Allied Strategy Discussion

[Veqryn]

Ideas for allied strategies:

Purchases 1 couple rounds:

1st Turn Russia: 3 inf, 3 tanks
2nd Turn Russia: buy at least 2 tanks per turn, i try to buy at least 3

1st Turn UK: 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, OR 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser, 1 Infantry (save 1 ipc)
2nd Turnk UK: 1 Cruiser, plus whatever (depending on what germany buys, and where the german airforce is, and if the allies have destroyed any u-boats yet, you may need to buy a 2nd cruiser or destroyer. also, if germany destroyed your transports, than obviously you will need to buy some more)

1st Turn USA: 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport (save 1 ipc) (build in Atlantic, and move Pacific fleet to Atlantic too)
2nd Turn USA: 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport, 1 Artillery, OR 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport, 1 Infantry, 1 Tank
3rd Turn USA: 1 Fighter, 2 Transports, 3 Infantry, 1 Tank

Moves:
(for all combat moves, i calculated with tripleA 1.0.3.4, and subtracted defender units left from the attacker units left)

Russia Combat:
WestRussia: attack with 8-9 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Tank with 99% chance of win, losing only 3.5 units (i generally do not leave any guys in Karelia, but it won’t kill you leave 1 guy there)
Ukraine: attack with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 2 fighters, with 96% chance of win with average of 4.8 units left
or
WestRussia:
Norway: attack with 3 inf, 1 tank, 2 fighters, with 87% chance of winning with average of 2.5 units left (abondon Karelia, except that you must land your fighter there, which means you will lose your fighter, or alternatively, take the moscow fighter as a casualty, leaving you with 1 fighter, 1 tank, and maybe 1 inf left)
or
WestRussia: attack with 6 inf, 1 art, with 63% chance of winning with 1.3 units left
Ukraine: attack with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, with 64% chance of winning with average of 1.2 units left, OR attack with 3 inf, 1 art, 3 tanks, 1 fighter, with 85% chance of winning with average of 3 units left (you use up to 2 fighters in Karelia, and if using only 1 then the other goes to Ukraine)
Norway: attack with 3 inf, 1 tank, 2 fighters, with 87% chance of winning with average of 2.5 units left, OR attack with 3 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter, with 59% chance of winning with average of 0.7 units left

Russian Non-Combat Moves:
Abandon Karelia
Yakut, Soviet Far East, and Buryatia all combine to stack 6 infantry in Buryatia.  You will move these out to Yakut on Russian turn 2 assuming they survive.
Russian Sub moves to SZ2
Kazakh moves to Caucasus
Novosibirsk and Evenki both move to Russia
optionally Moscow AA gun moves to WestRussia

Russia on turn 2 and later should go on the offensive.  Russia’s Goal should be to own Karelia, West Russia, BeloRussia, and Ukraine.

England combat:
Destroy German’s Baltic Transport and Destroyer
If setting up for a Landing in Algeria, move navy to SZ8
If not going to Algeria, take out Norway by moving navy to SZ 3
If Germany’s airforce is really out of position, you can do both by moving to SZ6
Assuming Germany took Egypt and has 2 tanks there, you can take it back by moving 2 infantry from India to Egypt, plus 1 inf from TransJordan, plus your India fleet Fighter, for a 85% btl with 2 units left.
OR you can move your england bomber plus india fleet fighter to SZ15 to kill the German BB and Transport, with 61% chance of killing both BB and Transport with bomber left, 20% chance of killing BB and losing both bomber and fighter and leaving a transport alive.
Optionally, move the Destroyer to SZ59 to kill the Japanese Transport
Optionally, if your bomber is not needed elsewhere, strat bomb Germany

UK Non-Combat:
abandon India, move into Persia
move whatever is left of UK india fleet to SZ33 or SZ34
Pick up an inf from Australia and another from New Zealand and move to SZ42
South Africa moves to Kenya/Rodesia and stays there for a while
Fighters move to where you will place your carrier.

