In my experience a J1 does not provoke a KJF response from the USA.
USA does not usually commit one side or the other until around USA4 after a J1.
Not saying USA is sitting around doing nothing. Iam saying the focus of the USA can not be determined until around USA4 or so.
USA should always strive to take Morocco as their opening move into Europe.
The main reason is because it sits on SZ91, the key SZ on the euro map. Air power can threaten Italy navy and is one turn from flying to London. It is the perfect staging area for USA to project power.
USA can go east and take Algeria and from that spot can STRAT bomb Italy factories.
Morocco/Gibraltur is the main staging area for all USA forces In Europe.
It also opens up during late mid game the possibility of going into Spain and sitting on the front door of W. Europe.
UK does not need to mess around on Turn 1.
UK London ALWAYS purchases 6 INF / 1 FTR or 9 INF on turn 1. Why? this forces Germany to make a hard choice on G2. Do they take their 70IPC and make 10 TRS? Japan went j1 so USA is in the war now. Which makes it even more difficult to pull off Sea Lion.
IF Japan goes J1, does Germany on G2 even contemplate building 10 TRS?
Sea Lion is a G3 no latter than a G4 Attack. Germany is not at war with Russia and it is a ALL IN on UK.
The biggest reason Germany cannot perform Sea Lion is because of Japan. Japan wants to J1 or J2, Germany wants them to go J4. Japan though is not as strong if they perform a j4. This is the push and pull dynamic the Axis have to deal with in Turn 1-4.
If the plan is J1 then the plan for Germany is G2 on Russia and go all in to crush Russia and India.
If the plan is sea lion then the plan for Japan is a J4 and set up for a massive money Island grab/ possibly set up for a push against ANZAC from the Caroline Islands.
@Caesar:
Yes it will trigger Mongolia because you’re attacking the defense clause of USSR/Mongolia however was Japan at war with USSR because if not, US bomber shouldn’t be allowed on Soviet territory in the east.
Is it not S.O.P for Russia to DOW on Japan on R1?
@Caesar:
I never understood the logic of giving Canada there won roundels and then continue to press them into UK while giving ANZAC there own nation. Hence why I argue Canada should be played as its own.
I propose the counter argument that ANZAC should just be considered part of UK/Pacific and their IPC collected by the UK.
Then again how would that effect game balance? If India could use all of ANZAC production in the defense of India?
How would, lets say, diverting 5IPC to UK Canada and take that away from UK/Europe effect game balance.
If you split all the UK Commonwealth countries into their own nations, own economies, then that dramatically effects the game.
So you have.
UK home island
Canada
India
Anzac
Now, on a historical level this might be a good move. Then again we are playing a game based on history so game mechanics over ride historical accuracy for game play and having fun.
Why is it interesting you got a damaged package from Amazon?
:evil:
As a guy who only plays table top games and does not play with bids…here is my final thought.
If the Allies can inflict pain and suffering on 50/50 battles. Do not shy away from them, take them all the time. The more CAS the Axis take on their land units the less amount of IPC the Axis can put into air power.
Allies need to “cup” check themselves and get on the offense early and often across the entire globe.
Axis have no chance? Play a league game G40.2 with no bid then. How do you plan to stop the fall of Moscow by G7? Calcutta probably earlier.
Man, that is so 2016.
I just create a floating bridge, have the Russian Island plan in effect and go all in on middle earth.
As long as Germany can not take London or Cairo and Japan cannot take Sydney or Hawaii… Allies are golden. Lets not overthink this game. At the end of the day the Allies only concern before, lets say G8, is to not let the Axis take Cairo,London,Sydney or Hawaii. If Russia does fall it just ramps up the stress on the Allies. The longer Russia holds on the less stress on the UK/USA.
:-D 8-)
If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.
Well, that is true from a historical context BUT we are playing a game. The meta of the game overrides real world scenarios of WWII.
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
I’ve always question that Italian sea zone too because I am pretty sure Italy wasn’t running supplies from the nations it took in the easy to Rome and I have starved Italy with US to the point it couldn’t produce.
Italy is also in a precarious situation in that on USA 3-5 then send in some STR bombers on their factories and reduce them to rubble. Now Italy is getting convoyed into oblivion coupled with the fact they can never repair their IC’s. Allies can economically collapse Italy with very little effort.
