Posts made by newpaintbrush

1.  You can transport units from S Eur to Libya and consolidate so you have 6 German ground in Libya at end of G1.  This allows Germany to make a serious play for Africa regardless of the fate of the Mediterranean battleship.

2.  If Russia wants to spend precious precious air on a shot against my German battleship, they’re welcome to it.

3.  If Russia screws around with anything but inf/art/tank, it opens the door for early German control of Karelia, particularly if Germany abandons Africa.  (They don’t HAVE to abandon Africa, but if they DO, it’s much harder to stop Germany).  One or two units can make a big difference in the balance of power.

–

Re:  German control of Africa:  German control of Africa and preservation of the German Mediterranean fleet can be a big plus.   Germany has more income.  Japan doesn’t need to devote as much power to Africa, leaving it to put more pressure on Russia - and with a KGF in play, Japan’s will be the main attack.

That isn’t to say the Germans HAVE to be in Africa.  But if the Germans can get into Africa without giving up too much position in Europe, it’s something to think about.

–

To answer the OP - if Russia buys any non-ground units on R1, I’m immediately thinking about ways to make major major nasty attacks.  Like “Break West Russia with Germany or secure Ukraine, build 8 G1 tanks, build 2 ICs with Japan, and tank tank tank east and west” - that sort of thinking.  It might not be possible to smash Russia up real fast, but things can be REAL nasty real quick if Russia leaves 6 infantry on Buryatia, or bled strength off towards Africa/India, or did anything else not along the lines of a UKR/WR open.

If you have 10 infantry and 1 artillery attacking, you have nine rolls of 1, and two rolls of 2.

The 1 rolls are unsupported infantry.
The two 2 rolls belong to an artillery, and a supported infantry, respectively.

If you have 10 infantry and 2 artillery attacking, you have eight rolls of 1 and four rolls of 2.

Hobbits.  They lie to you then they steal your stuff.  :roll:

1.  If you attack a sub with a destroyer and a fighter, if you take a hit, the battle is over.  Sub attack is negated by your destroyer.  The attackers fire first.  The defender fires last.  When the defender fires, it can only hit the destroyer.  When the destroyer is gone, the battle is over.

If you managed to hit the sub before the sub hit you, the combat is over and you won.  If you didn’t hit the sub and the sub hit you, the combat is over and you “lost” - anyways you can’t hit the sub with the fighter and you have to retreat.

2.  If you attack with fighter/destroyer/transport, it’s much the same as above.  If you hit the sub before the sub hit you, the combat is over and you won.  The fighter and the transport live.  If you missed the sub and the sub hit you, the combat is over and you lost.  If you stick around at that point, the transport is destroyed.  The transport can only be taken as a casualty if there is no other option, but in this case there IS no other option, as the destroyer is dead and the sub can’t hit anything else, because subs can’t hit air, period.

3.  If you attack a sub with a destroyer and a sub, the defending sub loses surprise attack, and your surprise attack works.  Destroyers only mess with ENEMY subs.

4.  It isn’t enough for a destroyer to be sunk.  ALL enemy destroyers must be removed as casualties before your subs can submerge.

@bilbobaggins321:

Whay are troops starting from Manchuria instead of the Kwangtung?

Suppose Japan has four transports.  Two start at French Indochina, two start at the sea zone east of Japan.  The ones at FIC go to the sea zone east of Japan, pick up at Japan, and drop to Buryatia.  The ones east of Japan pick up at Japan and drop to FIC.  That way, you offload eight ground units from Japan every turn, feeding both the essential southern route (India-Africa-Caucasus) and the shortest route (via Buryatia-Yakut-Novosibirsk/Evenki as described by Hobbes.)

Once Japan has loaded both sides THOROUGHLY it does not need to go through China at all.  In fact, it shouldn’t because it’s slower.  The sole benefits of maintaining the China route are the ability to attack into Novosibirsk and Kazakh.  But the Japanese at Persia can take Kazakh, and the Japanese at Yakut can take Novosibirsk.

If Japan has NOT loaded both sides thoroughly, though, the Allies may make a play to break back into China.  In that case, the transports that start at FIC go to the sea zone WEST of Japan (not east), pick up at Japan, then drop to Manchuria (closer to the China route), and Japan feeds into China from there.

You do not want transports at Kwangtung because it breaks your transport line.  Any transports at Kwangtung can’t pick up at Japan then drop to FIC next turn.

