Rockets have a firing range of 3 or 4?

in my groups we value consistency, if the battle is rolled wrong, then it is rerolled, no matter what the result was.

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

The KGF strat is not about ignoring Japan, no countries can be ignored, it’s just that allies cant do much against Japan for the first 2 rnds, and Japan can be partially ignored early in the game. The KGF strat involves slowing Japan down as much as possible, but most resources goes against Germany.
The reason why KGF is most popular among the best players is because a good axis player will make a too strong Germany if only Russia and UK tries to stop them.

And there is no such thing as KGF fanmania, it’s about the-most-effective-strat-fanmania :)

There is not really a KGF for many (99%) Revised games. A true KGF will include some US naval units to Pacific to distract Japan and force fight it … I only had seen a true KGF once in my PBEM games and it was in AA50. 99% of players do a Try Ignore Japan strat that includes sending all stuff to Europe and Africa, even the starting Pacific fleets. Most (99%) of players will counter this making a JTDTM, while some others will counter with a Polar Expres, that’s why I call the “so-called KGF” a “Try Ignore Japan (if you can)”
Allies can do a Ignore Japan strat only if Japan lets them. In my games I noticed that Polar Express is, at least, as good as JTDTM, and I’m pretty sure that Polar Express can improve because it has been used less (many play by memory with TIJ-KGF)

The funny thing is when in some games Japan gets diced J1 and anyway allied player lets Japan breath and TIJ just because they think that a Pacific Fleet is useless

My point is that in this or any future A&A games many players will never stop from trying ignore Japan, no wonder how bad idea is, how many income have Pacific Ocean and mainland Asia, how bad gets Japan diced, how good can be Polar Express or how boring can be ignoring Japan. KGF is a religion

If they try that in Global 1940, Japan will destroy everyone with its 2 BB, 3 CV, and lots of transports/income.

@OLver:

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

There are two approaches to a non-Baltic fleet buy that I’ve seen and use.

1.  Stay put.  If the UK attacks with its air, the Germans kill UK air.  The Germans lose a lot of navy which they weren’t using a lot (they would have used the Baltic transport), and the UK loses its valuable and hard-to-replace air.

2.  Split into four groups.  If the UK splits its air up, German subs can surrender and German destroyer and/or transport have a better chance of bringing down some UK air.  If the UK doesn’t split its air up, then at least three German units survive.  Note that the US bomber will probably knock out another German naval unit.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Yes, trading territories is - after a fashion - a strength of the German fighter buy, but REALLY, you should have been bled dry, especially with having to transport units to Africa.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

German fighters have nothing to do with a fleet in the Pacific.  Nothing you have yet described prevents the Allies from building a fleet in Atlantic OR Pacific.  (Of course, if they build in the Atlantic, they’ll have to overcome that German air force, but I digress)

The UK can still send their carrier and destroyer against the Japanese transport at Kwangtung - and they should, too, in view of the fact they used the Indian fighter against Anglo-Egypt.  More weak play.  :wink:

I think you spent way too many IPCs on industrial complexes.  If you purchase 16 IPC of transports, you can move up to four units from Japan to the mainland, and vary between anywhere from Soviet Far East to French Indochina; furthermore, those transports can be used as naval fodder and to pick up Japanese infantry from isolated islands where they are doing no good.  Compare with a 15 IPC industrial complex that produces three units, cannot switch where units are placed, cannot be used as naval fodder, and do not solve the problem of wasted Japanese infantry resources sitting on isolated islands.  I know Caspian Sub states 2 transports 1 industrial complex is good, but I think I would prefer 3 transports 1 tank on J1 regardless of bid - if I can claim India and put an IC there with Japan, the positional advantage is huge.

–

In practice, those German fighters have limited range, exactly as I previously mentioned; you will probably end up having to split the German fighters between eastern territories and Western Europe.  This isn’t too bad in practice.  What you will probably see is the Allies building up a fleet off Eastern Canada; when the Allies feel like it, they will unite newly built naval units from Eastern US with the existing fleet off Eastern Canada and land at Algeria, where with no surviving Baltic fleet elements and your German Mediterranean fleet probably not in a position to counter, and insufficient German fighters at Western Europe (considering that you have to split between Western Europe and eastern territories), you can do nothing THAT TURN.

On the next turn, though, you can land 10 fighter 1 bomber (possibly 9 fighter 1 bomber) at Western Europe.  If the Allied navy stay off Algeria, you beat them up, if the Allied navy retreats from Algeria, you may have a problem.  Why a problem?  Because even a pretty tame Allied fleet will land 6 US and 4 UK ground units (2 starting UK transports and 2 starting US transports plus 1 US transport bought on US1); you may easily have to deal with a lot more.  And although you have air at Western Europe that can hit Algeria, you need cheap German ground units to act as fodder; you can get 2 German infantry in with the Mediterranean transport, but otherwise - well, you can see that you might have a problem to deal with.

So let us say that is what happens.  On the German turn, you fly all your fighters to Western Europe, and the Allies respond by pulling their navy back to Eastern Canada and buying another US carrier at Eastern US (I assume they bought one already on US1 after seeing the German fighter build).  Germany does nothing about the Allied forces in Algeria.

Germany’s next turn, you can only trade off Karelia and one other territory easily (that other territory being the one your German bomber can hit).  BUT now what?  If you fly away from Western Europe, the Allies will land MORE units at Algeria.  And if you do NOT fly away from Western Europe, the Allies STILL land at Algeria, with probable 6 transports (up to 7 or 8 easily), 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship.  EVEN with that mighty air force, there is nothing you can do.  So let us say you GIVE UP Algeria and start harassing Russia with your mighty air force.  The Allies have sunk 32 IPC in carriers, and are just making their landing at Africa; they are out of position to help Russia.

So as you can see, what have you gained at best?  Nothing but TIME.  Time for Japan to push on Russia.  Time for the Germans to keep the IPCs they gained in Africa.  And that is EXACTLY why I recommend using African bid units instead of Ukraine.  You need to control Africa early while you still can; you WILL lose Africa eventually.

–

And remember these things too:

1.  The Allies can still go KJF (if they do, Germany has to try to control and keep control of Africa.)

2.  By buying so many fighters early, you lock yourself into a certain line of German play.  You may do better to stagger your fighter buys out (say 1 German fighter a turn or even 2 German fighters on G1) so you can have some early infantry to trade with Russia sooner.

In short - yes, if the Allies go KGF, German fighters are useful - however, I do not think that 4 fighters RIGHT AWAY is necessary or proper; I think 2 fighters is the most that the Germans can afford on G1.

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

The statement had been made that AA can fire at aircraft flying over them.  Which is true if the AA is on land.  But if that AA gun is at sea on a TRN, then the AF can fly right over it and ignore the TRN, the AA, and anything else below them on the seas.

… this fact is clarified on page 30 of the Operations Manual, in the Transports section.  “Land units on a transport are cargo; they cannot attack or defend while at sea.”

~Josh

Oh, okay, that makes a bit more sense.  I guess I haven’t looked at the new rules in a while, so that’s why I thought the way I did.

No.

The FAQs neutered German rockets, greatly limiting the number of attacks you can makes, and limiting the economic damage.  Check the website.

It used to be that German rocket research was an excellent and successful strategy; you’d build five or six AA guns and cripple Moscow and London.  No longer.

As far as house rules, I recommend posting in the “House Rules” forum.

No on all counts.

Here are the reasons:

#1:  Rockets originate from AA guns.  AA guns can ONLY move in non-combat.
#2:  Non-Combat Movement rules specify that any land unit moved/engaged in combat may NOT move in non-combat.
#3:  The “Rocket” could only be moved toward Russia in non-combat, which is AFTER the phase in which Rockets fire, so you cannot move then fire.
#4:  Any units on a Transport are considered Cargo.  They cannot attack or defend while on a transport, and they die if the transport dies.