Allied Strategy

[Ó Ruanaidh]

I’m not so sure about a KGF, though that would naturally follow a KIF strategy, I mean, once Italy is out, the Allies have a secure footing in Europe so why not destroy the Reich to as long as you’re there? Obviously it will all hinge on how fast Japan can give assistance two it’s beleagured allies in the west. Since Germany and Italy can’t stand to long against the full might of Britain, America and Russia Japan will have to do something to soften the blow. If they get lucky, Germany will knock Russia out, and then the axis can face the allies at sea and in Africa until they land on British shores, or maybe American shores.

[bugoo]

I’m wondering if a ‘containment’ approach is best.  Have UK/US focus on killing the Italian fleet and securing Africa which pretty much takes Italy out of the game, while engaging Japan in the sea to reduce the amount they can spend on land units, and using SBRs to further slow down the European front.

Think UK1 2 carriers and an IC either south Africa or Australia.  Land your 3 UK fighters and one US fighter upon them.  At the same time the US can send 2 fighters and a bomber to Australia to draw out Japan, while preparing to drop units into Africa with UK cover.  Using a combination of carriers, bombers, subs and destroyers the US/UK should be able to force Japan to spend alot of effort in the southern Pacific.

[Bierwagen]

I played the US last night and had some interesting success with dropping 2 planes into Australia on US1 (e.g., Hawaiian Island & sz44). Japan’s attempt at Australia on J2 was denied, and so I followed up with 2 more fighters to Australia on US2 while the previous ones left for India.

These 4 fighters managed to harrass Japanese shipping quite effectively while the US was building a fleet (n.b., which is an incredibly slow process trying to compete with the Japanese air force).

I like the bomber idea as well.  Unfortunately, I had sent mine to SBR Germany in a knee-jerk KGF reaction.  That toy would’ve added some extra punch. I’ll continue to experiment with this one and see how it pans out.

Sadly, the axis surrendered before US & Japan fleets could engage so I never saw the outcome of it – but it looked promising.

[Je_Gab_Fan]

Screwing up Italy is soooo easy…

build yourself a third bomber with the americans and send it towards Europe. With the 2 bombers you now have on England, screw up the Italian economy, you will deal 6-12 dmg to they factory evey turn…

guess what, they wont be able to build new units anymore.
Get 2-3 transports full o GI’s and youre set for a showdown with the Fuhrer.

well if you don’t attack Italy you can still cripple it for 12 bucks!!

here are my 2 cents.

[Black_Elk]

I don’t think the KIF strategy is what everyone makes it out to be. Maybe you guys are playing against opponents who like to concede early or something.  :-D

For the endgame, you can’t just trade Moscow for Rome, in the same way that you can trade Moscow for Berlin. Plus Italy does not have a very large purse to capture, so it could be that you waste all your money and time trying to Kill Italy, and succeed, only to find the Japs in Moscow. Which turns the whole thing on its head again 2v2.

I guess if you’re the kind of player who always calls the game when a capital falls, the KIF thing would work. But the real reason why KGF was more attractive than KJF in revised, was because of the endgame dynamic. For the Allies, Germans in Moscow/USA in Tokyo was a deadlier proposition than Japs in Moscow/USA in Berlin, so they’d go KGF to ensure the endgame advantage. I think the Italy thing is going to have to be evaluated the same way (eg. can you afford to send everything into the Med, and still secure Moscow from the remaining Axis players? Is it worth it?.)

Just food for thought :)

[Je_Gab_Fan]

It’s not about killing Italy THAT much as rendering it useless. Spending all your IPC to repair your factory screws up any of your plans…

that way you can protect africa, prevent Italy from defending Western Europe effectively or replenishing it’s fleet, crippling them for good using 12 us IPCs. Maybe once in a while you will need the use of the 3rd bomber ( UK’s finest) but steadily you can stop them Italians from pissing you off.

This strategy doesnt stop you from doing other stuff… its just an economical countermeasure to make sure germans spend a lot to defend western europe.

[Alair]

I don’t understand what makes Japan so powerful, I haven’t seen it yet in the games I’ve played.

I think the best strategy for the allies is defend Karelia at all costs.  If Karelia falls then Moscow falls soon afterwards, it’s a huge bonus to Germany.

Japan on the other hand, they didn’t do squat in the game I played but maybe it was due to a weak player…. when they did pearl harbour they devoted some land units and fighters to trying to take the island, then had to retreat in the naval battle.  Then USA got long range aircraft and wiped out most of the Japanese navy (they had unescortered transports that would have been out of range).

I’m playing this coming weekend, so we’ll see.

[Gallo Rojo]

@Alair:

Japan on the other hand, they didn’t do squat in the game I played but maybe it was due to a weak player…. when they did pearl harbour they devoted some land units and fighters to trying to take the island, then had to retreat in the naval battle.  Then USA got long range aircraft and wiped out most of the Japanese navy (they had unescortered transports that would have been out of range).

you were definitively playing a very poor Japan player.
the IJN can sunk US battleship at Hawaii, and US destroyer and tranny in front of US West Coast, and retreat to a safe place in J1

I played an average-to-poor Japanese player and he was collecting 60 ipc by J4 … and then he was spending those IPC in buying Battleships instead of IC to go after Moscow (go figure!). v

[Ó Ruanaidh]

AAHH, Japan. Japan is one of the most deadly players in the game, mainly because every ally has Industrial Complexes far from the Pacific, that means Japan can strike faster and harder in the early game. It takes alot out of the U.S. with some badly needed assistance from England to restrain Japan. A very good Japanese player can quickly make life a nightmare for the Allies. But there is always the temptation to go Navy and take the rich and (usually) badly defended prizes of the U.S. mainland. Sometimes it works wonderfully and Japan is the richest and most powerful player in the game, and sometimes it goes horribly and the U.S. and U.K. players get it in gear and sink those costly ships and then Japan is rendered helpless. I think that as Japan (never played them before in a game versus humans) I would strike at the mainland of Asia to get money, and see where to go from there, if the U.S. is going KGF, I would go all out on them, or if Russia is successfully resisting German attacks, then I’d unleash my forces against them. I found the best players have no set strategy but roll with the punches and adapt their strategy to fit the situation. No matter what you do however, Japan is a very dangerous opponent and I would never casually say they never do anything. You must have had a terrible person playing them indeed, as even the worst of the people I play with can make Japan something to think about, and if underestimated and ignored, something to seriously worry about.

[atarihuana]

imho if japan hits india j2 ,  he can easily set up a southern front against russia. much faster from here, than through china or up north :D much faster than wus attack. can pop out 5 units each turn at burma/india at j4. he doesnt need to defend theeseIC’s against chinese cannonfodder so 25 ipc each round go rolling to caucasus from then on, leaving japan enough for pacific/china

how fast can uk/us set up serious invasion of france/ italy ?