1.  If you have 2 fighters and an infantry on Germany, you can still build 10 units there.  It doesn’t matter how many units you have on a territory; the number of units you build in a territory depends only on the production value of the territory and how much damage (if any) has been inflicted by industrial bombing.

2.  Different players have different preferences.  I would say that Russia should maintain a stock of 2-3 artillery at any given time, because it often trades multiple territories with Germany.  (Russia can use fighters to trade some territories, but it may want a bit of extra attack power, and it won’t want to use tanks, because tanks are more expensive.)

In general, though, I would not build lots of artillery except under exceptional circumstances.  Tanks are more useful because of their mobility.

3.  You can land air on territories that you or your allies controlled since the start of your turn.  For example, you could land fighters on Greenland if you wanted.  Midway’s fine to land air on.

4.  You always want to keep an eye on VCs because if you capture enough, you win.  That said, it’s usually better to concentrate on winning the game as a whole.  If you’re pushing your opponent back, you will get VCs anyways.  On the other hand, if you’re concentrating on just grabbing VCs, you might lose so much position that you lose your VCs.

Axis have Berlin, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Kwangtung, and Phillipines.  Allies have Karelia, Moscow, Calcutta, London, Los Angeles, and Washington.  You need nine to win, so that means grabbing three of your opponent’s VCs without losing your own, or grabbing more than three to compensate for what your opponent has grabbed.

The Allies can easily lose Karelia and Calcutta, but Moscow can be well protected for a long time, and London, Los Angeles, and Washington are practically invulnerable.  So realistically, if the Axis want to win, they have to concentrate on breaking Moscow; there’s no other way to get up to 9 VCs.  Since breaking Moscow takes a while if the Allies play well, the Axis usually need to think about a mid to long term strategy that will let them maintain control of their own VCs while they try to break Moscow - rather than trying to concentrate only on VCs.

Of course, if the Allies get careless, Germany could POSSIBLY grab London, Los Angeles, or Washington.  But that’s not “normal”, especially against experienced players.

The Axis are in no danger of losing any VCs early, so the Allies can’t even think about trying to win by VCs early on.  Mid to late game, Paris is hard to hold against a KGF, and Kwangtung and Phillipines are hard to hold against a KJF.  Taking Paris, Kwangtung, and Phillipines while ALSO maintaining control of Karelia and Calcutta is not at all easy. In practical terms, the Allies can win by VCs in a KJF if they control the Asian coast (Calcutta, Kwangtung, Phillipines) and manage to secure both Karelia and Paris (or perhaps Rome).  This VC victory is a lot easier than trying to break into Tokyo or Berlin, especially since Moscow will likely be under a lot of pressure.  That is, the Allies can win by VCs instead of trying to focus on protecting Moscow and breaking either Berlin or Tokyo.  On the other hand, if the Allies are going KGF, they will probably not be able to win by concentrating on VCs.  Japan should control Calcutta, so even if the Allies take Berlin, Paris, and Rome, the Allies will still be at only 8 VCs.  The Allies will have to earn their victory by beating Japan off the Asian coast.

@Hobbes:

he Article Submission section hint hint -

The plus side of writing articles here is not having to deal with $%@! editors.

The bad part is . . . having to do the editing yourself.

:-P :-P :-P

@jiman79:

Have anyone ever made an analysis of how many and which units should be used to take a territory occupied with (1 inf, 2 inf etc.) in order to play economically optimal?

(whistles innocently)  :-D

Yeh, but I know how people LOVE text walls.

My theory is if it’s more than 100 words, 90% of people will not want to take the time to understand it.

Seems a lot of axis players G1 are pretty much going all out for WR, pur 5 inf 5 tanks, abandoned WE and head due east! … Then 1 if not 2 J factories, send J fighters to support G for an all out land assault on R.

Well, that is no surprise at all.  You don’t see tennis players at Wimbledon trying to hold racquets with their bums (as much as that might improve viewing ratings).  Likewise, you shouldn’t see Germany bulking at Western Europe on G1 or Japan leaving its fighters sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on J2.

I know this has already been discussed but, what is the best R1 purchase and comabt play?  Seems axis strat to meet in the middle (at any cost sometimes) is becomeing harder and harder to defend without some help of the dice.

It isn’t any harder than it ever was.  It’s just that you’re facing different opponents, or maybe your opponents are slacking off less.  As far as the best R1, more on that in a bit.

