Posts made by shaper

The fighter heavy initial purchase of this thread is an interesting twist to the initial game

Think you’re mixing threads.

No fighter heavy purchase here, no fighters purchased at all.  Second transport isn’t really necessary, except to increase the cost of taking out the Atlantic fleet when/if the allies go after it, and to beef up any attempt to remove a few Allied transports from the Atlantic.

Atlantic blockade is just on turn one, and minimal with the sub, to as a contingency opportunity to potentially prevent the allies from diverting ships to the med fleet on R2.  The US is then committing its bomber to that attack, if they want to take a swing at the submarine.

The Med fleet if anything is a deterrent to allies breaking off a transport and landing in Africa on the next turn
Infantry aren’t likely being transported past round 2, if any can afford to be moved at that point.

It will be a while before the Allies can divert troops to Africa, unless they make a special effort in that regard.
If they wait until turn 6, thats Axis +41/Allies -41 (roughly).  Thats a swing of around 26 infantry on the European continent over that timeframe.  Obviously somewhat variable.  The swing is not as big if the Axis aren’t trading as much land on the Soviet border.

IF Japanese is coming inland hard, especially on the southern route, they may have a carrier (potentially with fighters) and a transport in the region relatively quickly.  Very much depends on US tactics and Allied aircraft activity, as well as the initial Pearl Harbor decision.  Potentially landing reinforcements, of limited number on turn 2, although circumstances and priorities may vary.

I never suggested that concentrating on Africa was a particularly strong strategy, just a way that has a high probability of securing Africa for the Axis in the early game, and generally very quickly.  I am presuming that the intent of keeping the fleet alive is to get the IPCs from Africa.  Any fleet survival from that point is just a bonus, more likely it will be an elimination of some Allied air assets that could otherwise be protecting Karalia or wreaking havoc elsewhere.

Eastern Europe can be reinforced with fighters in the second round, barring a full English counter attack from India.  In the first round they will have to make do with perhaps 2-3  fighters unless only one is used in Africa, or fighters are desired elsewhere.  Obviously any casualties from the naval attack, won’t be returning to base.

Can’t figure out how to edit, using the cd version.  First round anyhow, just easier to restart at that point anyhow.
Just playing around for fun, not really testing, more freeform study.  Testing responses to different scenarios.

The tanks had plans for the Japanese, with an option of switching fronts later if they could knock them back for an extra round.  Had some intent of driving them back later by increasing offense ratios, as I recall.  Armor buy had other, not very tactically sound reasons.  Mostly just felt like it.  The tank buy negated the normal hit on the Ukraine, Caucusus went sideways.  Just rolled with it.

Reminded me of some games from when we had a group that played.  Every once in a while things like that would happen, where a mistake by one player snowballed into a very quick game.

Apparently no one here ever remembers something like that happening in a live or test game?

Another option

Crush the Atlantic fleet and Egypt with airpower and your libyan troops.  Bomb out the US transport and blockade the Atlantic.

Build a second transport (optional) to expedite troop movements, but mostly to insulate your fleet.  Take out Egypt while you’re at it.  Shuttle a tank to speed up the conquest of the remaining African continent and minimize loss of defensive units in the Euro zone.  Leave an infantry man in Libya to reinforce the landing zone so any planes that can’t make the return trip this turn aren’t tempting targets.

Brittain will get a jumpstart on its campaign (since you’ve ignored their North Sea fleet) against Europe because they can transport a bit faster into that zone.  The US could bomb your blockade, but the sub has a chance of submerging, and England will probably take the opportunity to start shoveling troops into the main battle zone.  If the allies pursue with the assistance of their navy they are giving up position although they could land in Algeria (at the expense of an initial Europe onslaught).  If the allies go this route, the Germans have more time to build defenses/counter attack ability.

Even if England commits ground troops from India you will probably get Africa under German boots rather quickly.

The initial IPC advantage of Brittain will swing to Germany pretty quickly, which means less incoming British units later and more German defenders.

If you go this route you are conceding the North Sea early and the Allies won’t have to spend time/money replacing ships.  The upside is you probably aren’t losing much  airpower and Brittish builds will slow rapidly,  leaving America to do much of the heavy lifting.    You won’t need to hold the seazone for long as your troop advantage in the first round or two, and somewhat stronger fleet will probably deter a quick allied landing of reinforcements.  Allies may have other priortities anyhow.  If your fleet survives the Allies are more likely to go for a Finland landing than WE, which while effective at reinforcing the Soviets, also takes longer.  More net IPCs for Germany.

The IPCs are all coming from the UK, which not only means you are gaining a fair number of IPCs, Brittain is losing them at the same time.   This creates a huge swing.  (If you are +9 IPCs in africa thats essentially a six infantry man swing in the overall situation)  Your airforce will mostly land in German territory, and any that have to land in Africa can get back the next turn unless you leave one behind to expedite the mopup of Africa.  You also have the option of driving a tank to Syria on R2, creating an incentive for the Soviets to divert troops from the front lines.  If its ignored it can take advantage of potential openings or move to assist the Japanese.  Africa and Syria will probably be in complete control by round 3, and mostly controlled in round 2.  Even in round one, you are +3 to +4, depending on how you execute the attack. (so you’ve essentially recovered a 2 infantry man transport deficit).  At the end of round 2 you should have everything but South Africa.  Obviously Madagascar is a different animal, but isn’t key to the regions control anyhow.

The later round reinforcements can make a big difference on the Euro front and those IPCs will come faster than they usually do.  With more surviving land Units in Africa you should have it secured faster and locked up more decisively than a typical North Sea opening will do.

Unless the English commit India its going to very quick to eradicate their presence in Africa. If they do commit the Indian Army and airforce you will be tied up a bit longer, but the Japanese will move faster and with lest resistance.
Since Egypt and possibly Syria have fallen in round 1 they may consider this.   You may or may not be able to hold an aircraft back to assist with taking the fresh troops out, but they are going to have a tough time if your tanks are on the ground, even more so since you will have a fighter and a bomber parked in Libya, if you can justify leaving them in the African region.  Depending on the location of the landing, your bomber may be able to make it back to Europe anyhow.

The real trick to manage is holding back the initial rush of Allied forces that may try and capitalize on your slightly reduced manpower and their initial troop burst in the second round.  Germany will probably want a defensive pure infantry buy on R1.  The Russians may try to force the issue now that they are getting more defensive replacements.

Transport may or may not be desired, depending on what the ultimate goal really is.

After the initial assault, your fleet won’t matter too much anyhow, and it can either send a couple of infantry men (assuming your transport survives), simply present a counterthreat to allied shipping or presumably assist in the Pacific if needed due to game developments.

The allies can send their bombers, but they aren’t going to be able to land safely.

This can also work well with a heavy Pearl Harbor assault complete with a loaded landing craft (taking hawaii is optional, but you will want to keep the transport alive if at all feasible).   The allies will probably not be able to escape ships from the Pac and may choose to invest assets (ships and airpower) or even buys in that Theater to try and quickly scuttle the Japanese fleet, since there is not much chance of an unassisted escape.  If they ignore the fleet then they have to be prepared for a round 2 landing, which will slow them down slightly.

If you get a fast jump on Africa, the allies may choose to ignore the fleet.  The canal will fall in round 1/2, potentially opening up three additional points in India (if desired), which the Germans need more than the Japanese do.  The Japanese can still do the grunt work of clearing out any stragglers there, if they do a full/primarily air attack.  This works better with a light pearl harbor strategy (which I usually prefer) as Japan can’t be everywhere and Asia offers significantly more in the way of tangible gains.  They are more likely to be in a position to clear out India, if this is your goal.  Bonus points if Japan decides to hunt down the Indian Sea transport.  The Allies may choose to land reinforcements in Africa if you remove the threat of the fleet entirely however.

Its a method.  It has drawbacks and advantages like most do.  It does however, almost always result in complete and early domination of Africa… for a price.

Thats a far saner plan.

Either way, you will probably be outbuilt in the fleet department and Germany can’t really afford to direct much effort towards a ship building plan unless the Allies are more interested in taking down Japan.  The Soviets can usually capitalize on the fewer land units.

Since the allies are “determined” to knock out your fleet, they can if they desire.  If they have higher priorities, you might be able to maintain a fleet for a while, but the choice is pretty much up to the allies.  Both the US/UK have the luxury of building a naval campaign and combined have far more IPCs to work with than Germany, which almost always has to buy ground troops.

Knocking out the UK in round 1, gives the Germans enough to work with to do this, or anything else they want to.  Unfortunately, any attempt to do is such a longshot that its not worth doing even if the Soviets manage to get their fleet scuttled or leave it out of play.  18% is the best odds that the axis have in round 1.  If round 2 opens up a better opportunity then its Germany’s lucky day.

221B Baker street is correct, as far as I can tell.  In a practical sense, the Allies should have Naval superiority in the Atlantic if they want it and if determined can take out the med fleet.  There’s nothing Germany can really do about it.  At least nothing that won’t make Europe very hard to hold.

Huddling the ships and buying a transport in the Med as you suggested and transferring to Libya means that you have to use air to get the sub and the battleship (41%) AND (67%), both which have to succeed (only 27% chance).  Either of these can support a  UK bomber run.  Bomber+Sub will usually get one transport, and with Bomber+Battleship they are 50/50 of taking out everything and will usually kill both transports.  In round 2 they will probably try and finish the job.  The axis have a chance doing this, but its not very good.  A two transport or (sub+trans) buy increases the odds but is usually two expensive to do.

The upside of your plan is if the axis are somewhat lucky they can get three transport moves in two rounds.

Alternately
A fleet build in the Med, killing the North sea fleet, killing the sub (50-75%), knocking out the battleship  and limiting landing access by taking Gibralter and the two western African Assets can buy some time and limit the allies to just the bomber in the first round, but also costs Germany the ability to do a first round landing in Africa.  Additionally the axis have to get lucky in Libya’s one infantry man (10%/48% if they just send a tank)  or the American bomber can land there as well (and probably get torched next round anyhow).  If the transport is tied up in the first round taking Gibralter the first extra transport gives them zero units on R1/ and 4 on R2.

Either way,
The allies can stage a followup attack for round 2 or 3, even if either of the axis keeps their fleet intact, although they may choose not to.

Even if the Germans get some transport capability for a while, they still have to divert units from Europe, which makes Europe harder to hold.  A 16 point fleet buy and pulling that many land troops from Europe is costly and sets the axis for a hard fight in Europe although it probably secures Africa and makes the fleet more likely to survive.

If the Axis want Africa, they are usually better off going directly after the forces there and sending some air power to assist whatever units they can land on round 1 (either assisting in egypt, or providing security for an airbase in Libya).  This creates a tradeoff in other areas, but is generally more cost effective and has a higher success chance.  Air units can return to Europe relatively easily once the main opposition in Africa taken down.

There is only one way to save the fleet.  
Talk your opponent out of killing it.

This plan involves the following elements (as modified)
It can work.  Maybe.

1. Kill North Sea fleet
2. Kill British Bomber and potentially fighter(s) and maybe England
3. All or mostly fleet build
4. Blocking all potential allied landing points (gibralter and africa)
5. Kill the British Battleship, if you are feeling super lucky get the sub and the Battleship

Its pretty sketchy.  I think it can be done with the mid-atlantic submarine assisting in the Med without changing the odds too much.  If it doesn’t work, Germany probably dies quick.  If it does work, somewhat, Germany may well die anyhow.   Africa however, is potentially well in the German clutches in a round or two.

[EDIT]

Pretty much this becomes operation Sea Lion if you send a loaded transport along to assist in taking down the British airforce, which on review seems to be the best way to go about this.

By Going to sealion with 2 infantry and using 3 fighters in north sea, you have the side benefit of a 10-15% of instantly capturing England.  See below for rough odds to win both battles completely and taking England on R1. The naval win does increase your chances of damaging the British airpower, in particular the bomber.  You can use less fighters in the north sea if you want to take chances and go for the med submarine.

The real goal of the sealion attack, here, is to kill the bomber rather than take England.

The Basic Plan
i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/FutureTechnology/games/sealion.jpg
The image shows a badly executed sealion approach that has only an 11% chance to win the sea battle (at best)
Maximizes the Battleship kill chance and shuts off access from Gibralter and takes the risk of leaving an intact sub,
forcing Germany to build 2 ships and hope for the best.  Africa is a tank sweep with infantry covering the blitz route and the third bomber landing zone

You could bring more fighters into the North Sea if you were serious about taking down England and wanted to maximize your chance at making a landing, since you are halfway there already.  The real goal is to kill the bomber along with the fleet.

