Posts made by Spendo02

If UK attacks and does not finish the standing army off, the standing army stays there.

I generally represent such a scenario with French units atop of chips as the French are the least utilized army.

If the Axis then moves in, you would represent all units there with the Axis nation that claims the remaining standing army.  So in example:

UK attacks Turkey and has to retreat after killing 4 units.
Put 1 French Inf atop of the remaining units (3, I think?)
Italy then moves in and claims Turkey.
Remove the French INF, place an Italian INF atop the chips.  They now move and act as Italian units.

Pretty sure that is how the scenario would work.  Just remember that claiming neutral standing armies is part of the NCM phase, so those units in Turkey can only defend until the subsequent Italian turn.

@Cow:

It is true UK can load and unload units from london every other round if I park naval there, but I can dump units in Spain with USA every other round with the same transports and less naval to defend it.  I like that better.

Thats the opportunity cost.  Save US IPC in Europe (to be spent in Pacific) at the cost of the UK having to play through the Middle East by sending starting resources there.

I honestly don’t think Italy would be happy to have Cairo seeing minor IC in Persia, Iraq and South Africa and honestly I don’t think Italy could keep up with 6+ units / round being placed within 3 spaces of Cairo.  Additionally, you may temporarily lose Calcutta, but having a Minor in Persia puts a wrench in Japanese plans to keep it.

Theoretically you can:
Get 4 Mech from Calcutta to Turkey for UK3 to attack.
UK can easily take Iraq on UK2 if you wish, but you relocate resources that quell Italian advances in Africa as well as relocate aircraft from Calcutta to the Middle East.

Turkey is not impossible to sack as early as UK3, but I think you give up a lot of resources to do it.

Thinking long term, UK3 purchasing and placing a Minor IC in Iraq/Persia may become a strategic requirement to help reclaim a potentially lost Cairo to Italy, reinforcing or reclaiming Calcutta if it is lost to Japan, and funneling units through Turkey into Greece.

I do think the intent of Persia and Greece (plus starting UK units) was to support dealing with a pro-axis Turkey.  Problem is that Greek units are generally eliminated before the Allies can activate and put them to good use.  I’ve yet to see an Axis on Round 1/Round 2 that does not address the Greek territory.  Allies activating Greece on the UK’s turn almost always leads to Italy sending the house there on I1, or if Italy lost the SZ, Germany handling it on G2.

Personally I don’t like the idea of 9 Axis INF so close to Egypt, so there has to be good communication between UK/US controllers to coordinate a response to that risk.  Which includes some significant opportunity costs in Africa and Asia for the UK.

I take Paris when Italy has been neutered and I can land units on Holland to threaten WGr.  Germans have problems taking out two stacks.  One in Paris that is UK/US and one that is generally UK on Holland.

That is the general thought, and the counter argument is to simply take them all at once before Germany can take them and turn them to Axis designs.

Easier said than done from my experience.

This reminds me of the Axis strategy of buying heavy on bombers to achieve a critical mass where you can 1-shot many sectors by simply overwhelming them with too many die rolls @4.

I’ve actually used bombers in this fashion with Japan with great success in my playtests.  Allied fleets don’t get big enough in the Pacific to deal with 6-8 bombers (or 10!) swooping in.

I’ve also used it to great success with Germany by sending in SS and Bombers to sink Allied fleets in the Channel or Gib.

We’ve hashed out the TT issue on another thread.  Much thanks to Baron M for the math done here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30618.msg1289043#msg1289043

From my personal messages with Baron C, his battlecalc shows that one viable option is to make TT worth 8 IPC, and collectively all TT in combat are represented by rolling 1 die @1 on the assumption that TT are taken last as casualties and they continue to roll @1 (no insta death) until you eliminate all of them.

If you allow the defender to determine when you take casualties (IE letting you use TT as “fodder”) you need to bump their value to 10 IPC.

Either option offers a way to “balance” the TT issue you are talking about.  Problem is, the amount of TT required to stage an effective landing in Europe makes 10 IPC TT very cost prohibitive.

I’d also pose that if the price goes up to 10 IPC, that TT can carry 3 units instead of two (to allow the same amount of units to arrive for the same price per unit)

I’ve found Spain a pretty viable location if you find yourself unable to defend both Gib and the Channel.

