Was KJF really that bad?

@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

I agree with Simon’s conclusion that Moscow falls G6. No need for Sea lion after UK1 DOW on Japan. This game is going to end very badly for the Allies unless the Axis player is very weak. Play some tougher competition!

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.

@Ichabod:

From my perspective when playing Axis…

From my perspective, the Jedi are evil… oh wait… wrong thread…  :-P

Here’s a funny quote from a site that talks about dice towers:

“Historically, the Ancient Romans used dice towers to control their dice, this being a natural outgrowth of the Roman penchant for building siege towers to control the Greeks, etc. Somewhere along the line – probably around the invention of gunpowder – sappers came into favor and dice towers fell out of fashion.  […]  Dice towers have the added advantage of forcing a minimum level of randomization to the throw of each die, which is a very good thing if you’ve ever gamed with one of those guys who likes to let the die slide off the edge of his palm and cry out, “Another six!” (This is a technique that the ancient Romans called “signor cheatypants”.)”

@knp7765:

In one game I played a few months back, I think it was Alpha+2, both Germany and Italy failed to take France round 1.  Then UK sent some stuff in to back up the units France was able to purchase and believe it or not, Germany failed a second time.  This time Italy managed to finish off France though.  Very weird.  Axis lost that game by the way.

I’ve seen this happen. Makes for an exciting couple French turns.

@suprise:

So here’s the Question How many ALPHA+2 games have you played , and what is the win lose ratio of Axis to Allied , not whether you won or lost, and do you pick your countries  or randomly draw them.
   For us the Axis have taken the last few
   I like the sound of your counter to the Kill Japan First , anyway just wondering how the record looks for your ALPHA+2 win loss as Axis and Allied
   I should probably start a new topic with that question or two table top or lap top

My one on one games, Axis win a lot, but in our 6 player group games, the allies win a lot.

@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.