Naval battle air force impact: 3 ftr=87% 2 Ftr = 56%, 1 Ftr=11%, assume lower actual numbers because you want the transport to stay alive.

Actually taking England by happy coincidence using sealion with all ships in play (russia restricted, soviets moving to north sea) (lower as transport must survive the sea battle, reducing all odds by whatever percentage that adjusts to)
3 fighter 15%
2 fighter 10%
1 fighter  6%
Chances of getting the bomber are pretty high, I think it will tend to die early when England is in a live or die situation and casualty selection could decide the game.
[/END EDIT]

[[i]originally wrote this with thnking Germans had 3 fighters that could get in, with two its only 1% win chance if the amphibious landing isn’t attempted. Assume Germans have an extra fighter to work with outside of England, adjust accordingly]

Three Two fighters and one bomber can attack Brittain in round one.  7% 1% chance of success if you get by the Anti-aircraft guns.  Partial victory not even likely.

If the battle gets close the brits will usually give up the bomber, because they will need the fighters to defend with, somewhat better % of that happening. This can buy you some time and you might be able to withdraw your fighters for next round, particularly if you’re shutting down Gibralter.

That leaves you a battleship and two three planes to attack the British atlantic fleet with. Your sub is probably blocking the atlantic ocean (unless you have a plausible north sea attack).    If you go to the western med with ships you need both Gibralter and Western Africa via French Equitorial Africa to prevent the US bomber and/or surviving british fighters from coming in on the first round.

CONSIDERATIONS:

MED
If your boats go towards the canal to deal with the sub you need to get lucky and take both sides of the canal.  This prevents the fighter in India or the Russian fighters from having a response.   An advantage of taking the canal side is that it makes a longer trip for the allied fleet and allows you to use blockers if you don’t have enough power to take it on directly.  It also keeps the british transport from getting in as a casualty absorber, as well as discouraging the Allies from landing the Indian troops in Africa

If you want to improve the odds of the sub not being able to submerge, you’ll probably have to commit your battleship and a fighter to take it out.

BRITISH FLEET
Stopping the British fleet from responding.  
Your sub will have to stay in the atlantic to block.  Stands 1/3 chance of diving assuming the US tries to clear the shipping lane.

If the Soviets haven’t reinforced the navy in the north Sea, you might be able to send the baltic sea transport and the other two fighters into the North Sea.   Sending fighters precludes their use in the Med, so you will have to slug it out ship to ship.

The sub will probably have to be used to take down the atlantic battleship if you go that route not very easy, you’ll need a lucky torpedo if it goes in alone, if you send the transport you get two or three shots.  Since all of your fighters are committed the battleship will have to hunt the submarines.   Any attempt to do all of things is going to spread you very thin and increases the already significant risk you are taking.

If the soviets do reinforce the North Sea you have around a 25% good chance of winning a direct attack if you send everything that can reach (sub(s), transport, last 23 fighters), better off simply blocking unless you want to go full on kamikaze longshot.

Going after this target means that you will have to leave the battleship or the sub alive in the Med, which means you will need to build at least sub+trans or two transports to stand a chance against the sub. (up to 4 small ships max)  The upside is it makes your fleet stronger, the downside is that they could still die and you have less to work with on the continent.  That and the fact that you will probably get smoked in the North sea by airpower next round.

IMPACTS AND FOLLOW UPS
If this works, you can now build anything you want in the Med that turn and its completely safe.
You have possibly discouraged the Allies with contesting your build, particularly if you’ve been lucky enough to trash the British airforce.   On R2 and possibly R3 you can consolidate your fleet with a new build, although your probably busy with the Soviets by then.

If you get a partial success, you may be able to hold out.  If you are insanely aggressive and lucky and manage to kill the british navy at the same time and disable the bulk of the allied airforce, or if the allies stay out of reach… you might get immunity in round 3 as well.  If you take England, the allies are going to have a hard time.

If the allies have taken this as some form of determined personal mission to destroy your fleet they could sail to the atlantic and redeploy air power. (that won’t work if you managed to get a carrier built in R1 and have enough planes left to protect it.  If you’re in the Western Med, and your sub can’t stop them the fleet can hit you directly.  The russian sub could also be in striking range.

If you’ve gone this far and you have any airpower left, you can attack any pursuing fleets.   If not, they may very likely elect to leave your fleet alone for a while and concentrate on other plans.

IF you really want to push things, and can clear the path for it, Germany could target India in R2 with the longterm intent of building new naval forces there.  You may need help from Japan to clear India for you.  Japan has to kill the british fighter to even consider this, unless you want to relocate  your entire Navy to the Indian ocean.  It would be helpful if the British were really foolish and decided to go ahead with a factory in India type plan, but I don’t think that’s likely.  You’d probably have to build your own.

Germany is going to be playing catchup after this, even with the big IPC swing that will be coming your way fairly soon, if you can afford the ground troops needed to collect it.

The luftwaffe is pretty much trashed, ships are being built at the expense of defenses and the main British fleet is potentially being rebuilt.  The chances of actually pulling this off successfully are pretty low and the cost of failure is high.

You are going to have to be lucky with your attack on the UK, need hot dice.  You still have to win the ship battles, although you have the advantage there.   To survive someone that is deadset on knocking out that fleet you may have to pour more resources into ships on R2 to counter there builds/adjusted deployments.

For insurance purposes you probably want to try and take out both Sinkiang and China in R1.   Thats two less aircraft that could eventually engage your ships.

WARNING
I’ve never actually tried this with the goal of saving the fleet, but if I felt that it was imperitive to take Africa… or got obsessed with building a German Navy… was really tired of seeing my atlantic fleet bombed out and wanted revenge… or had a US player that liked to fight in the Pacific… or just wanted to see what happened…  … well maybe.

I’d also probably have to feel that  I could handle the other players invasion skills without an airforce.  Might be a fun gamble against a weak player to increase the challenge level…    I doubt its something you can build a solid strategy around, but I’ve never explored it.  I’m pretty sure that Germany would be unable to hold Europe.   I also don’t know what the critical mass is of damage that you would have to inflict to keep the Allies at bay.

If you go all out on this program and pull a super houdini with the dice you could end up with control of the seas, at least for  long enough and maybe even grab England.  I wouldn’t count on it or bet on it.   Probably the best that can be hoped for is control of the Atlantic, and even that won’t be easy.

If you try this, good luck.  You’ll probably need it.

Note:  If its not a russia restricted game, your assets may be different and you may have to make some modifications, especially if the soviets attacked your sub and have theirs parked in that zone.

If you do the sealion thing to damage the air force, which makes more sense now that I’ve recounted the fighters; the british are probably building mainland defenses on their first buy, and/or the Americans are moving into the West Atlantic so you can’t try again on R2 (if you did Gibralter/Africa). The allies will probably assume that your goal was to take England and react accordingly.

Season accordign to tastes.

What successful results may look like… no idea about the end results.

Modified Plan after a mostly successful mission and generally poor unit placement… (post build screenshot)  Units cut and pasted so they can actually be seen.

i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/FutureTechnology/games/sealion2.jpg

Germany had gotten all Navy happy and decided to spread them out after the build.  Brittain still has two fighters, but the bomber is gone, all landing points are insulated and more naval forces placed to either facilitate a credible R2 sealion threat and to simply create more targets.   The sub is alive, and anything in the north sea will get trashed as allies have 1 bomber, 4 fighters.  SE ships are favored to win against the allied submarine.

Germany probably spent too much on its navy and didn’t place them particularly well. They could have placed entirely in the med (32pts navy) where they are completely safe for a while… a carrier could have time to get jets loaded, although at the expense of even more continental defense.

alternately an aggressive force could be placed in the baltic although it would probably sink.  Land placements weren’t really thought about both fighters should probably be in WE with more land troops.

Fending of the Soviets is going to be very challenging for Germany and every unit siphoned off the mainland is trouble.

Brittain will have to build at least a couple of infantry unless the US sacrifices their transport to block a potential invasion.  If the ships were placed in a way that allowed them to consolidate (MED), they’d be tough to take down and only the North sea transport would be likely to die.

Got thinking about games where there were really serious game deciding tactical mistakes were made or a routine operation  went sideways?

This one was brutal.

…
Was testing the luftwaffe start trying some different responses, mixing it up a little.

Russia parks infantry in Karalia goes 19/2.

Pretty standard opening for Germany, Does a  Decided to send two infantry into the caucasus and leaves a picket in the Ukraine.  The infantry win without casualty.  Some tanks held in reserve to protect the German build.  Almost everything goes to Eastern Europe including all of the fighters which can reach. 2Ftr/1inf/1tank placed.

England saves, manages to miss the baltic transport, unlucky bomber.

Japanese buy a tank and chase down the Aussie transport, open up Mongolia and Go heavy into China.  Land their tank on the coast.

America builds and I decide to mix it up and put pressure on Japan, since their carrier is out of position.  Built a couple ships and a bomber on WC and move some airpower to Alaska. So far so good.

_Russia decides to try an armor build, to see if it can get strike capability against EE, or maybe get aggressive later with japan now that there is a sizeable core in Sinkiang.  Russia reinforces Sinkiang.

Soviets decide to send a couple of fighters and a couple infantry to dispatch the German presence in the caucusus. 98% win chance overall.    Passed on the Ukraine because wanted to keep a large infantry buffer in Karalia and the fighters were busy.

In tactical mode just looking at the battle board.  Both soviet infantry die, both German infantry standing. Complete soviet miss., like hmm. 2 fighters vs 2 infantry.  can’t afford to lose a fighter or two…  Retreat them to Karalia. _

Non-combat.  Russia retreats fighters and hits the button.  Next phase.

Place units… look at the board and see trouble.
Russia empty with two infantry right next door.  Look at the stack of fighters in EE and drop 4 the tanks and an infantry in Russia. No choice at this point.  Obviously should have seen that in non-combat, but was button happy…  See what’s coming and decide to see how it plays out.

Would have been bad enough if it had been an infantry buy, but with 4 tanks and an infantry the russians are going to need great dice to hold Moscow.

Germany.
A few things  have become become obvious.
Russia has a huge bullseye painted on it.  Karalia is understaffed because they had to place in Moscow.  All reinforcements that can easily liberate Moscow are in Karalia.

Eastern Europe assisted by three fresh tanks in germany, and a western europe tank hitching a ride on the transport.
Slam Karalia.  Eight airplanes and the two infantry go for Moscow.

Long story short. 
Russians obliterated in R2.  Karalia falls, Moscow falls brutally.  Potential counter attackers are mostly out of Reach in Sinkiang.  Germans are thin on troops but the West can’t respond yet.  New game. 
Forgot about the tank in Sinkiang, only unit that was in reach, might have saved the day, for a minute.

Won’t make that mistake again, either of them, although I did decide that I like the Caucusus attack if that board situation happens.

Thought it was kind of funny.

Anyone else got stories?

@221B:

That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

KJF
Considered it.  Normally tough to execute, at least for me, definitely don’t know the ins and outs of it.  I should study it more.  Just got wrapped up in exploring the superfleet KGF response.

Been several instances where even a bit of presence in the Pacific would have been useful in disrupting the Japanese plans.  Just having a bomber in range is enough to possibly force the Japanese to hold back a fighter to protect the fleet.

Even a more balanced response might work
since the entire fleet doesnt need to be taken out, necessarily to slow down the Japanese.

Post pearl harbor, particularly if its a close battle,  if the US moved into Hawaii and killed the fleet with the PacCoast battleship and some air support (since hawaii isn’t taken, per se) they could probably finish the job without too much damage.  A battleship a bomber, a temporary fighter escort and possibly a transport in range of Japan, could present a pretty serious pretty serious threat of disruption to the Japanese shipping lanes.

Not sure if the fighter if the fighter is needed to guarantee the safety of an atlantic fleet though, and its definitely useful on the other side.  The bomber landing in Hawaii might be safe or at least costly to remove.

Three transports
thought about it during a couple of the games, but wanted to work out the details of the suggested  allied setup first.  Havent’ run the survival numbers, but I suspect it would be better.  Main advantage is speed of British deployments and flexibility.  Could be very good a bit later if the allies decided it was opportune to switch targets.  Also a side benefit in that would be easier to slip allied troops into Africa without disrupting the troop flow significantly.  The battleship is nice if for some reason the British absolutely have to split their fleet but want to make it somewhat expensive to do so,  maybe sending emergency replacements to Karalia, maybe deliberately trying to entice the Germans to hit it the ships.

Spain
By the end of round 3 Japan has to be adjacent to Moscow, so they better be making inroads.

