Posts made by newpaintbrush

May I humbly recommend the MACE WINDU FLYING JEDI strategy?

@Hobbes:

@Zhukov44:

Interesting discussion on Nor/WR.  I’m curious what people’s guidelines are on when it’s appropriate for Germany to counter WR following a standard Nor/WR opening for both dice and low luck.  If Russia loses 3 inf, do you go for it, or does Russia need to lose 4?

With LL Russia needs only to lose 2 inf… which it will unless G rolls a 6 on the 1st round of combat on WRus. Russia is left with 7 inf, 2 art and 3 arm, Germany attacks with 6 inf, 1 art, 3 arm and 4 fighters. So it’s basically suicide for the Russians.

Does that factor in the AA gun that should be on West Russia?

Re:  Large Stacks:  You see this a lot in games in which both Axis and Allies are controlled by conservative players of moderate to high skill.  If one or the other player is aggressive, large stacks won’t form, and the game will end quickly as the battles are quickly resolved.  If one or the other player is not at least moderately skilled, that player will make a mistake that the other player can exploit, which makes the game shorter (so large stacks don’t have time to build up).

Re:  UK/US (and USSR) roles:  This following comment is not directly relevant to earlier posts in this thread.  If Germany holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, UK can attack and fail and retreat, then US can attack and fail and retreat, then Russia can attack.  That is, the Allies have three chances to commit minimal force to attack a German-controlled Russian territory and take control of it by the time Russia collects income.  On the other hand, if Japan holds a territory originally controlled by Russia, there are only two chances.  If Japan holds a territory originally controlled by US, there is usually just one chance that has to be taken by the US.

If this wasn’t already an indicator that KGF is better for Allies, there’s the additional logistic advantage in going KGF.  UK/US fleets in the north Atlantic can hit any number of territories with cheap infantry (plus support) from amphibious assaults.  Allied forces in east Asia have almost no relative mobility because they’re stuck walking around instead of being offloaded from ships; the Japanese are the ones with the mobility advantage as the Japanese can offload to any number of key points (Buryatia and French Indochina being key), plus have the air power to turn a couple of infantry and a tank or two into a significant attack threat.

Re:  “conventional wisdom” - the “conventional wisdom” behind KGF is to attack 3 vs 1; the Allies are delayed by having to build the naval infrastructure, but then have a logistic advantage with amphibious assaults that potentially lets them trade off at 1:1 or better.  The delay is usually long enough for Japan to get quite large and nasty, which means the inevitable loss of Moscow.  If the Allies do NOT trade off with Germany early, Germany can potentially have defensive stacks that get reinforced by Japanese fighters.  Japan then tries to either grab Caucasus or Moscow while Berlin holds fast; if Berlin can hold for a few turns while the Japs control Caucasus or Moscow, the Axis probably win.

Re:  low luck favoring Allies:  Try to quantify that with an Axis bid if you would, please.  3 IPCs worth of units preplaced on the board / added to the bank?  More?

@Hobbes:

Germans 40 infantry + 15 armor on Ukraine.
Allies, have a stack of 70+ units on Caucasus, including Russia’s 27 inf and 17 arm, some 35 UK ground units (inf, art and arm) and a few US ones.

Allied fleet has finished reinforcing Russia through Archangel and has started contesting Western Europe but Germany still has some 30-40, mostly infantry, to defend itself. And the Japs are getting large stacks to Sinkiang, India and Yakut.
Then Germany moves its 50 unit stack from Ukraine to West Russia. It’s the UK round now. What would you do?

a) Attack the German stack on West Russia before the Japanese can land planes to protect it, followed by a Russian attack to destroy the remains.
b) Move all the UK (and Allied) units to defend Russia.
c) Advance everything into Ukraine.

How many Japanese units were in Asia?  30 to 40+ ground?  That’s my guess.

Re:  Original Post:

If Japan skips hitting the Hawaiian Islands fleet, US has a lot of potential attacks on the coast; at the very least, US can use that fighter early in Asia or Europe.

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.

SLOW:

With the slow variation, Japan can use fighters and subs to stall out the US fleet in the Pacific while maintaining the ability to trade coastal territories.  Transports can dump Japanese infantry anywhere along the coast, making it very hard for the Allies to fortify any single territory.

The Russians run into a major problem in that Russian infantry need to march from Russia-Novosibirsk-China-Sinkiang-coast; a five turn delay.  (Much more favorable is Caucasus-Ukraine or Russia-West Russia-Eastern Front with a one or two turn delay).  How bad is that, really?  It’s like four entire turns worth of production lost just because those infantry aren’t contributing much while they’re marching to the coast.

