• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    For a while the Baltic Carrier was the way to go.

    That’s until players started to realize that with a little more aggressive build scenario for Russia, Russia could take out the Germans single handedly if Germany started blowing too much capitol on Africa and the Baltic Fleet.

    I’ve even gone through Artillery + 4 Armor builds for Russia on R1. (Keep in mind I have +6 Infantry from Evenki, Novosibirsk and Kazakh to make up for no infantry built on round 1.)


  • @a44bigdog:

    Personally I don’t like a KGF or KJF. I think the best Allied approach is to task Russia and England with Germany and the US with Japan. The Crazy Straw or Big Gulp strategies from older threads. Japan even if it is making more money than the US can not match the US in Naval builds due to having to aid Germany against Russia. All it can do if the US goes all Pacific is buy time.

    As far as the thread topic I think a Baltic Carrier is a horrid Idea. I used this approach for a while and it just works against Germany. If I had to chose which fleet to sacrifice as Germany it would be the Baltic every time. The Med fleet can harass Russia, conquer Africa, and break out to hit isolated US territories that are never defended. The Baltic on the other hand can buy one round of movement for a limited number of troops to Karelia, waste troops trying to hold Norway, or if exteremly lucky grab England and the last for possibly one turn.

    Quite funny is that your favored allied “balanced” approach might be the BEST time for a G1 A/C.

    Why?

    Because Germany might be able to do well enough against just UK and Russia with their Baltic fleet around, keeping UK (alone, or with the little US initial Atlantic fleet help) on their toes.  It’s the addition of the might of the US juggernaught in a KGF that dooms the carrier buy:  Germany needs just about every inf she can muster to hold off a triple team, and those $16 on G1 just do not give the return that 5 inf would.


  • I don’t see that as by the time the US turn rolls around Germany has either bought the carrier or not.

    And again personally I don’t see how a true KGF or KJF is where it is at as it leaves one of the Axis powers totally unchecked to make up the difference.

    I am willing to back up my talk in league play are you?


  • @a44bigdog:

    I don’t see that as by the time the US turn rolls around Germany has either bought the carrier or not.

    True, but I was putting the move in a long run perspective.  Germany is buying the A/C turn 1, and it can turn out to be a decent (note I didn’t say game brekaing/winning) move if the US goes all out against Japan.

    @a44bigdog:

    And again personally I don’t see how a true KGF or KJF is where it is at as it leaves one of the Axis powers totally unchecked to make up the difference.

    Every player has what they consider to be the best way to play either side.  I am not saying that a balanced approach is wrong or right.

    @a44bigdog:

    I am willing to back up my talk in league play are you?

    My last game online here has really soured my wanting to ever play here again.  Plus, I am not in league.


  • What is a true KJF/CJF, and why is it that I almost never have seen this strat in reality?

    Imo KJF/CJF is a strat in which most allie countries (London is to far from Tokyo) both produce and move units towards Jap from rnd 1.
    US builds in WUS and moves towards Jap from LA.

    Of course, KJF can be done, and also has be done well a few times, meaning some players actually did win games using KJF, but that doesn’t mean that KJF is as good as KGF.

    I’m willing to playtest anyone who wants to use a “pure” KJF/CJF strat against me.


  • Russia cannot in my experience hold out against Germany alone even if germany buy an AC. They still need at least UK support.

    Like Bigdog says, KGF and KJF are flawed since they leave one of the axis unchecked. It’s not hard to play turtle as germany and the AC G1 goes a long way to help doing just that. You won’t crack that nut before Japan reach moscow in a pure KGF.

    You need a balanced approach

  • Moderator

    On topic, I’ve always been against the G1 AC buy (or any naval buy for that matter), but I think there are times and situations where it can work, but I generally prefer to focus on land buys (perhaps air) with Germany.  Although, I’ve been kicking around the idea of all land buy on G1, then maybe an AC on G2, if UK didn’t hit the Baltic fleet.  It worked in one game and the idea is, UK sees no reinforcements but buys a plane or two to sink on UK 2, then Ger drops the AC forcing the UK to re-evaluate things now on UK 2 and hopefully catching them and the US a bit off guard since they spent their rd 1 purchases and NCM expecting one scenerio and then they have to deal with another.  You also have the opportunity to judge Rd 1 and Rus 2, is a dash for Moscow an option or did Russia roll down twice (no AC on G2) or did Russia roll up meaning you just want to buy time for Japan (maybe AC buy).

