No, I am too. The game is won or lost on the Russian Steppes irrespective of what happens in the Pacific or Asia. That is because the Allies will go full speed ahead to rescue Moscow (dumping as many land units into Europe as they can) and Japan will try to send as many land forces (IC in India and/or Manchuria) as it can into Russia. So it is in the main a land and air war. Shame about those beautiful warships.
One way of overcoming this is to say that Berlin and Rome cannot be occupied unless Japan’s income is reduced to say 12 IPC.
I feel a lot of bad Karma coming for this but here it goes…
I understand your gripe but in real life Russia and UK didn’t know how involved the US was going to be so they faught the local Axis units Germany and Italy. When the US did get involved they pulled a SJF then stright to KGF for the most part.
Like I said I understand your gripe but they did want to keep it how it was in '41 and '42.
Another way they could have changed this to make it go KGF or KJF and stayed accurate would have been to make a AUSSY / New Zeland player and beefed up China to become its own player.
The reason it goes KGF is because the only ally that has to export a war is the US. The other two fight locally. What’s the point of taking Japan when Parlament and the Kremlin and in a strangle hold or captured?
If you added two small allied players to the Pacific like I outlined above they will fight locally as well. Then the US player will decide Germany or Japan.
But if the game was designed that way every one would have griped that the allies could hold their own without the US adding them just makes them way to powerful.
LT
The point is to have a war game that encompasses all 3 arms. We are not discussing historical accuracy, if we did, the Axis are doomed everytime. my suggestion about not occupying Berlin or Rome until Japan’s income is reduced is to make the Allies build fleets to challenge the mighty Japanese Imperial Navy.
I’m not convinced yet that you can get away with ignoring Japan, it certainly isn’t a pleasant thing to see them at ~60 ipc by rd 3 with the ability to grow more. It would be nothing to them to constantly drop off 6 inf to Ala (18 ipc) and still have 40+ to send to Mos.
Thus forcing the US at some point to deal with the Pac. And if this is the case it would be much better for the US to get an early jump they wait for Japan to strike when they have the clear advantage.
But assuming it is proven through the game that Japan at 70+ ipc is no threat and the Pac is ignored in 90% of games, I think the only way to increase fighting is to boost the ipcs there. IMO NO’s don’t do it.
HI should be worth 4 ipc and Midway worth 2 ipc.
CUS drops down to 2-3 ipc to compensate. Afterall in order to get CUS you’ll probably need either WUS or EUS or at least the ability to threaten them significantly and that right there is good enough.
I’d consider making Ala 3 ipc as well.
Drop WUS to 8 ipc putting it on par with Japan
ALL Pac islands should be at least 1 ipc.
US should still earn 40-44 to start.
This now gives the US the incentive to fight in the Pac, they can gain financially, while hurting Japan, by picking off the cheap islands on the edges. Otherwise the only way for the US to gain IPC is Alg/Lib or Nor and UK usually claims them, or they get WE or SE which of course happens in KGF games.
Also with HI/Mid/Ala worth 8-9 ipc it is no longer possible to write them off and not be crippled economically. That would swing a 30 ipc Japan to 38 and drop a 40 US to 32. Now add in some of Asia and Japan could be at ~45 compared to 32 for the US. Now maybe it isn’t out the question to go after WUS. And if you give Chi and Sin back to the US they could be at 28-30! No way US writes off HI and Midway.
Also a 4 ipc HI could give Japan the ability to buy an IC there and really go after WUS esp if WUS is 8.
Maybe the US buys an IC for HI to go after Japan?
Obviously you’d have to adjust sea zones and starting units but I don’t think it’d be that hard. I’d probably put as few naval units on the board as possible to open that up to the players. US can start with a dd/ac/ftr at Pearl and Jap can start with 1 ac, and about 6-7 planes within range. This would pretty much guarantee Pearl is cleared but the US wouldn’t need to counter and the Pac is now cleared of most ships, again giving the players the chance to decide how to proceed. J has a BB and trns somewhere and the US can have a BB at WUS with a few ftrs at HI or WUS to make it clear that bringing in the J AC to Pearl would be stupid. So after J1 you’d have Japan with 1 AC, 1 BB, and maybe 1 dd (or ca), that wasn’t in range of Pearl, for Capital ships and few planes flying around, plus whatever they buy. The US would have 1 BB plus some planes and they can immediately beef up their navy.