Which is what I did against my buddy who played as the Axis. I send in a good fleet and destroyed the Italian navy and then sat in that SZ and just beat him out to the point he was unable to build anything for Italy and forced him to spend German troops to protect Rome.
Couple that with the Middle Earth plan of attack and the USA floating bridge to Southern France and the Russian Island plans….Axis have no chance to ever win this game. We have reached the point now with all these plans that it is the Axis who need massive bids to even compete with the Allies.
:-D :-o
@Caesar:
I’ve always question that Italian sea zone too because I am pretty sure Italy wasn’t running supplies from the nations it took in the easy to Rome and I have starved Italy with US to the point it couldn’t produce.
Italy is also in a precarious situation in that on USA 3-5 they send in some STR bombers on their factories and reduce them to rubble. Now Italy is getting convoyed into oblivion coupled with the fact they can never repair their IC’s. Allies can economically collapse Italy with very little effort.
Ok, lets take a step back.
So, should Subs be able to bypass Denmark and go into the Baltic? Who cares, really? Lets just say the house rule is subs can enter the Baltic Sea. Is the UK or USA going to invest in subs to enter the Baltic for the sole purpose of killing off the German fleet? There are no convoy routes in the Baltic so that is in essence the only purpose of them going in in the first place.
Germany has a DEST with their fleet and a AB on W. Germany with planes. It is a suicide mission by the Allies to send in a sub or 2.
In the big picture of the game, it is a total non factor.
Same scenario with Italy. Lets say the house rule says subs can go through the Suez. What? UK is worried about a stack of 6 Italy Subs rampaging through the Suez? It is not even a point of discussion and thus a non factor.
@SS:
HR. Redesign the map or rule change.
Well, I do not think this a issue with 1940.
I would like to think this a discussion to improve Allied tactics and strategies. Convoy disruption could prove to be very crippling to the Axis and there is just not that much talk about that approach to counter the Axis set piece set ups we are fascinated by in the opening 4 turns.
If you look at the map at the start of the war Italy has 8 of its 10 IPC sitting on convoy routes. IF Italy takes Southern France/Normandy/Greece and Yugo. All those territories are sitting on convoy routes. This is a serious weakness/issue for Italy and I think the Allies should do everything in their power to exploit that.
Over in Japan 25 of their starting 26 IPC are all sitting on convoy routes. FIC/Malaya/Philip and the Money Islands are all sitting on convoy routes. Once again this is a weakness/issue for Japan and the Allies should go after that weakness.
Italy and Japan have the exact same problem. If the Allies are going after this weakness they have to do something they do not really want to do, build navy. Which in turn helps the Allies as Japan/italy have less IPC resources devoted to land/air power.
So, sub warfare is out of whack in the sense that it is the Allies who are the ones hitting the convoy routes and strangling the Axis instead of the impression of WWII was it was the Axis pounding the convoy routes and strangling the Allies.
Now one could ask this question: Great point BUT if the USA and to small extent ANZC/UK are building some subs. Are the Allies in the same situation of putting a lot of IPC into subs and not land/Air? Well, yes they are. Then again though subs can also attack. IF lets say USA has 20 Subs all along the coast of China in various stacks. Japan navy pushes all in some where on the map and has a huge show down with the USA fleet. Well, all those subs can come off convoy attacks and attack en mass on the Japan navy for 1 turn. If the USA clears the pacific of all Japan Warships, well, Japan is on the ropes and ready to be knocked out of the war.
Then subs go back to hitting convoy routes. So, Subs are dual purpose unlike lets say a Dest/Cruiser/battleship. Once the enemy fleets are gone then those naval ships have no real purpose any more except for the occasional one turn of shore bombardment here or there. So, you could argue surface ships are wasted IPC in the end game.
@hcp:
I like to use convey to stop Italy early in the game.�  In case there is no sea lion, I will build subs in (US/UK) turn 2, then they can start conveying Italy from turn 4 onward (e.g. Russian sub in sz95; US sub in sz 93; UK subs in sz 97).
I think conveying Italy is a safe way to depict Axis income.�  First, usually Med is under Allies control.�  Second, it’s a more economically viable option to depict Axis income: comparing with 12 IPC bomber SBR:
bomber SBR: expected gain = 3.5 IPC +2 IPC- 1/6 chance AA gun * 12 IPC = 3.5 IPC
2 subs conveying: expected gain = 2 subs * 2 IPC = 4 IPCHowever, I think it is not easy to do conveying to Germany and Japan.�  For Germany, like Taamvan mentioned, there are not many convey zones.�  For Japan, usually the Axis players in my game group build naval base in FIC in turn 2 and station the planes there.�  If they see US building subs, they usually build air base in FIC in turn 3, protecting the whole East Asian coastal line from US conveying fleet.�  I also wish to learn how to do conveying better.
