One more thing -
If UK has to counter Germany at Anglo-Egypt on UK1, UK often does best not to use all available forces. UK’s forces in the area are very limited. Every infantry that UK preserves can be stacked at Persia to contest German control of Trans-Jordan (and hence the Suez Canal) and Japanese control of India.
Nice post. I particularly prefer posts that give percentages and tactical results of actions.
A few minor adjustments/comments.
1. Typical listed results for Anglo-Egypt assume occupation by 2 German tanks, assuming a G1 attack with 2 infantry 2 tank plus air, but as UK has high percentages on the counterattack, I consider Germany to typically attack Anglo-Egypt on G1 with 2 inf 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter or 3 infantry 1 tank 1 fighter, preserving a tank from the UK1 counter. The percentages for Germany’s attack on Anglo-Egypt drop by only a few points when substituting an artillery for a tank at Anglo-Egypt. On the other hand, an extra German tank in Europe boosts Germany’s percentages and threat range quite a lot.
Likely the OP wanted to consider a “worst case” scenario for UK at Anglo-Egypt.
2. There are atypical possibilities not listed. For example, Germans may fail to capture Anglo-Egypt, allowing UK to use the India region units to sink the German battleship. Or the Germans may consolidate at Libya. Or UK may use the India units to fortify an Indian IC.
Likely the OP did not include these much less commonly seen variations. (Or at least, I haven’t commonly seen either.)
3. More than most early resource allocation decisions, UK’s India region units in particular require a broad outlook as well as a finer understanding.
If the fig is left out of the Egypt battle it can instead try to take out the G battleship with assistance from a bomber from London (18% both air, 45% bomb, 21% all dead, 17% bb survives). If successful this would end Germanys Africa campaign on UK1.
I demur; if UK hits the German battleship, it is taking a huge risk. First, there is a considerable chance that UK cripples its air for zero gain. Second, using air against the German battleship means fewer units against Germans in Anglo-Egypt; if Germany is left free to blitz through Africa on G2, the German campaign is far from over. Third, even in the event the German battleship is destroyed, the Russians will need to use a fighter to clean up the German transport, which will detract from Russia’s ability to trade in Europe. (Alternatively if the German transport lives, Germany can drop to Anglo-Egypt again on G2, keeping the Africa campaign alive.)
Consider the alternative in a KGF plan; a US2 drop to Algeria followed by a potential US3 drop to the southwest African coast. Germany makes early gains, but cannot sustain it. Besides, a UK2 or US2 attack on the German Mediterranean fleet gives much more favorable odds on the German battleship (2 UK fighters and UK bomber, and 2 US fighters and US bomber. Specifically UK1 carrier goes southeast of Africa and 2 UK fighters end in West Russia (or thereabouts), and UK bomber to somewhere in Russia, followed by UK2 attack on the Anglo-Egypt sea zone with fighters landing on UK carrier. For US, UK1 carrier build followed by US1 landing 2 fighters on UK built carrier and bomber movement to UK/Archangel, then UK2 carrier movement to Algeria sea zone, then US2 attack on German fleet).
The Borneo attack has much better odds than the FIC attack, however taking Borneo does not hold back Japan even a single round. J1 retakes Borneo J2 can hit India. But 4 IPCs is quite tempting
I agree that Borneo is typically nothing more than a temporary inconvenience to Japan. But Borneo is a huge chunk of income; UK success there almost certainly means a Japanese counter meaning the Japanese will have 2 less units on the Asian mainland early on, plus the Japanese air will be out of position for a little while. Alternatively if the Japanese do NOT counter, UK has a serious income boost for a little while. Given these facts, and the fact that the allocated forces for the Borneo attack does not include air, the Borneo attack CAN be useful in certain rare situations.
For example, suppose Germany takes West Russia and Caucasus on G1, and that the Japanese plan to land four fighters on Caucasus on J1 to prevent a R2 recapture. Since Germany may well have not hit Anglo-Egypt in this example, UK may use its cruiser and infantry to put a bit of pressure on Japan at Borneo, at a time at which Japan needs to focus on extremely quick mobilization in the Asia/India region to support Germany. In the meantime, UK can use its air for other purposes, such as an attempt to recapture Caucasus to prevent Japan from landing fighters.
The Eqypt attack only holds a direct value of 2IPC. However it effectively hinders Germany in picking up Africa early, which in IPCs is probably 2-4 IPCs the next two rounds (depending on the number of German units there), unless Allies does something else to regain Africa (SA IC etc.)
A South Africa industrial complex is awful. If the Allies are going KGF, UK needs a fleet ASAP; pumping money into Africa slashes UK’s ability to project power in the Atlantic. If the Allies are going KJF, a South Africa industrial complex is too far away from the Pacific and India (even if UK doesn’t put an IC on India, India is valuable simply because Japan gets a chunk of income there) and does not produce enough to make a real difference to anything but holding Africa. The only time I would consider a South Africa IC is if each power were being rated based on individual income rather than overall Allied or Axis victory, and if I considered the teamwork of all players involved to be garbage. If Germany and Japan had good teamwork, a South African IC would be a drag on the Allies; if the Allies had good teamwork, a South African IC isn’t needed.
It’s more than a difference of 2-4 IPC. A German tank starting G2 on Anglo-Egypt is almost the entire German campaign in Africa.
First, a G2 blitz through Africa (say to French West Africa) slashes UK income early while boosting German income. Second, German control of Anglo-Egypt on G2 allows the Germans to grab control of Trans-Jordan on G2 thereby gaining control of the Suez Canal. If Trans-Jordan is not countered by UK2, Japan can sail a battleship and carrier into the Mediterranean making the Axis Mediterranean fleet so difficult to sink that the Allies should work around it instead of pouring resources into an effort to sink it.
Third, a G2 blitz cannot be countered. A US1 fleet movement to Algeria or Brazil can be destroyed by G2 sub attack, leaving US forces either slogging through north Africa or stranded on Brazil. So if G2 sees a German tank blitz to French West Africa, G3 sees the German tank retreat to safety before the Allies can do anything about it, at which point the German tank can still be used together with German air to contest and control Africa.
Contrast with a G3 blitz to French West Africa. A US2 landing at Algeria allows a US3 counter to the G3 blitz, reclaiming the territory and killing the German tank, tipping the balance of power in Africa significantly towards the Allies.
All in all, a single German tank on Anglo-Egypt at the beginning of G2 is a huge threat to UK and control of Africa.
Looking to see if anyone’s used the G1 Baltic carrier buy recently; any comments &c.
That is, if the Germans hit West Russia or fortify Karelia on G1, or if UK does not plan to retake a German-held Anglo-Egypt on UK1, a India IC is probably not best.
Earlier I wrote that the German/Russian situation in Karelia/West Russia and the German/UK situation at Anglo-Egypt were important to the decision of whether to build a UK India IC or not.
If the Germans hit West Russia on G1, they’re keeping Russia on its heels economically (conversely, Germany is that much stronger).
Having the Germans consolidate at Karelia on G1 (2 inf from W Eur, 3 from Norway, 2 from Eastern Europe, 3 from Belorussia, 2 tanks from Germany, 1 from Balkans, 1 from Eastern Europe, total 10 infantry 4 tanks) threatens about the same thing, specifically German attack on West Russia on G2 (the Karelia units plus 2 tanks from Eastern Europe that started in Western Europe on G1 - the Southern Europe tank often used against R1 control of Ukraine), plus 4-6 odd German fighters plus German bomber.
UK fighters on West Russia is important in the second case, and quick UK support via transport is important in the first case, so Germany can’t hold Karelia and cripple Russia’s economy.
The German situation in Anglo-Egypt is similar. If UK allows Germany to hold Anglo-Egypt on G1, on G2 Germany can blitz a tank through Africa for 2 more IPC per turn and 2 less to UK a turn. This is unlikely to be countered by the Allies, as the US1 cruiser/2 transports are probably dead if they dropped to Algeria on US1, or even if they headed south to Brazil, because of the German subs that should be in the Atlantic. Particularly in a KJF situation, the Allies will probably not drop to Africa (US will be busy with Pacific, and UK will either be dropping to Europe or supporting its India IC, plus which UK dropping to the south of Africa requires two moves via transport, then there’s two moves back before the UK transports can threaten anything like Western Europe again, which slows the Allies a lot.
