Karl said 100 US infantry, not $100 which means a $300 bid.
This would be a tremendous bid that would have a long term impact; not an initial one. So, if the allies’ player was less skilled, in theory it would mean that a much more skilled Axis player would have the chance to get a head start. Even if the bid was $100 as in 33 infantry, that would be a big boost.
I’m working on a (house) rule to address the “D-Day does’t work” and “America pays for everything from scratch” problems with KGF.
“French/Italian Resistance”
For every US infantry landing (surviving?) in battle at Normandy, Southern France, Holland, Southern Italy, add one French Infantry at the beginning (after?) battle.
Which is a different version of an unlimited pool of men. Have to find a way to avoid an infinite recursion (that you can duplicate men over and over turn after turn)
All good points, forget the Italian part of this.
The idea it to just make it desirable to KGF/D-Day at all, its too easy to push the Allies off Europe, such that they never attempt it. It seems too powerful to give this power to all the Allies, it should be an incentive to drive USA behavior, and the US wants to lose its infantry first. So consider a more restricted version sirs,
Game Start; Place 12 French infantry on the Resistance Stack
For each US infantry surviving an amphibious assault on Normandy, Southern France, or Holland Belgium, place 1 resistance fighter with them, with a maximum of 3(2?) per landing.
There has to be some limiter that keeps them from simply picking up the same infantry and moving them over. Work in progress.
Maybe add the UK into the mix? They can become a viable landing threat.
I have a different idea. 2 French Infantry appear upon a successful Allied Amphibious Assault on mainland France and Holland/Belgium. So a max of 6.
The French resistance gets 1 infantry every turn on London. They can depart from an operational airbase into Occupied mainland France. This dude does 1 damage to a facility of your choice. The Germans have to roll a 3 or higher to discover it, and battle ensues. If the resistance member wins, it does not take the territory. As long as your other one is in mainland France, you cannot produce another one.
Any thoughts?
taamvan,
I think you might be on to a good bid alternative.
12 infantry is worth 36 IPCs, but it’s a bid that’s spread out.
I’d imagine that other bid placements would still continue, but they might be a lot lower like, just a UK sub placed in SZ 98 along with 1 infantry in Yunnan.
I laid this out last night, maphead was skeptical, of course.
His version was more like yours, where you get the # of infantry on the territory first time it is captured–2 Normandy, 3 Holland and SouthFrance, 4 for Paris. Also rolling sabotage rolls on the 3 factories (in G40, in G42 there is just 1) starting with Paris being captured, to show the partisans destroying the Axis production. But he would also probably argue for an offsetting Axis advantage…as a compromise.
I think a good rule always goes “if someone does X in a certain way, then Y happens”. It should never be an “X always or usually occurs, so Y always or usually flows from that”. Rules need to be conditional, and influence player behavior.
I’ve fixed on this one recently because it doesn’t simply “make USA more powerful” because if that’s the perception, its vetoed by maphead. It makes the ALLIES more powerful, yes, by giving power to their weakest member and trying to make what I consider non-viable play (KGF) viable.
Just asking, dont follow strategy here too often.
How is KGF not viable? Its viable in 42.2, but thats a completly different game. Just curious why.
Short answer: Japan rages and the victory conditions state that the game can be won by 6 victory cities on the Pacific map.
I laid this out last night, maphead was skeptical, of course.
His version was more like yours, where you get the # of infantry on the territory first time it is captured–2 Normandy, 3 Holland and SouthFrance, 4 for Paris.
Hmm, I’ve been leaving Normandy French recently so the USA can’t take it. Does this mean the Allies never get the 2 inf for that territory?
Ah, makes sense. I usually go for Japan anyways. But I dont play with OOB victory conditions. Makes sense though.
I think that yes you dont get those 2. Its a little bending of the rules. Its smart for the Germans to do that.
I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.
@Caesar:
I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.
:?
Japan can sink the entire allied navy in the Pacific even if it combines around an 3 scramble airbase with its starting navy and do that without any land based plane support, at least most probably.
@Caesar:
I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.
:?
Japan can sink the entire allied navy in the Pacific even if it combines around an 3 scramble airbase with its starting navy and do that without any land based plane support, at least most probably.
Not in long games where USA is hammering the Japanese with bombers and island hoping on top of being reinforced by ANZAC and maybe UK as needed to boost defensive numbers. Germany can focus on a straight shot for there cites, move west into France, move east into USSR, go south into the middle east, go west into Egypt.
Japan can’t exact straight shot there cities due to the complex nature in the Pacific. Thus requires a turtle invasion of taking each city at a time or try to engage their cities on different fronts.
I need to rethink KGF. I usually go heavy against Japan and just try to contain Germany. Germany is just so darn easy to defend with two 10 factories back to back.
But, reality is Japan, even if it has India and the DEI, doesn’t make necessarily any more money than the USA. So when it comes time for the showdown, the USA should, even if it has heavily invested in Europe, be able build up quickly to block Japan for the last VC.
I need to rethink KGF. I usually go heavy against Japan and just try to contain Germany. Germany is just so darn easy to defend with two 10 factories back to back.
But, reality is Japan, even if it has India and the DEI, doesn’t make necessarily any more money than the USA. So when it comes time for the showdown, the USA should, even if it has heavily invested in Europe, be able build up quickly to block Japan for the last VC.
It’s a wiser choice too. As I said before, Japan needs a navy to escort its transports to get to several of there cities making their offensive plans more in detail therefor more easier to contain. All it really takes to stop Japanese victory if it game down to it is to camp such a large fleet in Pearl Harbor, it would force Japan to help Germany.
German on the other hand, doesn’t need a navy one bit because it can walk its army to all of its objective. Plus I believe that Germany has a 100% win over USSR on a perfect game assuming USSR doesn’t get any help. So it makes sense to contain Germany far before Japan. You can stop Japan defensively, you can’t do that with Germany.
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.
:?
Japan can sink the entire allied navy in the Pacific even if it combines around an 3 scramble airbase with its starting navy and do that without any land based plane support, at least most probably.
Not in long games where USA is hammering the Japanese with bombers and island hoping on top of being reinforced by ANZAC and maybe UK as needed to boost defensive numbers. Germany can focus on a straight shot for there cites, move west into France, move east into USSR, go south into the middle east, go west into Egypt.
Japan can’t exact straight shot there cities due to the complex nature in the Pacific. Thus requires a turtle invasion of taking each city at a time or try to engage their cities on different fronts.
First you say KGF then you say invest in units to attack Japan?
I don’t think either KJF or KGF strategies are viable in Global.
I need to rethink KGF. I usually go heavy against Japan and just try to contain Germany. Germany is just so darn easy to defend with two 10 factories back to back.
But, reality is Japan, even if it has India and the DEI, doesn’t make necessarily any more money than the USA. So when it comes time for the showdown, the USA should, even if it has heavily invested in Europe, be able build up quickly to block Japan for the last VC.
In support of a Kill Germany First allies plan:
I’ve never done this, but General Hand Grenade mentions that the US should shuck 2 infantry to Hawaii every turn even if going after Germany First. I’m going to give this a considerable look. That might mean purchasing a few carriers for the Pacific to build up the infrastructure; and also Anzac does a turtle thing too with infantry / fighter purchases. The US might be able to get away with this for about 5-6 turns. Then when Japan comes for Hawaii, the US could purchase 7 fighters, plus whatever is already in the Pacific and land them on top of Hawaii; meanwhile spending 85-90% against Europe Axis. The US Navy already there in the Pacific might be enough to also help ANZAC keep its Dutch New Guinea NO for a few turns as well (but not for long as the JIN grows super strong).
Regarding the arguments for KGF, I’d go back to the original reason people focus on Japan–the fact that Japan can potentially win the game by J6 or J7 while Germany/Italy generally cannot. Any “KGF” in Global is essentially a balanced approach, because if 50%+ of USA’s income isn’t going towards Japan, then Allies won’t last much past J7.
It seems to me that if the Japanese airforce is intact, then it would be very tough to hold both NSW and Hawaii indefinitely. Crucially, American airforce can’t fly directly from Haw to NSW or vice versa.
I miss the days when my opponents would try to KGF me after J1 and Axis would almost always win the game round 6 or 7. Germany is forced to turtle and fend off a variety of attacks while Japan goes hog wild and gets to 90+ income.
KGF fails even in G42 where you get a sped-up start to the war.
Germany is structurally too strong to affect its economy. I had subs all over his convoy zones, invading Normandy and Holland every turn, took Norway for 3 turns, eventually even got a beachhead on Normandy he couldn’t push off–but its all a distraction because as long as he focuses the fast movers and planes on Russia, eventually its economy gets stripped and Germany can easily hold off the other allies and finish off Russia with 70. And Japan, has 88. That’s just how G42 accelerates the game–the axis takes the middle takes the money, chokes Russia, game over.
They both have ridiculous NOs. The 5 for Caucasus, Bombay and Stalingrad are pretty much silly, just piling on. Taking Leningrad is so easy, and inevitable, I don’t understand why that one has a bonus either.
So for all my Atlantic action, I cost Germany like 20-30 income, which he took from Russia in 1 turn. And that was the weak Axis power!
The reason KJF works is because Japan is actually vulnerable and capable of being defeated. At least until it reaches threshold (70) income. Once its there, the US can no longer outbuild them and Japan wins. Few people cite the fact that neither axis power can be actually invaded in a 10 turn game (say what you will, its never happened in 170 games…), and that is the Allied VC total domination of Axis capitals.
Regarding the arguments for KGF, I’d go back to the original reason people focus on Japan–the fact that Japan can potentially win the game by J6 or J7 while Germany/Italy generally cannot. Any “KGF” in Global is essentially a balanced approach, because if 50%+ of USA’s income isn’t going towards Japan, then Allies won’t last much past J7.
It seems to me that if the Japanese airforce is intact, then it would be very tough to hold both NSW and Hawaii indefinitely. Crucially, American airforce can’t fly directly from Haw to NSW or vice versa.
I miss the days when my opponents would try to KGF me after J1 and Axis would almost always win the game round 6 or 7. Germany is forced to turtle and fend off a variety of attacks while Japan goes hog wild and gets to 90+ income.
Zhukov, you don’t think there is a benefit to a Kill Germany First approach? And yes I generally agree with the consensus that going after Germany first is not optimal. I think I executed a pretty good KJF against you on triplea live one time. You’re a much better player than me but I think you said there was some merit to what I was trying.
Yes, it’s hard to hold Hawaii and NSW. But when their just stacked with units like a 2nd/3rd Moscow, it’s also difficult for Japan to capture both; especially when the US then starts building 100% Pacific.
We all know that either Axis country becomes near unstoppable if left alone and the Allies need a sizable bid if similar skills on both sides.
I want to try to learn how to execute a KGF game if possible as another Allies tool. There are some benefits to a Kill Germany First (or at least against me when I’m Axis). 1. The UK has more time to beef up the middle east. 2. Germany might not have enough to drive south while maintaining it’s foothold on Bryansk and spending to fend off landings. 3. The UK Europe can help fight towards liberating India when the US has to switch to spending in the Pacific.
Regarding the arguments for KGF, I’d go back to the original reason people focus on Japan–the fact that Japan can potentially win the game by J6 or J7 while Germany/Italy generally cannot. � Any “KGF” in Global is essentially a balanced approach, because if 50%+ of USA’s income isn’t going towards Japan, then Allies won’t last much past J7. �
It seems to me that if the Japanese airforce is intact, then it would be very tough to hold both NSW and Hawaii indefinitely. � Crucially, American airforce can’t fly directly from Haw to NSW or vice versa. �
I miss the days when my opponents would try to KGF me after J1 and Axis would almost always win the game round 6 or 7. � Germany is forced to turtle and fend off a variety of attacks while Japan goes hog wild and gets to 90+ income.
Zhukov, you don’t think there is a benefit to a Kill Germany First approach? And yes I generally agree with the consensus that going after Germany first is not optimal. I think I executed a pretty good KJF against on triplea live one time. You’re a much better player than me but I think you said there was some merit to what I was trying.
Yes, it’s hard to hold Hawaii and NSW. But when their just stacked with units like a 2nd/3rd Moscow, it’s also difficult for Japan to capture both; especially when the US then starts building 100% Pacific.
We all know that either Axis country becomes near unstoppable if left alone and the Allies need a sizable bid if similar skills on both sides.
I want to try to learn how to execute a KGF game if possible as another Allies tool. There are some benefits to a Kill Germany First (or at least against me when I’m Axis). 1. The UK has more time to beef up the middle east. 2. Germany might not have enough to drive south while maintaining it’s foothold on Bryansk and spending to fend off landings. 3. The UK Europe can help fight towards liberating India when the US has to switch to spending in the Pacific.
There are lots of different strategies that could work. Regardless of whether the intention is KGF or KJF (KJF being USA devoting 75%+ of their resources to the Pacific, while KGF is more like 50-60%), it is important for USA to help eliminate Western Axis naval fleets. More controversial is whether they should help out with convoys in the Med and patrolling the Med. Finally there is the option of building up a fleet and landing in Western Europe in conjunction with the UK. I’ve successfully done the latter against a wide variety of opponents but I find that it is hard to pull off against the very best Axis. The very best Axis either defends Germany so well that Russia is boxed out and forced to sit in Moscow while USA/UK can’t get established in Western Europe….or they overwhelm Allies with Japan before Allies can break down Germany/Italy.
What I would argue is that USA needs to have some kind of air/fleet in the Pacific that is competitive with the Japanese fleet regardless of whether they are KGF. Trying to defensively stack NSW and Hawaii is not a winning strategy imho, in part because it’s possible Axis will achieve economic victory by totally dominating Eurasia, in part because Japan starts with so many planes that (around j5-j7) it’s tough to defend either Hawaii or NSW from the full force of Japanese fleet and air.
It’s all about reading the board and seizing opportunities imho, so there’s no one formula. If for example Germany leaves Norway open, it’s nice for USA to be in position to seize that opportunity, even if they are KJF.