UK wants to get a total of 4 transports off the coast of England, landing guys into Norway/Algeria/Karelia/EasternEurope/France/Germany.  They shouldn’t ever have more than 33 ipcs until much later in the game when winning, and will usually have less than 30 ipcs for the 2nd through 5th turns.  Therefore, I do not buy a factory with England in the first 5 turns.  Try to hold onto Egypt and Africa, try to hold up in Persia.  
Other ideas: Buy some bombers first turn instead of navy, and try to take out the german Med fleet.  The only problem with this is that they have to have somewhere to land, and usually Germany can deny you a landing zone by taking Egypt and Transjordan if they see you building all Bombers.

USA Combat:
Move Bomber to England
if UK moved fleet to SZ8, then move your fleet there too
if not, depending on German U-boats positions, keep your atlantic fleet in either SZ10, SZ9, or SZ1
Move Pacific Fleet and your submerged Hawaii Submarine if alive, to the Atlantic
Move your Central USA troops to the East Coast
Move your Western USA troops to Central USA
move your 2 fighters to SZ10 where you will be placing your carrier
move your hawaii fighter to central usa or eastern canada
move panama canal dd to SZ10
depending on what japanese forces are left in China, either stay in Sinkiang or move to Kazakh

Generally, for the first few rounds USA will be transporting into Algeria as this is the only place that is 2 moves away from Eastern USA.  USA wants to get a transport chain of between 8-12 transports moving units from Eastern USA to Algeria/Italy/Norway/France.  The transports will be protected by 1 strong fleet, until you have enough transports and fleet to divide them into 2 fleets, which means you can now hit Italy/France/Norway.

Other suggestions, possibilities, etc, for the allies?

thx,
Veqryn

Edit:

The 3 General Guidelines for the Allies to follow are:

Control Africa -> Yes, control most of it anyway.  Keep Germany to Algeria, Libya and Egypt but not any further or you will lose the game in the long run

SBR Germany -> Yes, but don’t waste all your money on bombers.  You can only do a maximum of 20 damage to Germany, and since they never repair it all the way, you can realistically only do 16 damage per turn to Germany.  This requires only 4-5 bombers total hitting Germany every round.  I would never buy more than 1 bomber per turn as the UK or USA because you ALSO need boots on the ground.

Take Norway, North Africa, Liberate Karelia, + Have a UK fleet in the Baltic and USA fleet in the Med -> This forces Germany to defend every territory in Europe, and it will have to spread its forces thin and can not continue to hit Russia if you are hitting it.  The UK can attack up to 4 territories EVERY turn in the North, while the USA can trade Italy with Germany every round, until Germany’s back breaks.  (The Baltic Sea touches Western Europe, Germany, Norway, Karelia, and Eastern Europe.  A fleet in SZ12 off Algeria can hit Western Europe and Southern Europe / Italy, while a fleet in SZ14 can also liberate Libya, Egypt, Transjordan, The Balkans, Ukraine, and the Caucasus.)

[gnasape]

It’s Norway not Karelia.  Karelia is Russian Territory.

[bugoo]

I think i’d build destroyers over cruisiers as allies with the lower sub and bomber costs and with Germany being able to build subs directly into the med.  I’m also curious how effective a true US or UK SBR campaign would be with the new rules and bomber costs.  As early as G3 they could be repairing 4 bombers worth of damage, and they just don’t have the funds they used too.

I also wonder if a KJF will be stronger this time around using Yakut as a base for US bombers to secure the SZs around Japan and to SBR her factories. R1 move 6 inf into bury, UK1 sink SZ 59 trans with fig landing in bury and take Boreno with 2 inf, 1 bombard.  By the end of turn 2 you could have a stack of 10 R inf, 1-3 UK figs, and 4 US bomb in Yakut, with 3 more US bomb in WUS.  Eventually Japan would crack as it takes her a bit longer to get above US income, esp with her mainland factories getting bombed and having to defend her transports.

Yes i know I like bombers a bit too much, but aa50 taught me the power of US bombers.

[HolKann]

I like bugoo’s idea a lot: coastal bomb Borneo, ofcourse!