In testing haven’t had much luck with a western based or dual front invasion.  Not to say that I executed it well or understood either sides strategy as well at that time.  I’m definitely better at keeping a steady flow of units going than I used to be, so it might work better.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE SPANISH INQUISITION
The problem with the allies splitting their fleet is that the Luftwaffe can crush individual task forces in one round, limiting return fire.  Allies can easily find themselves in a spot where either the Americans or the British are without a fleet if they aren’t careful, which creates issues for them.

1 bomber and 7 fighters kills 4 ships/round on average and can easily get more without much statistical variation.  Small task forces are riskier though in some ways because they may force the Germans to bleed off air units if they aren’t lucky and lose some of the power in their knockout punch.

If the fleets are split and the first fleet goes down fast, the second fleet stands a good chance of being shut down as well, which creates a major delay in allied deployment.  Germany will probably lose most/all of their airpower if it plays out like that, but their ground forces started strong and have been getting stronger while the allies were building ships.  Japan should have enough momentum going at this point to have the Russians under pressure at the minimum.

If the Allies go for a western invasion they have a much harder time supporting the balance needed to keep the Soviets alive.  The Soviets are not on very sturdy ground even with a pipeline supporting their army and are going to have a hard time staying in the game long enough for the Allies to get Germany down and a strong enough force to stop whatever comes rolling out of Eurasia at them.

Thats the theory anyways…
but its based on minimal practical experience in that matchup, since this strats only been around for a few days, at least as a serious discussion, as far as I know.  The majority of the games I’ve played have been live play and they’ve been years ago, with a periodic immersion in the computer game when I get bored, but even thats been a while, seem to remember buying the cd a decade or so ago.  I pretty much have to sort things out as I go and relearn a lot of stuff.

BRITISH BOMBERS AND REBUILT NAVIES
Strat bombing doesn’t gain much in general, at least until you get heavies.  I’ve got the game set to 2d HBs, but thats just a personal preference.  Always an option, as long as they’ve got enough infantry built to make the bomber stack look like target practice, although at this point the luftwaffe is probably toast.

I think they might be building fighters just to keep Russia in the game as long as possible, also works good with supporting the US navy if they want.  Navy won’t need as much protection the second time its built, main problem is the opportunity cost in doing so.

TECH ROLLS
In general I’m not thinking about tech rolls too much and not using them in test games, just too much of a wildcard and I’ve got enough variable factors in this already.

After I’ve got the strategy where I feel its solid, if that turns out to be the case… might turn out to be more of a gambit to catch someone by surprise,  don’t know yet, pretty sure it would crush someone that didn’t know about it on the first go around.  Couple pretty nasty surprises that the Axis can spring that would be difficult to spot if you hadn’t run into it before.  Anyhow, after I got it wired to my satisfaction then I’ll see how tech influences it.

EE
Hmm, Maybe.  Doesnt’ work on the calculator though, although you might  get an outside shot at Berlin if the Axis get careless.  Tried actually running the Eastern front battle at different stages, just to see how it played out.  Its pretty much a serious loss for whichever side attacks, at least if both sides are playing that front as heavily as they were when I was testing.

Germany has enough infantry to absorb some damage and enough firepower to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of which battle round.  Either side could win on a lucky dice run, of course.

The biggest threat to the Axis is in letting the soviets get ahead far enough to try some kind of Crazy Ivan attack.  Its a bigger threat than anything the Western powers can throw.  The biggest advantage for the axis is if the Russians let the advantage flip to the axis side.  If you are running this strat you are watching that balance very very closely and doing your best not to screw it up.

Eastern Europe has to be built heavily and early.  Units are pulled from Norway and Southern Europe and WE is lite.
Mostly infantry is usually the second build, unless there’s a good reason not to.  With all the big units on the line, they need a buffer, the axis already have counterstrike power.  There is no naval threat to Berlin on R1 except whatever the Canada transport  and three airplanes can bring, if its not blockaded in the North Sea, which it is often. Western Europe has some threat level and is usually protected in R1, after round 2 and the infantry buffer is in place, its more vulnerable.

The east stack is heavy and lately its been going to six/seven fighters as soon as safe to do so.  WE is still in counter attack range, if need be, the bomber is out of there early, especially if there aren’t any reasonable targets, but its going to be a bit before the Allies can mount a serious invasion that can entrench without being demolished.
If the allies really want it, they can take it at a fairly low cost, holding its another issue.  Germany has a pretty big stack that can steamroll it if they need to, although it might cost them position.

Since WE isn’t a real threat until round three or four, if Germany falls back and Russia pursues they will almost definitely forfiet Moscow. 
If Russia splits forces, the Russians get crushed and then the Western powers, while Japan takes the remaining Soviets head on.    At least thats how I see it. 
If its a diversion, it better be one strong enough to unbalance the defense in EE.

Some fresh infantry, and airpower are going to hit it.  If I see it coming, the AA gun is in SE and the other is in East Europe so my aircraft can hit safely.  Pretty good chance they are already moved.  Might just move the SE one if the allies are low on bombers or can only land in Gibralter.  Depends on which side I think benefits from the WE AAgun the most.

TESTING IT

Its pretty complex as far as strats go, so its pretty easy for either side to make a serious mistake.  Lots of moving parts.  Even little things like the raider transport (assuming a pure KGF where it actually presents an unobstructed threat) can make a significant difference in the supply chain.  At times it is very possible for a piece or two to swing the Eastern front odds by several percentage points, particularly the fighters.  The Axis numbers can really take a big shift if the AA guns roll well.  If you try and crack the fleet, let me know how that shapes up.

IF the axis screws up in Asia, or gets extremely bad dice in the North Sea they are in for an uphill fight.

If they miss completely in the north sea and lose their casualty absorbers they may well be better off aborting the mission rather than take the damage (?)  Don’t know, its not highly probable and they can absorb one and still have a decent shot.  They lose a second fighter they are probably going to have to go into high risk mode and start taking some big chances.  If 3+ get blown out then they probably should have considered getting out while the getting was good.  Haven’t had to drop the attack yet, but it seems like it could be a rough ride.

If Asia goes sideways, I’m pretty sure they have to go full force through Yakutsk and/or Mongolia. They really need to be in position to attack even if it means giving up ground elsewhere. If you find a way that they can buy time, that would be useful as well.

Some allied strats might give them enough time where the Japanese could afford to attack on R5, but they can’t afford to do that against anything which effectively reinforces Karalia, as far as I can tell.

I suppose its theoretically possible for Japan to try a R3 attack by going through Mongolia or maybe the army at Yakutsk.  R1 buy trans+tanks, R2 buy a bomber R3 win a 1% dice throw to survive the counterattack at the gates of moscow ….

Anyhow, run it when you get a chance and see how it works out.  Curious about your impressions when you run it.
If you run a different allied strat, let me know what adjustments were made and what the effects were.  If you see improvements to the strategy or something that will definitively stop it in its tracks, like to know as well.

@SpartanJD01:

I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

(If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

I always figured the 3 IPC was the cost to mop up the national forces and get the local populace under control.  Not so much that it doesn’t defend itself, just that its defenses aren’t on scale or skill with the attacking troops.   Maybe the cost of paying off the locals to tolerate you having an army there if they are more amicable, possibly whatever costs are involved in getting them to “join your side”, not that they really have a choice…

Most of the Neutral countries don’t matter much.  There are a few that do.   I like being able to invade them, open up the front, increases gameplay diversity.  I’ve also played house rules that just put a couple of troops on each of them.

At any rate, two neutrals have a strong chance of getting dragged into the war in this strat.  Mongolia, almost always, just too convenient for merging attack lanes.  And Venzuala, just because it keeps the transport in range of the West coast and gives a shot to grab Brazil.

[EDIT]
221B Baker
Responded to your post, got flagged as spam, no apparent reason?  Too many consecutive posts?
Anyhow, will show when a Mod approves it.

[EDIT 2]
RE:  221B Baker Street
This was a long post which I spent quite a bit of time thinking about and writing.  It still hasn’t been approved by the mods yet.  Not going to rewrite it.   I posted it as a seperate post because its long,  addressed a seperate post and systematically discussed each of the points made.   I’m assuming there is a consecutive post limit, but since its flagged for review the mods probably have a copy of it that they can approve and post.   Guess that its up to them. [/END EDIT]

TANK ROUTE CLEARING/AIRSTRIKE OPTIONS

I don’t think the tank clearing is a gambit, although its a potential tactic.

Whether the Moscow plane strike is used depends on the Allied play at the border.  Most of the time, they won’t be used to clear a tank path, but its an additional option.  If the Allies overplay Asia then its a straightforward German assault at the weakpoint.    Japanese troop placement varies with the Allied response, but Manchuria seems to work better overall.  Mongolia is important in most runs and usually worth the 3IPC cost.

The Japanese may need multiple roads, depending on what Brittain can land to stop it.  Usually its easier to just get the borders.    The entire Moscow airstrike thing is  a gamble, but so is any power move in a game, such as going after the fleet.  12-14 axis planes, with only brittain in between moves,  can drop a hammer on a pretty good size holding force.  If the forces in Moscow try and block access they have to be certain that they can get every one.  If even one route stays open, they will need enough troops to survive the air raid.  This means they need to send enough units to lock a victory over the course of two or three seperate battles.  These generally aren’t favorable trades for them.  They also have to cover any tank blitz routes.  US/UK can commit airpower to assist, but thats expensive as well and may make the fleet vulnerable.

Japan can frequently open up more fronts than the Allies can safely shut down, even working quickly.  Been able to manage it most games.  Not saying that it can’t be stopped, but its not as easy as it seems.  Russia is going to be hard pressed to keep its tanks in reserve.

The preferred use is to have Japan open multiple infantry fronts, likely holding at least one.  The tank is kept in reserve if possible, as it represents another access path.  Allies must react and close those gaps, possibly losing the balance against Germany.  Its actually pretty hard to stop from happening, at least without conceding Karalia to the Germans.

In this particular game Japan chased down the British transport, and carried a fighter.  Actually lost the fighter, but the Japanese were able to make it work.  Bomber tried to finish the job unsuccessfully, could have been a major issue.  Transports stayed out of enemy air range; in the sea of Japan except the landing on the Soviet beaches on R2.

TACTICS SUGGESTED
Fleet Strike
You may have something with chewing up the British Transports.  They can rebuild, but it buys time.  It also really weakens EE.  Worth exploring.  Been meaning to do that, but wanted to run the other a few times.  Was the original plan to just setup a favorable point exchange and get the groundtroops later.  After actually trying it got into this conversation and facing the superfleet, I started looking at the potentials in later usage of the luftwaffe.  Some good possibilities in creating a delay by knocking out the transports and withdrawing.

Extremely risky move, could break either way significantly if there is a big swing in the opening roll.  Could leave crippled or could be facing a pretty even fight against whats left of the superfleet.  Easily as risky as trying to strafe in EE.  Still, all options are on the table.  One of those places where you want to see an average attack/defense or better on that first roll.  That said, if survivors make it they can always boost the Japanese efforts, even a couple could help.

Heavy China
I’ll look at heavy China, but I think it opens less fronts and will be easier to defend against when the perimeter is reached.  Also gives the allies 2 more infantry and a fighter  2/2/4 to the stack later to defend with and saves the Japanese three one point attackers.  Sinkiang also becomes another hole for the Allies to plug, they can’t really afford to let Japan keep it. Worth a look though, might be misreading the value of that approach as I haven’t tried that move for Japan in about fifteen years.  I agree Russia can’t hit Manchuria without getting massacred and losing valuable units they will need at the gates of Moscow.

London Strat Bomb
Strat Bombing London is risky, obviously, likely worth it if the British IPC count drops too far though, often enough.
I think the bomber is a free agent.  Add that option to the list of choices:

Stratbomb (83%) avg IPCs 3.5, but notably variable
Try for the sub (66%) zero risk
Hit the British transport in Canada – also affects british fleet total, (75%)
Support an Egypt Strike (probably needs a fighter escort as well.  Could change Africa a lot. Lands in libya with the tank)
Stratbomb Karalia (every unit there counts too)
Support the Battleship Hit (Increases survival chance 10%, I think the bomber is the more valuable piece there)
Support the Fleet strike in North Sea (moderately increases chance of two ships surviving, insulates fighters and increases chances of getting the fleet in one shot).
Fly it to Manchuria (30% chance of being shot down) potentially useful in that theater.

Moscow using infantry. 
Pretty much what I’ve tried to do.  Usually the only viable option unless Asia goes really sideways for the Japanese.  Might be able to build a wall/counter attack source  in Novosibirsk, with some other troops, but I don’t think that works.  The picket helps, but Japan has a lot of ability to concentrate force.

Pearl
ya I’m happy with it.  For this strat anyhow.  If a battleship ends up surviving all the way thru Panama, it makes a nice boost to the US coast raider, increases the threat level on the West coast as well as giving it the ability to hop.
The transport can also grab New Zealand and the abandoned Australia instead of the West coast or Venzuala.  If the battleship lives, Panama is another option for the transport to hit.  Creates another element that the allies have to track and respond to, if nothing else.  The BB isn’t a huge asset, even if it lives, but it will eventually get into play somewhere and might serve midgame fleet protection duties.

The Med Move
Western Med in 2, North Sea on 3.  This one is interesting and has interesting implications.

PROS
Upside is that the allies have to consider that grouping a target, and its going to cost them some planes most likely, which will be in high demand in a couple of turns.  Allies could potentially commit a lot of airpower to this battlegroup.

If ignored, might make Axis able to cripple the superfleet.

Allies have less certainty about where the planes will strike, forces more fighters to protect the ships.  Significantly disrupts the allied supply chain into Russia.  Its late enough that an allied factory in finland isn’t an option, especially if the US is holding it.

CONS
Ties up an infantryman in Gibralter.  Spain isn’t a likely allied target, so its stuck unless you pay its cost to get it out of there or hold out for the Japanese.  Spain is better left closed for the Axis as it tends to benefit the allies positionally.  Upshot is the infantry man there is dead unless the game takes a highly unexpected turn.

Also less force in Africa which is already marginal and won’t get reinforcements until turn 3 at best, probably quite a bit later.  Puts a lot of IPCs in the hands of the allies that the Germans could be using; 26 points/turn swing for the whole continent, pretty important and midgame may hinge on that jump.  More luck needed in Africa, although the Brit bomber (if present) may decide it has more important things to do than chase down tanks.

Allied BB 
Don’t like this part of the plan.  Taking it down unsupported with fighters is probably going to cost you one, frequently its going to cost you both of them.  Don’t think its a good trade, potential disaster for a small unit battle.  Rather lose the bomber than a fighter anyhow, as defense outweighs range in this strat.  Germany can afford to lose one fighter, maybe. Losing two means without a very good exchange means they’ve wasted their first round buy.

Fleet Strike
Doing the fleet strike might or might not be a good trade for the loss of troops in EE.  Have to play it out to see.
The balance on the Eastern front is situational, but it keeps the Soviets from putting too much into the Japanese and offers a secondary punch to secure Russia if it plays out well.

EE stack
I think the Germans need a very big stack there.  Every unit has to be responded too, if its not on the line, the Soviets can safely siphon troops towards Japan.  Its also may be the support force for Japan or present a direct threat to the Soviets if needed.  There’s a large stack of units that are fast enough and large enough to reach any of Germany’s holdings from that position.    If the Soviets go light on that front, the Axis could draw down, but I don’t think that benefits them particularly, except that it may let Germany place tanks in reserve protecting the Capitol better.  On the balance, I don’t think reducing the forces there is a particularly good plan without a very good reason.  Maybe, possibly to try and lure the Soviets out of position when Japan comes, but thats probably a weak ruse.

Since new buys are probably going in Berlin, and South Europe is almost always safe.  The western front can’t get hit hard until turn 4 at the earliest.  A turn 3 strike should be easy to repell, but may also be optional, depending on the circumstances.  Even if lightly held, its a death trap for at least the first wave that lands, if Germany chooses to make it one.  Allies moving on Western Europe disrupts the Finland supply chain and changes the game dynamic quite a bit, favored the Axis when I tried it.  Later an allied position there  can be a problem, but since the big action should be on round 3 or 4, I don’t see a light hold as that much of a liability.  If done and responded to it displaces forces for both sides.  Given the overall situation for the allies, Finland seems to play much better.

DEAD ZONE MANAGEMENT
However with that in mind.  I’ve been expirimenting with using larger deadzone task forces.

With the Luftwaffe giving air support the infantry tend to fare well and get a favorable exchange rate.  Obviously you can’t overextend doing this or leave your heavy units without too much fodder, unless you want to try and encourage  the soviets to overextend right before Japan hits them.

If the soviets respond to the deadzone, they are taking a bigger risk per unit as the volatility is higher and they have limited air support.  They have to be careful not to over allocate, and increase the chances of being hit hard by a direct German Strike.  As the stack size increases the relative impact of the two Soviet fighters decreases and the exhange rate overall weakens for the Soviets.  If they have mixed builds, it strips away some of the shielding for the main stack.  The situation is more dangerous because the Germans negotiate a better exchange rate overall than the Soviets do and creates bleeding that can tip the balance.

If they fail to take or choose to ignore  the deadzone then Germany gets a favorable IPC swing as well as gaining the potential to send a stack of tanks with a bit of infantry cover right next to Moscow.

Obviously this could be very expensive and may require the Germans to open up EE significantly.  The upside should force a counter that doesn’t have the benefit of finland based units or sea units, possibly when the Soviets can least afford to do so.  May force the airforce back to Germany, where an airstrike has to cross a second AA gun to be exercised.  Obviously this isn’t a move to be taken lightly by Germany as it may set up Southern Europe to get taken as well as putting a large army of mostly tanks in peril and without aircover.  That said, it could be a good play in some circumstances.

Germans have to be careful doing this so that they don’t make a strike on EE favorable.  A lot of how that works out depends on whether the soviets are making mixed force buys or strictly defensive buys and the overall force commitment situation.

ALLIED FACTORY?
A US turn 2 factory would put tanks/airpower on the line faster and free up some transport slots for infantry, not sure whether its a good idea for the allies though in terms of the opportunity cost.  Another use would be that they could reinforce the superfleet if needed by using it as a shipyard.  Of course if f Karalia goes then the factory probably goes soon thereafter.

JAPANESE BUYS

Infantry hits the ground in round 1 because its already there and is probably needed.  Any tank bought in Round 1 can reach Moscow and presents a blitz option. Not sure that its justified, have been just buying the usual 2 trans, 3 infantry, but maybe is a good option.  Problem is that its a blind buy as asia hasn’t started yet.  Might try it at some point.

Any round 2 tanks can provide some mop up ability and may be able to give a second wave at Moscow, especially if the Germans are in a position to mix it up in Karalia, of course they are also less boots on the ground and you very likely will need some infantry unless the Allies completely collapsed on the first round for some reason.

Japanese usually want to buy a bomber in round 3, for additional punch as its the only unit that can reach the front line in one move.  The ground troops can be made up for later, the place will be swarming with them starting round 5 if the Moscow hit is successsful.  An additonal transport is another option.

Infantry is favored over tanks because you need troops that can hold factories if you are planning on building them.  That and the tanks you are churning out later will need shock troops and position holders.  If you hit Moscow even once, you can likely build tank assembly lines later.  Japan should have enough transports to move infantry from Japan in the later portion of the game.  Replacement/additional air power might be worth considering instead of factories if Moscow goes down, but I’m leaning towards a tank funnel.  India and the FIC make a nice combination if Moscow is still being disputed.  India is close to Africa by tread and somewhat close to Germany.  India is also close to any existing allied forces, so don’t build there unless it can be held.

If Japan had enough airpower to survive, a Bomber squadron and the existing fighters might be able to give the Axis another shot at a fleet strike and buy enough time for Germany.  Assuming it can get there before the Allies get a mainland factory of their own in Europe.

Thanks, interesting variants and some maybe better, will take a look at that, in practice.  Next post has comments about the specific suggestions.

Basically what I’ve been trying to determine, is if its a gambit or a viable strategy.   I’m inclined to think its viable in the sense that it gives the Axis a decent shot at winning.   If it can be easily shut down  consistently or the requisite require above average luck,  then its just a gambit.  I’m not sure yet that it can.  Both sides probably need tuning, will definitely look at your suggestions for modification.   Hopefully its at least a strategy… I’ve practically written a book on it so far :)

Whether it ultimately is a winning strategy or not, I’m not sure.  Definitely a lot of variants and interesting dynamics going on and deeper than it looks at first glance. Probably could get very dangerous with a bid involved, whether it works without one, is maybe.   Regardless, more interesting than turtling.

HIT AND RUN ON MOSCOW
_[A short hit on Moscow is not an automatic game winner, but it can be very helpful and a good trade.[/i]

I just wrapped up a 12 turn game that played out that way.   Soviet forces had to conced Karalia and everything it anchors.   The round 4 air attack was combined with a strafe on Karalia, further weakening the allied position… well I remember considering it at any rate, might have waited until the Soviets moved to retake Russia.   Between Karalia and Moscow, most of the allied planes went down in flames.

Russia went with infantry from the start, as I was now aware that they had no real chance of doing more than maintaining defensive parity on the Eastern front.  This resulted in them having a few more pieces available to protect Moscow.

Germany had a tough fight ahead of it, without the airpower.  Japan had a couple of aircraft left.  The bulk of the allied airforce went down with Moscow.   Japan took with what was available and tried to set up a secondary attack.

Japan used the war spoils from its Russian hit to place two factories, one in Manchuria and one in FIC.  Prefere FIC and India but didn’t work in that game.  Factories produced armor and the ships kept bringing infantry across.   Germany was weakened and had to fend for itself.

After Moscow fell it was anybody’s game.  Allies ended up winning, but it wasn’t even close to a sure thing.
US hit western Europe as they couldn’t get Karalia yet.   Germany had to choose between driving back the invasion and turtling or turning up the heat on Asia.   They didn’t have quite enough to close the deal for the Japanese so went into homeland defense mode.  If I remember correctly they did strafe the Soviet stack at Moscow, to make it easier for Japans follow up.   They countered the invasion with mainland forces and started drawing down trying to hold both positions.

Allies were able to get a grip on Karalia.  Japanese made a couple of runs at Russia but weren’t able to secure it.  
Eventually Karalia/Moscow was reasonably secured (took a while and was in question quite a few times), and the Allies eventually got through on the weak side and were able to secure Western Europe.  The factory came online and Germany went down about the same time Japan finally broke through in Russia.

Was quite interesting, and after the factory build, had no idea which side would win.  I’m certain it could have gone either way._

SUPERFLEET vs. LUFTWAFFE III

Played into early round seven.

Japan is able to regain the Asian mainland, relatively easily, despite the China disaster.   The allies don’t really have effective direct countermeasures available that can actually stop the offensive at this point.  The need for additional supporting troops on the mainland delays the movement of the Japanese coastal raider as well, so the US machine doesn’t suffer a significant interruption.

The Japanese are however delayed by a full turn and weaker than usual when they are in position.  Their force and numbers are sufficient to regain the advantage, but it takes longer and costs more.   They marginally obtain three borders on Moscow, but there are enough forces nearby to deal with them, plug the gaps and still hold the capital easily. The Japanese may have done better if they’d abandoned Southern Asia and reinforce Manchuria, but that probably would have been shut down fairly easily and would have cost a lot of IPCs.  Might be possible, didn’t try it.

Even with a smooth running pipeline, the Allies aren’t able to position a high odds attack setup in the early game, but have been able to maintain sufficient defenses.  However, time is on the allies side and they are able to get sufficient forces into Moscow, while preserving Karalia before the Japanese/German airstrike can be attempted.  Had that tank lane been opened successfully the Axis were still at a maximum of 10% of successfully executing a R5 strike against Moscow.

By Turn six the Allies could have considered an offensive in EE for the first time.  A viable continental assault would also be an option in round 5, although not the best choice.  Berlin is relatively thin, but a low odds attack isn’t necessary at this juncture.  Within a couple of turns it will be a certainty for a decisive win on the Eastern front.   Since they have time and a high chance of throwing the game away if the attack is blown, the line maintains defensive advantage and a counter-offensive is begun against Japan.  By the end of the round, its clear that the Japanese earlier fighting and fairly high armor ratios are now working against them.  They will be driven back in short order if the Allies want to continue to press.

Africa is basically a split decision for most of the game.  Could have gone either way, ended up with a German infantry standing.   Allies can reinforce first and lock it up.  Pearl Harbor went to the Japanese and they were able to stop the US fleet although it defended well and took out the sub and a battleship.  Asia is never secured strongle enough to consider a factory based offensive as they don’t have the ground troops or position to dig in deeply enough.

The axis have a few more turns, but the writing is on the wall.  Their best chance would probably to have been to throw a longshot attack on round 3 with the Germans either at the superfleet, finland or more likely Karalia.   A low percentage proposition which would probably have lead to a quicker allied victory.

