@trulpen yeah, BM is much tougher for the Japanese in China. I waste way too many men trying to suppress the rebellions. I hate it when an American bomber knocks off the lone defender and a Chinese soldier pops up in Tibet.

I had an unusual game where the Axis captured Egypt early. The Americans focused heavily on the European operations and the Allies were steadily making progress on that side of the map. I built up the Japanese air force and sent it on a suicide attack into Moscow around turn 8. Stripping off 15 infantry Allied units in Moscow can change a battle from a 95% chance of losing into a 95% chance of winning when the Germans get their turn. It also means that Germany will keep their air force intact, allowing them to reclaim any European victory cities if necessary.

The best part of this strategy is that the extra Japanese planes can hold the Allies at bay for several turns, forcing India to cower and Anzac + USA to be more conservative with their fleets. All of the planes can raid Moscow from a base in Sichuan, meaning that only one turn is required to setup the pivot from Pacific to Europe.

Of course the Russian AA’s shot down half of my Japanese raiders and the German tanks had their turrets pointed backwards, leading to an abrupt and unhappy end to a genius strategy.

@Omega1759 I do think that the Axis will be forced to leave Gibraltar soon because defending it starts distracting Germany from the even more attack into Russia or Egypt. I think that he will be gone in another two rounds. Still, that is a huge amount of extra income for Italy during this time.

I have no idea why the UK Med fleet ran towards India. I don’t see what it will do before it inevitably goes back to the Med. The 5 PU bonus for no Allied ships in the Med is a killer bonus for Italy.

You don’t have to fully stop Japan. India and China will inevitably fall no matter what you plan. If you have ANZAC ground troops supported by American planes, you can prevent Australia from falling easily into Japanese hands. Have a couple tanks or mechs that can prevent a beachhead forming in Western Australia. Those planes can shuttle back to Hawaii if he tries to have an amphibious assault to capture that victory territory.

Uncontested in the Pacific, Japan will eventually be able to win in that theater. Still, it takes a surprisingly long time to get to that point so hopefully you can start shifting spending to that side of the board once you got the European Axis powers weakened. You just need to hinder their income by capturing Normandy/Norway and convoy raiding Italy with a big stack of Mediterranean subs. At that point Russia+UK can do most of the maintenance work to hold back Germany.

sure, no problem. feel free to always correct minor mistakes that are obviously mistakes.

Tizkit’s comments

1. agreed
2. agreed
3. agreed, he can start convoy raiding right away
4. definitely agree
5. not really necessary since he can’t step forward with 7 inf, but I would prefer a tank over a mech. Essentially same defense and much greater attack. You are always short on attack as Russia
   6)agreed
6. The cruiser ship block in 114 is very essential.

Additional: you can leave the planes in Moscow and still reach everywhere on the Western front. It allows you to land in Yunnan if there is some miracle and you can support Yunnan on turn 2. Sometimes I rush a mech and tank to Sikang on R1 and then return them back to Moscow if the dice are not looking good for China.

65 IPCs spent on non anti-Russia fighting forces generally means that Moscow cannot be captured in any reasonable period of time.  It also means that the Russian stack can stand toe-to-toe with the German stack and not be afraid.  That frees up the UK to start producing fast units in Persia.  Combined with a significant UK air force, that can usually push a minor German expedition out of Russia’s soft belly.

I am not saying that it couldn’t work, but I am saying that I rarely see Germany succeed if they significantly spend on anything other than ground units and planes.

Don’t want to beat you because of a simple mistake. I prefer winning with superior luck.

@trulpen guess you aren’t a fan of the FIC strafe.

You might need the SZ98 transport to ferry soldiers to Egypt. Check the battle calc.

@simon33:

The problem of an economic victory condition is how do you have a meaningful one that isn’t present on the initial setup?

Simple solution: Don’t play with people who won’t give up when the ultimate outcome of the game has been determined.  If you are going to need another 3-6 hours of your life to convince them that the position is hopeless, I recommend giving them the victory and finding a better opponent to play with next time.

