Allied Strategy Discussion

[Veqryn]

Well, the Med fleet is weaker because the transport can’t defend.  But the allies are also weaker because unlike revised they can not land round 1 in algeria (under normal conditions) with anything more than a suicide fleet.

So we have a UK1 option of attacking with a fighter and bomber, 80% chance kill BB or better, 40% chance no attackers left.
A Russia 2 option, of attacking with a sub and two fighters, 90% chance kill BB or better, 32% chance 1 fighter dies, (4% all die, 6% lose)
And we have a UK2 “safe” option, which can take many many forms, but does mean that Germany will probably have 1 tank, 1 art, 2 inf in an Egypt with no allied units until they hit either persia or kenya.  I hate having german units in africa and having chasing them around for 4 turns.  Buying bombers as the UK means not buying fleet and transport and units…
And lastly, we have a USA/UK3 option, which usually involves landing a big force round 2 in africa and then killing the german fleet round 3 and landing more in africa (second landing in africa can get turned into a landing in italy round 4).

For the UK2 option, you could buy a bomber or more, which would give you at least 2 bombers plus a fighter to hit the german med fleet with.
The only other issue here would be that in order for this to line up, you need to have either egypt or transjordan as belonging to you at the beginning of UK2, which means that you have to take back egypt on UK1 from the germans.  This is normally done anyway, so this isn’t an issue.

What do you guys who like to do the UK2 option like to buy on UK1?
I am guessing: 1 bomber, 2 Destroyers, save 2 ipcs.  Or 1 bomber, 1 Carrier, save 4 ipcs.
It kind of sucks because the germans will have 2 submarines, 1 bomber, and at least 2 fighters within range of your new fleet.  by buying a bomber as the UK, your fleet is weak as heck and can be taken out, even if you have the USA cruiser join it.  I guess you could buy 1 bomber, save 18 ipcs, and send your lone transport on a suicide mission to algeria/norway, or have him sit off washington dc.

[Zhukov44]

Good analysis.  One more factor in the UK2 attack is you could fly some figs to W. Russia and/or Moscow and/or F. West Africa…this is common in Revised.  So you don’t necessarily have to buy a bomber UK1 tho bombers are quite useful anyway.  Along with that, maybe send a Russian army into Persia R1 so you can hold Jordan G2 and then reinforce with the India garrison UK2.  But this assumes a successful Egypt counter on UK1 which doesn’t always happen.

Re. the R2 option, if 2 figs 1 sub is too risky one might buy a fig or bomber R1 to bolster the attack…but then the trade-off is whether Russia will be too weak on the ground to withstand a tank rush.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

I’m in the middle of a game where I was really putting the hurt to the axis for the first four rounds but suddenly he broke out and is making some huge money this turn with both powers. I still have an Indian IC, and a huge US Navy that’s just started island hopping, but I’ve lost africa for the time being and he built a med navy and a baltic navy as germany. Russia is surrounded but with minimal forces.

This was my first attempt at a KJF. The question I’m posing is, can the allies overcome a big economic advantage from the axis? Is it better to be aggresive or patient when this happens?

[Romulus]

Independently from being Allies or Axis the economic avantage may be leveraged to acheive victory, so, imho, operations in A&A must be planned in term of strategy but also economic factor should be considered.

The sudden broke out you mention maybe is the result of a constant Axis build up, possibile thanks to economic gaining.

In the specific situation, as alredy pointed out in preceding intervention the Allied objectives could be:

• USA aim to liberation of Africa;
• UK lands troops in Karelia to bolster URSS defense;

Both objective require dealing with Germans fleet that may interfere in the operations. This is the problem, because dealing with such fleets requires ships and aircrafts that are not directly useful on the ground in Africa and in Russia. so while USA and UK fight to gain control ofthe seas Germany and Japan may squeeze Russia and take Moscow.

The USA fleet island hopping, in this context, could be a wasting of resources.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

Thanks for the advice Romolus but here’s where I’m torn. If I abandon Island Hopping than Japan will be uncontested. At least where I am, I’m forcing him to think defensively as Japan. I’m two spaces from Africa, Two spaces from India, and one space from all his islands. Maybe I should skip the east indies factory and focus on a mass landing in africa? Land in algeria and Italian east africa or Egypt. Actually I could probably do both.

[77stranger77]

That’s sort of a false choice, getting East Indies shouldn’t be that easy. Getting a complex there is huge but assuming no J1 dice jobs, Japan should be able to prevent America from advancing for a long time.

Without America in the Atlantic, the British will have to buy a lot more fleet protection and a lot less troops. I don’t have the experience to draw any conclusions but I’m wondering if this version ruined the US Pacific strategy. Maybe I’m missing something, but the UK on their own has a hard time and the US won’t be making any immediate gains.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

I already have East Indies. I took it last round. (We’re on round 6). I’ve spent almost all my income on the pacific as the US. Germany has a lot of boats but they only have three tanks on the board right now.

[Romulus]

Mmm really you can not abandon Island hopping, you have spent resources but you are also obtaining results. And if you are at turn 6 and Russia is still alive you may still turn the table.

I suppose that a good option is to focus on East Indies then, try to build a factory there and engage the Japanese forces, avoiding Japanese focusing on Russia.

The problem is that UK have to:

• control the Atlantic;
• liberate Africa;
• put pressure on Europe.

All this objectives may be out of reach for the british alone, so I would suggest focusing on the first two and try to stay alive with Russia, which may be the real problem in this scenario.

But, sincerely, I think that Pacific strategy with USA, though may bring to good results, is a long time strategy, maybe too long.

The problem of the Pacific Strategy is that USA is not helping directly Russia, because reduce Japanese rush to Moscow but Red Army is forced to face a stronger Germany, which may a have a more easy life against UK alone.
I prefer to go all in Atlantic with USA in the first turn, with the objective of winning the Battle of Atlantic, liberate Africa and starting to create problem in Europe.

I have no problem with the KGF and JTDM. It is only the high level objective of the game.
The important, and funny, things to do wth A&A are the logistic, the planning and the conduction of the combats.
Also Chess have only a way to win, checkmate the oppenent King, but there are numerous way for obtaining such objective!

[77stranger77]

My mistake, if you have East Indies, I would definitely get a factory there and if you can defend it, on Borneo and/or Philippines. If you can, the Allies probably win. East Indies isn’t a bad place to be to contest Africa. Germany shouldn’t be a threat to Russia in Round 6 after building Baltic and Med navies and probably isn’t with only 3 tanks on the board. Where has Germany massed their forces, Ukraine, Karelia, EE?

[Col.Stauffenberg]

Germany doesn’t have a force to amass. There’s two or three germany inf surrounding Cauc and Mosc and nothing immediately behind it. He’s spent so much on navy. He’s got a carrier, a cruiser, 2 destroyers and two transports in the Med, plus a baltic navy. He is up 54 ipc’s. I imagine he’s going to buy 8 men and 6 tanks, but who knows. It’s a lot of money but he’s just buying stuff he should have by now already.

I normally do a KGF, but with the new rules, KJF is more tempting. It seems to be working. I’ll let you guys know the outcome.

[77stranger77]

Okay, it sounds like the Allies win. Don’t worry if the UK isn’t landing much in terms of troops into Europe. Russia can push back against Germany and Japan is going down the tubes if America has factories on her islands. Sounds like a fun game.

[WTFchris]

I’m going to have to do some more testing, but it seems hard for the Allies to get troops to Europe fast enough to counter Japan’s surge in Asia.  It will take the US a few turns to have their transports protected.  It will also take UK a couple turns to have it’s fleet secure enough to dump into Norway or Karelia.  Can Russia survive without support for a few turns?

I don’t do a ground surge with Germany right away (instead grab a bomber a turn to keep Allied boats sunk).  You still make 4-5 tanks a turn which is enough to hold your eastern front.  If you simply send 8+ tanks at Russia at turn they will get killed by counter attack because you’re two turns away from hitting.  I’d rather keep Russia’s front line within tank range from Germany IC until Japan has Yakut, China and India secure.  Then both sides advance while the German air keeps Allies away (you can trade Western Europe back and forth and it doesn’t matter anyway).  By that time you have Africa secured and enough to send 12+ tanks into Russia a turn.

Maybe the Med Sea Russian sub idea really swings the African tide and allows US to spend more on convoy defense and less on troops to land initially.

[Advosan]

IMO, I believe each ally has very specific objectives.

Russia must pin down Germany in the east.
England must relieve Russia ASAP.
USA must pin down Japan in the pacific.

Pin down Germany:
Goal one, Russia must always have control of the territories adjacent to its factories (archangel, WRus, Ukr). the best deploy package is 2 inf 2 rtl 2 arm (24 IPC). Arm can blitz from Russia, while inf and rtl from caucasus can attack both WRu or Ukr.
Goal two, fortify Karelia. Fending Germany off Karelia prevents a)easy landing from Germany, so German inf + rtl move slower towards the front. As allies you cannot allow German assault troops reaching WRu in just 2 rounds. And b) fortifying Karelia protects Archangel too.
Goal three, trading territories. Wherever, whenever.