Plus there’s the fact that another UK fighter is on Anglo-Egypt. If the UK fighter dies, UK has 3 fighters and Russia 2, which makes for a maximum of 2 carriers 2 destroyers 4 fighters 1 sub at India on UK2. (Or 1 destroyer 1 battleship instead of 2 destroyers). UK could go all in on carriers, and do 3 carriers 1 destroyer 5 fighters 1 sub instead - much more expensive, but possibly not that worthwhile. But with a 4th UK fighter, it’s possible to bring the fleet to 3 carriers 1 destroyer 6 fighters 1 sub instead. That sixth fighter makes the fleet much much scarier and interesting.
I’m starting to get back to the thought that KJF is too dependent on dice results and player mistakes to work, specially on the first round. I’m trying to correlate all of the possible outcomes/moves from round 1 but to me some of them are less than optimal moves, like a USSR1 sub buy or the Indian IC.
Most of those options will benefit Germany one way or the other… which seems to be the whole problem for KJF… its a lot easier to let Russia fall to Japan while taking Germany than having Germany taking Russia while conquering Asia.
I would put a R1 sub buy and a UK1 India IC in different categories, because I am pretty convinced there are enough German options to compensate for a R1 sub buy, but I am not convinced Japan has enough tricks to overcome a UK1 India IC. It could easily be that Hobbes has done a more complete assessment or has a better intuitive understanding, though.
I haven’t seen strong players use KJF, but I get the feeling there’s a lot of small tricks in there.
For example, in a KGF, the Axis typically want Japan to control Caucasus if possible, because Japan has the numbers to take on the combined Allied defense at Moscow, while Germany’s numbers are depleted by trading with the Allies and maintaining defense. (That’s small trick #1, controlling Caucasus with Japan). The Axis can try to force this by pushing Germany to West Russia. Even if Russia obliterates the Germans, that often depletes them to the point that Japan can capture Caucasus in force, after which ideally the Allies can do nothing about Japan’s holding Caucasus and Japan uses that to crack Moscow. (That’s small trick #2, using Germany to force the issue to create an opening for Japan). But maybe the Allies have enough power so they could obliterate West Russia without suffering much losses; that would let them push Japan out of Caucasus later. But Japan can increase the power of Germany’s position at West Russia by landing Japanese fighters on West Russia (that’s small trick #3, using Jap fighters to reinforce German positions). Etc. etc. etc. So many small things that add up to a decent Axis plan.
On the other hand, most Axis players just ram tanks at the Allies and hope something cracks. Which is the difference between strong and weak play, the lack of small tricks (or small devices or whatever you want to call them) that improve the Axis game.
Since I haven’t used or thought about KJF much or seen strong players use a lot of these “small devices”, I get the feeling that my KJF game is quite undeveloped. Oh, sure, I know major stuff like using German fighter to stop US destroyer blocks, and not to buy any ICs with Japan (using the IPCs for infantry/fleet/air instead). But what about the rest of the plan?
For example, UK starts with a transport in Australia. Supposing UK lost income in Africa, would it be feasible to use a UK fighter and infantry to take control of high IPC islands like Borneo, East Indies, and Phillipines? Even so, where should the Allies divide territory control between US and UK? US will want at least one high IPC income island for an island industrial complex to shorten logistic lines to the area, and US can use high income to push more air/navy against Japan. But UK will want to compensate for lost income in Africa, and needs to maintain a certain income so once Russia falls (if it falls), UK can maintain defense against Germany. Then there’s the question of coastal industrial complexes for the Allies; if the tide is in Germany’s favor against Russia, coastal industrial complexes are a bad investment for the Allies because with German forces at China, Germany can strike into any one of those ICs. Once Germany maintains control of a coastal IC, it can provide naval/air support to Japan very quickly. What is best, and when and why?
I’m sure I won’t be publishing an article any time soon on a UK1 India IC for KJF, but maybe I’ll put up a post with some of the stuff I’ve looked at.
Bunnies tried his KJF on me yesterday, using the Indian IC. He managed to kick the Japanese out of Asia and to sink their fleet, but Russia falls on round 5 (or would have, if I hadn’t lost a 94% battle). He then start popping UK and US ICs on Asia and since Germany decided to have a Pacific fleet (based on the assumption that Russia would fall on round 5) the Allies outproduced the Axis.
