Hello all.  I saw from AAGamer’s average bid post that the discussion is shifting towards KGF and KJF.  I have a related question:

Assume 40.2 game background with 20 UK bid (98 sub, Alex art, Sudan art, Egypt tank), J1-G2 DoW that relax Allies movement constraints.  (Japan grasps islands; Germany goes Russia/Dark skies)
What are the usual, say, turn1 to turn3 US-UK buys for KGF and KJF strategy?  And what would be the key strategic objectives with those buys?  Thank you!

For KGF, I will try following US-UK buy plan:
turn 1
US-Europe: 1carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 transport (aim: Norway)
US-Pacific: 1 carrier
UK-Europe: 6inf, 1fighter (aim: defend London)
UK-Pacific: 3inf, 2art (India wall to retreat to middle east soon)

turn2
US-Europe: 1carrier, 2fig, 2 transport (aim: Norway)
US-Pacific: 1 transport (move inf to ANZAC for defend)
UK-Europe: Persian factory, South Africa: 3 sub (aim: convey Italy)
UK-Pacific: 2inf, 1art

turn3
US-Europe: transports and land units (aim: Norway)
US-Pacific: 1 full-loaded carrier, 1 transport+land (build against Japan in sea and land)
UK-Europe: Iraq factory, sub for Italy, middle east production (aim: strong Allies ME)
UK-Pacific: 2inf

Any comments?

Thank you for your comments.

I initially think that the importance of Scandinavia in Europe is like money islands in Pacific, and US should try to take it before Germany builds enough bombers.  Then US can build MICs in Norway and Finland (like UK Persia-Iraq), not relying on transports too much.

However, if Germany leaves some inf in Finland, it will be difficult for the US to take and hold it, for example:

G1: produce 2 bombers, 2inf; leave 2inf in Norway/Finland; transport 2inf to Norway
G2: produce 1 bomber, 2inf; transport 2inf to Norway
G3: transport 1inf, 1art to Norway
G4: produce bombers

[Assuming J1/J2 Dow]
US1: produce 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
US2: produce 1 carrier+2fig, 2 transport, land units (Pacific: 1 carrier, 1 transport)
=> US4 there are just 8 land units landing in Norway
    but Germany can retake Norway with >3 bombers, >=5inf, art

I think the 15 IPC swing plus US’s MICs would justify Germany leaves some inf there.  And if this is the case, is an early US focus in Europe a viable strategy for Allies (especially seeing Germany purchasing 2 bombers in G1)?  What are your opinions?

Hello.  I would like to ask for tips on how Germany should use its Scandinavia troops.

Assuming normal G2-J1/2 DOW, what should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops (7 inf)?

Especially when Japan DOW early, US might bring some fleet to Gibraltar in turn 2/3. 
What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops? to go all Russia and increase the G6 Moscow assault pressure, defend against (potential fake) American invasion, or others?

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

How about add 1 mech to burma for india.

Against dark skies the allies just need a bit more fleet to call the bombers out. Attack and you trade your bombers dont attack and ill invade you.

The one mech is a good idea too as I would instantly use that to get over to Persia and bring them into the fight.

Thanks  ShadowHAwk.  Mech is a good idea! 
Caesar: I am thinking one additional option that the Burma mech can do is to retake FIC from Japan in normal J1 attack (or attack Siam planes if there is no inf left in J1 Siam) .  Then we might delay the J2 MIC in FIC (or kill Japanese planes in Siam).

@Arthur:

Add in that most attacks against Moscow are happening on G4+, and it doesn’t have nearly as much impact as additional units to swing key battles during the first round.  An extra 20 PUs of bid results in an additional 20+ PU swing in net battle casualties, leading to a 40+ swing of units in key areas, leading to 60+ swing of units by the fifth turn.

AB Harris: might I ask where are those first round key battle areas that the bid can offer such large PU swings?  I can only identify North Africa sub+Tank+2 art to have such large effect.

If I have 40 bid, where should I put the 20 additional bid (besides the above North Africa units) to counter patient Dark Skies + J1 attack?

I like to use convey to stop Italy early in the game.  In case there is no sea lion, I will build subs in (US/UK) turn 2, then they can start conveying Italy from turn 4 onward (e.g. Russian sub in sz95; US sub in sz 93; UK subs in sz 97).

I think conveying Italy is a safe way to depict Axis income.  First, usually Med is under Allies control.  Second, it’s a more economically viable option to depict Axis income: comparing with 12 IPC bomber SBR:
bomber SBR: expected gain = 3.5 IPC +2 IPC- 1/6 chance AA gun * 12 IPC = 3.5 IPC
2 subs conveying: expected gain = 2 subs * 2 IPC = 4 IPC

However, I think it is not easy to do conveying to Germany and Japan.  For Germany, like Taamvan mentioned, there are not many convey zones.  For Japan, usually the Axis players in my game group build naval base in FIC in turn 2 and station the planes there.  If they see US building subs, they usually build air base in FIC in turn 3, protecting the whole East Asian coastal line from US conveying fleet.  I also wish to learn how to do conveying better.

@aagamerz13:

This seems like an easy strategy to counter.  According to odds calc, a bomber at cost 12 only beats 1inf + 1AAA about 28% of the time while costing 4 IPCs more.  2 bombers only beat 2inf + 1AAA about 38% of the time while costing 13 ipcs more.  So, this is not a great tradeoff for axis if other players make lots of inf.  The counter is for US/UK to go to Spain round 3.  Germany should only have 4 or 5 bombers in range so they cant attack the fleet on round 4.  USSR should be making all inf + 1 or 2 AAs per round.  Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

As Ichabod shows, Germany will be buying heavy land in G2-G3+.  Plus its superior starting land force which are good at attacking and defending, Russia who starts with only a lot of inf has low chance to catch up with Germany, not to mention Germany also have tact+fighters helping their defense.

@Ichabod:

@aagamerz13:

Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

This is the biggest misconnection about Dark Skies.
Dark Skies purchases is:

G1: 2 bombers / 1 sub. (G1 could also be 6 Artillery / 2 Infantry and it still be a Dark Skies Strategy)
G2-3: All Ground (maybe 1 destroyer)
G4: 3 Bombers / 3 tanks at Leningrad
G5+: 2 Bombers / Ground (And maybe a sub here and there) - Enough ground units are purchased to push Russia back and move into Bryansk, then Rostov, and hold Stalingrad with the threat of Italian can openers.

Italy also buys ground to help defend Europe too. If you think someone won’t maybe buy a stack of infantry right when 5 US transports make it to SZ 91, then yes, maybe you will have cracked it.

I don’t know how to defeat it, but I do know it’s not as simple as you think.

In my previous game, knowing KJF, my opponents purchase:
G1: 2bombers, 1tank
G2: 5mech+5tank, bomber
G3: 5mech+4tank
G4: 3tanks at Leningrad, 4mech+3tank at Germany
G5: 3tanks at Leningrad, 3tanks at Ukraine, 2bomber
G6+: 4bombers + some leftover land units

Just a curious question: why many Dark Skies buy one sub in first turn?  Normally UK has ~0 ships in Atlantic after moving into Med in UK1.

Thank you for all your response!

@Arthur:

In a traditional G40 match with no bid and no bizarre dice, I have yet to lose as Axis.

AB Harris: in your experience, how many bids do allies need to draw with the Dark-Skies+J1 strategy?  And for those  bid games that Allies, will the US focus more on Germany or Japan in the early games?

@ShadowHAwk:

He got bombers so call him out.
round 2 move your 2 carriers +4 air in US turn to gibraltar ( with the standard destroyer + cruisers and 2 transports )

ShadowHAwk: thanks for the advice - it seems your advice is an early-game full-KGF?  If yes, how many turns will you have before coming back to J1 Pacific?  and what would be the strategic objective to achieve in Europe before that?

To: Ichabod
Gargantua is probably right and the only person here who has the wherewithal to defeat this type of stuff.

Yes, I treasure everyone’s advice in helping me to improve my next Allies games.

The problem for me is that Germany doesn’t spam bombers right away in a well played Dark Skies game. Therefore, I don’t know the best formula for winning as the Allies. I suck at this game, even worse as the Allies.

My last game seems to inform me that, we cannot over-protect Moscow - you see my UK-Russian/ME troops cannot do against strong German stack. 
So I am thinking the allies are forced to make two decisions: first is to make Russia and ME “just enough” to defend, so that we can mobilize the largest amount of UK/US units to threaten Europe or East Asia.  And this comes the second decision: if you go for Europe, you will soon face crazy Japanese air+navy to take the last VC.  Otherwise, you face Germany bombers.  I am thinking which strategy will be better.

I’ve noticed that better players than me play slow and methodical to stall on whichever side I’m attacking. It’s annoying because they put themselves in a situation where their income is higher, they can defend, and then increase their TUV to the point that the Allies are just out built. If you let up against Japan because you’re scared that Germany is getting too powerful, still don’t let up. You won’t build enough US stuff in time to make a difference (hence your loaded carriers but not enough transports because you spent so much money on defense).

Yes, I will take your word of not to let up one side of the board.

Thank you for reply and suggestions!

Thanks for PainState who patiently read my game and pointed out my problems - the UK troops and planes stacking at Russia and ME doing nothing.  There are various places that I can attack where the Axis is weak: China, Japan sea, Med, Russian Far East.  My opponents successfully exploited my “defend Moscow first, Middle East second, KJF at all cost” mentality and won!

Thanks for Gargantua and wheatbeer’s advices.  I wonder if KGF first is a valid strategy in face of Dark Skies+J1?  For example at least to seize Scandinavia as a MIC production base for US in Europe.

Caesar: In my previous game, because of Germany bombers protecting Europe, Italy was very safe to fully produce 1tank+4mech from turn5+ to reinforce Germany land stack at Brysank, making Russia (with income~10) impossible to crack the Germany land force.  This gives me a lesson that even in KJF, there must be UK/US subs conveying Italy to v. low income!

@csaw_1988:

The major advantage though is you will know what is more needed after Germany’s turn if it is saved where you will have to guess if you spend it before round 1.

Imho, we need to weight the advantage of putting units immediately.  There are several advantages.

First is to strength our turn 1 attack.  For example, if we put 1 tank in Egypt, 2 art in Alex and Sudan, we have high odds of removing most Italy units in Africa.  So in later turns we do not need to spend UK money to deal with Italy units in Africa.  The saved money in most cases should be >12.  Actually, the aim of putting IC is to produce units.  Why not place those units immediately in turn 1 that gives you the most options?

Second is to strengthen some crucial defense area like North Sea fleet and Yunnan.  Admittedly even with bids these areas would fall, but we can make the Axis pay a higher place in these crucial areas (e.g. loss of German planes or Japanese land units).

Hello all.  I got a recent face-to-face game.  I played as Allies but lose to the Dark Skies plus J1 attack.  I brief my Allies plan below.  Might I ask for help on how to improve my plan?  (I already got 30 bid but still lost - I placed 1tank+2art+sub in North Africa plus Scotland fighter).  Attached are the pics at the end of turn 5 and turn 9.

In early-game (turns 1-5), US1-5 KJF and fully builds in Pacific, aiming to coordinate with ANZAC for the money islands. UK2-3 builds MICs in Persia and Iraq.  Seeing US building in Pacific, after 2 bomber+1tank purchase in G1, Germany fully produces tank+mech in G1-G4.  Italy builds tank+mech to can-open Russia.  Japan stacks all air/naval in FIC (with MIC, AB, NB), and its land force marches towards India.

In mid-game (turns 5-8), because UK fully produces fighters in Persia and land units in Iraq, by UK5, UK flies 16fig+2tact to Moscow, making Germany stopping SBR and Moscow is secured in the next few turns.  Middle east is secured too because of the combination of Indian retreat units and Iraq production.  From G6 onwards, Germany begins building 4 bombers+3tank per turn, protecting Europe.  Italy keeps producing tank+mech - not for can-opening anymore, but for combining its land force with Germany stack in Bryansk, making Russia unable to crack.  Japan keeps pushing Indian land forces towards Middle East, making the UK Middle East troops unable to go up to help Russia.  Japan keeps stacking carriers/transports in FIC and trades money islands with US-ANZAC.  Japan slowly builds up in China to prepare for late-game conquest.  US turns to produce fully in Europe from turn 5/6 onwards - basically buying all fully-loaded carriers.

In late-game (turn 9), Germany gets ~20 bombers in W. Germany.  US just gets 6 full-loaded carriers safely sit at Gibraltar, but there are just 2 US transports+4land units.  It is impossible to do the landing in Europe.  And Germany is preparing to redo Moscow SBR soon.  Italy keeps pushing tank+mech to Bryansk.  Japan will be able to overwhelm China in a few turns.  The income for Germany-Japan-Italy at end of turn 9 is 64-72-23, while those for USSR-US-China-UKEurope-UKPacific-ANZAC are 9-76-9-36-0-22.  It is just a matter of time when Moscow SBR and conquest of China will occur.  Allies surrenders.

How can the allies plan against Dark Skies and J1 attack?  It seems KJF fails as Japan can stack things in FIC; Japan can survive KJF by getting India and trading money islands.  It seems that, KJF can just secure Java in my above plan.

@Zhukov44:

2. use your navy (and perhaps an air and/or naval base) to put pressure on India itself so that UK needs to divert resources from the Yunnan stack to protect India, making protecting both objectives unfeasible.

Thanks Taamvan and Zhukov.

Now I realize the power of the naval base in FIC/Hainan - it forces the India troops to back down from China.  (From what I observe, J2 DOW and clearing sea zones 37,38, 41, 42 threatens the J3 takeover of Calcutta).

Zhukov, might I ask that, under such FIC/Hainan naval base case, are there conditions that you would still consider stacking Yunnan using the remaining troops (ANZAC, Russia, Chinese, … and potential the 4 UK mech)?  I wish to see if there are other ways to delay the J5 India fall (by land).

@taamvan:

Overall, the J1 is simply too thin.   KJF works very well during a J1  …  Without the extra turns (J2, J3) of income and maneuver, the USA can exploit its advantage and by using the other 4 powers, defeat Japan even when it wins battles and gains odds.

The Yunnan stack strategy showed me that perhaps I would support J2+ attack: to have a stronger India for exchange for a weaker China.  J1 gives an opportunity for the four minor powers in Pacific to stack together in Yunnan, which can be detrimental for Japan.  Especially in face-to-face games, in J1 attack, sometimes the Axis might not attack Hunan because of risk-adversity.  That makes the Chinese force even more ready to form a Yunnan stack.

Also, J2/3 attack preserves a flexibility for Axis to hold America out of war by turn 4.  This gives the Pacific allies players headaches in face-to-face play!

I have some reflections on how Japan could counter Yunnan stack: two conditions are required
(A) the whole Japanese air force annihilating the Szechwan force in J2; and
(B) taking Yunnan with land force in J2 and holding it before UK2.

J2-3 DOW will make both conditions easier to attend as all J1 bombers can be directed to Yunnan, and the Kiangsi force can prepare for a J2 Yunnan attack, backed up by the two potential J1 transport forces in Kwangsi if necessary (those forces not attacing Philippine in J1).
Once China cannot take Yunnan back in C2, UK cannot fly 3 air units in Yunnan against J3 Yunnan attack, and would not move into Yunnan in UK2.  Then the Yunnan stack cannot be formed.  And Japan will have a stronger land force to march to India.

@taamvan:

Still not sure about the stack R1, but recent G40s are a reminder that this area is critical.

I think the Russian 2tank+2mech are crucial in making Japan costly in attacking Szechwan in J2.  
Say, if Szechwan has 10inf+1fig, Japan only loses 4 fig to take it.  If Szechwan has 10inf+2mech+2tank+1fig, Japan will lose 7 fig to take it.  If there are bid inf units in Szechwan, roughly each bid inf unit will cost 1 additional Japanese fighter.

Here come some questions that I wish to ask for your comments: assume that Germany persuades Dark skies, Russia moves mechs+tanks to Kaza/Sikang, and withdraws from Amur, and US would probably go for KJF.

(1)  Would you attack the Szechwan stack with Japanese air (assume China retakes Yunnan in C1)?  If yes, how many Japanese planes are you willing to sacrifice to eliminate the Szechwan force, or at least make sure no Chinese units can retake Yunnan in C2?

(2)  As UK, once your battleship survives in turn 1, would you move it to Queensland or to Europe?  Since the battleship cannot help in Pacific attack, I am thinking whether I should move it to Gibraltar through South Africa, so US can build ~20IPC more in Pacific in earlier turns.

(3)  As US, in case Japan stack the fleet on seazone 36 as in standard play, would you take Caroline or go to Queensland in turn 2?

@taamvan:

ok your Yunnan stack is awesome.  I did a J1 (167) and ive got no troops left to oppose a stack.

Yes, actually in case it’s a standard J1 attack (where Japan takes HK and Borneo), Japan should have no land force left to take Yunnan in J2.  And China can even move its fighter to Yunnan to increase the chance that Russian air survives the J3 Yunnan attack. 
Again my problem is how to coordinate Moscow and American purchase.  In order to survive beyond G6, perhaps Russia cannot buy too many artillery in Moscow.  And for US, I am thinking whether I should divert one full-loaded carrier purchase to Europe in the first 2 turns so that US3 move to Gibraltar - it might be beneficial to attract Germany to lose 2 bombers to attack it?

If Japan doesn’t attack the Yunnan stack in J3, UK can take FIC if Japan doesn’t fly some fighters there, and Shan state is protected by these UK force by J5 (so Japanese planes cannot land there).  If the Japanese force wants to go India by sea, then first they need to abandon Japan sea under American pressure, the Indian British and French destroyers can block them for a turn, then Russia takes FIC, and UK Yunnan force can move to Burma to retake India.

@Ichabod:

An example, I bought some of those gimmick battle dice for fun. I threw one of them 100x and counted all of the 6s and all of the 1s with the cool looking Iron Cross on it. Guess what, the 6 came up 20% more often. This has to do with gravity and no influence of other dice. The 6 pip side is not as heavy.

haha, that perhaps explains why when Moscow gets SBRed, the AA-guns’ “1” usually don’t work well and bombers usually hit “5” and "6"s!

@Ichabod:

Also, the amount of units you’re stacking in Yunnan and still losing badly makes me think your dice throwing skills need some improvement. Also, where are your UK India forces at? Do you have UK mech infantry to clean up in the scenario as described?

Thanks Ichabod.  There should be 1 tank+mech in India.  I forgot to put them there in UK2.

Actually my Yunnan stack killed most of the Japanese fighters and some tactical bombers. In my revised game (pic in reply#13) with the huge Yunnan stack Japan was neutralized in Asia.  However I lost the game in Europe.  In the first two turns US fully produced in Pacific (1st turn: 3 carrier; 2nd turn: 2 tact + 5 fighters).  In turn 3, seeing Japan lost most of the force in Asia, US began to produce in Europe.

However, Germany had already produced 6 bombers (G1 produced 2 and lost 1, G2 produced 1, G4 produced 2) by the end of G4.  Plus Germany’s cruiser (& transport) in sz112, US was just 1 turn behind on sailing to Gibraltar.  Italy mobile forces kept clearing UK units coming up Caucasus, so that Germany could focus on Moscow.  In G6 Moscow fell.

This makes me reflect that, whether (1) I should devote so many Russian units to stack Yunnan (2tank, 5mech, >=1fighter), but even slightly reducing Russian support units in China can largely affect Yunnan defense in J3; and (2) whether in US2, I should produce a full-loaded carrier in Europe plus one transport despite KJF, so that I can sail to Gibraltar in US3 before Germany gets the critical number of bombers by G4?

note that UK was heavily producing in Persia and Iraq – UK just produced in Britain to counter Sealion pressure from sz112 in Europe.  The pic below shows the end of round 2 in Europe.

Thank you for the suggestions and the critical questions on my play.

I finished a game (30bid, with 18 bid Taranto+North Africa+ 12 bid Chinese inf) to test Zhukov44’s suggestion, in particular, I stack Yunnan with the following units by the end of R3:
Russia 2tank, 5mech, 1fig
China: 21inf
UK: 3AA, 8inf, 4mech, 2fig, 1tact
ANZAC: 3fig
This brings down Japan’s winning odd below 50-50.
Japan can attack with 16inf, 1mech, 7art, 1tank, 11fig, 8tac, 3bomb

–--------------------------------------

US1 builds 2 carrier in Pacific, putting maximum pressure on Japan sea, forcing Japan to return its navy home.
US2 builds 5fig+1tact in Pacific to keep pressure on Japan sea to focus Japan either not to build factory on mainland or to abandon Philippines.
US3 sends 5fig+1tack to Buryatia, and builds bombers in East coast, so that they can come to Moscow by US5.

India will keep producing land units; ANZAC will keep producing subs to covey Japan’s coastal money.

— However, Moscow’s defense is quite weak and probably will fall in G6.

Thank you taamvan.

So might I ask how the Pacific Allies can coordinate to slow down Japan against such J1 attack? I plan to devote the first three turns of American income to Pacific side of the board.

(J1 builds 3 transports, take Borneo, Philippines, FIC, move all mainland troops southwards for Yunnan, leave HK to be taken by Kiangsu force in J2 - as you can roughly see Japan’s plan in the previous photo.
J1 also moves main fleets to Philippines, except carriers protecting Japan sea and Borneo transports.)