Relieve Russia:
Goal one, secure some IPC. The british empire consist of three IPC “blocks”:

1. North atlantic=12 IPC, key territory England, first priority
2. Africa=10 IPC , key teritory Sudan(prime), Rhodesia, second priority
3. India/Pacific=8 IPC , key territory India(prime) , Australia, third priority
   No british player can protect all three blocks. Prioritise, save what can be saved, abandon the rest.
   Essential: Consider grabbing Borneo, cripples the Jap 4 good.
   Goal two, build an invasion fleet. No need for submarines, since it will be a defence fleet. 4 DD, 1 AC(2 fgt) , 1 BB. Should take 3 rounds, Russia MUST buy you 3 rounds.
   Goal three, build an invasion force and invade (norway, Karelia, france, EastEU, you name it, everywhere there is an opening). 4 transports and then at each round 4 inf 4 arm (if not enough IPC change arm with rtl respectively, or if even less change rtl with inf, but must produce full capacity 8 units/turn).

Pin down Japan:
Goal one, stay at 40 IPC for as much as possible. Russia must garisson Zingiang, at least for 3 rounds! For the love of Stalin’s mustache they must! And the British must make a suicidal Uk1 against Japan’s soft spots, maybe land ftr in China, sink transport definitely. The USSR/Uk must buy the USA some time.
Goal two, beef up the USN after Pearl Harbor. Attacking fleet (4 sub , 3 DD , 2 BB , 1 AC but since 2 fgt+1 BB survived, cost=82 , 42 from USA1 and 40 from USA2).
Goal three, engage the Japanese!!! Land Bomber to Haway in order to assist your attack. Don t let the Japanese attack you, use a DD as “shield” in front of your fleet and hit the japanese by turn 4 or 5.

This is merely the first “phase” of the game. If the Allies endure the 4-5 first turns, then they must alter their  objectives.

Russia must puch to the Balkans.
England must liberate its colonies.
USA must capture South Pacific.

Balkan express:
Balkans is a key territory, you simultaneously threaten Germany and SEur. It is going to be impossible to do, but this must be the Russian goal.

Liberate colonies:
Not only you regain valuable IPC, but after liberating India you can begin to seriously cripple Japan in continental Asia. Goal is to reach French indochina. Leave Shangai for USA and Manchuria for USSR :-)

South Pasific:
Go for borneo and put an IC there. Japan will take a defencive stance inevitably.

Taking all 12 VC=Impossible, will take 13-hours of meaningless play.
If Japan is left with Japan and Germany looses Paris or Rome, you can call it a day.

Won 2 times in a row as Allies :-D Once Germany capitulated after I sneaked assaulted, captured and held Berlin for 1 round and Second I sneak assaulted Tokyo itself, lost 4 fgt, 2 bombers and land units but my LAST US Marine captured the wretched place and thnx 2 USN kept it for 1 round……

Allies prevail._

[77stranger77]

Advosan - I think I disagree. Then again, I’m more inclined to go for a Kill Germany First Strategy than sending the US after Japan unless they’ve left me some kind of opening.

Goal one, Russia must always have control of the territories adjacent to its factories
Agree to some extent, try to prevent a German advance but keeping Germany out of Ukraine may prove more difficult than you may think. Normally, I would buy 3 inf, 3 tanks rather than 2/2/2 because there’s less risk of a G1 Karelia stack with the extra tank.

Goal two, fortify Karelia.
You don’t mean this as a R1 move I hope? That would be suicidal. And unless the Germans go heavily into Baltic navy, G1 is the only time their inf/art get a boat ride to Leningrad.

Goal one, secure some IPC. The british empire consist of three IPC “blocks”:

1. North atlantic=12 IPC, key territory England, first priority
2. Africa=10 IPC , key teritory Sudan(prime), Rhodesia, second priority
3. India/Pacific=8 IPC , key territory India(prime) , Australia, third priority
   No british player can protect all three blocks. Prioritise, save what can be saved, abandon the rest.
   When I play, I make sure to secure Africa and the British are active in Europe - usually taking Norway and whatever is open. It doesn’t take long for the British to lose their influence in the Indian Ocean/MidEast/Pacific.

