Problems I am having with going KJF


  • I have always been pro KJF, but I recently played a game (on turn 9 now) against myself where I went 100% pacific with US for the first 7 turns.

    Japan waited till T3 to declare against the allies, and has killed all of china and taken 6 Russian territories, none of which border Mongolia by end of T8. Germany is about to take Russia T9 and then Japan will be able to take 6 dollars more of Russia’s territory. Japan on T9 has 65 to spend, and he was forced back to sz 6 by the combined US/Anzac fleet off Carolines. He can’t get back the money Islands, but he is going to take India 100% on T10.

    The real problem is that Japans fleet at the end of T8 consists of: Transport, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 6 carriers, 18 destroyers, 14 subs, 8 tacs, 2 bombers, and 18 fighters. Germany has given Japan 3 of his bombers, which are stationed in Yunnan. This deny’s any blocking ability that the allies could do. Since the allies can’t block I can’t stage my fleet off Phillipines, which is key to dismantling Japan.

    My US fleet consists of 2 Transports, 24 subs, 16 destroyers, 3 cruisers, Battleship, 5 carriers, 9 fighters, tac, and 4 bombers off carolines, with 8 subs outside Johnston Island.

    My Anzac fleet is 6 destroyers, 3 subs, cruiser, and 3 fighters.

    Turn 9 the allies will get all the money Islands back, besides Borneo, but Japan will soon have India and US is forced to spend on the Atlantic side now. How do people take Japan down so easily? I really just don’t see it.

    One thing I need to point out is that Germany took Moscow with only 3 tanks, 2 fighters, 5 tacs, and 8 bombers left. While UK has 28 infantry, arty, 14 mech 8 tanks and a bomber in the mid east. He also has 20 infantry, 4 arty, and 3 AA guns in India that will retreat to help the mid east out.

    With all that being said should I keep spending all my US money in pacific to destroy Japan, or take another turn to build in Atlantic to secure a fleet to knock Italy down a little?

  • '18 '16 '15

    Do you have a game save to take a look at? That’s a lot easier than this description :)

  • '15

    Seems to me the mistake you made was building tons of subs for the US when you knew that blocking wasn’t going to be an option.  Lately, I’ve been moving away from subs, except for shutting down Italy and as an endgame for Japan.  What the US needs is carriers and fighters, along with a bare minimum of destroyers and enough transports to represent a legit land threat.


  • Excellent questions, ROC.
    I’m having roughly the same problems with 'K’JF: Japan can be made small but not dead is what I have come to think.

    I admit I have seen KJF only 1nce but I can share what I have learned from that game (strong points and mistakes):

    • Allies can_not_ kill Japan. Dwarf them economically is another thing.

    • ANZAC (knowing USA goes full Pacific), should build as much ships/air as possible.

    • India should not fall, or else Japan should pay the price. If Japan looks like taking it anyway, retreat the UK from there to retake it. USA will be there very soon as well.

    • USN + ANZAC only needs as much subs as they can use to convoy Japanese shipping. ~13 subs should allow the allies to convoy Japan for 26IPCs/turn. Japan will be left only the IPCs it can take from Russia/China early on, which should be ~12+10=22IPCs.

    • Like Shin Ji stated, USN needs a LOT of carriers + air, some DD and I’d think about 8TRS max. Consider sending ANZAC FTRs also on US Carriers to ‘activate’ them.

    • USN should not need blockers. It should be more than strong enough to withstand a Japanese attack. In my ‘KJF game’ that was not too hard to achieve, but I might have gotten it wrong with Japan ;-). I did produce a LOT of additional ships/air for Japan to stay on par with the USN. Still I couldn’t attack and the result was Japan in no condition to take India. To keep the USN strong, the USA built no bombers, ~15 subs, <10DD and for the rest only CV + FTR. Plus, the required TRSs of course…

    • Staging the huge allied fleet @ Philippines (IF it can withstand a Japanese attack), could cause the loss of Hawaii and Japan forcing the USA to produce a lot of troops to defend SF/Panama/CUSA/EUSA, further delaying the US entry into Europe… I am still undecided about this because it is also the last thing Japan can do since Japan cannot produce any ships anymore from that moment. The USA cannot as well (in the Pac), but they will have an income of >80 (DEI, Philippines) and Japan only ~25.

