OK, I’ll start by saying this strategy is played very commonly by one of the top players of the AA42 ladder of GTO (4 times winner). Games are played with UK6 bid that is places in Persia and Trans-Jordania (league rules)

For Germany, he builds a aircraft carrier and a destroyer that he puts in the baltic. The idea is to force UK to build 3 fighters (to counter the fleet and not to lose London on G2). Then assuming UK builds 3 fighters, he’ll remove the Figs and leave the 3 boats in 3 different SZ. The other idea behind that is to send units in Africa while UK is busy killing your boats. This way UK killing the battleship in Med is not happening before UK3 which lets Germany send 8 units in Africa, enough to take many IPC in Africa easily.
On the following turns he’ll build 1 Bom a turn to prevent landings for quite a while with the UK1 turn spent on planes.

Obviously Russia will come pretty deep in Germany stacking even Ukraine or Karelia if they want but they will have to go back because with Japan he build 2 IC on turn 1 followed by all tanks (and Bombers in Tokyo with the extra IPC).

Obviously, I’m summarizing. Going Pacific with US (I’m meaning with no IC in Asia here) as no chance to work (I tried once and got absolutely destroyed). Japan can just ignore US boats and Moscow will fall before they even get near Asia.

If you go Pacific with the US and build an IC in India, Russia falls on turn 6 against any good axis players pretty much all the time (Russia would need quite incredible luck to stop that).

@Mr.Biggg:

@GCar:

Low luck was perfectly described. The idea is that in normal dice games, many times a huge fight (around 70-100 IPC on each side, sometimes more) happens and the luck potential of those fights is huge in comparison to the normal smaller fights. For exemple if both sides average hit number would be 10 hits, variance makes it quite likely to make it different then that, but even a small difference on turn 1 of attack (like 12 hits against 6 lets say) keeps affecting the following turn of attacks (more units left = more probable hits), therefore increasing the final effect (for exemple a 6 units variance early could end as a 12 units difference in the end, making for around 30-50 IPC depending of the planes in the fight (and if battleships are involved it can get ugly !). In a smaller fight, a lucky roll is unlikely to win you more then 10 direct IPC (usually quite less)  and maybe a couple more of circonstancial IPC due to the fact that a territory is not traded.

Oddly enough, the odds work in exactly the opposite way you are describing. The larger the battle is, the more closely it will follow low luck. Variations in hit results will follow the central limit theorem (an interesting google if you have the time). It’s small battles that will be most effected, and actually somewhat break the system.

Think about 2 tanks vs. 1 tank

2 Tank hits:
Low luck 1 hit 100% of the time
With Luck 0 hits 25%, 1 hits 50%, 2 hits, 25%, Thus the expected value is 0*.25+1*.5+2*.25= 1 hit. BUT, you can’t really hit twice against 1 tank, so the actual expected value is .75. So low luck gives an unintended boost in hits.

What I mean is that in a huge fight that is let’s say 75 % winning (we talk about 30+ units on each side) will be quite close to 100 % winning in low luck. And since those huge fights are usually game breakers, the person which planned is game better as better chance to win because of those big fights.

@Herr:

In response to a US fleet building program aimed at the conquest of the “money islands”, I’m considering that maybe Japan should place its fleet in SZ 49. The US will then, in most cases, need two separate blocking ships to separate its fleet from the Japanese. Also, with so much US money being spent on ships in the Pacific, Germany may be able to afford a bomber in FIC, provided that Japan securely holds that area. The presence of that bomber would make any blocking attempt very risky because the blocking ship may be destroyed on the German turn.

Very good idea indeed that bomber. I’ll definitely give it a try when I’ll face a KJF.

@Advosan:

But is it worth the trouble? Japan will have taken India by now, making up for the IPC losses.

Exactly, if USA as no support in Asia it will be easy for Japan to gain early IPC there. And just taking Borneo is not enough, USA needs a long term plan. Only when USA finally matches Japan naval power, usually Japan as pretty much as many IPC then USA and a stalemate happens. During this time UK will have a very hard time building a fleet alone to be able to send boots in Europe and to prevent Germany from taking Africa and getting to 50+ IPC (which Russia would not be able to handle). To beat this, Germany builds Infantry for 2-3 turns then switches to tanks and usually Moscow will fall around round 7-8. The Pacific should still be stalemate at that point (with Borneo taken by USA at worst with no threat on Tokyo)

On the other hand, if Russia sends help in Asia or UK builds an Industrial Complex in India, Japan won’t get those IPC in Asia. Moscow is weakly protected in this strategy though and a blitz (with a previous 1-2 turn of Infantry) as a very high chance of taking Moscow by turn 6.

KJF is not a viable strategy against an axis players who knows when to press with Germany and how to balance naval builds with Japan with Asia pressure.

USA is too much behind in the Pacific to be able to threaten Japan fast enough so that Germany doesn’t take Moscow way before USA begins to be really threatening.

I never fully attack SZ52 and I often don’t attack it. The most I am ready to sen there is Sub+Cru+Bom+Fig, and sending everything you can in SZ52 is a mistake (because US going after Japan in the Pacific is a mistake by itself, even if Japan doesn’t go Pearl).

If Russia stacks 6 Inf in Bur I don’t attack SZ52 at all and take the extra Cru to bombard Bur.

Sadly any player (Japan or US) starting to beef up navy in the Pacific to attack the other one is making a huge mistake in AA42 since there is just not enough to win there (in comparison to going Atlantic with US and Asia with Japan). Also it is always cheaper to defend against a sea attack then to be the one attacking when you defend by building air (because planes are cheaper then boats).

The way you did it, your odds in Ukraine are around 62%. Add the odds in Norway (which are not call a gambit for nothing !) and the higher odds to lose more units in west russia and you really took a very risky turn 1.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I would think 10 subs attacking 3 battleships would provide a better attacking outcome than 5 bombers.  I think if you expect the US fleet to move within 2 spaces of Japan a build of 2 subs to add to the attacking force would be a better use of IPC than 1 bomber.

The problem with the sub build is that the side with the battleships in this exemple would build some destroyers, one that is sacrificed to block the subs (right between the subs and the battleships + the remaining destroyers), and some more to attack with the battleships on the next turn (or used as a second sacrifice if needed). Subs defending at 1 would then need to retreat.

Also, your remaining bombers after the attack (or is US decide not to go forward with his fleet) are still usefull for the fight in asia while the subs will be likely useless.

Just my 2 cents, but as zhukov stated, in aa42 you really want to fight boats with planes.

I have a lot of good comparisons coming to my mind for this situation but I’ll keep it clean and say this: Anyone that doesn’t even know what fortress europe is, is not a good player. Just like someone not knowing what a slap shot is, is for sure not a good hockey player, or someone not knowing what a curveball is, is definitely not a good baseball player.