    I’ve never regretted buying Inf/Rt/Arm, but I have bought navy before and sometimes I wish I just had the Inf.

    As for the KJF questions, IMO it is definitely viable regardless of ruleset or victory conditions.

    While it gets hard to define I’d probably define a “true” KJF/KGF as something that is 3 on 1.  You use limited resources to “contain” the other side while the main focus is on taking out the other Capital or severlly crippling it.

    You can choose to ignore one of the Axis powers b/c in theory you can cripple the other long before the one that is left alone can take Moscow.

    In KGF, the three Allies kill the German ships and box German into WE, SE, Ger, and EE while you stack Kar and Wrus.  Now Russia turns to defend against Japan and the UK/US can lend support to Mos if needed or just continue to squeeze Berlin.

    In KJF, the UK keeps Germany honest in the Atlantic with a little US help, but the main thrust is an early all out assualt on Japan (maybe UK and US ICs) in Asia with a massive US presence in the Pac such that by mid game it is clear Japan will never be able to match the US buying power and they can then keep Japan in check as UK switches more and more to aid Russia or go after Germany.

    It is easier said then done but those are the theories.

    If I go after Japan I prefer a somewhat delayed KJF approach, which is more like a US only Pac strat, it may not be optimal in terms of really getting after Japan, but it allows me to see all the way up thru J1 before I commit to going after Japan or Germany.

    Although I may start trying a more “convential” KJF approach in the future just to change things up a bit.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Subotai:

    What is a true KJF/CJF, and why is it that I almost never have seen this strat in reality?

    Imo KJF/CJF is a strat in which most allie countries (London is to far from Tokyo) both produce and move units towards Jap from rnd 1.
    US builds in WUS and moves towards Jap from LA.

    Of course, KJF can be done, and also has be done well a few times, meaning some players actually did win games using KJF, but that doesn’t mean that KJF is as good as KGF.

    I’m willing to playtest anyone who wants to use a “pure” KJF/CJF strat against me.

    The problem is, i don’t like YOUR definition of “pure” KJF.

    My definition of pure KJF is all America builds going against Japan, the 6 infantry Russia has near Buryatia being used to slow japan and England’s forces in the Middle East/Asia and the Pacific/Indian Oceans going against Japan.

    America’s starting units can go against Germany, any or all of Russian and British forces built or not on the Japanese front can go against Germany.

    Thing is, by YOUR definition, you are handicapping the allies needlessly.  You only need 40 IPC to contain a Germany with 50-60 IPC.  But why in all rationale would anyone suggest sending all Russia builds against Japan when you have a much better stance defending against the Germans and buying America time?

    If you want a realistic challenge, I’ll go KJF against you, provided you do not set up the Axis to thwart KJF. (I’ve seen some stupid moves people do if you are locked into KJF, like leave W. Europe, Norway, Africa, E. Europe etc undefended and send everything to the Russian border.  A move guaranteed to cost you the game if the Allies are allowed to exploit it.)

    Best maneuver I’ve seen is America setting up against Germany for 3 rounds then moving against Japan.

    And no, a German carrier does not make any effect at all on my games.  I don’t even like killing the SZ 5 fleet, so building a carrier against me is literally wasting 16 IPC since it gives you almost no offensive punch (and definitely not a valuable attack punch) and gives you nothing in defense since I’m not intending to attack anyway.

    I will attack if I have incredibly over whelming odds in my favor and nothing else to do with them, or if I absolutely have to attack to defend my fleet.  But both of those cases are ultra rare.


  • @Cmdr:

    The problem is, i don’t like YOUR definition of “pure” KJF.

    My definition of pure KJF is all America builds going against Japan, the 6 infantry Russia has near Buryatia being used to slow japan and England’s forces in the Middle East/Asia and the Pacific/Indian Oceans going against Japan.

    America’s starting units can go against Germany, any or all of Russian and British forces built or not on the Japanese front can go against Germany.

    Thing is, by YOUR definition, you are handicapping the allies needlessly.  You only need 40 IPC to contain a Germany with 50-60 IPC.  But why in all rationale would anyone suggest sending all Russia builds against Japan when you have a much better stance defending against the Germans and buying America time?

    I’m confused. We were discussing earlier how to get USSR to that 40 IPC mark. 24 start + UKR(3) + Belo (2) + WR (2) is only 31. You need Norway + FIC or Manchuria for 37, all 3 for 40.

    The only way to get 40 is for Russia to use the 6 inf to take manchuria and move some inf towards India to take FIC.

    But I do happen to agree that a 40 IPC russia has no problem defending vs a 55 IPC Germany. In fact, thats the point of doing such a move, that Russia can hold out.

    Not to mention that UK would still be shipping units into Europe.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t see a 40 IPC Russia.

    As I showed you before, England is not liberating Karelia, therefore, Russia is not taking Norway.  That alone kills your 40 IPC Russia.

    now you want to add Manchuria to the list?  How?  There’s only so much spit and polish you can use before you run out of units!

    I will agree that Russia can get EITHER Belorussia and W. Russia OR W. Russia and Ukraine.  But in both cases that’s not even 30 IPC, let alone 40 IPC.

    Russia two you MIGHT get Belorussia, W. Russia and Ukraine for a total of 31 IPC (and that’s assuming Japan did not take Buryatia on Japan 1.)  Again, not 40 IPC by any means.

    Let’s just say this, it is easier for Germany to get 60 IPC a round than it is for Russia to get 40 IPC a round, in my opinion.  And that’s after wasting 16 IPC on the carrier for SZ 5!


  • Cmdr, at least we agree on the Ger naval strat, it’s waste of money. G should only buy air/land units. Only if Jap manages to get the fleet to Italy, then maybe a Ger naval buy could be viable.
    One thing is arguments for not buying navy with Ger, I also observe better players, and none of them buys any navy with Ger.

    40 ipc Russia is very unlikely, allies probably won the game then  😉

    About Ger strats, the best (LL) player I’ve seen, leaves WE G2, and this is regardless of KJF/KGF.
    And the Russian strat in KJF, I think KJF doesn’t work against decent players because Russia  needs all units to defend against Ger.
    US alone is not enough to CJF, even if the UK starting units is used against Jap.

    Still not using TripleA, Jen :roll:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Nope.  I’ll never use TripleA.  I don’t plan to go to Vista until whatever comes out next is out and I suspect the programmers are busy getting TripleA to work with Vista, not XP (doesn’t work on my system, never did.  Can’t even copy someone else’s map and load it as a saved game…cant even save my games and load them again, not that I would want too anymore.)


  • A couple of quick points…

    1.  I have a low-end PC at present and it runs on Vista.  I can use TripleA on this one, but could not get it to work on my previous XP system.

    2.  I agree that Russia collecting $40 is game-over Axis (unless London or Washington has already fallen)

    3.  Not all top ranked players ignore building up a German Navy.  I am having an off year in the League (would probably help if I was still playing after numerous early losses), but I am one of the site representatives who qualified as one of 16 players for the DAAK World Cup starting in November and still have a pretty favorable overall win/loss record of about 2 wins for every 1 loss.  I like the SZ14 TRN bid.  I like the SZ5 AC on G1.  I even like both of them in the same game!

    There are several advantages to a G1 AC buy as Germany.  Among them are:
    1.  UK/USA need to spend far more on capital ships (or massive FIG buys with TRN fodder) to kill that fleet.
    2.  Norway is not immediately lost income to Germany.  Oftentimes an AC in SZ5 allows Germany to at least trade Norway for several turns before the Allies finally land enough forces there to hold it. 
    3.  It often diverts Allied resources from Africa, and with a TRN bid to SZ14 that often allows Germany to be at or near $50 for quite a few rounds early in the game which is critical.
    4.  Eventually the Allies need to sink that fleet to get at Berlin.  And 2 SUB, 1 TRN, 1 DST, 1 AC, 2 FIG can sink a LOT of Allied TRN on their way to the bottom, slowing the Allies one final round as they die.

    That is not an all-inclusive list, but for the nay-sayer’s out there it might get you thinking along different lines as to how that AC can be of significant long term benefit to the Axis


  • I’m totally with you on thoses comments ncscswitch.

    Also worth noting your 16 ipc CV will sink for more than it’s value if attacked, since you don’t pay for the fodder units already present there.
    As stated before, you retreat the fighters to land when you know you can’t hold anymore. The CV and fodders will still do their job of taking out some allied units. If it does not, it’s because the allied fleet is massive enough to sink it in one swipe and that only means allies over invested in the sea/air which is also mission accomplish for the CV.

    Not attacking the baltic means Berlin is safe from direct attack, good luck landing in France against a decent german turtle. I broken more than my share of so called KGF that way.


  • @Corbeau:

    The CV and fodders will still do their job of taking out some allied units. If it does not, it’s because the allied fleet is massive enough to sink it in one swipe and that only means allies over invested in the sea/air which is also mission accomplish for the CV.

    That is a really critical bit of posting there…

    +1 GK to you!


  • I agree with Corbeau Blanc’s angle. In my gaming group the rationale for the G1 carrier been boiled down to one argument: “because we know what happens when you don’t.” ~ZP


  • Love the Carlin quote there ZP!


  • <– using XP, Triple A works  shrug 😐


  • I find in my games that letting the british and americans rain in the atlantic undetered takes the game out of the german’s hands. If the German’s can not control the game then they are needlessly unmatched and will be overmatched by the annoying landings and broken supply lines.

    Now if Russia has nice roles then you do not go CV first round but as always play the game not force the game.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I disagree.  That carrier will probably be floating when Berlin falls, or the Allies will build just as they usually do and sink it with the Americans without so much as a serious dent.  Sure, America may lose a transport or two and get their battleship damaged, but otherwise, no serious damage.

    (I’m assuming you have 6 transports, battleship, carrier, 4 or 5 fighters and a bomber for the attack with 2 transports as pure fodder leaving you with 4 transports to get to England and 4 more to land troops in Euro-Asia.)

    And if you do retreat the fighters when you cannot hold anymore (Turn 3) you have bought no time (usually takes America 3 or 4 rounds to get in range there anyway) and you’ve lost 16 IPC for nothing.

    Furthermore, I cannot say that a carrier build has ever, in all my games, resulted in me diverting a single unit from Africa.  Dunno about you guys, but I have about a 2.141:1 win loss ratio.  I don’t play at DAAK anymore, the last game I actually played there was when the only game out was Classic (though some players like to use my ID there for their games.)

    I actually welcome Germany trading Norway.  That’s going to cost Germany at least 2 Infantry a round + the loss of use of at least one fighter, maybe two to retake it.  That’s significantly less firepower they can use for other attacks, like against Russia.  So now you are attacking Norway, W. Europe, Egypt, Ukraine, Belorussia and Karelia each round.  That’s spreading your firepower awefully slim and encouraging a phenomenon known as Cascade Dice Failure.

    Also, the goal is Berlin, not SZ 5.  Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the allies to dominate without sinking the SZ 5 fleet.  It’s actaully a matter of game records at some of the gaming sites that the SZ 5 fleet, even without a carrier build, sometimes survives when Germany dies.

    The only thing the carrier does is give Germany the option of using the SZ 5 fleet offensively against the Allied fleet longer than normal.  Honestly, I’ve yet to see Germany make that attack since they will have to over come at least two Allied Battleships and are bringing none of their own.

    So what does the Carrier bring you?

    1)  A chance to stretch your forces beyond their capabilities
    2)  A chance to squander your resources
    3)  A chance to experience Cascade Dice Failure
    4)  A chance to look in wonder at the Marineskrieg as it floats in the harbor of a capitol owned by Russia, England or America
    5)  The off chance your opponent loses his mind and spends way too much on fleet to counter your carrier. (Which is stupid when you think about it.  2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 Battleships, 8-10 Transports, 2 Submarines and 2 Destroyers are plenty and that’s usualy what the Allies have between the three of them anyway.  Germany will never win with 2 submarines, transport, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighters and a bomber, thus they will never try.)

    And finally:

    6)  A chance to waste 16 IPCs and keep it locked up forever in SZ 5.


  • Okay…I just played against (by the looks of it) two very experienced players.

    And that Baltic fleet was pretty much useless (bought me only 1 round extra time, and that was it).
    I guess that’s what you all meant with that the whole idea of the Baltic fleet is no longer used thát much…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Correct.

    It’s nice to have, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not investing valuable IPC in maintaining it.  (I’ll use it as fodder if I attack the allied navies though, if the allies are silly enough to let it live that long.)

Suggested Topics

  • 143
  • 15
  • 2
  • 62
  • 46
  • 2
  • 35
  • 37
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

58
Online

15.5k
Users

36.8k
Topics

1.5m
Posts