SUMMARY
Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies.  The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly.   The Australian transport may have been decisive in that instance, but the decision to pursue it has to be made before the Japanese execute their attacks.  Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe.  If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.

Started another one.  Japan off to a bad start on the Mainland.

The Bombing run went well for the Allies and they are in the position you suggested.  Germany now has to get aggressive in Africa if the Axis are to have any chance.  Elects to tie commit a fighter from EE.  I’d probably only go this route if Germany had the luxury of parity, limited coastal threats, and needed to tie up the bomber.

Africa Front:
Fighter + 1 inf + 1 tank.  vs 1 inf in Egypt
1 infantry to the FEQ (since allies didn’t take it, it works as a landing strip)
Tank Rolls to the Belgian congo.  Germany now has 6 IPCs in Africa and the allies have some choices to make.
Had Asia gone differently I would have stuck with the original plan and consilidated in the FEQ.  The allies will probably win Africa, but they don’t have it in the bag yet.

They can either take 50/50 in egypt and take a high % shot at the tank in BC.  If it works they have a good chance of winning Africa for at least the short term.  Alternately they could kill Egypt with high probability and hold the bottleneck with the Infantry.

If the bomber leaves the theater, they only have an effective option at Egypt and its got a fairly high cost if things go wrong.  Similarly, the Axis can only counter attack with the fighter in Egypt if they want to exit the fighter in R2.  They also have the option of sending one in and exiting one to get a momentary 2 fighter strike on Egypt if needed, but thats going to make them leaner in the Eastern front in R3.

In Asia
Pearl harbor crushed without casualties. 
Sinkiang taken with one standing.
China was a disaster (10% chance), with the Japanese losing all of their infantry, killing the defense but not being able to take the territory as it came down to infantry of fighter.  Going to be a tough round.  Forgot to hunt the transport in Australia (might or might not have anyhow), so the allies will be able to reinforce.  Since Manchuria was destroyed all available troops/air landed in Indo China.  AC, 2 ftrs and all transports now parked off the coast.

The situation in Asia is a serious monkey wrench in the Axis plans.  Soviets have one or two tanks in Moscow and all of their standard placements.  The Brits have a bomber in Syria.  FIC and the surrounding sea have every available Japanese asset except the infantry in Sinkiang.

Allies have a major edge at this point and a lot of options.

“On entrapping terrain move quickly” – Sun Tzu

Its a speed based strategy.  Speed and position as opposed to a dig in and fight. This is required due to the emphasis on air power.  Everything else that happens is a result of that choice.

The entire idea of the 2 fighter strategy is to disrupt the Allied war machine before it can get up to speed.  You already know that the Axis will lose a build up and slug it out type game.  Pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Methodical play kills the Axis more often than not.  Karalia opening strike isn’t viable.  Defense isn’t ultimately viable (especially in no bid).  They have to capitalize on their early advantages before the Allies can get into position.   I’ve played a couple hundred games,  so I’m not a complete novice.

Your adjusting the strat as you realize that hitting the Libya force is too costly.  Allies can’t afford to lose Africa, at least not that early.  The Axis may or may not be able to.  Will see when that happens.

Allies could have recovered 2-3 IPCs by the time the game was decided/forced to long game, probably decided, had they moved on Africa.

If I followed that you have
Kenya 1 inf from SA
Egypt 1 inf
Syria  1 inf/1Bmb/1tank
Nice trap positioning and a better play than any you’ve previously suggested.  Possibly an optimal play for that situation…  Makes Africa far riskier on the roughly 75% of the times that the bomber survives the transport run.  If it lives I might just retake the FEQ and possibly sending one tank to West Africa as well, inviting an allied landing. Then you have to  split your forces, make a low value attack, withdraw to Asia or consolidate and make a stand.  I have more options from the FEQ position.  If I felt I could afford to, I’d consider diverting a fighter to reinforce the Arena.  Depending on the outcome of Asia, round 2 might bring me an opportunity and incentive to soften you up from Burma, although I probably wouldn’t exercise that option.   Very situational.   Most likely it would buy you some time.

I agree the battleship shouldn’t be the highest priority. The threat of the Battleship is actually fairly low.  However was working from statements you gave previously, where you stated you would hit it with both bombers, although may have missed a point of context.   Also was before the decision to wait for a R2 fleet was made, which does make a difference.

Another advantage of the bomber position:
It also means that I have to take the AC to Burma if I plan on sending any transports to that front.   If you send the US bomber west it means I am confined to the sea of Japan on my next turn.  Probably going to be their anyhow,  Fighters can be rotated in most cases.  I have to be a bit more cautious with my planes, but they are pretty much used to swing favorable battles already.

Regarding IPC/Positional trades/Impact values

Just hitting China and Pearl leaves the Sinkiang fighter.   Pearl is a minor target, just need to cripple the fleet.  But you have to make sure it goes down hard enough to make Japan safe, Atlantic considerations aside.

Could use more force and get a higher chance at a decisive win, but its pretty decisive as is, doesn’t pull my aircraft out of position and gives me a strong opportunity get dominance in Asia early, rather than risk being bogged down (which costs more IPCs over the run, especially if they aren’t being traded, making it a full swing).

Going heavier on pearl opens up the possibility of a complete fleet loss to a counterstrike and more importantly 2-3 vital aircraft at risk and severely out of tactical position.  I don’t see the advantages.  The AC has more practical utility than the BB for a country with a lot of starting fighters.

Getting trapped in Asia is death for Japan, sooner or later.

Simply put, the road to Moscow is a  higher value target than Pearl, by a great degree.  The Japanese Battleships are expensive but not particularly valuable.  They will probably never need to be replaced.   I take three targets out of the possible six with high force ratios.   Sinkiang is a retreat if necessary, but the goal is to trade 1-2 infantry for the 2 infantry and a fighter (+12 to 15 IPC) where it counts.

If I choose to ignore Sinkiang for a round I’ve just set up either a massive roadblock which will be more expensive to take down later, or I’ve provided the allies with vital reinforcements.  Clearing out the defense in that zone also eliminates any chance for the US to put a heavily fortified factory into play between Japan and Russia in an attempt to buy time to develop the European theater.  Since the strategy involves a higher ratio of armor than normal, I can’t afford to get invoved in that situation.  Better to take it off the table immediately.

There is an initial IPC trade in Asia, but the Axis have to reduce pressure on Europe, especially with the fragile opening buy.   The extra two infantry that die are easily made up for by the territorial gain.

The answer to the will I be in a stronger position next turn if I hold off, is also similar.  Pretty much a game of delays favor the Allies, unless the Axis can get a very strong economic and positional advantage.  Given the starting buy that Germany makes, its even more important than usual.   The strategy hinges on selective aggression, positioning, flexibility and speed.    Where in other games Japan might try and march waves of infantry, they don’t have the luxury or the time to do so.

As far as biasing the results to get the results I want, I disagree I’m exploring options and their impacts.  I’ve played the axis a lot more than the allies over the years, and more recently, so I have a better handle on their moves.  I was thinking that Syria was out of reach of the British bomber until I recounted through Algeria after reading your post, was thinking it had to land in FEQ/Algeria so I didn’t take a deep look at the landing options.  Also one of the main reasons I elected to stack in Libya instead of moving out immediately.   Just overlooked it.   In most of the games I’ve played using other strategies the Germans have a fighter in Africa and Egypt was a primary target.

Actually, I don’t really care what the outcome is.  Its the sort of opening buy that immediately comes off as a rookie move, and something I decided a long time ago wouldn’t work.  Just looking at it with new eyes as it provides some tactical options for the Germans that wouldn’t normally be available, and I’m seeing some of the strengths and trying to determine if they outweigh the weaknesses.  Its also interesting because of the number of variants that can emerge.

What I am seeing is that the Allies can’t take Berlin until turn 5 at the earliest, at least not without taking excessive chances. Turn 6 is probably more likely.   I’m seeing an opportunity for the Axis to secure Russia earlier and possibly secure Europe with a quick return trip.   If the axis can’t take Russia then that’s how it works out.  It either can be done at a high enough success rate or it can’t.  Actually I think it can be shut down one way or another, but until I’m certain of how and why, I’m going to continue to examine the situation.

I do like the Africa Bomber to Syria play.  It limits Germany to just 1 or 2 extra IPCs, positions the bomber and knocks out the transport as well as setting up a strong counter attack at all points.   Good triple threat.  As far as the transport its as likely to use the black sea route as it is to use Africa.  Germany starts very thin on the Eastern front, not sure that it can justify sending two infantry during the second round, or even the third.  Still a high priority threat.

Ran Superfleet again for a few rounds.

Axis had a good start on the German side, Battleship lived, one submarine lived.   EE built up as much as is safe to do so.
Ukraine taken. Libya consolidated.  Allies lost both bombers going after the battleship.  Trans jordan sent to reinforce asian front.  Africa attack is dicey, the battleship makes a tough choice, especially with three other boats to clear.
** clearing the BB may not be necessary in games where it survives, but Africa can easily go sideways.
Round 1 German bomber usage is optional in RR,  it can target whatever it wants (including escorting the battlehip attack if you want to increase the odds that the German BB lives).  
Took a chance on the sub, with diving thats 67% to clear it, no escape this time.

Japan had a harder time dealing with the new configuration on the mainland, lost a plane clearing the fighter situation in Sinkiang.  (3 planes: 1 plane, had to finish it).  Pretty spread out at the end of it.   Transport ignored, creating problems in R2, not sure if the Japanese have an effective counter to the transport that can be applied.

IndoChinaBurma taken by one brit, Sinkiang defender replaced.  Russian troop stack looking stronger with more units around it.  It will eventually be forced to disperse to cover the outskirts of Moscow, even if troops are out of position to challenge it directly.   Some Soviet tanks kept in range of both fronts, safe to do so at this time.   A little bit has to be diverted south, but not enough to matter.   Situation is a lot different when they just have to reach the Moscow border instead of posting a credible force there.  Soviets will either have to be posting infantry or they will be mobilizing more expensive units in short order.

Without the TJ reinforcement and a strong opening roll, the Egyptian force is crushed.  Africa is a mop up at this point.  Two tanks and two infantry vs 1 infantry.   Axis now have a tank that can roll north to greater Asian region and still plenty to take a lot of points quickly in Africa.

Allies stay with plan and go for the superfleet, just to see how it works out without Africa contested much.  They are locked into a R2 power play because Britain has already passed their buy.

Japanese are still able to break through down the Mongolian path, despite getting weakened.  The allied fleet isn’t going to be dropping troops anywhere fast enough, even if ignored.   WE is accessable but not even close to fortifiable given the allied ground troop shortage.   By the time its worth thinking about, direct reinforcements from england to karalia are looking good, even if it involves a fleet split.

When the Japanese break through the first time, they can be repelled, probably  Brits lose a fighter clearing a zone.

** Another strategic twist
if British airpower gets destroyed or even diminished much, another option becomes available for the Axis that has to be taken into consideration by the Allies.

An airstrike after the Russian turn can clear a buffer zone allowing a tank to blitz Moscow with Japanese air support.  If this happens, not only is Karalia under more stress, the Soviets absolutely have to place a fairly decent number of security forces in Moscow or bet the game on a marginal placement, changing dynamics further.  If the Soviets over commit to the eastern front, 7-8 aircraft can punch a pretty big hole or two, even flying over 2 AA guns.

Problems can quickly multiply for the Allies if they wait to build the fleet, particularly with a strong German Round 1.
Pretty sure that the Allies simply aren’t fast enough using this method.  Western Europe doesn’t need many troops.  Even if the allies skip the superfleet they are going to have to get a strong threat in play very early or find a way to decisively hold asia.

The Japanese transport is in striking range of the West Coast USA on round 3, further slowing allied deployments.

Allies will eventually be able to get their pipeline rolling strong, but its very likely going to be too little too late.  At least with Superfleet and a good axis opening round at sea.   I don’t think they will be able to effectively be able to ignore Africa.    Soviets still can’t crush the EE position even with some relatively aggressive buffer zone trades.  With air support the Axis have a lock on winning the exchange rate there.

Round 3 I bought infantry with Germany, Just in case.  Should have gone with a mixed buy, can afford some tanks in that mix I think.   Allies just can’t bring much to bear that early using superfleet, at least not at any target that matters.

Situation may be different if the Allies can keep a bomber in the air, but all of the uses you suggested for them are pretty high risk, so they are going to die fairly frequently without strategic modifications.  Fighters have better chances depending on what they have to clear.

Asia is a bit thinner, but I don’t see the Soviets having much of a shot at that and the Eastern front at the same time.

Japan seazone is out of reach unless the allies can conserve a bomber and get it safely to the area.  This can be done but at the expense of other high value targets.  The carrier and transports probably can hold it off anyhow, although it will limit Japanese mobility for a bit.

Its not so much a question of misplayed allies in superfleet vs. luftwaffe, its a lack of timely options and logistical difficulties for the Soviets.  The Soviets have to allocate resources or get really lucky to be able to compete on both fronts.  Worst case, short of a total disaster, the Japanese can give up ground in Southern Asia and still present enough force to breakthrough somewhere.   Even more so if the Germans can hit a weakened Africa.  If Africa collapses against two tanks, German IPCs jump fast.  Both Axis powers running strong IPCs  is a problem for the allies no matter how you slice it.  The soviet IPC surplus doesn’t last very long in the face of that.  They just have too many points to defend.

Some Allied relief arrives in R3 (small american contingent).  Brits can split fleet and add a few more, but that opens options for the Germans as well.  Depending on what it takes to clear the gap, the soviet defense force can be diminished by the luftwaffe.   Fighters are still scarce for the allies, even without casualties.  At most, there are six to cover the fleet, Karalia and Moscow, and this is in pure defense with no risks taken.  Something is probably going to be weaker than it needs to be when all is said and done.

Granted this was with a fast start, but Africa is going to be tough to hold for the Brits without the TJ infantry, even then its not a great proposition for the Allies.  If the bomber tries to go into Libya its not going to be alive for long.

Pretty sure Axis will win the game being played,  by round 4 they are closing in on an economic victory (which will likely translate to military victory) and the Allies are still trying to get rolling.  I don’t think I’ve made any serious Allied mistakes at this juncture, although the first round definitely had an impact.

Currently I’m inclined to think that the Axis versatility and speed is enough to give them a reasonable shot at winning a decent percentage of games, but that may turn out to be way off base.  Haven’t ruled out a successful Allied superfleet/Norway strategy yet, just seeing some of the downsides at the moment.  Also very aware that you are seeing the upsides of this approach and you are obviously a solid player that has a lot of experience with allied strategy.

Allies may be able to bring a big hammer if they play it right or get some good breaks, but I think they have more bases to cover than is easily accomplished.  They may or may not be able to win without getting a better grip on Africa. Might be as simple as taking a more defense oriented stance with the Soviets, although this has some drawbacks as well.

Other potential allied counters (if superfleet doesn’t hold up):
Brittain could set up to get troops into Karalia directly and have US do the fleet security work initially (variant). Another possible adjustment, if the required allied supply chain can’t be worked out is to have Brittain counter by building aircraft of their own to bolster the Soviets and/or set up an Asian counter-offensive, then move to a fleet strategy.  Slower might work.   Allies may be able to capitalize on the reluctance of the Germans to put their airforce in harms before it can be used in a decisive attack.   A two fleet strategy may work as well, despite potential fleet protection issues.  The Germans in EE will have a hard time covering both the Eastern front and Atlantic, due to range limitations and fighters are still out of replacement range if they get attritioned.   All of these are very different games, so I’m going to run a few more on this strat and see if I can improve the allied position decisively before I look at those.

RE: MONGOLIA
Ya, 3 IPC for neutral territory.  Japan can give up an infantry for the path from Mongolia in most cases.  Its one more route for the Allies to defend if they dont go all in on Asia and ignore the Pacific.  Depending on how asia plays out, it may be the best route as it allows consolidation from Soviet Lands, Chinese Lands and Manchuria.  There are games where they need the buffer, I don’t think most of these are going that direction.

Spartan,

No Problem, no urgency to respond. Do appreciate the input.  I’m also spending too much time playing/testing/writing lately, as well, always work to be done … I should be better at prioritizing it :)

By East Indies I meant French Indo China, always get them confused, keep thinking that its East India or somesuch.

China was strong, 3-4 infantry, iirc, typically is.  Gets hit hard on round 1.
Transport play, will look at that.  Misunderstood your trans Jordan Unit, thought it was going towards Africa for some reason.

You might have enough between all that to slow down the Japanese, maybe cost them an infantry or fighter along the way.  Have to look at how that plays out.

Allied schuck-schuck with the tanks, not sure it changes anything if they are replaced or stay put.  If two new ones are continously put in East USA they get loaded on the next round anyhow.  Replacing forces a two tank buy every round, which may or may not be optimal.  In the test game, I hit Venzuala.    With Venzuala, US has to either commit the tanks at that point or forfiet Brazil indefinitely.  Transport has to be killed if possible as it still threatens western US, otherwise thats more troops out of position.

The seven stack of Soviet infantry, is it trying to hold out somewhere (novosibirsk) or retreating slowly using placeholders with the goal of reaching Moscow? Sinkiang? I didn’t see much in the line of effective counterattack possibilities with them, although some air support might make it possible at some point.  Haven’t been able to get much use out of them, just fodder.  Whenever I’ve kept them grouped they weren’t able to withstand what hit them, but maybe I missed an opportunity there.  Breaking them up doesn’t seem to help much either.

In this scenario, because of the failed Sinkiang attack, Japanese consolidated in Mongolia and used that as the early game pipeline.  Details in the writeup.  Japan plan B.  Seems stronger overall, facing low resistance, possibly becomes the go to plan.  Big question is if the Allies can buy time safely.

Obviously have to work on the Allied Asia defense.   If they can buy a round somewhere without endangering the EE situation, they may have an effective play.  If allied bombers can be kept out of the theater, the Aussie transport probably can be safely brought down without too much overall impact.   Just have to remember that its there, tends to  fall off the map on the computer version.

Wrapped up the game, Axis won, but probably a large factor being inexperience with the Allies at that game stage.  Had a hard time focusing them, coordinating them well and was torn between the pipeline, trying to defend Russia, and the various other choices.   If I’d played the Allies I would have lost, without a doubt, but as a result of my own skill level rather than any predisposition from that setup at that point.  Every area of the board outside of the greater co-prosperity sphere, was up in the air, lots of ways it could go down in live play.

Game gets pretty complex if it develops like that one did, far as I can tell its anyone’s game at that point.  Russia is under a lot of pressure and both sides have a lot of strategic options.  Probably will stick to a Finland pipeline next time around, even if Western Europe looks weak.  Not sure the tradeoff value is there as the superfleet build makes it hard to support at that stage of the game.  Avoids some force splitting issues as well, worth thinking about.

Allies had several competing interests at that juncture
1. Europe Continent
2. Reinforce the Soviets
3. Pipeline vs. air support
4. Keeping ships safe or deliberately trying to draw an airstrike
5. Offense to defense ratios

Germans had a complex array of options as well, although easier for me to handle because they were two armies operating mostly independently and I’m not to good at handling multinational forces yet, although my Allied play is improving, thanks to your help.

Anyhow was fascinating, even if quite precarious and tricky to play well for Germany.  May actually be less viable if allies don’t try and build a superfleet.  Lots of possible iterations to explore.  Does open up an interesting midgame if  it gets that far.  I think its worth a deeper look.  Will refine it some more.  Think I have the basic battle plan worked out, at least.

Thanks for all the insight

SUPERFLEET TEST

This got very interesting and is extremely closely matched.
Some game specific events.

• Libya reduced to one tank, elected to utilize the US bomber to finish off the German threat in Africa,
  Successful.  Africa held, although the allies can’t quickly pick up the remnant territories due to only infantry.
  Costs the US their bomber. Probably a good Allied move.
• Allied air is down to just jets, after fleet is consolidated they move to reinforce Karalia, which needs them.
• Sinkiang defenders defeated, but Japan has to choose air or infantry.  Sacrifices infantry.  Held, leaves corridor.
• Pearl harbor goes to Japanese, 1 BB, but it dies trying to sink escaping fleet and inflicts no casualties.
• Superfleet built successfully.  Troop shortages slow down invasion a bit, not much.
• Novosobirsk tank blitzes and takes East Indies for the 3 russian IPC gain and an attempt to get into the soft underbelly of the Japanese advance.   In retrospect, might not be the best play, although it does slow the Japanese reserves slightly due to position, is tempting though.
• Troops in India reinforce the tank, also questionable. (r2)
• Southern Europe AA gun moved to the line
• Allies elect for W. Europe instead of Finland, as it becomes a target of opportunity.
• Japanese switch to Plan B after failing to secure ground presence in Sinkiang.
• EE chosen over W. Europe where only a small garrison holds.
• Ukraine used as a dead zone by both sides
• Allies secure a continental landing zone in Round 4 (3?)
• Japan gains two borders of Moscow in Round 3 with light holdings. Moscow in Peril. Roughly 15% chance of having to take serious consideration of withdrawing from Karalia to defend Moscow (required if a border can’t be retaken as 14 aircraft are in striking range).  Alternative choice is to bet it all on the two English fighters.
• Russians succeed, but are unable to secure a favorable strike at EE (at least in R4)
• Japanese eventually divert a transport to create a minor threat on North/South America
• Game not completed, several variants emerge for the end game.  Dice will heavily color the results.

A more detailed replay below, with specific moves/comments.

Not certain of timeline on the transport threat.  Think it was round 3, possibly 4.  Japan sends a transport to Hawaii with one Inf +1 island infantry, US places 2 tanks and 1 infantry for an 80% hold on W.USA.  These have to stay in place until the transport is dealt with or strikes.  A panama or venzuala move is also possible from here, putting the tanks out of position if they respond.  Regarding the actual attempt its an option.  Penetrating the Atlantic also forces reaction.  Only 20% success chance on the gamble, but if successful forces a counter attack as well as scooping 10 IPCs (good chunk of a factory build, or additional airforce.

Russia and Germany remain at an impasse in EE.   W.Europe falls to first allied invasion (UK) opportunity in round 3 as holding force is reduced to allow fighter and tanks to stand in EE.
One British tank, reinforced by available US units based in North Sea.

Japanese Plan B
Japanese switch tactics as Sinkiang not held.  All fighters, troops from Japan and Phillipines base in Manchuria.

Russia Falls back  with 6 from Novosobirsk in order to preserve infantry.

Japan buys (iirc) armor oriented, some infantry a transport
(Memory hazy, but it went a lot like this)
An island infantry plus 1 of the troops in China (?) bit hazy, don’t have the screen open, and a lot of airpower dispatch the remaining allies on the mainland.  Think they were able to get  there, might have pulled from Japan instead.  Appears that a tank from Japan went to assist.   Anyhow, Asia pretty much done for.

Japan invades Mongolia and consolidates every troop that isn’t needed for a picket, lands on the Northern coast, and takes Novosibirsk with air support.  Lands a tank and two infantry.

Round 3
The next round the rest of the soviet defense is trashed.   Russians may or may not have been able to pull a fighter in on defense… not sure how long allied fighters take to reinforce safely.  If they want to delay the attack they may have a limited ability to reinforce Moscow.  Due to deadzone in Ukraine (trading 2+fighter attacks to maximize capture chance), Germany is still dangerous.  Need to check the timing on this, may have missed an option.
This is when W. Europe falls.  The Germans have significant strike power and are still building at a decent clip.  Forces can respond.

Round 4, the Soviets have too low a chance to take EE due to the transfer to the Eastern front.  Superfleet buy has severely limited UKs ability to buy groundtroops.  They might have bought one too many transports.  All they can do is hold as a result of parity management.   Japanese have troops on two borders of Moscow and must be responded to, might be avoidable if troops can afford to be placed in Moscow in R3 but was looking for a R4 assault on EE, so didn’t do that.    Tanks and air support have to be peeled off and the Ukraine is a marginal decision, elected to let it stand since airpower not available.   A placeholder is needed in Novosibirsk to block a tank blitz, so another tank rolls off the front line.  Ignoring the Japanese isn’t an option due to the airstrike option of the Axis and a serious defense of Russia means that Karalia is lost along with UK/US airpower.  Best balance appears to hold the border and hope the Asian/Soviet line holds.

Since the tanks are gone, Russia needs at least 3 purchased infantry to reduce German raid to 33%, more is desireable.  Allied troops can’t reinforce until the Brits can land later in the turn.  Berlin combined attack might be possible, but it didn’t look optimal and would deny reinforcements.  Allies possibly can afford patience here.

Haven’t wrapped it up yet, but its a very delicate balance for both sides.  The Soviets had an advantage but not a lock to take both access points from the Japanese.   Had they failed, there is no option but to fall back from Karalia which probably leads to a long game.