I’d also give the US direct control of China and it’s ipcs/terrritories again. I’m not sure I see the point in a Minor power if they are just there for fodder. You can accomplish the same thing by adjusting the starting inf and ipc values of any of those territories.
Also the US shouldn’t start with a trn in the Atlantic maybe just a DD. Now since the US player has to buy trns regardless of theatre it might be just as feasible to buy 2 for the Pac as it would be to buy 2 for the Atlantic.
Part of the reason KGF seems so obvious is the US already starts with a trn out there and is in immediate position to shuck 2 units to the UK or Afr (as well as the financial gain of Europe). Give them a DD (or CA) to support the UK, and maybe a few more inf on Wus, Cus, or Eus but not the trn.
@Cow:
This isn’t a KGF game. It can be a KIF. Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.
KGF or KIF is almost the same: you’re going to the European Theater. I guess that what we (or at least I) mean by KGF is that the Allies (mainly the US) forgets about the Pacific (except for units already in the map) and focus almost solely on beating the European side of the Axis.
@Cow:
Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.
and how you did it? did Moscow fell to the Germans? British IC on India? on Australia?
Instead of getting upset that it has resorted to KGF, come up with a strategy to beat KGF. If a strategy is developed that will beat KGF 60-70% of the time, guess what, no more KGF.
To be honest - every game about WWII IS won in Russia - even the real one ;)
Why do KGF work? - Could it be because the crowd (us) is used to that strategy and knows exactly what to do, so you don’t even try another approach? - Could it be?
The pacific is a wide space and there are a multitude of things one can try.
US buys BmBs sends them to Russia to bomb Japan into submission (IC, fleet, army) and let Russia/UK conquer the mainland Posessions of Japan - UK could also use Australia as staging area to Island hop from the soth while the us comes from the East.
Or do an US fleet build to attack in the conventional manner.
To help the Russians vs. Germany UK and US must only invest a few fighters for defence.
KGF or KJF ? - I for my part would certainly do KGF even if the odds were more for Germany,
The problem here is: You can do a KGF and ignore Japan for a lengthy time, but if you do a KJF you can’t IGNORE Germany - Most IPC are gathered in Europe and surroundings, so leaving Germany alone quickly makes it to an industrial giant - probably taking out Russia in the process. So if you kill Japan first, you MUST invest into Europe/Russia.
(italy neither adds nor subtracts from this equation)
So KGF is IMHO not done because its the “best” strategy, but its the easiest.
To be honest - every game about WWII IS won in Russia - even the real one ;)
Why do KGF work? - Could it be because the crowd (us) is used to that strategy and knows exactly what to do, so you don’t even try another approach? - Could it be?
The pacific is a wide space and there are a multitude of things one can try.
US buys BmBs sends them to Russia to bomb Japan into submission (IC, fleet, army) and let Russia/UK conquer the mainland Posessions of Japan - UK could also use Australia as staging area to Island hop from the soth while the us comes from the East.
Or do an US fleet build to attack in the conventional manner.
To help the Russians vs. Germany UK and US must only invest a few fighters for defence.
KGF or KJF ? - I for my part would certainly do KGF even if the odds were more for Germany,
The problem here is: You can do a KGF and ignore Japan for a lengthy time, but if you do a KJF you can’t IGNORE Germany - Most IPC are gathered in Europe and surroundings, so leaving Germany alone quickly makes it to an industrial giant - probably taking out Russia in the process. So if you kill Japan first, you MUST invest into Europe/Russia.
(italy neither adds nor subtracts from this equation)
So KGF is IMHO not done because its the “best” strategy, but its the easiest.
I agree when we play to win we go for Germany when we play to try things out we go for Japan. (Not always but you get the idea.)
LT
You cannot ignore Japan now, no more. I have played my 1st face to face game this morning (1941), Japan did some poor choices (letting 3 inf, 1 chinese fig to live and let the Pearl Harbour BB survive) and still, round 3 Japan is earning 50 IPCs. Even with China alive, patetic dices for Germany in Egypt round 1, and UK fleet surviving, axis reaches to 110-115 IPCs, having almost equal income than allies (and I’m counting the 1-2 inf China gets). Imagine what can do a better (or more experienced in this version) player if Japan it’s ignored. Merry campaigns in America, Africa in italian hands forever, a monster JTDTM or a combo of all …
Instead of getting upset that it has resorted to KGF, come up with a strategy to beat KGF. If a strategy is developed that will beat KGF 60-70% of the time, guess what, no more KGF.
I cannot try this against my inexperienced opponents but would love to see if it could work against a player going KGIF……
1. Get Japan to 35 ipcs per round or more. Take India while moving most of your fleet to the Med to protect Italy.
2. Go into defensive mode. Do not plan to take much more territory because this will mean a larger investment in land units. Hold your ground, attack when its a gimme.
3. Start buying bombers. 2-3 per turn. Buy infantry with the rest of your ipcs and ship them to your fronts for defense.
4. Bomb the hell out of Caucus and Moscow with the multiple bombers you have.
5. sit back and watch Germany walk into russia
You cannot ignore Japan now, no more. I have played my 1st face to face game this morning (1941), Japan did some poor choices (letting 3 inf, 1 chinese fig to live and let the Pearl Harbour BB survive) and still, round 3 Japan is earning 50 IPCs. Even with China alive, patetic dices for Germany in Egypt round 1, and UK fleet surviving, axis reaches to 110-115 IPCs, having almost equal income than allies (and I’m counting the 1-2 inf China gets). Imagine what can do a better (or more experienced in this version) player if Japan it’s ignored. Merry campaigns in America, Africa in italian hands forever, a monster JTDTM or a combo of all …
I take it that was with National Objectives…
Do you think a 1941 game is more balanced WITHOUT the N.O. ?
Yes, but still not balanced. You can still kill China without NOs, the main flaw of setup.
Let’s KJF: forget China, it’s killed J1. Supposing India holds we go back to old Revised combined values. But India cannot hold much time without chineses, so let’s also kill India. Now, you could ignore both and make a only SAF IC + Pacific fleet strat. That worked well in Revised, in a 50/50 basis if both players were equal in experience. But now we have a slight stronger combo of ger+ita than the ancient solo Germany, so I guess we could get a 60/40 ratio, favoring axis. Not fatally flawed, but still unbalanced, and, worst, we lost any other KJF strat because you cannot hold Australia now against that swarm of strating jap trannies. That leads, I think, to a moderate unbalanced gameplay, favoring axis, with only one viable KJF strat. I’d prefer a couple more of viable KJF strats and the possibility of playing NOs
Let’s try KGF, JTDTM as counter: Japan can reach 55-60, Italy 10-15 and Germany 30 (95-100 to axis) vs 25 soviets, 25-30 UK and 38-40 USA (90-95 to allies). Allies can have a chance here, but still seems sligh advantage to axis in midgame. The main problem is not that, is that you have soviets facing a 55-60 Japan opposed to Revised 45-50 Japan. Soviets can hold less, and the Italy-Germany combo can resist equal. Japan can conquer Moscow early, giving they more time to rescue its western axis pals. I don’t like that approach. Maybe can work, but I guess again 40 % of allied victories, maybe a bit less
Let’s try KGF, but Japan attacks American mainland as counter: USA cannot reinforce Africa, and Italy can still reinforce with that big fleet. We have now a slight stronger Japan and Italy and a slight weaker USA and UK than in JTDTM. I think this is too very high risk for even trying KGF for these reasons:
I think the map is designed for allies needing defend all places (that’s very good), but 1941 don’t allow allies do that because of early fall of China, that acts as a chain reaction, being worst if playing with NOs. I reserve my opinion on 1942 until more games are played.
