Converting to KJF

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it happens, there was some confusion about when the planes actually landed, so it turns out both my opponent and I were correct in a sense.

The UK planes actually landed on Greece during Italy’s turn after an adjacent UK carrier was damaged, so the move was legal after all.

My bad for incorrectly believing the planes landed on Greece during the UK turn, and neither of us realized what the other was talking about.  :-D

Good to see our fellow AAAers always ready to help out with good answers, though, so thanks again all.  :-)

Ok So first priority is to prevent any German Sealion Attacks. For this you would build Infantry and a few fighters.

You should have about 25-30 income so a Fighter and 6 inf isn’t out of the question.

Once you have secured you home island its time to consider offensive operations.

A good idea is to reinforce Africa ASAP. If you have managed to grab Persia or secure Egypt a factory here is a good way to boost India’s Defenses or annoy Italy.

Amphibious operations against France or Norway can also be considered but this will require many turns investment in fleet building or else the ships will be sunk as quickly as they are built. Typically a decent fleet will need carriers, destroyers and subs to protect the transports.

Typical build might be (

tank + Mech + Inf = 13 (for S-AFRICA)
Plane (str  ftr or tac) 10 - 12
1-2 inf to round out purchases

After about turn 5 you will see which way game is going (based on uS pacific v Atlantic focus) Then you can turn your attention to helping India or reinforcing US moves in Europe.

I start with a purchase of 3 CVs for the US.  You can get planes to fill them up later on.  It is nice to stack a bunch of fighters in Midway.  If the Japanese are careless, your planes can hit SZ 6 and then land on the carrier group in CZ7.  It doesn’t happen often, but is beautiful when you can pull off that raid.

On turn 2, I transition to subs and fighters as the primary way to damage their fleet.  You can also convoy raid their economy to bits if you can get a few subs into the appropriate sea locations.

Afterwards, I do mostly subs plus a destroyer.  Depending on the Japanese spending and success against China, I transition to the European side.

Well said on everything. The only thing I might disagree on are the Russian units in the east. In a KJF game you need those 20 units to defend Moscow, otherwise Moscow just rolls over and dies way too easily.

With a 22 bid have you seen anyone bid a carrier sub with UK? This would allow UK to stack 92 depending on what Germany buys.

@MajorJuggler:

You need to understand probability and statistics to comprehensively answer this question. As a point of reference, I covered the prerequesite material around the 3rd year of my undergraduate engineering degree, so the call for “Math Geeks” is well titled here. :-)

Geee I surely do wish I had me an education too so’s I could know them things  :roll:

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I am having a good game against the allies as they have been splitting their points in the Alantic and Pacific.  That being said I don’t know how I could have stopped them had the gone all in the Alantic.  I seems to me Germany and Italy need time to prepare for that sort of thing.