Posts made by KGB

I’m confused whether you may move air units into an empty seazone during combat movement to preempt a sramble. Suppose you want to attack an island with some transports and DDs, but you are afraid those ships will get sunk if the opponent scrambles. It would be handy to move the planes into the sea zone, but is this allowed - after all, the seazone could be considered neutral (thereby prohibiting a movement during the combat phase)? Thanks in advance.

The problem in KJF is that you have to make tradeoffs - you can invest into keeping Africa, establishing a UK/US mainland presence in Asia or keeping the UK Pac fleet intact, but it always comes at a cost in another theater. I think that you either need to put extra pressure on Japan (by building an India factory or an agressive fleet placement) or contest Africa for a pre-planned KJF to work. With that in mind, unifying the fleet has two advantages:

• it can enable a US2 move to Sol

• it forces Germany to be careful around Africa, because UK can land with 3-4 inf plus air in Ken or Egypt. With that in mind, building a SAf factory on UK2 becomes a possibility (you send the loaded trn with Aus inf to SAf on UK2, and move the rest of the fleet to NSW) and you can kill the German Med fleet on UK2

That said, Japan can still send its entire fleet so Sol on J2 to thwart the unification and even if it doesn’t, getting to Sol and capturing and keeping EI are two different things. Furthermore, you have given Japan a good start on the mainland (and the income base that comes with it).

@Hobbes:

@KGB:

The Polar Express can be defended against, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. If Japan has a lot of transports (7 or so) in sz 60, that can force the US to make a 10 unit build in WUS, leaving Japan the option of simply going about its business and having set back the US considerably.

• J lands 10-14 units on Alaska/E. Can
• US reinforces W.US with 10 units or more
• J leaves Alaska and lands units on Buryatia.
• US buys 3-4 transports and infantry. US moves all tanks to E. Can and infantry to W. Can or C. US.
• J Units for Buryatia head to Yakut
• US buys 4 transports more, moves all inf to E. Can or E. US, picks up 3/4 inf and 3/4 armor and lands them on UK/Algeria.
• J units move to Nov.
• 6-8 US units land in W. Eur.

Significant setback for the US? Only if you don’t know how to set the US ‘shuck-shuck’ properly. And meanwhile J didn’t put pressure on Asia/Africa during the 2 turns it took to go to North America and back. With the result that Russia and UK income haven’t suffered a big dent and they were free to focus on dealing with Germany (and in 2 turns G starts feeling the pressure of 8 US units on Europe).

I’d say significant setback for Axis since J got its priorities wrong. You need to kill Russia before G falls to the Allies, all the rest are unnecessary distractions.

Hmm. There are some complications for the US. I don’t know how the US shuck is set up. Just using two stacks of transports in sz 10 and sz 12 and not moving ground units to ECan is very easy to mess with. Moving all or part of your units from WUS -> WCan -> ECan works great against pesky 1 unit incursions into Ala, but because of its naval and aerial assets Japan will be able to attack any units in WCan at very advantegeous rates. If Japan lands 10-14 units in North America, just having 10 units in WUS won’t suffice - you need more than that to deter a landing in WUS, or have enough tanks handy in EUS to retake it. And any inf builds in WUS will have a hard time getting into the fray in Europe if Japan retreats - not only does it take 2 turns for them to reach ECan, you also have to make sure they won’t get smoked if they pass through WCan.

If Egypt is uncounterable, Germany could send 3 tanks to Ken on G2 and land some planes in Egypt, putting the SAf IC in a big bind. For a SAf IC, I like EM’s setup more (it’s floating around somewhere in the Revised section).

If you can counter Egypt, I think a SAf IC is not worth it I think. Landing in Alg, putting your planes in WRu and eliminating the German Med fleet on UK 2 is a better way of securing Africa if that’s what you really want.

@Zhukov44:

What worries me more than the danger of a Jap attack on SZ30 is putting no immediate pressure on Japan, and allowing them to smash Pearl w/o consequences.  Plus Japan can position its fleets to block a fleet unification and they can put pressure on American fleet builds off LA right away (ie force USA to build in the Gulf of California zone).  Not to mention that there are many long-game counters to the fleet unification tactic–one time an opponent invested in fighters with Germany and then flew these into Asia to attack the Allied fleet when it was divided.  I prefer to put Japan in a situation where attacking Pearl is a risky proposition, since I’d rather have an extra American carrier than an extra UK carrier.

