I agree with Jen that the ability to have the US sneak in and grab a territory with no response afforded to the Axis

Defend better? It's not like you can't see where the Americans will attack. I find it difficult to believe that the Americans can be operating strongly in both theaters to the point where the Axis can't defend a VC, yet the Axis are winning.

Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill.

Good point and well done in your game. I don't think that Japan's response was correct, so definitely you have more skill than the other team.

I think the best response to switch's SJF is indeed to abandon an attack. I think it must be Pearl.

The reason why is that taking Pearl early requires a ton of equipment, and pretty much doesn't allow you to build any transports safely. Let's go over this:

The safe way to take out a reinforced Pearl, assuming you lost the sub in Solomons, is to hit it with everything within range - 3 fighters, 1 car, 1 dest, 1 bb, 1 tran, 1 bomb. The order of loss is bb, tran, bomb, fig, then past that you're screwed because the Americans will attack. But it's quite likey you won't lose that many units, and it's likely will instantly knock out Pearl in one strike. If you don't, you will take between a total of 2-4 hits in which case you're ok, you'll still have a loaded car + bb + dest, which is unfavorable to the Americans (they will very likely not touch the Japanese BB).

Although Pearl is safe, that sucked up a ton of equipment. 2 units not landed in Asia, 3 figs out to sea instead of being able to defend, no ships to protect a tran build from Japan. (even in inner seazone the Russians have a fig that can strike from Bury)

China you can still attack with mass inf + 2 fighters, but the Kwang navy is down to attacking with bb/fig/car, might lose car/bb in a bad situation.

And now, UK/Russia can push in (might be able to prevent UK pushing in if you have 3 figs land in F. Indo), and you have no safe transports. Ugly...

My response would to ignore Pearl. Attack China with 7 inf 3 fighters 1 bomb, knock out Kwang navy with 2 car + 3 figs + bb. Land 1 inf 1 tank into Manchuria, land 6 fighters there. Guard inner seazone with the other bb, deploy 3 tran in inner seazone and 2 inf on Japan.

This exposes 2 Japanese weaknesses - now the Pearl navy is active (along with mini uk navy), and F. Indo is completely undefended. But we're not in a terrible situation. Japanese losses have been minimal since now we're pretty much consolidated. F. Indo is open, but it's indefensible if the Allies try to hold it due to the 5'ish inf in China and 4 tran + 2 bb ready to overpower it. The Russian inf + fighter in Bury are stuck for the moment since there's 1 inf 1 arm 6 figs in Manchuria; the Russians might be able to jilt a fighter but at cost of everything there (not worth it). Japan is slowed for sure, and maybe that is enough in itself, but the point I'm making here is a better response than the one used in switch's game. Japan is pushing in slightly and should at no point be dipping below their starting income. (the axis really can't afford to lose territory if they want to have a shot at winning)

When the Americans send their navy out, it will be annoying. They will take an island or even 2 or 3 with the UK interdicting with their tran/2 inf + the fighter off the American car, depending on where your navy needs to be to overpower the remaining Allied ground forces. But they need to spend some cash to make a lasting impression (due to most of the Japanese navy being quite active), which takes away from their ability to deal with Germany. The Japanese navy + airforce will make the Americans think twice about where they're landing.

However, I have very rarely seen KJF end in an Allied loss.

Yea, KJF is stronger than it may look at first. There's probably no conclusion after 10 rounds if played properly. Germany may have Moscow, but Japan will have 2 of their VCs taken away as well and most of their income.

Couldn't the Axis plan better and not give Kwangtung to the Americans? I'm too lazy to go through all the unit listings, but if you say the Japanese has 500 IPCs of tanks on the mainland, how did they let the Americans get Kwang for a turn? I think this is just another consideration you have to make, even if it comes up not that often. If we did as you say, then there's no point to victory cities at all, which is actually what you might want since you're looking at it as more of whose army/positioning/economy is better rather than who has the VCs.

The best way isn't to try to do something that would only apply to one side (the allies). Either suck it up and just remember that as part of your planning, or try to abolish the VC system entirely (or require 10 VCs, omg that would take forever!!)

5x5, whoah 

Shooting for 5 inf 5 art? Or higher inf and less tanks? Or 5 inf 5 tanks by setting up US for some land grabs =P?

That means they have 4 units to hit Alaska, which should be plenty to reclaim it without slowing their progression on Europe even by a round.

I don't think 4 units is enough. Japan has the effiency edge with 2 battleship shots and 2 fighters. I suppose the US could keep a couple fighters to help offset that, but a couple battleship shots + 2 fighters + 2 inf is good enough to overpower 1-4 inf most of the time, and if America is spending 4 units when Japan is spending 2 units, then that helps the Axis in a sense.

I spent 5 IPC to get Karelia and Archangelsk.  If that 5 IPC is destroyed, I am down 1 IPC.

No you see, you have to compare it to just blitzing Karelia, not just comparing it to a baseline. We're comparing moves here, not just saying that you should blitz something to get IPCs.

Blitzing Karelia is +2 IPCs.

The risk is in getting another 2 IPCs. If you take the risk to get Archangel, it's +2 IPCs there, but it cost you 5 IPCs and you're praying that it pays off. More often not, the 5 IPC cost to get an additional 2 IPCs (over just blitzing Karelia) isn't worth it, or comes out the same. No one's saying that you can't take out 2 inf, but it's more likely that you won't take out anything.

Where's your rationale when comparing the two moves (blitzing just karelia, then blitzing karelia and archangel?). Remember, the odds are higher to come up shorthanded or even, compared to coming out higher. How do you rationally/economically justify this?

One thing I would have liked to have seen is for Dug In Defenders to be immune to battleship bombardments. It makes a lot of sense, and would make that advantage at least somewhat worth it. Who actually stacks Japanese islands with infantry anyways O_o? It wouldn't be that overpowered since Japan isn't an island itself ;/

As for kamikazes, I don't think you have to spend a fighter, or that's the way I read it anyways. It looks like just an extra attack at the beginning of battle in those seazones. That makes it more feasible than the old kamikaze, but then you got the seazone restriction.

Russia: No Change to their normal useless NAs.  Some of them are fun to use, but generally speaking, the only one halfway worth while getting is Non-Agro and only because it holds Japan back for two rounds.

Signed. It was a lot more interesting when you could lend lease airplanes, but that was ages ago.

Germany:
Lost Fortress Europe (a major hit in my book.  Artillery defending like tanks is fracking awesome!)
Gained German Scientists. (A major gain in my book!  Cheaper chances for Rockets and Jet Power, two needful technologies in this new version!)
Nerfed: Dive-Bombers.  Dive bombers no longer work in naval engagements and do not work after the first round of combat or if enemy fighters are present.

Yeah losing fortress Europe hurt. Fortress Europe makes artillery extremely close to cheaper tanks on gray territories, just that they can't blitz and they have a worse "skew" factor. German scientists is very interesting, but it still costs around 24 IPCs to get a research. The dive bomber nerf hurt, but I still like it a lot for trading against the Russians.

Japan:
Lost Kaiten Torpedos (which were useless in most games anyway)
Gained: Night Fighting which allows Battleships to hit twice in the first round of NAVAL warfare. Stress that, ONLY IN NAVAL WARFARE, not when shelling the shores. Sad
Kamikazees only work in SZ 58, 59, 60 and 61 now, you still lose the fighter and you only hit on a roll of 1. (Yes, better chances to attack a fleet with your pants on year head screaming I LOVE ICECREAM at the top of your lungs.)
Banzai nerfed, only a bonus to attack on the first round of combat.

Night fighting isn't terribly great, but a hella better than Kaiten torpedos. Night fighting makes KJF rather difficult because Pearl and the Kwang fleet will go down in scrap metal quickly.

Banzai nerf is very unhappy, it makes it unuseable, you just need to have a lot more firepower than one round of infantry, plus they're slow moving so trying to use it on a capital just takes too long.

America:
Lost B-29s, a shame, but not too bad over all.
Gained: Wartime Economy, a very nice boost to productivity.  Think Industrial Technology for Naval and Air Units.

It's most noticeable on transports/subs because it's a greater % of their base cost, but that in itself is great. 23 IPC bbs aren't a whole lot different than 24 bbs though.

IMHO, Version 2.0 seems to reskew the game back towards the allies.  I can realistically see the Axis needing 20+ IPC if the wrong national advantages are randomly selected.

I don't know. While the Axis took a couple "big" hits (banzai + dive bombers + fortress Europe), the Allies didn't really get any better either. I mean like you said Russia only really wants Non Aggression still. And the US can't rely on much on a stupid mass bombing strategy anymore : ). I guess as Germany I would be unhappy to receive wolfpacks + interdiction + scientists, but that isn't a whole lot different than 1.3 LHTR except the scientists. I don't think the -1 IPC to tech rolls quite makes it a good gamble to get to rockets. The banzai nerf is annoying, but ultimately it doesn't seem to matter much either since your bigger attacks will include lots of tanks.

Part of it is because the Axis have terrible dice rolls, and part of it is that Japan appears to have taken some risks, which might have been warranted, I'm not sure because I didn't study too closely.

I mean yuck, Ukraine held with 1 art 3 arm on R1? Then completely brutalizing a German strike force of 1 inf 3 arm + something else? Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (

You definitely did get diced there Switch, but the Axis has cold dice as well, which is massacring their land advance. If you didn't get diced, it'd just be over faster O_O

I think that should be enough of a statement regarding Japan in North America.

Whoosh you went right by the point. It isn't to try to invade America in any serious manner, it's trying to jilt them out of 2 IPCs using the efficiency of 2 battleship shots and drawing away attention to a relatively far position. Your point would be valid if it were addressing a strategy revolving around trying to invade America, but we're not talking about that at all.

