• Something very interesting that I’ve seen on KGF scenarios: in one sentence, Germany gets shy, Russia gets kinky.

    The main scenario is KGF, middle game, the Germans/Soviets both have stacks on EEur and WRus and are trading back and forth, Germany waiting until Japan arrives and picks up the tab. Germany thinks, sure it would be nice to advance and stack Ukraine, but there the Allies are assembling their fleet and landing everywhere and so Germany doesn’t feel safe without its stack of armor around.

    Meanwhile Japan is advancing and has conquered India and has just placed an IC but since Japan is so busy sending units in all directions to Yakut, Sinkiang, Australia, Hawaii, Egypt, etc. it doesn’t have many units there. So the Soviets get kinky - they retake the European territories and send the infantry on Caucasus and their armor stack to Persia.

    Panic on the Axis. Germany immediately switches to offense and stacks Ukraine but it wasn’t thinking of doing it so early. UK takes advantage, lands and stacks W. Europe if possible, reinforced by the US while Japan is forced to stop its advance and deal with the new threat.

    The Soviets may have to pull back to Caucasus, depending if they can hold it against the German stack or can continue its path of mayhem to India, disrupting the Axis advance for a couple of rounds.

    Has anyone tried it also? I’ve won games with the Axis player conceding after the Soviets destroy a Japanese army on India and capture the IC, while the Germans are still struggling to advance. And even if you can’t get India you usually can create openings for the UK/US in other directions.


  • There’s three main scenarios that result in German capture of London.  The first is KGF when the Allies are awful.  The second is KJF when the Allies get careless (not necessarily awful, but it won’t happen twice).  The first scenario happens in a bunch of different unlikely ways.  The second scenario happens when Allies have near zero ability in Atlantic, Germany drops a load of transports and likely a carrier, then the Allies can’t blow the transport fleet or respond with enough defense in London.  The third is when the Axis have already basically won, and just need to put their booted heels on the Allies’ necks.

    Nevertheless, you don’t see people writing about Germany capturing London strategies, because it’s not normal.  It is only really possible if the Allies mess up, or if the Axis have already basically won.

    Likewise for KGF Soviets in India.  It can happen, but it shouldn’t - and if it “should”, then it’s usually because the Allies already won.

    1.  Japan gets careless, say US clears Persia followed by Soviet tanks to India.  This shouldn’t happen if Japan is remotely careful.  US/Soviet movement is an old, old trick.  For example, US attacks a territory with 1 Jap infantry on it with US infantry and US air.  If the US infantry dies, Soviets just grab the territory anyways on its turn.  Or, say Japan doesn’t see a major possible shift, in which case it’s a plain screw up.

    2.  The “normal” situation is, if the Soviets do press, they trade valuable Soviet tanks for cheap Japanese infantry, and even if they do press, stall against the Japanese advance.  It is not normal for the Soviets to be able to press on the south, and typically only happens if the Allies are pretty much winning anyways.

    3.  Japan should not be popping industrial complexes down in India unless they are properly prepared.  It will always be at least J2, usually J3, before the Japs can pop an India IC, and by that time, the German balance of power in Europe should be clear.  If Germany looks pretty weak, and the Soviets have a lot of power, then French Indochina is far better, precisely because it is less vulnerable.  (Anyways, a J2 IC usually has to go at French Indochina if the Japs want it, because every place else sucks - India too vulnerable, Manchuria and Kwangtung irrelevant.)  At any rate, again - the Japs should not lose India IC control unless they weren’t prepared in the first place, OR unless the Allies were severely winning anyways.


  • Re:  Soviet tanks - Soviet tanks are valuable precisely for their mobility, combined with chunky and exciting attack and defense power.  Infantry and artillery can’t sit and defend Caucasus and threaten Eastern Europe, Balkans, Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakh, Novosibirsk, Persia, Trans-Jordan, and India, all at the same time.  Only tanks can do that.  Players usually try to get some cheap artillery with Russia for trading, but there are real benefits to a long term strategy of building tanks.  It doesn’t look at good at first, perhaps, but the advantages quickly become far more clear, especially when you have a fat stack of Soviet tanks.  All of those territories are vital territories - either chunky income, or allow Soviets to combine with UK/US, or prevent Japanese IC function, or close Suez.  Plus, tanks can reposition quickly, as for an Allied triple attack against Moscow, or to race to the east to defend against Japanese pressure, &c &c.  “Soviet India Crush” is just one of the possible applications for tanks - unlikely, as I mentioned in a previous post, but it IS a possibility opened by using tanks instead of air/art/inf, and even when it isn’t used, it’s an option the Japs and Germans have to deal with.

    A question - do you think you would allow the Soviets to press on India, even with tanks, in a KGF?

    I say sure, because ofc you can’t really STOP them.  But then, you don’t care if the Soviets do press.  If you’re Axis, you either go with a short or a long term strategy, and either way, it’s normal that Soviet pressure vs India does not end well for the Allies.  If the Axis went short, the Soviets shouldn’t be able to without paying an immediate and nasty price.  If the Axis went long, Soviet pressure to the south stalls at the most by the time they hit French Indochina, but the Soviets should be paying in Europe anyways, and Jap slashes the Soviet pressure by J4ish at any rate.

    Regardless, the equation should always balance the same.  The Soviets can pressure the south, but they should pay, pay, pay!  Even if the Soviets don’t pay an immediate and obvious cost, payment is only deferred.  If you’re winning by a load with the Allies, sure, why not lash out at India.  But then, again, that’s when the game is won.  You can’t sustain Russian pressure against a steady Japanese feed of around 7 ground (French Indochina IC plus 2 transports from Japan) plus Jap air, unless you have Allied support, and you shouldn’t have that Allied support unless you’re already winning in Europe.


  • @Bunnies:

    Likewise for KGF Soviets in India.  It can happen, but it shouldn’t - and if it “should”, then it’s usually because the Allies already won.

    True, the scenario doesn’t appear on every game but it is something that influences general strategy once you’re aware of its impact. I remember playing a game once where I realized that my Allied opponent was good enough to notice that the Indian IC was a bit undefended so I decided to see if he took the ‘bait’ - when he did I had the Germans ready to take advantage of the move.


  • @Hobbes:

    True, the scenario doesn’t appear on every game

    It should never happen, and it would never influence general strategy on my part.

    Either you are going hard early Eurasia press with Axis, in which case the Allies diverting south is a gift to Germany.  Of course I know you’re not proposing that; you specified as much in your OP.

    Or you are going economic route via Africa/Pacific income, developing Germany and Japan income early and aiming for late game mass Jap push, and Ger and Jap air in Europe to lock Allied fleet and combine defense, in which case Allies diverting south isn’t a “gift” if the Soviets don’t overcommit, but still usually serves little point.  If you overcommit, Germans push early.  If you don’t overcommit, the Soviets should hit an absolute dead end at French Indochina.  In no event should a Jap IC be shut down early.  Later, it can be allowed even at cost of Japan IC knockout for a turn, if the Axis can cut at Persia to neutralize Soviet ability to reunify its tanks with the mass of its forces.

    In the second case in particular, Japan should be pressing on French Indochina Burma at any event, so it isn’t as if Japan has to go out of its way to stall out the Soviet advance.  It just happens completely naturally; Japan should be working towards Persia anyways.  Germany, of course, can take advantage of developing opportunities, so again nothing unnatural happens.  The Axis develop their game as normal, and don’t have to do anything in particular different.

    But look at all the good stuff the Soviets give up in Europe.  If you commit to India, you slash your ability vs Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, and even the key West Russia.  India is far far out of line.  Even Persia is usually not convenient due to Jap attack possibilities.  (If you protect Soviet tanks with infantry at Persia, that definitely leaves Germany has more room in Europe.  If you don’t protect Soviet tanks with infantry, you need a lot, which again gives Germany openings in Europe.  If you just leave a few tanks, Japan trades them off with Jap infantry.

    So I am not particularly concerned about a “Soviet India crush”.  It should never be a problem regardless of stage of the game.

    But what if? you say.  What if the Allies have contained Germany with drops to Eastern Europe, followup blitzes to continually contest Southern Europe, and Moscow is not remotely threatened?  In such a case, isn’t it a REAL threat that Soviets head south towards India?  After they grab an IC there, UK can followup immediately with production.

    Like I said, it’s not a problem regardless of stage of the game.  At that point, the game’s already BEEN over.  Similar situations generally with Germany stalling out and maybe Japan floating out to hit Alaska/Aus/Brazil late game (this should never be the case; either Axis should go late game press on Eurasia and grab those targets early/midgame - while MAINTAINING infantry feed through Buryatia and French Indochina, or they should go early game press on Eurasia and maintain pressure).  But in any event - again, by the time the Allies can make such a move in real safety with real probable gains, the game is always over, and has been for a little while.

    The only time Soviet tanks into India should really become a serious problem is with KJF variations.  Even then, I always say “You can protect Calcutta if you don’t mind losing Moscow”.

    A last comment regarding why I don’t think “Soviet India Crush” anything to be concerned with -

    For a “Soviet India Crush”, you’re looking at a situation in which the Germans are effectively held back in Europe, and not by the bulk of Russian units, because those were just sent to the south.  That is, the premise is that the Germans are already pretty much screwed.  If it were otherwise, then the Soviets couldn’t afford to shift so much stuff away from the danger zone.

    The Japs also aren’t pressing Moscow.  Again, if they were, you certainly wouldn’t bleed out to India if Japan could slam with huge numbers into Novosibirsk from Sinkiang and/or Yakut.

    There isn’t any other justification for bleeding off so much force to India, where it can’t return to the higher-value and higher-stakes European territories any time soon.

    But it goes even beyond that.  Since there isn’t much point in sending off to India if the Allies aren’t going to get some real concrete gains - you don’t send that sort of massive push somewhere just to gain a temporary 3 IPCs from India, when you could be using it to throttle Germany - it must ALSO be the case that Japan is weak in the south.

    So add it all up - Germany isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan is weak in the southern region, to the point that Russians have real threat pressure that Japan can’t easily counter.  The Axis have nothing; that equals lost game.

    Instead of worrying about how to win a game that is essentially already won, or losing a game that is essentially already lost, it is better to think about how to win or lose in the first place.  To that, I have one word.

    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank


  • @Bunnies:

    @Hobbes:

    True, the scenario doesn’t appear on every game

    It should never happen, and it would never influence general strategy on my part.

    Either you are going hard early Eurasia press with Axis, in which case the Allies diverting south is a gift to Germany.  Of course I know you’re not proposing that; you specified as much in your OP.

    Or you are going economic route via Africa/Pacific income, developing Germany and Japan income early and aiming for late game mass Jap push, and Ger and Jap air in Europe to lock Allied fleet and combine defense, in which case Allies diverting south isn’t a “gift” if the Soviets don’t overcommit, but still usually serves little point.  If you overcommit, Germans push early.  If you don’t overcommit, the Soviets should hit an absolute dead end at French Indochina.  In no event should a Jap IC be shut down early.  Later, it can be allowed even at cost of Japan IC knockout for a turn, if the Axis can cut at Persia to neutralize Soviet ability to reunify its tanks with the mass of its forces.

    In the second case in particular, Japan should be pressing on French Indochina Burma at any event, so it isn’t as if Japan has to go out of its way to stall out the Soviet advance.  It just happens completely naturally; Japan should be working towards Persia anyways.  Germany, of course, can take advantage of developing opportunities, so again nothing unnatural happens.  The Axis develop their game as normal, and don’t have to do anything in particular different.

    But look at all the good stuff the Soviets give up in Europe.  If you commit to India, you slash your ability vs Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, and even the key West Russia.  India is far far out of line.  Even Persia is usually not convenient due to Jap attack possibilities.  (If you protect Soviet tanks with infantry at Persia, that definitely leaves Germany has more room in Europe.  If you don’t protect Soviet tanks with infantry, you need a lot, which again gives Germany openings in Europe.  If you just leave a few tanks, Japan trades them off with Jap infantry.

    So I am not particularly concerned about a “Soviet India crush”.  It should never be a problem regardless of stage of the game.

    But what if? you say.  What if the Allies have contained Germany with drops to Eastern Europe, followup blitzes to continually contest Southern Europe, and Moscow is not remotely threatened?  In such a case, isn’t it a REAL threat that Soviets head south towards India?  After they grab an IC there, UK can followup immediately with production.

    Like I said, it’s not a problem regardless of stage of the game.  At that point, the game’s already BEEN over.  Similar situations generally with Germany stalling out and maybe Japan floating out to hit Alaska/Aus/Brazil late game (this should never be the case; either Axis should go late game press on Eurasia and grab those targets early/midgame - while MAINTAINING infantry feed through Buryatia and French Indochina, or they should go early game press on Eurasia and maintain pressure).  But in any event - again, by the time the Allies can make such a move in real safety with real probable gains, the game is always over, and has been for a little while.

    The only time Soviet tanks into India should really become a serious problem is with KJF variations.  Even then, I always say “You can protect Calcutta if you don’t mind losing Moscow”.

    A last comment regarding why I don’t think “Soviet India Crush” anything to be concerned with -

    For a “Soviet India Crush”, you’re looking at a situation in which the Germans are effectively held back in Europe, and not by the bulk of Russian units, because those were just sent to the south.  That is, the premise is that the Germans are already pretty much screwed.  If it were otherwise, then the Soviets couldn’t afford to shift so much stuff away from the danger zone.

    The Japs also aren’t pressing Moscow.  Again, if they were, you certainly wouldn’t bleed out to India if Japan could slam with huge numbers into Novosibirsk from Sinkiang and/or Yakut.

    There isn’t any other justification for bleeding off so much force to India, where it can’t return to the higher-value and higher-stakes European territories any time soon.

    But it goes even beyond that.  Since there isn’t much point in sending off to India if the Allies aren’t going to get some real concrete gains - you don’t send that sort of massive push somewhere just to gain a temporary 3 IPCs from India, when you could be using it to throttle Germany - it must ALSO be the case that Japan is weak in the south.

    So add it all up - Germany isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan isn’t threatening Moscow, Japan is weak in the southern region, to the point that Russians have real threat pressure that Japan can’t easily counter.  The Axis have nothing; that equals lost game.

    Instead of worrying about how to win a game that is essentially already won, or losing a game that is essentially already lost, it is better to think about how to win or lose in the first place.  To that, I have one word.

    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank
    tank

    Should never happen? Japan should never be able to conquer W.US but it does happen. The Soviets aren’t supposed to be the ones taking Berlin but it does happen. To me should never happen is to deny the possibility that it can be used against you.

    Even in situations where there’s a clear Allied superiority it may as well be that Germany is completely turtled up and it is impossible for the Allies to take it, while the Japanese gather strength and send fighters to Berlin. In that case this move potentially allows for a VC win and/or forces Germany to move rather than turtle.


  • This whole thing is surreal.  It’s like debating the use of a frying pan as a weapon on a modern battlefield.

    Yes, if all your equipment got blown off you by an explosion, and you happen to find a frying pan, ok, better than nothing.  Or if you got captured and managed to free yourself and there’s a frying pan, ok, again.

    But now we’re talking about training people in the use of frying pans as weapons, of preparing to receive massed human waves armed with frying pans - and all so seriously, like this is about to happen any moment.

    THE FRYING PAN MENACE!

    If you’re a good soldier, you will be prepared to meet the frying pan menace.  You will carry your own frying pan with you at all times.  You will drill with your frying pan, train with your frying pan, sleep with your frying pan.  If you are on a battlefield, and you have to choose between your rations, your medical supplies, your radio, your rifle, and your frying pan, you WILL choose your frying pan, and you WILL like it, because a soldier without a frying pan is nothing.

    Enemy combatants armed with frying pans are the most serious threat you can face.  If you have a choice between facing an enemy minefield, an enemy rifleman, an enemy tank, or an enemy frying pan, choose anything except the enemy frying pan, because those frying pans are deadly.  Whole new schools of strategy, operations, and tactics need to be developed, and developed now, because we are frankly unprepared to meet with this incredible, unforeseen, and deadly frying pan threat.

    We may be able to meet this threat by melting down 50% of our tanks, rifles, and aircraft to make our own frying pans, or maybe 80%, and hiring Martha Stewart IMMEDIATELY as our Commander in Chief of Armed Forces.

    STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON THE FRYING PAN MENACE!


  • @Bunnies:

    This whole thing is surreal.  It’s like debating the use of a frying pan as a weapon on a modern battlefield.

    Murphy’s Laws of Combat - “If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.”


  • @Hobbes:

    Murphy’s Laws of Combat - “If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTTG4Bbjf0

    2.  Jar Jar Binks will always be stupid.

    3.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPb2lIap6Es&feature=related


  • @Bunnies:

    2.  Jar Jar Binks will always be stupid.

    There’s a difference between stupid and pathetic 🙂

  • '12

    Jar Jar Binks ruined the Star Wars franchise for me……


  • My thread is being hijacked by Jar Jar Binks!

    Quick, get the lightsaber!  😛

    Or I may try a different pitch - imagine you’re the EVIL Soviet Empire from the top of your Death Star in Caucasus, all bend in galactic conquest and domination. Meanwhile those pesky rebels are massing their forces in India - your Emperor has commanded you to crush the malicious Jedi army led by Jar Jar Binks. while he’s battling Yoda on West Russia.


  • @Cromwell_Dude:

    Very funny Hobbes, well said…

    I’m cool with going off topic a bit 😉

    Imagine if Axis and Allies were Star Wars:

    • Everytime you rolled the dice C3PO would be there to remind you of the odds
    • Everytime you won a major battle R2D2 would be tweeping and beeping next to you
    • Darth Vader would be kicked out after being warned repeatedly not to do the Jedi dice trick
    • If you play with Chewbacca and he gets diced, it’s game over and you’ll need to buy a new table and pick up all the game pieces

  • @Hobbes

    It is not a scenario I have seen in my games. When I shuttle US troops through north Africa, I sometimes manage to take India but that is mainly with a USSR supported US stack.

    But what was Japan doing? Even though Germany is a bit defensive against the Soviets, Japan should be able to either hold India, or realize it can’t pull back to FIC and retake India and maybe also Persia in the next round(depending on number of transports position of fleet etc.).

    Unless as Bunnys states, Allies had already won the game.

    Did Japan have a stack in Sinkiang or where were the Japanese units??

  • '12

    My guess is that if the US is flowing forces through Africa then then by necessity Japan will be strong in the south asia area and India would be too well covered.  On the other hand, if Japan were taking the northern route to Russia because of a strong US/Brit threat in Europe then India might be vulnerable to this.

    A large stack of Russian tanks makes me very wary as Japan in particular with allied fighters nearby to add reinforcement to a quick Russian tank dash/hit, reinforce with allied air, retreat then allied air retreat, then Japan moves sequence.


  • @jiman79:

    @Hobbes

    It is not a scenario I have seen in my games. When I shuttle US troops through north Africa, I sometimes manage to take India but that is mainly with a USSR supported US stack.

    But what was Japan doing? Even though Germany is a bit defensive against the Soviets, Japan should be able to either hold India, or realize it can’t pull back to FIC and retake India and maybe also Persia in the next round(depending on number of transports position of fleet etc.).

    Combining both the US North Africa rush and the India Crush is probably a good way to execute this strat (both Soviets and Americans converging on Persia) but the question is how Japan acts.

    If you openly try such a maneuver it will become the elephant on the room for the Axis - they’ll be ready to react because they’ll be monitoring the progress of the US across North Africa and it’s fairly easy for Japan to stop the US advance and prepare for the Soviet thrust on India by focusing on that route.

    But usually Japan advances through the 3 routes (Yakut, Sinkiang and India), so its ground forces will usually be split. Also, Japan can have a tendency to send its fleets and planes to Africa/Europe/etc., away from India, contributing even more for a dispersion of its forces.

    If so, then the move of crushing India can work. Germany defensive stack in Eastern Europe, Japan dispersed and divided through Sinkiang/Yakut/India/elsewhere. Japan builds IC, Soviet stack on Caucasus moves south. Watch Axis react!  😄


  • If you openly try such a maneuver

    I didn’t know Axis and Allies came with hidden setup cards.

    it’s fairly easy for Japan to stop the US advance and prepare for the Soviet thrust on India by focusing on that route.

    But usually Japan . . .

    But usually Japan acts like a d*mnfool?

    Watch Axis react!   😄

    Oh I’m watching something all right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdS2kCUGvfo


  • @Hobbes:

    My thread is being hijacked by Jar Jar Binks!

    Quick, get the lightsaber!  😛

    Or I may try a different pitch - imagine you’re the EVIL Soviet Empire from the top of your Death Star in Caucasus, all bend in galactic conquest and domination. Meanwhile those pesky rebels are massing their forces in India - your Emperor has commanded you to crush the malicious Jedi army led by Jar Jar Binks. while he’s battling Yoda on West Russia.

    So you’re actually saying Adolf H. would be Yoda? But he has no mustache…

    Anyway, I can’t explain it with frying pan logic like Bunnies but I agree that Soviet India Crush is more of a tactical possibility than any kind of strategic consideration. The usual tank path for Russia on the Asia front is Yakut-Sinkiang-Persia. From any of these territories they can come back to Moscow in one move if things get scary. Going to India means Germany and Japan get 2 turns to advance before the tanks are back for defense. If that allows Germany for example to take West Russia and reinforce with fighers, that’s probably more costly than UK getting 3 extra income and Japan 3 less and one turn of IC shutdown. So while the situation might come up, it is in no need any argument for Russia to buy many tanks (even if there are good other reasons).


  • @El:

    Anyway, I can’t explain it with frying pan logic like Bunnies but I agree that Soviet India Crush is more of a tactical possibility than any kind of strategic consideration.

    That’s the point - players usually don’t think of this tactic because it is uncommon and needs very specific situations that are out of the Soviet control: Japan needs to build an IC and spread itself all over the place, Germany needs to play shy, etc. And it most likely won’t work if the other player has half a brain and keeps that possibility on mind.

    A parallel move is the G1 8 armor buy for Germany. Most players who use this move as a standard opening will face difficulties against an experienced Soviet player, who will just shrug his shoulders. However, if Germany has a high possibility of destroying the stack on West Russia on G1, then an 8 armor buy can be just what it needs to achieve its strategy.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 8
  • 3
  • 18
  • 9
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

48
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts