Posts made by Argothair

Some neat ideas in here, and it could be a lot of fun to play with tac bombers and mech. inf. on the 1942.2 map.

My personal design philosophy is that when you scale back the map, you also have to scale back the complexity of the rules and features. That doesn’t mean you can’t have convoys, airbases, etc., but it might mean that you have to find a way to make them smaller or less intrusive.

For example, having dozens of convoy zones makes sense in G40, because even the smaller factions start out with dozens of IPCs per turn – even if you lose, e.g., 4 IPCs to submarine raids, that’s still only about 10% of your economy. In 1942.2, though, the same submarines could wind up doing a lot more damage – submarines in the western and central Mediterranean alone could wipe out 14 German IPCs, i.e., roughly 30% of the German economy. To fix that, I’d recommend having about two designated ‘convoy zones’ for each nation – if there’s one or more enemy submarines in the convoy zone during your collect income phase, then nothing happens, and if there are no enemy submarines in the convoy zone, you collect, e.g., 2 IPCs per convoy zone. That keeps the rules simpler and prevents the submarine warfare from taking up too much of people’s time and attention.

Similarly, for the airbases and naval bases, maybe you can combine the two! An airsea base could cost, e.g., 10 IPC and allow you to repair capital ships, scramble fighters, and load/unload ordinary infantry from air transport planes. The map would start with airsea bases on Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Stalingrad, Cairo, Calcutta, Sydney, Tokyo, Honolulu, and San Francisco. You could build more if you like – it wouldn’t happen in every game, but it might be a good idea as part of a specific strategy.

I’m having trouble imagining how I would make good use of a transport plane – what kinds of situations would they be best in? I could see them being a decent way of getting some infantry from London to Africa if the Nazis control the sea lanes, but it would have to wait until next turn to make the return trip. If the transport planes had a range of 6, I could see them being useful for Pacific island-hopping or for raiding the money islands, but the range of 5 makes island-hopping very challenging unless you let transport planes land on carriers.

wittman, I agree that the Allies need a bid – but I’m giving the Allies a lot more IPC worth of new troops than I am the Axis. Allies get 1 inf, 3 art, 1 DD, 1 trans, 1 IC (45 IPC total), and Axis get 1 inf, 1 DD, 2 trans (25 IPC total). That ought to swing things back toward the Allies. And, yes, the Moroccan German transport would be able to reach Brazil. That’s one of the options I want to set up. The Americans will have, at minimum, a transport and DD in the Caribbean, and if they want to, they can retake Brazil on A1.

SEP, thanks, that’s a good idea for a house rule. I will probably use it.

The alternative is to give Britain a DD in both the Channel and the North Sea, as well as a third inf in London. That way Germany’s cruiser wouldn’t get to bombard on a G1 Sea Lion, and the Moroccan transport would be unable to pick up a Vichy French tank, so the Sea Lion battle would be at most 3 inf, 1 tnk, 3 ftr, 1 bmbr vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 1 bmbr, 1 AAA – Germany only has something like a 30% chance of winning that battle, even assuming both of the transports make it through the destroyer patrol. Also, Germany would probably be unable to sink the Scottish BB or the Canadian transport on the same turn as a G1 sea lion, so Britain has a chance to retake London on B1 with 1 tnk, 1 BB. Still seems annoying/disruptive, though – it’s not fun for Britain if they lose their capital on turn 1, and it’s not fun for Germany if they try to take the capital and instead just lose their fleet and air force.

Not yet! Taking a second look at this setup, the Morocco transport gives Germany a 62% chance of taking London on G1, so I have to either find some way of stopping that transport from hitting London, or making London better defended. Adding 2 more inf to London drops Germany’s chances to 25%, which is still a little high for an unblockable turn-1 capitol-take. Adding destroyer(s) to the English Channel doesn’t necessarily help, because Germany can bring in the eastern half of its air force to hit the channel, and use the western air force to attack London.

Anyone know how I can save the Morocco transport without dooming London? I really want Germany to have the option to play a little bit in the Atlantic, but not at the price of forcing a turn 1 Sea Lion.

Hi! I’ve been brainstorming alternate setups for Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition that could help (a) balance the game without the need for a further bid, and (b) promote counter-attacks and push-back across a larger portion of the globe, so that the game doesn’t quickly settle down into a stalemate with all the action in only two or three small regions. In particular, I wanted to give Russia the ability to counter-punch in Siberia, give Germany the ability to land a nuisance attack somewhere in the Atlantic, give Britain the ability to fight for Africa even after losing Egypt, give Japan the option to pull troops out of China to use on other fronts, and guarantee that America starts with at least some fleet in the Atlantic.

Let me know if you think this setup would help achieve any/all of these goals, and how you would do it better!

Russian – add 1 art to Yakutsk
German – add 1 inf to Morocco, 1 transport off the western coast of Morocco
British – add 1 inf to Italian East Africa, add 1 art to South Africa, add 1 art to Eastern Australia
Japanese – add 1 transport and 1 destroyer to Chinese coast (using OOB rules, I think both Japanese transports are adjacent to Tokyo, and none are adjacent to China)
American – add 1 destroyer and 1 transport to Caribbean Sea

Allied bid – one Industrial Complex, to be placed in any Allied-controlled territory before the start of R1.

Nice work so far! I’m excited about this guide. I hope that as you finish it, you have room for a discussion on timing – what is the smallest number of turns in which a strong German player can realistically hope to take Moscow, what is the largest number of turns in which a strong German player can realistically hope to resist a combined US-UK-USSR attack, what are some strategies for changing those numbers, etc.

All right, I stand corrected. I thought there was a fighter somewhere in Europe that could reach Egypt, but turns out none of the 6 German fighters can reach Egypt on G1. That means only 70% odds, which I agree is well short of “reliable.” It’s a gambit.

I still think the G2 attack on Egypt is reliable, because if you use G1 to ferry troops and one fighter to Libya and bring in the Algerian ground forces, then Germans have 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 bmbr (8 HP, 19 pips) vs. a British maximum of 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 bmbr (6 HP, 14 pips). My calculator shows 92% odds for Germans. If you don’t want to bring a fighter to Libya, Germans still have odds of 77%.

And whatever the odds are, I still don’t like that the British have no reasonable counter-play in Africa once they lose Egypt. What do you all think of putting extra British troops in Ethiopia and South Africa?

I don’t mind so much that Germany can reliably take Egypt G1 – with no ‘intermediate’ territories between Libya and Egypt, and with no sensible way for Germany to get to West Africa or Sudan or Ethiopia without going through Egypt, it’d be kind of boring if Germany couldn’t take Egypt – that would mean that Germany never sees any play in Africa.

On the other hand, I think it’s a problem that once Germany does take Egypt, Africa is doomed unless Britain builds an IC in South Africa (a weak play, in my opinion) or the USA sends massive reinforcements. I would like to see Britain have realistic chances of fighting back after losing Egypt, even without US help. If it were up to me, I’d leave Egypt weak, and add 1 inf, 1 art to British Italian East Africa, and add 1 tnk (for a total of 1 inf, 1 tnk) to South Africa. That way Britain can still generate some counterplay even if Germany does take Egypt, and it matters which direction(s) Germany goes south from Egypt.

EDIT 6/3/15: I changed my mind. I’d add 1 inf to British East Africa, and 1 art (for a total of 1 inf, 1 art) to South Africa. That way if Germany stacks in Libya on G1, Britain has at least two good options: option 1, he can pre-emptively retreat to Sudan and linking up with the Ethiopian infantry (which boosts the British stack to 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, making it difficult but not impossible for Germany to win), or option 2, he can hold in Egypt, hoping to wear down the Germans to about 2 tanks, and then try to counter-attack the tanks with a 2 inf, 1 art stack starting in Rhodesia, possibly with fighter support, on B3 or B4.

It’s a fair point – more transports would be better. Germany starts with 2, and I’m calling for Germany to buy 2 more on turn 2. The main problem is that once you move the German navy into position to unload troops into London, any new transports you build will be undefended and vulnerable to Anglo-American air strikes. To build new transports, you probably have to skip a whole turn of dumping troops into London. My idea is to keep a steady stream of German infantry going into London from turn 3 onward so that they don’t have a chance to accumulate such a big stack – that way, starting around turn 5, you can start bringing in your air force, and maybe even get a  safe(ish) second round of dice rolls before you have to retreat.

If the Axis attack on Africa goes as planned, UK will be down to about 19 IPC by turn 4, and taking about 15 IPC per turn in Japanese bombing damage – so if you’re dropping four fully loaded transports a turn into London, you should eventually be able to overwhelm their defenses.

Still, I’m all ears if you have an idea for how to safely build more German transports – maybe if you see a decisive opportunity, you can skip your infantry buy altogether on round 5 or 6 and spend your economy on transports #5 and #6 and carrier #3.

Here’s another idea for an off-the-beaten-path grand strategy: kill Britain first (“KBF”) in Axis & Allies 1942: 2nd Edition. This version of KBF relies on the strong starting Japanese economy to produce bombers that can whittle away at Britain’s income while the strong starting Germany navy gathers for a relatively early Sea Lion-style attack on London.

When to use the Strategy

Look for a weakly defended Karelia on R1. If Russia stacks its entire army in West Russia, then KBF might not be viable. Ideal positioning for a KBF is when Russia attacks Ukraine in earnest and also suffers a couple of casualties while taking West Russia, leaving the Russian army thin on forward-deployed infantry without wiping out the German infantry stack in Belorussia.

What to buy with Germany

On G1, buy 3 inf, 1 art, 2 carriers – one for the Baltic fleet and one for the Mediterranean fleet. On G2, buy 2 transports in the Baltic sea, and put the rest into infantry. Starting in G3, buy 1 artillery a turn and as many infantry as you can afford. Depending on what the US is throwing at you, you may want to occasionally replace a fighter or drop a pair of destroyers in the Baltic to reinforce your main fleet, but try to average at least 8 inf per turn – you need inf both to hold off Russia and as fodder for invading Britain.

German Sea Lion strategy

If you sink the British navy on G1, then both of your fleets will be safe for a couple of turns, because the British air force (3 fighters + 1 bomber = 4 HP, 13 pips) isn’t in any shape to blow up, e.g., 1 BB, 1 CV, 2 fighters (5 HP, 14 pips). Make sure to leave the Mediterranean fleet standing in place on G1 (you can ferry troops from Italy to Libya) so that your carrier group and your battleship reinforce each other.

Ignore the American navy on G1 – it often gets used to bring troops to Morocco, which is a trap for the USA in KBF, because those troops are much more urgently needed in London, and you need to reliably sink all of the British boats (except the Canadian DD and transport) without losing any of your own ships.

Unless both the UK and the USA are alarmingly blase about countering your navy, you need to link your fleets up by G3 somewhere near the English channel. This will buy you several more turns of regional naval dominance – the British aren’t in a position to rebuild their Atlantic navy with your carrier groups parked in their backyard, and the Americans will need several turns to build a fleet that can launch a meaningful attack against 2 CV, 4 ftr, 1 BB, 1 CA (9 HP, 27 pips on defense).

Note that you do not have to (and probably should not) launch a serious invasion of London on G3 – the purpose of linking up your fleet early is just to keep it healthy and intact. It is unlikely you will have much infantry to spare for a London invasion on G3, because the bulk of your G1/G2 income went into the navy. Depending on what is defending London, you probably want to make a token attack with 2 inf each on G3 and G4 (the supporting cruiser and battleship mean that you’re rolling 9 pips, meaning that your 6 ipc investment costs Britain about 4.5 ipc in defending infantry. You can bring in the airforce and artillery and so on for a full assault with 4 fully loaded transports starting in G5 (5 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk, 4 ftr, 1 bmbr, 1 BB, 1 CA = 13 HP; 37 pips). Obviously it’s OK to sacrifice the airforce if that gives you a high chance of sacking London – even if you can’t hold it against American reinforcements, the IPC swing is huge, and sacking the capital prevents Britain from building any additional defenders. On the other hand, if the attack’s not going well, don’t be afraid to withdraw the air and try again with fresh troops on G6 – trading 5 German inf, 2 art, 1 tnk (29 IPC) for, e.g., 4 London infantry (12 IPC) is a recoverable error, because you can rebuild the ground troops in one turn, and the whole point is to gradually wear down London’s defenses – whereas if you sacrifice your army and your air force and still don’t take London, it’s pretty much game over.

German defense of the Eastern Front

Where most KBF strategies go wrong is that the German player tries to duke it out with Russia on even terms, even though Russia is outproducing them in the region. You can’t afford to spend more than about 15 IPC per turn on the eastern front, whereas Russia can spend about 24 IPC per turn to fight you until Japan is knocking at the gates of Moscow. More to the point, there are no strategic targets for Germany in eastern Europe other than Karelia. Warsaw is not a victory city in this edition, and it really doesn’t matter how many 2 IPC territories you control on the eastern front – what matters is how many turns you can hold off Russia while still diverting the bulk of your income to Operation Sea Lion.

Instead of pressing as far east as you possibly can, pre-emptively retreat to a more defensible line of territories that you can stack with infantry, forcing the Russians to both (a) buy more expensive offensive units to assault your core territories, and (b) wait more time for those units to travel over to your side of the fence. Minimize the expense of your casualties by attacking almost exclusively with infantry and fighters, lightly trading any territories that you can afford to grab. If a 2 IPC territory is heavily defended, you don’t need it.

An aggressive German front line in KBF might be Karelia - Baltics - Poland - Romania. A more conservative line in KBF might be Karelia - Germany - Southern Europe, with Poland and the Baltics as lightly traded dead zones. It seems scary or weak to allow the Russians to enter Poland as early as R3, but if the Russians aren’t in position to hold Poland, let alone do anything exciting with their Polish stack, then it really doesn’t matter how far the Russians penetrate into your turf.

To see why, suppose the Russians (a) control West Russia, Ukraine, Baltics, and Rumania, (b) are trading Poland and Southern Europe, and © have lost Karelia, Buryatia, and the Soviet Far East. That puts the Russian income at 32 – enough to buy 6 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk each turn. With 15 IPC for the eastern front, Germany can only buy 5 inf of defense each turn. But to attack, e.g., Poland with ground forces, the Russians have to march from Moscow to West Russia to Belorussia to Poland – three spaces away from their industrial centers. By contrast, Poland is only one space from Germany. This means that on, e.g., R6, Russia can reach Poland with starting troops plus three turns’ worth of purchases – whereas Germany can reach Poland with starting troops plus five turns’ worth of purchases. 5 * 5 inf = 25 inf defending (25 HP, 50 pips) vs. 3 * 6 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk = 18 inf, 6 art, 3 tnk (27 HP, 45 pips). Retreating toward your supply lines greatly magnifies the power of your purchases. True, eventually Russia will catch up with you – but before they do, your goal is to seize Britain, dumping its loot right into Berlin just in time to turn the tables on an over-extended Russian stack. Any surviving carrier-based fighters can also come straight home to Berlin after a London conquest, because the Kriegsmarine is much less important once you’ve successfully forded the Channel.

To help support this long-supply-line strategy, you need to take and hold Karelia very early on. Taking Karelia gives you a convenient place to build infantry, and more importantly, it denies the Russians any flexibility for their infantry – all of their forces will have to march from Moscow or the Caucuses, which are equally far away from the German front lines. Karelia is also very important for the Japanese bombing campaign. As an added bonus, with Britain on the ropes and Karelia under German control, Norway, Finland, and to a lesser extent the Baltic States become ‘safe zones’ that produce German income without needing defenders.

German Invasion of Africa

To make KBF work, you obviously want to start sucking up as much British income as you can as early as possible. However, you also need to reinforce your Mediterranean fleet, which makes taking Egypt on G1 a non-starter. So, stack up in Libya, take Egypt on G2, take French Equatorial Africa and Italian East Africa on G3. Then, on G4, circle back into the Sudan via Rhodesia and the Congo. The Japanese will be able to help you pick up South Africa and Madagascar, so it’s not as important to get to those territories.