In contrast, Japan’s logistics are much EASIER, as the Allies march right into their mouths.  Japan-coast,  a single turn.

Then add in the fact that it’s very difficult for the Allies to redirect their attacks, while Japan has no such difficulties.  Suppose the Allies decide to push in at Buryatia in the north.  Then Japan could steal a march and push in on India to the south.  After all, Japan can afford to lose the Pacific Coast if it means Japan and Germany combined can smash Caucasus and Russia in the meantime.

Russia can compensate by building expensive tanks and fighters for better response time, but when considering that they also need to fend the Germans off, it becomes a very nasty battle.

FAST:

Japan’s first friend against a fast industrial complex-supported KJF is the dice.  A few bad dice rolls on the part of the Allies can mean the Allies got smoked right away.  Particularly, if UK attacks French Indochina and fails, and the German-UK battle in Anglo-Egypt (both the initial German attack and the UK counter).  But let’s say the dice are not too bad, and that the Sinkiang/IC plan goes off.

Japan’s second friend is that the typical IC plan calls for a UK IC on India and a US IC on Sinkiang.  Rather than two points of attack AGAINST Japan, those ICs become targets FOR Japan, with the added bonus that trying to fortify both severely weakens Moscow.  The Allies then need to protect three targets; Moscow, India, and Sinkiang.  Germany presses towards Moscow while Japan builds up at French Indochina.  If the Allies continue to fortify India and Sinkiang heavily, Moscow will be in danger.  If the Allies retreat from India or Sinkiang, the Japanese move in and have a ready-built industrial complex ready to use on their next round.  That wouldn’t be so bad if Japan could be counterattacked, but Japan has a lot of room for allowing the Allies to advance.  It doesn’t matter if Japan loses the entire Pacific coast if Moscow falls while Japan keeps its air force and a strong grip on Tokyo.

–

All this isn’t to say that KJF is awful, or even “incorrect”.    But I definitely consider KJF to be an uphill battle.  I consider KGF to offer the Allies far better flexibility and concentration of force.

If the Axis mess up, or have super awful rolls, then sure, KJF.  But otherwise I would stick with KGF.

Industrial complexes can only produce as many units as the territory value of the territory they’re on.  So industrial complex on London can produce 8, on Berlin can produce 10, on Tokyo can produce 8.  So say you had 30 IPC with UK.  You could only produce a limit of 8 units on London.  Even though you could buy 10 infantry, you would only be able to place 8 of them.

New industrial complexes can be placed anywhere that’s been controlled by the power since the beginning of its turn.  The new industrial complex doesn’t need to have an industrial complex to be placed.  For example, you could put an industrial complex on India on UK’s first turn (unless Germany somehow captured India).

You can’t produce any units at an industrial complex unless it’s been under your control since the start of your turn.  So if you put an industrial complex in India on UK’s first turn, you couldn’t place any other new units there, because the industrial complex came into play at the end of the UK turn.

Number of units you can produce at an industrial complex is less any industrial damage from bombing.  But that’s another matter.

–

Forget “relative strength”.  Say you attack an infantry with an infantry.  Your attacking infantry attacks at 1, which means if you roll a 1 or less on a six sided die you get a hit.  (Of course you can’t roll less than 1).  The defending infantry defends at 2, which means if the defender rolls a 2 or less on a six sided dice the defender gets a hit.  (So that means defender can roll a 2 or a 1 to hit).  That’s right, an infantry attacks at 1 and defends at 2.  Most units have different attack and defense values.

Combats repeat until attacker is wiped out, defender is wiped out, or attacker retreats.  There are special rules for certain circumstances like amphibious assaults.  Depending on how dice rolls go, the “stronger” side could get wiped out without any losses suffered by the “weaker” side.

In a lot of ways, it’s like asking “Which screwdriver is the best?”

If you have a straight edge, you can use it to undo some Phillips head screws, to pry open paint cans, lot of different things.

But in some situations, you just need the right Phillips head to get the job done.

In even rarer instances, you need something like an Allen wrench.

So you could think of a straight like infantry, Phillips like tanks, and an Allen wrench like artillery.  Infantry are most generally useful, but there are specific times and places where substitutes just won’t do.  As useful as straights are, you don’t want to have nothing but straights in your toolkit.  You want a few Phillips and Allen wrenches too.