It was a fun game but I still don’t believe the Indian IC because Bunnies had to use a lot of Russian units to defend it/attack the Japs on FIC and I could have made things harder for the Allies with Japan on Asia. The end result will be Caucasus falling on round 4 then Russia on 5/6. After that the Germans simply have to go after India. Unless the Germans botch up their attack on Russia.
I’m still looking at the different options listed above and I’m actually trying to create some sort of a flowchart for round 1 to help the Allies determine if they should go KJF or not.
I don’t feel that I have a good grasp on the Allies. For KGF, I get the feeling that I’m missing some key line of play, and I’m pretty awful at KJF, because I’ve never practiced or developed my KJF games. So when Hobbes says there were weak points to the KJF play that I did, he’s perfectly correct in terms of what he had to face. But I think it’s possible that if I developed the lines of play that KJF might be much stronger.
On the other hand, as Hobbes wrote, he could have done things differently as well. Besides which, Hobbes did fail the high percentage attack on Moscow, and although he didn’t mention it, a lot of small important battles went my way as well, which is very important. So perhaps KJF IS a doomed line of play after all. I can’t say a very luck-sacky game speaks well to the validity of a strategy. But we’ll see.
A few comments -
One thing I’ve always maintained is that protecting a UK IC on India means giving up Moscow. Hobbes comments that Russia falls, but I think that’s a foregone conclusion with an India IC. (The idea of the India IC is to push the clock forwards on the US KJF plan to the degree that the Allies can afford to let Moscow fall. But it is quite possible the Germany grabs Moscow earlier than the Allies can afford, which means eight German tanks racing towards India a turn.)
In game, Hobbes made a comment about taking and holding Karelia on G1. I think, on reflection, that following a R1 WR/UKR attack, that Germany can take and hold Karelia regardless of the Russian build, if it abandons Norway.
The conditions for a KJF India IC plan were NOT favorable when I committed. I led with a West Russia/Ukraine attack with a Russian fighter landing on India and another Russian fighter to Kazakh, with 6 Russian infantry on Buryatia. Hobbes followed with a 5 infantry 5 tank build on G1 consolidation to Karelia using the German Atlantic sub against UK’s East Canada transport, and hit Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 German tank surviving, landing fighter and bomber on Libya to forestall UK fighter and bomber landing in Africa (after hitting Anglo-Egypt or after attacking the German battleship). Also I ended up NOT sending the UK bomber to points east in Russia or sending the UK fighter to land in Buryatia. This gave Japan more freedom on its J1 build, which made a big difference.
Consolidation to Karelia means Russia’s contained early, and having a tank at Anglo-Egypt meant UK’s income would be cut early. These are both unfavorable conditions to an India IC, even more so when taken together.
If I remember right, I attacked French Indochina with 3 infantry 1 fighter, used the cruiser to hunt the Japanese transport at Kwangtung (if the Jap transport at Kwangtung doesn’t die, it can hit India.) In retrospect, I probably should have done a small attack into Anglo-Egypt to stop the tank blitz, and I have to take another look at the odds on the French Indochina attack.
The theory behind the India IC is -
Japan has a lot of options, but the India IC, Buryatia Russian 6 infantry stack, and 2 Russian infantry on Sinkiang combine pressure. I think the strongest counter goes something like -
Japan hits Pearl Harbor with sub, cruiser, fighter, and bomber, moving East Indies battleship and carrier to New Guinea to pick up the fighter from the Hawaiian Islands battle. Japan hits China with the infantry from Manchuria and 1 infantry from Kwangtung plus air. The remaining infantry move to French Indochina along with the Caroline Islands carrier and Japan battleship and transport, ending the turn with 5 infantry 1 tank on French Indochina. Russia ends up able to grab Manchuria, but that can’t be helped.
Japan has 7 infantry 1 tank (2 from East Indies), 5 fighters, and a bomber that can hit India on J2, or 2 battleships 2 carriers 6 fighters and a bomber against an Indian fleet. These are simultaneous threats.
UK can choose one or the other - sea or land. If defending at sea, UK has sub, 2 destroyer, 2 carrier, 4 fighter (1 Russian). If on land, 7 infantry (5 UK 2 Russian) 3-5 fighters (3 UK 2 Russian) plus UK’s 3 units it can build plus Russian tanks.
