New theory for Allied KGF. A possible balancer maybe? Need Logistical help.

Good post.  NWE isn’t always the way to go…sometimes it’s preferable to just hit France if France is open.  Also, bear in mind this won’t be anything new against a veteran…it’s not always worth it to land NWE if you are going to get slammed.

Whenever possible, the Russians can handle Scandanavia in a KGF, but sometimes UK has to hit Norway.  It’s variable.

If plausible, it’s nice for UK to get down to 12 early, putting max pressure on Italy.  Now Axis has to defend both France and Italy which leaves less forces to press Russia.  If Italy is keeping a large stack on Italy…well they can’t attack NWE when UK lands there.

Efficient purchasing is critical.  The window of opportunity is small so Allies must bring maximum pressure to bear while they can.

It’s hard to come up with any set formula given the variability of this compared to Revised. The best units are transports, ACs, fighters, infantry, armor.

Good Idea Gargantua, and this has been one of my complaints for a while, too many people just threw their hands up over Allied strategy development early on and stated looking at fixes instead of strategies.

I am not that good of a KGF guy I will admit that. One possible problem I see with this is that the initial US units in the Pacific are not enough to contend with Japan. If Japan is ignored the Allies capturing Germany may not be enough, I have seen that happen. With that said maybe the US should commit some forces to the Pacific to keep Japan honest.

Also what is happening with Africa with this concentration on NW. Europe. Yes I see you calling for a US take down of the Italians but what about Japan? I would assume a smart Japanese player would start nibbling at Africa due to a US Pacific presence that would preclude an easy “Polar Express” approach that would tie up US units bound for Europe.

Please note that I am not trashing this strategy as I really hate when people do that here and rarely share strategies because it seems all you get in response is  “that will never work blah, blah, blah”. It is amusing that people will buts their butts here to denigrate any strategy presented no matter how sound it may be but will never offer any helpful criticisms or suggestions. I was merely pointing out some issues that may need to be addressed.

As far as the IPC questions, with Japan holding Kwangtung, Burma, Borneo, E. Indies and Australia the UK is at 30 IPCs without any NOs figured in. I think it would be safe to figure that the UK would probably be somewhere in the 30s under this strat. What they gain in Scandinavia would probably be offset with additional losses in SW. Asia or Africa. The NOs could also very so I would figure anywhere between 30 and 40. The US is simple without loosing their Pacific NO they will should have Algeria and Libya this gives the US 50 IPCs a turn. If they loose the Pacific NO they also will most likely loose Hawaii so that would be 44 IPCs. I think most of us here would agree that the UK can do quite well with around 30 or more to spend a turn and the income for US is about normal or slightly higher depending on what they may get in Europe (NW, Europe for 2 for example).

Good Thread G. We need to think about what the Allies CAN do in AA50 and quit focusing on what the Axis can do.

A key to this idea is an agressive Russia.

Keep Germany from advancing as much as possible.
The best way to do this?

Allied ftrs!

In 1941, unlike any previous version (or even 1942), Russia goes AFTER Germany, instead of before.
What used to be the best way to control the japanese in previous versions (USA and/or russia advances, UK covers with units and/or ftrs) is now the best way to control Germany in 1941.

Forgo the $5 Russia NO, that’s a pittance compared to the position Russia can maintain against Germany.  Advance on Germany (or hold your key position) with allied ftrs.  This works well in conjunction with the massive NWE dump idea since the USA ftrs are in range of the NWE dump.

I think keeping the US capitol ships in SZ12 may be better with US transports operating out of SZ12 and SZ7 with the UK in SZ7. Yes the UK would have to move down to SZ7 after taking Scandinavia but that should not be a problem. By doing this the US maintains the threat of an invasion on Italy and if forces are needed in Africa the US can just not shuck from Algeria to NW. Europe.

What experience do you guys have with reversing the US/UK targets?  As in UK going after Africa and the US going after Norway in order to build an IC there.

@Gargantua:

EXCELLENT suggestion with the fgt support.

Where would we localize the fgts in Russia? So they are actually effective? No sense putting them in Russia if they aren’t staving off an Axis offensive?  KAR I suppose?   EPL if you have an agressive Russia?

If Russia can stay in Karelia G2, then I would not get all tanks R1.  4 inf, 2 art 2 tanks is good (art in Karelia)

@Gargantua:

And what does it take to make Russia Agressive?  A solid 6 armor build R1?  R2 all Armor again?  That would make hell for the germans early… We’ve got to figure out how to make this work cohesively together.  Get a script going for purchases.  List Objectives for each country to aim for.  What places to hold etc.  How to prep for coming Japs whilst pulling out Italian and German teeth as quickly as possible.

Hard to make such generalities because Germany can push hard into BST G1 or ukraine G1.  Also, what did Germany buy?  If G1 buy is agressive, a move into BST or EPL might be a trap.  It’s all a fine balance.

I will say I prefer tanks early with Russia because of their range.

In this particular strategy I’m not completely sold on the idea of sending Allied fighters to Russia.

We really need all the Allied fighters (esp. US I guess) we can muster to hold NWE after the landing. I’m not sure exposing them to danger in Russia can potentially risk the entire plan. Also stationing them in Russia will most likely make Germany less aggressive during Barbarossa, which is counter productive for the overall Allied game plan. I mean, the more German units that are stuck deep in the Russian steppes, the weaker the counter attack on NWE will be.

This might sound crazy, and I haven’t really thought it throgh, but here goes:
Assuming the western Allies are going aggressively for an early NWE landing, how about building two Russian bombers on turn one and start a strategic bombing campaign on Germany? Would the front crumble completely too fast? Note that the bombers can also be used for swapping territories when (not if) the front gets too close to Moscow. Again the key objective is to get an allied foothold in the western continental europe (NWR or France that is). I’m thinking bombers are probably the best way the Russians can support this plan. At least they are more flexible and less all-in than a reverse PQ17 operation :) Russian transports going out from Karelia to backstab the Germans, heh :roll:

@ozimek1:

In this particular strategy I’m not completely sold on the idea of sending Allied fighters to Russia.

We really need all the Allied fighters (esp. US I guess) we can muster to hold NWE after the landing. I’m not sure exposing them to danger in Russia can potentially risk the entire plan. Also stationing them in Russia will most likely make Germany less aggressive during Barbarossa, which is counter productive for the overall Allied game plan. I mean, the more German units that are stuck deep in the Russian steppes, the weaker the counter attack on NWE will be.

you’re implying a sucker move… bring in the Germans too far to get back to NWE.
I contend that would allow Germany too much money to fight with.
also, Germany may not fall full force into that trap

Recall the ftrs need to be in range of the key NWE.  Only Caucasus based ftrs can not reach there.

@ozimek1:

This might sound crazy, and I haven’t really thought it throgh, but here goes:

yep, that’s crazy.

@ozimek1:

Assuming the western Allies are going aggressively for an early NWE landing, how about building two Russian bombers on turn one and start a strategic bombing campaign on Germany?

I would never risk Russian bombers on SBRs.

@ozimek1:

Would the front crumble completely too fast?

most likely.  2 bombers = 8 inf.
Lots of units to be short against Germany

Hi all,

I have been thinking similar thoughts about UK being agressive and disrupting the flow of troops to the Eastern front. I think Northern Europe is an excellent target for a raid or even total occupation by a large force. It forces Germany to react by attacking West instead of Eastwards.

I think this strategy would work well in conjunction with other Allied moves. Specifically mopping up scandinavia and aggressive US moves in Africa.

I think the combination of distracting Germany and strangling Italy will allow a better Russian defence in the East.

I faced this strat at daak. I was axis and the bid was -11 (there they bid for axis, go figure), I had some bad rolls and some horrible moves and still I won. The strat has 2 problems:

• Polar Express can create havoc against this. First with small raids and later with huge forces (and still continue the advance against USSR). Simultaneously, the japs can take Africa pretty easy, specially if the italian navy escapes to Indian Ocean (good old trick from Revised)

• It’s awfully and utterly boring fighting against this and I guess that it’s even more boring playing with this as allies

Said that, this strat can catch some uncared axis player if done right, specially if USSR is very agressive. If there is a strat with some chances of allies winning without bid, this is the only strat. Gamey and boring, but has a moderate chance of winning. I’m glad I decided not playing 1941 scenario after that last game

Honestly Func, you haven’t tried to play KGF if you think its boring.  It’s true it would be boring if the Allied opponent simply regurgitated Revised strategies, but that’s not how you play KGF in 41–KGF in 41 requires aggression and timing and closely coordinated attacking.

It’s true that KGF is harder for the Axis to play against, because Axis has to think hard to anticipate the 1-2-3 attacks and coordinated movements.  But I don’t mind the challenge…it’s more interesting to fight a KGF then to win an inevitable economic victory or quickly stomp Russia if the Allies divide their focus.

What I can say with certainty is its lots of fun to be Allies when executing a KGF strategy, especially the sort of aggressive KGF strategy that Gargantua is talking about above.   It’s more exciting to be Allies in AA50 then in any previous version of AA, partially due to the challenge involved, and partially due to KGF being much more exciting and diverse with the inclusion of Italy.