If UK has the resources, throwing an AB on any / all of Gib/Morocco/Spain creates some real issues for the Axis trying to crack the Allied shell there.

So to throw some Allied IPC investment requirements in the European Theater:

What we know is that small invasions aren’t necessarily successful in the long term except in the cases of:
1. Landing some units on N.Africa via Morocco to help secure Egypt if Italy has a somewhat to very successful Northern Africa campaign
2. Seizing Norway and denying Germany the NO.

So to set some parameters:
1. London can churn out 10 units / round to shuck into Normandy.  This puts the critical mass of TT at 5, or a 35 IPC investment.  This initial investment can be mitigated depending on if the UK can save its two TT.  So UK investment in TT for critical mass is 21-35 IPC depending on Germany Round 1 results.

2. US needs at a minimum of 10 TT for an initial landing.  This will allow for the US to land with 20 ground units, reinforced by 10 UK ground units in the same round for a total of 30 ground units in Normandy.  This will cost the US 70 IPC for the initial landing.

3. In order to maintain the supply lines and hence reinforcements, both the US and UK will each need a fleet to protect their TT investments.  The recommendation has been suggested to defend the landings with CV + Ftr and DD as screens.  Bombardments don’t seem as valuable in Europe as they do in the Pacific where you’re likely using less ground units on an AA, so I agree with not investing in BB/CR to screen CV or add additional punching power to an AA landing.  With that said, I think the decision needs to come down to how many CV are sufficient to support two separate locations where TT will be massing (Off Gib and in the Channel).  I’m going to posit that you’d need 3 total for the Allies, where you position yourself based off of Axis Air/Naval Power.

This means 48 IPC of CV.  In order to secure the decks, you’re going to need 60 IPC of Ftr.  This can be partially offset by the UK and French if you elect to not scramble on G1 and save yourself the equivalent of an entire UK IPC purchase round in Ftr by doing so.  So CV + Loaded Ftr is going to cost you at most 108 IPC at at a minimum of 68 IPC if you elect to preserve the starting Ftr in and around London.

4. DD screens appear to be the flavor of choice.  I’d wager the safest way to screen yourself is to match the Axis Air / Naval Power with DD on a 1:1 ratio.  So for every German Ftr/Tac/Bomber in range, you’ll need 1 DD to absorb a hit while your Ftr slowly grind them out.  Same would go for Axis naval presence, particularly SS on a 1:1 ratio.  This number can vary greatly, and may not be significantly required for an initial landing if German aircraft are deep in Moscow and out of range.  Still, I’d suggest at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio of DD per every CV and Ftr in your Naval stacks.  So at a minimum you are looking at a total of 9 DD or 72 IPC worth of DD with no threat present, and in excess of 100 IPC if there are Axis warships or aircraft within striking distance.  As this can be split between the UK, and the UK has a “closer” complex right there in London you can merge up on, I’d suggest London do the bulk of the DD purchases.

5.  Now that the support is covered for the initial invasion force, you need to consider the actual ground units.  The US is going to have at a minimum of 20 units put on 10 TT to land.  I’ve found the best investment to be Inf/Art.  So for 10 TT that means 70 IPC worth of units for the US.  As the UK is in more of a reinforcing position, you have two choices early in Normandy:  10 Inf on 5 TT or 5 Inf, 5 Arm on 5 TT.  I do like the Arm option as it gives a bit more of a defensive “ooomph” to an Axis counter attack that may have a decent amount of German Armor in it.  Just realize it costs you 30 IPC (which is most of the UK income in 1 turn) to fill 5 TT with.  You set yourself back “half a turn” by adding Arm instead of simply doing 10 Inf.  Conveniently, the UK will probably be in a position to fill 5 TT with 10 Inf rather easily if the UK purchased 6 of them and 1 Ftr on UK1 to guard against a potential Sea Lion.  So you can be “efficient” and kill 2 birds with one purchase that pays dividends later.