Essential: Consider grabbing Borneo, cripples the Jap 4 good.
Grabbing Borneo does NOT cripple Japan for good! The move has it’s costs, no Egypt counterattack(We can assume Germany takes this right?)Japan can retake Borneo at their leisure, although the Americans will be a pain. Point is, it’s not a game over move. If you want to mess with Japan, consider an amphibious assault on French Indo.

Goal two, build an invasion fleet. No need for submarines, since it will be a defence fleet. 4 DD, 1 AC(2 fgt) , 1 BB. Should take 3 rounds, Russia MUST buy you 3 rounds.
Yep, the Brits need a defensive surface fleet BUT it’s precise size varies by the game. No need to buy more defensive navy than Germany can threaten, it’s a waste of resources. If you only need a destroyer and loaded carrier to be safe in the Atlantic, don’t build more.

Goal three, build an invasion force and invade (norway, Karelia, france, EastEU, you name it, everywhere there is an opening). 4 transports and then at each round 4 inf 4 arm (if not enough IPC change arm with rtl respectively, or if even less change rtl with inf, but must produce full capacity 8 units/turn).
Yep, that’s the gist of their purchasing. Planes are also good buys if you can afford them.

Goal one, stay at 40 IPC for as much as possible. Russia must garisson Zingiang, at least for 3 rounds! For the love of Stalin’s mustache they must! And the British must make a suicidal Uk1 against Japan’s soft spots, maybe land ftr in China, sink transport definitely. The USSR/Uk must buy the USA some time.
Staying at 40 is pretty ambitious, I wouldn’t count on it. Sinkiang is tough to garrison if Japan takes China heavily, how many starting pieces do you commit to this? Typically, I’ll keep Sink as a deadzone rather than defend it. I wouldn’t say the transport is mandatory to kill, it’s something I think I’d skip if I countered Egypt.

Goal two, beef up the USN after Pearl Harbor. Attacking fleet (4 sub , 3 DD , 2 BB , 1 AC but since 2 fgt+1 BB survived, cost=82 , 42 from USA1 and 40 from USA2).
Pearl Harbor took place Dec 7, 1941, this game begins Spring of 1942. Just my pet peeve. If you want to go that route, the US needs more of a defensive fleet because their first objective is to advance, probably to the Solomons then to capture an island. What is important is their defensive strength.

Goal three, engage the Japanese!!! Land Bomber to Haway in order to assist your attack. Don t let the Japanese attack you, use a DD as “shield” in front of your fleet and hit the japanese by turn 4 or 5.
Landing the bomber on Hawaii might not be a good idea. Depending on how Japan played the first turn, Japan could take Hawaii, kill the bomber, and hold that seazone on J2.

Balkan express:
Balkans is a key territory, you simultaneously threaten Germany and SEur. It is going to be impossible to do, but this must be the Russian goal.
Balkans is almost always impossible to reach, at first I didn’t see you say how impossible it is. More likely, if Russia makes it that far, they will be in Eastern Europe supporting the UK and possibly US.

Liberate colonies:
Not only you regain valuable IPC, but after liberating India you can begin to seriously cripple Japan in continental Asia. Goal is to reach French indochina. Leave Shangai for USA and Manchuria for USSR smiley
As the Allies, one of my top priorities is control over Africa. Then one Africa is secure, I send my units to the Middle East. Pushing Japan out of India mid game isn’t something you can count on. Holding Persia is hard enough. Allies have to have won if they can push Japan out of Asia without losing Russia and/or Africa.

South Pasific:
Go for borneo and put an IC there. Japan will take a defencive stance inevitably.
Yep, an island complex is my goal in a Pacific game too. East Indies and Philippines aren’t bad locations either, depends on the game.

Are you up for a game of 42? If you haven’t done a Play by Forum game before, I can help you. I want to see you put some of this into practice if you’re Allies or to give you a different take on how to play them if I’m Allies. I’d take either side or we can play two games and switch sides.

[Advosan]

@Fleetwood:

Advosan - I think I disagree. Then again, I’m more inclined to go for a Kill Germany First Strategy than sending the US after Japan unless they’ve left me some kind of opening.

Fleetwood, how can you pursuit a kill Germany first strategy without control over the pacific? How will you deal with a japanese invasion in Alaska? If Japan is left unchallenged, by J3 they will be able to unload 8 troops in Alaska/turn. I am not taking that chance.

Goal one, Russia must always have control of the territories adjacent to its factories
Agree to some extent, try to prevent a German advance but keeping Germany out of Ukraine may prove more difficult than you may think. Normally, I would buy 3 inf, 3 tanks rather than 2/2/2 because there’s less risk of a G1 Karelia stack with the extra tank.

