN-SIN) is forever closed for the Japanese who will not only miss some valuable IPC but will also have to take the long road to Moscow (either IND-PER or BUR-YAK).
Russians (and even Brits) can easily reinforce SIN, making it a lost cause for Japan who can throw everything they can against that IC and still gain nothing.
And it gets even worse than this. If Japan stops building pressure against that SIN IC, USA can retake CHN and threaten the rear of the Japanese forces heading to Moscow, not to mention the results of a succesfull FIC/KWA/MAN expedition.
And finally, a SIN IC is the easiest way for the US to reinforce Russia, instead of having to cross an ocean or a desert to reach Moscow.
Even if Japan finally manages to capture that IC, a strong russian armored force can immediately counter.
Now, to the main theme of the thread, imho (and given J1 heavily assaulted CHN making it dangerous for a SIN IC to be deployed) US1 should be DD,AC,BB. If Japan has anything less than BB,AC,2 fgt in SZ52, counter there with BB, SS (submerged) 2 fgt and bmb. Land HWI fgt to BUR (if 6 R inf still exist there). I always go for US pasific strat, and the goal is to land in EIN (or BOR) by US3, thus stabbing Japan in its soft belly (south pasific) and being able to land in Africa and AES from the Red Sea side (avoiding those atlantic G SS wolfpacks).
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.
Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.
As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.
But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.
The changes in the game from Revised to 1942 are minor but they do have an impact on the Pacific: Japan can’t sink the 2 Allied subs until it buys destroyers and its transport fleet is useless on defense, unlike Revised where the 3-4 Japanese transports where by themselves a deterrent against any US attack. With the right moves by the UK/Russia on round 1 Japan will find itself having to make choices about what to attack or not, which may give the US the right opportunity. The trick is that most Japanese players have no idea of how to respond to a US Pacific strat. And to those who do just buying planes for Japan won’t do the trick because of the new submarine rules.
In general, the dynamics have changed a little bit but they have changed. On Classic it was crazy to go Pacific, on Revised it was nearly impossible and on 1942 it can work but not always.
In both theory and practice, it’s easier for USA to win the Pacific war than it was in Revised. The new naval rules make it harder for Japan to defend its fleets since transports have no military value. Add to that cheaper bombers and more effective submarines and you have a recipe for Allied success in the Pacific. Japan should have trouble keeping pace with USA spending. If Japan opts for mainland factories instead of transports, then its tough to have enough money to use the factories and continue to control the sea zones around Japan.
The catch (and what makes Pac strats hard) is that the game balancing is different than Revised. Japan’s initial position may be weaker than Revised, but Germany is stronger and it’s tough for UK to put enough pressure on Germany to save Russia.
