• Does anyone think any of these (Kill Japan First, Kill Germany First, Kill Italy First) are feasible in Global? As in, have the Allies concentrate almost all of their efforts on killing on one Axis country, and more or less ignore the other ones?


  • Depends on what you mean by viable. If by that you mean can you win then possibly but it makes for a boring game and is a less reliable way to win than finding a balanced strategy.


  • In my game, if USA does a Kill Europe First, and ignores Japan, then Japan gets too powerful.  My japan now has India, Anzac, most of china, and in 3 turns can take Russia if Italy doesn’t do it first. I’d play balanced. Send bombers east and west to support the other allies?


  • make subs and bb in pacific and trans+inf and bombers atlantic


  • IF Germany goes butting its head against a prepared enemy and spends 100% of its first 3 turns of IPCs on Sea Lion then Germany has a real difficult time with a dedicated American effort to retake England or take Rome / Berlin.


  • I have to do a SUF (save UK first)  😄

    For the rest it kinda depends on the moves of the Axis (and of any mistakes made or attacks gone very wrong…), looking for their weak spots. Then decide and try to stick to the plan.


  • US 1, I place my builds in the Atlantic usually enough transports and one DD to take every ground unit from the continental US to the European theatre.

    I consolidate my Pacific navy and poise them of Hawaii with all of my fighters and bombers there plus the AA gun from San Fran.

    US 2  Build a CV, transports loaded with all Inf (total cost of 13 ipcs per) and 1 sub for pacific.


  • With the introduction of Declaration of War rules in the game now and Russia and USA having to wait several turns to begin combat if the Axis don’t strike first, the Allies strategy becomes even more difficult to maintain.  You can’t ignore a theater of war just to crush one Axis player first because then the other side of the board gets too out of hand.  To quote someone back in the AAE50 days, you can do a KFG/KIF but you must also “contain Japan”.  Germany and Italy are a more logical choice with 3 powerhouses versus 2, where as Japan is going against 2 weak factions, a semi strong faction (India) and the powerhouse of America.  Russia is so far away that only minor forces can get to the front in time to have an impact, even less so if Germany/Italy attack them sooner.  I tend to agree with the cheaper unit buys being sent to the Pacific to take on the more expensive units of Japan but that is just me.


  • Played 2 games of Global this weekend. I was allies both games, both games saw a J1 attack. Saturday KJF took 11 hours and the allies won. Sunday saw 5 game turns take 8 hours with a KGF approach, it might have leaned allies as Japan still had a few more rounds to take India and could not touch Hawaii and Sydney.

    First off, I will never play KJF again….very scary, took a lot longer. We traded Moscow for a Japan at zero IPCS, no Navy and maybe 16 planes with 25-30 infantry on Japan. They were done, and we had 12 allied subs in theater. Then went after Germany, who could not outproduce the US and had to defend all of Moscow, Berlin, and Rome from UK India at 23 IPCs, China at 29 {joking I realize they can’t leave their cage for Moscow}, US at 87, Germany at 83, Italy at 18, London at 31, USSR and France and Japan at zero. Both UKs and half of US income was in MiddleEast/Korea with the rest of the US money in the Atlantic. Russia fell because of a decision to secure Norway which took Germany 6 turns to liberate as they had no fleet. This kept Germany with no NO’s and around 40 IPCs however French Plunder and 3 turns of armor, gave him 8 more units then Moscow, had I sent Indian planes besides the London ones, or not secured Norway with 10 units, I would have held a turn or 2 longer. Had he used the USSR plunder to go Sea lion, he would have overcame my 20 unit head start eventually. Instead he sent 30 armor east to try and help a Japanese factory and 20 piece stack that was no longer getting money (5-7 IPCs a turn). The armor butted up against Chinese units and the factory fell to US forces from Korea.

    Kill Europe first only had 5 turns to develop, was very scary as Germany built up. I spent 27 IPCs in Pacific,[sub,dd,trn,2 inf] and rest in Europe. Took Norway turn 4, had Russia hit germany’s fleet with 2 fighters 3 tacs and 1 bb. Then after German carrier fell (aborted G1 sea lion build) retreated with 1 fighter,3 tac. Had a US dd and 3 bombers kill the German BB and 3 transports. Built the Norway US Major factory US5. Since I was attacking Norway turn 4, I reversed my Atlantic fleet off Washington to West coast sz11 and built 84 plus 57 IPCs in Pacific US 4 and 5 (as I needed 30 for the Major factory and had enough transports in Europe that the other ships [usa3 build] weren’t needed and went to Pacific.) This instant fleet forced Japan to build navy while they were still going for India and forced them to cancel an Australia staging invasion fleet in Caroline. Russia moved into Germany turn 4 and since a lucky roll 3/3 infantry hit was able to hold Romania move in and make a Major factory there turn 5. With Europe Contained, UK kept trading units with Germany and Russia and US began a mid game focus on Japan.

    Game ended turn 5 no decision and I am playing a few more “what if” rounds to see who would win. I had staged 7 transports and 16 units in Hawaii before the fleet builds and turn around, which meant 4 carriers, 9 loaded transports, 9 DD, and 6 subs.

    Productions were Germany 23-25, London 20-25 based on landings in Europe. India 4, USSR 49, USA 90, Japan 73 (no v cities bonuses), China 6(with 17 USSR inf, 8 arm, 2 mech and following inf/art builds) and Anzac at 6. France at 0.

    Summary, Europe first is easier then Japan first…in terms of number of game rounds to have a decision.


  • To reiterate slightly, I have always found that as the allies when I have tried balanced strategies they tend to be longer games but the chances of success to not come down to a couple lucky battles as K-1-player-1st strategies always seem to. I will always play a balanced strategy as any player before going all out on one.


  • I am start learning with Amercia what to do in the Pacific.  I am not sure how much fleet to build because the Japan airforce might waste my fleet if I do not build a sizeable fleet before launching.


  • @Chompers#2:

    I am start learning with Amercia what to do in the Pacific.  I am not sure how much fleet to build because the Japan airforce might waste my fleet if I do not build a sizeable fleet before launching.

    Try to keep it out of range of Japan’s airforce. It isn’t too hard since it’ll be mostly in Kwangsi while your fleet will be in zones 26 and 54


  • I guess I was trying to think of ways to get America involved on mainland Asia but the just might not be realistic.


  • @Chompers#2:

    I guess I was trying to think of ways to get America involved on mainland Asia but the just might not be realistic.

    Well the quickest way to do that is with planes. Getting land units there means you have an unhampered naval route to China, which means you’re already winning, or you take 15 turns walking there from Africa


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Chompers#2:

    I guess I was trying to think of ways to get America involved on mainland Asia but the just might not be realistic.

    Well the quickest way to do that is with planes. Getting land units there means you have an unhampered naval route to China, which means you’re already winning, or you take 15 turns walking there from Africa

    agreed. Your money will is better spend taking back Japanese occupied islands

  • TripleA

    @hewhoisnickel:

    Does anyone think any of these (Kill Japan First, Kill Germany First, Kill Italy First) are feasible in Global? As in, have the Allies concentrate almost all of their efforts on killing on one Axis country, and more or less ignore the other ones?

    i still think the best way to win is to go kjf/kgf/kif as opposed to a balanced strategy. usa has such a large income that it is very difficult for one axis power to bear the brunt of usas full force.


  • While I still don’t have enough experience to say whether or not it is effective, I think that a KGF/KIF/KJF would ruin the game in terms of fun, just like a J3 India Crush in Pacific '40.


  • I don’t know how many of you play games out to the bitter end, but either on Triple A or in person, I tend to fight until the game actually ends.  I have a very good grasp of “make them pay for every inch of ground” and solid defensive strategy against all odds.  In AA50, I could almost promise my side victory if I was Germany/Japan and the allies tried to “Kill me first”  and payed no attention to the other theater and the other axis player played well.  In this game it seems to be even more the case.  If you have a solid defensive/losing game down then you can buy your team more than enough time to run rampant and show the allies the error of their ways.  In a huge game like this, you can definately focus on either Europe or the Pacifc, just like in the real war, but you definately need to actually put money and effort into containing the theater you’re choosing to ignore.  A balanced approach requires you to rely on skill instead of luck.  While fortune may favour the bold, chance and luck favour the prepared.

  • TripleA

    @kungfujew:

    In AA50, I could almost promise my side victory if I was Germany/Japan and the allies tried to “Kill me first”  and payed no attention to the other theater and the other axis player played well.  In this game it seems to be even more the case.

    kgf/kjf does not mean that you do not pay attention to one theater it means most of your income is destined to one destination. with the way the game mechanics are and have always been, a one theatre focus remains the best option for allied victory.

    @kungfujew:

    In a huge game like this, you can definately focus on either Europe or the Pacifc, just like in the real war, but you definately need to actually put money and effort into containing the theater you’re choosing to ignore.

    i agree you can not ignore one theater but i believe you can invest a small percentage of income to one theater.

    @kungfujew:

    A balanced approach requires you to rely on skill instead of luck.

    every approach requires you to rely on skill. but luck always has the last say.


  • I am having a good game against the allies as they have been splitting their points in the Alantic and Pacific.  That being said I don’t know how I could have stopped them had the gone all in the Alantic.  I seems to me Germany and Italy need time to prepare for that sort of thing.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 7
  • 12
  • 16
  • 29
  • 10
  • 26
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts