Posts made by Kavik Kang

@a44bigdog:

And if you are playing with NOs those Allied fighters are costing the Russians a tank every round. Which as the Axis I really like to see.

Yes, I had noticed that there is a penalty for that in the new version.  I like that, since I always considered the Allied fighter defense to be too powerful.  I think I would probably keep 2 or 3 US fighters in London now, ready to go to Moscow at the last moment only after it is seriously threatened.  It will be worth losing the 5 per turn for 3 or 4 (with a UK one sent too) fighters defending Moscow, but they’ll need to wait in London in AA50.

I typically defend Moscow with fighters.  If I am playing all three Allies I always send at least 1 US and 1 UK fighter to Moscow for defense.  I try to have at least 4 (6 is ideal) fighters in Moscow by the time it is attacked.  I consider the 4-6 fighters (usually mostly American) to be the core of Moscows defense.  Those big 4’s hammering away while the infantry die, it’s really hard tfor Germany to win that fight.  I really like the fact that tanks defend at 3 now in AA50 because they have this same effect now only to a lesser extent.  I think tanks defending at 3 is a big help to Russia but haven’t played AA50 enough to understand how much it helps Germany.

@a44bigdog:

You sure are basing a lot of strategic assumptions on one game played.

Japan’s fleet has usually moved back north from Australia which they normally take J2.

India also falls quite readily to the Japanese, depending on what happened in the mid-east around turn 3 or 4. Possibly even on J2.

Killing lightly defended transports and their light defenders is an excellent use of the Luftwaffe. If the Allies want to purchase a transport per turn for the privilege of landing 2 units in Algeria, which might not even be enough to retake after turn 2, more power to them.

Well… I got my original copy of A&A after standing outside the game store with my best freind waiting for it to open the day the original game came out when I was 14.  I’ve played it for quite some time, but have only played one game of the new one.  This seemed to work even better in the new version, actually, because the US has more money.  It was much harder to achieve and depended much more on what Japan did in the old game.

The landings in Africa only meant to help the British there (and sometimes you wind up saving Gibraltar for them).  You don’t buy a transport per turn, just 1 on the first turn.  In my experience the transports usually survive, the Axis player doesn’t see it as much of a threat when really it is part of a greater plan.

The greater plan is delaying Japan while getting England and Russia through the early game in good shape.  In Europe the first 5 turns are just about keeping a good position until the US cavalry arrives.  All three of the Allies are involved with a DJKG plan.  While the US focuses mostly on Japan and helps slightly with Germany in the early turns, England and Russia should be doing the opposite.  England should focus on holding Africa (the reason for the US help there), India, and harrassing and possibly taking scandinavia (or helping in Karelia) if they still have a navy work with.  England’s effort in India is their contribution to delaying Japan and they should make a real effort to hold India (get at least 1 fighter there, for example).  Russia should work with England to hold Karelia if possible as their highest priority (nothing different there) but otherwise hold out while maintaining an ability to counterattack (in other words Russia is pretty much Russia).  The Russian contribution to the effort should be a more aggressive attitude in the east being more willing to strike at Japan if there is an opportunity, and sending 2 tanks and 2 inf into China to help liberate and defend Chinese territory.  They can’t afford to replace them, just send them one time and keep them alive as long as possible (Russia may only be able to afford to send 1 inf and tank depending on how things went dice wise but should send at least that).  This “death of a thousand pin pricks” significantly delays Japan, even if they do eventually wind up overcoming the British and Russian efforts.  If they allow the US effort to succeed they will spend the rest of the game focused on Iwo Jima, or ignoring it and putting a lesser (less money and territory) effort towards Russia.

“KGF” is largely a US decision.  The US can force the war to go certain ways.  Japan doesn’t necessarily need to be left to run wild and unopposed.  It is mostly up to the US wether or not they are allowed to do that.  The US has a hard time having an impact in Europe during the early turns, but the threat of an SBR base on Iwo Jima has an impact from the moment the US builds a second CV on the west coast at the end of turn 1.  It is the only means I know of making the US have a significant impact right from turn 1, which is where this strategy came from.  I’m not saying I have an unbeatable strategy… but I might be saying that “KGF” is not the only means of defeating the Axis.  In fact, in my opinion it is kind of a risky all-or-nothing strategy that I usually only take if forced into it.  Delaying Japan buys time in Europe, it changes the schedule that “KGF players” have in their minds.

@Hobbes:

The game was setup wrongly. For either the 1941 or 1942 scenarios US starts with a 1 DD on the East Coast, not 1 BB. But the issue here is what the UK is doing since they’re the only ones who can defend that transport and G can spare the planes to sink it (and the italians/germans can deal with 4 US land units on Africa)

You get to land twice no matter what, and are only doing this for 3 or 4 turns.  In my experience the Germans usually have higher priorities and they don’t kill them right away, but even if they do you get two landings no matter what.  The Italians/Germans can easily deal with these 2 units per turn landing behind them in Africa, the whole point is to make them do it.  It is a minor annoyance that helps the British a lot down there, and sometimes you wind up liberating Gibraltar for them instead.  That and the SBR on Berlin giv England/Russia just enough help to get through the early game in good shape which is all you need from them.

Do you mean Iwo Jima or Okinawa? You can attack Iwo Jima from the West Coast but it takes 2 turns to reach Okinawa. In both cases they border the SZ of Japan so the Japanese fleet will always be in range if they are building units to counter your builds.

Oops, you are right I mean Iwo Jima.  Like I said, you switch to Europe as your fleet heads for Iwo Jima, you don’t wait to take it.  Most of the IJN will be out of range and unable to challenge your (for example) 3xCV, 2xCA, 2xDD, 4xSS navy at Iwo Jima.  Add 2 bombers into the attack on D+1, and one more bomber per turn after that.  If you need more navy it would be all cheap subs, the core of the fleet is finished and you can just pile subs into it like infantry into Moscow now.  You start with 1 CV and the planes for a second.  The US can send 3 CVs to Iwo Jima on turn 4, turn 3 if it hurt the IJN on an early turn.  Once the fleet and bombers are entrenched at Iwo Jima the IJN won’t be able to win that fight.  The US fleet strikes when the IJN carriers get within range, they don’t wait to be attacked at Iwo Jima, and the bombers from the SBR base (2 land on D+1 and one per turn after that) make it very hard for Japan to ever take Iwo Jima back.

Remember, Japan can stop this early on by pinning the US fleet at US west coast… but this, in reality, is the US Navy pinning the IJN at Hawaii and great for the Allies.  US switch to KGF after turn 2 and let England keep India for it:-)  What this really amounts too, now that I discuss and think about it, is an opening gambit for the US to force Japan out of their anti-KGF strategy.  If Japan does the typical anti-KGF opening and I do my DJKG thing then I will wind up with an almost unbreakable bomber base to hit Tokyo from.  If Japan defends against this then their expansion will be greatly diminished.  That seems to be the value of this move by the US.

It will force Japan to spend money on ships but it will also force the US to keep up with the naval buildup. And when the US does not keep up with the buildup then J will be left free to deal with any US forces on the Pacific.

The US does keep up.  You have the bombers too and add one per turn, if you need more cannon fodder you can build some more cheap subs.  Like I said in the original post, I normally don’t need to build more subs but you can if you need to.  Remember, with Japan’s growth stunted you have a little more time in Europe so schedule over on the other side of the world is a little different now, too, so the US can afford to spend some money in the Pacific if they need to.

True to all of that. Either on Revised or AA50 I like strategies to deal with J (but on Revised they are too dependent on J1’s moves and dice) and I also think that they are more a Delay Japan strategy rather than to Kill because it is hard to invade Japan. What I think is that with the amount of naval power that this strategy entails by the US it is much better to use it solely with the propose of sinking the IJN and liberating Borneo/E. Indies. If you reach those 2 objectives and take also the Phillipines then J will lose 10 production, plus the 5 from the NO, which lowers J’s income about as much as a bombing campaign. Plus, the NO advantages for the US (+5 for Philippines) and the UK (+5 for allied occupation of any territory originally japanese). Not to mention other potential hassles coming from India/China for J. From that moment on, you can switch to KGF with the US.

