Posts made by newpaintbrush

I don’t have a lot of experience with KJF (Kill Japan First) on either side of the table.  When playing Allies, I tend to go KGF (Kill Germany First) unless Japan loses some major mix of ships and/or air very early, in which case the game becomes more a mopping up operation than a strategic exercise.  Conversely, I have never seen a KJF well implemented against me; the few times I’ve seen KJF attempted against me, the Allied player tends to do one or more things that I consider horrible mistakes, like buying India and Sinkiang ICs but attempting to build an Atlantic fleet with the US, or other such silliness.

Still, I do know some things that the Allies should do, and some things the Allies should avoid, because I know how I’ve stopped players that tried to KJF against me, and I know how I got the ball rolling when I did KJF.

The key points in order are to stop Germany in Africa, to chase the Japanese navy out of the Pacific (almost certainly the Japanese navy should not be able to be straightforwardly destroyed), to keep Japan out of Asia, and finally to take Japan’s income from its islands and contain most of Japan’s forces to Tokyo.  These should be done roughly in order.
RUSSIAN KJF OPTIONS ON R1 (R1 = Russia’s 1st turn; G3 = Germany’s 3rd turn, and so on)

Caucasus naval/air build:

On Russia’s turn, it may choose to purchase a sub and/or a fighter for Caucasus, to threaten German shipping to Anglo-Egypt.  Pro - If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt, Russia can destroy the German Mediterranean navy BEFORE Germany’s second turn comes around, which makes a big difference.  Con - buying a single sub means the attack risks Russian air, and the battle is still far from a sure thing.  Buying more means Russia is spending far less on ground units that it will need to fight off a very aggressive Germany.  If Russia does this buy, it needs to hit Ukraine and West Russia to prevent Germany from trying to smash Caucasus.

Germany has some counters to this.  It can keep its fleet safe by keeping it at Southern Europe and either buying a carrier, or doing certain moves that will discourage attack (such as hitting Caucasus and killing Russia’s fighters if that option is available).  Or Germany can attack Gibraltar.  Or Germany can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air, as well as hurting Russia’s ability to trade territory on R2.

On the other hand, if Germany spends IPCs on navy, that is less that Germany can spend on ground units; if Germany overcommits to navy, the Allies could switch to KGF.

Persia infantry

Russia can send two infantry from Kazakh to Persia on R1’s noncombat (instead of sending them to Caucasus), depending on noncombat purchases and how other battles went.  This means less ground units at Caucasus, and a R1 naval/air purchase requires Caucasus to be well protected against possible German attack, but in some cases the two CAN be combined.

Ideally, there should be tanks and/or fighters at Caucasus too.  This allows Russia to threaten movement to Trans-Jordan and India on R2 with infantry and tanks/air.

This weakens Russia’s possibilities for a R2 attack against Ukraine, so Russia needs to be particularly wary.

Buryatia infantry

Russia can choose to stack six infantry on Buryatia instead of moving them back towards Moscow.  This is a defining KJF move.  The other options given so far - Persia infantry and Caucasus naval/air buy can be used against Germany in any event, but keeping Russian infantry at Buryatia hurts the Russian front against Germany - Russia has six less infantry to help against Germany without Germany firing a shot - and doesn’t do too much to hinder Japan without additional Allied support.  In fact, if UK doesn’t land its India fleet fighter on Buryatia, Japan may very well choose to hit Buryatia.

It’s hard to do much with Buryatia infantry alone, so Russia should move a fighter or two to Kazakh or points further east to threaten Manchuria for R2.

Russia may also choose to move a tank east in noncombat to help threaten R2 attacks against Japanese targets,.  The loss of the tank makes a big difference in Russia’s first attacks against Germany, but can make life a lot more interesting for the Japanese.

Other moves

Russian infantry to Sinkiang, a Russian attack against Norway to try to help preserve the UK battleship against a G1 attack of sub/Norway fighter/Berlin bomber, Russian air to India, Russian air to Anglo-Egypt.  I don’t recommend air to Anglo-Egypt; if someone else does, perhaps they would comment.

Responses in red below.

@LeonidasBush:

In all of the games I have played . . . the only naval buys I’ve seen from Germany are an aircraft carrier and transports (or a battleship replacing the AC) and those naval forces have always been put in the Mediterranean to help out Africa (which personally I don’t think works well.)  Plus it is better to buy an AC and two DDs on R1, as cruisers cost . . . You either mean buying AC/destroyers UK1 or you mean UK’s turn on Round 1, not “R1”.  As far as Germany going to Africa, I’ve rarely seen it well implemented, which doesn’t mean that it can’t work well.  For the record, my opinion is that it IS risky to build German Med fleet, but I do not say it is “wrong” like I say a Russian R1 attack against West Russia, Norway, and Ukraine is “wrong” in dice games.

