• I tried finding G40 threads, but could not find anything quite like I was looking for.

    Has anyone tried a KGF 100% full-on strategy in G40? I mean USA spending 100% of its income on the Europe board and using it’s Pacific fleet to delay a Japanese victory, or even bringing it in the Atlantic? Perhaps Russia helping by building mobile units and attacking Germany as soon as possible with everything it’s got? Using the UK India fleet to kill the Italian African army on UK1? Anzac holing up building ground troops and plain, making it very hard for Japan to capture their capital?

    Would that strategy viable or would it mean a guaranteed Japanese win? Thoughts?

  • I have seen this tried a couple of times against me, and every time it has lead to a quick and easy Japanese victory.
    Basically, if Japan commits to it, especially without any USA or USSR help, they should be able to take India practically every time around rounds 4-6.
    After that, if USA hasn’t supplemented its pacific fleet significantly, it becomes very difficult to stop Japan from taking Hawaii, as their starting fleet is no match for the entire starting Japanese fleet, generally leading to a Japanese victory by round 9 at the latest.

    Anyway, that’s just what has happened in my face to face games I’ve played where this strategy has been tried.

  • Customizer

    Yeah, I have seen pretty much the same result. When the US focuses all their attention in the Atlantic, India, ANZAC and China just get overwhelmed by Japan’s might. Even if the US leaves it’s starting navy in the Pacific, like ChocolatePancake said, it is significantly smaller than the starting Japanese navy and odds are the Japanese will be making a few more naval buys.
    Usually, I have found the best Allied strategy is for the US to go very heavy in the Pacific and try to hit Japan as hard as possible. If it is done right, the US could end up destroying the Japanese navy with a little help from India and ANZAC then parking itself in SZ 6 and convoying Japan to death. Plus the US should take Iwo Jima and start parking bombers there to SBR Japan into the stone age.
    India and China will eventually be able to erode Japanese strength on the mainland while ANZAC gets busy retaking the southern islands. Japan will be making so little money that they won’t be able to repair their factories enough to produce any more units before the US bombs them again the next round.
    Once this is accomplished, you can leave actually invading Japan for later on after you get Italy/Germany in check. If you can neuter Japan quick enough, UK and Russia should be able to hold out long enough for a strong US presence to be felt in Europe.
    Of course, once Germany gets Moscow, this will be harder because they no longer have to expend resources in Russia and will have more to spend in Europe. Although, I have seen games where Germany did take out Moscow, but it was too late. US/UK managed to overwhelm Berlin while the bulk of the Wehrmacht was still in Russia.

  • Bump. Curious as to what other players have to say.

  • All you have to do is read Cow’s Japan guides and you can see what Japan is capable of. If you leave them alone as the Americans. You guarantee an Axis Pacific victory to any competent Japan player. I have looked into KGF strategies myself. But it all relied on containing Japan to an extent with the Americans.

  • '17 '16 '13 '12

    Absolutely agree, you can’t neglect Japan very long at all. Germany can hang out for a while.

    I find the best bet for the Allies is to put Japan and Italy (with UK) under pressure first, including with Russian units if possible. If the UK does well enough, you will be able to hold Moscow for some time by sending fighters there. Hopefully at that point, Japan is under control and the US can start to make its weight felt in Europe.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    This is how I lost the G40 2012 championship league game to MR. Green.  I contained Germany handily, but was 1 turn too late to swing back to contain Japan.

    Germany is super hard to defeat on its own ground.  Two major factories back to back means Germany can plunk 20 infantry in close proximity to counter any major attack.

  • Unfortuneately, when playing with victory cities, this is the case. But we never play as such, and im my opinion, a realistic game should be played without it.

    Other than that, KGF is the only realistic strategy to win the game. Ignore Japan as much as possible. Yes send the Pacific fleet over to the Atlantic. It gets their in one turn. Then spend what you have to, to slow the Japs. How much, it really depends on how efficient the Japs are and some luck against the Germans. You cant totally ignore the Japs, but I would in the beginning.

    To anyone who would say that a good Japanese player would take the first few rounds of being ignored by the US to achieve a complete Axis victory, I would reply, a good German player would achieve an easy victory for the axis by the US ganging up on Japan.

    The real action will always be in Europe being careful to not let Japan run wild.

    Silly and unrealistic National Objectives have changed the extent to which this is true, but most of all is the Victory city condition. I have seen many victories by the axis based on the number of cities they captured at the end of the turn, that by no means were obvious victories and worse, inefficient uses of resources for temporary gains that could never be sustained and easily lost.

    But whether or not the city victory conditions make sense i guess depends on your definition of a victory.

  • Customizer

    We also play by victory cities, but in most cases they are valid victories. In other words, once Germany/Italy has the 8 VCs necessary on the Europe board or Japan has the 6 VCs necessary on the Pacific board, we could see that there is simply no way the Allies could gain any of those cities back because the Axis are simply too strongly entrenched with too many resources at their disposal. Many times we will play it onward to total domination just for kicks and in just about every one, the Axis just keeps spreading while the Allies keep dwindling.

    There was one game we played out past the “official” victory where the Allies ended up turning things around and beat the Axis. Also, I think there was a couple of games where we called it on the VC victory that if we had gone on perhaps 2 or 3 more rounds, the Allies would have been able to recapture one or more of the cities from the Axis, thus ruining their victory. However, like I said, the majority of games that end in Axis victories ended that way because the Axis was in a much stronger position than the Allies.