6.  As you cannot settle for simply the landing itself, you are going to need to prepare the US to start a ferry of new units into Normandy in the successive rounds.  This is going to require 5 more TT in the next 3-4 rounds, which you will also have to fill with either Inf, Inf/Art or Inf/Arm to ferry first to Gib, then to Normandy.  In short you’re going to need a rotation of 4 sets of 5 TT:
5 TT off Washington DC to start your turn, that you fill with ground units and move to Gib.
5 TT that you move from Gib to Washington DC for next turn’s ground units.
5 TT returning from Normandy to Gib to move to Washington to stage for ground unit pickup Turn+1
5 TT moving from Gib to Normandy to drop off ground units.

Now, you DO have 10 TT from the initial landing, but I have a recommendation that you actually keep those 10 TT off Normandy as if the Germans make a mistake, the US and UK can leapfrog Denmark to Berlin at any given point and you’d rather have the ability to vacate Normandy with 20 US ground units, sack Denmark and open the door to go for the throat in Berlin than to wish you hadn’t sent those TT back to America for more units and lost the opportunity to bring the Germans to their knees.

So, that means once you’ve committed to the landing in Normandy, Turn+3 will require full IPC investment into the Atlantic to establish a system that grinds the Axis down.  You need to consider that when you start the invasion in regards to where Japan is positioned.  If you interrupt this influx of reinforcements, you may risk everything you built and gained up to this point if you give the Axis a reprieve from the pressure.

So to summarize the initial landing cost:
15 TT = 105 IPC
3 CV = 48 IPC
6 FTR = 20-60 IPC
9 DD = 72 IPC
15 INF = 45 IPC
10 ART = 40 IPC
5 ARM = 30 IPC

Which puts you between 360-400 IPC for an initial landing.
*There is one variable is UK Ftr landing on Normandy.  Which the cost is variable based on how soon the UK gets up to speed and can purchase additional Ftr to secure Normandy.  From my experience this could be supplemented directly from the FTR on the CV, but if under threat you may be required to safeguard the TT and require additional FTR flying in from London to support Normandy.  Anything less than 4 FTR appears insufficient, but much of that is highly dependent on the counter attack you will face from Italy / Germany.

You’ll need additional investment of another 20 TT for the US over the successive 3-4 turn, which runs 140 IPC.

You’ll also need to fill those TT each (Both UK and US) round going forward for the foreseeable future, which this cannot be completely interrupted.

You must deal with Japan early, or not at all.  Once you begin the invasion you cannot flip flop for at least 3-4 turns on heavy investments between the Atlantic and Pacific.  You’re better off delaying a landing in Normandy by a turn to ensure the US has the assets in the Pacific to stymie Japan for a few rounds.

This is also why I don’t aggressively pursue Japan out the gate as the US.  I’d rather have the resources in the mid game to keep Japan at bay until I can start splitting investments between the Pacific and Europe again.

Thoughts, feedback, critiques?

I’m actually curious what US strategies everyone employs for KJF that does not condemn Moscow to falling.  Which I think is the heart of what the OP was getting at.

I typically spend US1 and US2 purchases entirely on the Pacific and then invest 100% in the Atlantic for multiple rounds.

I’ve tried the 80/20 or 70/30 approach, but it seems to take longer to really get involved in any significant way in either theater.  Time is something the Allies do not have if they wish to save Moscow and/or Calcutta.

I’ve also found it is almost a waste of time trying to shuck anything less than 30 Allied ground units into Europe if you think you’re going to hold what you took.  If Italy is spending on Inf/Art from the get go, Italy has a solid stack of units by the time the US can make a landing - which will easily push small Allied landings out of Europe.

To me, it seems only when you dedicate yourself to landing and holding it - which generally requires the full US income to accomplish, are you able to take Normandy and deter or withstand an 1-2 Italian and German punch.

If you cannot hold the territory you took, the time it takes to get that large of a stack back to try again is enough time for the Axis to rebuild themselves - and leaves Moscow for the crows.

So, what are you all doing that you are able to save Moscow and keep a competent Japan player negated?

I’d probably simply leave them as Dutch (considering the area was under Dutch Command anyways).

Otherwise you might as well just change the DEI on the board map to Pro-Allied territories like other neutrals?

Has anyone considered the economic cost it takes to successfully take and hold a beachhead in Europe by the Allies?