But that would take too long to do, and you’d be sending your fleet down where most of the IJN is.  The Iwo Jima SBR base works because the IJN is 2-3 turns away from assembling and attacking there, because most of their ships are down south near Australia/Indian Ocean.  By the time they can get too you you will have 3-5 bombers and any additional subs you though you needed on the transition (from Pac to Euro builds) turn.  This really does work if Japan goes south with large elements of their navy, I’ve been doing it for many years in earlier versions and did it in the one game of AA50 that I played.  But it is up to Japan, they can defend against it but then India, Australia, and Russia are more turns away than in the typical anti-KGF Japan strategy.

In my experience Japan’s usual response is to try and do both things, keep a fleet at Hawaii and go south.  When they do this I the US wins a big naval battle at Hawaii which cuts the IJN in half.  They never recover and are never able to make a serious attempt at Iwo Jima.  I can say from experience that trying to do both things is a mistake for Japan because they will lose the ships at Hawaii on turn 3 or 4 and never recover.  As I said, this is the most common response from Japan:-)

@Cmdr:

Going full bore into the Pacific is a great way to kill off the Japanese fleet and keep Japan under control.

Honestly, I’d go with carriers, destroyers and submarines in a good mix and not purely any one ship or another.

But that’s just my perspective.  Some say I have a knack for killing enemy fleets (Mollari and A44dog being two of them).

Just as in real life, the Carriers are the key to naval combat in A&A.  The 2 fighters per at 3/4 are the primary factor in who will win the fight.  Just like defending Moscow with 20 Infantry and 4 fighters, with the fighter hammering away as the infantry die, in naval defense the Carriers fighters will hammer away as the subs and DDs die.  So the backbone of a fleet in A&A is, appriately, 2 or 3 CVs (which is to say, 4 or 6 fighters).  The subs/DDs are mostly there just to die and let those fighters keep shooting.  A BB is usefull and I use the ones I start with, but I’d never spend the money to by a new one.  A CA’s 3 hammering away with the fighters as the subs and DDs die is good enough for me for half the price.

So I agree with you completely, and just thought I’d add a little more detail.  I love naval combat:-)

@Kavik:

On turn 1 you send the BB and Inf/Tank to Torch (take Morocco).  Leave the BB and Trans there, and you buy a second Atlantic trans on turn 1 (instead of the Bomber on turn 1 only) to leave at Washington.  From that point forward you fill that single transport bridge with Inf/Art or Inf/Arm and harass North Africa/Gibraltar from behind for the British.  It doesn’t matter if you lose these units every turn, as long as you land them.  If the Germans kill the BB/Trans (they usually don’t) you can sacrifice the Washington trans and extend the harassment for another turn without any additional naval purchases.

@Hobbes:

I assume you mean DD, not BB. Which means that G can send fighters/subs on G2/G3 to kill the US/Allied fleet.

I had a BB and Trans there in the game of AA50 that I played.  Like I said, Germany usually doesn’t get around to killing it.  But if they do you can still sacrifice the transport at Washington to extend the landings for another turn without buy any more navy in the atlantic.  You are only doing this in the Atlantic for 3 or 4 turns, you are gaurenteed at least 2 turns of landings.  In my experience the “bridge” usually survives all 4 turns because the Germans usually wind up with a higher priority for their planes than sinking your lone BB protected transport.

@Kavik:

Back in the Pacific, you will solidify your NOs before establishing your bomber base on Okinawa.  Conversely, you will switch your builds to the Atlantic and killing Germany while your fleet it in the process of getting to and taking Okinawa (but you’ll know that you are going to succeed because you already have naval superiority).  When you switch after turn 3 or 4 (depending on the Japanese naval build response) you will essentially reverse yourself… sending a trickle of forces to the Pacific (bombers for SBR and subs/destroyers to lock down the Pacific).