Let’s try KGF, JTDTM as counter: Japan can reach 55-60, Italy 10-15 and Germany 30 (95-100 to axis) vs 25 soviets, 25-30 UK and 38-40 USA (90-95 to allies).
This is not true. In a real KGF Italy is at 10 IPC flat, Germany at 25 and Soviets at 30. This means it’s 90-95 to the axis and 95-100 the allies.
Soviets should not be able of reaching 30, maybe 27-28 at best, counting Finland. But I’m pretty sure Germany can at least trade soviet territories and reach 29-30. If Italy manages escape to Indian ocean, they could take and hold saf, mad or some other African territories (if not, the italian income would be 9 :-D).
Still, let’s say both sides gain equal income. Soviets must still face a Japan who almost doubles them. And there is the more powerful Alaska path: even supposing a economic parity for JTDTM, Alaska path gives me economic superiority as axis, that’s the bigger danger trying KGF, not the JTDTM.
With Soviets taking both Finland and Norway (which is quite normal in an KGF) they are at +5. And no Germany won’t be able to trade Russian countries in a KGF game, they simply don’t have enough infantry to do so. Russia will lose some to Japan but with +5 plus maybe even trading Poland/Bulgaria they are pretty damn strong.
As for Japanese - Alaska route I know you think it’s a very strong strategy but to be honest I havent heard anyone on this forum about that except you, let alone somebody really taking and holding Western Canada, let alone Western USA. And considering the long route the Japanse have to go I doubt one can really bog down the USA 100% to the West Coast and not going KGF.
The dilemma seems to be this one:
Japan can’t be ignored because it gets too strong…
… but since it gets too strong, it’s impossible to deal with… :roll:
bottom line: seems Japan to get too strong, no matter what
Now… there would be a way of making this game balanced and forget about the KGF strategy: i_ndividual winners for real_. I mean: each country should need certain victory cities to be declared the winner. Allied nations can’t fight each other, but their objectives in the war are not the same.
It would be a different Game – and you should still make Japan weaker for 1941, or Japan will win every game.
But you won’t have a KGF anymore…
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
By either pimping USSR a bit, so it’s not that much of a helpless prey, or by giving the Germans a bit bigger edge against UK, by pimping their initial fleet. (and give them the feared amount of U-boats they actually had).
Or V2 missiles from start. Or whatever.
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
yes, it would
I hate the fact that it’s always KRF for the Axis
but few people cares about that – maybe because there aren’t many Russians playing the game? :roll:
but I guess that KGF should be easier to fix than KRF
At least there should be a way to balance the game in a way where you have to fight in the entire world
If the Japanese have to fight the Americans, they can’t go after Moscow… real war was like that (although Japanese Army couldn’t have taken Moscow ever in real life).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
Some Sea Lion potential would be nice, for sure. The Axis can go for the UK, but not for it’s capitol. Rather the Axis can focus on crippling the British economy - take India, Australia, and Africa ASAP. This is a different approach from bee lining it to Moscow, though Russia will be the first to fall either way (should the Axis prevail).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
With the advent of victory cities and the variable victory conditions they allow, you COULD have a game that was not ALL about taking Russia or going all out after Germany. Thing is, Revised fell a little short utilizing this new game concept of victory cities.
There was (and continues to be) plenty of discussions about what territories SHOULD be VC’s and what should not. All I can add is that through plenty of personal experience, one particular variant rules set A&ARe (a.k.a. Enhanced) DID allow games to be won without focusing on KRF or KGF tatics. In fact, often times, those were sub-optimal strategies in Enhanced games.
I imagine that there will eventually be some variant rules that enable this same sort of decreased reliance on the KRF / KGF strategies for AA50.