I never said it was going to be easy :-) But it can be done,because Germany needs 2 moves to get troops to Ukr, while Russians need only one, which pretty much makes up for the IPC gap :roll:

Goal two, fortify Karelia.
You don’t mean this as a R1 move I hope? That would be suicidal. And unless the Germans go heavily into Baltic navy, G1 is the only time their inf/art get a boat ride to Leningrad.

Yes, I fortify Karelia at R1  :| is it really suicidal?  Why? I do so because I definitely don t want an Archangel theater, I want to “guide” Germany into the central sector (WesR) where I can strike the hardest and in many directions, while cutting Norway off and preventing the troops unload.

Goal one, secure some IPC. The british empire consist of three IPC “blocks”:

1. North atlantic=12 IPC, key territory England, first priority
2. Africa=10 IPC , key teritory Sudan(prime), Rhodesia, second priority
3. India/Pacific=8 IPC , key territory India(prime) , Australia, third priority
   No british player can protect all three blocks. Prioritise, save what can be saved, abandon the rest.
   When I play, I make sure to secure Africa and the British are active in Europe - usually taking Norway and whatever is open. It doesn’t take long for the British to lose their influence in the Indian Ocean/MidEast/Pacific.

Agreed.

Essential: Consider grabbing Borneo, cripples the Jap 4 good.
Grabbing Borneo does NOT cripple Japan for good! The move has it’s costs, no Egypt counterattack(We can assume Germany takes this right?)Japan can retake Borneo at their leisure, although the Americans will be a pain. Point is, it’s not a game over move. If you want to mess with Japan, consider an amphibious assault on French Indo.

If the Americans and the Japanese enter an arms race, -4 for 1 or 2 rounds can be very helpful for the allied Cause :-P Definitely not a game over move, agreed, but I find the cost/benefit ok.

Goal two, build an invasion fleet. No need for submarines, since it will be a defence fleet. 4 DD, 1 AC(2 fgt) , 1 BB. Should take 3 rounds, Russia MUST buy you 3 rounds.
Yep, the Brits need a defensive surface fleet BUT it’s precise size varies by the game. No need to buy more defensive navy than Germany can threaten, it’s a waste of resources. If you only need a destroyer and loaded carrier to be safe in the Atlantic, don’t build more.

Agreed. It all depends on the luftwaffean megalomania of the german player.

Goal three, build an invasion force and invade (norway, Karelia, france, EastEU, you name it, everywhere there is an opening). 4 transports and then at each round 4 inf 4 arm (if not enough IPC change arm with rtl respectively, or if even less change rtl with inf, but must produce full capacity 8 units/turn).
Yep, that’s the gist of their purchasing. Planes are also good buys if you can afford them.

Agreed. If Britain can afford planes it is time to light that big sigar I m biting nervously during the game :lol:

Goal one, stay at 40 IPC for as much as possible. Russia must garisson Zingiang, at least for 3 rounds! For the love of Stalin’s mustache they must! And the British must make a suicidal Uk1 against Japan’s soft spots, maybe land ftr in China, sink transport definitely. The USSR/Uk must buy the USA some time.
Staying at 40 is pretty ambitious, I wouldn’t count on it. Sinkiang is tough to garrison if Japan takes China heavily, how many starting pieces do you commit to this? Typically, I’ll keep Sink as a deadzone rather than defend it. I wouldn’t say the transport is mandatory to kill, it’s something I think I’d skip if I countered Egypt.

I dedicate 2 Kazak, 2 Novocibirsk plus the 2 americans. I m not letting that territory, I m not going to allow Japanese forces on the back of the Cremlin without putting their determination to the test!

Goal two, beef up the USN after Pearl Harbor. Attacking fleet (4 sub , 3 DD , 2 BB , 1 AC but since 2 fgt+1 BB survived, cost=82 , 42 from USA1 and 40 from USA2).
Pearl Harbor took place Dec 7, 1941, this game begins Spring of 1942. Just my pet peeve. If you want to go that route, the US needs more of a defensive fleet because their first objective is to advance, probably to the Solomons then to capture an island. What is important is their defensive strength.

You know of what I speak :-) . J1 is always a strike against the carrier and submarine in Hawaii…
Let me explain my strategy to you: I build a mixed-to-attaking fleet, but I make sure I am not attaked. I do this by placing (and potentially sacrificing) a DD between my fleet and the Japanese, so that they cannot reach my fleet from any route. And when I am up for the task, I attak 8-).