One of my favorite moves as the UK is to load up the transport with two infantries from India and do an amphibious assult on French Indochina, as Fleetwood Dan said, walking over the last man and flying in the fighter and bombarding with the cruiser.  It takes a good chunk out of Japan’s income and really makes the attack on China difficult, especially since you can fly your fighter to China, giving the area two fighters and two infantries as a defense.  Your carrier should attack the transport in SZ59, killing it off.  Now for your Australian fleet.  Your sub can either attack the Japanese sub in SZ45, keeping it from hitting Pearl Harbor, or going to the SZ adjacent to New Guinea.  With the transport by Australia you could load up two men and take New Guinea.  . . .  It is often difficult to retake AES on the first turn unless bad dice is involved, so usually the USA will retake it (in my games).  If the Germans survive with only one unit the UK could fly in their bomber and attack with an infantry from Trans-Jordan.

You must be playing Spring 1942 because you’re mentioning cruisers at India.  But the Spring 1942 rules allow subs to submerge, so your attack against the Japanese sub won’t do anything if the Jap player doesn’t want it to.

As far as attacking French Indochina and landing in China, and that it’s “difficult to retake AES (Anglo Egypt Sudan) on the first turn.” elaboration below.

THE SHORT VERSION:

When you hit French Indochina, you’re doing a lot of things that may not end too well for the Allies…  First, you’re giving up Africa to Germany early.  Second, you’re losing units in the Suez Canal area, meaning you give up control of the Suez Canal or forcing Russia to divert forces from the European front.  Third, you’re probably losing that UK fighter on Japan’s opening round.  True, you have a small plus in that you could take out a Jap fighter, and weakening Japan means Japan advances slowly on India.  But on the balance, I would say hitting French Indochina is better for the Axis than the Allies.

THE FINE PRINT VERSION:

If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt and UK doesn’t take it back, Germany can blitz through Africa next turn.  UK loses income very quickly, and Germany gains income.  It takes some time before US can reclaim Africa, and by that time Japan can be working together with Germany to preserve German territory.  Germany with lots of income, particularly in Africa, is a double whammy for the Allies.  The first whammy is that every IPC in GERMAN hands means more German infantry and tanks, especially as Germany can produce up to 16 units a turn.  The second whammy is that every IPC taken away from UK hands means less attacking power.  So German infantry are upgraded to tanks, which are super good for Germany’s defense and offense, while UK tanks are downgraded to infantry.

Second, with UK blowing its load on French Indochina, there is a nasty possibility of Germany locking up control of the Suez Canal on G2 (Germany’s second turn) allowing a J2 (Japan’s second turn) movement through the Suez of a battleship and a carrier.  If that happens, the Axis have up to two battleships, a carrier, and two fighters defending the Mediterranean, which pretty much shuts the Allies out of any early air attacks.  That means that Germany gets to keep its Mediterranean transport, which it can use to dump to Africa or Ukraine/Caucasus.  I want to be clear that this is not a decisive advantage for the Axis, but it is pretty significant, so long as Germany doesn’t overdo it.  Maintaining a battleship support shot plus up to two infantry moving straight from Southern Europe to Ukraine/Caucasus (skipping one or two turns of movement), or being able to run interference in Africa, are bonuses that can be very ugly - particularly, because Germany has its whole airforce that can respond to the Africa and Mediterranean position, and can quickly and easily send ground forces to any number of targets with the maneuverability of the German transport.

In KGF, Germany often completely loses all its territory in Africa late game when the Allies push in; later Japan usually retakes much of Africa if the situation permits.  This isn’t because the Axis want to fuel Japan’s giant income while mostly giving up hope on Germany.  It’s usually because the Allies FORCE the position into that situation because it is more favorable for the Allies than Germany maintaining control of, or even being able to contest control of African IPCs.

Japan’s early game push should use 4-6 transports, using 5th and 6th transports to grab infantry off islands and/or to hit Hawaiian Islands/Alaska/Australia/New Zealand/Africa (AS THE GAME PERMITS).  Later, Japan will probably grab an industrial complex at French Indochina or India if it can be managed, to pump tanks to bolster the infantry that was sent in on earlier rounds.  At that point, 3 or 4 more IPCs to Japan makes little difference.  On the other hand, 3 or 4 more IPCs to Germany makes a big difference; it’s able to pump more or higher quality defensive units, which makes it much tougher to crack, which also means Germany can contest territory in Europe more effectively, further boosting Germany’s potential income.

With Germany units in Africa, Japan doesn’t have to run as many units in to help at Africa.  With less Japanese units diverted to Africa, Japan can send even more at Caucasus/Moscow, which makes the main threat against Moscow that much stronger.

All this might be no problem if the Allies had early gains to offset these disadvantages.  But Japan can use its Japan transport to hit French Indochina on Japan’s first turn, and it still has four infantry plus air to hit China with.  (I assume one infantry is kept back at Manchuria in case of Russian units at Buryatia).  Japan can afford to hit US’s Hawaiian Islands fleet with sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber, while using its four remaining fighters to support the attacks on French Indochina and China.  From that position, the Japanese transport at French Indochina can pick up two infantry from East Indies on J2 to bolster Japan’s position near India.  So Japan’s position does not suffer too badly.