I’ve seen parts of some of your games, Paulzy and I don’t think it’s the lack of a decent script for R1 play that ultimately holds you back.  I think it’s your general strategy that you need to think about.

Is Granada right with the Norwegian Gambit ?

Please don’t use this sloppy “Norwegian Gambit” terminology.  :roll:  It’s a two-fighter-attack against Norway on R1.  Calling it anything else just confuses the issue.

Besides, the MACE WINDU FLYING JEDI strategy is CLEARLY superior.  :mrgreen:

See what I mean?  What the h*** is the MACE WINDU FLYING JEDI strategy?!!  Yeah . . .

What about belo and wr ?

No.  If you don’t have a very good idea of precisely why you would hit West Russia/Belorussia (and if you’re asking the question, you don’t), you should hit West Russia/Ukraine instead.

Hell, what about buying 6 artys or 4tanks 1 arty pulling everything in to WR/R then blow back up!?!

This is what I mean when I say I think you need to work on your general strategy, Paulzy.  I cannot conceive of a scenario in which attacking West Russia only on R1 is a good thing.  Unless you’re deliberately handicapping yourself.

As far as buying 6 artillery or 4 tanks 1 artillery, those aren’t new concepts.  I say 6 artillery is certainly wrong.  4 tanks 1 artillery are OK, but you won’t get much mileage out of that purchase unless you have some idea of what you’re doing with it.

I realize first 2 maybe 3 rounds can belong to axis, would like some feedback on allied, particualy R defense.  When G really gets the ground game goin either stacking kar or kriane with jap air support, russia can get in trouble real quick.

Germany should not be able to stack Karelia.  Jap air support to either Karelia or Ukraine are traps for the Axis.

–

1.  6 artillery is wrong because artillery have crap mobility and suck on defense for their cost.  Tanks threaten many more territories.

Tanks at Caucasus can threaten India, Ukraine, Balkans, West Russia, Belorussia, Karelia, Archangel, Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Sinkiang, plus I think Evenki.  Or something like that, anyways say eleven territories.  Now compare to artillery at Caucasus.  You threaten Balkans, West Russia, Kazakh, and Persia.  WHOOP DE DOO, four territories.

The THEORY is that artillery are more effective on offense, because they’re tactically useful in combination with infantry in that role.  But in practice, their power doesn’t make up for the reduction in threat range.

Tanks cost 25% more, but have a 300% threat range.  So they’re three times as useful.  If Spring 1942 was a map that had four territories - Berlin, Eastern Europe, West Russia, and Moscow, then artillery would be much better.  As it is, I say it’s a rule of thumb that Russia should have a maximum of three artillery.

2.  The Allies shouldn’t have a hard time setting up transports to Norway or fortifying West Russia (particularly with Allied fighters).  Both Norway and West Russia pressure Karelia.  So you’re looking at a situation in which UK and US are each increasing their threat by six ground a turn, and Russia four ground a turn.  Germany cannot maintain position at Karelia.

Germany can hold at Karelia for a LITTLE while, and can take and hold it early if it completely abandons Norway (which makes a G1 attack on the UK battleship/transport less likely).  But in any event, Germany restricting Russian income by grabbing Karelia early is precisely what a R1 tank heavy purchase is all about.  The Russian purchase delays an early German grab, giving UK/US a bit more time to get into position to reinforce Norway.

But even if Germany does grab Karelia early, that usually forgoes the German attack against the UK battleship/transport, which allows UK to set up its transport chain into Europe earlier.

3.  Germany maintaining a presence on Ukraine is a problem because it cuts Russian income, and this is MUCH MORE the case early in the game.  This is PRECISELY why the WR/Ukraine attack is very useful - it isn’t JUST for the German fighter; it also screws with Germany’s front line units and if successful (high percentage) in capturing Ukraine, stops Germany from landing fighters on Ukraine at end of G1 (and stops Japan from putting 2 more on at the end of its turn), plus all sorts of nasty sheanigans that Germany can come up with on G2.

Later in the game, there’s not much the Allies can do to stop Germany from stacking Ukraine and getting Jap fighter support.  But by that time if the Allies have established transport chains into Europe, that’s pretty standard.