@Hobbes:

With 3-4 turns worth of US buys (minus the ground forces for the Atlantic and the bombers for the UK) you’re expecting to take and hold Okinawa against the Japanese fleet? After J1, Japan will most likely still have 3 ACs, 1 BB, 1 CA and fighters to fill the ACs. US will have 1 AC, 1 DD, 3 FTRs and 2 BMR.

I’ve done it many times in the past, mostly in previous versions of AA.  I’ve only played on game of AA50 so far, but I was the US and this is what I did.  We won.  You start with a CV and the planes for 2 CVs.  Buy a thrid and two planes, 3 CAs a couple DDs and subs and you can take down the IJN.  Like I said, you switch to European production as you send this fleet away from the coast towards Okinawa so you aren’t actually taking Okinawa until turn 5.  It’s a bomber base.  Once positioned their any fleet coming within range 2 faces both your fleet and your bombers.  You will strike them if they come within range, not wait to be attacked.  Typically the IJN needs to assemble before coming after you, many of their ships are normally far south or in the indian ocean when you make this move.  By the time they get too you, you are entrenched in Okinawa with the bombers to support your navy if needed.  You have the backbone of the navy, and can add subs/DDs/CAs if the situations calls for it, but I don’t normally do that other than maybe 2 more subs as time goes on.  The 1 bomber per turn you keep adding is uaually enough to be safe.

Of course, the Japanese player could not go south with his navy to defend against this, and that would put a kink in this plan… but then the US would have pinned for the beginning of the game… which is almost as good for the Allies as the bomber base on Okinawa.  In this case, personally I would change strategies, give up on Okinawa and be happy with pinning the IJN for the early turns, and begin going after Germany early:-)

@Kavik:

From this point forward you are essentially in a typical KGF game… except that you have denied Japan some of their NOs, mostly destroyed their navy, and you are bombing Tokyo!  You won’t ever get to the “KJ” part, if the Allies win in Europe Japan will be more than ready to surrender by the time that is over.

@Hobbes:

You have not denied J any of their NOs with the US:

• Indochina, Manchuria and Kiangsu will very likely still be Japanese +5
• Kwangtung, East Indies, Borneo and Phillipine will very likely be Japanese +5
• Australia or India will very likely be Japanese +5

By taking Okinawa you’ve managed to give UK an NO, not removing from J. But if the axis control either Egypt or Australia then the UK has less 1 NO, so that evens it out.
Meanwhile I can assume that Japan will not stay idle as the US fleet is building up on the Pacific and will concentrate its 3 ACs + the rest of the fleet, plus building subs/planes. Which means that Okinawa will fall (and with it any US bombers standing there), probably even on the first Japanese turn after it is conquered by the US. And when that happens, then J can take Hawaii, Wake or Midway, negating the US an NO.

I didn’t say deny Japan their NOs, I said defend the US NOs from Japan and prevent Japan from taking US related NOs.
Taking Okinawa is for the SBR, I didn’t even realize it was an NO for anyone, haha.

I’m not saying this is an ultimate, unbeatable strategy.  Just that it is a very effective one that I have developed over years of playing AA with the US.  It also seems too me to throw a few wrenches into the typical “KGF” strategy that I read about so much.  I should point out that this “DJKG” strategy is even more effective if both the UK and Russia help put the squeeze on Japan early on as well (without spending too many ICs to do it).  Just a couple Russian infantry and a tank into China from Russia, and a minor UK effort to make India a harder target wont take much away from handling Germany early on but will really start to add up against poor Japan.  When the focus switches to German on turn 5, Japan has their hands full.  They aren’t in a position to do anything to help Germany and won’t be for at least several turns (probably never considering the SBR on Tokyo).

It’s not an unbeatable strategy, none ever are in a game that works.  There are counters that can force the US out of it (but Japan still pays a price for those counters).  It’s just the way that I’ve evolved into playing the US over the years, and it seems too me that it counters the often discussed “KGF” strategy in some interesting ways.

@Unknown:

Sure.  I can actually think of only one way that a BB is better than a DD and CA, and that is the “free hit”.  The BB can take a hit each turn and no unit is lost, with the DD/CA combo one is lost to a hit.  That is the only advantage of a sinlge BB that I can think of (thought of that after I posted).

lol, is that all?

That is a huge advantage. Think about it.

Anytime you’re in combat against a fleet with one or more BBs, you first have to score enough hits to overcome the free soaks before you even inflict a single casualty. Everytime the BB soaks up a hit, it saves its owner the cost of replacing the naval unit that would otherwise have been killed. And naval units are expensive.

Sure, if the BB is sunk won’t have saved you anything, but… this shouldn’t happen in the first place. In engagments where you have overwhelming force (smart play, in other words), you’ll save a bundle not having to replace those DDs and CAs.

To claim that a DD + CA is always better than a BB is ridiculous. You could almost claim the opposite, imo.

I see some of the points made.  It would be interesting to actually see the math of, say, 4xCA 4XDD v 4xBB.  I would think the 8 ships would have the advantage even with the free hits.  But then… how often do you ever actually have 4 BBs in a single battle?  There are usually only 1 or 2 present at most.  I’ll stick with my CA/DD for now, the math from that battle calculator some of you seem to have would be interesting though and might change my mind.

I may actually have been understimating the free hit a little, but you are understimating the flexibility of 2 ships v 1 ship.  Your 4 BB navies would mean my equavilant CA/DD navy would have so many ships that I could be strong in multiple locations on the map.  The big naval battles are staged into by both sides, you know when they are coming and they don’t come often.  At all other times, having twice as many ships is a pretty big advantage.

I really didn’t mean to start such a debate with that final little comment, and you guys might very well be right about that although I still have my doubts… I had been hoping people might actually comment on my favorite US strategy, I thought people might find it interesting since it is so far removed from the very valid KGF strategy that is usually being discussed.

@Unknown:

There is absolutely no reason to buy a BB in AA50. DD/CA is better than 1 BB in every way.

uh… false?

You assert this as though it is self-evident, with no explanation. I’d love to hear your reasoning.

Sure.  I can actually think of only one way that a BB is better than a DD and CA, and that is the “free hit”.  The BB can take a hit each turn and no unit is lost, with the DD/CA combo one is lost to a hit.  That is the only advantage of a sinlge BB that I can think of (thought of that after I posted).

A DD/CA are two units.  They are more flexible, they can be seperated if needed.  Together, compared to a BB, they are far better in attack.  A 2 and 3 is a lot better odds that a single 4, with the potential to even score two hits.  And, of course, you also get all the ASW capabilities of the DD.  This all adds up to making the “free hit” largely insignificant by comparison.

I think this is very realistic from every perspective.  Building BBs after Pearl Harbor was a mistake for every nation that did it, except the US who may as well have just in case and had a really awesome design for one:-)

Hi everyone,

I’m new to the forum but have played A&A off and on for over 20 years.  I recently got AA50 and have played one game found 5 people for a full 6 player game at a recent convention.  Just from that one game, wow, this is by far the best A&A ever in a lot of ways.  Anyway, that got me reading these forums and I thought I’d add my 2 cents on the strategy side of the discussion.  I’ve read a lot about “KGF” in the last few days, which is largely a US decision.  I’ve played the US a lot in A&A, including in my only game of AA50.  While I understand the concept of a true “KGF”, I really think it is a more risky approach for the allies than a more balanced US/Allied approach.

I like to call it DJKGKJ (…or Delay Japan, Kill Germany, Kill Japan).

My favored approach with the US is to begin the game with a trickle of forces to the East in support of England/Russia while containing Japan and setting up SBR on Tokyo.  Once the SBR is established (from Okinawa), the US is ready to switch over to finishing off Germany.  In AA50 I would say the US Pacific objectives before switching to Europe would be to deny Japan it’s US related Pacific NOs and establishing SBR of Tokyo.  Remember, the goal is not to kill Japan, simply to contain them and make them spend money against you instead of against England and Russia during the early turns.  This obviously requires naval superiority and most, but by no means all, of US money will be spent in the Pacific for the first 3 or 4 turns.

While most money is spent in the Pacific for the first 3 or 4 turns, not all of it is.  Every single turn the highest priority in builds is actually in the Atlantic.  It is critical that you not totally neglect the British, they need your help… but they do not need a lot for the first 3 or 4 turns, which is all the time we need in the Pacific.  Every single turn while setting up Japan’s containment, the US must as it’s highest priority (when following the DJKGKJ plan) buy 1 bomber and either an Inf/Art or Inf/Arm.  On turn 1 you send the BB and Inf/Tank to Torch (take Morocco).  Leave the BB and Trans there, and you buy a second Atlantic trans on turn 1 (instead of the Bomber on turn 1 only) to leave at Washington.  From that point forward you fill that single transport bridge with Inf/Art or Inf/Arm and harass North Africa/Gibraltar from behind for the British.  It doesn’t matter if you lose these units every turn, as long as you land them.  If the Germans kill the BB/Trans (they usually don’t) you can sacrifice the Washington trans and extend the harassment for another turn without any additional naval purchases.  The 1 Atlantic Bomber per turn, of course, goes to London to SBR Berlin.  Again, while your primary goal is containing Japan for the first 3 or 4 turns, the 1 Bomber and 2 ground units for Europe are your highest priority builds.  Build what you can afford in the Pacific after that.  With a good British player… this is all the help they need from you for the first 3 or 4 turns.

Back in the Pacific, you will solidify your NOs before establishing your bomber base on Okinawa.  Conversely, you will switch your builds to the Atlantic and killing Germany while your fleet it in the process of getting to and taking Okinawa (but you’ll know that you are going to succeed because you already have naval superiority).  When you switch after turn 3 or 4 (depending on the Japanese naval build response) you will essentially reverse yourself… sending a trickle of forces to the Pacific (bombers for SBR and subs/destroyers to lock down the Pacific).

Back to the Atlantic.  After containing Japan and having the fleet on the way to Okinawa, you’ll be needing bombers.  You probably have 3 or 4 in England by now… the transition turn is the time to make the investment in taking away Japan’s money.  Buy two bombers for Okinawa and 1 per turn for the rest of the game after that (or until you have too many).  You may buy some subs/destroyers to enhance your navy if needed, but that probably is not needed.  You will probably only buy one bomber per turn for the Pacific from this point forward.  The SBR of Berlin that you were providing while in the Pacific during the early turns was critical to this plan.  It slowed Germany’s progress and (assuming competent players all the way around) England and Russia are still doing OK at this point (Turn 4 or 5).  You may have been able to send a carrier to Washington if you enaged the IJN on an early turn.  If not, you’ll need one to protect transports so the transition turn is the ideal time to build it (and as many full transports as you have money left for).  Next turn, if the Axis are in Africa land what you have so far there.  They can clear out North Africa while they “stage” for invading Europe.

From this point forward you are essentially in a typical KGF game… except that you have denied Japan some of their NOs, mostly destroyed their navy, and you are bombing Tokyo!  You won’t ever get to the “KJ” part, if the Allies win in Europe Japan will be more than ready to surrender by the time that is over.

As a final note only slightly related to this post, something I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere that I read, I thought I would point out that a DD/CA cost the same as 1 BB.  There is absolutely no reason to buy a BB in AA50. DD/CA is better than 1 BB in every way.  I actually think that this is both tactically and historically accurate, and kind of cool.  But just something to keep in mind, any time you are considering buying a BB… don’t.  Get a DD and CA instead.