US 1st Turn KGF

Utz, the nice thing about KGF in Revised is it can be deployed flexibly.  Some opponents will stack Western and won’t allow the Western stack tactics I’m talking about, forcing a long game.

The conventional winning strategy for Allies against an expert level Axis is UK shucks to Arch/4, USA shucks to Africa/12.  Russia first focuses on dead-zoning Karelia by getting as many units to Western Russia as it can, then it gets men to Persia in conjunction with UK air/armor that landed in Arch.  From there, the Americans reinforce Persia.  Hold Persia and Allies can win the economic war.

If Axis is skilled, this makes for a long game.  If at all possible, it’s nice to shake things up with more aggressive strategies, and that’s where mass landings on Western along with aggressive Russian attacks come in.  From SZ 4 or SZ 12, the Allies can hit Western, so there’s a lot of room for flexibility.

Re USA1 ACs, it’s not strictly necessary to buy one if UK will land in 12, but it can be useful if UK will drop stuff in Europe immediately.

I’ve also seen someone use an 8 bid to get another transport for this move.  He took UK but America took it back and since there was no pressure on Russia for a few turns the guy ended up loosing.

@ncscswitch:

The North African Dominance (NAD) strat is FAR superior to the Brazil IC strat for keeping Africa in Allied hands.

It requires fewer transports, achieves the same purpose in allowing for Allied landings south of Sahara, and does so with far fewer IPC’s committed by the Allies.  It also maintains an Allied shift-threat to northern Europe, AND an Allied threat to Southern Europe that the Brazil IC does not accomplish.

But hey, if you want to waste the cash, feel free.

Yea, but you taught me very well how to bottle up the North African Dominance strategy with very little effort and resources with Germany.

Sorry to say it, but NAD is not superior, it’s inferior against a veteran player.  Too easy for Germany/Japan to dump in Egypt and now Germany is +9 IPC and England/America is +2 IPC (Algeria, Libya) for a net +7 to the Axis.

However, if moving from Brazil/S. Africa, the reverse is true.  Germany/Japan may have Egypt, Libya and Algeria but that’s only 4 IPC while England has the rest +7 IPC.

Just the way I see it, though.

lol… :-D

I think UK needs it the most since it has the job of attacking the Germans first. UK’s IPCs are going downhill rapidly, and it can’t mount much of an offensive on ~24 IPC income.

Lately I have been going heavy Kreigsmarine.  1 Carrier is silly if you don’t reinforce it.  2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 submarines, maybe another transport in there, now you are forcing England to build navy, not ground forces.  That’s almost the equivalent of removing one power from the game right there.

I move the TRN in SZ 40 with the two troops to India where if the timing is right I build an IC.

As far a s Russian troops I mass all the troops from SFE (2 INF) and Buryat (2 INF) in Yakut (2 INF for a total of 6 INF. Maybe move a tank from Moscow. It works but be advised it’s a temporary solution. It will only work a an effective barrier until Japan has a bigger force next to it.

It’s important to hold China as long as you can. The reason for this is you want Japan to have a multi front with your territories. If you hold China they will have to defend and hold French Indo-China, Kwengt…, and Manchuria, as apposed to you holding up in Sinkiang and Japan only having to defend China.

That’s what I do as far as Japan goes. Axis countries have a lot of assets and a smaller economy base. For them to have any hope of wining is to match or exceed the income of their allied rivals. In order for you to prevent that you need to contain them in a timely manner.

-LT04

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.