BUT
IF Japan prepared a fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, then Japan’s J2 reinforcement of French Indochina will be weakened. (Japan can’t move its battleships and AC to hit India and also build enough defensive fleet to easily handle a UK fighter and bomber, unless it skips on some transports - and skipping transports means less reinforcement to French Indochina on J2).
IF Japan did NOT prepare its fleet to smash a potential UK fleet at India, UK just builds a fleet at India.
SO
One way or the other, UK should be able to pull some tricks, and the UK IC should last until at least UK3, which means there should be time for the Allies to pull some shenanigans. Unspecified shenanigans, but I get the feeling something should be possible with all the small potential pressures that Japan faces. Japan’s pushing on any of those - Buryatia-Manchuria, or China-Asian coast, or potential UK fleet at India, or the US fleet in the Pacific, means that the Allies can push on the other fronts.
Another question,
in one turn how many times can you attack?EX: im the US can i attack the Germans in western Europe, and fight that battle, then after that(in the same turn), use DIFFERENT pieces in the pacific to attack wake island, and fight that battle, all in the same turn.
So could you attack twice in one combat move phase?
First you do combat move, moving all your units to locations you want to attack.
THEN you do each separate combat.
So you do not attack the Germans in Western Europe then attack Wake Island or whatever.
You do a COMBAT MOVEMENT against the Germans in Western Europe, and a COMBAT MOVE against Wake Island, and you do ALL your COMBAT MOVES at the SAME TIME.
Later you RESOLVE each combat - you can fight the Germans in Western Europe first then fight for Wake Island, or you can fight for Wake Island first then fight the Germans in Western Europe.
But you don’t attack one place then attack another place or whatever. You attack EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME, then resolve the combats one by one.
Also if you have a new question, make a new topic.
This has probably been subject of discussion before, but I want to give it another go; Who’s your power of choice? Not the most fun or exciting or challenging power to be, but the most succesful or “safe”? If you had to play for money, would you prefer to be axis or allies? If it was a matter of fun or excitement, (and luckily it usually is) I’d play axis anytime. But it seems allies have a lot better chance of winning usually? I’d say it’s about 70/30 allied favour? … What do you think? Maybe Hobbes and Bunnies will reply also - they seem to have played a few games, maybe they have some statistics they’d like to share?
Thanks in advance…
There is no most successful or safe single power.
The game’s pretty much about using the powers in combination effectively using calculated risks. If you don’t work well with your allies or your allies don’t work well with you, you will probably fail. If you don’t take calculated risks, emphasis on risks, you will fail, because only by taking risks can you maintain a forward position and therefore enough income to remain competitive. You cannot “play it safe” and win unless your opponent is also “playing it safe”.
Luck and skill are far more important than which side you play in Spring 1942. (Which is NOT the case for Revised. There, I think the Allies have a REAL advantage, which can be offset by giving the Axis a bid.)
If pressed to commit to an answer, I would say I think the Allies have the advantage.
I personally find the Allies more interesting and challenging to play, because I pretty much know what I want to do with the Axis at any given time (I might stare at the board for quite a while, but I usually end up with a very concrete idea of what I want to do.) On the other hand, I feel my Allies game is a lot looser and has room for a good bit of improvement.
That’s why I feel Allies have the edge. I think I know what the Axis can do, and I think I don’t know all the things the Allies can do, and I fear the unknown. It’s scary, sort of like when you open up the refrigerator and discover you’re out of carrots, then you wonder if there’s any carrots left at the grocery store.
Always hiding the UK carrier behind Madagascar on UK1 - this would mean you use the cruiser for the J transporter and do not use the cruiser bombardment in the amphibious assault on Egypt/FIC/Borneo?
@Bunnies:
I think the best play for UK’s India carrier in Africa is UK carrier southeast of Africa on UK1, regardless.
I edited that to specify that means if the Allies go KJF.
It all depends on the position at the beginning of UK’s turn. It is possible that the UK cruiser ends up doing neither, or that UK ends up putting the beginning of a KGF into play. Whether Allies go KGF or KJF isn’t really decided until the unit placement phase on US1 in my opinion.
IMO there are two flavors of KJF that have a shot of working. Both require the Allies to chase the Japanese navy out of the Pacific.