German Buys (if I remember correctly. My notes are disorganized, was mostly looking at battle odds, forgot to record these)
Round 1 2ftr/1t/1inf
Round 2 Mostly infantry, maybe 1 tank (superfleet build allows these to reinforce)
Round 3 Three tanks, five infantry (if the odds merit it, forces tough soviet decisions, leaves some defense.  Not sure if a fighter is needed, haven’t run the allied chance of directly attacking Berlin.  
Round 4 Depends on a lot of things, probably infantry for defense.

Japanese buys (hazy on these, but see if I can remember
Round 1 2tr/3inf
Round 2 tank(s) and infantry (speed to front plus some line reinforcements, dont remember the exact mix)
Round 3 transport bomber 1-2 armor some infantry (asia decided by now, I need punch at the lines in rounds 4-5,
and want to have an option for a move on USA  while still maintaining something of a supply chain.  Bomber can assist if Russia fails to hold the provinces around Moscow in round 3.
Bit hazy on the specifics, but it was more armor oriented than I usually go. Cant remember exactly when I got the fifth transport, whatever worked with the supply chain.

AT THIS TIME
Its been a solid game and the battles have all been fairly close to average.  Eastern Soviet defense may have been handled better, but there are limited options in that regard for the allies.  Might have been better to keep the tank and draw the British troops north.

I think the superfleet strategy makes the fleet safe, and gives the Allies a potential foothold. As presented however, it creates logistics issues for the British and slightly slows the US deployments as the aircraft carrier represents troops that aren’t hitting the beach.    The decision to reduce defenses on W. Europe by the Germans is risky.  If the brits want to soften it up, they put 2 of the aircraft in Karalia at risk.   If the brits don’t soften it up the Americans can probably still take it, but can’t present anything resembling a threat on Berlin.  Axis could crush the landing, but at the cost of the Eastern front.  Finland may be a better option in some iterations.

As it stands it appears that the Axis have a fair chance of taking Russia before the Allies get Berlin.  A trade probably favors the Allies (long game), and Germany didnt’ hold Africa (outcome not carved in stone) which could ultimately be vital in this match.  Allies can most likely safely  reinforce before Japan is able if it comes to that.

Germans and Soviets both have a fallback option until they clash, I don’t think the margins are there for anything less than an all or nothing move by whichever side elects to do so.  Germans probably need a decisive chance to do this, as it takes the Moscow air strike off the table and probably costs their Empire.  Very much a timing thing.  Soviets are in similar straits.   Either side moves at the wrong time or fails a strafe and they are probably done for.

Round 4 and 5 probably decide the game.  Appears to be very close. Either side can win at this point.  Decisions made in round 3 are vital.  Need to look at soviet placements in this round, and if infantry can be assigned to Moscow or not.

Small tactical decisions by either side, particularly on the Eastern front, can swing the balance in a big way.  Big game deciding decisions are approaching.  Neither side has a definitive advantage until this happens.  Both Moscow and Berlin face serious threats at this juncture.  Guess I’ll play out the endgame, but thats where the dice will determine the winner.

If the Germans initiate its probably going to come down to the Anti-Aircraft rolls.  
Japans ability to advance quickly is vital and Allied ability to respond is limited without destabilizing the front.

Allies may be better off with a conventional fleet build.  UK in particular may need to evaluate its buy, possibly an AC instead of the BB or some other minor adjustment that gives them better access to ground troops later.

Anyhow, that pretty much covers everything up to the point where the dice take over (at least as far as I’ve played so far).  No clear winner yet, appears to be a close match if I’m reading the board right.  Germany is potentially overextended, several end game variants presented at this juncture.

In this rundown the Axis essentially have a 15% chance of forcing a Soviet retreat outright in R3 (improvable as a risk trade as the after action sitrep leaves Germany with only a 16% chance of taking Karalia in R4).  If they fail to hold the line I’m not certain that the Germans can press that fast enough without setting themselves up for a counter attack… big maybe.  A forced retreat means four dead fighters (us2/uk2) so I’m not ruling it out although I have doubts.  Guess I have to play it out all the way a few times.

In numerous instances the odds calculator would swing massively in either sides favor with just a few units in/out of the mix in EE, so fall back and counter might work for Russia anyhow.   Anti Aircraft roll variances were particularly important in soviet defense situations.  A few casualties more or less in Asia for either side could impact the balance quite a bit.  Axis were able to bring enough troops to preclude a soviet invasion.

Germany probably can’t press the Soviets and hold both Germany and Southern Europe or repell the landing force in W. Europe, although at the same time the Allies cant penetrate the post battle landed fighters in a single round. Germany probably can hold out for a small number of turns. They probably have a while against the allies if they withdraw, but that changes the dynamic quite a bit at that point, probably goes to long game mode as Japan and the Allies race while Germany digs in.

BTW, how do you handle the India transport?   I took it to the med this time, as an eventual troop carrier and as support in case the British took N. Africa.   Other options appear to be Australia, or East Indies to block a R1 invasion of India.

Superfleet build for US
1 AC, 2 Transports (rd 1)
… ok, forgot the bomber starts in Germany, will be out of reach.  Might have to target the canadian with the bomber (only five planes required in North Sea) and take my chances with the battleship heads up in the Med.  US coast is secured.  Strat bombing Karalia might be worth the risk also, given the initial balance in that region, 1 inf in Russia on R2 vs quite a few uk infantry later.  Still probably use it on the battleship.  Beginning to doubt the wisdom of taking the battleship as a casualty over the bomber though, its starting to look more useful than the bomber is.  Tough call all the way around.

Superfleet build for the UK
Battleship, AC, 2 trans (58) have to check.  +2 US fighters.
Trade to knock that for a loop is typically steep (probably 4 fighters and a bomber) at start of round 3.
Puts axis down to 3 fighters and likely forces a withdrawl on the Eastern front keeps Brits at bay until round 4.
Thats probably a sufficient deterrent.  Still want to run that out, but I think that will work.

Africa
Libya gets one tank in the last several iterations.  Thats a 36% success rate and demolition of everything in the immediate area.  Average result I have a tank left and a few more IPCs and I get Egypt and another chunk of Africa in the next round.  I still don’t think the Germans are able to justify sending two infantry instead of the tank as thin as the axis line will be.

If that bomber survives the combat its a noble sacrifice, mission accomplished.  Pretty good bet for you since it could swing the game, better than the annoying tendancy for it to get shot down by lucky AA fire trying to support W.Europe raids…  Theres about a 20% chance you will have a battleship to contend with and this might be important as it makes a huge swing in any air raid, so will have to be dealt with one way or another.  If its there the Libya plan is probably shelved unless  you want to send a transport as a blocker.  With that as an added contingency your chances of securing africa are down to 30% overall… unless you want to run the risk of just using the US bomber and no backup plan and no safe landing zones.

Depending on the naval outcome, you’ve very possibly left some residual fleet with this bomber allocation.   A variable chance that UK is down two planes out the gate (target selection), probably still a good trade.  If the  German tank lives its 50/50 to mop up Africa unless either side gets reinforcements into the theater (which either takes a while or diverts ships).  Does slow the IPC collection rate though.

Likely issues to deal with on R1 airpower allocations:
1 transport in baltic
1 submarine in North Sea (+/-1) most common result
1 transport in the med (72% success chance with the sub)
20% of 1 BB in Med
Alternate targets: Libya, Norway

Ok man, enough :)  Got to unwind my mind, need to sleep…

ALSO
Looked at that last setup, just to get a feel for it.
–- You posted while I was commenting (response to that is below)
— Remind me not to drink caffeine after work, I’ll never get any sleep ----

Delayed Fleet Build:
This fleet cant deliver until round 3, although it is fairly safe.   The surviving transports are probably fodder in the interim, possibly saveable if just the UK delays its build.
Without ability for any early transits, Germany can harbor all fighters safely in EE.   Didn’t run the full game or any of the iterations, due to time constraints, but will look at it later.

The Germans can trade slots easily in the Ukraine, which has to be a dead zone as it appears Russia can’t split forces safely.  W. Europe faces no threat early and a lack of a threat on Germany allows safe full deployment of the majority of available forces to the front lines.  The dead zone chips away at both sides slightly.   The numbers suggest a mutual standoff in Round 3.  Not certain that a R4 attack on EE is viable under these circumstances.  Didn’t run it far enough to see how much is required to deal with an attack on Germany, really depends on the composition of the superfleet and how many ground troops are available to the brits.  US is still limited to W.Europe or Finland for at least one more round, if I’m counting it right, based on the superfleet strategy.

The British portion of the superfleet prior to the Americans joining is likely vulnerable (at a fairly high cost) due to their IPC damage in Africa and possibly India.   The American fleet is reasonably safe, facing just the bomber at most.   A round 1 American fleet build is probably necessary to keep the safety margin high enough for the British portion by joining at the end of round 2.  A round 2 US build leaves the Brits wide open as a sacrifice.  The timing of the build limits the number of fighters still and there is an option to trade airforce for the transports and then some (depends on fleet build).

Doing a sea sweep probably forces a German withdraw and open the gates for the Soviets to potentially pose a significant threat.   The upside of an exchange of this nature is that the allies (besides russia) have limited ability to touch Europe before round 4.  Brittain either has to spend another round of fleet building or switch to defensive support role fighters in this contingency.

Thoughts come to mind of a Japanese bomber program, or other lateral intervention, although its probably not fast enough even with that much warning and would likely allow the soviets to stake a preventative claim.  Putting a small amount of direct pressure on the US would probably help too.  Not sure if enough time is gained for Japan to seriously consider an industrial investment either, will have to play deeper to see.  If the Russians have limited support in Europe the time frames may change on taking out Berlin, but once again have to run the scenario.  Germany is still pulling a lot of IPCs and Japanese are very much on the move in that regard.  Not sure where the Axis are sitting at but America probably has to respond to any feint towards w.USA (at least if magic 84 is in play).   Anyhow, all speculation, don’t have time to examine the situation in depth or run tally’s at the moment.

Anyhow, this definitely involves an in depth look, at least for me.  A couple of major variants I need to understand better.  I’m not convinced of the merits of a delayed fleet build yet, seeing a lot of drawbacks of indeterminate value for the Allies on that plan.   Also need to explore the Soviet aggressive build in conjunction with a conventional fleet deployment, which may be superior overall.   Both scenarios with impact studies of a fleet strike.

response to last post:

Novosibirsk could house bombers, depending on how asia played out, they will need support on the ground as its within fighter range of all potential japanese fighter bases.  If they are around at that stage they can’t reach the atlantic without a secure W.Europe landing point.   IF the UK commits its airpower to that side it affects their invasion dynamics somewhat, doesn’t mean its a bad plan though.   Sinkiang rarely works out to anything more than a tenuous hold.

As far as Sinkiang goes, I’m leaning towards moving one out of India on the chance of an outright stop, puts the Japanese airpower in danger and might force a different Japanese attack plan as well as preserve the US fighter.  Whether that means Sinkiang is attempted in Round 2 and India is targeted instead, or Japan takes the high road depends on what the board looks like at that juncture.   Lots of Allied options to defend Asia, but each one involves a trade.  Going after it with a fighter weakens Karalia for at least one round.

Regarding the infantry its round 3 with a round 4 threat.   They are too far back to be vital in a quick bid on Russia, depends on how decisively Asia resists the Japanese aggression as to whether they are ultimately needed as reinforcements.
The window of opportunity on Russia is pretty narrow for a quick strike.  If factories are built or another longer window strategy is used then they will be needed on the mainland.   Trading 2 infantry and a transport for tying up a fair amount of US power is worth considering, particularly if Germany elects to engage the British fleet or if a serious D-Day type operation is looming.

Pearl attack light, run that one many times now.

Opening roll is big, not too many units on either side.  Japan loses rarely, mutual destruction sometimes – not too often, one BB common, 2 BB uncommon, full fleet survives rare.  Follow up attack at Panama with survivors if any is also not a foregone conclusion for either side.  Still marginal on whether its a good idea to send the fighter, puts it off the map for a long time.   The carrier is enough defense to handle a lone plane, particularly with a fighter on board.   To use the bomber, switches theaters away from the Atlantic, if a fighter survives asia and hunts down a transport its taking a 30% risk of being shot down and severely impacting defenses.  Also not available for ground support roles.  To go after the escorted shipping usually means a solo airplane gets one and only one shot at success.  That fighter is  considerably more vital to allied interests in the sphere than a transport is to the Japanese, in my opinion.