Goal three, engage the Japanese!!! Land Bomber to Haway in order to assist your attack. Don t let the Japanese attack you, use a DD as “shield” in front of your fleet and hit the japanese by turn 4 or 5.
Landing the bomber on Hawaii might not be a good idea. Depending on how Japan played the first turn, Japan could take Hawaii, kill the bomber, and hold that seazone on J2.

I land the bomber to Hawaii when I am ready to attak the Japanese, by US4-5.

Balkan express:
Balkans is a key territory, you simultaneously threaten Germany and SEur. It is going to be impossible to do, but this must be the Russian goal.
Balkans is almost always impossible to reach, at first I didn’t see you say how impossible it is. More likely, if Russia makes it that far, they will be in Eastern Europe supporting the UK and possibly US.

Sure, but my goal is SEur and I cannot threaten SEur from EastEur. Depending on the game,if the British manage to set foot on EasEur, the Russians should garisson them, definitely.

Liberate colonies:
Not only you regain valuable IPC, but after liberating India you can begin to seriously cripple Japan in continental Asia. Goal is to reach French indochina. Leave Shangai for USA and Manchuria for USSR smiley
As the Allies, one of my top priorities is control over Africa. Then one Africa is secure, I send my units to the Middle East. Pushing Japan out of India mid game isn’t something you can count on. Holding Persia is hard enough. Allies have to have won if they can push Japan out of Asia without losing Russia and/or Africa.

My US strategy to push hard on Japan from Day One results the Japanese to be thin on continental Asia and India, so a British army that crosses Suez can easily reach FrenchIndChin and liberate China. This is an advantage of a US Pacific Agression, which I consider conditio sine qua non for an Allied victory.
Maybe this KGF side-effect that leaves Japan unchallenged is why everybody thinks AA42 is Axis slanted. I never lost as Allies and I always hunt down the Japs in the Pacific, while totally ignoring the european theater.

South Pasific:
Go for borneo and put an IC there. Japan will take a defencive stance inevitably.
Yep, an island complex is my goal in a Pacific game too. East Indies and Philippines aren’t bad locations either, depends on the game.

Agreed. I prefer Borneo cause I want to be one round away from Japan. I keep an invasion force at bay, just in case I see an opening.

Are you up for a game of 42? If you haven’t done a Play by Forum game before, I can help you. I want to see you put some of this into practice if you’re Allies or to give you a different take on how to play them if I’m Allies. I’d take either side or we can play two games and switch sides.

Sounds cool! I don t know what that is though. Does this necessitate I must have AA42 set up on my living room for months? Not an option, I will end up with pointy submarines stuck in my eyes. But if not, I m definitely up for.

[77stranger77]

I’ll send you a PM about a game.

The reason that I’m opposed to Russia leaving anything more than 1 infantry in Karelia is that anything left there should die. What are you leaving there? Germany can send 9 infantry, 6 tanks, plus planes at their discretion(assuming West Russia was the only R1 attack). Any Soviet unit left there R1 is destined to be killed.

If the deadzone concept is new to you, it’s vital knowledge for any player especially when playing Russia and Germany. This paper was for Classic but the idea holds. The author is a little crazy but he’s right about deadzones. It’s long so definitely skim. http://donsessays.freeservers.com/deadzone.htm

[Granada]

Well, I have just played 2games of AA42. One with my sons yesterday on the deluxe map i downloaded here (the tiny map is just not working, it is like playing chess on an euro coin) and one just now on Triple A. The first one i have won for allies after epic battles and 14 hours of play with Japs taking moscow the same round brits took berlin. Then combined US/UK troops pushed the mighty japs back.

Today I have played in a tripleA one game for axis and won against a decent opponent in 3R with Germany controlling all of the original terriotires, kar, arch, AE, and four other afr. teritories, TJ and stacked in bel.

Jap was in ind, pers, austr, bur, sink.

I had 92 IPCs production and my opponent resigned just before his american third move. He could have played some more but it did not look nice for him.

It is true that in the first game I had some outragousely very bad dice rolls, while in the second game i had some favourable ones (but nothing outrageous). Still it seems to me that compared to the revised the rule changes substantially and quite oviously favour AXIS, at least in a classic KGF game.

If ruskies don’t do Nor (and to be sure of taking it, they must sacrifice there one of their so precious figs), Germany can take all UK boats but the SZ1 tran out of Atlantic R1 and with a sub move to SZ7 even prevent UK from putting anything on sea R1. Isn’t that crazy?