1. UK builds Atlantic fleet and along with Russia stalls Germany in Europe. US builds Pacific fleet. Probably Germany controls Africa.
2. UK builds India IC UK1. US builds Pac fleet. Germany has a very strong early open against Russia, as Russia needs to bleed off units to India. Probably Germany controls Africa. Most likely Moscow is horribly weak and falls early, but the Allied KJF is much much faster too.
I do not think a Sinkiang IC is ever “correct”. Only the US has enough power and the position to chase off the Jap fleet; US needs every single IPC it can spend to build its Pacific fleet. Spending 15 IPCs on an IC then spending additional IPCs every turn slows US’s progress in the Pacific.
Even if India has an IC and is producing navy there, US still can’t afford a Sinkiang IC. It’s an additional point the Allies have to protect, either for Japan early or for Germany later. Once the Axis capture it, it’s isolated from Moscow and the coast by buffer zones so the Allies can’t easily recapture it.
I think the best play for UK’s India carrier in Africa is UK carrier southeast of Africa on UK1, regardless. (edit - IF the Allies are going KJF, that is)
Only the power that controls a territory an industrial complex is in can place units at that industrial complex (or naval units in a sea zone adjacent to that IC, and/or new fighters on new carriers placed near that IC).
US cannot produce new units at London.=
Last post I commented Germany should control most of Africa. I should amend that to say Germany could potentially control most of Africa in a KJF where it probably won’t have any of it in a KGF. But in any event, the Axis shouldn’t neglect Africa.
1. Poll has “Japan: not attacking SZ52 or failing to do so” - should be “Japan: not attacking SZ52 or failing at SZ52”
2. Why “KFJ” not “KJF”? Does KFJ mean something different to KJF? Kentucky Fried Jalapenos, maybe?
I disagree with the loss of Japanese capital ships - it does surely help but to me the key issue is their location at the beginning of US2. And as for air, 1 is enough for the Allies.
(For readers, Hobbes is referring to the Japanese navy position at the end of J2; US’s goal is to move to Solomon Islands at end of US2.)
@Hobbes: I consider the decision on whether to go KJF or KGF (Kill Japan First or Kill Germany First) made on the US1 unit placement phase, not the beginning of US2. I’m guessing your decision to go KJF or KGF is made on the unit purchase phase of US2. That is, that you’re placing US fleet in Pacific on US1 regardless; if you go KGF, you put transports in Eastern US and use the British to produce covering fleet; if you go KJF, you continue the unit buildup in Western US.
With the 1st option? (edit - that is, Russia has 6 infantry in Buryatia, UK controls French Indochina, China has UK fighter. UK sub at New Guinea. UK bomber at Yakut. /edit) As Japan I’d consider a KFJ being put into place. But that’s just me
Yes, probably there is something fishy going on with UK not covering Africa. But maybe the Allies player just considers pressure on the Jap coast compensation. Same for Russian units in India and Sinkiang. Yes, it’s weird, and the Allies are going to lose something, but not as much as if Japanese assumes a KJF, builds a bunch of subs, then the Allies shift back to KGF position.
What if a KFJ can be successful for the Allies even Russia falls to the Germans?
Your picture of KFJ (KJF?) is quite different to mine. I think we agree that there’s a decent chance that Moscow is captured by Germany before Tokyo. For the rest -
Moscow falls. Russia still controls Kazakh, Novo and Evenki but they are effectively worth 0.
When Germany conquers Russia and all its European territories it will have her production boosted to 54 IPC, assuming Germany has been cleared out of Africa by the UK/US.
Assuming the loss of India to Japan but with control of Africa, the UK should earn at least 27 IPC, plus whatever it can take from Germany (Algeria, Libya, Norway).
Japan’s fleet has been sunk and the 3 big islands conquered by the US. Japan retains control of the Chinese and Soviet territories and India, with 29 IPCs.
US has 49 IPCs. At this point the income slightly favors the Axis (83 to 76) but if the Allies can secure the Asian mainland and Africa while keeping Japan confined then they will be outproducing the Axis despite losing Russia.
Can the Allies win then?