3.  Jap air reinforcing Germany at Karelia or Ukraine is often a trap for the Axis.  Suppose Japs reinforce Karelia late game with Jap fighters.  Now what?  If Japs pull out, Germany gets slaughtered by US/Russia.  If Germans pull out, Japan gets slaughtered by UK.  So both Germans and Japanese get locked into defending a territory that they don’t really want to defend.  Japanese fighters on Berlin and/or Eastern Europe are a different matter, but Karelia (and less so Ukraine) is often not a good spot for Jap air to hang out in.

@Paulzy:

Hell

Indeed.  8-)

I wonder whatever happened to this game.

Re:

So what makes you say it’s completely over?

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

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

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

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

I’m in Queens.  Emailed ya mspinoz1.

@Hobbes:

Master Wabbit, if the opponent is surprised by the attack doesn’t mean that it is still a ‘surprise assault’?

No, that’s just an assault that surprised the opponent, not a surprise assault.

Suppose you pick up a dog and it whizzes on your shirt.  That’s technically assault.  Is it a SURPRISE assault?  Well . . . you might be surprised by it.  But it’s within the behavioral range of a dog, so although you might be surprised by it, I wouldn’t call it a “surprise assault”.  You could very well have seen it coming, and it COULD have reasonably have been avoided.

On the other hand, suppose you come home late one night when suddenly your dog drops on you from out of a tree and strangles you with an improvised piano wire garrote while humming Broadway show tunes.  Now THAT is a surprise assault.  Especially if your dog has hired a camera crew.

A surprise assault should properly have “shock and awe” not merely “shock”.

I think the Allies lost.  There isn’t a lot of detail of what’s going on, but that’s my impression.

I would recommend not urging Russia to do anything.  Even if you were a pro player, if your partner doesn’t want to listen, your partner doesn’t want to listen.  Pushing him is not going to help things.

Besides which it seems to me that what’s happening is that Russia is being pressured to compensate for bad UK/US play - and in any event, massing pure infantry at this point is not probably NOT what Russia should do.  Probably there really isn’t much hope in any event, but I would say (and again without any real idea of what the board looks like) if Russia thinks it can carry on some offense, it should do infantry/tanks, and if it’s going to be squashed without much support from UK/US for a while, it should use inf/artillery for strafe attacks.  Not ideal, but it’s the best that it can do.

One rejoinder to jiman79’s post.  There is no fog of war in Axis and Allies.  It is impossible to make “surprise assaults”.  It would have been far better to say that armor (tanks) have a mobility advantage that let them threaten a far greater number of territories and to maneuver quickly to create or exploit openings.  Artillery are often more use tactically, but tanks have a huge advantage strategically.

What you’re really asking is what the relative importance of China is.  But if you don’t give more details, your question can’t be taken in context.  Without context, it’s pretty useless to even attempt to answer a question.

Like if I say “Is paint important?”  There’s so many different possible contexts that question could be answered in, it barely makes sense as a question.

Try providing some details.  By the way, attacking the British fleet on G1 with sub/fighter/bomber isn’t a strategy.  That’s not even remotely close to a strategy.  That’s a tactic.

What’s the difference between a tactic and a strategy?  A strategy is the master plan.  A tactic is a little something you do to help carry out the master plan.  A simply stated strategy would be “Build infantry on turn 1 and 2 then switch to tanks on turns 3 through 5 to hit Moscow before the Allies can get their transport chain set up”.

Also gud speling maks u luk smart.  u want to luk smart dontchu

The only time when you should strategic bomb is when you have a specific STRATEGY in mind.

“hm this bomber isn’t doing anything imma go strategic bomb with it” - that’s a TACTIC, not a STRATEGY.

“The Allies are three turns away from being able to reinforce Moscow with ground troops.  Ground units I produce in Tokyo this turn cannot hit Moscow for another three turns, by which time the Allies will have established their ground reinforcement line.  So I will start producing bombers at Tokyo that can strategic bomb Moscow next turn, which will soften Moscow up for the German/Japanese main attacks two turns from now.” - that’s a STRATEGY.

What German strategies do you know?  What do you purchase, what attacks do you make, what noncombat moves do you make?

There are some young players, of course; I was around 11 when I first played a game of Axis and Allies, although that was a previous edition.

I would have volunteered for Air Force if my eyesight had been better.  As it was, I couldn’t fly fighter planes, so I said forget it.  :lol:  'Course the United States of America doesn’t have mandatory military service, so I actually ended up not being a soldier at all.