Veqryn, 2 arm a turn for Russia? I’d like to stick with 2ftr 1 rtl round 1 purchase, because the fighters come in real handy when trading territories. For the rest, inf + 1 arm or inf + 1 rtl each round will bolster Russia’s defensive capabilities in the long run. Though maybe defense isn’t all Russia needs…

As for your UK atlantic combat move: you’re assuming your UK fleet is still alive. But what after this G1:
sub SZ8 -> trn SZ1
ftr Nwy, bmr Ger -> BB, trn, sub SZ2
ftr Weu, ftr Ger, ftr Eeu -> Cru SZ13

You’ve got no more fleet left, and the German fleet can move to SZ7…

[Veqryn]

I am assuming sz1 and sz13 and sz15 are all dead first round

even if sz2 is also dead, the UK WILL eventually need a navy, and so I would still recommend purchasing either 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, OR 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser.

(if sz2 is dead, then you will want to build in the SZ8 and you should move the USA destroyer to there to help defend if germany is in a position to hit your newly built navy [or build in sz2 if germany has too many fighters in france (edit)].  then during the next turn you will have to make up for the BB by building most likely 2 more boats)

Russia can not afford new fighters, the 2 it has are enough.  Any Russia that is buying fighters is a russia sorely short on infantry and tanks.  Germany can push pretty far against a Russia like that.  Fighters are better for trading, but the 2 your have are enough.  The eastern front is pretty similar to revised, and you will never see a good revised player buying fighters with russia until the allies are in the win.

on the side note, I have never been a huge fan of massive bombing campaigns
Generally speaking though, I do start building 1 bomber per turn as the USA starting on the 4th American turn (around 4-5 bombers strat bombing germany, more is inefficient).  The first 3 USA turns though, I want to set up a transport chain into Africa and Europe.
A hybrid if this would be to ignore building the 2nd atlantic fleet as america, opting to just transport into africa instead of of into italy/france/whatever, and so then on the second turn you can start building 1 bomber per turn.
I do not like the bombers too much because you can only deal about 16 ipcs of damage to Germany per turn (the max is 20, but germany never repairs all the way, so usually they just build 6 or so units, meaning there is 4 damage left, meaning the next turn you can only do 16 damage), and on top of that, bomber cost you 12 ipcs, then the next turn the move, then the next turn after that they begin doing an average of 3.5 ipcs of damage per turn.  On average they last 5 turns, which means they do a total of 17.5 ipcs of damage before dying to AA, which is just 5.5 ipcs more than they cost.  Also, doing that last 3.5 ipcs of damage is a total of 6 turns after you paid 12 ipcs, and 3.5 ipcs in 6 turns is not worth as much as 3.5 ipcs THIS turn (i believe in ipc inflation).  Lastly, there is a very good chance they will die before doing their 17.5 damage (yes it averages out, but the ones that live longer than 5 turns do less damage after you account for inflation).

Also:
I do not like KJF strats except when playing against newbies.  They are not effective and rely far too much on very very dicey rolls.  I would rather have monster Japan to monster Germany.  It may be fun, or a novelty, but they really just aren’t effective strategies.

[gnasape]

Veqryn,

Great analysis, I would suggest using Sz 2 to rebuild rather than Sz 8.  The normal response from AAR was to stack WEu with ftrs, the bmb in Lib for Egy, and depending on whether Ger moves it’s sub in range of Sz 2, 8.  If you consolidate in Sz 8, it’s really tempting for Ger to attack and have the possibility of eliminating the UK/US fleet.  It’s a chance I would take as Germany.

In this game the fleet needs to be used to protect trns but having all your eggs in one basket (trns) and leaving it to chance is very risky for Allies.

[Veqryn]

@gnasape:

Veqryn,

Great analysis, I would suggest using Sz 2 to rebuild rather than Sz 8.  The normal response from AAR was to stack WEu with ftrs, the bmb in Lib for Egy, and depending on whether Ger moves it’s sub in range of Sz 2, 8.  If you consolidate in Sz 8, it’s really tempting for Ger to attack and have the possibility of eliminating the UK/US fleet.  It’s a chance I would take as Germany.

In this game the fleet needs to be used to protect trns but having all your eggs in one basket (trns) and leaving it to chance is very risky for Allies.

good points

where you choose to rebuild your fleet if it is destroyed is dependent on where the german stuff is that turn.  Sz8 is good because you can bring in the USA cruiser (can leave the USA transport behind, he doesn’t have to come).  Sz2 is good because it is out of the way of France.  Local considerations apply, and you should pick whichever is better.  If it looks like the entire German force that can come to bare on your new navy would make it a 50/50 battle, I often build it, simply because UK can rebuild the next turn, whereas Germany can never replace its entire airforce, as they must concentrate on building ground for the battle with russia.  I do not mind losing ships to Germany, so long as Germany is losing at least 2 planes for every 3 ships I lose or better.
That said, a force of 1 Carrier, 2 Fighters, 3 Destroyers, 1 Battleship (can substitute 2 Destroyers for 1 BB if destroyed), is enough to standoff with a German force of 6 Fighters and 1 Bomber, or 3 Subs, 4 Fighters, and 1 Bomber.  And depending on how many Fighters and Subs Germany loses during Russia’s turn and their own turn, you may not need to build that last Destroyer as the UK.  (less fleet = more boots, and boots > fleet)(my fav uk fleet if i can get away with it is 1CV, 2Ftr, 2Cruiser, 1BB, 4Transports, but i can only do this if Germany has no subs left, or lost 2 fighters)

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

I do not like KJF strats except when playing against newbies.  They are not effective and rely far too much on very very dicey rolls.  I would rather have monster Japan to monster Germany.  It may be fun, or a novelty, but they really just aren’t effective strategies.

KGF is better in AA42 than in Revised because of Perry Channel closed and CUSA not bordering WCan (both kill Polar Express). Since there is not a valid counter to KGF fanmania, I guess we are forced to 100% boring KGF games. Not that axis really need Polar Express this time: the suck is way much expensive (trannies don’t defend and a error is critical for allies), Germany can kill UK’s fleet round 1 and Germany has reasonable chances of building a (now) cheaper fleet and annoy allied suck enough time to Japan come to eat USSR

I think this game favors axis. Not sure in what degree (probably less than AA50, 1941 scenario did), but a thing is clear: AA42 received zero playtesting, just a copy & paste of AA50 rules and Revised setup/board with minimal changes. A serious playtesting would had revealed allied fleet round1 sinking problem and some other minor quirks. I still wonder why they didn’t gave soviets a dd instead that mostly useless sub

[Veqryn]

Funcioneta is a hater  :-P
if he can’t play as Japan and kill the USA, he doesn’t like it
if he can’t play as the China and kill Japan, he doesn’t like it
and if it looks like there is a remote possibility of the axis winning, he doesn’t like it either

perhaps the ability of germany to choose a risky battle where they can destroy the sz2 fleet is just part of the game and exactly what the game designers wanted and feel is balanced.  after all, it is the exact same battle as in sz2 in AA50, so they obviously have experience with it.  AA50 without NOs looks to be very very similar to AA1942 (and AA50 without NOs is in Allies favor), so I think you really ought to play some serious games with serious strategies before you criticize it so much.  No more beating a newb with some odd KJF or KUSAF strat then coming back and arguing that the game is unbalanced  :|

[Funcioneta]

Man, no need of being so harsh  :-)

@Veqryn:

if he can’t play as Japan and kill the USA, he doesn’t like it

That’s not my point. My point is that if USA ignores Japan or if Japan beats USA in Pacific badly, Japan should be able of exploiting it (USA’s risky move or Japan’s victory) and make USA pay hard. It’s not good that America is so easy of defend

@Veqryn:

if he can’t play as the China and kill Japan, he doesn’t like it

That’s not my point, China should survive J1 and should be able of hold at least 4-5 rounds. In 1941 scenario, best move for Japan is kill all China has and use the remaining forces to kill other allied targets. It’s easy and Japan has resources for both things. China is killed J1: one less theater to fight, and allies have zero options to prevent this because even soviets cannot send nothing to China’s front area. China lost J1 unbalances Asian theater, that unbalances Pacific theater and that unbalances the whole globe about round 5-6 when uncontested jap forces arrive to soviet rear. Call it domino effect

@Veqryn:

and if it looks like there is a remote possibility of the axis winning, he doesn’t like it either

No, that’s not true. I don’t like any side having too much advantage (allies had in Classic, axis has in 1941 scenario). In fact, I think AA42 is better balanced that AA50, 41 scenario, and that is good (it’s possible they tried counter the slight advantage allies had in Revised and went a bit far, but anyway I doubt AA42 had many testing, it’s a mere copy-paste and Larry and playtesters have more important issues with AA40)

