Converting to KJF

@oysteilo After youve built as many carriers as you can fill with the starting planes, I think it might be best to play defensively with the navy, and focus 100% on land.

The US will overcome the Japanese at some point, so that will result in the loss of the DEI, and convoy raiding of your coastal territories. If you’ve got all of China under control, that’s 12 IPCs that cant be taken away, and if you grab the russian territories, that another 5-7 IPCs that are guaranteed. If you combine that with the occasional lucky convoy rolls, youve got like 30 IPCs per round to work on breaking India, or infantry on japan. Or just solidifying controll over the stuff you have making it harder and harder for the allies to make progress

@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.  :-)

I picked up another copy of 2nd edition from Amazons boxing day sale for &30 CDN.
You might keep an eye out for sales on major holidays like Memorial Day/the 4th of July/Thanksgiving/…

Thrift stores are also good places for deals as are local conventions.

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.

@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 guess if I was in your position, I would use classic game pieces for the new countries:

Old Germans are gray I think, they could be Italians, Old Russians would be good for Anzac. Old UK for India,  Old U.S. for China, France could be old Japanese or Fortress America Southern Invaders.

France seldom builds units, in fact all you really need are some infantry for later African moves. Tactical bombers if you do not care could be fortress America bomber pieces, use some helicopters for smaller countries if they need any.

I rarely see many tactical bomber builds. Maybe Russia, and America might build some. Carriers and destroyers are built a lot in my games. Since transports are non combatants in 1940, just use transports as Destroyers, I rarely build cruisers, so just use a battleship with a penny underneath it as a cruiser. Just use paper to represent transports. Not sure if this is a good idea, but mechanized units can be risk pieces or even monopoly houses…

Just a few tips with not too much insight. Hope this helps.

I just posted this on another thread. What if the Allies go KFJ right from the beginning of the game?

On R1 Russia declares war on Japan moves its 6 inf from Buryatia to take Korea and sends its planes/armor to the Far East. The US moves all its units from Eastern/Central US to Hawaii/Western US and spends all 52 IPCs on the Pacific then Japan will have a long hill to climb.
It will have to deal with a reinforced US fleet, with the Russians/Chinese pressuring from the north and China plus the UK/ANZAC, while trying to capture the DEI and defend SZ6.

Of course it all depends on how the Axis will respond to this threat but from round 3 onwards the US can start sending units to the UK/Europe/Africa to try to contain Germany/Italy.