Posts made by jiman79

They take all 23 IPC.
It was probably easier to understand in the older versions, where “paper IPC money” was collected each round, and som could be saved from round to round.
If your capital was taken, you should hand over all of the IPCs. Furthermore, you are not able to collect IPCs unless you recapture your capital - but don’t recapture it just to lose it again, this would simply be to hand over income to the opponent.

So if you expect your capital to be taken by the opponent, you should try to spend all IPCs.

Losing a capital (Moscow or Berlin) usually decides the game, unless the other one falls at almost the same time.

If it was a destroyer, there is no surprise attack, and the destroyer should fire first.

Remember in defense the subs should roll a 1, so a double hit requires “snake eyes” to be rolled.

@theROCmonster:

Buy 3 inf 3 tanks. Attack ukraine with 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 2 fighters to be safe. 9 inf 1 art 1 tank to western russia. Always do the west russia battle first. After the west russia battle you can see if you can retreat from ukraine after 1 round of combat or not. If germany gets 3 hits in west russia on defense or less and you get 4 or 5 hits the first turn on attack in ukraine and your opponet got 3 hits or less you can retreat. This will save your 3 tanks and 1 art. Killing the fighter in ukraine is nice, but saving those 3 tanks is much more important.

I agree with the 3inf 3 arm buy, and the WR + UKR attack.
I am currently switching towards bringing 2 armor to west russia simply to reduce the risk of getting diced badly there. As Hobbes states 3 losses is absolutely max.
Remember to bring the Russia AA gun to WR.

Retreating from a battle you actually would win (strafing), as ROC describes for the UKR battle is a very usefull Russian tactic. I use it a often, if my opponent brings forward a stack which is too weak defensively. And this is where the value of the armor really comes into play.

Hobbes mentions the trading of the eastern europe  territories (UKR, Belo and Karelia).
A solid Russian strategy (and German as well) involves cost effective trading of these territories. Have anyone ever made an analysis of how many and which units should be used to take a territory occupied with (1 inf, 2 inf etc.) in order to play economically optimal?

@Bunnies:

I wonder whatever happened to this game.

Re:

So what makes you say it’s completely over?

If you’re trying to go KGF, and Germany controls/contests Africa on the fifth turn, and you’re asking for advice, it’s probably an uphill battle.  You would only be asking for advice if you were unsure that you could protect Moscow / crack Berlin, and with Germany fueled by African IPCs, and without a veteran’s perspective on how to run a tight logistic game with the Allies, I would guess probable loss for the Allies.  All the Axis need to do is pump out a bunch of tanks and run a bit of interference with Germany’s airforce, which as you mentioned was quite strong.

It sounds like Japan is screwing around (no industrial complexes by turn five), which means you may have a chance, but again, I lack context.

If US was building some Pacific fleet, and Japan went infantry with very light naval/air support (pumping IPCs into 1 destroyer, then subs and/or fighters to match the US threat) then the Allies really are in  trouble, because then probably Japan has some idea of what it’s doing.

If Japan was unopposed in the Pacific and built battleships and carriers, though, the Allies are probably going to win because Japan can’t just lay back and make Germany do all the work.  Same if Japan used its transports to screw with Alaska/Hawaii/Australia/etc. instead of establishing a fast hard unit core in Asia/India to help support Germany’s push against Caucasus.  You might see Japan doing both (i.e. hitting island targets plus hitting Asia/Africa) with five transports, but four transports on turn five with no industrial complexes built means SOMETHING weird is going on - like I said, either Japan was prepared to meet some unusual threat, or Japan was screwing around.

Yeah - what happened in the game?
I agree with Bunnies analysis - against a decent axis player, this game is probably over. But against novice players anything is possible, they may perform unfeasible or uncoordinated moves. In that case it is all about putting yourself in the position to exploit this. By this I mean armor for Russia, establish atlantic navy to threaten Germany, Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

you can certainly hit subs with air, as long as you bring a destroyer - the subs can only hit naval units.

It sounds like a pretty standard game, a race between which falls first - Berlin or Moscow.
In this case it is very nasty that the Germans has such a large airforce and a solid source of income from Africa.

I assume allies has a very strong atlantic navy also, otherwise the Germans would probably had hit it with everything already. But why don’t you take out the subs in sz3? You must have a destroyer and a lot of air within reach.
Allies need to be in sz3 threatening to land in Germany - this keeps Germany honest and takes some pressure of USSR.

I find your ratio between infantry and artillery in Russia wrong - with that much artillery Russia should switch to buying all inf (maybe some armor) to enhance defence capability. Armor is very handy for Russia in order to make “surprise assualts” towards an unsupported Japan stack in either Persia, Sinkiang or Yakut.

But it is difficult to give advice without a glance at the board.

@Herr:

@jiman79:

Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.

You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.

As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.

I totally agree in all you said.
The standard opening for UK is to buy AC+2dstr and place them in a safe position according to the G air and navy positioning. Retake Egypt and kill the baltic dstr+trnsp.
Besides fom this I think the best location for an allied bomber (UK or US) is in caucasus.

@Herr:

I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.

By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.

Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
However a US shuck to Europe requires twice the amount of transporters as the UK.

I am quite convinced that the most feasible UK strategy is establishing an atlantic navy and hit Europe with 8 units per round. The acquisition of early round UK air (figs and bombers) can however be used to slow Japan, so that a UK navy is established later in the game (maybe round 3-4) under the protection of an already established US navy, maybe even at a time when Germany has less airforce and no subs as to earlier in the game.

ok but with the UK battleship left unharmed I would definately not go KJF. Then it is all about getting some boots towards Russia ASAP.

@Hobbes:

Only if Germany allows Russia. During G1 non-combat Germany can move 7 inf to Karelia plus 5 armor + planes all ready to hit WRus on G2 and 2 inf for Ukraine.

There was still one UK transport alive, which meant Germany kept 3 inf in Norway to protect its bomber+fig after the sz2 attack.
Also he moved one armor to Africa so only 4 armor in eastern europe.
The German player was probably expecting a "fortress europe scenario and chose to protect his figs in western europe also.
So Karelia was not stacked on G1.

I think I strafed or recaptured Karelia  on R2 and first on G3 when the G1 inf buy marched into Karelia. Russia then started deadzoning western Russia.

This is basically how the game went, but I am not claiming the KJF was the best choice of strategy, far from - I usually win against this friend who I play regularly. I just wanted to try something different  :-D

I partly agree - if USSR1 and G1 does not go well for the allies, the KJF strategy is much too slow to work against an effective German opponent.

But in this particular game Germany paid a high price for capturing West Russia, meaning that almost all their initial eastern based ground units where destroyed USSR2. Since the USSR armor survived the Ukraine attack USSR was able to retake and hold West Russia USSR2.

USSR was actually doing quite well in this game and could probably hold 3 rounds more before losing Moscow.

The problem was that the US lost the main battle in the pacific - so maybe I made a mistake by taking this 70% chance of success naval battle.

@theROCmonster:

What were you purchasing with US and what was Japan purchasing? What was the major battle and how did japan come out with so many ships left?

OK the game is a few weeks back and on GTO, so forgive me if my memory fails sometimes.

USSR took West Russia but with losses. USSR strafed Ukraine leaving only the fig. This means 6 armor was available in cauc after USSR1.

G recaptured West Russia but only with few units since they used their airpower for SZ2 and UK cruiser also. Egypt was captured with only 1 armor.

G bought inf + bomber expecting a “fortress of Europe” like scenario.

Allied decided to go KJF UK1, when they bought an IC for India. And hitting FIC

US initial buy was 2 ICs since Japan failed taking China - given the oppurtunity again, I would not have bought the 2nd IC, since it was difficult to maintain control of China all the time.

Africa:
Allied made sacrificial landings in Africa UK1+US1 and cleared Africa with these units - I think  placed some air maybe a US bomber on Gibraltar, and G used their G2 landing to take that out instead of reinforcing Africa.
UK killed the med fleet UK2.

Japan skipped SZ52 and bought 2 transporters and a destroyer.

I think tha naval battle was in round 5 and it was someting like:
US 6 figs, 1 bomber, 2 subs 2 dstr, 1 AC, 1 BB against Japans: 4 figs, 1 sub, 1 dstr,  1 cruiser, 1 AC, and 2 BBs.

First round dice was a disaster for US making 3 hits I think - the battleship 2 hit rule
really punishes a weak first round - retreat was not an option since Japan then would be able to counter with a lot more air units - so it went to the end with UK attempting a lucky punch afterwards (1 sub 2 figs 1 bmbr)- but that was suicide - so game over, but interesting game :)I

@Bunnies:

Sure, but what battles in particular would have to go bad?

Russia does not have room to get diced R1 (but that is almost regardless of strategy).
Egypt must not go too well for G.
A succesfull UK attack on FIC is a very good start.

But the key battles is J1 - Bury and China, and maybe even a failed attack to retake FIC.
If the allies are doing well, a major naval battle must occur at some point. This battle is decisive. If the US succeeds in taking out all capital ships and transporters, the game is nearly won, if J wins this, allies have lost.

Last time I played this strat I lost this battle, with 65% succes rate. Japan still had two BBs an AC and 3 trannies.
So even though Russia was doing ok - the pressure on Japan dissapearred they recaptured east indies and phillipines = game over (this was not against an expert axis player)

I agree.
It is possible to pull of a KJF in 42, but you need a lot of dice luck, or an opponant not capable of playing Japan under pressure.

My recipe would be something like this.
R1
Buy 3 inf 3 arm, so that India can be assisted from cauc
Attack WR and UKR - if possible just strafe Ukraine (leaving 6 armor on Cauc)
Stack Bury

G1
If Germany goes all out after WR - switch to KGF.
Hope and pray that Egypt Goes well. Hope for a defensive German buy (2 bombers would be nice for allies)

UK1
Buy IC in India + air  (With this buy the decision of a KJF is almost sealed, the IC could be placed in SA)
Land in Africa, take out tranny, attack FIC (just get some inf of the mainland)
Move London air units East

J1
Japan with a lot of things to do - must decide wheter to move units to FIC or stay around Japan and hit Bury. China is also a priority, but difficult for Japan to find the ground units for everything. SZ52 will probably be skipped.

US1
SInkiang IC + Naval units
If possible take out some misplaced J naval units. Move air east

Round 2 and beyond:
R “just needs to stand its ground”

G should now be aware of the allied intentions and switch to blietzkrieg mode. (A sneaky naval buy followed by an assault on London is also an option)

UK should clear the med, always reinforce India and get some fighters towards Russia.

Japan is the key - a good Axis player is capable of handling the pressure from the US fleet and stay on the mainland. Never loose the fleet.

US should secure Africa with the initial drop - pick of the Jap Islands (IC on one of the big ones is great) and kill the Japan fleet.

Against a good axis player I will give this tactic less than 10% chance of success, but it gives a good variety to the standard game :)

Hobbes - great strategy discussion once again.
Why is it named Case Blue :?  well nevermind

Basically what you are saying is that Germany can (almost regardsless of R1 opening) take WR, if G is willing to invest enough?
You are also saying that Russia has to make a decent buy like 5 inf art arm or 3 inf, 3 arm in order to get enough boots on the ground and be able to retake territories, right?

By doing this Germany is also choosing not to do several things, and will most likely loose Africa and allow a UK navy to establish fast (depending on the loss of G air).
As I see it Germany only have ~1 round of purchases to send east along with the starting units, before all focus must be on defending UK/US invasions.

Do you think the game is “off balance” favoring axis with this aggressive German opening?
Do you find this axis strategy superior to the fortress of Europe or more as a nice second option, in case of bad allied play/dice?