The Allies already won in that case, because the US economy powers the ICs on Borneo and East Indies. Japan can’t make a comeback because it has a crappy economy and has to race US. Germany needs navy and air to kick the US off, but to have any chance, Germany has to control the Suez, and if the Allies are starting in control of the Suez, the Allies can maintain control pretty easily, or at LEAST prevent Germany from starting a turn in control of it, which is all that is needed.
(Germany needs the Suez because it’s too hard for Germany to try to race the US economy in the Pacific without German submarines. If Germany builds a chunk of air, it has to race the US’s already gigantic fleet, which means no chance. Germany doesn’t control any industrial complexes that can produce on the Asian coast, so it can only use Caucasus and Southern Europe to pump out navy, but those units take forever to get around Africa - the Axis need control of the Suez to push German subs through. But if the Germans don’t already have control of the Suez, the US can probably hit one or the other of TransJordan and Anglo-Egypt; Japan can’t stop US from doing so because the Jap fleet is dead, and US should have enough to stop any German airforce (or at least to inflict big casualties which is almost the same thing).
Germany COULD make a play for London by building a carrier and six transports at Berlin, but that’s pretty much assuming UK hasn’t seen that coming, which it should see coming a mile off; even then, that plan gets shot down if UK has a good air force. (It CAN work for Germany sometimes. But I’d guess usually not)
The alternative is if Germany has a chunk of tanks to kill all Allies right up to the Asian coast. But even then, with US controlling the Pacific seas, US has a definite advantage in logistics. And anyways, what the heck were Russia and UK doing all that time? Really Germany shouldn’t have that easy a time.
The trick is GETTING to that point with the Allies.
1. Under no conditions should Japan lose its fleet or most of its air force.
2. If the Allies went KJF, Germany should control most of Africa.
i ated teh original rulebook so dey had to rewrite
nomnomnom
But in all seriousness, the Spring 2004 rulebook IS pretty good . . . IF you already know how to play from Revised or earlier editions. :|
Maybe I should write a new rulebook and call it “teh bunbunz big book of r00lz”
Japan: not attacking SZ52 or failing to do so
:|
To me, it’s a question of which Axis power is more vulnerable. I consider Germany to be much more vulnerable considering its location which makes it possible for UK, US, and Russia to gang up on it.
Japan shouldn’t have a hard time controlling the Asian coast in any event because of the logistics problems that Russia will have in getting units to the coast, and the problems UK will have in getting any kind of force into the area. US can’t prevent Japan from controlling the Asian coast for a while.
So the only thing that makes it possible to KJF is Japan somehow making itself more vulnerable, which to me means the loss of at least two battleships and/or carriers, or a battleship/carrier and three or four air minimum.
I’ve seen you implement KJF quite well in some games I’ve looked in on, Hobbes, but I have yet to see your opponents take the best line. They don’t fly German fighters to the Japanese fleet, and they typically set up inefficiently in Asia. In the following, I’m leaving out pretty much anything not immediately relevant, like the UK2 air attack on the German battleship/transport.
Let’s say “typical” game, and stipulate Germany builds 5 infantry 5 tanks or 1 air unit and mix of ground, but that Germany does NOT build a carrier. We’ll also say that Germany ends its turn either in control of Anglo-Egypt with at least 1 tank, or has 6 ground units and 1 fighter in Libya.
On UK’s turn, it can counter Anglo-Egypt with good odds of success, or it can attack French Indochina; depending on its choice, it may also put a fighter on Buryatia to join 6 Russian infantry.
Say Japan builds 3 transports 1 destroyer on J1. I consider there are two worst case scenarios.
1. Russia has 6 infantry in Buryatia, UK controls French Indochina, China has UK fighter. UK sub at New Guinea. UK bomber at Yakut.
2. Russia has 6 infantry and 1 UK fighter in Buryatia. UK sub at New Guinea. UK bomber at Yakut.
So let’s say Japan is anticipating a KGF. Let’s also say Germany is poised to take control of Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan on G2 opening the Suez Canal for the Japanese battleship and carrier that start at East Indies to reinforce on J2. That means on J1 Japan will want to send its battleship and carrier west, leaving the French Indochina sea zone unprotected.
There are two Japanese responses, both going with the general-purpose build of 3 transports 1 destroyer. Both hit China with two or more fighters plus infantry, minimum, and both leave a battleship and carrier in the sea zone east of Japan at the end of J1.
