Was KJF really that bad?

@sire-fred Caroline is off limits til turn 4 and ql is useful for operations in the far south. That is convenient for the Japanese. They can threaten Calcutta and shield themselves at the same time.

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.

I think, that’s the way to go.
11 or less victory cities is too easy for the axis.
12 victory cities for less experienced axis players (7VC on europe and 5 on the pacific side seems like the allies are loosing on both sides. Only 1 victory city to go for eiter a european or pacific win).
13 victory cities for experienced axis players (Win on one side of the board but don’t loose the other)
14 victory cities seems to be too difficult, but if you want a challenge as the axis, or if you really, really want to play the axis

Keep it global, even for the axis. (My personal opinion.)

@techroll42:

Got both for $70 each.

Well some of us get to school late via the shortbus :P

@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

@kcdzim:

@SalothSar:

USA kills it

Are you even paying attention, or just mass spamming/trolling?

We’re talking about UK1.  Not US6.

i do not think he is purposefully spamming, but he is spamming. i have just read many salothsar responses that are one word or less than a full sentence. his posts do not add anything to most threads. he posts opinions as if his are superior to others and has made personal attacks.

salothsar, i recommend you be less negative towards others.