How do you stop kgf??? any new ideas?

@Comical_Sans:

Thanks for the feedback sjlr1! In terms of tech, are rockets particularly great in europe/africa? For one game I’ve had is that with a German-Russo Stalemate with Italy trying to contest Africa with America, (With an Italian Industrial Complex on Egypt), and both the Soviets and Americans had developed rockets. So they kept on around the clock strategic bombing and rocket strikes on the Industrial Complex in Germany and the Italian Industrial Complex in Egypt, forcing the two Axis powers to constantly repair their factories. On turn 5, three bombers from U.S. all got a six during a strategic bombing on Italy’s Egypt Industrial Complex, completely shattering Italy’s already fragile economy. By turn 7, the around the clock bombing forced Italy to withdraw from Africa completely and Germany, being bogged down by U.S., U.K. and USSR bombings and rockets, were purchasing less and less units. By turn nine, Japan also got kicked out of the Asian mainland, and was stuck with the home isles and an IC in the East Indies. At the same time, Italy only retained the boot as the Russians and a few British mechanized infantry took the Balkans. By Turn nine, Italy had capitulated, with Germany only retaining Germany and Norway. After Germany fell, the Allies won with a total of 15 Victory Cities. The combination of Strategic Bombings and Rockets forced Italy and Germany back when they seemed to have an initial advantage. So are Rockets a tech that the European Powers should aim for?

Rockets are a great tech for the USSR and UK, as the UK can reach either Italy or Germany with its AA in the British mainland, and if the Japanese or italians have built an IC then the one in india can do harm as well. The USSR starts of with 3 AA guns, and all can reach Italy or Germany, which can be devastating. Most of the time, USSR needs most of its money buying infantry and tanks to fight the Germans but can afford a few tech tokens early in the game. It’s a little less useful for the US unless they put their AA guns on a transport and shuffle them somewhere (Okinawa or Iwo Jima against Japan, B United Kingdom against Germany or Italy), which can be a bit tedious. And if the US and UK spam bombers like you said, the Axis will be hurting badly! You could try playing with the Escorts/Interceptors optional official rule if you wish.
Hope this helps

As my opinion:

The US has to harass Japan as fast as possible, while Germany has its weak times, just in the first three rounds. germany usually lacks infantery on turn 2 to push their offense against the USSR.
So the US builds up a medium sized fleet in the Pacific. (including at least 2 loaded transport). Keep the fleet slightly out of range of the main japanese airforce/fleet but position to take a money island or two, remove a national objective from Japan, etc. Force them to defend a lot of places (eventually leaving one vulnerable for an attack) or force them to try to come after your fleet (1 turn the japanese fleet/airforce moves out of position) and fall back. Therefore you do not need a decesive victroy, but distract Japan from its main objectives. Maybe you have to sacrifice your pacific navy to an combined airforce and naval attack by Japan, as major distraction.
The difficult seems to be, when to turn your attention to the atlantic. If its too late then its game over.

The main point is the following:
You are forced to react on the Japanese opening round. Is Japan going straight after India, is Japan trying to take the islands first or is japan going for Russia?
UK and China should try to whittle down the japanese ground forces, while the US needs to build up some fleet, to force Japan to invest into expensive and not too useful warships.

If US goes full against Germany, Japan can threaten USA from the pacific coast or Japan can aid Europe with it’s large fighter corp.

I like the fighters in europe, easier to achieve as the ftrs have the range, japan can afford to give them away and buy additional ones.

Not sure what Germany is doing in your game as you really don’t speculate.  Tanks?  buying ftrs is a good move to help the defense of fortress europe and keep the allied fleet honest.

Agains a KGF the key to win is to be aggressive with Japan. UK should not have more then 25 IPC in round 3.

For Japan to go via China is not a good idea. A threat against Caucasus is the counterattack.

Factory in French Indochina, Burma, India. Take Australia with a small fleet and deny US NO in Pacific. Factory on East Indies or Borneo is to far away. With 60 ICP+ Japan should have 5 factories on main land. Ftr to Europe and SBR Russia.

KGF is normally not a good move for allied. Axis has ha 60-65% chance to win. Japan can easily get 80 IPC and quickly take Russia. Logistics with inf from Japan is a bad strategy in almost any situation. You need factories on main land.

French Indochina is the best one to build turn 1. Burma and Manchuria turn 2 and India turn 3 if Japan doesn’t have any resistance from US.

What do do with G and I. Mix of troops (more then 8 ftr/brb is not good. Inf-tanks is important and always produce maximum HP in G) is important with G. Fleet (will normally not be possible) and HP is important with I. If UK is poor due to Japan SBR UK is good. If possible both with G and J ( yes you read right, J and not I).

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.

Let the Italians Hold France, and Keep Germany in a Position to fight Russia and be able to push the Allies off of France if Italy Fails to Hold.  Italy, if they lose france should be able to Weaken the Invasion forces enough to the opoint where GE can easily take it back without spending to much of their Resources on it. Then Keep pusshing the Italians back In for the Defence

Keep in mind that SUM can be used for naval and acft builds…. no transports needed.

@Subotai:

Another fact is that with a global war game which takes 3-9 hours to finish, it can never be even semi-realistic, or else it would be a very boring game which no one would want to play, and then only the balance could be realistic. The other option is to do this in a sophisticated computer game.

I think we should rather complain about the gameplay issues, rather than AA50 being to a-historical.

But there are some exceptions, as some rule changes are both easy and historical, as closing of the Dardanelles, but then all the other straits should have the same rules, as according to history.

I think you may be referring to the scope of the realism of the game.  All the AA games are semi-realistic to begin with as they ‘abstractions’ of the war.

What is complained about though is how so many people seem to go after Europe first as the Allies.  The fact that they did this historically is true.  But when it happens in the game, it’s what is derided.  That’s all I was saying.  We don’t like how the Axis win by a-historically sandwiching Russia but we also don’t like how the Allies historically win by surrounding Germany/Italy.  We live in a funky world of ideas, and possibly not sure which side is up.

What’s strange is that it is considered that the Axis have the advantage in '41 and it takes the Allies working together to win so when we ask, ‘why has the game turned into KGIF?’ it’s possibly because it’s the only way to win, it’s desperation.  KGIF is more viable because of the proximity of the Allied powers to the Euro theater of the game.  If Germany/Italy had the ability to stalemate the Allies on their income alone the game is way out of whack, but generally speaking in my experience, they don’t and have to use their advantage early to win before the Allies get into full swing.