1. Keep all transports alive - Hit Buryatia with 3 infantry 1 tank 3 fighter 1 bomber 1 battleship support shot and 1 cruiser support shot. (Possibly a fourth fighter if French Indochina was not hit). Japan can attack the Hawaiian Islands fleet with a single Japanese sub.
2. Sacrifice a transport - Hit Pearl Harbor, leave Buryatia alone. Transport ground units to Kwangtung or Manchuria along with fighters to hold it against Allied attack. The Jap transport can get whacked by the UK bomber. Or Japan can keep its transport and just pull the infantry off Wake.
At the beginning of J1, Japan controls 6 ground on Japan, 1 on Wake, 1 on Okinawa, 2 on Phillipines, total 10. A transport takes 2 off, leaving 8. That leaves 8 units and 4 transports for the beginning of J2. Worst case scenario, Wake and Okinawa both still have 1 infantry, meaning 2 of those transports (at least) should end J2 in the sea zone east of Japan, having dropped to Buryatia. J2 can hit Buryatia with about 7 infantry 1 artillery 2 fighters 1 bomber absolute minimum; probably more. But before going into the J2 moves, we have G2.
Germany sees the US fleet build in Pacific, so should send its Libya fighter (at least) east towards Japan to threaten US destroyer blocks.
Now on J2, Japan sees the Pac fleet build. It transports units to Asia based on its J1 build, and moves the East Indies battleship and carrier to the French Indochina sea zone. Japan should control both the French Indochina sea zone and the sea zone east of Japan without any problem.
If Allies stacked Buryatia, Japan smashes Buryatia and kills a lot of Allied air, which puts the Japs considerably up. It is possible for the Allies to super stack Buryatia, but Germany can go really wild if Russia’s draining that much from its western front.
If Allies didn’t stack Buryatia, Japan hits Buryatia and sends 1-2 transport to French Indochina.
Japan’s J2 build should change based on the board situation, ideally setting up its J3 moves. J1 should have 27 IPCs minimum income (if Japan lost New Guinea and Borneo but gained China); since Japan didn’t spend 1 IPC on J1, it has 28 IPCs at the start of J2.
The planned transport routes for J2 are 2 transport to French Indochina, 2 transports to sea zone east of Japan (Buryatia). On J3, one of the French Indochina transports can pick up from East Indies, so that leaves Japan 6 ground units short. Japan can easily purchase 6 infantry with 18 IPCs, leaving 10-16 more IPCs to purchase subs and/or destroyers with, and still maintaining 8 ground to Europe (2 from East Indies, 6 from Japan). J4+ should have Japan trying to shuttle 4-6 ground units a turn into Asia, with excess transports hitting points in Africa or retaking territory in the Pacific. If Russia marches to the coast, Japan beats the hell out of them with infantry and fighters and Germany goes all PAC-MAN nom nom nom
–
All the above isn’t to say that KJF doesn’t work. But it shouldn’t be a cakewalk.
At the beginning of its turn, Russia decides to spend 17 out of the 20 IPCs it has, so has 3 IPCs left unspent.
At the end of its turn, Russia collects 20 IPCs from the territories it controls, so Russia now has a total of 23 IPCs.
On Germany’s turn, Germany captures Moscow, and takes all of Russia’s IPCs. Russia has 23 IPCs to begin with, so Russia hands them all 23 over. Germany gets Russia’s 23 IPCs and Russia has nothing.
You don’t need a chart to keep track of Victory Cities. The victory cities are starred on the map.
Berllin, Rome, Tokyo, look around.
You don’t need a combat board or whatever. You need map, starting layout charts, playing pieces, chips, dice, paper, something to write with, and rules.
You can buy six sided dice in convenience or hobby stores. You don’t need special dice.
I haven’t seen the Spring 1942 rules online, but basically they’re the Anniversary Edition’s rules without technological advancement or national objectives. (It isn’t “optional” for Spring 1942; it’s just doesn’t exist.)
The rules are - you are trying to get control of 9 victory cities (the cities on the map that are starred); both Axis and Allies start with 6 each. You check to see how many victory cities each side controls at the end of the US turn, and at no other time.
There’s an optional rule that lets you close off Turkey from navy and air. That’s the only optional rule.
Since you didn’t mention that you lost the cards, you should be fine for setup.