In the fleet mass you mention Tri, there is no Japan IC on J1.  Taht in itself is a limit to Japan in Asia.

You shouldn't be building ICs on J1 if you suspect that much initial pressure against Japan. You still have plenty of troops to offload if you build 3 tran 2 inf on J1

Now... if Bury does not fall, US adds a bomber to the attack.  If China holds (quite possible with the AF diversion to Bury and with the UK FIG flown in for defense), now you have 3 FIG, 1 BOM, 1 AC, 1 SUB.

If the UK fig is flown in for defense, then Bury is skipped. If the UK fig is not flown in, this situation only occurs 20% of the time. Even when this situation occurs, that means I might have to lose a carrier, destroyer, and sub, and perhaps 1 tran, while the US airforce is reduced to 1 fighter in Eastern US. I could even be willing to lose 1 fighter to take Buryatia, which extends the chances of taking Buryatia up to 92%.

The worse situation for Japan though is not a US 1 counter, it is US2. 

As for Egypt, Germany gains some ground briefly, but with a massed Allied landing in north Africa such as is being done to me in my current game, Germany's gains will be minor and short lived; in addition to Germany not being able to make massive progress against Russia even with Russian forces diverted to Asia due to the growing threat to Southern.

These are mutually exclusive events. The US cannot buy enough on US2 both provide meaningful pressure on Japan and get into Africa with massive forces.

What is being done to you is interesting, but has its own set of limitations. It requires the UK fleet to buy its own defense as it operates in the north, and the US can never help a 1-2 punch into the capital itself via navy. That first part, requiring the UK to buy its own defense, is impractical when facing a med/baltic naval link, which I think is the one main reason why I think it won't work.

I agree Greenland is just a waste of board space =P At least Gibraltar has some limited tactical use and the Japanese mini-islands have infantry to grab....Jsp is 100% correct you're better off staging in UK because not only does it share the same seazone, but it has tons of other seazones to launch off of.

Im just saying that if you are playing me, the forces in FIC would be hit.

I've thought of doing this too, but that means Germany gets some juicy IPCs out of Africa. 

If Russia counters Bury on R2, and if Japan has no TRNs on J2,

Why do you keep saying this Switch? What secret attack do the Americans have that can break any transports on US1? SZ60 is guarded by 4 tran, 1 car + 2 figs, 1 bb, 1 dest, and 1 sub (dicepoints = 24, 4 dead units on average). The best the Americans can bring is 2 fig, 1 car, and 1 sub (9 dice points, 1.5 dead units on average). Do you think you will get any tran at all?

The Russian defense is broken completely if Bury is countered. The Russians have burned 10 inf and 1 tank in the East by round 2.

You're right that Japan can go too fast, and I don't advocate the counter as a magical bullet that should be done in every game, but I think it's a pretty fair counter if India is abandoned and the Bury stack (just 6 inf, no UK fighter) is all you're seeing so far from the Allies. I'd rather spank those inf before they get backup from other troops.

My conservative play is pretty much what 88 millimeter is saying, take China strong, do Pearl light, and land troops in manchuria with fighters so the Russians don't get extra money (unless they also have a couple tanks in Yakut, then. If the UK stayed in India, then I might have to leave FIndo troops there so they don't expand either, otherwise India is taken. Kwang fleet destroyed by East Indies fleet, etc. Deploy the tran in SZ61 with 1 bb as backup. Then your bases are covered and you're ready to strike at weakpoints.

Your ships in SZ60 are in deep kimchee, with the TRNs the first casualties of course, in an American attack on SZ60. 

Really? The Americans can attack with 2 fighters, 1 sub, and 1 carrier, versus 4 trans, 1 bb, 1 car, 2 fighters, 1 sub, and 1 dest. Are you sure the trans are going down as first casualties? The Americans on average die instantly on the first round while inflicting 1-2 hits, you think I will lose transports to that?

Russia can even counter in Bury with 4 INF, a FIG, and maybe even some ARM.

Really? Who sends 4 infantry to yakut with arm on R1? If you do that then Sinkiang isn't going to be countered.

You'll lose FIC, China and Bury all in T2 unless the Allies are just ignoring Japan

Really? I don't know many people who defend India. If you leave 3 inf there then the strategy changes, but if you leave 1 inf there then I'll take it, or if 0 inf, then there is no threat to Indochina. If Bury is countered, that is the end of the Russian defense, period. J2 is a hard crash into Bury with a free stretch of land to Moscow, and Russia has little to spare after already making that big of a stand.