You don't use the entire build on Alaska, are you daft?

Whoah Jen, let's leave the potty mouth out of this. We were all doing nicely until you started an actual personal insult here! I simply didn't see how a US build of 10 inf 2 tank would force Japan to leave, because as I said simply, inf can't blitz to Alaska without a national advantage.

Meanwhile, you have PLENTY of troops to continue marching to E. Canada and transport to Europe.

So you only have 35 IPC a round income for a while.  And?  (Assuming Sinkiang, Hawaii, China and Alaska are gone.)  Eventually you'll have enough extra units to retake Alaska.

1. Japan isn't going to simply abandon Alaska. Like I said in the original post, they will leave the 2 inf there if US doesn't try to contest. They will not retreat the 2 inf to leave Alaska vacant, nor will they try to build up additional forces to stage a foolish doomday strike.

2. If it takes America some time to reclaim Alaska, that's a cool little boost to Japan's income, and annoyance to America. Not only does America have less IPCs to make extra aircraft out of, but now they also have to use whatever extra income simply to retake their own territory. Wasn't it you who said it was bad to have to retake your own territory?

Trihero:  Odds, slim.  How many times have I seen it happen?  More times then not.

There's no need to act like I haven't seen it a lot, either. I just try to evaluate moves based on higher principles on bad dice that I personally happen to see.

MOST of the time, it pans out.  I already posted the odds, and even if you disallow the karelia income, 2/3 of the time the Germans come out even OR BETTER.  And that is before you take into account the thinning of Russian Forces for other attacks on R2.

I already discredited this position by showing with your own statistics that the probability is higher to come out even or worse. The 44% in the middle is a wash, there is 33% to do worse and 22% to do better. Call me a bugger if relying on the minority odds isn't optimal. You see it as 66% to do even or better, I see it as 77% as the same or worse. We'll just have to throw out the middle 44%, and that reveals the truth - it isn't a sound economic move. It's like you skipped over my previous post discrediting your position and then you just come back with the old position.

I have never claimed this to be a "game winning move"

I wasn't addressing my "it's not a game winning move either way" specifically to you, I was just saying in general that we have to keep this a little bit light hearted because this one little battle it isn't the principle on which we revolve victory or defeat.

I'll try your strat Jen, it definitely looks cool.  Probably the counter is to tilt Russia hard, since they got no reinforcements from up north for 4 turns in a row. Do you usually get a total of 8 tran with the Americans to morph into a 4x4 later? Or just keep it at the 4 tran you're using to go to Algeria?

If they compound that error with an attack on SZ 5 in UK 1, kiss your opponent.  No, it's not gay.  I don't care.  He just gave you the best gift ever.  Kill them submarines first and hope to knock all three of his planes out of the sky!  England is no neutered and will remain so for 3 turns!

Going by statistics indicates that you will be indeed praying to get all 3 aircraft. Actually, the odds go way down if UK retreat the last plane. It's not statistically in Germany's favor. Airless UK isn't very weak - you depend primarily on fully loaded transports to take and hold territories, and Germany shouldn't be stupid enough to be exposing any more than 1-2 infantry at a time.

Sitting there tempts the British to attack it trading 35 IPC in aircraft (and reducing their build ability if they try to replace them) for worthless fleet.

It wouldn't tempt you or Switch, so you should by that standard. In which case this point is moot. It's also just a bad point in general because you generally dont' lose all 3 aircraft, at reasonable most is 2 aircraft since you can retreat. That'd be like saying W. Russia costs you 6 infantry on average since you're looking at the minority statistic.

And I lose 1 fighter, 1 transport with my attack.  You lose 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer.  Meanwhile, I have 2 transports, submarine, aircraft carrier and destroyer coming.  All I need is 1 transport to bring me back up to 4 so I can maximize my entire production limit.

The US lost a transport too, and you probably abandoned the tank in Canada. Can you do better with a sitting Baltic fleet? I also just don't know if the UK can wait that long to land in Europe.

You can't count Kar (as +2) Germany gets that anyway.

Darth Maximus has it correct. If you count Kar as Germany, you would have to be fair and count Kar too as Russia. It seems like you're leaving Kar open, which Russia can take back freely. If you didn't leave Kar open as Germany, then you're not counting the infantry you spent to hold it, you're just optimistically and incompletely looking at the tank.

Germany has Kar no matter what is sent there, an inf or tank. Archangel is a separate additional territory which has to be evaluated on its own, because only the tank could reach there.

Ender beat me to it.

I wouldn't go so far to call it a noob move because honestly it's just one small fight out of dozens, and it's not going to make or break your game alone. But if you want to optimize, I don't see how blitzing Archangel is good unless Russia had some messed up dice and really can't handle the territory trading on all fronts.