You can like the sz 30 unification or not, I’m just saying that if you do it you have to do it right. That UK fig makes a huge difference - without it, a sz 30 hit is relatively safe, but with it it becomes incredibly risky. And Japan can still attack Pearl if it does sz 30 (SS, DD, fig, bomber - this is riskier). I think the UK AC, DD, 2 trn, sub can do more to Japan than take 2 figs or so with them in sz 30 - by using the School 1 approach (which makes Japan’s life much harder if you’re going to throw away those units anyway), or keeping the AC/DD/trn handy for a unification in EI/NGu on UK 4.

It’s true that Japan can move its EI stuff to sz 45 on J1 to preempt a unification, but then it will have a really hard time shipping units to FIC on J2, which puts your India factory in a good position.

@Zhukov44:

The Bury stack plus UK fig seems indispensable to effective KJFing–it puts immediate pressure on Jap transport builds…and it gives USA a chance to attack Jap fleets if they are vulnerable and safely land.  So the SZ 59 tranny must be destroyed.

I agree that stacking Bury and putting the UK fig there is a really nice tactic, just don’t lose sight of what it’s useful for. It ensures Japan can’t do Pearl heavy and build 3 transports (it works especially well if you have the UK sub in sz 45 as well). But if Japan attacks sz 30, it will keep its BB in sz 60 anyway, so you’re not constraining Japan in any transport builds.

I’ve tried School 2 quite a few times (also picking up 2 inf from Aus to sz 30), but I’m afraid that Japan can kill the sz30 fleet too easy without the fig. I’d rather just send the DD, AC and trn to sz 33 if I just use the fig for sz 59 (they will still be able to hook up with the US fleet later).

An interesting thing to note is that failure in sz 59 might not be so bad for the India factory (only for Bury if you have stacked there). If Russia sends its 2 inf from Kaz to Per on R1, it has India deadzoned (Japan can only send 4 inf to India even if the trn survives, which Russia can kill and UK will then be able to build). Occasionally, I have built the factory on UK1 and then vacated India (this can also work if you don’t attack sz 59 at all). Alternatively, you can still place the IC in SAf if you’re really uncomfortable.

What do you propose for the UK against Germany? If there is no Kar stack, I prefer taking the gamble in sz 5 and hitting Kar with the UK, allowing the Soviets to keep their income up to par for a while.

If you build an AC or 2 transports on G1, the allies can both buy air and sink you unified navy in sz7 on UK2 and US2. If you really want to mess with the Allies in the Atlantic, you might want to try one of the following strategies (though they do come at a cost):

• bid a sub in sz8 and kill the sz2 navy on G1 (you can combine this with a naval purchase on G1 and foregoing Egypt, sending the sz 14 fleet to sz 13, if you have the nerve)
• Buy something like bomber, fig, 5 inf or bomber, 8 inf and move your navy to sz 7 (add the sub in sz 8 or a possible bid unit for added effect). Because of the extra bomber, the UK will be hard-pressed to unify in sz 8 and hitting 5+ units in sz 7 is not really attractive either.

The Polar Express can be defended against, but it’s not as easy as it might seem. If Japan has a lot of transports (7 or so) in sz 60, that can force the US to make a 10 unit build in WUS, leaving Japan the option of simply going about its business and having set back the US considerably.

In my league game against Funcioneta this year I found out that Japan is also quite flexible about pulling out if it decides to dump units into Ala. Both parties must deadzone WCan (since Jap trns will be in reach of WCan and WUS must be defended from an Amphib assault, moving into WCan is tricky for the US) - if Japan can hold WCan, US is in huge trouble (defending both WUS and EUS in that case is extremely hard). But with many transports in the Pacific, Japan can relatively cheaply ship all of its units back to Asia in 2 turns, leaving the US with a big stack in WUS. The Polar Express certainly makes for an interesting game, and the Allied player has to stay on his toes.

As for the transport bid, I’m not a big fan of sz 37. I don’t see why you would want to attack Aus on turn 1, against India it only deters a factory (something which, while being a viable strategy, Japan shouldn’t be terribly afraid of), and if you want to use it against Egypt you might as well have placed a German bid in Africa anyway. sz 50 is interesting though - it deters a Bury stack (which I’m quite fond of when playing the Allies, but others might not) and the Hawaiian mainland attack accomplishes three things: it bags the plane, puts you in the ideal position to rack up Haw/NZ/Aus ASAP (some players forego (some) of these IPCs, but that adds up substantially over the course of a game) and it forces the US to incur some delay defending the West Coast.

Obviously this is a niche strategy, but there could be some use for it - it may allow the Allies to take one of the money islands as soon as US3. Here’s the plan

UK 1:
Unite Pac fleets in sz 30, build IC Aus

Attacking sz 30 is very risky for Japan, and it forces Japan to either to do Pearl light (with more risk of an unfavourable outcome) or skip Pearl altogether.