@GCar:

This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. . . . It has principally 2 “tricks”:

• The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)

• Japan coming through Suez, merging with Germany fleet and seriously disrupting allies fleets in the Atlantic

Just as I wrote; I haven’t seen anything I consider to be a strong Med AC strategy in play yet.  Not sure what you think the proper use of Med AC is, but from what you’ve written, I get the impression you have a very different idea of how it’s supposed to be used, so not surprisingly, you think it’s weak.

It’s sort of like using a toaster as a hammer.  You would be right in saying that a toaster makes a bad hammer.  But what’s the point in trying to make perverted use of toasters?  Use a toaster as a toaster, and a hammer as a hammer.

1.  Blitz vs London is not possible as I view the “proper” use of the Med AC strategy.

2.  Axis control of the Atlantic is not normally “proper” either.  The use of the Japanese fleet to bolster the Mediterranean is purely to stall the German Med fleet from being blown up by subs and air.  Depending on the situation, the Axis fleet may threaten the sea zone west of Algeria.  But venturing into the Atlantic is just a really bad idea for Axis.

Some things are just not good.  Like a Russian battleship on R1, or a Japanese carrier and a destroyer on J1.  But a G1 Mediterranean AC is not like that.

I’m not going to go as far as saying “German Med AC is superior”.  But I will certainly say it’s not one of those fluky silly strategies like Russian 1 battleship or Japan 1 carrier/2 destroyers.

@Zhukov44:

Barring dicing, UK should be able to block a J2 sail through, particularly if there was no G1 attack on Egy.  That gives UK until UK3 to put together an air attack on the Med fleet.  There’s no place the German fleet can run that bombers built UK2 can’t attack.

In Revised there was a very good German fleet/combine strategy that gave above average results unless the Allied opponent knew exactly how to counter it……But in 42 I’m not optimistic about any kind of German surface navy purchases.  But please keep trying em–it’s nice to score some Allied wins here and there.

:roll:

Yes, I can imagine the Axis might win some victories if Russia were to do things like buy multiple navy / air units on R1.  Oh wait . . . is that a little personal Zhuk?  :?

I’m just busting your chops a little  :-D, but I doubt you have ever faced off against a dedicated Axis strat for German-controlled Med.  I know I’ve never seen it tried except in my notes.

As far as blocking the J2 sail through - that isn’t the end.  That’s the KEY POINT, but it’s not the end.  If you must use chess as an analogy, you could say it’s like trading queens in an attack on the king bishop two square.  The queen attack is just one aspect of the king bishop two square attack; neutralizing it doesn’t mean the end of the attack, let alone the end of the game.

Chop-busting bunnies . . . I could go in for a nice lamb chop.  After which I could do some judo chops, if I knew judo.  Do you find judo bunnies sexy baby, yeah?

1.  Germany allows the Allies early progress in Europe in exchange for later African IPCs.  Germany fueled by African IPCs and a significant and constant threat to Africa is a major problem for the Allies.

“And if you spend too much ipc to avoid this, you’ll maybe conquer Africa - but on the expense of Eastern Europe, Norway and eventually Berlin…?”

No, not really.  UK has less IPCs to fuel its attack; Germany has more to fuel its defense.  Norway should always fall quickly anyways.

Besides, the German fleet isn’t dedicated to Africa.  The idea is not for Germany to try to load up Africa; that’s just crazy talk.  If US loads Africa, great, Germany loads to Europe, and US is stuck walking through Africa.  If US doesn’t load Africa, great, Germany maintains control of Africa.  If US loads Africa a bit, Germany lets the Allies take a few early gains, and takes back whenever it pleases; with a big threat on the Algeria (west of Africa) sea zone, US can either build a fat fleet (delaying it), or transport via Brazil (also delaying).

2.  5 UK air have a hard time vs 2 battleships 2 carriers 4 fighters.  That’s with the Japanese fleet sailing through the Suez on J2, which is hard to prevent with an AC/transport buy for Germany.

3. “I find that the german navy often goes from being a threat . . . to being outnumbered and outcornered in just a few rounds” of course, but I bet you are probably not used to playing a G1 Med carrier (possibly plus) buy strategy, which plays out a lot differently than 5 inf/5 tank or even early Med sub stall buys.

I’m not going to say that G1 Med fleet purchase is the bomb diggity.  But it isn’t some stupid noob strategy either.  The key is the J2 movement of battleship/carrier through the Suez; how can UK try to stop it, how can Germany and Japan try to make it happen.  Everything else comes from that.

Western Canada can no longer be reached from Japan in one transport move.

There may be some other map changes that I haven’t noticed.