Ok, so Japan builds a airbase in FIC, great, does not help them. 2 USA subs are sitting in the port of Hanoi going nuts. Japan builds a DEST in the port of Hanoi. USA subs convoy FIC. Then on the USA turn they send in aircraft from their carriers and sink the lone DEST sitting in the bay of Hanoi.
The point Iam making is that Japan has to divert serious IPC into a navy to stop the USA from convoying them. How can that be bad for the Allies if Japan is spending half or more of their IPC on navy to confront the USA?
You drop 4 subs in SZ94 and you decimate Italian production.
The problem with the subs is that they are way to visible.
I think that is the issue Iam raising when it comes to AXIS subs.
In order for the Axis to convoy the allies it is way to visible and easy to counter.
The Allies though under the current meta of 1940 can convoy the living day lights out of the Axis and there is nothing they can do about it. Well, they can do something about it but it requires, especially Japan to go against the current meta and build some navy.
BTW one of the post WWII action reports of the war was that Japan in real life never really tried to stop the USA from convoying the crap out of them. They had such a singular focus they refused to move off that point of view. Japan in real life could not win the war when they allowed the USA to reduce all their IC to rubble and convoy the living day lights out of them.
So, real life and 1940 merge. USA on the pacific map should focus on convoy routes, island hopping to reduce Japan air power projection into the Pacific and station STR bombers in range of Japan. Make them stop focusing on just land units on China and their singular focus of killing off India.
1940 Global has me discombobulated when it comes to talking about subs and convoy disruption.
The traditional view of subs and convoys was German subs strangling the UK into submission and the Allies doing all they could do to stop them.
What? if that is reality then 1940 global A&A is a fantasy realm.
The Allies are the ones who should be sending in the subs and convoying the crap out of the Axis.
Who can Germany really convoy? Sure, put some subs on the west coast of UK and watch them get decimated in short order, no real threat. � In fact subs in 1940 are so weak for Germany there is no real reason to ever build them for their intended purpose, to convoy the carp out of the UK.
If we flip the script though the Allies can convoy the Axis into oblivion. Italy has almost 70% of its original IPC income on convoy routes. Normandy is a convoy route, Southern France is a convoy route.
All of Japan is a convoy route, from Japan to Singapore and the money Islands.
So, here is my question.
Why do the USA and UK not take advantage of this and make sure to focus on building up their sub fleets to convoy the Axis? It seems to me that is a real weak point for the Axis.
Do Japan/Germany and Italy really want to throw IPC at producing Destroyers to stop this?
If Axis are going to go on the current meta of all out at Moscow and India and ignore navy…Allies need to take advantage of that meta. It is called convoy the living day lights out of the Axis.
In 1940 the Lend Lease to Russia is a generic 5 IPC.
It would be interesting to explore the effect if you allow the UK/Europe and USA to add more Lend Lease. UK/USA can each spend 5 extra IPC in the lend lease program bump it up to 15 IPC a turn.
Lets look at the how to counter dark skies.
Why no love for AAA Guns? why? Oh, they cant attack/defend, cost 5 IPC, man they just stink.
Well, Iam here to tell you that is why Dark Skies is beating you like a drum or 500lb bombs falling on your head as you hide in a underground bunker.
Every unit in the game has a role. AAA’s role is to defend against a Dark Skies scenario.
Now, here me out before you fly off the rails.
Every nation starts with these non descript pointless CAS units called AAA. Once they have been thrown into the meat grinder of WWII “we” never replace them and call good riddance to those pointless units.
That is why Dark Skies works.
You have placed no value in the one unit that can actually counter dark skies on the battle field.
Now lets define Dark Skies. Dark Skies is a approach of overwhelming STR bombers, not primarily used for STR bombing BUT to tip the odds in land combats. Now this plan of attack is not just STR but also the use of TAC/FTR but the main point of it at some point later in the game, usually around T8 or so you have a HUGE STACK OF STR bombers to obliterate any one in front of your attacking hordes.
Well, how did it become so grim? Well, it is because the poor fools getting blown up from T1- T7 never purchased any AAA, the pointless land unit. Thus the victim of Dark Skies is taking almost 0 CAS on their air force. The German air force just keeps getting stronger and stronger every turn because they never take CAS. In fact one of the tenants of Dark Skies is not to STR bomb and give them free AAA fire from IC on your planes and just use them as offensive weapons. So a compounding effect takes place.
German STR are not taking CAS. Every turn for 4 turns they build 1. On turn 5 they build 4, turn 6 they build 4. Right there they have, what, 14 STR bombers? They have not taken 1 CAS because they never STR bomb and use the FTR/TAC as CAS on any lone AAA gun that stands in their way on a regular ground attack.
So, here is what I propose. Lets just talk about Russia. Â Russia every single turn buys 1 AAA. They start with 4 AAA in the Euro board and 2 on the pacific board.
You make sure that every front line area has at least 1 AAA in it, starting from turn 1. If they kill off 2 AAA, then next turn you build 2 more.
The power of AAA is that it is the only unit that bypasses the normal combat rules. They send in planes, you roll for AAA, you remove their air units and then proceed. Thus, it is the only unit that gets free shots on their air power before land combat. If you hit just one air unit and you lose 1 AAA you will slowly start grinding down their air force, 1 unit at a time. The only way they can increase their air force is if they lose one unit last turn they need to buy 2 the next turn.
Dark Skies works because it becomes a compounding math issue for the Allies. Every turn they gain strength and you are losing strength. Coupled with the fact you are no longer purchasing the one unit that can directly attack their growing strength, AAA.
It is a #1 priority for the Allies to purchase AAA on the Russian front when faced with Dark Skies and make sure every front line territory has at a minimum 1 AAA. Now, lets say you have a large stack in Leningrad. You know for a fact that Germany is going in with 9 air units to take it. Make sure, you have 3 AAA in there.
The AAA will most likely hit 1-2 air units and if you are luck maybe 3. The AAA are 3 CAS that cost you 15 IPC compared to at minimum, lets say you hit 2 FTR, 20 IPC for Germany. They did their job. Furthermore you are not letting Germany just attack with airpower all over the place in ground attacks with almost 0% chance of taking air power CAS. Thus the Russians in this example are compounding their own problems by making no attempt to kill off air power.
Thus on T7 they are despondent as Germany goes into Moscow with 12 STR/4 TAC all attacking on a 4 and 6 FTR. Why? because Russia made 0 attempt at killing off any German air power and let them just keep building up STR every single turn.
Ditto over in Asia. Why do you not build 1 AAA every turn in India?
Well lets just talk top level strategy on this one, getting down to the tactical level will just muddy the water.
Axis goes Dark Skies and a J1. The Axis have told you on the opening turns of the game what they are doing. Going straight line into Russia and all out push for India.
This where the big hang up happened for the Allies. You broke one of the rules of playing the Allies: Hit them where they are weak and exploit those.
Based on your report you spent all of UK’s money going all into Russia. Which is exactly where the entire german army is. You stacked the middle east to such a point that the UK could not do anything else but attack the axis in the north or the east where they where the strongest.
Why again did you sail 6 fully loaded CV’s over to SZ91 with the USA and only have 2TRS? So when you decided it was a good idea to maybe threaten the western side of Germany it was way to far gone at that point.
Over in the Pacific I seems you did not go after Japan where they where weak either. Battling it out over the money islands. Did you drop 3 SUBS off the coast of Japan and 3 Subs off the coast of Manchuria and then 3 subs off the coast of Shangai? Did you take Iwo Jima and park 4 STR bombers on it? If the entire ��� navy is down in FIC battling it out they where begging you to convoy them into oblivion.
Now the counter to dark skies is easy in theory but requires you to do something the Allies seem a little skittish to do in the early part of the game. Once Germany starts going almost all STR, they are not building land units in any numbers any more. ATTACK them and start killing German ground troops. Strafe attack and then retreat, especially in Russia. Once Germany loses all or the vast majority of their INF Germany has now lost all their fodder and will become more cautious.
Attack Normandy or Southern France, threaten Italy with bodily harm on the “boot”, STR bomb Italy into oblivion, does not take much.
So, your are doing 2 things at the same time. Killing off ground units so Germany has to switch off of Dark skies to rebuild land AND you are hitting him where he is not at his strongest. You have to make the Axis do things that take them “off script” of Dark Skies and J1 drone attack.