    That is what I learned from my 1 game so I cannot confirm anything.
    I am still undecided about it but if this can be repeated it may work if the allies can stay in control of Caïro, because ANZAC + China (being liberated) should be able to contain Japan on their own, while India + London + USA can now all focus on Europe (keeping Caïro first, then pushing up north/west again).
    Having the Euro-axis unchecked for so long feels very dangerous though. They may build up too strong a position to overcome after Japan is finally in it’s dwarf-status. After Russia is down, Germany + Italy  become a gigantic problem. They may threaten to take London OR Caïro and with ~100IPCs per turn and a very comfortable central position for Germany alone this looks very dangerous indeed!


  • I am not as experienced as many of the other members on here, but I thought I’d share my thoughts since they’re considerably different.

    In my games Japan almost always attacks J1 (and imo this is probably the best axis strategy). In response, the US spends 100% of it’s income and units against Japan until the threat is neutralized. I think that we can all agree that the only way to completely neutralize Japan (the same as it was in real life) is to eliminate it’s fleet. With no fleet Japan can’t retake it’s islands or protect itself from convoy raiding, so even if it still has ~20 IPCs from Russia and China, Anzac and India and can easily liberate China and thus end Japan.

    I think a problem that a lot of people are having is that they want to destroy the Japanese fleet at all costs, without accomplishing the real focus of a "K"JF (never actually killing Japan) which is removing Japanese income and giving it to the Pacific Allies. Once the Pacific Allies (China, India, ANZAC) can easily advance on Japan alone, it’s over for Japan.

    So what is the flaw that I’m seeing in people’s strategy against Japan? They aren’t being aggressive enough in their builds, especially with the US and ANZAC. The US (even with ANZAC building full defensive fleet to augment them) will never be able to match the combined strength the IJN and the Japanese air force in this game. Maybe by like US 9 or 10 if they’re going full KJF they could manage it, but by that point Germany has definitely taken Moscow and is probably only a turn or two away from taking Cairo (if it hasn’t fallen already) and the game is over in Europe before the US has even reached Gibraltar.

    This means that the goal of a smart allies player isn’t to survive a full-on assault by everything that Japan can throw at them (which we all know is A LOT), but to pick Japan’s money apart and force their fleet to retreat to the mainland (and hopefully eventually destroying the fleet). But how is this accomplished?

    First, I almost never take the Carolines, let alone stack there. Two big problems, and a small one, with the Carolines that eliminate the benefit of more options over Queensland:
    1. The Japanese can move all of their air to the Philippines and that air has 3 potential landing spots (Marianas, Paulau, and Marshall). This makes it really easy to force the US to retreat.
    2. ANZAC isn’t defended. This really limits what ANZAC can do since they can’t really put any units in Queensland and have to worry about a potential invasion. ANZAC is (imo) the most underrated power and crucial to the success of the US in the Pacific.
    Small problem: In my games the Caroline Japanese units are just stuck there doing nothing, while taking the Carolines will cost a US unit or 2 (depending on what is first sent there).

    We all know that Japan needs the money islands to compete with the allies income-wise, and that they tend to base their fleet at the Philippines. What my strategy tends to start with is building offensively as the US. You still need some defensive elements, which I use Carriers for since fighters are so useful (I tend to have 4 full US carriers at Queensland by US5 (in a J1), but it’s whatever you need for limited defense). I use destroyers almost exclusively for blocking when I need it since I want to be attacking the IJN, not vice versa. That’s where the subs come in. They are the most efficient offense, and also provide beneficial trades as you can force Japan to trade destroyers for US subs, which is a great trade for the US. The US’s goal should be to do whatever it can to force the Japs out of the Philippines. Once this is accomplished, the navy should move forward (blocking if necessary) and continue to try to destroy the Japanese navy. Eventually the Japanese will be trapped and the US will be able to destroy them (which they should do even if it means mutual annihilation).