A variant, which I usually don’t do, because of the slower deployment in asia, is to bring along a transport and attempt a single infantry landing (holding one in reserve).  The transport is usually not taken as a casualty as it serves two purposes when used that way.  The primary one is it forces some form of US reaction, either delaying the fleet, inviting a full counter attack (tying up resources that could be used in the Atlantic) or if ignored leaves a unit that has to be defended against.  A side benefit is that 1/4 chance of taking hawaii which is in a very strategic location.  Usually if I go that route I’m sending the carrier and a fighter instead of the BB.  If the fighter lives it elevates the threat level of the infantryman considerably.  Its a pretty substantial tradeoff though, so I usually pass on that option.

A loaded non-combat move (wake island pickup) can be considered as well if pearl light becomes a complete victory, with the transport the Americans have a hard time ignoring it and that fleet can threaten america or take panama long enough and force a reaction on the Atlantic side if desired.  Its really a different approach though and I don’t think its the best answer in most cases.  Good way to wreak havoc with the Americans invasion plan though, if a total victory happens.

As you mentioned, strategy is always fluid in this game as circumstances will emerge that make each game different.  Every reaction creates some form or counter-reaction.   Some have minor impacts on the overall flow, some are very significant.   Every unit thats away from the line swings the balance, in some cases by double digit percentages.

Ya, I think I’d probably do something similar to counter EE.  Have to research it a bit more, but the supernavy may be a good plan.  Hard call, exposing Germany to fairly serious fighter attrition options may have some benefits (as seen in my last game), need to look at that a bit closer.

Ran it again,
UK withdrew transport to the med instead of running a blockade in the East Indies or trying to pull reinforcements from Australia, since the sub was alive this was either an opportunity for the germans to lose a fighter or an eventual atlantic reinforcement (just felt like it).

Japan stumbled in Sinkiang (moved one brit infantry there from India.  Reduces Japans chances to 79.7% from 94.7% of taking it out on Round 1, while still leaving token defense in India.  This was decisive.  The USA proceeded with the Atlantic invasion successfully, even though pearl harbor lost and escaping ships killed this time,  putting their four transports together with the british sub which had submerged earlier.   Germany probably should have tried to shut down the UK fleet at this juncture but I wanted to see if Japan could recover fast enough.

Since Japan lost a step, and France was liberated.  Germany was forced to gamble in order to try to stave off the momentum of the Allied invasion.   An unfortunate issue with EE placement, is that any fighters sent after the transports hitting the beach were forced off the line as they didn’t have range to return.  In retrospect this is probably a cue to hit the fleet (if any) with everything the Germans have.  This is likely to become a very desperate situation for Germany at that point, especially with the bulk of the Soviets mobilizing on the Eastern front.

In the above game:
Instant German disaster as they split forces, 4 at the transports (lost 2) hoping to slow the Americans enough to secure the beaches for an extra round. Sent 1 to support counter on W.Europe (shot down), and two left on the line to keep the Soviets in check.  W. Europe stood, planes forced to land in Algeria which incited an opportunity attack by Brittain. German airforce destroyed for all practical purposes, down to just 2 fighters.

The lost time on the Eastern front (that one turn makes a big difference) combined with the weakened German line quickly led to Axis disaster with Soviets able to protect their capital and E. Europe collapsing on round 4.

If the extra infantry in Sinkiang is successful it pretty much locks it up for the Allies.   If they intend to concede asia early, or at least take a low cost stab at slowing down the Japanese attack, this seems pretty solid.  When its Brittains turn, Germany has shown their preliminary move and Russia is showing a strong east front bias at that point.

RESULT:  Allied decisive victory.  Germany went down during the Russian turn in R6, after holding to the last man in R5 against a sequential UK/US assault.

CONCLUSIONS:
If Japan gets set back in Sinkiang (20.1%) or otherwise encounters severe difficulties in Asia the Axis are probably done from the get go, they are undoubtedly facing an uphill battle.   E.Europe presents plane mobility issues.  Attacking the fleet probably ends any chance of an early strike on the Soviet capitol and with it any chance of Germany regaining control of Europe.  Luftwaffe is probably best used in an all or nothing type role, Germany can’t afford to lose fighters.

NEXT TEST
EE and delayed fleet buy, will explore this situation and see what it looks like, using tactics suggested.  Looks like a solid response and the allied fighters will probably swing asia, or at least Moscow.  The fleet is probably heavily buffered enough that the allied fighters can quickly be assigned to necessary defensive support positions without compromising the invasion plans.  Probably some other implications in this that I need to look at, will take a closer look and get a better idea of the super fleet situation.

Thanks for the feedback.

• Norway move only used in very specific margin situations, not likely to happen
  ** R3, Japan has another action possible which is to send a loaded transport (troops at that stage are probably not vital on the mainland) to the Hawaii sea zone creating a direct threat on W.USA primarily and Mexico as a secondary threat.  This is intended to divert a bomber, force a defensive build (slightly adjusting available forces) or a quick ten point inconvenience in the event that it isn’t responded to.  Not a huge impact but probably worth doing.

Looked at this some more, just running numbers.  Considering comments by 221B Baker Street.

May be possible for Germany to fortify at E. Europe,
but its a pretty thin margin.

W. Europe needs at least 5 ground troops and 1 fighter to hold.
Transport in Atlantic carries tank, need to check Africa numbers,
but probably still favors axis.

Germany gets razor thin, but the transport avoiding the N.Sea battle
allows a reinforcement to E.Europe as well as providing additional Insulation
for Germany against a direct R1 invasion.

Post Atlantic battle, 4 fighters join in E. Europe defense and most of interior
evacuated.
With
11 inf
5  tanks
4 fighters
In Eastern Europe

this leaves 5 defense 2 units and a fighter in W. Europe,
Possibly the bomber but W. Europe is a marginal hold and has a fair chance of being taken out by the allies.
It does however provide some fairly good additional bait to entice an Allied incursion in W. Europe if that is desired.

1 tank remains in Germany, but possibly committed to either front,
still need to do some more math.

Soviets will need all 4 possible tanks available (54%), and cant attack the Ukraine
to have a favorable attack.  Even one less tank creates only a 34% chance of victory.
Of course, this is carnage either way and haven’t analyzed the followups.

There is a possible mitigation factor in a R1 independent attack from Finland in Germanys first turn as it stands a 58% chance of removing an infantry creating a wider swing (at the expense of vacating finland), with just a tank 50%, might be better.  This is probably a bad idea unless the odds are extremely close.

If the Soviet tanks are out of range of EE, then securing that zone for the Germans is marginally viable, potentially.
Need a one round calculator or some time working on a spreadsheet to analyze the various stafe breakdowns.
I’m guessing this is probably a very bad situation for Germany in R2 and R3 though, as the Brits would only face three fighters and that would be the bulk of the remaining German defense.

While potentially decisive, the risk factor for the Soviets may be high, with as much at stake as a R1 Karalia invasion by Germany.  Will need to do some strafe calculations to see if they are likely to be opening themselves up to a serious risk of a capital crushing drive by Germany.   All in all, that looks precarious, but is a consideration that I need to look at closer.  My expectation is that Germany works out on the losing side of this proposition, but I need to confirm.
Tank positions may turn out to be a deciding factor in the outcome.

Fascinating, keeping me entertained for the moment anyhow.

[EDIT - Test run results]
STRAFE RISKS

Ran this out with a strong EE presence and a holding force in Western Europe.  Russia tried to strafe, ended up unable to get  sufficient advantage and ended up vulnerable enough to risk a counter attack. *Run was with less tanks than required, due to an attempt to provide better counter ability against the Japanese.  Russia can’t afford to do that, it appears.

(I did this 1 run only to glance at a potential EE clash, not statistically significant, didn’t track details).  Germany had enough to counter and take Karalia, (mixed buy R2 for versatility in mobility), survived with a small force.   UK took significant air damage on the WE invasion attempt, and had lost one clearing the seas. (Note: US planes stayed on carrier earlier, couldn’t reach Karalia. Brits could have reinforced Karalia and likely held, at the risk of the fleet and either in conjunction with a better WE attack (repelled in R1), or by declining a R1 strike on Western Europe. (Hmm, maybe confusing my timeline, tired).

The second attempt at Western Europe succeded, British airforce now out of play, but committed one fighter along with a marginal counter and were able to resecure.  US takes it, rolls well, has it under foot for a round.  Had the counter attack failed, the Germans would be in some danger, of losing SE, but it would be too little too late for the Allies at that point (or at least up to the allies to finish it before the Axis capitalize on their early Moscow pummeling).

At any rate, Karalia wasn’t retaken, although it favored the allies were favored, iirc, small number of units, wasn’t a lock for either side, in a large part due to earlier British airforce losses.  Had the recapture succeeded Moscow the survivors would have to fend off the Germans and then retake Moscow most likely.  
Brits can’t really afford the AC in R2, it costs too much infantry at least if any form of Soviet aggression is considered.  The Japanese rapidly demolished Asia and Russia fell very early (despite loss of one Japanese fighter which got sent to pearl harbor which was a total wipeout for both sides, allowing US to escape the Pacific).  Axis still have enough in Germany to hold a while longer.

The airstrike potential against the Soviet capital again a major factor if the Russians miscalculate by any margin.  The strafe risk appears high, will have to run a few more times to see how far they can safely push it.  Mutual destruction appears to favor the Germans, especially if the Japanese perform well.   This was with aggressive Soviet action against a very lightly held Manchuria, fall back and fight might work better.  Taking Manchuria is probably fatal in general as a lot of airpower can be deployed against the survivors along with Mainland infantry.

Very easy for Asia to get crushed without additional air support, which the allies can’t really afford to provide while keeping their fleet protected.  Any assistance by Soviet ground troops shifts the R2 balance on the Eastern front enough to be at least problematic.

Brits can reinforce Karalia but have to split their fleet to do it.  Airpower will generally have to be put at risk to clear the seas.  Germans have a fair probability of submerging their sub.  Even greater chance if the Allies have to put down a surviving battleship. (Wasn’t a consideration this game).  The Atlantic transport has a fair survival chance, allies can very likely have tough R1 airpower allocation issues.  Baltic Sea transport is another target.  Chances of something slipping through or a lost aircraft are enough to be tactical considerations.

In this engagement
Axis probably win as a result of R4

UPSHOT
Brittish fighters get very important, WE may not be a good choice, particularly after being forced to clear some sea zones to prevent casualty absorbers if the Germans elect to airstrike the fleet.

Taking E. Europe sets up the potential for a serious problem for anything resembling Russian aggression.  The cost of failure is catastrophic (althoug a solid win could as easily be a game decider.  Any move here is pretty much an all in move in terms of who wins the game).  Requirements for fleet protection limit allied options.  The allies aren’t in a position to split the fleet at an early enough juncture, particularly if the English fighters are re-allocated, or take damage.

Russian infantry may be better off, in the face of superior firepower to make a nearly full retreat to Moscow.   This may give them enough manpower to survive both fronts.  Tactical withdrawl appears to be the best answer unless the Japanese fold in round 1.   Another alternative may be for the allies to attempt to buy time using disruption via the Kwangtung surprise and a direct Soviet assault.  Both or neither.  [IMO the allies can’t buy any time in Sinkiang/China without bad Japanese dice and/or sufficient reinforcements to make them vulnerable on the German front.

E. Europe in Germany round 1 might be a key asset, but balance is razor thin.  Won’t take much to shift a key battle either way.

[i]Russia appears to be better off digging in on R2 rather than counter attacking in an attempt to strip German infantry, if the Germans balance their placements properly.  I suspect a fairly decent chance of adequately reinforcing and protecting the Soviet capital, while wearing down the Germans, if this is done.   The potential for a massive combined airstrike against Moscow is something that the allies cannot afford to overlook if the Japanese make headway.

Lots of very tough calls and Marginal decisions.  Several which would be very difficult to crunch in a live game.  This strategy is very unforgiving to tactical errors by either side.  Unless this was a highly anomolous series of events, the Allies (as well as the Axis) need to be extremely careful in their moves to avoid a subtle shift.  E. Europe/Karalia have a period of very easy odds shifting.

Due to the delicate balance in EE, the Axis might  consider moving an anti aircraft gun into the zone, particularly if the British bomber becomes a casualty.  This may prevent the soviets from risking their fighter in EE, and make an important difference in the potential battle situation there.  If the tenuous hold on EE fails, the axis are probably cooked anyhow.

I strongly suspect a very conservative approach is favorable to the allies, minimizing the Japanese risk is probably vital.  The allies cannot afford to let anything get within striking distance of Moscow before they secure Europe.  A single axis infantry on any Moscow border has the potential to doom the Allies due to the greater versatility in Axis striking power, at least until such point as the Luftwaffe is otherwise leveraged.