Other rules are same as for Global, only there is no tech and no national advantages.

i.e. bombers are 12, industrial bombing leaves damage counters, subs are 6 and can’t be hit by enemy air unless the enemy attacks with a destroyer, destroyers are 8, carriers 14, battleships 20, transports 7 and transports can’t be used as battle fodder, etc. etc.

A G1 (Germany first turn) German carrier for the Mediterranean is an old ploy I favor.  I haven’t done analysis on it yet, but I think it’s interesting enough to consider.

If the Allies put an industrial complex in south Africa, or build a lot of air and/or subs, that is not a response I fear.  I think the response I would least like to see would be a powerful Allied fleet dropping to Algeria, ideally UK1 build 2 destroyer 1 carrier, US1 build fleet, followed by a UK2 drop to Algeria reinforced by a US2 drop to Algeria.  The game then becomes very different to a regular KGF (Kill Germany First) assuming Allies stuck to their guns and went KGF, but I don’t think I would say Germany’s position would be definitively superior.

@BigPapaSmurf:

Send 5 inf from Kar/Arch, 1 Artillery and two fighters to West russia and stack everything else in Cauc. Leave one Inf in Lenningrad and do your standard moves on the east end.

Don’t you run into Germany taking Karelia and West Russia, and establishing a strong center position from which Russia cannot reclaim Karelia income?

The main goal of the Ukr attack is IMHO to get the fighter,

Cutting most of Germany’s ability to attack Caucasus is another big big plus.  If Russia lucks out on the Ukraine attack, Germany may either risk fighters on G1 on other targets to send a fighter to Ukraine, or may send valuable tanks to reclaim Ukraine.  Or if Russia lucks out at Ukraine, Russia may retreat to Caucasus to preserve its tanks/artillery.

I’d say other things on your list should be:

3 transports 1 destroyer
4 transports
2 transports 1 industrial complex
2 industrial complexes

(The thought behind 1 industrial complex or 2 is very different; 1 IC mixes early pressure with infantry backup; 2 ICs just goes “hell for leather” as you may say.)

That pretty much covers it.

Do you prefer on-spot unit production with ICs or you rather build a drop-off fleet? Or a mixture of both?
For the IC-builders, do you prefer FIC or Manchuria?
For the fleet-builders, how do you answer the threat of the US sub-ftr or the UK bomber?

If Russia suffered horrible dice and Germany had amazing dice, and/or Russia blundered, then you could be looking at a situation in which Axis can take Moscow with tanks before the Allies can get their transport fleet into play.  The Allies can prevent the loss of Moscow with desperation plays like building fighters and flying them in, but that doesn’t work so well for the Allies.  In any event, if Germany cracked Russia’s power and went with a 7-8 tank build, I’d do double industrial complexes with Japan, or at least one industrial complex and two transports.  The timing’s a bit off for a coordinated German/Japanese push, but it works out because of the pressure.

What specifically to look for?  Say Russia tried a Russian triple attack and failed, and Germany successfully brutally countered, along with a 7-8 tank G1 build, or say Russia failed Ukraine in a Ukraine/West Russia attack, leaving high odds for losing Caucasus and a fortified West Russia on G1.  In any event, the idea is that the Russians suffer major casualties and the Germans few by the end of G1, with a German tank build ready to put nasty pressure on in a couple turns.

Otherwise, I’d use transports.  Use of transports depends on the situation.  Probably  the Kwangtung transport is dead.  The Japanese transport may be used for French Indochina or Buryatia (or less commonly Borneo, or Kwangtung or Manchuria or Soviet Far East).

You start with 1 infantry on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on Phillipines, and 6 assorted ground on Japan.  That’s 10 units.  If you drop to Buryatia, that leaves 8 ground units in the area.  Since you can’t use 5 transports particularly well in that situation, you could opt to build 3 transports to finish J1 (Japan’s first turn) with 4 transports.

Alternatively, if you drop to French Indochina, that leaves 8 ground units in the area of Japan, but now the transport from French Indochina can grab 2 infantry from East Indies.  So in that situation you can use 5 transports; using 4 transports to offload units from the area of Japan, and the 5th transport at French Indochina to offload units from East Indies on J2.  You could also go 4 transport build even if dropping to Buryatia on J1, to get your infrastructure set to start picking up infantry from New Guinea (if it survived), Caroline Islands, and Solomon Islands preparatory to hitting Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, and later Alaska, Hawaii, and so on.

On the other hand, US and UK will likely have subs in the area.  A battleship can escort transports with almost no risk from sub attack in most situations (unless Allies go Pacific), but tying up a battleship means that those battleships can’t be used to potentially reinforce the German fleet in the Mediterranean.  On the other hand, if Japan diverts to Med a lot, US can build a few harassment units and mess with Japan a lot.  It’s all solved with a destroyer build that chases subs away from the Pacific.  But two is too much because building two slows Japanese progress in Asia.

Industrial complexes are preferably at French Indochina, Kwangtung, and Manchuria, in that order, unless Allies go Pacific.  French Indochina lets you pressure India and China.  Kwangtung lets you pressure French Indochina and China (assuming the Allies made a play for French Indochina).  Manchuria just gets you China.  As far as pressuring Buryatia from Manchuria - Japan should have all the pressure it needs with Japanese transports.

SOME players use an industrial complex on East Indies.  I’m really not sure why.  For a game like Anniversary Edition, in which the map’s changed, that move makes sense.  For Spring 1942, you need an industrial complex and two transports to fully utilize East Indies; with no Allied pressure, it ties up two transports for little gain.  With Allied pressure, it just gives the Allies another juicy target.

If the Allies go Pacific and get early gains, and Japan finds an IC useful, Manchuria is probably the best bet.  It’s almost impossible for the Allies to really crack Manchuria in any sense.

Re:  Allied threat to Japan shipping:

I usually hit Pearl with sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber, and end with battleship, destroyer, carrier, and two fighters in sea zone east of Japan.  That’s enough to handle almost anything.  If there’s a UK carrier in the area, I usually hit it because you can be threatened on UK2 with sub/carrier/cruiser/2-3 fighters and bomber in some circumstances.  Wiping the carrier makes it sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber at worst.

Controlling the sea zone east of Japan for the start of J2 is very important because of the flexibility Japan gains from being able to take infantry from Phillipines, Wake, and Okinawa.  I will leave it alone if I think it’s necessary, but it’s not something I let happen easily.

Absolute worst case scenario, Japan places units in sea zone west of Japan, which is sufficient protection.

If you put 1 on Soviet Far East, Japan has a high percentage attack there with inf/artillery.  The lone Russian infantry dies, the territory is lost, and if Russia counters SFE on R2 (Russia’s second turn), on J2, Japan just takes it right back and kills Russian infantry.  Russia trying to trade early game with Japan and Germany is just not something that Russia can sustain at all, with 3 territories against Germany and 1-2 territories against Japan, and only 2 Russian fighters to work with.

And no, it isn’t "easy to do if I just buy a third Russian fighter’, because a German tank push drains Russia out pretty fast when combined with Russia sending units east.  Less Russian ground units (buying fighter) plus less Russian ground units (sending units east) equals German push in Europe.

Stack Yakut?  I wouldn’t. I don’t want to trade with Japan on the coast anyways.  So it’s back towards Russia.  It is not in Russia’s best interest to lose unit for unit against Japan in an area in which Japan can see everything coming and respond instantly.  Specifically, Russia has to march infantry into Novosibirsk then into Yakut, before they can threaten Soviet Far East or Buryatia, which uses up a lot of time (production one turn, then march, march, fight, for a three turn delay, as opposed to a one turn delay of production-fight from Caucasus into Ukraine, or production-march-fight of two turn delay from Russia to West Russia to Belorussia/Karelia.)  Also Japan can see it all coming, and can easily stack so heavily that Russia is forced to retreat, losing more time, or Japan can divert through China, forcing Russian retreat again (and losing time again).

6, 1, or none on Buryatia, and that is all.  I’d say none, unless you’re trying some sort of KJF (Kill Japan First) variant, or willing to risk a G2 tank blitz through Africa, in which case 6 is worth thinking about.

Why none?  Why not one?

If Japan keeps its battleship at the sea zone east of Japan, a transport can offload two ground units plus battleship support shot for a high odds attack on Buryatia, which would kill one Russian infantry anyways.

Why not six?

Japan can hit Buryatia with up to 4 ground units plus air and a battleship support shot.  Even if Japan loses, Russia will lose a lot of infantry that it can’t replace.  So long as Japan retreats its air, it should be fine.  If Japan wins, it’s very nasty for Russia, of course.

You can preserve the Buryatia stack by using the UK India fighter to hit the Kwangtung transport and land on Buryatia.  But you have to make the decision on R1 whether to stack Buryatia with six or none.  Suppose Germany gets lucky at Anglo-Egypt and keeps 3 German ground units there.  UK will probably have to use 3 infantry, fighter, and cruiser shot for decent odds there, meaning the UK fighter can’t land on Buryatia.  Of course, if Germany only has 1 ground unit surviving at Anglo-Egypt, then UK will be fine with just 3 infantry and a cruiser shot, but there’s no way to tell on R1 what will happen on G1.