The Americans may land in Morocco and then start marching east across north Africa – let them! You don’t need to hold Africa long-term; you just need to keep the British from collecting its income during the crucial early turns, so that they run short on funds to defend London. If the Americans go up 3 IPC from taking German North Africa, it will have zilch effect on your opening strategy. Leave a token guard in Egypt of one or two infantry so that the American tank can’t blitz into Egypt, and then the Americans won’t take Egypt until A4. Meanwhile, you can re-occupy Egypt with both tanks and the bulk of your African ground forces on G5, which comes before B5 – so the British never get any benefit at all from the American ‘liberation’.

What to buy with Japan

Buy a total of five bombers on J1 and J2 – your starting transports and island infantry garrisons are plenty to help you make modest gains in east Asia for a few turns, your starting navy is adequate to fend off the USA for a couple of turns even if it goes all-out KJF, and you don’t have any urgent strategic goals in the opening. Your role is to support Germany’s assault on London by diminishing Britain’s income with strategic bombing runs. Starting on J3, if the USA is coming for you, you can switch to infantry and fighters to defend the homeland. Otherwise, on J3 and J4  you can build transports and artillery to help you take eastern British colonies (Madagascar, ANZAC, etc.).

Japanese Strategic Bombing Campaign

There’s not a whole lot of nuance to the Japanese bombing campaign – build as many bombers as you can, send them to Karelia as soon as Germany can take and hold it, and then launch from Karelia, bomb London, and land in Germany. Landing in Germany rather than Karelia gives Germany a little more flexibility if it needs to pull out of Karelia in the mid-game.

If you can’t land safely Karelia, sometimes you can tactically bomb a target of opportunity in the Indian Ocean and then land in Egypt, but keep in mind that Egyptian-based Japanese bombers can’t actually reach London in one turn. Losing Karelia slows your bombing offensive by an entire turn, so if Russia is in position to take and hold Karelia on R2, then you may need to abort the KBF altogether and use your bombers to launch a strategic bombing run against Moscow. If you switch to a KRF on turn 2, the German Mediterranean fleet heads for the Caucuses, and the German Baltic fleet stays in the Baltic to help trade Karelia. Good early bases for an Russian Japanese bombing campaign include Anhwei, Kwangtung, or even Egypt (for a run against the Caucuses).

Japanese Mainland Strategy

Again, there’s not too much nuance to the Japanese invasion of east Asia – you start with 11 inf, 2 art, 2 ftr on the mainland, and you will keep at least one transport to help you bring in the 5 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk stored in Tokyo and Manila as reinforcements, for a total of 16 inf, 4 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr. On a typical J1 you can kill 4 American infantry with minimal losses – if you only go one round of combat, you should expect to lose about 1 Japanese infantry. That leaves you with 15 inf, 4 art, 1 tnk, 2 ftr against Anglo defenders of 6 inf and 2 ftr – and it’s basically impossible for the Anglos to coordinate their defense in the territory, since the remaining Americans are in Szechuan, 3 spaces away from British India. This is basically a rout in favor of the Japanese – you can finish off the Americans on J2, and then start heading after the British on J3. Just make sure to avoid reckless assaults – you’re not gunning for Moscow in KBF, so trading armies for space is a bad deal; there’s no hurry to mop up all the 1 IPC territories in central Asia.

True, the British can spend IPCs to reinforce India – but that’s the whole point, is to make the British spend their money. Try to keep trading Burma so that the British don’t have a chance to expand beyond India and gain income, and Britain becomes very unlikely to turn a profit on its eastern colonies – at most, India is protecting Burma, India, Persia, and Trans-Jordan, for a total of 6 IPC per turn – but they’re going to have to buy at least 2 infantry a turn to maintain that sphere of influence.

You can afford to ignore the Russians for the first few turns – even if they stack all 5 infantry in Buryatia, they have no tanks in range. (If they try to send a tank into Sinkiang, destroy it.) At worst, the Russians can take and hold Manchuria, for 3 IPC a turn – but that would take about 4 turns for the Russians to yield a profit vs. just sending the Buryatian stack west as reinforcements, and by J6 you will have had plenty of time to deal with the Russians.

Japanese Naval Strategy

Japanese naval strategy in KBF depends entirely on what the Americans are doing. On J1, you want to launch a Pearl Harbor attack, using your Caroline islands carrier and Tokyo fighter in lieu of the Tokyo bomber (which must head to Karelia immediately for strategic bombing duty). If the Americans rebuild the Pacific fleet, then you can just consolidate your entire navy in the inner Tokyo sea zone to protect your transports, and focus on building a survivable fleet that keeps the Americans busy. Assuming at least two of your capital ships survived the opening round, you probably want a mix of submarines and destroyers.

Don’t actually attack the main American fleet unless the Americans make a major blunder – you want a standoff so that the Americans keep dropping boats into the Pacific and don’t save enough IPCs to reinforce Britain. If the Americans manage to sneak a well-guarded transport into the Philippines, that’s not the end of the world – you can start reclaiming victory cities after Britain falls. On the other hand, if the Americans show signs of developing a credible shuck-shuck from San Francisco to Tokyo, i.e., two well-positioned groups of at least three transports each, plus enough warships to guard them, then you need to start building infantry and fighters in Tokyo itself, even if that costs you your fleet. Consider kamikazing one of the US transport groups with your fighter stack if that seems like a good trade – you don’t need to make any particular progress in Asia, so once you’ve secured Buryatia, China, and Burma, your fighters (and carrier!) are expendable. Taking out 3 transports off the coast of Hawaii can delay the US invasion by a full 2 turns, giving you time to generate an enormous stack of infantry in Tokyo.