It has got to be somewhere in the range of 350-400 IPC of total investment, no?

I think I’d rather have another Tac before a Ftr or Bomber.

Better for the eventual defense of Moscow, can still roll @4 when combined with a tank on a strafe.

To be honest, I think I’d rather have a few more Armor than anything else.  If you can expose a hole in the German flanks or its soft underbelly (if Germany marches north), those 2 Armor and 2 Mech don’t get you very far.  However, a stack of 5 Armor and 2 Mech can create some bigger problems for an exposed German flank.

Particularly when you consider the NO bonus for the Russians taking Axis or Pro-Axis territory.

I’d probably even give up some starting Income for Russia to get 3 more Armor on the board to start the game.

Something to think about is if the Allies decide to stack on Java.

If you let the DEI player stack 1 DD, 1 CR, and 2 Inf on Java, Japan would observe the following:

1 BB (UK)
3 CR (UK/ANZAC/DEI)
3 DD (UK/ANZAC/DEI)
2 TT (UK/ANZAC)

2 Ftr (ANZAC)
6 Inf (UK/ANZAC/DEI)

Thats a bit of a dilemma for Japan to consider a DOW on that stack and having to fully commit at least 5, maybe 6 loaded TT to simply take the DEI stronghold.

This is why I think I’d suggest not allowing stacking of DEI units in one place.

My revision would be to give the Allies 4 Dutch units (use the French units for it).  2 Inf, 1 DD, 1 CR.  
You can place one unit at each SZ/Territory of your choosing on the DEI to include Borneo.  
They are restricted to their starting location until a DOW by Japan and defend with allied units against axis attacks.
They are considered neutral until a Japanese DOW.
They move on the French turn.

Meaning something like a Dutch DD off each island until America enters the war?  Similar rules to that of the US Pre-war navy where you restrict them to their starting SZ?

Those DEI are considered Allied as the Dutch Royal Family was in exile in London when Germany occupied the Netherlands in 1940.

That is why allied aligned nations can land on them with aircraft, as they are considered Allied friendly.  However, to access the resources they offer, you will need to land a ground unit on them.

This is also why Japan taking control of them is considered an act of war by the Allies, which enables the US economy to go into full gear and UK / ANZAC to realize their NO bonuses while at war.

Once ownership is taken, they act like any other territory on the map and play by the normal rules.

They are just unique as the controlling government is in exile to start the game, so no one realizes their economic benefit until someone occupies the territory and puts the resources to work for their side.

If you’re interested in why the DEI are so resource rich, think about this:  During WW2, the DEI were the third largest oil producer behind the US and USSR.  In the Pacific, controlling that oil was paramount to any naval warfare success.  Particularly as there was an oil embargo on Japan, these islands were a strategic necessity for Japan, which theoretically led to Pearl Harbor.

It may help with an all out KJF plan if Russia decides to ignore the German advance and become a thorn in Japan’s side.

It may allow for more US resources to be directed at Europe, but they may be too little too late if Moscow were to fall easily and/or earlier than it should to the Germans.

I’ve played it out a few times, with significant Russian intervention in China, but Russia gets zero economic benefit and places a lot of resources in China that have little impact mid-late game for a crippled or defeated Moscow.

As the highest quality play by Japan is minor IC on the mainland, Japan can send 3 Mech with aircraft flown over them to clear out small infringements of the Russians in China.

IF I were to create problems for Japan, on R1 I would:
Buy 1 Arm, 2 Mech, place them in Stalingrad.
Move 1 Arm, 1 Mech from Moscow to Stalingrad.
Keep the 1 Arm, 1 Mech that start in Stalingrad there.
Fly your 2 Ftr and 1 Tac to Stalingrad.
R2 move into China (Sikang)
UK2 DOW on Japan (if not already at war) move all ground units into Yunnan, which hopefully is a reinforcement, but it may be a liberation depending on how China does there.
R3, move those units from Sikang into Yunnan, reinforcing the Brits and probably halting a Japanese takeover of the Burma road there.

I’m not suggesting this strategy. But it WOULD create problems for a Japan player that does not build IC on the mainland.  Additionally, if UK has to DOW on Japan, this places the US out of the war for a while, which further hurts Moscow in the long run.

