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

@Spendo02:

I don’t see much value in the 70 IPC of Trn once you take London and get your offensive units back on mainland Europe.Â

Spending resources to address their protection seems less efficient than boots on the ground pushing back the Russian advance.

5 Transports and the fleet stay in the Baltic Sea - now you can ferry your infantry/artillery builds directly into Novgorod each round (+13 units a round in Novgorod - there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell Russia is getting it back - ever.)
5 Transports go down to Gibraltar - land in Morocco and join with large Italian fleet - which will probably exist unless England went no defense for England - and take Brazil, Africa, W. Indies and then slide the rest down around the Cape for Madagascar.

There’s a lot of things you can use the transports for.  You could use them to set up a train service to Arkhangelsk through the Arctic Ocean and the other half to shuttle troops from Berlin.

@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.

First things first, watch the economics,  as long as you are making MORE money, you are in charge,  and can trade piece for piece all day.

Second thing, remember you only need to NOT LOSE Hawaii and NSW.  Get stacks of ground units into those territories - mixed with planes + an AA and hold.

Third,  as often as possible build Transports and Men.  Take islands, forcing Japan to take them back, even if it costs you the tran to steal the territory in the first place.  Again, try to watch the economics here.

What this all does - is dilute’s Japan’s ability to focus it’s economics on one specific target.  If Japan can’t focus and take it’s objectives, it can’t win.  If you slowly start to swing the economic balance in your favour - 1 island at a time, eventually Japan will run out of gas - and because they lose - you win.

It’s all a widdling factor.  Widdle widdle widdle till you win

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.

I think Larry should change the rules for tech to this: buying dice costs 10, and you have to roll a 6 still, but you can then choose the tech you want. And no tokens either.

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.

I posted my reply in the other thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20063.0 ) so it’s a bit easier to follow. No use having two threads about the same confusing the discussion!

8-)