On the other hand, if the Americans abandon the Pacific, then you need to prepare to invade Hawaii and then San Francisco, to force the Americans to divert at least some IPCs to the Pacific front. If America is left free to ferry even two transports worth of infantry per turn to Britain, then Germany is going to be stuck without good options. If the Anglos leave Western Canada empty with no tanks in Western/Central US, you can often seize Alaska and build an industrial complex there – you probably won’t hold it, but it’s a great way to force the US to divert serious manpower to a second front. If you take Alaska on J4, build an Alaskan IC and take Western Canada in J5, then even when you inevitably lose Western Canada on A5, you can still build, e.g., 1 inf, 1 AAA in Alaska on J6 and fly in your fighter stack as reinforcements.

Try to strike a balance between striking America quickly enough to affect the outcome of Operation Sea Lion and striking America hard enough that the Americans can’t get away with ignoring you. The Americans don’t actually need Hawaii, Mexico, or Panama, for example, so sending forces there won’t distract a skilled American player from defending London. If the Russian Siberian army retreated westward in the opening, consider returning the bulk of your Asian ground forces to the coast on J3 and building 3-4 new transports on J3, so that by J5 you can land in San Francisco with 10+ units. You will lose a few IPCs in China and Buryatia, but the point is to take London out of the game, not to maximize Japanese IPCs.

KBF Endgame

Once you’ve got London, what do you do with it? Nothing too fancy.

If the Americans are in the Atlantic, build infantry and fighters in both Berlin and London to help hold the capitals, and to support a strike of opportunity against the American fleet – if you can take out the only major Allied fleet on the board, it’s well worth sacrificing both the German fleet and the German air force. Watch for ‘can-opener’ attacks where the Americans use fighters and marines to knock out a German screening force to let a stack of Russian tanks through into, e.g., Italy. Meanwhile, you can send the Japanese to take Honolulu (first!) and then Calcutta second, winning the game (London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Leningrad, Calcutta, Shanghai, Tokyo, Honolulu). The Americans can land fighters in Honolulu to protect it if they see your invasion coming, but Russia can’t afford to build enough tanks to meaningfully protect India against an all-out Japanese invasion.

If the Americans are in the Pacific, you can try landing in Eastern Canada with the Germans to distract the Americans, but that may not be fast enough to prevent the fall of Tokyo and may not be damaging enough to compensate for Tokyo’s loss. A better idea is to swing your navy counter-clockwise through the Mediterranean to the Caucuses (only two turns away!) and build 100% tanks to try to blitz into Moscow and India. If you followed the earlier advice about building mostly infantry, this should give you a balanced offensive army that can take both Moscow and India before American reinforcements arrive. Even if you lose Tokyo and the money islands, you will have London, Berlin, Moscow, and Calcutta, leaving the US with about 65 IPCs / turn vs. 80 IPC / turn for Germany. The US will have to either pause to build ICs on the east Asian coast or be capped at 8 units per turn in Japan, whereas Germany can build 8 units in Moscow, 4 in Stalingrad, and 3 in India.

Here’s one affordable way to beat back a casual Japanese invasion:

USA starts with a sub off the coast of Hawaii, which you can submerge if you want during Pearl Harbor, since Japan has no destroyers in range on Japan’s first turn. Build one more submarine for 6 IPCs, and park your 2 subs off the coast of San Francisco. Japan can’t sink your subs with carrier aircraft unless they bring a destroyer with them. Meanwhile, you can build a bomber each turn in the Eastern US as part of your Kill Germany First strategy. If Japan ignores you, the bomber can go east to harass Berlin. If Japan brings a small transport fleet toward San Francisco, you can hit it and kill it with 2 subs and a bomber.

Of course, if Japan brings its entire fleet toward San Francisco, you’ll need bigger defenses – but you’ll see that coming and have time to stop it, and if Japan swings its whole fleet east, then that’s so many more turns that Siberia and India are safe.

Some big-name commenters here! I�m honored by all the discussion. I didn�t expect to draw any attention from a national champion, and Black_Elk�s high-quality articles are what inspired me to write up the Kontrol Asia First strategy in the first place.

To answer Black_Elk�s question about bidding, I recently played this strategy with an 8 IPC bid, and I used it to put one infantry in Egypt and one AAA in Sinkiang. I�m not sure that�s a great strategy – it worked out OK for me, but the AAA offers zilch on offense, which is a problem given how few units the US has to work with in Asia. With 9 IPC, I might have put one infantry in Egypt, one in Trans-Jordan, and one in Szechuan – if the Germans drop two units in Trans-Jordan while also stacking in Libya, that tends to greviously delay the Brits� ability to get tanks into Burma, and the second infantry in Jordan goes a long way toward making sure only one unit from the Afrikakorps survives. With 11 IPC, I�d go for one infantry in Egypt and one extra destroyer protecting the US Atlantic transports – being able to reliably drop 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk in Morocco on US1 is huge. Anyone have any other ideas for KAF bids?

I think a G2 artillery build and G3 tank build is a solid response to KAF, but keep in mind that the tanks being built in Egypt can be redirected to the Caucuses without much trouble – the Egyptian tanks naturally stop over in Persia on their way east, and from Persia they can reach Ukraine, Caucuses, West Russia, or Moscow in one move, possibly with fighter support from India. If the Axis are staking everything on a one-shot punch at Moscow, then the British can switch to KGF, sinking the un-reinforced German Navy and then saving up for a carrier and two destroyers to support a US Atlantic invasion fleet.