    Now something that I’ve left out at this point is US transports, but there is a reason for that. Many of you say that the US fleet is useless without a huge compliment of transports (like 8?) accompanying it. I strongly disagree. Since the US fleet is so easily block-able by Japan from the DEIs, they often can’t take any islands on their turn. If they US can’t take islands than those transports are wasted. Maybe after the Japanese fleet is destroyed more transports can be made to accelerate the Allies advance on the mainland, but until that point I don’t believe in extensive transport spending. The US starts with 3 transports, I tend to buy 1 or maybe 2 more and that’s it. ANZAC should be doing most of the island taking while the US focuses on the primary goal, destroying the Japanese fleet.

    What should ANZAC be doing during this time? Harassing the Japanese as much as possible. They should be building only transports (and units for the transports) and subs. A typical ANZAC build is one art, one transport, one sub (only costs 17, and ANAC should be making 19 from 10+5 for the easy NO+ 4 for Java). They should either own Java or be trading it every single turn, and picking off a lot of Japanese transports (Japan does not want to be building transports if it’s in an arms race with the US). Eventually ANZAC will probably want to build a minor in Queensland in order to produce more units (i.e. once they are holding Java and trading other islands/Malaya). If ANZAC can use it’s income to destroy an equal or greater amount of Japanese income (which imo can only be accomplished if they are trading with Japan instead of being defensive), it’s doing an excellent job.

    If ANZAC (and China while it’s still alive) and India is surviving (which if the US is going 100% Pacific, India shouldn’t fall), the US should be strong enough to force the Japanese fleet to retreat, and eventually destroy it. Now I’m not sure how well this will work, but I’m just curious to get some opinions on what seems to be a different approach than what some other people are suggesting.

    I may have no idea what I’m talking about, so I’d love some opinions on my overall strategy. Thanks guys.


  • You seem plenty smart and on-point to me, pokemaniac.


  • Looks solid to me.
    Queensland > Carolines every time. Besides, Japan can just put enough defenders in Carolines that the USA can’t even get it (doubtful on a J1 though).

    Only problem, as with all 'K’JFs, afaics, Japan can play an evasive game for such a stupid long time that the Euro-axis will have won the game long before the USA can ‘switch’ to Europe. The USA has a very pressing dilemma very soon with 'K’JF: continue the armsrace with Japan and loose in Europe, OR back off.

    I think it counts for all sorts of 'K’JFs: Japan just stays alive, trades the DEI if it has to and most important thing of all: The IJN must be protected, dodging the USN every turn. Trading DDs as blockers for SUBS every turn if need be (they cost only 2IPCs more).
    After all, Japan has the same intelligence in this game as the allies. Japan must be the attacker (combining the IJN with all the Japanese air), not the USA.
    That’s the frustration with the USN in this game right there: it cannot BOTH be strong enough to withstand the combined might of the IJN and the Imperial Airforce AND be strong enough to kill the IJN in a favorable attack. Not before US9-US10 or so, but (if at all achieved) by then it is too late.

    On a side note, I have seen many strong J3/4 openings by now so I doubt J1 is ‘the best’ Japan can do.
    J1 has a very nasty weakness even, if the USA decides to go 'K’JF in response (and does it have a choice, even?): The armsrace between Japan and the USA starts turn 1 already and this leaves very little room for Japan to destroy China, conquer large parts of Russia and isolate India.
    That’s the beauty of a J4:
    Japan destroys China, conquers Eastern-Russia + Mongolia and Isolates India (no need to conquer) and then (from turn 4) the full armsrace starts. Japan will still need the DEI but (as opposed to J1) it now also has a solid base in Russia and China.


  • If you guys see me on Tripple A hit me up and I’ll show you the game.

  • '16 '15 '10

    KJF goes much faster with a land component.  I’m not really sure how to best execute that land component.  It may be that the bid is better spent in China than in Egypt in the interest of speeding up a KJF.  The question of the best use of Russian Siberian troops is an intriguing one.

    All of this is also dependent on what UK Europe is doing.  The optimal UK Europe strat will adapt to Axis moves, so it’s quite variable, but imo UK Europe strategies have not been optimized yet.  Maybe UK Europe can help UK Pacific.  Of course, I don’t claim that Japan can be stopped from taking India if they really want it.  However, a KJF strategy ought to find ways to make Japan pay for taking India.

    You want to make sure Allies are getting a sufficient bid–if you are playing ll, then the bid probably needs to be 20+.  If the bid reaches 23, then that opens up the possibility of trying to hold Yunnan turn 1, which has the potential to change the game dynamics.

  • Customizer

    If the US is going 100% Pacific for a KJF, I think the Siberian troops need to march toward Moscow for as much defense against Germany as possible. Since Europe will be getting no US help, Russia needs to hold out as long as possible.
    Of course, this will allow Japan to simply walk into those far eastern Soviet territories, but those are cheap and won’t net Japan that much more money. Also, when the Mongolian troops turn into Soviets, I would gather them all together and have them sit in Yenisey or Yakut SSR. This way Japan can’t go too far with just a tank. They will have to commit a few more ground troops and maybe some planes just to punch through a few Russian infantry and grab up a few more 1 IPC territories. That might help the Allies further south.
    As for India, yeah it will probably fall but it could cost Japan a lot. Also, a good portion of their navy will be out of position for a couple of rounds and the US fleet can blockade SZ 6. As I have seen in a couple of cases, sometimes Japan will spend so much on taking India and troops against the Chinese that they end up leaving Japan itself under-defended and the US ends up taking Tokyo with 3-4 transports. Then Japan has all of this territory but no capital and usually their navy is not strong enough to take Japan back. Either too much was lost earlier, it is too spread out trying to protect everything (DEI, Philippines, etc.) or in some cases they will have a lot of warships but few transports. So while they may even be able to destroy the US Navy in SZ 6, they won’t have enough troops to retake Japan.
    In several cases, I have found that a concentrated push on India by Japan is similar to Germany pulling off Sealion. Yeah they may win it, but it ends up costing them the game.

  • '14 Customizer

    ItIsILeClerc, I’m not so sure I would wait until turn 4 with Japan.  Just imagine how strong India/ANZAC will become by letting them have the DEI for 2-3 turns.  I actually played a game where my opponent bought 2 TTs for India with his bid money.  I know this is an extreme case but imagine having all the DEI for India on round 2 for India. There economy would be 28!

    The beauty of a J1 is your start strangling India from the start and with convoy/bombing they hardly have enough to build anything.  I think I would rather have a strong China since they have a boundary limiting their movement and attacks.


  • Uhhuh, 2 indian TRS with bid money is not something to see often ;-).
    Well, I guess the axis need to pay attention to where the bid went. Plus, when I’m writing I think all bidless. I can’t take bids into account since there are so many options…

    I think I can safely assume that in general, India will have just 1 TRS. Bidding extra Indian TRS looks bad to me IMHO, because as allies at the start of the game you don’t know what the axis are going to do. If a J1 is launched, such a bid is hmmm, let’s say far from optimal.

    The strength of a J4 is not so much about Japan, but it is about the Euro-Axis. They will become so strong that whatever (extra) strength India has, needs to go to Africa right away unless the UK doesn’t care to loose Egypt early in the game.
    Since Japan will prevent India from gaining too much from a J4 by convoying all SZ where India can get money from, India best not DOW Japan UK3 to have maximum income of 17+21+24=62 (assuming ANZAC takes Java R1). Compared to a J1 (17+14+6=37) that’s 25 more income, worth 7INF+1ART, not something to have a sleepless night over as Japan.

    I find the allied (Indian + ANZAC) economic advantage of a J4 over J1 not enough to make J1 a standard ‘do or die’ option. With a J4 all the same axiomas stil apply: Japan will get India (isolated and harmless at least), Japan will get the DEI and Japan will reduce the ANZAC to having ~10IPCs income. Last but not least: Japan will become an economic monster unless the USA goes 'K’JF perhaps. It is all up to the USA, as always.