True, Russia COULD move infantry to Persia on R1 and position tanks in Caucasus (usually a good idea anyways).  But if UK bails out of Africa to go after French Indochina, that forces either for Russia to move units significantly away from the European position, or to give up the Suez, with the aforementioned consequences.

You stated that Africa was difficult to retake from Germany if I understood your post correctly.  I disagree; Germany’s opening allows 2 infantry 2 tanks plus one or two air units attacking infantry/tank/fighter.  Either Germany loses expensive air (unlikely), or it over-commits air against Anglo-Egypt (reducing its ability to hit other targets so also unlikely), or whatever, but in any event probably Germany survives with at MOST three units.  UK’s counter is 3 infantry 1 fighter 1 bomber minimum (2 infantry via India transport, 1 infantry from TransJordan, fighter from India fleet, bomber from UK), plus UK cruiser support shot.  The UK AC can attack the Japanese Kwangtung transport.

–

As a parting note, I recommend UK do one of two things with its UK sub near Australia.  Either UK can move its sub to a position from which the UK sub can hit French Indochina sea zone on UK2 (this prevents an unsupported Japanese transport from floating around).  Or it can move to a position from which it can hit the sea zone east of Japan, especially if the UK carrier, a UK fighter or two, and the UK bomber are in position.  If Japan keeps its fleet west of Japan, it slows its development in Asia a lot.  If Japan leaves its fleet east of Japan, UK can hit with a maximum of carrier, cruiser, three fighters, and a bomber on the next UK turn.  If Russia maintained control of Buryatia, US can hit the sea zone east of Japan on US1 with sub and fighter, softening it up for the UK2 attack.

Thread RESURRECTION!

IT LIVES!

This is what happens when no new topics are posted.  But anyways I bet nutbar was being sarcastic.

@nutbar:

DON’T HELP RUSSIA or you will lose the game.

@Hobbes:

Or we can switch and discuss the Triple that attacks Norway instead of Belorussia… 32% odds of winning all battles  :lol:

Yeah, that’s probably the Russian triple variation I was thinking of (i.e. Nor/WR/Ukr) when I mentioned 30%ish.

But I know I wrote something up about Bel/WR/Ukr too.  Anyways, I got confused somewhere.

OH well.  :roll:  Bunnies musta been drinkin too much carrot juice.  On the plus side, I have excellent night vision.  :lol:

In my previous post I mentioned which forces I thought Russia would hit with, but as you pointed out, Hobbes, my math is off.

Maybe I should start a new thread on the Russian Triple Attack.  ^^

@Hobbes:

What formula did you use to calc? Maybe my math skills are a bit rusted…

EDIT: I think I did it the right way. Odds of winning all 3 battles with regular dice:
Odds (Ukr/Belo/WRus) = (1/Ukr)(1/Belo)(1/WRus) = (87/100)(73/100)(90/100) = 571490/1000000 = 0.57 = 57%

Odds of losing all 3 battles:
(13/100)(27/100)(10/100) = 0.00351 = 0.351%

(re:  earlier posts regarding a Russian Ukr/Belo/WRus attack)

Hobbes, the discrepancy between your calculated 57% and my 30% arises because the win percentages you list are based on Russia surviving each battle with at least one attacking unit.  The win percentages I used to compute the 30% were based on additional factors.

For example, the Ukraine attack is 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter.  Russia has around 87% to “win” in dice, but that’s considering a single Russian fighter surviving counting as a “win”.

However, my “win” condition is Russia keeps at least 1 tank and 1 fighter, which changes the percentage for the “win” condition to - maybe 60% or 65%, I forget.  Keeping both tank and fighter alive means Russia keeps its valuable fighter, takes a 3 IPC territory, and most importantly, stops an additional 2 German tanks from blitzing through Ukraine into Caucasus.

I also factored in retreat conditions.  For example, the Belorussia attack is 3 infantry 1 fighter vs 3 infantry.  Battle calculators usually evaluate fights to the death, not factoring in that an attacker may choose to retreat, for example if 1 Russian fighter were left attacking 1 German infantry.  This also changed the “win” percentage I computed for Belorussia.

What specific moves and buys are you referring to when you mention a 57% on dice for winning all 3 battles for a Russian triple, Hobbes?  I made the odds to be something like 30% at best.

@Zhukov44:

the main case FOR NG is in cases where you have great respect for your opponent and need a leg up.

Yeah, good call.  I agree.

But also NG is good in my opinion if you think you are much better than your opponent.  If NG gets diced, then you gave yourself a challenging game.  If NG doesn’t get diced, you end the game quicker.  It’s a win-win.  :-D

It’s also a decent opening if you’re playing Allies, and are having problems dealing with German bomber buy strategies.

Like Hobbes writes, it’s a lot about West Russia on G1, but I’d also mention Caucasus.

Since this thread has gone on a bit, I’ll recap the arguments for each side as I see it.

Germany’s attack on G1 (Germany’s first turn) gets big bonuses if it can successfully take West Russia, and even more if Caucasus can be thrown in.  A NG opening helps Germany with that goal by dropping five units (3 infantry 1 tank and the Moscow fighter which at best lands on Karelia where Germany destroys it on G1)

Germany taking West Russia is important because West Russia is where Russia needs to be to contest Karelia (2 IPC), Belorussia (2 IPC), and Ukraine (3 IPC).  If Germany breaks West Russia, that usually means Russia is down some income and Germany up some income.  It doesn’t SEEM like a big deal, one or two 2-3 IPC territories, but it does add up.

Germany taking Caucasus is usually not a good idea, because Caucasus is usually not a viable target for G1.  Sure, Germany can often take Caucasus on G1 but at ruinous cost; on R2 Russia reclaims Caucasus and since Germany paid such a high cost to take Caucasus in the first place, Germany is then too weak to do anything useful.  Even if Germany takes Caucasus on G1 and starts with an eight tank build, that still sets up an R2 reclaim of Caucasus, followed by a G2 stall where at best Germany can move tanks to Ukraine - Russia can hit Ukraine and kill a lot of valuable tanks, or can use its R2 hold of Caucasus to put its R3 build in Caucasus to stall out the Germans.

BUT the situation changes if West Russia and Caucasus can BOTH be hit by Germany.  Sure, Russia can reclaim both West Russia and Caucasus, and Germany is not very strong, but Russia itself is very weak after losing so much.  This usually means Germany can contest West Russia or Caucasus or both on G2, which makes things much more difficult for Russia, especially if both Japan and Germany focus on tank push.  Granted, hitting West Russia and Caucasus usually means make or break for the entire game on G1.  But it’s decent odds, especially if Russia opens with a Norway attack that sacks five units from the West Russia-Caucasus front.  If you open with a West Russia/Ukraine attack, you’re hitting German units that can hit West Russia and Caucasus.  If you open with Norway, you’re hitting Germany units that couldn’t hit West Russia or Caucasus anyways, and losing five defenders from the West Russia/Caucasus front.  Besides, you’re losing a Russian fighter which is very useful for trading territory without committing valuable Russian attack units.

So much for the early Axis game.  How about the early Allied game?

Preserving the UK battleship allows UK to open with carrier-destroyer-transport, for a possible 2-3 transports to Europe on UK2 instead of 1-2.  UK is almost guaranteed to be able to use the battleship’s support shot ability on most turns, with so many targets to choose from.  If Germany DOES do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US will have an easy time of building protective fleets, with Germany’s airforce weak.  If Germany does NOT do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US can use the durability of the battleship to discourage German air attacks against the fleet.

Suppose Germany does WR/Caucasus, and suppose Germany killed the UK Canada transport (worst case for UK)  UK can drop 2 ground to Norway on UK1, threatening 6 ground to Karelia on UK2 (2 from Norway, 4 from transports).

Suppose Germany didn’t do WR/Caucasus; Germany will likely have 5 fighters 1 bomber; UK will have 1 battleship, 2 fighters, 1 carrier, 1-2 destroyer.  Germany can still kill the Allied fleet with moderately poor to decent odds, but it will definitely be extremely expensive.

After the first 1-2 rounds, though, things start to be worse for the Allies in my opinion.

–

Late-early game:

What have the Allies gained from preserving the UK battleship?  The ability to drop to Europe a bit faster, a heftier fleet to discourage German air attacks, and the battleship support shot (which is very useful).  But in my opinion that’s about it.  Landing at Algeria on UK1 is still a deathtrap even with a UK battleship.  Landing at Algeria on UK2 was never a problem to begin with depending on the US1 build.

What have the Axis gained?  If they went West Russia/Caucasus and failed, well, they gained nothing and probably resigned.  If they hit West Russia/Caucasus and succeeded, all the important stuff is happening in Belorussia/West Russia/Caucasus, and it’s happening too fast for the UK’s early drops to make a big difference - this is what I refer to by saying the Norway opening potentially shoots the Allies in the foot.  If they only hit one of West Russia or Caucasus, they’re gaining some IPC advantage or some positional advantage.  Regardless, Russia’s down a fighter.
Besides all that, Germany can screw with UK/US logistics in Europe by keeping its bomber on Western Europe.  If UK keeps its fleet on the coast for a turn, that offsets the speed advantage it gains from having an early battleship.  If UK doesn’t keep its fleet on the coast, it needs to build more defensive fleet or wait for US defenders, either of which suck up IPCs or time, again offsetting the speed advantage from keeping its battleship.

Of course, with the Allies ramping up their fleet and reinforcing to Karelia/Archangel, the German front against Russia deteriorates pretty fast.  This usually means Germany has to send units east, rather than west, so Germany usually cannot actually hold Western Europe as a landing spot for its German bombers.  So the Allies do have some counterplay to Germany’s counterplay.

