I always liked this wall of text by Bunnies. It gives an overview of the first turns for both sides in a KGF kind of game. Perhaps you will find it useful.
Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.
Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can’t hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?
I am thinking about this for my next game…
Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard.
Carrier destroys transport.
Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense.
US factory in Sianking.
In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.
Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.
It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?
In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.
Varn, you’re turning into a guru/master. I’ve followed your games with Flip, you remind me of the borg with your ability to adapt, well done. Hopefully once the drywall dust and paint settles from the home renovation and the insurance company has their fill with sending me to be poked and prodded by doctors I will get on tripleA and face your wrath! Merry Christmas!
Tnx for the tips. I have already considering the tech developments. But the other senarios and the national advantages seem great to. Maybe i will try them in the future.
I would not add all of the extras at once. Maybe do tech development for a few games then add in a couple of the National Advantages then later after a few more games add in the National Objectives.
For the NAs we roll a couple of dice and the numbers that come up are the ones we use. If we roll doubles then we just re-roll one of the die to get a different number. Look at this for an idea on how to use the advantages: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/axis This is the rule book for the Revised version which is the one that 1942 replaced so the NAs are a little different. Look at page # 35 for appendix 3: Option Rules just for some ideas on how to pick which ones to use.
Enjoy AA42. It is a fun game.
I see your point. Doing risky battles can make for a less interesting game. Still though, from a purely strategical viewpoint, it is the best move, and if I were to play in a tournament, I would probably use it most games. I would probably use it if R1 went really bad for Germany to try to turn it back around. If I lost both battles as the allies, I wouldn’t quit yet, unless R1 went badly too. It might cause me to do a US Pacific strategy though. Remember last game we played. I lost both Mediterranean battles G1 and still won (by a fluke I admit, but I think I would have had a chance if you had diverted sufficient Russian troops to hold Karelia.