@shadowhawk said in Hall of Shame - tales of the worst dice ever:

g japan 1 inf 1 art
attacking 3 chinese inf + 1 air
Normal chance of winning 96%
End result japan 1inf 1 art left
china retreated with 1 air.

Wow, that is so lucky that the Chinese still had the fighter remaining. Most of my battles would end in two rounds with no remaining Allied forces. Isn’t it crazy how 4% outcomes seem to happen a majority of times?

@andrewaagamer. What is the minimum bid spend for the Allies to hold Yunnan on J2?

Here are some of my priorities that add up to 41 PUs
China: art in Kweichow, art in Szechwan, infantry in Yunnan
Russia: Tank in Volgograd, tank in Caucasus. Perhaps an art in Amur and a tank in Sakha to attack Korea on R1?
UK Pacific: Burma art, India mech

If Russia builds three more fighters in Moscow on R1, they can end up in Yunnan the next round and hold the territory.

Has anybody tried this hold-Yunnan at all costs on J2 strategy and if so, did it work? I could see immense problems in the European theater as Germany and Italy can become monsters without having to worry about American interference for many turns, and Russia has weakened themselves considerably.

@shadowhawk, I always look at bids and how much extra value they can bring in the first couple of rounds. For example a Scottish fighter will both save one of the fleets and help destroy remaining German Navy on UK1 so might return an extra 15 PUs of expected value beyond having a very useful extra fighter for the long run.

The Med sub also adds tremendous value, destroying Italian shipping and possibly causing additional casualties during the inevitable counter attack. Other bids like African units for the UK are also immediately impactful. Obviously the NG infantry is extremely beneficial if allowed.

My question is if any Pacific Allied bids designed to counter the IJN would contribute a huge multiplier of value if combined with a heavy US1 and US2 Bomber build? I want that 30-40 PUs to lead to even bigger changes in the game balance over the first few turns.

@andrewaagamer let’s assume that the Allies have a typical 40 PU bid before the game to balance out the match. Do you think there are ways to a KJF bomber strat can be adjusted with to accelerate a counter Japan plan?

I could see a carrier in SZ26, bomber in Hawaii and bomber in W USA leading to immense pressure against the IJN immediately, albeit with huge sacrifice to the European theater. Probably not worth it.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

I have the Indian land units consolidate on Burma on UK1, then move to Shan State UK2.

That is a very aggressive move for the UK as that stack in Shan State cannot be back to the capital to protect until UK4. Can Japan not be in position to capture India on J4? They should have 6 or 7 transports along with most of their air force. Do you just walk out of India and allow an easy sacking which is a big swing even if it can be recaptured immediately?

Well we could spend ages discussing if that is a good Allied plan, or we could play a match Mika.

Obviously the United States can defeat Japan in the Pacific if they invest 100% of their resources into that theater. Something is wrong if an Allied player is incapable of winning or containing them despite 100+ production points being poured into the theater for the first few rounds. Honestly, I just turtle down as Japan and focus on keeping the money islands and China if the Allies have such a strong response in the Pacific.

I just don’t think that going all bombers is the most economical way to pursue a response as it has drained all of the income for the first two rounds, and still cannot provide adequate defense for the combined Allied fleet to stand toe-to-toe with the IJN. It won’t allow landings on the islands or mainland Asia, and won’t enable convoy raids in high value sea zones.

I miss how this strategy works also as Japan can just build aircraft carriers and already has enough fighters to fill the decks. Three more flattops would be sufficient to protect the IJN fleet and also project enough power that the Allies cannot park their fleet stack in Queensland in the mid-game without even further investment into more Pacific-side spending.

Perhaps the bomber plan works well in face-to-face matches where people don’t have as much time to plan and don’t use battle calculators. This is often the source of advice discrepancies as the live players have a very different experience playing G40 than those who do PBEM or forum matches.

It definitely would have worked if America had rolled average. I should have kept going a round by was so upset by that die roll. It has been a few years since I last played Allies… Thanks for the match.

2021 League game