Kill Japan First (KJF)

Russia’s abilities in AAR seem to have been a mistake (IMHO) by the creator.  Back in the day, I had some pretty neat games where the United States mostly ignored Europe while Russia beat the ever livvin snot out of the Germans virtually single handedly. (You did need the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to generate threat and reinforce of course.)

Talk to me about the Russian triple one day.  I am not on that computer or I would repost it…won more games with that then any other version of Axis and Allies ever!

Yes.

India IC can work if:

Soviets didn’t attack Ukranie and stack in wru to threaten Karelia UK builds saf IC to defend Africa without need of a fleet UK must kill z59 trannie USA builds Sinkiang IC and Pacific fleet Soviets send siberian forces to Sinkiang Soviets support suffling tanks back and forth from Caucasus

In this strat, I would not sacrifice valuable UK fleets against Japan 1st round. Indian and Australian navies can join with USA’s Pacific fleet mid game

My style is more ‘tight’ than ‘wild’, but I’ve done:
R1: 1art 4tnk (all in Moscow and Caucasus empty, if Ukraine doesn’t fall to keep Caucasus defensible)
G1: 4inf 7art, also 8inf 4art and the usual 9inf 2art 1tnk

Guess more frequent ‘reactive’ buys don’t count, like:
UK1: 5inf 3tnk (when a large landing threatens)
UK1: 3ftr +US1: 2bmb 4inf (when Germans fleet comes out)
J1: 2 factories (when scattered UK ships are hard to beat fast)

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

There are numerous errors in the rule book that comes with the game.  You may want to check out Larry Harris Tournament Rules (which are available from a link on the main page of this website).

The only “opening fire” that repeats after the first round of combat is Submarine Sneak Attack.

BB Shore Bombardment and AA fire are limited to only opening fire of the first round of combat.

Put it this way: as the Allies, are you more concerned about

a) 2 Inf 2 Arm that can land in Persia or Egypt next turn
or
b) 2 Inf 2 Arm that can be in FIC or Bury next turn
or
c) 3 Arm that can be in Caucasus next turn?

Maybe c), but a) is at least a close second. Ideally, I’d like FIC, India and EI ICs - I don’t care if I’m not utilizing Jap’s IC to the max, all that does is strand units in a backwater (unless it’s KJF of course). But once the Allies are well into KGF, it’s not so bad to tempt them into switching strats with a provocative little IC in EI. Right now I face NO allied units in the Pacific or the Indian ocean, so I just want to be able to bring units to Russia/Africa with maximum speed and responsiveness.

Responsiveness often gets overlooked as a value - if you have to build your units three turns before they arrive for combat, you have to guess what you might need then. If instead you can deliver in one round, you have much more flexibility. So I like to build ICs - people think it detracts IPCs from building actual combat units, but it can actually bring more units to the front more quickly if that IC is 1.5 turns closer to the front than the units you would have built back at your starting IC.

The coolest game I’ve ever been a part of, was a one on one, my friend as Axis and me as Allies. The Japanese captured Moscow, but in that same turn, America captured Berlin. The game went on for a good 6 or 7 more rounds, in which Britain and the US battled an INCREDIBLY powerful Japan in Europe. Eventually, it was clear Japan was going to win, but I pulled a sneaky maneuver in the Pacific, taking Kwangtung and the Philipines simultaneously, with Japan physically unable to take back those territories in that turn, I won the game.