You may be able to TAKE China with 1 INF in that strat... but having 1 INF in China, FIC empty, and 1 ARM in Bury is NOT a good way to start as Japan.  You'll lose FIC, China and Bury all in T2 unless the Allies are just ignoring Japan (and you are the only perosn I know who totally ignores Japan... at least you USEd to until I taught you that it was not a good idea... AFTER you taught me how to play

Burning out your defense stack with Russia so fast isn't a a great idea either. That 6 inf compromises just about all the buffer that you can afford before you have to actually spend units in that direction.

I'm still pretty stuck on ignoring Japan until novosibirsk. I have to admit I'm more tempted to stack Bury than I was previously because I think it intimidates some people more than it should.

You may be able to TAKE China with 1 INF in that strat

Really? It's more likely to take China with more than 1 inf than it is to take it with just 1 inf.

Just not viable without tech.  3.5 IPC per round on average is 17.5 IPC done in 5 rounds. 

Actually, it's less than 3.5 average per round because you have to factor in AA gun which negates the bombing roll; I think it's 2.9 if you average that in. Since you lose 2.5 IPCs on average per round (15/6) then your net gain is something stupid like 0.4 IPCs per turn per bomber.

I don't think bombing is a good long term strategy as in buying bombers to whittle down someone's economy, but I think you should bomb as often as you can when you have nothing else important to do. Bombers may not have good returns, but the bombers you start with are free so any damage you get done is a bonus and isn't negated by you having to buy it in the first place. Sure on the first turn every nation with bombers either has something important to do or isn't in range to bomb with their bombers, but past that the bombers aren't useable every round in normal combat so might as well do damage to the enemy. You can lose the bombers, but like wayne gretsky said every shot you don't take is a miss.

If Japan has lost the Kwang TRN (and they almost always do) then a Bury attack on J1 against 6 INF is a BAD move.  It will cost you a large chunk of airforce, weaken your China attack, and preclude an India attack.

Hmm. I found a counter I can live with. Bury is attacked with 2 inf manchuria, 1 inf 1 tank via trans + bb shot, and 4 fighters + 1 bomber (all fighters except indies). China is attacked by 3 inf kwang, 2 inf french indochina, and 2 fighters from east indies.

The bury battle is 80% to capture with all airforce intact and at least 1 tank remaining, while the China battle is above 90% to capture with all airforce and at least 1 inf.

Of course, there are some other factors to attend to. Hopefully the kwang flee that the UK owns is weak so your bb + car from indies can take it out, and you will be skipping Pearl Harbor so the rest of the fleet has to defend in SZ60. And hopefully the Allies haven't sent other units eastwards into sinkiang/yakut to counter you again. But if all they're doing is stack buryatia and retreating from India, then this is a counter I can live with. The Russian defense is all but broken with their 6 stack gone, so you're free next turn to blitz SFE and Yakut. You could quite possibly have enough infantry left in China to attack Sinkiang if it hasn't been stacked more than 2-3 inf as well.

If the Americans decide to go island hopping with their initial forces and don't build any additional navy in the Pacific, then you shouldn't be that worried. You can strike it with 2 bb 2 car 1 dest 1 sub + 2-4 fighters after they take East Indies.

It's also true that you won't be in India until J3 even if the UK abandoned it on UK1, since all your infantry is going to china and buryatia and you have to reposition in indochina on J2, but the counter is workable and smokes the Russian defense before it's backed up with other units.

I sorta agree with Bebo. If you don't nail the American navy in Pearl Harbor at the start, it will cause a bit of havoc at relatively low cost. Bebo said it doesn't cost a dime, but it does cost you a fighter and transport you would otherwise be using against Germany. If you let the Americans island hop, it reduces your ability to push against Russia, but if you don't let it island hop, aka attack it, then you need to be a little careful.

You can destroy the mini-fleet easily, but if you use any transports as fodder, you are making an error since you absolutely need those transports to push against Russia every turn. If you don't use any transports, you're going to have to bring an adequate airforce out to make sure you don't lose too many expensive boats. You do have 2 bbs, 2 cars, 1 dest, and 1 sub, but you need to bring out at least a couple fighters to seal the deal and preserve your navy for the future. Bringing the airforce out in that direction is awkard for land assaults on the following turn.

I respect that you want to/need to have some battle experience to see how your plan goes. Everything I've learned, I've learned by losing to.

Some things to chew on if you want though, anyways:

1. I find against hardcore KGFers, the UK will always go west. It just doesn't matter to me if I abandon India on UK1; I will do it regardless whether or not Egypt is attacked. Knowing that, I don't know if it's worth it to build navy in the med if I'm not going to be able as Germany to deal with that. So I don't see it as you forcing the UK to go west or east, if I'm already committed to going west. Building a navy in the med is not going to scare me from going west, because I can deal with you there.

2. I find that the shortage of land troop purchase on G1 to be just about fatal. The way you play it, you will need to defend Western Europe harshly on G2, yet you also need to pony up more troops on the Russian front to keep up with the fiercing trading of 6-7 inf every turn. You only bought 5 inf on G1; you're going to have to use some of your tanks to defend Western Europe, which gives the chance for Russia to push hard without the fear of your tanks being able to counterattack in Ukraine for instance.

And moving the British fleet into the Med means that the Japanese save their Kwang tranny and get to move immediately into India. Not a bad trade off as far as I'm concerned.

Hmm I would destroy the kwang tranny anyways, and just send the carrier/tran west and land 2 figs on it. That makes for an Egypt fleet of 1 dest 1 tran 1 car 2 figs, and an Egypt land force of 4 inf 1 tank. You would be ill-advised to strike at the Egypt fleet with your fleet/planes unless willing to lose the carrier and maybe even bb to preserve the transport (not to mention lacking the AF against Russia), and while you can take out Egypt with your 4 units in Libya + airforce, you're liable to a counterattack there since you lose at least 2 of your ground units in the assault, and the US is probably landing on US2 in Algeria with 4 inf 3 tank 1 art anyways to chase you down.

I know against a KGF that I can't expect to make any significant headway in Russia beyond the first few turns no matter what I build so I attempt to be flexible enough to more rapidly shift my forces to either meet or avoid growing allied threats wherever they appear while at the same time being able to reliably threaten opportunistic targets. I believe the extra Med tranny accomplishes this and the carrier is only there to keep it alive long enough to make it worthwhile.

Hmm I would urge you to be cautious! While you would not be able to make headway against Russia no matter what you build, you can make negative headway if you don't build enough landtroops. I'm not sure what flexibility the med option gives you. Flexibility lies in having the land units available to strike where you want to, and building 24 worth of navy, 16 of which is entirely defensive in nature, doesn't spell flexibility to me.

You will be locked up if you attempt to ram down Africa (closed in by navy on both sides of the med and large quantities of American troops chasing yours down if you can afford to land any more), and if you don't ram down Africa, instead using your navy to ship back to Europe, then I have to wonder if you'd be better served simply building land units in Europe.

Just be careful, I think you might see sometimes that not having enough land units built on the first turn results in increasingly bad things for the Germans, as you let the Russians take land they shouldn't and finding yourself unable to push back very early on.

Shrug, I say bomb all you can with the bombers that are given to you. Bombers are a great way to deal damage to your opponent even when you have no normal attacks that are feasible for you, or are too easy and don't require the bombers. They're certainly just about worthless as defensive units, so I don't give that big a hoot when I lose one to SBR. I find that SBR generally pays off slightly, and it certainly helps a ton when you consistently destroy big IPCs off of Germany or Russia. I dont' think it's worth it to build more bombers, but to not SBR with your bombers when you have nothing else to do with them is a crime of sorts  The tough thing about the game is that you have to go off the numbers and not just what the dice gods give you over a few games.

Well I think moving the Japanese AF to Egypt IS crazy. I don't think a few German inf with ��� fighters is enough to stop the allies.
You will probaly just lose your figters, but you may delay the allies a little.
I am a little curious, when would you send the figters down there, and how many?

Well, I usually try to land the fighters there on the turn after I've seen the Allies land their gear into Africa. This gives me a good idea of how many troops I have to fight and if it's worth it or not. Fighters can land in Egypt if they start in Indochina, which is possible as early as J2 if there's no resistance in the East, and probably J3-4 if there is resistance.

From what I've seen the Allies don't land in Africa twice, beacuse they have to get to Europe after that first landing. If they land a force that's just a little bit weak (i.e. just the Americans drop 4 inf 3 arm 1 art), then they'll be seeing 6 fighters backed by some inf and stuff which holds Egypt while a tank or something goes through the rest of Africa.