Another problem with a German artillery blitz is that it’s not actually that fast or that big, as blitzes go. Let’s say Germany is playing with 45 IPCs on G2 – that’ll buy 11 artillery. If you want to save your starting forces for the maximum assault on Moscow, you’re not going to get much past 45 IPCs in the early rounds, so let’s say you earn a total of 90 IPCs on G3 and G4, which buys you 15 tanks. A big chunk of Germany’s starting ground forces are either needed to defend western Europe, stuck in Africa, or likely to be killed on R1. The territories that can realistically contribute their ground troops to Barbarossa are Berlin, Finland, Baltic, Poland, Bulgaria, Italy, Southern Europe, Ukraine, and Belorussia, for a total of about 18 infantry, 2 artillery, and 8 tanks, depending on how you count. Add in the 11 artillery from G2 and the 15 tanks from G3/G4, and you’re looking at a ground force of 18 inf / 13 art / 15 tnk. Note that artillery purchased in Germany on G2 reach Poland on G3, Belorussia on G4, and West Russia on G5 if they move as fast as possible. The tanks you buy on G4 can’t hit West Russia on G5 because it’s 3 spaces away, so you might have to wait for your tanks to catch up. If you get delayed even one turn on your march to Moscow, that means your Moscow assault comes on G7 – giving Moscow 7 turns to purchase infantry with an average income of 21 IPC per turn, which means you’re up against a stack of something like 50 infantry, assuming Russia can use its starting troops to trade and hold most of its periphery. If Britain and the US reinforce that stack with a modest donation of 2 fighters each, then Russia has a defensive stack of 54 HP and 116 defensive pips facing off against Germany’s offensive stack of 46 HP and 102 offensive pips. Bring in the German air force of 6 fighters and a bomber and Germany’s stack is 53 HP and 124 offensive pips – not really enough for a decisive win. Germany could probably take Moscow, but there’s no guarantee it would hold it. Bring in a G5 buy of 4 bombers, and Germany’s stack is 57 HP and 140 offensive pips – finally enough for a decisive win. Meanwhile, though, Germany has devoted 100% of its IPC due east for five turns. Germany is going to lose Norway and north Africa, and it’s probably going to be (at best) trading France and Holland. Britain is going to be huge, because Germany never bought a navy or sent any troops to Africa, so Britain could even launch an amphibious assault on Italy from the Egyptian IC. I’m probably missing some of the strategy’s important nuances – I’m sure you could make good use of a G2 buy that’s heavy on artillery – but I don’t see a German artillery blitz as a strategy that can neutralize KAF all by itself.

Note that you do not have to literally boot the Japanese off the mainland to win in KAF – if the Japanese are bottled up near Manchuria and Kiangsu, then the British have a much higher sustainable income, and the Russians have the luxury of fighting a defensive one-front war.

MarineIguana, I agree with you that the Japanese have a very easy time dominating the Pacific sea zones in A&A 1942 2nd Ed., but I�m not proposing that the US should build a superior Pacific fleet – the point is that the combined US and British threat is very difficult for the Japanese fleet to manage simultaneously.

If Japan sends the whole fleet southwest, then the Americans can invade e.g., Iwo Jima and then the Phillipines, building a 3 IPC industrial complex if the Japanese don�t bring the fleet home. If Japan leaves the whole fleet near Japan, then the British can invade Yunnan and French Indochina because the Japanese can�t protect any transports near India. If Japan splits the fleet evenly, then the US can invest in a large, balanced navy and defeat both Japanese fleets one at a time.

By round 3 of KAF, the British should have 2 fighters in India plus a bomber in the Caucuses (32 IPCs, 3 HP, 10 pips offense), which can be traded favorably against, say, one fully loaded Japanese carrier and one transport (41 IPCs, 3 HP, 10 pips defense). But if the Japanese draw off more than one fully loaded carrier fleet to protect an Indian Ocean campaign, then they no longer have an edge against an American Navy that goes all-out in the Pacific, especially if the Americans are building mostly 6 IPC subs against Japan�s 8 IPC destroyers.

I do like MarineIguana�s idea of slowly stacking fighters in India that get flown in from London, but I�m not convinced that this is more useful than the Egyptian tanks. I also disagree that the structure of the east Asian territories makes it uninteresting for the British to expand beyond India – although there are several 1 IPC territories in the region, east Asia tends to be very lightly defended and expensive for Japan to reinforce. A pair of tanks in eastern Europe might buy you control of one 2 IPC territory for one turn, whereas a pair of tanks in east Asia might buy you control of four 1 IPC territories for two turns each.

Finally, I completely agree with MarineIguana that bombers are high-variance and low-profit ways of gaining an IPC edge in general, but I do think they�re an efficient way of punishing Japan in the particular situation where Japan builds a pair of industrial complexes during the first two rounds. The USA has IPCs to burn, and any way that they project power over the ocean is going to be inefficient. If the USA can do enough strategic bombing damage to stop Japan from cranking out all 3 tanks in Manchuria, then the USA is accomplishing its objectives even if the USA takes a net IPC loss doing so, because the British 2 inf / 1 art / 2 tnk build is going to beat a Japanese 2 tnk build (or, for that matter, a Japanese 3 inf build) on the mainland. The British campaign to steal east Asian territories synergizes very nicely with a US strategic bombing campaign; not only does the British invasion have a tendency to provide the safe bases that American bombers need, it also further reduces the Japanese income, making it that much easier for American bombers to cause more bombing damage than the Japanese can afford to repair while also dropping tanks in Asia.

Oddbjoern asked what to do with the Indian and ANZAC transports in a KAF game. I think the ANZAC fleet should go east around the southern tip of South America and circle up to London, just as it would in a KGF game – just because the focus is on east Asia doesn�t mean it isn�t useful to harass Germany. The destroyer and transport will often arrive just as the UK has some breathing room in Asia and can afford to drop a carrier in the Channel, which is very convenient. I usually need the Indian transport to help retake Trans-Jordan from the Germans, but if the Germans don�t invade the eastern Med at all, it can be fun to send the Indian transport to sea zone 51, off the coast of Kwangtung and Yunnan – that way you can stack both Yunnan (2 british inf, 1 british ftr, 2 american inf) and Szechuan (2 american inf, 1 american plane, 1 russian inf), making things extremely difficult for Japan in China. I�m not in love with either of these strategies, though – everyone please let me know if you have other ideas for how to use the British transports!

KJF Doesn’t Have to Mean Kill Tokyo First

Strategy for the Allies typically gets divided into two groups: KGF (Kill Germany First) and KJF (Kill Japan First). For the most part, KJF strategies focus on building a superior Allied navy, getting the navy across the Pacific, and capturing the Japanese capital in Tokyo. Some KJF strategies might include some strategic bombing to weaken Tokyo’s defenses, and/or a quick detour to capture the ‘money islands’ – Borneo, East Indies, and maybe the Philippines.

There are several problems with trying to build a superior navy that can reliably sink the Japanese fleet: (1) it’s bloody expensive, because naval units are the most expensive units in the game, (2) it’s risky, because the Japanese navy is centrally located, so when you try to link up the British Pacific fleet with the American Pacific fleet, there’s a good chance that the Japanese navy will be able to pick them off one at a time, (3) it’s a full turn slower than a land invasion, because first you have to destroy the fleet and then you have to take the Japanese home island chain, (4) it’s unrewarding, because you don’t get any IPCs for taking Wake Island, the Solomon Islands, Iwo Jima, or other Pacific staging grounds, (5) it weakens Russia because it gives Japan a free hand to send tanks to capture Russia’s territories in Siberia, Vologda, and Kazakhstan, and (6) it’s inflexible, because once you finally win the naval battle it’s hard to find another way to put all your Pacific boats to a good use.

So what if, instead of going for the Japanese capitol or the Japanese money islands, the Allies try to drive the Japanese off of mainland Asia? Mainland Asia has 21 IPCs (from India up through China to the Soviet Far East) and 2 Victory Cities (Calcutta and Shanghai), which is at least as good as any other contestable region. For example, Oceania has 15 IPCs and 1 VC (Manila); Eastern Europe (from Poland to Archangel) has 21 IPCs and 1 VC (Leningrad); and western europe (including Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, and Northwest Africa) has 16 IPCs and 2 VCs (Paris, Rome).

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Shore Bombardment?

One reason why the Allies have traditionally avoided mainland Asia is because it’s a good spot for the Japanese fleet to score some bombardment casualties – the Japanese can unload troops from Japan onto the Chinese coast with their transports, and use the same battleships and cruisers that are protecting those transports to score a few extra hits. This is a noticeable downside to invading east Asia, but it shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. For one thing, cruisers and battleships are a very inefficient way of scoring hits – a fighter costs 10 IPC, rolls a die that hits on ‘3’ or less in every round of offense, and rolls a die that hits on ‘4’ or less in every round of defense. A cruiser costs 12 IPC, rolls a die that hits on a ‘3’ or less, but only in the first round of offensive combat, and can’t roll at all when defending land territories. You would almost never choose to build a cruiser – so why would you run away from a region just because the enemy has cruisers there? If you wouldn’t avoid a whole region to avoid a medium-sized air force, then you definitely shouldn’t avoid a whole region just to avoid a medium-sized navy.

Another way of looking at the bombardment problem is to notice that a large-ish fleet of 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, and 2 transports together cost about 90 IPCs. That fleet will let you deliver 4 land units a turn, plus rolling 4 ‘bonus’ dice that hit on 3 or less (2 ‘bonus’ dice from bombarding cruisers, and 2 ‘bonus’ dice from fighters). But for only 70 IPCs, you could build 2 Industrial Complexes and 4 Fighters. You’re still delivering 4 units a turn plus 4 ‘bonus’ dice that hit on 3 or less, but now the bonus dice have more staying power, you can use your bonus dice on both offense and defense, and you can build any land units you want instead being forced to buy 50%+ infantry.

How do you get Allied land units into east Asia?

Another reason why the Allies have traditionally avoided attacking mainland Asia is because it’s very hard to get a foothold there unless you already have naval dominance – the US can’t build a factory in China because it gets captured after only one turn of production, the USSR doesn’t have any plausible build sites for an eastern factory, and the UK can’t afford to both build a factory in India and ship over enough troops to defend it against a determined Japanese attack.

Fortunately, in Second Edition the British start with an Industrial Complex in India. This means you can start dropping troops in India on the very first turn (instead of having to wait for a factory there to come online), and it also means that the UK can (maybe) build a second factory in the east without going totally bankrupt.

Here is one potential build order that I’m toying with:
UK Turn 1: build IC in Egypt, 2 inf / 1 art in India (25 IPCs)
UK Turn 2: build 2 tanks in Egypt, 2 inf / 1 art in India (22 IPC)
UK Turn 3: build 2 tanks in Egypt, 2 inf / 1 art in India (22 IPC)
UK Turn 4: build 1 bomber in Egypt, 3 tnk in India (30 IPC)
UK Turn 5: build 2 inf / 1 bomber in India (18 IPC)

Depending on how well you do in Africa, that should leave you about 30-40 IPC for reinforcing London and Moscow, preferably with infantry and fighters.

Including your starting 3 infantry in India, this build allows you to link up your forces and drive on Shanghai in UK Turn 6 with (9 inf / 3 art / 7 tank / 2 bomber) – a well-balanced, powerful army. At setup, Japan has only (10 inf / 2 art / 2 fighter) on the mainland, and it’s spread out across a dozen territories, and they’re likely to lose at least half of it fighting the Chinese and the Siberians – so unless Japan spends a significant part of their economy building reinforcements for mainland Asia, they’re going to lose Shanghai. Even if the Japanese do reinforce the mainland, the balance of forces is probably going to stablize with French Indochina as a dead zone, instead of with India as the dead zone. With Burma under British control, the Japanese have to leave a garrison in western China, leaving little or nothing leftover to attack the Soviets from the rear.

American Bombers and Subs

Meanwhile, depending on how the Japanese are fueling the mainland, the Americans can devote almost all of their resources to a focused counter-strike. If the Japanese build ICs in mainland Asia, then the Americans can build nothing but bombers. With three ICs to target (e.g., Tokyo, Manchuria, and French Indochina), the Americans can make good use of (8 + 3 + 2) * 2 = 26 pips per turn of bomber damage, which is almost enough to wipe out the Japanese economy. With 8 bombers, America can deal 8 * 3.5 = 28 pips per turn of expected damage, and America can get those 8 bombers with only two full turns of production (2 starting bombers + 36 IPC + 36 IPC).

If the Japanese build transports to get their units across the South China Sea, then the Americans can build a huge wolf pack of subs. This is a fun and ironic strategy. Normally, in KJF games, it’s the Americans who have to build a complicated combined-arms fleet with destroyers, carriers, fighters, transports, and land units to try to occupy Japan without getting sunk by subs or fighters – the Americans are trying to safely ferry a large land army to Tokyo, but all Japan has to do is stop them from getting there. That means that if all the ships crash into each other and kill each other, Japan wins and America loses – after a mutual naval wipeout in KJF, Japan can keep driving tanks toward Moscow, whereas America is sitting around looking stupid. But in KAF, if all the ships kill each other, then Japan has no way to get troops onto the mainland, so Britain can keep driving tanks toward Beijing and Kamchatka, and it’s the Japanese who have to sit around on their islands feeling stupid. All the Americans need to do to win in the Pacific in a KAF game is to destroy the Japanese transport fleet – and since airplanes can’t be used to take sub casualties, subs are a perfect weapon to achieve that goal. In the first two turns, the US can theoretically drop 13 subs into the Pacific.

On any successful KAF strategy, even if the Germans take Moscow, that leaves them holding Paris, Rome, Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Manila, and maybe Honolulu – well short of the 9 VC the Axis need to win. Meanwhile, the Allies are significantly outproducing the Axis even without Moscow, and since they’ve already got a strong base on the Eurasian landmass, they’re in a good position to use that income to start rolling back Nazi gains.

Weaknesses

To get KAF started, you obviously will have to find a way to securely hold Egypt – that might mean placing a Infantry there on bid, or it might mean moving a Russian fighter there on Round 1, or both. The IC in Egypt also means that you need to keep the Med clear of significant German naval deployments, – but the resources you spend on attacking the Mediterranean German Navy probably mean that you have to let Germany have a big navy in the Baltic, so you have to keep an eye out for Sea Lion-style attacks on London.

Another weakness of KAF is that the Russians will have to hold or at least trade the Caucuses to make sure the Germans don’t penetrate eastward, since India is being used as a vital center of operations rather than just a convenient place to stage a delaying action – if the Germans start poking at India from the northwest in KAF, it’s pretty much game over. The silver lining here is that the British should be able to send the occasional tank up to the Caucuses from India, since India won’t be fighting for its life.

One last downside is that you have to be prepared to play a very long game, because even when KAF works, it doesn’t give you a capitol or even a majority of the victory cities – it just gives you a majority of the world’s IPCs, which you can then leverage into an official win over the next several turns. KAF might be inappropriate if you’re trying to finish the whole game in a short evening, and KAF won’t do you much good if you’re playing tournament rules where whoever has the most victory cities at the end of Round 6 or Round 7 is automatically ruled to be the winner.

Conclusion

I don’t pretend that KAF is an optimal strategy or even that it’s as likely to win as a more traditional KGF or KJF. There are some real risks here, from an early German breakthrough in Moscow, to a monster German Atlantic navy, to the possibility of getting some bad rolls and just having the Japanese hold onto Asia despite your best efforts, making you feel very silly indeed.

Then again, most Allied strategies have some very serious problems in Second Edition with no bid. I also think A&A 1942 2nd Edition makes it easier than ever before for the Allies to try a credible ‘third way’ strategy that breaks out of the old familiar routines, and that’s a big part of what makes Axis & Allies fun for me. You need a little something beyond just the starting setup to make KAF work – some lucky rolls, or the right Allied bid, or a German player who neglects the Mediterranean, or a Japanese player who overextends himself by buying three transports or 2 ICs on the first turn – but if the situation is right, then I think KAF can be a heck of a lot of fun.

Would love to hear your thoughts!