@Veqryn:

perhaps the ability of germany to choose a risky battle where they can destroy the sz2 fleet is just part of the game and exactly what the game designers wanted and feel is balanced.  after all, it is the exact same battle as in sz2 in AA50, so they obviously have experience with it

No, it’s not the same battle, axis units and stas are the same, but allies have:

-Revised: bb, sub, tra -> 4 hit points, 7 defense points
-AA42: bb, sub (tra doesn’t defend) -> 3 hit points, 5 defense points

There is much difference. Also, you can simply skip z2 and autokill z1 trannie while sending baltic subs to z7, menacing UK’s purchases. Those subs cannot be hit because there are not dds at range, so they can escape to Mediterranean sea, south Atlantic or even menace USA’s fleet at z10. Also, Mediterranean UK’s ships are now easier to kill (they are both weaker). Both things mean less boats to UK, more figs and options for Germany, and now that ACs and dds are cheaper, there are some interesting combos for Germany if they try join italian and baltic fleets round 2 or 3. As best, the game could be balanced, at worst, axis advantage, but in no way allied advantage. The changes seem slim, but make great effect

@Veqryn:

AA50 without NOs looks to be very very similar to AA1942 (and AA50 without NOs is in Allies favor), so I think you really ought to play some serious games with serious strategies before you criticize it so much.  No more beating a newb with some odd KJF or KUSAF strat then coming back and arguing that the game is unbalanced  :|

Well, first, I think the only scenario of AA50 that could be balanced is 1942, no NOs. All the others favor axis being the worst 1941, yes to NOs. That’s my perception of balance, based in relative incomes and starting setups. Seems you have other perception, and that’s valid

However, I’m not totally sure what you mean. I have beaten good players with a balanced approach in Revised (also lose, I guess at 50/50 rate). I never try ignore a power by default and if some people name it KJF or KUSAF, I think they are wrong: I try fight the whole map, that’s my strategic approach. In case of so-called KFJ, I buy a fleet with USA to fight for Pacific (sometimes ICs at sin & ind, but that’s more tricky) but I don’t ignore Germany. In case of so-called KUSAF, I exploit a weakeness in USA’s defenses as counter of a try of ignoring Japan, that leads to USA fighting Japan in America instead the natural theater, the Pacific, and some more IPCs for Japan. If I call this Polar Express is only because the tactic uses a suck to Alaska and Wcan (prevented in AA50 by icecap for some reason), but I don’t ignore UK or USSR with Japan, it’s still a global approach and many times Japan has income to fight for Africa also, go figure. Not 100% win strats, but surely at least 50%, the same ratio as old boring KGF and JTDTM

About AA50, I played 1941 scenario as axis with -25 bid (delete 17 IPCs to Japan, 4 to germans and 4 to italians) 3 times and the results were 2 wins, one lose. I have played China mod, 1941, as axis 2 times and won twice. I don’t think my rivals were noobs

Take it easy, if in long run I prove being wrong and the game is balanced, I’ll be very happy  :-)

[themayor]

I have never played allies before, but I have played axis two - three times and won. But I want to try playing the allies and I really could need just a few points in what would be the most efficent way to beat another player (with the same amount of experience that I have).

Would a KJF or KGF be the best way? Getting UK troops up so they could help russia? And go into algerie with US troops in round 3?

But if you are going into algerie, this means giving up the pacific to japan?

[Veqryn]

@themayor:

I have never played allies before, but I have played axis two - three times and won. But I want to try playing the allies and I really could need just a few points in what would be the most efficent way to beat another player (with the same amount of experience that I have).

Would a KJF or KGF be the best way? Getting UK troops up so they could help russia? And go into algerie with US troops in round 3?

But if you are going into algerie, this means giving up the pacific to japan?

You should read what I wrote above and you would already know the answer to all of the questions you just asked.

KGF, UK into Norway and Karelia, owning the Baltic Sea, USA into Algeria, UK might land in Algeria too depending.
Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

Not true

East Indies -> 4
Borneo -> 4
N. Guinea -> 1
N. Zealand -> Australia -> 2
Hawaii -> 1
Philippines -> 3
Alaska -> 2 (rogue assaults, no more Polar Express due stupid frozen Perry channel)

17 IPCs. There are plenty of IPCs in Pacific Ocean. It can be done and it’s not more difficult than doing KGF

Also, the Atlantic suck can be severely damaged G1 and Germany can afford a fleet now with cheaper costs (the suck will be slower even if later is discovered that it’s still possible). The game can seem Revised but it’s not revised because of zero defense trannies are a mayor change both for KGF, KJF or balanced approach

It’s a new game in fact, there is not better strat until now since so few games are being played. It will need some time until we discover all consecuences of copy-pasting Revised map/setup and annyversay rules (deleting tech, that’s another twist)

However, if you are not very used to Revised, I suggest you give at least a try with Pacific fleet

[Veqryn]

@Funcioneta:

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

Not true

East Indies -> 4
Borneo -> 4
N. Guinea -> 1
N. Zealand -> Australia -> 2
Hawaii -> 1
Philippines -> 3
Alaska -> 2 (rogue assaults, no more Polar Express due stupid frozen Perry channel)

17 IPCs. There are plenty of IPCs in Pacific Ocean. It can be done and it’s not more difficult than doing KGF

Also, the Atlantic suck can be severely damaged G1 and Germany can afford a fleet now with cheaper costs (the suck will be slower even if later is discovered that it’s still possible). The game can seem Revised but it’s not revised because of zero defense trannies are a mayor change both for KGF, KJF or balanced approach

It’s a new game in fact, there is not better strat until now since so few games are being played. It will need some time until we discover all consecuences of copy-pasting Revised map/setup and annyversay rules (deleting tech, that’s another twist)

However, if you are not very used to Revised, I suggest you give at least a try with Pacific fleet

how many of those actually get taken in a usual game though?
Japan doesn’t take Hawaii, Alaska or Australia and New Zealand because every spare ipc they can afford is heading for Moscow (even if you build a US fleet, Japan should still send every ipc its not spending on ships to moscow)
Japan starts with the others, and of them, I can’t see the USA taking more than just East Indies or Borneo.  USA does not have the time or income to take the others, and absolutely rarely ever gets both East Indies And Borneo.

That means there is approximately 4 to 8 ipcs in the Pacific.

As opposed to the Atlantic campaign:
Norway - 3  usually to UK
Karelia - 2 to Russia (by USA going atlantic, you free up the UK to help Russia)
Eastern Europe - 3  usually to UK
Germany - 10  take it and watch them concede
France - 6  UK won’t ever get this one alone against a germany who leaves even a minimal defense of inf and fighters
Italy - 6  for USA
Balkans - 3 for USA
Africa - 4 to 10 depending.  If USA doesn’t go Atlantic, than you can kiss Africa goodbye, meaning UK will be down about 8 and Germany up 8

Yes, I will agree with Func on this point, you should try the Pacific strategy at least once.  Just don’t expect to win.  Some points are, don’t build too many transports or ground troops, you need all your 42 ipcs going into Subs, Carriers, and Fighters.  I wouldn’t build more than 1 extra transport, though the one you start with is enough, until After you get extremely lucky and defeat Japan’s Navy in a highly unlikely battle.  Be very wary of her 2 Battleships and 2 Carriers.  Make sure that UK moves her fleet to the SZ touching Egypt and hope that Japan follows her there to crush them.  That will buy you 3 turns while that BB makes its way back to join up with Japan’s main fleet.  I would not go Pacific unless Japan makes a stupid move and brings her first BB to Hawaii, because that is the only opportunity you will have in the game to destroy that BB.  If Japan doesn’t do that, you are going to have an uphill battle.

PS: fleets are not really cheaper under the new rules.  Subs used to be a 8 ipc unit that was 2/2/2/8 and could be taken as a casualty from air hits.  Now it is a 6 ipc unit that is 2/1/2/6 and can’t be taken as a casualty.  That is pretty much equal in my mind.  Transports used to cost 8, but were a 0/1/2/8 unit, now they cost 7 and are a 0/0/2/7 unit, and I would much much rather pay that extra 1 ipc to have the first version, although the second version makes better gameplay.  Revised had a 3/3/2/12 unit, and so does this version, except that it loses its anti submarine capabilities and gains a shore shot, so that is about equal.  And now there is a 2/2/2/8 unit with the anti sub capabilities, which is pretty the same pricing strategy as the rest.  Carriers lost a defensive point and now cost 2 less ipcs, which is about equal again.  The only thing that ACTUALLY got cheaper was the Battleship, which is still horribly expensive and will almost never be bought. 
Larry has a way of doing prices for navy, and it is 2 ipcs per point.  So a unit with 2 attack and 1 defense has 3 points total, so 3 x 2 = 6.  A cruiser is 6 x 2 = 12, a destroyer is 4 x 2 = 8.

[bbrett3]

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

You can’t only look at what the Allies are losing, you also gotta look at what Japan is gaining.  Or you may have the subject of a certain Blue Oyster Cult song knocking on your back door… (GO! GO! GODZILLA! :mrgreen:)

[Funcioneta]

@Veqryn:

how many of those actually get taken in a usual game though?
Japan doesn’t take Hawaii, Alaska or Australia and New Zealand because every spare ipc they can afford is heading for Moscow (even if you build a US fleet, Japan should still send every ipc its not spending on ships to moscow)

In Revised, if I used JTDTM you are pretty sure I’ll take at haw, nzel and aus. They are not difficult of take (usually round 3-4 as much) and aus is a good base against mad as well. All IPCs not collected by allies and collected by axis

About prize of fleets. I should had been more clear: fighting fleets are cheaper, escort fleets are more expensive (as you say, because of no combat trannies). Fleets fighting at Pacific ocean don’t need more than one or 2 trannies. Suck fleets need more escort boats now

About Africa, buy a IC for SAF and you will keep it, in AA42 there are no nasty african bids. UK can still hit Norway

I guess you should try both ignore Japan and balanced strats and use the one you feel is better

[Dago]

Pretty solid Veqryn. Something to consider though on slowing down the Japanese surge –

This is no way a KJF strategy because nearly all funds will be for the eastern US. 1-2 cruisers (depending on how well your subs did) for the pacific should be sufficient.

Keep the US pacific fleet in tact and eventually combine it with the SZ20 destroyer, UK SZ35 carrier/fighter (US Hawaii fighter lands on carrier later), and the SZ40 sub as strictly a defensive move. Strategic bomb Southern Europe with US bomber Rd2 and land it in the Caucasus.

For this strategy to be effective you have to capture a coastal Japanese island (preferably the Philippine Islands). First UK move, assault Borneo with 2 men. This disrupts a complex being built in French Indo-China because it puts Caucasus US bombers in range. But depending on where the Japanese build a complex later, the same strategy of taking the coastal island applies just move the bomber respectively after Japanese bombing run… Cruiser takes out the transport, and the carrier retreats to south africa.

Take the UK carrier through the bottom SZs staying out of range of being attacked by Japanese air power and combine with the US fleet as early as New Guinea (or the backside of Australia depending on where the Japanese fleet/bomber is). The UK carrier and sub will shadow all US assaults providing much needed defense. With the threat of US bombers hitting the Japanese fleet it creates a stalemate in the south pacific/indian oceans. If the Japanese attacks your fleet you’re going to lose but possibly be left with an open shot at Japanese transports. But if the US attacks the Japanese with everything you’re going to win.

As soon as you know you can’t hold off the Japanese off in Sinkiang or with your fleet anymore, get reserve vessels from the Mediterranean and take initiative.

Pros:
Nostalgia (it’s a good enough reason for me)
The starting allied forces get involved in the war quicker.
IPCs… It’s a nice bonus.
Effective at manipulating where the Japanese can use assaults in the indian ocean.

Cons:
US has to build an Atlantic fleet to compensate.
UK is low on Persian/Indian infantry. (Japanese battleships assaulting the coast theyre dead men walking anyway)

Everything else has worked for me. Although I stress the importance of the Russians going after Norway rd1 because getting that German fighter out of the game is pretty big.

[Veqryn]

Here is what has to happen for me to decide to try a Pacific USA strategy (don’t call it KJF because Japan will never die):

Russia has to do pretty well on the Eastern Front during their turn and during Germany’s turn.
UK has to do really well in Africa, since they will not be getting your support there.
UK has to move their Indian fleet West.
Japan has to lose at least 1 boat and 1 fighter during their turn
Japan has to move their East Indies fleet 2 moves West.  This usually means they crush the British fleet off of the Sinai Peninsula and horn of africa, but it really does not matter where, so long as it is 2 moves West.
Japan has to move their Battleship or Carrier to Hawaii, along with their Cruiser too (though if they move all 3 plus the sub, they might be too powerful to destroy if you don’t roll well, which would cancel this strat).
Japan has to not purchase any navy first turn.

I would then purchase as America either: 1 Carrier 3 Subs 1 Fighter, or 2 Carriers 1 Sub 1 Destroyer, or 1 BB 1 Carrier 1 Destroyer, or something like this
Then, I would attack Japan’s BB/Carrier plus Cruiser plus sub if it is there with your 2 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 BB, 1 Sub (assuming you submerged it)
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub at Hawaii, you have a 94-98% chance of winning depending on if you have the sub still.
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub, you have only a 56% chance of winning assuming you have the sub.  I would still attack.  If it goes well, then you do Pac strat, if you fail, you place purchase in Atl.
If Japan has 2 Fighter, 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 CC, 1 Sub, you are screwed and only have a 20% chance of winning, so I would not take it.

If you lose any more than your Submarine and a fighter, I would go ahead and abandon this strategy and place your purchase in the Atlantic, unless you destroyed a BB and Carrier in the process.
If you you only the Submarine, I would place your purchase in the Pacific and say a prayer.
If you lose the sub and a fighter, well, its up to you.

Basically, Japan has 4 capital ships as well as 6 fighter, 1 bomber, 2 other navy units, and a very good position.  The only way you will succeed in your Pacific strategy is to kill 1 of the Capital ships, kill the 2 other navy units (sub and cruiser), have one of her fighters die somewhere, and have 2 of her capital ships far out of position so that they can not be used for several turns.  By killing the BB at Hawaii, and by having her other BB and carrier tied up near Egypt (can get back to Japan by end of J3), this will give you approximately 2 more turns to catch up in Navy to Japan.

You will be making 38 a round, Japan will be making about the same after 2 rounds.
Japan has 3 capital ships to your 1 capital ship + whatever you just bought
Japan has 2x more fighters than you. (this is huge, you will never overcome this part)
And it is Japan’s turn… (meaning they are about to buy more, and have the initiative)

It is still an uphill battle, but your objective is mostly just to make Japan play stupidly and make her forget about her western front.  The best you can do is to Take Borneo, East Indies, and sink the Japanese fleet with 1 surviving unit on your side, all by turn 7 or so.  Most likely, you will take just 1 Island and will lose your entire fleet, but will be successful in distracting Japan and making her Western assault go very poorly.

[Veqryn]

So off of the Japan strategy stuff for a bit….

Here is something rather nice for the 1942 game:
because of the changed rules for transports and subs, the German Med fleet just got a lot weaker.

If Germany either abandons africa, or they do not roll well during their attack on Egypt (meaning they don’t take it, or they take it with only 1 unit left), and Germany did not buy any more Med navy units…
Then the UK could try to sink the BB with just a fighter and bomber, and if they succeed the UK should purchase an Egypt IC at the first available opportunity.

The bomber from england plus the fighter from india (plus your fighter from egypt if alive, but most likely not) would have a 60% chance of killing the BB AND transport with just the bomber left, and a 20% chance of killing just the BB and losing both planes thereby leaving the transport alive, and lastly, a 20% chance of doing nothing at all since the BB repairs.  Could be worth it.

[Flintlock]

@Veqryn:

If Germany either abandons africa, or they do not roll well during their attack on Egypt (meaning they don’t take it, or they take it with only 1 unit left), and Germany did not buy any more Med navy units….
Then the UK could try to sink the BB with just a fighter and bomber, and if they succeed the UK should purchase an Egypt IC at the first available opportunity.

The bomber from england plus the fighter from india (plus your fighter from egypt if alive, but most likely not) would have a 60% chance of killing the BB AND transport with just the bomber left, and a 20% chance of killing just the BB and losing both planes thereby leaving the transport alive, and lastly, a 20% chance of doing nothing at all since the BB repairs.  Could be worth it.

I did this w/the UK, and the next game it was done to me.  It was extremely effective, in both cases, slowing down Germany.  Unfortunately for the allies, in both cases, atrocious roles later in the game did them in.

Still, if you can take out the Med fleet in conjunction with an Egypt IC that would be beastly.