    And (on a sidenote) here lies much pain for me; Since J1 already requires much more investments from the USA than it can do in Europe, I don’t want to be restricted to do that as well with a J4.
    I said it several times already: If the USA never actually has a choice between investing more in Europe or more in the Pacific (whatever the amount of ‘more’ may be), I’ll say goodbeye to A&A as a fun WW2-game. Grand strategy of the allies was ‘Germany first’ and if that’s not even possible in this game because Japan will then grab Hawaii for a game-over, I’m out…


  • Not to nitpick ItIsLeClerc, but the incomes that you used to support your J4 attack are a bit flawed.

    In a J4, UK would be stupid not to DOW on turn 3, so their last turn will be 29 income, not 24 (and ANZAC will get plus 10 NO from a DOW on turn 3, although they get that for a J1 automatically so that’s mostly moot). Also, J1 is being done very wrong if Borneo isn’t taken on J1, which means that India will be reduced to only 9 income collected on round one. India could hypothetically take Sumatra, but in my experience India won’t sacrifice the transport to take an island for 4 IPCs and will instead send it west to Persia or Ethiopia (this just makes more economical sense, since it allows the transport to survive).

    So with those adjustments, India is actually making an extra 9 more income on top of the 25 you mentioned. That makes the total 34 IPCs, which is 10INF+1ART. That’s very significant imo, especially since India is probably gonna make more on UK5 in the event of a J4 than it will on UK2 in the event of a J1. Yes India will still be neuter-able, but if Japan waits to J4 they are not ever taking India unless they sacrifice most of their air force, which spells doom for them anyways. A J1 should allow for a fairly easy India take (with only ~5 aircraft lost) sometime around J4-J7 if Japan choses to take it. Another big advantage of a J1 is the destruction of allied units, namely the US ones at the Philippines and the British Battleship at Malaya for very little comparative loss. Still while this makes the J1 look good, I agree that those units don’t matter that much against Japan come J4.

    Other than India becoming virtually unassailable, I 100% agree with you. ANZAC doesn’t really make anymore income and US makes significantly less in a J4 vs a J1. That plus Japan being able to develop a solid income base in China and Russia could actually make J4 a much more favorable strategy than most give it credit for (myself included).


  • Well to be fair, as long as Japan parks at least 3 subs off UK Pac territory that they can’t kill, India will be trading a small amount of income for the ability to attack the Japs and support China. But I think another important factor between a J1 and a J4 is time. Not only does India have 8 more units on the board by the time of the DOW, but they have 18 extra IPCs from turn 3 income, probably some more than the 6 for India+Burma T4, and the IJN is now just getting busy in the south, and it will have to move further west out of position and/or sacrifice much more air for a timely capture of India. Meanwhile America now has a much easier time moving up (Carolines might be a decent option in this scenario as it threatens Japan, Philippines, and Chinese coast, and Japan will be in shorter supply of blockers needing more ground investment for a stronger India)

    For a J4, if you move your fleet south to protect your transports and keep the DEI, America can advance sooner than normal, but if you don’t, the allies can begin contesting the DEIs right away.
    Contrast that to a J1 where you grab the islands J1 and J2, clean up Malaya J3 and bring your navy back to the Philippines J4 just as the first “extra” Americans reach Hawaii.

    Of course, this leaves the European theatre isolated and Germany will probably roll over Russia barring huge US & UK air buys in rounds 3-5 (UK earlier if possible), but assuming the US managed to stop Japan, they can now switch to heavy Europe spending to try and salvage that theatre. Against a J1 (bidless) the US could still be needing to spend a large chunk of their income even into round 7-9 before they can destroy the IJN.

    I guess to summarize, while I am a firm believer that the Allied situation is not as dire as some paint it to be, the Axis have a good span of strategies that, when executed correctly, give the Allies virtually no chance at victory barring perfect play.

    If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.

  • Customizer

    @ColonelCarter:

    If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.

    The victory conditions for the Axis used to be a total of 14 victory cities across the entire map. The problem was then the Allies would pretty much ignore Japan and send everything to smash Germany/Italy. By that time, Japan may have 10 victory cities and be spread out all over Asia and the Pacific, but even then they couldn’t hold out against all of the Allies throwing everything at them. So, basically the Axis had no way to really win.
    With the 6 VC rule in the Pacific, if forces the Allies to devote some attention to Japan. This makes it quite a bit harder on the Allies, but I think that was done on purpose to reflect the historical choices the Allies had to make then. In some cases, it might be a little too tough on the Allies, which is why I think many players think you have to give the Allies bids of extra units upon startup.
    I have seen the Allies win with the current setup but I will admit that the majority of our games end up in Axis wins. Perhaps the opening setup could use some tweaks so bids won’t be necessary, at least for most players. I think there are some out there that would not be satisfied playing the Allies unless they got extra stuff at startup, no matter how the setup might be changed.


  • @pokemaniac:

    Not to nitpick ItIsLeClerc, but the incomes that you used to support your J4 attack are a bit flawed.

    In a J4, UK would be stupid not to DOW on turn 3, so their last turn will be 29 income, not 24 (and ANZAC will get plus 10 NO from a DOW on turn 3, although they get that for a J1 automatically so that’s mostly moot). Also, J1 is being done very wrong if Borneo isn’t taken on J1, which means that India will be reduced to only 9 income collected on round one. India could hypothetically take Sumatra, but in my experience India won’t sacrifice the transport to take an island for 4 IPCs and will instead send it west to Persia or Ethiopia (this just makes more economical sense, since it allows the transport to survive).

    So with those adjustments, India is actually making an extra 9 more income on top of the 25 you mentioned. That makes the total 34 IPCs, which is 10INF+1ART. That’s very significant imo, especially since India is probably gonna make more on UK5 in the event of a J4 than it will on UK2 in the event of a J1. Yes India will still be neuter-able, but if Japan waits to J4 they are not ever taking India unless they sacrifice most of their air force, which spells doom for them anyways. A J1 should allow for a fairly easy India take (with only ~5 aircraft lost) sometime around J4-J7 if Japan choses to take it. Another big advantage of a J1 is the destruction of allied units, namely the US ones at the Philippines and the British Battleship at Malaya for very little comparative loss. Still while this makes the J1 look good, I agree that those units don’t matter that much against Japan come J4.

    Other than India becoming virtually unassailable, I 100% agree with you. ANZAC doesn’t really make anymore income and US makes significantly less in a J4 vs a J1. That plus Japan being able to develop a solid income base in China and Russia could actually make J4 a much more favorable strategy than most give it credit for (myself included).

    Welcome to contribute, Pokemaniac, we are always free to give each other insight in our thinking :-).

    DOW UK3 is not optimal if you consider the income. So if that’s the only thing left for India to worry about, the UK should let ANZAC do the DOW at the end of the round (as this automatically also includes the UK).

    I’ll explain below:

    • Income DOW UK3 (assuming ANZAC took Java): 29IPCS - 18IPCs max due to convoying because of being at war with Japan (provided Japan has set up for this, ofc.) = 11IPCs if max result from convoying.

    • Income NO DOW UK3 (again minus Java): 24IPCs

    I would say the only valid reason for the UK to DOW, is if they can deal a too painful blow to Japan, attacking one of its spread out fleets (I think only possible with a 'K’JF). Reason why I don’t see that often is because the Uk is SO pressured in the MED/Africa, it has not much choice but to move the Indian air/fleet into this theatre. If the UK could leave those units in India, J4 would become economically even better for the UK (less convoying options for Japan), but they will then most certainly loose Egypt and the ME to the axis pressure over there….

    And you are right, I assumed UK to take Sumatra anyway so that is a debatable 4 IPCs :D.
    I have seen it enough to daresay that India will still fall with this J4 if the USA does NOT go 'K’JF. The magic trick is that India will have no income left UK4 (well…2 IPCs per turn, perhaps), so suddenly all production there stops. Japan will patiently reinforce the area with 3 to 6 units per turn and by ~J7 it will have a serious overkill of units to attack India with. Uk must retreat or stand and be destroyed. Japan doesn’t have to loose any airunits in that attack ever.

    India’s main problem is the IJN with its stack of TRS. UK sends too many troops forward, Calcutta is invaded and India will never have a lot mor than 30 units in Clacutta. Japan easily gets to 45, excluding their aircraft.