–

Late game -

The usual as the Axis try to secure Caucasus with JAPAN (NOT GERMANY!) and try to secure as much African territory as possible with GERMANY (NOT JAPAN!).  Even though the early to mid game is pretty different with a NG opening, the late game more or less resembles the usual animal, with the exception that Russia is down a fighter so is particularly weaker in its ability to counter both Japan and Germany at the same time.

–

Summing up - in my view, the Allies have some potential gains - particularly, Germany may try West Russia/Caucasus and fail, which pretty much means game over.  The Allies have a bit of accelerated development against Europe; though Germany can counter, any German counter probably gives the Russians that much more breathing room.  However, this does not add up to a winning position in general in my opinion, particularly because if Germany tries West Russia/Caucasus and does well at it, probably it’s game over, only this time Allies lose - additionally, the loss of the Russian fighter hurts the Russians pretty quickly.  The loss of the Russian fighter isn’t game-deciding, though, by any means; in fact, I’d say it probably makes very little significant difference until R4+, by which time a single Russian fighter probably wouldn’t have made much difference in the overall game anyways.

I think NG’s a nice strategy to keep in one’s back pocket.  First, opponents may not be prepared to deal with it.  Second, I think it makes for quicker games, whether win or lose.  Third, it pushes the game in a different direction than usual, so makes things more interesting to players that are jaded with the WR/Ukr open.

–

@Granada:

all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully . . .
So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?

Well, when a Russian triple works, that also works beautifully.  Of course, I’d say NG is much less risky than a Russian triple (and also less potentially rewarding).

Anyways, if you at least are not claiming NG is superior to West Russia/Ukraine, that’s good enough for me.  :evil:

Truth be told, I like a brutal fast game, so I am MORE likely to use things like Russian triple and two-fighters-to-Norway than most players.

@Granada:

Let me for once tell you a story of how it looks when it actually works, a story of a perfect Norwegian gambit I would say.

The description of the game is way too vague to get a real concrete grasp on exactly what happened.  Sounds like Allies got very lucky on multiple early rounds in Africa, Germany screwed around with too much Med fleet.  Besides that, it seems Japan messed around without focus evinced by its attack on Hawaiian islands on J2, while Germany either really got screwed on dice or messed up its buys and moves on G3, or both.

If that’s true, the game doesn’t speak much to the validity of the Norwegian Gambit (i.e. two fighters to Norway on Russia’s first turn).  Allies had good luck, Axis screwed around; all the Allies had to do was avoid tripping and falling on their own swords.

The way I see it, WR/Ukr is a ‘safe’ opening for the Allies; even if things go badly, noncombat moves and unit placement minimizes the damage the Germans can do.  But Norway is ‘dangerous’.  If things go badly with Norway/WR, the Germans can SMASH the Russians, and there isn’t much the Allies can do except hope for some extremely crappy G1 dice.

(edit) - I would say the Norway two-fighter opening has one advantage - if you’re going against an Axis player that doesn’t know how to counter properly, and that isn’t able to improvise an effective counter, then with average to good dice, you will have a better edge than you would with a WR/Ukr open.

BUT I would say if the Axis player IS prepared, the Norway opening is at best only a little better, if that.  Early game, the Russians lose a fighter; mid to late game if Norway is in Russian hands, UK doesn’t have Norway income (which I am increasingly thinking is very imporant in the face of UK territory losses in Africa/Asia/Pacific).  If Norway is still in Russian hands and Moscow falls, the Allies will lose that many IPCs in income as Norway becomes effectively dead territory.  Yes, Norway in Russian hands increases Russian income, but in a worse-case (not worst case) scenario, the Allies can really afford to lose Moscow - and if they do, Norway in Russian hands does the Allies no good, but if Norway is owned by anyone else, the Allies can at least contest it.

@theROCmonster:

KJF can work vs a good axis player even an expert level player. This depends on the dice R1. If the dice go extremely well (I’d say 10% or fewer of games) the allies can go all out on Japan. The point of Kill Japan isn’t taking out japans capital it is crippling japan to where japan is making 8 dollars because the only place left is Japans capital. Then you can swing all your units into defending Russia and eventually taking out Germany.

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

Russia doesn’t have much room to start up a KJF.
Let’s say Germany totally kills itself on dice.  Then wouldn’t it be better to go KGF anyways?
UK doesn’t have a lot of good attacks to open up a KJF, regardless of what happened on previous turns.
So that brings it to Japan’s turn.  Since we’re starting with the premise that the Axis player is good, that means the Japanese player will have contingency plans for retreating and won’t risk navy without good reason.  So exactly HOW bad do the dice have to be for the Japs to really get tanked?
Even on the US turn, there usually isn’t much room for a KJF plan.  Even if Japan got really horrible luck and US/UK managed to kill four Jap transports before the start of J2, even then the Allies could (and maybe should) KGF.

That is to say - in theory, yes, if certain dice fall certain ways, then KJF may be best.  But in real terms, I can’t think of any actual real bad dice results, coming up in a game against a good Axis player, that would have me going KJF instead of KGF.

Except - suppose Germany attempted Anglo-Egypt and completely failed there, then UK/US smashed the surviving Germans in Algeria/Libya, then Japan tried a few naval/air/ground battles and lost two fighters at China, totally failed the Hawaiian Islands fleet battle (say they lost everything and the US fighter survived), then US could follow up and kill the Japanese fleet east of Japan . . . or something . . . basically Japan losing at least two, maybe three of its battleships and carriers . . . I suppose in such a case yeah, KJF.  But the odds of all that going wrong at the same time are pretty bad!

“KJF (Kill Japan First) doesn’t work against against good Axis players”

:-D

Discuss.

@Gragor:

Thanks for all the advice and help. 8-) I think I have found my real problem, Me. I don’t have anybody other than me to play against and lately my games are starting to look similar. so thanks for the help. Quick final question (if anybody’s out there) say Germany takes Gibraltar, can the allies take Gibraltar back? seeing as how Gibraltar borders SZ 13 but not SZ12.

That’s why you play online.  Easier to find opponents.  Playing online also has many other advantages; for example you can play in your underwear while listening to your corporate retreat’s primal scream tapes while giving your dog a bath.  Just hypothetically speaking of course.

Regarding Gibraltar, of course the Allies can retake it.

By the way, I don’t say my previous post is the “right” way to play the game.  For you chess players out there (and Axis and Allies is not really like chess, I know), it’s sort of like me giving general guidelines on king pawn / queen pawn openings.  “this is what you will probably see, this is what you should probably do, this is what your opponent will probably try to do, you want to try to control the center” etc. etc.

Which is not to say that you can’t learn something from a hypermodern instead of a classic approach.  Pawn to king four followed by black’s pawn to king’s rook three seems like a stupid move, but at least one game between masters ended with black winning in the end (can’t cite the specific, just something I remember reading)

But if you’re at the point at which you’re studying hypermodern play, you don’t really need tutoring in the basics of the classical style.

So what’s this all come down to?  Just have fun!  yehaw!

I eat my peas with honey;
I’ve done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny,
But it keeps them on the knife.

@Hobbes:

How about starting from the beginning? What usually happens during the 1st turn? What are the typical moves by each power?

@Gragor:

Every time that I ignore Japan they get freaky strong and either smash the Russians, Africa, US or all three.

Is it time for Bunnies’ speculation?  Oh yes, it’s always that time!  So put on the coffee and dance with Bunnies as he/she/it Jumps To Conclusions!  (catch the other exciting Bunnies videos for corporate group exercises, including Dodging The Issues, Side-Stepping Responsibility, Flying Off The Handle, Pushing Your Luck, Stretching The Truth, and (for you sedentary types) Lying Down On The Job (not to be confused with Lying On The Job, which is just a given).

I’m like Richard Simmons, only evil.

But in all seriousness - if your opponent is skilled, and you’re trying to do KGF (Kill Germany First), it’s taken as a given that Japan will get nice and fat, or “freaky strong” as you put it.  In that case, Moscow and Africa are often difficult or impossible to secure.  The trick is that the Allies can afford to lose Moscow if they can secure Berlin (i.e. not grab it for a single turn, but actually hold on to it).  If Japan can’t take Berlin back pretty fast, the Allies win.

Still, there is one key phrase that sets a lot of warnings off.
@Gragor:

Every time that I ignore Japan they . . . smash . . . US

Danger!  Danger Will Robinson!

And here is where I will Jump to Conclusions - that is, I say the Allies are Doing Something Wrong.  If Japan ever has even the POTENTIAL to smash the US, there is something seriously weird going on.  (Is that really jumping to conclusions or just calling a spade a spade?  Hm.)

A typical game, I would say, looks something like this - Russia buys 3 infantry 3 tanks or 5 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank, attacks West Russia/Ukraine, retreats from Buryatia, sends Russian sub to join UK battleship/transport.  Germany buys 10 infantry 2 tanks or 5 infantry 5 tanks, trades various territories in Europe (should have Karelia, Belorussia, and probably Ukraine at end of German turn, but possibly taking West Russia), attacks Anglo-Egypt, attacks the UK battleship/transport.  UK builds carrier and 2 destroyers, kills the Japanese transport at Kwangtung, retakes Anglo-Egypt (or at least destroys all the Germans there), retreats from India and Africa, moving all forces towards Persia (alternatively attacking Borneo), and possibly attempting to take New Guinea.  Japan builds three transports and a destroyer, or two transports and an industrial complex, and attacks Sinkiang (killing US fighter and infantry), India (if possible), and Buryatia, also killing UK fleet near India.  US builds at least one carrier and one destroyer for its East Coast fleet, plus transports and ground units, flies 2 US fighters onto UK carrier that UK built on its turn.