The Nor move would also mean Rus not doing Ukr R1 with a harsh pressure developed on cau from the very R1.

the trannies not having any defensive power give axis too much advantage i think. Because japs need them mostly only in their very own sea while the allies really need to do some difficult shuffles to be effective in Atlantic. It seems to me that for the game to be fair the trannies should have some minimal inherent defence like rolling two dice with both combined having to roll on less then three for a hit.

I do not see how the allied startegy outlined above is dealing with the substantial shift of the balance of the sea battles in favour of axis and i tend to agree with the comments posted by funcioneta. In a typical sea battle in revised the D-count and D-punch was 3-4 higher (trannies) then it is now, which can be on its own equal to the bid of 10 or more.

The one thing i am inclined not to agree with funcioneta yet though is that a KJF strategy is an obvious dead end. Actually, it might be true that the changes playing against the allies in the Atlantic might play for them in a carefully executed Contain Jap first strategy that would possibly include an Australian IC with the goal of getting the US to set up at one of the big 4 point islands as soon as possible.

[Hobbes]

@Advosan:

Pin down Japan:
Goal one, stay at 40 IPC for as much as possible. Russia must garisson Zingiang, at least for 3 rounds! For the love of Stalin’s mustache they must! And the British must make a suicidal Uk1 against Japan’s soft spots, maybe land ftr in China, sink transport definitely. The USSR/Uk must buy the USA some time.
Goal two, beef up the USN after Pearl Harbor. Attacking fleet (4 sub , 3 DD , 2 BB , 1 AC but since 2 fgt+1 BB survived, cost=82 , 42 from USA1 and 40 from USA2).
Goal three, engage the Japanese!!! Land Bomber to Haway in order to assist your attack. Don t let the Japanese attack you, use a DD as “shield” in front of your fleet and hit the japanese by turn 4 or 5.

This is merely the first “phase” of the game. If the Allies endure the 4-5 first turns, then they must alter their  objectives.

Subs and planes work much better against Japan than Battleships. My tactic is to buy as many subs as possible on rounds 1-2 (plus an AC and a DD). With the 82 IPCs from both turns you can get 10 subs (60) + 1 AC (14) + 1 DD (8), also move the DD and the CA from the Atlantic.
What I do is to move 1 sub to each SZ in range of Japan. This will leave J with 2 options: ignore the subs but they will have to concentrate their fleet to defend it; attack the subs but for each attack they will require a DD. If J destroys the sub then the US can attack the J DD with another sub and planes. This will represent a drain on J’s resources (trading a 8 IPC unit to a 6 IPC one).
Another thing you may want to consider is to submerge the US sub on the Hawaiian SZ during the Japanese attack since it will only defend at 1. Then on US1 you can use it, together with the BB, BMR and 2 FTRs to attack J’s fleet on Hawaii.

[77stranger77]

@Granada:

Still it seems to me that compared to the revised the rule changes substantially and quite oviously favour AXIS, at least in a classic KGF game.

I’m not certain on game balance having only played two decent length games. Germany is weaker in Africa, Allies are weaker in the Atlantic. Germany is also weaker in Europe because they’ll lose a lot more fighters as compared to Revised. Russia attacks Ukraine r1. Germany’s down to 5 fighters. Germany loses a sub and fighter against the British Battleship. Over half the time, Germany loses a fighter against the cruiser. Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany and they have to lose a fighter to close the Suez Canal. It would be typical to see Germany down to just 3 fighters and a bomber by the end of their turn. You can see how I played the Allies in a LL game I attached to demonstrate a KGF. You’ll need the previous version of TripleA.

@Granada:

If ruskies don’t do Nor (and to be sure of taking it, they must sacrifice there one of their so precious figs), Germany can take all UK boats but the SZ1 tran out of Atlantic R1 and with a sub move to SZ7 even prevent UK from putting anything on sea R1. Isn’t that crazy?

Losing the Battleship is probably a lesser evil than Russia having to take Norway and potentially sacrificing a fighter. My PBEM opponent has been experimenting with German bomber buys and he concluded that Germany needed to buy 2 bombers and lose only one fighter in their G1 attacks to prevent the Allies from merging in z8. Yes, this is accounting for the escaping Baltic subs. Unless the Germans build bombers, the Allies can take z8. If the Germans do build bombers, then the British retreat their Canadian transport to US waters, save their money and build fleet next turn and Germany is short on infantry against the Soviets.

@Granada:

I do not see how the allied startegy outlined above is dealing with the substantial shift of the balance of the sea battles in favour of axis and i tend to agree with the comments posted by funcioneta. In a typical sea battle in revised the D-count and D-punch was 3-4 higher (trannies) then it is now, which can be on its own equal to the bid of 10 or more.

In my opinion, the Allies can’t be given a bid greater than 5 if at all(unless you limit one unit per territory but I’m still not convinced it’s needed). With a bid of 10 as you suggested, I could bid 2 inf to Egypt and an artillery to Caucuses. With a bid of 10-11(depending on bid rules like one per territory), I can set Russia up to deliver a Russian triple, knocking out Norway, West Russia, and Ukraine first turn. With a bid of 8, I can give the UK a destroyer in z2 which makes the battle a lot closer, or in z1 so that the German subs can’t escape to z7 and menace the Allies merging in z8.

Sample KGF 42.tsvg

[Granada]

@Fleetwood:

I’m not certain on game balance having only played two decent length games. Germany is weaker in Africa, Allies are weaker in the Atlantic. Germany is also weaker in Europe because they’ll lose a lot more fighters as compared to Revised. Russia attacks Ukraine r1. Germany’s down to 5 fighters. Germany loses a sub and fighter against the British Battleship. Over half the time, Germany loses a fighter against the cruiser. Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany and they have to lose a fighter to close the Suez Canal. It would be typical to see Germany down to just 3 fighters and a bomber by the end of their turn.

Losing the Battleship is probably a lesser evil than Russia having to take Norway and potentially sacrificing a fighter. My PBEM opponent has been experimenting with German bomber buys and he concluded that Germany needed to buy 2 bombers and lose only one fighter in their G1 attacks to prevent the Allies from merging in z8. Yes, this is accounting for the escaping Baltic subs. Unless the Germans build bombers, the Allies can take z8. If the Germans do build bombers, then the British retreat their Canadian transport to US waters, save their money and build fleet next turn and Germany is short on infantry against the Soviets.

Well, I cannot tell, neither, having played also only two games. And I am still quite new so you must be much more experienced player. But in most games I have played or tested in Triple A, Germany was not under four figs and a bomber R1. As you say “Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany”, but Maybe it will not. So typically, when G is doing Ukraine, British BB, AE, and the SZ 13 cruiser, one of the battles goes really bad. You are less then 50 % losing a fig against the BB (precisely 4/9th, unless the russian sub hits), you have definitely less then 25 % losing the fig at AE, you have less then 10 % losing the one at ukr (only a fanatic would push the attack if it does not look well after the first round of rolls), and you have just 50 % losing the one against cr in SZ 13. This I think gives you definitey more then 50 % germany is with 4 figs after R1, but i have not done the precise maths.

I cannot see Germany weaker in Africa either. Is it the russian black sea sub R1 or the Bomber and fighter UK R1 gamble on the batlleship that makes them weaker or what? Let us not forget that both moves are not without a price in that they leave Japan virtually uncontested from R1 which may prove lethal R7 in Moscow.

Now, if I would buy one Bmb, 3arm, 4tnk R1, and atack the SZ 8 with 3figs, 2 bmbs and 2 subs R2 if the allies really dare to set up there, I would be very happy Germany player indeed. Against AC, dd, cr and 2 figs (assuming UK has not lost one sinking my dd) i would have 2 subs, 3 figs and a bmb and it gives me 94 % win, with 3,26 units left (if i have only 2figs and 2 bmbs as you suggest, it gives me 76 % a 2 units alive). In case you have build AC and 2DD UK R1, the math is 78%, 2,25 units with 3fig/ 50% 1,05 units left with 2figs.

Since I would keep building a bomb or a fig a round, the danger would be omnipresent, while allies have lost 100+ IPCs worth of units on the sea and i would be in a position of sinking them once again while japan would be expanding fast, germany would be gaining in africa and keeping balance in the east front with ease.

With Allies not being able to set their foot on European soil before R4-5 and threaten Germany itself effectively before R8-9, with Germany being able to sacrifice their planes for the more dangerous of the convoys for at least one more time and with Japan taking on Moscow R7 with about 18 tanks lots of planes and enough infantry to have a good skew, i cannot really see succesful KGF without extremely lucky dice rolls.

It seems to me that not giving the trannies any minimal defensive power (like 3 or less from two dice rolls) was really a mistake that makes it almost impossible for the allies to set up the convoys in time against a skillful axis player.