If Japan does not hit sz 30, build AC, fig, sub, trn on US1.

UK 2:
Move sz 30 fleet to sz 40, build AC sz 40

This threatens a unification of the UK/US fleets in sz 45 on US2/UK3. This combined fleet would consist of BB, 3 AC, 5 fig, 2 sub, 2 DD, 3 trn. This is too much for Japan to take on. If you add the 6th fig on US3/UK4 (and perhaps a UK sub that you build on UK3), you can take Bor or EI on these turns. Your combined Allied fleet would be so large that Japan has to bring something along the lines of 2 BB, 2 AC, 6 fig, bomber, DD, 5 trn, 4 sub to have a good shot at it, which requires a serious investment in the first few turns.

Without the UK IC, you would not have the extra UK carrier - a loaded carrier can make a big difference, and it may save you one turn in bringing down the Japanese in the Pacific. Of course, it comes at a substantial cost against Germany - that’s why it’s not played in most games, but it’s worth a try perhaps.

Japan can try to thwart your unification by moving its fleet to sz 45 itself on J2. I’d have to double check whether that is a worthwhile strategy.

If there are 3 German units in Egypt, killing them off gives you a tremendous advantage. Germany can practically write off Africa in this case. I find attacking 4 units too risky. Then again, I like putting 6 Russian infantry in Bury, in which case countering Egypt comes at a steep price for the USSR  :roll:

Generally, I think it’s better to wait with sz 5 until turn 2 (unless you want to have Russia in Nwy on R2). 2 extra figs just make that attack way better.

As for the Pacific - there are so many variations…

I really should try this some time (if I can build it on turn one). Just can’t see it being more effective than going for the IPC islands in the south.

As a rule of thumb, you need 1.4x as many units as Germany when doing a UK/US double.

The Japanese have more trannies than the Allies in a KJF, and the Allies were less likely than Japan to use their transports as fodder in big battles in Revised. KJF will only be easier, and more attractive as well - having a both a Baltic and a Med fleet in a KGF will be more costly now.

Germany must do without a bid now and sinking the German Med fleet will be a piece of cake (heck, you can kill it on UK 1 if you want to), so the Allies start with a firm control of Africa. It will be quite possible to hold on to Africa in a KJF.

I can see how there could be an Axis advantage, but I’m not sure yet and I’m definately not sure whether it will be as pronounced as you claim. Why don’t we rack up some pieces to find out? You can be Axis.

Okay, fair enough. If you only attack WRu and buy 3 arm you should generally be safe against a Kar stack on G1 (don’t know why I listed 2 arm in my last post - I usually buy 3 unless I vacate Cau completely, in which case 5 inf art arm is also sufficient to deter a Kar stack). Perhaps attacking WRu and Belo and stacking Cau is just my fetish  :lol:

The issue with German bid units Ukr is that they project force into both WRu and Cau, so holding both quickly becomes infeasible if Germany puts some stuff in Ukr.

I only own A&A: Pacific, so I can’t comment about the board size (though if it is really too small, it’s a shame). Frimmel may have a point that the price may attract new players - the kind who are not sure about the game and don’t want to shell out $50 to give it a try. The low price may attract as many new players as the relative simplicity (it doesn’t seem any easier than Revised).

Even though purchasing the phsyical game may not be too attractive for those who own AA50 and Revised (or maybe even Revised alone), I’m curious about the gameplay. The AA50 game is just a tad too big for me - I think Revised offers the right amount of complexity to allow strategic depth while not having to spend too much time on a single move or an entire game. Combining the Revised board with AA50 rules may be an easy move, but if it produces a great game I don’t care.

What do you think will be the impact of the new rules in comparison with Revised? For one, I think KJF will become easier - the transport rules will hurt Japan much more than the US (trns used to add punch to a fleet, but now they are only a burden).

@crispyHaole:

I think the real question here is, if you’re not stacking cau sufficiently, where are those units placed instead and how are they of better value there? There could be an argument when 3inf are bid in ukr, to R1 push absolutely everything into wru and possibly belo and defend cau 1 inf(placed). The argument being that wru might get wiped out otherwise. I rarely play against 9 bid in ukr so i dont have much there…any1?

If you attack Belo and leave 10 units in Cau, that means you’re hitting WRu with 6 inf, 2 art, 3 tank. On average, you will lose 2.6 units in WRu. If you lose 4 units (or even 3), Germany can counter with 3 inf, art, 3 tank, 4 fig, meaning you are offering him to trade at 1:1 rate or better.

Also, each additional unit in WRu helps to deter a G1 Kar stack. If you take Belo and WRu with 3 inf, 2 art, 3 tank (and have 3 tank, 2 fig, 7 inf in Cau), attacking 7 inf, 5 arm in Kar on R2 doesn’t seem like a good idea for example. This principle also applies if you don’t attack Belo (leaving 10 ground units in Cau gives you a 7 inf, 2 art, 6 arm, 2 fig attack against 9 inf, 6 arm on R2 if you lose 2 inf in WRu).

Interesting idea a44 of hitting the German Med fleet with Russia. I prefer to fly one or two UK figs to WRu on UK 1 and kill it with help of the Indian Ocean AC (and fig if need be) if I want it dead fast though.

With 8 inf, 2 tank, 2 fig it is definately not profitable for Germany to attack Cau (assuming no bid units in Ukr). If you don’t attack Belo, you’ll probably kill all units in WRu on round one, allowing you to leave 10 ground units in Cau. Still, against 9 ground units (likely if you do Belo as well) I can see why German players want to attack - trading stacks of equal unit value to kill those Russian figs is not a bad deal (a lot of players won’t hesitate a second if you ask them to trade 2 german figs or 4 german tanks for those Russian figs).

While it is not without risks for Germany (just like a R1 Ukr attack can also go south for Germany), exposing yourself to such a G1 attack means exposing yourself to a similar risk that you wanted to avoid on R1 by skipping Ukraine. If you’re up against a notoriously risk averse German player, that might be less of a problem though.

Guess it could also depend on whether you attack Belo and WRu or just WRu. If you do both, you will generally lose more in WRu and keeping WRu strong enough can be a bit dicier. Zhukov has an interesting point that you can shove in some more hardware to WRu if you have bad luck there.

Are you talking about Revised here?  :roll:

This issue has puzzled me for some time. I believe bad dice in Ukr can hurt Russia more than Germany, and doing Belo/WRu makes it easier to dissuade a Kar stack on G1 (keeping Germany out of Kar gives you all sorts of benefits - your tanks can stay in Cau/Mos to deadzone Sink/Yak, Kar is a natural staging ground for the allies, it reduces German income, etc). However, do you defend Cau in this case?

Using 0-1 inf gives Germany some free income and makes it easy for Germany to stage in Ukr - a lot of your forces are in Mos on G1, and you can only build in Cau on R3. Furthermore, you cannot fly your UK figs to WRu on UK1 in order to take out the German Med fleet on UK2 unless you are willing to trade Cau with Germany on your second turn.

Putting a big stack in Cau is attractive if Germany can’t attack it. Russia has to be careful here - Germany can still clear Cau (4 inf, art, 4 tank, 4 fig, BB), sz 13 (sub, 2 fig) and AE (African units + bid, bomber), and WRu must also be sufficiently strong. In the above case, the Cau attack has about zero EV TUV-wise but quite a few Axis players will consider that a good deal. If you defend Cau with all you have, are you happy to see such a German attack?

A middle ground seems to be to leave a few inf (around 5). Germany cannot really attack this stack profitably and Russia has some more offensive strength against Ukr if Germany chooses to attack Cau than if you only leave 1 inf, but you still run into some of the same problems as the first scenario.

Lastly, how do German bid units in Ukr (or Belo) alter the equation? For those of you do not leave Cau empty, do you change your mind after one, two or three bid inf? Or do 1-2 inf there rather make you want to attack Ukraine?

I’m also available.

1.  DarthMaximus
2.  DutchmanD
3.  DY
4.  DesertJournalist
5.  Zygmund
6.  Telamon
7.  Bigbadgoo
8.  SgtBlitz
9.  Pin
10. Questioneer
11. TimTheEnchanter
12. Omega
13. Bardoly
14. Gargantua
15. Lynxes
16. Perrys!
17. Joe Cold (if too many, put me in as an alternate please!)
18. KGB

The factory is more efficient than buying 2 trns (to ship 2 units from EUS to Bra every turn), because it’s cheaper and you can send an extra unit (3 instead of 2). The only downside is that it is slightly less flexible than the transports, though you can still reach WE in one turn from sz 18, which should give the Germans a bit more pause in Europe.

I mean losing 2 ground units more than when you send the bomber to Egypt… We’re comparing sending the bomber to Egypt & skipping sz 2 to using ground units only in Egypt and sending the bomber to sz2.

Is it really a disaster if you lose in Egypt? The tradeoff (if you lose, whereas there’s 40% of a draw or better) is losing a German trn and, say, 2 German ground units, versus killing a UK BB and transport… Seems worth it to me.

Well, I never said you could have it all… What do you think is better, having those extra Egypt odds or killing those British ships? Suppose you could also send sub, fig to sz 2, though that is riskier than not having the bomber in Egypt (and you don’t kill the trn if it’s a draw).