Later, the game goes something like this - the Germans grab a lot of territory in Africa, but don’t have the power to smash Russia in Europe.  UK and US drop units to Africa early and start retaking territory from Germany, then UK/US switch to dropping units into Europe.  (The Allies need time to build up their fleet).  Japan smashes up the Pacific coast with some light interference from the Allies, and harasses territories in the Pacific.  Some time after UK/US reclaim Africa, Japan starts messing with Africa (if it can afford to, depending on the situation in Europe).  Inevitably, the Japanese start shoving fat blocks of infantry towards Moscow ASAP, and follow up with tanks that they either build in a coastal industrial complex (preferably India, but French Indochina does fine too), and/or offload from transports from Japan.

At this point, the Allies have to try very hard to make sure that Japan does not control Caucasus.

Depending on dice results (there’s no way to avoid the role of dice (oo a pun) in the game) - the Allies may or may not be able to pressure Berlin while protecting Moscow.  If it looks like it’s going to be close, the Allies can abandon Moscow for a triple hit against Berlin (although trying to make sure that Japan does NOT capture Moscow right after Russia captures Berlin.)  It’s often OK to lose Moscow if the Allies can secure Berlin.  (not just CAPTURE it, but take it and keep the Japs out).

Now yes, of course players can deviate from all that, and probably WILL deviate.  Even if players don’t set out to deviate from those general guidelines, the game can change drastically with a few dice results.  (For example, a conservative Russian turn beginning with West Russia/Ukraine attacks could fail horribly, then the Germans could build 8 tanks . . . it isn’t normal for Germany to build 8 tanks, but if Russia’s horribly weak at the start, the Germans can and should change their plans to take advantage.)

But - that’s the GENERAL game plan.  If you see freaky stuff, it’s probably high risk.  Like suppose Japan does nothing but try to kill the US.  That means Japan has to build a lot of transports, as it races US’s huge production.  Not only that, but even an ABORTIVE attack by Japan against US eats up a lot of time.  Suppose Japan lands 5 infantry 5 tanks in Alaska.  Fine, what does it follow up with?  Another 5 infantry 5 tanks?  That requires 10 transports, or that Japan drains units from Soviet Far East.  In either event, Japan wastes a LOT of time fighting over a 2 IPC territory, while the US can just pump out a few infantry to defend against the invasion.  (OK, or a lot of infantry.  But the Japs still waste incredible amounts of time no matter how you look at it - unless US screws up and lets the Japs lock down Western US, which should never happen.)

The units bought should be roughly like this

Russia:  Infantry and tanks, a couple artillery.  No air or navy.  Infantry soak up hits on offense or defense, and are cheap.  Tanks are highly mobile, so have a gigantic threat range (they can charge east or west as the situation demands).  Artillery are good for when you don’t want to spend as much as you would for a tank, but you need a bit more hitting power than just infantry.  (but you don’t want to overdo artillery;tanks mobility is so useful).  Air or navy are not a good idea, unless you have something very specific in mind, and even then it’s not something to undertake lightly.

If Russia buys a lot of expensive non-ground units, it opens the door for Germany and Japan to pound it with tanks.  So whatever Russia buys had better Really Be Worth It.

Germany:  Infantry and tanks, and a couple artillery.  Air or navy depending on the strategy being employed.  Germany needs to produce infantry EARLY, because those infantry need to march all the way to Moscow.  But Germany can’t ignore early tanks either - tanks allow Germany to pressure Russia much faster.  Later in the game, tanks posted on Eastern Europe can threaten Allied landing on Western Europe, protect Eastern Europe, and threaten any number of territories on the German-Russian front.  So really, Germany wants a lot of tanks.

Germany may ignore air/navy, or try some things which are not too awful -

German bombers should be placed on Southern Europe to threaten not only Atlantic shipping, but also points in Africa.  (A couple of German infantry should be put there too).  Eventually, German bombers placed on Western Europe can trade territories on the German-Russian front and also seriously disrupt Allied shipping in the Atlantic.

Germany may try a carrier for the Mediterranean to try to protect the African route or may try to mass fighters instead of bombers for when the Allies eventually close in.

UK:  A carrier, two destroyers, and three to five transports total for the Atlantic fleet.  US should provide the rest of the naval defense.  The rest of the time, UK should pop out infantry and artillery and/or tanks to drop into Europe.  If the Japs move their air towards Germany (which is a sure bet for a KGF game), the Allies may get fleet locked, unless UK builds more fleet.

If UK builds a lot of air or industrial complexes, those just delay UK from dropping cost-efficient ground.  UK needs to build some naval defensive units early, because US is too far away to get a defensive fleet in early.

Japan:  Should not lose any battleships or carriers, and should have four to six transports in the Pacific, with an industrial complex or two, preferably on India or French Indochina in that order, pumping out early infantry joined by later tanks, and using excess transports to pull infantry off islands and to harass Australia and Africa (not all at the same time of course).  A destroyer or two can come in very handy, but Japan should try to build just one.  (Of course, what’s best changes a lot depending on the situation!)