Of course, those fast moving units in Stalingrad can:
Be redirected to NW Persia on R2 if at war, and they are more than enough to claim Iraq and get some additional income for Moscow - so there IS flexibility.  
If Moscow is still waiting for war, those units can all move directly to Bryansk on R2 and be in position for a R3 Strafe anywhere in Russia that Germany ends up on G3.

Personally I’d suggest one of the two options directly above before intervening in China.  There is little economic benefit unless you are in a KJF Allied strategy where bogging the Japanese down in China creates immense economic problems.  In particular I wouldn’t want Russia playing a defensive strategy in China throwing its units to the wind.  I’d rather be able to blitz across Northern China, far away from any Japanese IC and/or reinforcements.

Um, you do realize both Turkey and Swedish units are 5+ turns from reaching Moscow?  I’d only be worried about those Inf in Turkey marching on Egypt if / when Moscow falls.

Suppose you take Portugal on US4.
That means assuming Germany is even in position, it is a G5 activation, so:

G5 Activate Turkey, G6 Caucasus, G7 Rostov, G8 Bryansk, G9 Moscow.  And that assumes Germany has a single unit next to Turkey ending G4.  Chances of that happening are pretty slim from everything I’ve seen Germany use as a strategy.

Sweden is a possibility on G4 of having the Fins sitting next to it, but isn’t Sweden part of the German NO that Sweden remains neutral?  I’m not sure I’d trade the NO for the Inf as assuming the same scenario above, a Allied R4 neutral move means:
G5 Activate Sweden, G6 Finland, G7 Karelia, G8 Novgorod, G9 Belarus, G10 Smolensk, G11 Moscow

In short, I could care less about giving Germany slow moving infantry so far from just about everything but maybe reinforcing Norway (once) and potentially bolstering a post fall of Moscow advance on Egypt.

Switzerland is irrelevant with simply 2 Inf and no IPC value.

I think you all make a bigger deal out of handing the Germans Sweden and Turkey than needs to be made.  My only concern would be Spain’s 6 Inf with a full contingent of aircraft strafing the Allied stacks in Portugal.  Which, is why I made sure to be clear your stack could absorb the hit and still pose a threat to land on WGr or march on Gib itself.

Assuming you can muster a sea defense, I probably wouldn’t put anything less than 25-30 units there to deter the Germans from strafing it at all.  There’s a distinct possibility you could cut heavily into their aircraft with a good roll as statistically speaking the average roll should net you 10 units, 6 being Inf, 4 being aircraft.  A good defensive roll and you could cripple the air force making the Axis scuttle Gib and hide behind it in the Med and all in all ruining their plans as they run back to Rome and then Berlin.

The more I look at it, I’d wonder what the Axis would do if the Allies mass up in SZ104 and land on Portugal.

My first reaction as Germany would be to liberate Spain.  But the more I look at it, if all my Axis navy is caught in Gib, with 3 Allied CV with Ftr in SZ104 I’d be rather nervous about what is going to happen to WGr going forward.

Do I attack the Allied fleet in SZ104?
Would that mean sacrificing a significant portion of aircraft/Navy to accomplish it?  
All those Ftr / Tac cannot reach WGr without an AB in Gib.
I cannot build enough of a Navy to repel the Allies landing on WGr AND enough ground units to repel an Allied AA landing on WGr.
Do I build a DD and place it in Normandy as a blocker?
I may have to give up WGr with a move like this, make it expense to take, and hope I have enough units in France / Berlin / Northern Italy to snuff the Allies out before they can establish themselves.

Its a risky proposition by the Allies, you could lose all your Naval hardware in SZ104, but it sure puts Germany in one hell of a predicament if they cannot sink your Navy there.

Thoughts?

Portugal and a strategically placed NB will allow the US TT rotation to continue without having to confront the combined Axis Gib lockdown.

Granted you need to land in force if you give the Axis Spain and they have a slew of aircraft to fly over the 6 free Inf they’ll get from Spain.

However, it does force the Axis to spend on placing units in Normandy and S.France going forward.

You also give up access (in the short term) to Italy by sea, but I have a feeling if you just circumvent Gib the Axis are going to be less inclined to dumping or keeping their resources in Gib.

Buy all artillery round 1 - 3 Stalingrad, 3 Ukraine, 1 Moscow
Buy all artillery round 2 - Placement depends on G2 or G3 DOW
Round 3+ buy 9 Inf + 1 Ftr

When you can no longer afford that (which will eventually happen), spend the 30 IPC for 9 Inf on Moscow, and anything you can afford that can beat the Germans to Moscow that you can place in Stalingrad (2 Mech > 1 Armor).

Continue on this route until Germany attacks Moscow directly.

I prefer the additional Artillery on R2 in the situation I can counter attack on R3 if there was a G2 DOW.  Notably if Germany races too far forward on G4, I’m going to want that Artillery available to cut deep into the German Armor on R4 and potentially stall the advance.

Learn the art of strafing.  Example:
Germans take EPoland with their big stack.  You had stacked everything in Belarus / WUkraine.  You retreat backwards to Bryansk, consolidating your stack.
Next turn, the Germans move their big stack to Belarus, but they blitz a single tank through W.Ukraine to Ukraine, and another tank through Baltic States to Novgorod.
You being next to Ukraine with your stack, can send in 2 Inf, 2 Ftr and 1 Tac to reclaim Ukraine from Germany.  You figure there is a 50-50 chance of losing 1 Inf, so you’ll strand the lone surviving Inf in Ukraine while your Ftr fly back to Moscow and join your stack that is retreating there.
You’ve effectively denied the Germans the use of Ukraine next turn for 6 IPC.

Just remember, trying to leave blocking Inf in 1 IPC territories is a bad trade for the Russians.  You give up 3 IPC and certain death of the unit to deny Germany a 1 IPC territory you will lose regardless if the Inf was there or not.

It is better to strafe the exploratory blitzing Germans where possible.

In a last ditch effort, you can block with an Inf if you are caught out of position - just beware an Italian “can-opener” where the Italians blitz an armor forward, supported by their bomber to clear that Inf out for the Germans to blitz and ruin your day.

In an entirely worst case scenario, if you have no way to save yourself, you can spend the IPC to place an AB in a location to block a blitz that would ruin everything.  Blitzing units cannot move past infrastructure they captured that turn.  So, in theory you can place an AB on Smolensk and keep your Russian stack on Bryansk to prevent the Germans from blitzing into an undefended Moscow.

It could be worth it if you had Ukraine under your control, the German stack was in Novgorod, with nothing protecting the soft underbelly in Romania and Germany just purchased boats and planes so there was no new ground units coming out of Berlin.

You could do some economic damage spending 18 IPC on 3 Arm in Ukraine, blitzing them to Poland and then spreading out to Bulgaria, Albania and Slovakia on the next turn.

Assuming you lost all 4 territories the turn after you claimed all 4, you could realistically have gained 15 IPC from NO’s (Romania twice), 6 from Romania, 3 from Slovakia, 1 from Bulgaria and 1 from Albania for a grand total of 26 IPC that cost you 18 IPC and on the “Annoyance Factor Scale”, you went off the charts in aggravating the German / Italian players while possibly causing serious problems in their defense of Europe from Allied incursions.

That won’t always be there, but it is something to keep your eyes open for.

I also have an opponent that consistently positions to attack Finland the moment Germany starts the war with the intention of taking Finland and Norway to collect 11 IPC / round until Germany diverts resources to correct that problem.  This R1 purchase includes 1 Arm, 1 Mech, 1 Art placed in Leningrad.  You can look through that minigame he plays there, but the Annoyance Factor Scale is pretty high on the Russians taking Finland and Norway very early in the march to Moscow.  In short, its +11 IPC for Russia, -10 IPC for Germany until they correct it.  You spent 14 IPC to do it, trade out around 12 IPC of units to accomplish it, but its a 21 IPC Economic swing as long as it is in effect, so it pays for itself immediately.  Then costs even more IPC for Germany to correct the problem - which means less units headed to Moscow.  Oh… and have fun correcting it with 4 UK Ftr sitting on top of 6+ Russian units in Norway.