There isn’t any clever strategic response.  The Allies always try to get their game moving as fast as possible in any event, having bad dice on one round doesn’t change the overall pace at which the Allies can advance their plans.  Probably the Allies will have to take certain risks like using Russian attacks of 1 infantry 1 fighter vs 1 infantry where normally Russia would use 2 infantry 1 fighter, or certain other things, but that’s part of any game - it’s just more so in a game with a poor R1 start.

G1 bad dice are at least as bad; I’d say actually worse for Germany.  Suppose you lose sub/fighter/bomber to UK battleship (far more likely than losing the R1 battles to the degree you mentioned), suppose you lose 2 fighters to the UK cruiser at Gibraltar, suppose Germany fails at Anglo Egypt either by losing the German battleship to the UK destroyer (awful), and/or losing the Anglo-Egypt land battle.  Those are very nasty losses that Germany cannot compensate for.

@Zhukov44:

I can’t see how any of these options are good compared to simply taking Egypt (and then hoping to get the 10% miracle result in sz15, or to at least kill a Russian fighter).

I did mention Germany could ignore a Russian naval/air buy as an option.  “Germany has some counters . . . can just allow Russia to attack and gamble that the German battleship will possibly kill some valuable Russian air”.  That is to say, Germany could just hit Anglo Egypt anyways, then allow Russia to hit its German battleship with Russian navy/air on R2, and hope to drag a Russian fighter down.  Probably the confusion arose because I was not quite specific.

As far as Germany building a carrier at Med and fortifying Libya, allowing the UK fleet to move into the Mediterranean, and allowing additional UK units to survive in Africa, it’s the choice that Germany makes when it decides to build a German carrier in the Med - it loses additional irreplaceable German air early, and forgoes the short term strategy of “early ground trading in Europe while fending off the Allied fleet in the Atlantic” for a longer term strategy that concentrates on late game German infantry/tank blocks in Europe, fueled by African IPCs.  Which is not to say that the “short term strategy” is short sighted; it’s just that the gains are more clear and immediate there than with the German Africa game.

At end of G1 you see German battleship, carrier, 2 fighter, while UK1 threat is 2 fighters 1 bomber and surviving UK Med fleet (this is why Germany loses air early; it wants to destroy the UK carrier and destroyer in the Mediterranean).  On G2, if UK left fighters on its fleet, Germany uses its six ground on Libya to take Anglo-Egypt and uses its air and navy to crush the UK fleet, after which Japanese fighters can land on the German carrier to reinforce, preventing US from making a followup attack to destroy the German navy.  If UK didn’t leave fighters on its fleet, Germany whacks Anglo Egypt with six ground plus air, kills the UK fleet, and lands in TransJordan or Ukraine with its German Med transport (German navy/air kills the UK Med fleet; the German transport follows the German Med fleet around like a good doggy and dumps wherever it can to help out).

Moreover, any German spending in the Med seems ultimately counter-productive since Allies have more disposable income for air power then Germany has for navy.

IMO Germany should take Egy, and concentrate on exploiting how Russia will be weaker on R2 given the sub buy and the upcoming R2 attack on sz15.

Both Axis and Allies have to spend their income wisely.  Neither UK nor US want to lose air without seeing some significant gain, as that air is very useful to trade territory against Germany, and to help protect the Allied fleet.  Also, UK and US will need to spend the first few rounds getting set up, whether it’s the traditional naval and fighter buys for UK/US for a KGF plan, or some industrial complex/navy mix for a variation of KJF.  As far as cracking a German battleship/carrier combination in the Mediterranean, it quickly becomes impossible.  Once the Axis control the Suez canal, if the Allies are going KGF, Japan can easily afford to send a battleship and carrier through, for a defensive fleet of 2 battleship 2 carrier 4 fighter.  Add to that the fact that after UK hits, Japan can reinforce with fighters, and after US hits, Germany can reinforce with fighters, and for all practical purposes the Axis Mediterranean fleet is more trouble to kill than it’s worth.  I find it’s usually better for the Allies to put a defensive fleet west of Algeria to help contest Africa, then shift that fleet off to Europe as needed, rather than trying to take on the Mediterranean fleet head on.

As far as Germany exploiting an R1 naval/air buy, that’s fine, but that’s just running the German game along the more commonly seen Europe-Atlantic play instead of the African play line.  If you’re saying Europe-Atlantic is superior to Mediterranean carrier/African play line, I’d appreciate any details you would provide.

Oh - the loss of Moscow does NOT mean the Allies have lost, of course.  Moscow is lost in a lot of KGF games in which the Allies end up winning.

KJF (Kill Japan First) cont.

“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.”

The Russian air/navy buy potentially slows Germany in Africa by discouraging them from landing on Anglo-Egypt on G1; depending on Germany’s move, UK may or may not be freed up to move against Japan on UK1.

The Buryatia stack is a major threat to Japan because it is an Allied landing zone for air, which contributes to chasing around the Jap navy.  If the UK carrier in the Indian Ocean survives until UK2, UK can potentially hit the Japanese navy with carrier/cruiser/3 fighter/bomber.  US can soften up the Jap navy with Hawaiian islands sub and Hawaiian islands fighter.  If the Japanese hit the Hawaiian Islands fleet and did not destroy the US fighter, that’s up to two US fighters and a US sub that can hit the sea zone east of Japan.

The rest of the moves I detailed go to the point of pushing Japan out of Asia, but the Allies CANNOT do much until they lock out the Japanese fleet.  Until then, Japan will likely have transports that it will be able to use to hit any number of targets at will; the Allies cannot send enough units to fortify every territory against Japanese amphibious attack.

==

Germany responds however it responds; the things to watch for are 1) a German tank in Anglo-Egypt allowing a G2 blitz that cuts UK income and boosts German income quickly, 2) a possible German attempt to hold Ukraine, or attack Caucasus or West Russia; any of those can really slash Russia’s income and boost Germany’s income early.

==

UK responds in turn however it responds.  The things to watch for are UK fighter to Buryatia (making attacking that a very expensive proposition for Japan), potential UK assault on Borneo (too high value for Japan to let go easily), UK India carrier movement (if UK moves its London fighters and bombers east, along with the UK sub at Australia, it can be a huge threat), and the UK Australia transport (usually doesn’t do much, but with a stack of air and navy in the area, it can use Australia and New Zealand infantry that don’t normally get used.  Also, potential attack against French Indochina if the Allies really want to try KJF, although French Indochina is quite risky.

At this point, the Allies want to stop the Japs from building transports in the sea zone east of Japan, and they also want to stop the Japs from landing units at French Indochina.  The first is helped by a stack of Russian infantry on Buryatia combined with UK and US air/naval threats as previously described, but is really conditional on Japan’s moves - if Japan destroys the UK carrier, the major UK threat is removed.  The second can be accomplished by Russian fighters on India, or UK air / UK sub.  The UK sub cannot threaten both the sea zone east of Japan and the sea zone at French Indochina, so the Allies will have to decide.

==

Japan responds however it responds.

Typically I build 3 transports 1 destroyer.  I take it for granted that the Kwangtung transport is destroyed.

I usually hit the US Hawaiian islands fleet with sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber.  The fighter can land on Wake, so no navy has to be committed.  I use the southwestern battleship and carrier to hunt UK naval targets, and typically keep the northeastern battleship and carrier east of Japan.  This leaves five fighters free; four if French Indochina was taken.  Of those, the two fighters from the southwest fleet can’t hit Buryatia, they can only hit China and other targets in the southwest.  (This is why I recommended against leaving a UK fighter on China; Japan can ALWAYS take China at little cost.

The priorities are China, Buryatia, and French Indochina in that order.  The US fighter can be very nasty early on if Japan lets it live.  Buryatia is nice to hit, as is French Indochina, but Allied units in those territories really only threaten Japan’s coastal territories, and Japan can afford to lose its entire coast so long as it didn’t purchase an industrial complex on J1.  After all, Japan can take everything back on its next turn, and having killed most of the opposition in the area, Japan’s future progress will be unchecked unless the Allies are sending a steady stream of reinforcements - which has its own problems as it means Germany has less opposition.

Of course, Japan shouldn’t just let the Allies walk all over its Asian territories on the coast, but even the “worst case” scenario usually isn’t too bad for Japan.  Japan can easily get six ground to French Indochina on J2 (three transport loads), followed by eight ground plus air to India on J3 (one of the transports can pick up from East Indies), which can typically kill any defending forces even if UK built an IC there early.  Only if Russia is draining power to India in a major way is it possible for the Allies to really do anything at all useful in the India region.

==

All strategies that I’ve ever developed for KJF involve the eventual loss of Moscow.  I think it’s almost inevitable.