If US tries to push on Japan, Japan should go subs/fighters and a couple extra destroyers.  As soon as US fleet moves in, Japan’s cheap subs attack with air support.  If for some reason Japan wants to retreat, it can build new carriers and land its fighters there.  It should take almost forever for the US to really pressure the Japs, if the Japs know what they’re doing.  Meanwhile, infantry/fighters and a few tanks can still pressure Asia and possibly Africa.

Japan should not buy battleships or cruisers, should only build a carrier or two under extreme pressure, and should pressure Asia as much as possible while maintaining a threat against any US fleet that comes into range.

US:  Build carriers (probably two), destroyers (should have at least two on the East Coast; of course there’s one at Panama to start with), transports (six or eight at least).  Early on, the US fleet goes to the sea zone west of Algeria, probably uniting with the UK fleet.  This chops the German naval game in half, stopping the Germans from moving fleet between the Atlantic and Mediterranean.  The Allies also land units in Algeria to start reclaiming it from Germany.  If the Allies want to KGF, they can’t allow Germany to control Africa; otherwise the Germans pump insane numbers of infantry from Berlin and Southern Europe.  Even if Japan grabs Africa later, the Germans must be denied African income.  (Germany can maintain African income by blowing a LOT of IPCs on Med navy, but this also ends OK for the Allies)

Later game, US marches units from Eastern/Western US to Eastern Canada.  From Eastern Canada, a transport drops them to London.  From London, another transport drops to Europe.  That’s why you want six to eight transports.  If you have eight transports, that’s two fleets of four transports each.  Four transports means US can maintain a flow of eight units a turn into Europe.  Both fleets can combine for a big drop to Western Europe too.

@Gragor:

Every time that I ignore Japan they get freaky strong and either smash the Russians, Africa, US or all three.

It’s clear to me that you must be doing something wrong, my young Padawan.

The earlier you produce infantry, the earlier it gets to the front lines.  But the Germans have a few problems with constant all infantry builds.

1.  Infantry lack the mobility of tanks, which not only slows progress against the Russians, but also decreases Germany’s options late game.  Imagine 20 German tanks on Eastern Europe with a few fodder infantry.  That force defends Eastern Europe, threatens Karelia, Archangel, Belorussia, West Russia, Ukraine, and Caucasus.  (I think).  It also helps screw with Allied landings on Western Europe.

2.  Germany can only use tanks on the G2 (Germany’s second turn) attack movement phase that were either began on the board or that were produced on G1.  Typically, you need about 2 German tanks built on G1 to open up any sort of really interesting possibilities for G2; 5 German tanks is a better bet a lot of the time because it applies more pressure early.

–

On the other hand, all infantry builds can be very nasty in some circumstances.  The key is to use German infantry to soak up casualties and tanks and air for hitting power; the Germans need to preserve their tanks and air because they aren’t producing any more.

–

When to do one or the other?  I would say to use all infantry German build on G1 if you think you can capitalize on some bad luck or mistakes that Russia made, or perhaps if you’re going for a coordinated 4-5 attack with Japan.  Generally, though, the additional IPCs you spend on early tanks let you threaten a lot more territory, which makes the game much more interesting.  10 infantry 2 tanks, or 5 infantry 5 tanks are quite different; I’d say a player should try switching between those to see which he/she prefers.

Of course, there are other builds like 1-2 bombers, or Med fleet, but I won’t get into that here.

Japan needed to go IC/tanks if Germany went G1 8 tank build.

So, Hobbes - you did West Russia/Norway open with Allies, did badly at West Russia, put 6 infantry at Buryatia, and put the UK India fighter on Buryatia on UK1?  What happened with Anglo-Egypt?

Probably the GTO vets are also assuming most of the Axis air is already dead too.

@Hobbes:

there are veteran players on GTO forums who claim that Russia can fall as long as the US holds the Pacific islands… I’m still trying to prove/disprove that hypothesis.

We make some assumptions, ending with Russia falling and US grabbing the Pacific islands.  This has to be round five or six at least.  So what do we know?

1.  We know UK doesn’t have a particularly healthy navy reinforcement to Russia (or at least it shouldn’t), BECAUSE Russia fell.  (If there are loads of UK troops ready to secure Moscow after Germany grabs Moscow for a single turn, then Russia didn’t really “fall”).

2.  Probably Germany controls Africa.

3.  US has at least two carriers, four fighters, and at least two destroyers in the islands south of Japan.  Plus one or two transports, and controls certain 4 IPC islands.

Now here’s the key assumption that I think these GTO vets are making.  I would guess they think the Japanese fleet is destroyed.  If the Jap fleet is destroyed, then US has logistic advantage with amphibious assaults on territories, and probably US and UK can work together to harass European coast/Africa/finish Japan (not all of those, but enough to get a win)

But if the Japanese fleet is NOT destroyed - and it should not be, because Japan can always just run away - Germany can get into the mix.  Then, I think Axis have the advantage.

The UK Indian Ocean fleet.