You don't have to lose your fighters, either. Once you see the attack force is too big in Libya, then run the hell away =) It's more of an intimidation tactic that takes advantage of a weaker Africa landing than it is a strat I use in every game.

I also have couple questions for U-505:

What is it you're sending against the UK BB on G1? Just planes? It seems like that since you're using the SZ8 sub to link with the escaping Baltic navy.

Do you still start with carrier/trans if you see 6 inf from east of russia/caucasus going west against the Germans?

I'm not sure I understand the point of the carrier/transport in the med. I hardly claim to have tried it many times, but I have experimented with a couple of strange naval builds there and I find them ineffective (carrier/trans, bb/trans, dd/trans). An extra transport there is essentially to shove your foot down Africa's throat, but I remember this becoming extremely expensive; you lack pieces both against Russia and against UK naval assaults along the coast when 4 of your units are going on an expedition to the Congo every turn. I can't get the IPCs to pay for themselves, plus all the Allies need to do is really land one bigass force on round 2 by both UK and US (4 inf/4 arm apiece, + airforce), and also throw in the transport from Australia which sneaks its way eastwards. You stretch your fronts to include Africa as well, and the payout has never worked for me.

Well I guess it could maybe work if you do the legendary Japanese airforce backup in Egypt which I keep proposing but no one comments on even to say it's crazy 

The carrier in the med also awkardly means you have an additional "territory" to defend with planes. Sometimes this puts planes out of positions to attack certain areas and/or land in the space you want them to in order to defend on land.

When I said Russia moving the bulk of it's 12 infantry toward Japan I meant the ones east of Russia and Caucasus just for clarity.

That's an assumption I cannot imagine happening. I almost always see 6 infantry going towards Germany (kazakh/novo/evenki) while the other 6 mess around with Japan (bury/far east/yakut).

The best buy for Germany are planes.

Hmm I disagree here. I say the best buy for Germany is infantry, since they are the most efficient defense, and you also need lots of pieces to keep up with the Russian trading. The Germans already start with tons of offensive pieces, so you do not need to make more until you are sure you are pushing.

The US/UK usually hang out together, and a simple force of 2 destroyers + 1 carrier + 2 fighters + 8 transports + 1 battleship + 1 russian sub is going to scare away even a mighty airforce. Transports are easily rebuilt, or another carrier can be thrown into the mix if really needed. The West Coast US battleship can shimmy over and protect the SZ1/2 fleet from wayward bombers.

Larry changed his mind and went with Blackwatch's interpretation. Allied fleets are just basically not there during a battle.

Germany now has a very powerfull fleet (2 subs, 1 destroyer, 2 trannies, 1 aircraft + 2 fighters and a battleship). I play with NA so next turn i buy 1 or 2 subs to have the wolfpack attack and affect uk and usa economy. It radically changes the game. America and UK have to face an unusual threat. Of course Russia will rule for some rounds...

I think you mean 3 subs, right? 'Cuz the one from SZ8 meets with the med fleet on G1, then they link on G2.

Letting Russia rule is very dangerous! I would advise against spending more than cash on the carrier; the tranny and IC aren't going to help you much against a properly aggressive Russian player.

Inevitably you will lose your fleet, as well. The UK and US have 70 IPCs between them that can be dedicated just to taking your fleet out. You only have 40 IPCs to spend, and probably a lot less if you want to keep your Eastern territories against the Russians. Sure sure you can buy like 3 carriers total over a few turns and have 6 fighters land on them which is very efficient for your money, and it'll stall them for a while, but Russia isn't quite as weak as it looks. If you let it get out of hand you could be staring at them at Eastern Europe in a few rounds.

I'd probably beef up some land troops with UK while building transports. The Americans would start off with 2 carriers and a fighter, then churn out fighters for a couple turns afterwards depending on how much navy the Germans have. If the Germans stay off of Western Europe, the Americans can nail them with 8 fighters, 2 destroyers, 2 transports, 2 carriers and 1 bomber on US3. If the German fleet is too powerful, wait until US4 and add 3 fighters, 1 battleship, and another transport to the mix. If for some ridiculous reason the Germans have such a strong navy as to still dissuade you, wait until US 5 with 4 more fighters.

The German navy can be tough, but you can also wind up losing a lot of fighters in the water and certainly Russia will have you by the throat with you unable to push back without enough land troops.