    But as stated before, the real strength of it, is the Euro axis getting very strong so the pressure on the UK goes so heavy that the USA feels it too. ‘Damn USA must do something about this in Europe or else the allies are not quick enough with ‘killing’ Japan’. Frustrating…


  • @ColonelCarter:

    I guess to summarize, while I am a firm believer that the Allied situation is not as dire as some paint it to be, the Axis have a good span of strategies that, when executed correctly, give the Allies virtually no chance at victory barring perfect play.

    If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.

    @knp7765:

    The victory conditions for the Axis used to be a total of 14 victory cities across the entire map. The problem was then the Allies would pretty much ignore Japan and send everything to smash Germany/Italy. By that time, Japan may have 10 victory cities and be spread out all over Asia and the Pacific, but even then they couldn’t hold out against all of the Allies throwing everything at them. So, basically the Axis had no way to really win.
    With the 6 VC rule in the Pacific, if forces the Allies to devote some attention to Japan. This makes it quite a bit harder on the Allies, but I think that was done on purpose to reflect the historical choices the Allies had to make then. In some cases, it might be a little too tough on the Allies, which is why I think many players think you have to give the Allies bids of extra units upon startup.
    I have seen the Allies win with the current setup but I will admit that the majority of our games end up in Axis wins. Perhaps the opening setup could use some tweaks so bids won’t be necessary, at least for most players. I think there are some out there that would not be satisfied playing the Allies unless they got extra stuff at startup, no matter how the setup might be changed.

    Wholeheartedly agree with all this.


  • I am really starting to think the best Japan strategy is a T3 declaration. Set it up correctly with your buys and transport movements and this can be really hard for allies to beat.

    The main problem with Japan that I don’t think a lot of you guys are getting as to why they are so powerful is that if they keep spending 80% of their money on fleet, or fighters, from T2 on, then US has to commit at least 80% of her money in the pacific to stop Japan from winning. What exactly is 20% of US’s money going to do in Europe?…

    A big mistake as Japan, IMO, is to build more than one factory. In every case possible I only like to build one factory so that most of my money goes towards fleet. You easily have enough ground units to conquer India, and if you play it correctly you should be able to kill China first and then swing down to take out India. After you have conquered India you can then build all carriers for your ridiculous amount of planes that you should have at this point in the game. The fleet Japan should be building should consist of only destroyers and subs. Carriers only if you really need them for defense. If you can’t build fleet in SZ6, most of the time this is because you just declared war and US would cream any fleet you built there, then build all fighters and 1 sub. It isn’t worth it for America to try and kill that sub, so this grants you another piece that you can defend a sea zone with.

    In short I am still a little annoyed that America makes such little money. I know 52, and then 72 when at war, seems like a lot, but it really isn’t enough.

    P.S.
    I like the idea’s about maybe putting your bid in the pacific. Seems Interesting.


  • I think the bottom line is that there are definately things the USA can do about Japan but to be short about it:
    the USA has to spend a LOT of IPCs down the Pac to make it work. As long as you have a clear strategy in mind about what to do with your buys, Japan should be having a lot of problems. I have no good ideas (yet) about how (and when!) the allied mess in Europe can be stabilized, but I’m considering what Cow once said:

    Send US-aid to the allies in Europe via the Pac.
    Possibly by sending FTR to Russia from US Carriers (? using the ME/India as a stepping stone) and/or by sending the troops in your TRS that are no longer required in the Pac via the ME.
    But if Germany, after taking Moscow, suddenly turns west and jumps onto the UK, this might not work either. Always the problem: Germany controls the center and has great flexibility in choosing its (next) targets.

    I agree with you, ROC, about that 80%.
    No exact numbers yet, but roughly that should be correct. USA should not spend >>100IPCs in Europe on a J1 or seriously risk loosing Hawaii, that sounds like ~80% of its income over ~8 turns or so.


  • I don’t think US can spend over a 100 in Europe with a J3 as well. Japan has more ability to build fleet in a Japan 3, and US has less money. Granted US does retain the sub, dd, and fighter worth 24 total, but looses out on 40 in NO money.

    How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.

Suggested Topics

  • 223
  • 16
  • 2
  • 23
  • 8
  • 5
  • 11
  • 18
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts