Buy 3 Carriers with the USA in the 1st RD if you are planning on going after Japan. Then buy 3 fighters in RD2 so that you have 6 fighters on the carriers (very strong defense, & mobile). USA buys 5 subs & a transport in RD3 and then leaves port… The whole point to this is that you slow down Japan by forcing it to buy boats to protect it’s fleet. The USA can reach Japans seaszone with 6 planes from the USA coast… landing back on the carriers in the seaszone next door.
That gives a lot of time for Japan to prepare for the US fleet. US strikes Solomon at RD4 and will only be in position to hit DEI/Borneo on Rd5.
If the US moves its fleet to either island then the US will have: 3 ACs, 6 ftrs, 1 BB, 1 DD and 6 submarines, possibly 1 cruiser from the East coast. Japan will have 2 ACs, 6 ftrs, 1 bomber, 2 BBs + 1 DD and whatever it buys on rounds 2 to 5. If Japan just adds 3 subs to its fleet then the odds are 64% for winning if attacking the US on Borneo or the DEI.
The US needs to be able to take Solomons on US2 and for the Japanese planes to be out of reach of SZ45 (to prevent an air counterattack on the US fleet). If you take the 2nd buy I mentioned then the US will have 1 AC, 1 BB, 2 DDs (1 DD moves to SZ51 to block any Japanese ships on SZ60 from reaching SZ45) and 2 fighters. If Japan has only 5 planes that can reach SZ45 then US forces on SZ45 have a 73% chance of defending it.
Personally i think the US needs to buy a complex on sinkiang if they are trying to build a fleet against Japan… they have the money to produce some units out of that complex and build a fleet to make japan divide its forces… with russia and UK backing up the US complex to make it a threat to Japan
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
KJF works well… as long as the allies can contain germany. Ive played a few games that the Russia and USA made enough money from hammering Japan ( Manchuria, Kwangtung, French indo) And UK Holding most of Africa and making up for it by holding borneo. Germany couldnt get farther than Ukraine and Belo Russia. It depends on a few things of course… but its very possible especially in the 1942 board
If you want to try something completely different, I remember that the Caspian Sub proposed to build an IC in Alaska to build 2 BB’s out every round. Since BB’s are a bit cheaper, this might still be an interesting idea. The funny thing is, if Japan’s fleet is within reach, and it is only a little larger than the USA one (which contains at least 5 BB’s), USA can decide to attack the Japanese fleet, only to retreat when all the free hits of the BB’s have been used. This way, USA can nibble away at the Japanese fleet at no cost. This only works once though :-D
The point of the Alaska IC is that it can reach the Japanese Outer Sea, severely limiting the Japanese building and mobility options (taking the strafe tactic into account).
with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
If you are playing against an Axis player who knows what he is doing and axis get average rolls for the first turn then KFG is the best strategy. But sometimes the player taking Germany goes completely on defensive against a possible KGF right from the start and that can give enough time for the Allies to reduce Japan before Russia falls.
On Classic KFJ it is nuts to use. On Revised it is barely better. But on 1942 there are a few new factors coming from the new unit rules that help out the Allies: the inability for the Japanese transports to be used as fodder and the new submarine rules.
with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…
Alaska complex costs 15, is cheaper than ONE BB. The next turn, it allows you to build TWO BB’s each turn. Skipping the IC will give you 3 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, and 2 you built in turn 1 in Western US), building the IC will give you 4 BB in Alaska by turn 2 (1 from the start, 1 built in turn 1 in Western US, 2 built in turn 2 in Alaska). Who’s threatening Japan faster?
Edit: I’m not saying this is ideal, but considering aggressiveness, it’s faster with the IC. Hell, it’s just a fun strat, it’s not trying to break the game, just providing a fun alternative to KGF or sub+ftr war in the Pacific.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Has anyone tried the ‘traditional’ KJF strat of using an India factory in conjunction with the USA offensive?
Or alternatively, there is another risky option…build in both SAF and India on UK1, and then use those factories in conjunction with air power built in UK to secure the colonies… The drawback to this is it leaves Germany unopposed in the North Atlantic so they can tank rush Russia no problem.
2 IC’s for UK? After G1, the only naval unit they have is the Z1 transport, which will get killed by the German SS’s once they move to Z7. The India IC will fall to Japan
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
If Russia is busy defending India, what’s stopping Germany from killing Russia?
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians. Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese. In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.
Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea. But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.
Russia doesnt need to defend india for this to work… but it is a bit riskier than other strategies… it all depends on the prior moves, wether or not germany takes Egypt (if they dont you possibly got another fighter)
also Uk could possible buy the India IC in the 2nd round again depending on the moves
I agree with Calvin. You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them. At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.
Sometimes as the allies all you need do is make the game last longer than 6 rounds. usually the allies have a better chance of winning in longer games
So you are proposing 1 bb 1C, followed by 2 bb on turn 2. So you’ve got 3 bb sitting up in alaska…well, that force won’t fare too well if the Jap fleet attacks. The Japs can deadzone that sea zone pretty effectively and you would need 2 dd blockers to stop em.
Japan keeps its fleet in Japan? Then the complex has proven its worth… Apart from that, you don’t have to buy it on A1, I was just giving an example how with IC could be faster than without. If you buy it at the right time, when you know Japan doesn’t want to / isn’t able to prevent you building 2 BB’s next turn there, then it’s a good idea, because you get 1 extra BB threatening Japanese waters. Ofcourse, the BB-strafing idea doesn’t need the IC, but it can be a boost at the right moment.
I can’t get behind the Alaska IC idea–too inefficient.
Lol, the hole Alaska-IC + BB’s isn’t about being efficient, it’s about a cool game. If you want efficiency, go KGF :roll:
One house rule I play with is Colonial Empire. Basically, on the first turn only, Britian can build an industrial Complex in one spot for the cost of 10 IPCs that can produce it’s units immediately that turn on these territories–
India
South Africa
Australia
Eastern Canada
Maybe it’s unbalanced, but Britain is in a position to be immediately screwed by Germany in Africa and Japan in Asia/Australia.
This would help the USA by making it easier for Britain to defend a front, leaving the US capable to fight on the other Theater or double efforts on that front.
Thoughts?
My thoughts are that it is over powered. You could establish quickly and easily a foothold in both areas. It would make taking Africa or India a hard task for the axis and most likely costly if they do take it. I feel it would give the Allies a noticeable advantage.
I agree with Concealer. Allies already have a noticeable advantage in 1942 economically and the only way for the Axis to make up that is to be able to take Africa (with either Germany from the North or Japan from the East or both). If you allow UK to get an advantage like that it will allow the Allies to focus completely on (1) hammering Europe and (2) reinforcing the Soviets. 1 means that Germany gets crushed quickly (as opposed to slowly as in a normal game) by the Allied boa constrictor, and 2 means that Japan is left out in the cold on the eastern side of the board.
The Axis strategy in 1942 is to either take Moscow quickly before the Allies can get the constrictor set up, or to bleed the UK dry in Africa so they have no ability to get the crush running. Either way they have to use their superior positioning and economic advantage over Russia before the greater US/UK economy can overun them, which becomes impossible if the US/UK gain better positioning from the get go and can focus completely on overunning the Axis.
Yea after 2 test games we decided to change that to only the 10 IPCs part. When I normally play the best 2 people play Axis so the Allies get beaten up pretty badly.