@Bunnies:

Re:  KJF:

There are slow and fast variations of KJF - fast and slow, but neither is particularly effective if the Axis player responds appropriately.

The slow variation goes something like this - push Japan off the Asian coast with Russia, while US kills the Pacific fleet.  UK supports Russia in Europe.

The fast variation goes something like this - Sinkiang IC / India IC, then UK ground from India plus UK air, Russian ground, and US fleet all push in on Japan.

In both variations, what the Allies are planning is pretty clear; the Allies have to move around to set up their KJF plan.  That movement always weakens the Russian-German front, and is sometimes not too effective, as Japan has a lot of flexibility that it can use to punish the Allies.

I agree that KJF is not the superior strategy - I just find it more fun and necessary for the game to keep my interest for it to have playable alternatives to the traditional KGF strategy.

Regarding the dice being a friend of the axis I am not sure I totally agree here. Risky early round battles goes for both players.
USSR has the WR UKR/Belo/Norway
Germany typically has The Egypt attack, SZ2 and even the med cruiser can give problems.
Uk has the Egypt counter or FIC/Borneo.
Japan can definately struggle with both taking out a bury stack, taking China, sz52 and some UK pacific leftovers.

I think the best way to play the game is to keep the strategic options open, in order to exploit early game weaknesses.
For instance a US pacific campaign is a better option if Japan loses a capital ship R1. If Germany fails in sz2 the KGF scenario is of to a good start so allies might as well expliot it etc.
Some of the games Hobbes refers to, it seems like his opponent made up his mind about the strategy before the game, and sticked to it regardless of the outcome fo the battles, which I think was a huge mistake (and also you can’t expect USSR both to aid allies in a KJF and take out the German med fleet).

Interesting game development Hobbes - thanks for sharing. I do however hope that it is possible to put together a more succesfull KJF attempt than that.

I don’t get the fighter buy for russia along with a KJF tactic.

My KJF Russia R1 will be something like this:
Buy  3 arm 3 inf attack on West Russia and Ukraine (a succesfull strafe on Ukraine would be the optimal outcome).
Stack bury - perhaps 2 inf to Sinkiang

With armor in Cauc USSR can work on both fronts and reach India - A russian liberation of India would allow for UK to insert troops there, so it would be an important move if possible.

If USSR gets diced in the WR-Ukraine attacks it is not too late to switch to a more standard KGF - I would definately not build the India IC if West Russia was lost on G1.

I am not familiar with triple A but from my side GTO offers a very nice interface for online play.
I see the time limits as an advantage also if I’m playing people I don’t know. But often I meet with friends there to play a multiplayer game without time limits. Some kind og integrated audio would be cool though - we usually Skype while playing.

I have heard that triple A is turn based, where you do not get to choose casualties as defender is this understood correctly?

How does multi player games work at triple A?

What is V4?

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Knowing the brits will have to put their india fighter on Bury you put an armour in Egy rather than the art from SEu.

I Almost always bring the armor - I find that extra IPC is well spent for the better odds in these important battles in Africa.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I like 5 German tanks on G1, no doubt the bomber build does slow down the allied fleet for 1 turn.  The question: is that allied slow down worth more than Germany being able to lean forward quickly on G2 especially if Jap fighters are ready to land where Germany wants to stack.  Works great until Brit land units are in the European theater anyways.

To bring your posts back to the Japan dilemma, I would probalby do the more agressive Ger buy (armor) together with a solid J1 attack on a stacked bury to put the heat on Russia very fast (Consider skipping SZ52).

I think I will consider doing a KJF like opening in my next game 3 Russian armor in Cauc R1 a stacked bury - India IC UK1 maybe even a risky UK attack on FIC. And of course a US IC in Sinkiang US1.
Has anyone ever faced a “proper” KJF opening in 42.

I guess the best response is for G to be very aggressive on the eastern front - but it should definately give a very different game, with some tough choices for Japan.