  • If you buy some bombers itno your full pacific buy its very fast to switch to atlantic when you got controll over the money islands. American bombers ALWAYS work to slow Germany, even if its just IC bombing.

    That beeing said if UK has a fleet US should have the following units in atlantic: 1tranny w/units,1destroyer and 1-3 bombers. Taking Normandy, Norway or Denmark with US then landing UK units + planes is a very good strategy. Also US can bomb Germanys airbase and give them a nice suprice when they are unable to scramble vs UK. You also treathen Berlin with a 1-2 attack.

    Point is:
    Focus on Japan first BUT have a small tactical US force in atlantic as soon as possible.

  • Yikes, I can’t believe what I am reading?

    First off, though I only partially agree, many claim the axis now have the advantage with the 2nd edition so if that is the case, the axis will win most of the time.

    2nd, if your city victories are being achieved by successes in Europe by the Axis, then it does not apply to my example. My point against the victory cities is that Japan can claim enough cities just in time before the beginning of the end occurs against Germany, where the real war is won and lost but yet lose the game. That is why I don’t like playing that way. It makes KGF strategy dangerous which is the logical thing to do and what played out in history as well.

    3rd, if you are not playing with victory cities, going after Japan first, in a game played by two competent players is disastrous. There would be not reason why a German victory in Europe wouldn’t be a given.

    But if you are playing with victory cities, then se la vie.

    Eddie Moreno

  • Customizer

    Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. You said that you don’t use the Victory Cities as conditions for winning the game. So do you go for total domination or simply until one or the other side gives up? Either way, I do agree with you that in a game where Victory Cities are irrelevant, it would be a better strategy to not totally ignore but simply delay Japan while focusing most of the Allied efforts against Germany. Germany is definitely the stronger enemy with more potential to expand and put the hurt to the Allies.

    I think they made the Victory Cities condition to make it more possible for the Axis to win some games. Now, I’m talking about people with somewhat average playing skill, not like a lot of us here on the forum that play the game regularly and work out intricate strategies. I think that was designed more for perhaps getting more new players interested in the game. After all, if the Allies won ALL the time or the Axis won ALL the time, it wouldn’t be very interesting to most people. If you played this game out, between players of comparative skill level, and didn’t use the Victory City condition, then I would bet most games would follow history and end up in Allied victories. The Victory City condition is simply a way for somewhat newer players to be able to play the Axis and say “There, I won the war.”

  • '12

    guys don’t overthink it. Its very simple. The victory conditions exist to balance the game and go a very long way toward doing so.

  • '17 '16 '13 '12

    Japan can become a huge economic and continental monster if left alone entirely. If the German player sees the KGF and focuses on defending with infantry, planes and a navy beefed up with cheap submarine fodder, the allies could still end up losing a total war. There is a big difference between just containing Germany and outright conquering it.

    In this case, Germany is the anvil and Japan is the hammer.

  • '12

    Heres another way to look at it.  The victory conditions stimulate action in both theaters because the usa cannot focus all its might on just one.  This eliminates the full on kgf as a viable option againt the competent axis player.

  • '17 '16 '13 '12


    Heres another way to look at it.  The victory conditions stimulate action in both theaters because the usa cannot focus all its might on just one.  This eliminates the full on kgf as a viable option againt the competent axis player.

    I agree with you here.

    I also think the guys are missing a point about the effectiveness of KGF in a total war. At some point, there is a lower marginal return in conquering heavily defended territories as opposed to simply containing enemy expansion until economic and military superiority is secured and established. The defender has the shortest supply lines and can churn out large amounts of cheap units to defend.

    The allies have some flexibility as the various powers can shift theaters:

    Both with and without VCs US should always start by significantly reinforcing its Pacific fleet, at least to keep Hawaii and Anzac from falling easily. Then,  the US can focus more of its efforts on the Atlantic. In turn, the UK Europe can produce units to supply India. At some point, India will fall and the air units an go assist in the defense of Moscow. The Russians should also put pressure on the Japanese.

    This is a viable strategy because it is very hard for the US to break a good Japanese player for the money invested (you can’t take it, maybe you can convoy it, but it’s not easy). In comparison, putting pressure on Germany and Italy has shorter supply lines. But, I would clearly avoid going 100% on Germany from the very beginning because things will very rapidly get out of balance in the Pacific.

  • '12

    Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

  • '17 '16 '13 '12


    Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

    I prefer the KJF in a total war because Japan is much easier to contain and render irrelevant with a concerted action from all Powers.

    The Germans slowly expand in Russia and they can only gain so much from doing that.

    I think that the price for leaving Japan entirely alone with the US (Hawaii and Anzac falling) and the trouble that follows, outweighs the incremental benefit that you get from going all out against Germany from the beginning, as opposed to still spending some in the Pacific to render the starting US forces there a potent force that prevents unreasonable Japan expansion.

  • @Boldfresh:

    Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

    It exists to keep the game somewhat balanced. Remove the rule and allies will win 100% of the time.
    Germany cannot keep up with US + UK + Russia against it. And what would japan do alone even if it has 100ipcs a turn you still get outproduced.

Suggested Topics

  • 25
  • 7
  • 4
  • 27
  • 9
  • 10
  • 3
  • 15
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys