Basic Allies Strategy? I appreciated the info for Axis last time.

Full kill japan first.

uk1 buy all infs. If you can merge your fleet off gibraltar, do it. If not, get that fleet for japan.

Just be a super japan hater. it still takes a few rounds before italy causes havoc in the middle east / africa sector. after the sea lion threat has passed you can put 3 inf or mech a turn in union. After things go well against japan you can have uk pacific act as a second russia shoving units in the middle east.

~

Or you can do a ship stuff to europe early strategy. Goal can be to take Norway and cut germany off of his NO.

~

You can do a balanced strategy in which everything matters, middle east, russia, pacific.

~

imo the easiest strategy to work with is, FULL MIGHT OF AMERICA IN THE PACIFIC.  Only when you are not at war do you put stuff in the atlantic (because 3 limit on west usa). Those atlantic pieces are just there to support uk london.

Can someone please quickly explain America’s income please? What does it start as and what does it grow to once at war?

@Paksos:

Can someone please quickly explain America’s income please? What does it start as and what does it grow to once at war?

In Global 1940, they start with 52 IPCs.

When USA is at war…
In A&A Global 1940 2nd edition, simply add what national objectives the USA has to their income.

@Cow:

Full kill japan first.

uk1 buy all infs. If you can merge your fleet off gibraltar, do it. If not, get that fleet for japan.

Just be a super japan hater. it still takes a few rounds before italy causes havoc in the middle east / africa sector. after the sea lion threat has passed you can put 3 inf or mech a turn in union. After things go well against japan you can have uk pacific act as a second russia shoving units in the middle east.

~

Or you can do a ship stuff to europe early strategy. Goal can be to take Norway and cut germany off of his NO.

~

You can do a balanced strategy in which everything matters, middle east, russia, pacific.

~

imo the easiest strategy to work with is, FULL MIGHT OF AMERICA IN THE PACIFIC.  Only when you are not at war do you put stuff in the atlantic (because 3 limit on west usa). Those atlantic pieces are just there to support uk london.

Last time I tried KJF, russia fell and germany was primed for london or cairo before us got into gear.

GHR,

I’ve had games like that too.  The US was barely involved in the war and the game had already been decided - but that was a failed German advance into Moscow and a stymied Japanese advance in the Pacific.

I haven’t tried KJF in a while, but I’m usually content just stopping Japan’s advance and trying to sink their ships.  After that its a basic convoy game as Japan holes up in Tokyo with no ships to assert influence.  No need to conquer them really (Think Italy but a bigger fight).

When playing a KJF strategy with the USA, it’s important to carefully plan for the moment when you are going to switch USA over to the Atlantic theater.  This can either be 1) when UK needs USA to stave off Europe disaster or 2) once China and Aussie and UK-India are able to contain what’s left of Japan.  React to Axis pushes for the VC win and prevent them from pulling it off.

2 destroyers/1 battleship a round in the Pacific is kinda nice too, really crushes any hope Japan has of returning to the sea - opr holding it.

Remember, the allied position is to first secure Australia and either Calcutta or Honolulu.  Everything after that is gravy (as it’s now 4 on 1 in Europe.)

I see quite some suggesting the build of a battleship and i am a bit surprised. Maybe someone can explain the logic behind this. As far as I can see:

• A battleship costs 20 IPC attacks at 4 defends at 4 and takes 2 hits to be sunk and can bombard on amphibiou assaults. 2 Battleships are 40
• An aircraftcarrier is 16IPC, does not attack, defends at 2, takes 2 hits to be sunk and can carry 2 planes. An carrier with 2 fighter is 36 (cheaper), can take as many hits on offense and defens, is better on defense (4,4,2) a bit worse on offense (3,3,0). A carrier with a fighter and a tactical bomber is 37 (cheaper), better on defense (4,3,2) a little worse on offense (4,3,0). Lost fighters are easier to replace than a lost Battleship. Attacking coastal terretories allows the planes to fight additional rounds.

Battleships are to prefere when fighting submarines.

Overall I would prefere a Carrier with 2 fighters over 2 Battleships.

I think, build up a fleet in the pacific, but don’t completely neglect the atlantic. Probably drop an aircraftcarrier and a destroyer, to support the UK-Fleet (they can eventually put their fighters on it) as this are non offensive units and the UK lacks IPCs for non offensive units.

Against Japan: try to whittle down their ground forces. They lack a bit in reinforcements and have quite long supply lines, which are threatended by the US fleet.

Carrier hit by 1 submarine in the middle of no where may result in the death of 2 fighters.
Battleship hit by 1 submarine in the middle of no where may result in someone losing shore leave for the weekend.

Okay, all jokes aside,

We are talking about augmenting a fleet you already have.  In my mind I am picturing 3 or 4 loaded carriers and a dozen or two destroyer/submarines.  In that case, the buffering ability of the battleship is greatly appreciated.  For one, you dont have to worry about landing fighters just because your battleship took a hit - something you do have to worry about if your carrier is hit.

Also, I am looking at 2 or 3 destroyers for a couple of rounds then a battleship - or whatever the situation recommends in my mind.

1. when UK needs USA to stave off Europe disaster or 2) once China and Aussie and UK-India are able to contain what’s left of Japan

zhukov sums up the KJF strat scenarios.