Suppose that the Allies are willing to take a chance.  IF Germany does not hit Anglo-Egypt at all, or IF Germany does not keep a lot of units at Anglo-Egypt, or IF UK locks itself into committing only 3 infantry 1 cruiser shot, or IF UK decides to hit Anglo-Egypt and abandons Buryatia hoping that Japan MAY not hit Buryatia . . . if, if, if.  But consider that of Japan’s starting units, it may choose to send 1 fighter 1 bomber to Hawaii (along with some navy), and 1-2 fighters to China, leaving 3-4 fighters to hit other targets.  3 infantry 1 artillery and 3-4 fighters 1 battleship support shot has decent odds of destroying the Buryatia stack of 6 lone infantry.  Of course . . . with the UK fighter, it’s a bit different.  So it’s pretty much a question of risking a G2 tank blitz through Africa in exchange for helping protect the Buryatia stack.

Which is not to say that a Buryatia stack is “wrong”.  I just don’t think it’s definitely “right” - i.e. it’s not something that I would say Russia should always always do.  I think it’s a matter of preference.

Why not none?  Because then Japan can just walk in with one infantry, and use its Japanese transport to land units at French Indochina, possibly setting itself up for a 4 transport J1 build, early attack on Africa, and early control of India.  So there’s really something to be said for all sides.

Never tell me the odds!

Assuming Japan doesn’t mess up horribly -

A fat Japan threat to Western US heavily slows early Japanese progress in Asia.  Let them threaten.  As soon as they move out of range, W US tanks blitz to E Canada, and W US infantry moves to W Canada preparatory to moving to E Canada for the E Canada-London or E Canada-Algeria drops.

If Japan sends its fleet anywhere but the Pacific region, US and UK both have starting subs that can harass Japanese shipping.  True, a Japanese destroyer or two can greatly decrease the Allied threat, but early Japanese destroyer builds hinder their progress in Asia and Africa.

If Japan heavily commits its fleet to, say, Mediterranean, or sends around South America or Africa, then a few US units in Pacific can really screw with Japan.  Later in the game, if there’s no Japanese navy or air in the region, US can start grabbing those high IPC islands with a transport (just 7 IPCs) while keeping off Japanese naval units with cheap subs.  Japan would be forced to either bring a carrier or battleship back, or build destroyers/subs, plus possibly pulling back fighters to deal with the situation, at which point US could build destroyer/carrier/fighters in Pacific and increase the pressure on Japan.  Once US has its infrastructure set up against Europe, it usually doesn’t need to invest much more expensive IPCs in naval for the Atlantic, freeing resources for Pacific harassment.

–

As far as US fighters/bombers moving away from Pacific, there’s two scenarios.

Japan hits Hawaii heavily:  If Japan went to Hawaiian Islands fleet super heavy, you’ll probably see 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighters 1 cruiser 1 sub.  (This is possible if sending 3 fighters 1 bomber to Hawaii and taking Japanese air as casualties).  US’s counter of 1 battleship 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 sub (023344, 6 hits at 16 attack) attacking into Japan’s 7 hits (0123444, 7 hits at 18 defense) is not particularly favorable, even if you account for Japan having to sink its fighters before its carrier.  Consider what happens with a bit of bad dice - the US battleship dies plus a load of expensive US air, the Japanese battleship survives, and possibly a Japanese carrier and even a Jap fighter.

Japan hits Hawaii lightly:  US air doesn’t have anything good to hit in Pacific anyways.

–

Of course the Axis have some counter to everything Allies do, and vice versa.  If there weren’t counters, then the game wouldn’t be particularly interesting; you’d just spam the attack for which there was no reasonable response, and you’d win every time.

–

IF Japan screws up or has super lousy dice and looks to lose at least 2 of its 4 battleship/carriers by the beginning of J2, then US can think about KJF (Kill Japan First).  Otherwise, I’d send US air towards Atlantic ASAP to help in whacking the German battleship.  Ideally, you want to whack the German battleship on UK2/US2 at the latest.

Responses in red below.@Black:

Gent

I’m planning you uses some additional game piece.  I’d like your thought on their values.  Do you think these units would be useful?

Mech Infantry
2/2/2 6-IPC

I’m wondering if this would compete too much with artillery but arty still had the advantage of giving +1 to inf. Yeah, I’m betting you’re meaning to put Mech infantry at 4 IPC, with 2 attack, 2 defense, 2 movement.  Rather than 6 IPC  Clearly 3 is too cheap, and 5 is too expensive, unless mech infantry has some special ability not described.

Medium Bomber
3/1/6 10-IPC (strategic bombing - dice role divided by 2 & round up)

I originally made these for the other A&A when a bomber cost 15 IPC.  In these games the medium bomber cost 12 IPC.  I found medium bomber to be more useful for the axis.  Now that a bomber cost 12 IPC in 1942 I’ve decided to make the cost 10 IPC.
For Germany, I would say 10 IPC is borderline too good for an air unit with attack 3, defense 1, and move of 6.  Medium bombers would be VERY useful to Germany.

Jeep Carrier
1/1/2 10-IPC (Can carry only one plane) I don’t understand what this is.  It’s a naval unit?  That attacks and defends at 1, with 2 movement, costing 10 IPC, that carries . . . one fighter?  one bomber?  Carries infantry?  Mechanized infantry?

Replies in red, within quoted text.

@_Flin_:

• R1 WR and UKR (sometimes strafe)
• G1 British Fleet, AES, a bit in Russia with consolidation in UKR, taking Karelia/UKR, sometimes setting up Belo and UKR for trades. If Russia did West Russia/Ukraine, German consolidation at Ukraine on G1 can usually be smashed by Russia.  Imagine an R1 purchase of 5 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank (2 inf 2 art 2 tank is better vs a G1 Ukraine stack, but let’s say Russian player wanted to leave some room for offense.  After mobilization at end of R1 (Russia 1) you may have 5 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank on West Russia, 2 tanks on Ukraine, 5 infantry 1 artillery on Caucasus (placing 3 infantry 1 artillery), 6 infantry 1 tank on Russia (placing 2 infantry 1 tank), plus 2 Russian fighters floating around.  Assuming Germany retakes Ukraine with everything, that’s something like 11 expected German units on Ukraine at end of G1.  Russia’s counter is 7 dice from West Russia, 6 dice from Caucasus, 1 dice from Russia, plus 2 fighters, for a 16 dice vs 11 dice counter, with Russian reserves of 6 infantry plus the R2 build to meet the G2 counter.
• UK1 buys AC, 2 DD, attacks Algeria with Bomber/INF,ARM, sinks Baltic fleet with Fighters. Usually no AES counter. Sinks Jap Trn off Kuangtung with fighter. Indian fleet flees.Germany should probably not have left any units on Algeria.  Supposing Germany to have landed fighters on Western Europe, moving the Algeria units on G1 to Libya would allow for a brutal counter to an Allied landing on Algeria, either by hitting a light ground force with ground from Libya plus Western Europe air, or if Algeria strongly defended, destroying a lot of valuable Allied fleet.

Allowing Germany to control a tank in Anglo-Egypt at the end of G1 opens the door to Japanese fleet in Mediterranean.  Specifically, a G2 capture of Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan (far easier if UK does not counter AES on UK1), protecting both against a UK2 retake, allows J2 movement of battleship and carrier through the Suez canal into the Mediterranean Sea.  This also allows Germany to blitz tanks through Africa on G2.  It is almost impossible for US to counter a G2 tank blitz through Africa, and a KGF (Kill Germany First) plan that leaves Germany sitting on African IPCs means Germany should be far harder to break.

If you’re going to suicide the UK India fleet, it’s probably best to send a UK cruiser or carrier to kill the Japanese transport off Kwangtung.  In a KGF plan, the UK India fleet usually can’t reach the Atlantic to be of use in time.  Alternate uses of cruiser include bombardment of Anglo-Egypt and Borneo; alternate use of carrier includes parking southeast of Africa as a fighter base; if Japan hits the UK carrier/fighter, it risks fighters; if Japan does not hit the UK carrier/fighter, you can set yourself up for a UK2 kill of the German Baltic fleet.

At any rate, suiciding the UK India fleet is probably not best.  There are small but important objective you can accomplish with them.

You’re probably stacking 6 Russian infantry on Buryatia and joining the UK fighter there, preserving Buryatia past J1 for a threatened R2 attack into Manchuria of 6 infantry plus air.  Granted, this does put early pressure on Japan, restricts Japan’s income early, and increases Russian income early, all of which are very nice.  But unless you’re committing to KJF (Kill Japan First), Japan makes back the territory quickly, and with German control of African IPCs, and Japanese fleet in the Mediterranean, you’re looking at a mid-long term Germany that’s very powerful and rich, in exchange for a short-term inconvenience to Japan.

• J1 Attacks China, Small Pearl, buys 2 tran and ground units.If you’re going for early tank presence in Asia, IC/2 transport makes sense.  If you’re just going for sheer units, 4 transports (if UK won’t be able to threaten French Indochina sea zone) or 3 transports 1 destroyer do decently.  You can take ground units from the Japanese islands like Phillipines, Okinawa, Wake, and East Indies.  But at any rate you probably really do not need 2 transports and ground units as a J1 buy.
• US reinforces Algeria, spreads ressources Atlantic/Pacific.If you split US early, it’s usually not a good idea.  You have to race Japan’s 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 fighters, and bomber in the Pacific, and keep an eye on Africa and Europe, which usually means building US defensive fleet early to escort US transports.  The more you concentrate force in one area, the more force your opponent will need to bring to bear to counter, the more flexibility you will have.  The less you concentrate your force, the less your opponent will need to counter, the more flexibility your opponent will have.

Considering that UK/US should have lost at least 3 transports by end of G2 because of the listed Allied moves to Algeria, Allied infrastructure should be shot, and considering there’s a good chance of Japanese reinforcement to the Med fleet, Germans should have a good chance to a long-term stall in Africa.

Sounds to me like the Axis just aren’t pressing their potential attacks hard enough.

“Is there a certain rhythm to the Eastern front?” - sure, Europe, Africa, and Japan should all go to the same beat.  Specifically, if Germany’s pushing like crazy and Japan’s lagging, then the Russians can punish Germany for its greed early, then when UK/US contain Germany, Russia can turn around and fight Japan.  Or if Japan pushes like mad and Germany lags, vice versa.  Only when Japan and Germany time their attacks and exert pressure early is Russia really pressured.

“So how do you balance Africa/Russia/Atlantic? Are the Japanese fighters the key to that?”  Germany just grabs whatever it can in Africa, preserving its presence there as long as possible.  Forget fighting in the main Atlantic; it just isn’t possible unless Allies screw up horribly.  The only place the Axis can really hope to control against a KGF is the Mediterranean, and even then it comes at a cost in Europe.  Japanese air is not the answer to German control of Africa/Russia/Atlantic.

“You can even build an IC (in Anglo-Egypt on UK2).”  If you buy an IC anywhere for UK, you’re slowing your fleet infrastructure, which means slower progress to making drops in Europe.  Plus you make a very juicy target for Japan.  Anyways, Germany should probably not have left its ground on Algeria at end of G1, meaning there’s a decent chance of G2 hitting Anglo-Egypt with 4 ground plus air (depending on the G1 buy)  You don’t want to give India to Japan easily, but with a bit of UK and Russian shenanigans, Japan should have a hard time holding on to India early, with minimal Russian/UK investment.

“WUTLOL?! Can I haz IPCs (for Japan)” - let’s say UK1 moved Australian sub to range of French Indochina sea zone.  J1 counter destroys any UK India fleet that’s in reach of Japanese navy.  J1 build of 3 transports 1 destroyer.  You start with 6 ground on Japan, 1 on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on Phillipines, 2 on East Indies, plus possibles on New Guinea, Caroline Islands, and Solomon Islands.  Say you take 2 ground from Japan, and drop to Kwangtung.  (This is about the worst case scenario for Japan).  J2 you have 4 ground on Japan, 1 on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on East Indies, and 4 transports.  Two of those transports will have to be committed to Buryatia (if dropping to Asia) because of taking infantry from Okinawa/Wake.  The other two can be used on targets ranging from Manchuria to India (although only one makes it to India), but let’s say that Japan commits one transport to Manchuria and one to French Indochina.  This empties Japan and the surrounding islands on J2, and leaves Japan with 4 transports.  1 of those transports can be used to take infantry from East Indies for J3.  So you only really will want 6 ground for the J2 build to fill all transports available.  But that’s only 18 IPCs or so; you still have 2 units that you can build, and perhaps 12 IPCs.  So you can probably afford a transport and a tank, or perhaps transport/infantry and save a few IPCs.  Alternatively, on J2 you could start trying to pick up isolated infantry from Carolines/etc. and harassing Alaska, Hawaii, Australia, etc, but the basics are pretty much the same - picking up Japanese infantry from the islands and using them; you hit 5-6 transports very fast, and with only 3-4 transports taking targets from Japan, you can build a Japanese IC on J3 or J4, depending on the particulars.  A Japanese IC at India may be a little too ambitious in a lot of games; with tight Allied play, French Indochina’s a better bet usually.

“please excuse if I sound a bit angry”

Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.