I am one of the crazy few who think AA50-41 is balanced. Funcioneta asked me to post what I was doing with the Allies so here it is. Is it the greatest Allied strat out there? Probably not but it has worked for me. I also think it avoids the mistake of ignoring Japan and then trying to fight them with 3 nations that have half the map when they are one nation that has half the map and tons of units in the territories they control.
Russia
Stacking Bury is fine but I only send 1 infantry into an open Manchuria instead of the whole bunch. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate this stack leaving the entire Northern approach vacant. While I do this I pull back all but 1 infantry from Buryatia to Stanovoj. This forces Japan to commit a few forces to retake Manchuria if taken and to take Bury. If I think I can delay the Japanese for a turn or two, I will attack their forces in Bury with the Stanovoj stack. This entire front is fought as a delaying action. That means I will attack, withdraw or hold as the situation appears to warrant. I attack Finland with an eye at taking Norway on round 2 and Deadzone Karelia. I find that Russia can generally not hold Karelia but it can deadzone and set it up for trades. As long as Germany is not producing anything in Karelia, other than the NO and 2 IPCs for the territory they have not gained anything that will immediately harm Russia. At a minimum the Novosibirsk Infantry are going to China and if at all possible the Kazakh duo as well. The longer Russia can hold up Japan in China the more free infantry China can produce, the Japanese income expands more slowly, and Russia has some less concerns with defense. I try to keep a steady stream of 2 or so infantry headed this way backed up by an armor or air power if such looks favorable.
UK
Normally the UK Atlantic fleet is reduced to practically nothing so I will spend round 1 and 2 building this up. I will also buy up to 4 transports for this new fleet. This is what goes against the normal thinking, but the Pacific Transport should load 1 infantry and 1 Artillery from Australia and sail east. On turn 3 it and the new Atalantic fleet can dump up to 10 units in Algeria. The 4 Atlantic transports can send in 8 units on round 4, while this transport can bring over the Canadians for a second dump of up to 10 units. Depending on what had to be purchased for the Navy there may even be additional units in the UK for it to ferry over on subsequent turns. More than likely though it will be of better use sailing south and liberating sub-Saharan Africa. By doing this a steady stream of 8 units can be landed from the UK in Africa every turn. If this transport is used in the Pacific it will most likely only be of an actual benefit for one turn. The UK proceeds in force across North Africa to fight Japan in Persia and India. While it will take some time to get there, I have found that when it starts to encounter Japanese forces it will have numerical superiority. Also the UK may find itself in a position where it can start to think of IC purchases for Egypt and or later India.
US
Other than the initial Eastern US troops going to Africa to reinforce the British and the starting bombers being used for SBRs it is 100% against Japan in the Pacific. With the US actively fighting in the Pacific it should maintain its second NO and make 48 IPCs per turn. This works out very nicely to 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 transport, 2 fighters, and 1 carrier EVERY turn. Naturally there will be turns where other ships or perhaps additional bombers are called for but this is THE primary purchase. While it will go against all traditional Axis and Allies thinking to be purchasing a transport every turn I have found that this is vital in the Pacific. The chances of setting up any transport chain are almost nil and many times an entire fleet may have to be sacrificed. Many times the transports themselves WILL be sent to take islands where they will be destroyed by air power, while fleet strength itself is preserved. Any island Japan has to retake is troops not headed to Russia, or Africa, or anywhere else of great concern for the Allies. If Japan engages in a naval race with the US that is fine as well, as it reduces the amount of troops available in Asia. Also there are many islands Japan would LIKE to cover but most likely can not. While you may find yourself in a position where both neither Navy can eliminate the other by sending out a steady stream of transports it overloads Japan. In my opinion if the US wants to contest the Pacific they need to do so with a credible navy. Subs alone are to easily countered and mostly ignore by Japan with a few cheap destroyer purchases.
That is the basic ground work. The situation may dictate for the Allies to start assisting Russia directly which by the time it is needed if everything went according to plan the UK will
be able to do with some or even all of its stream of troops across the mid-east starting to divert north. The US may also have to start sending some units across Africa as well. While in my mind this is not A KJF because the US is really the only power actively engaging Japan it can become one. It has been my observation that the Allies can hem up Italy or Germany and they can wait for Japan to take out Russia and come to their aid. However if things go bad for Japan there seems to be very little the Axis can do, even taking out Russia with Germany may not be enough. Keep in mind that Japan does not have to be taken. If Japan is reduced to Japan and not much else they can be penned in with just enough forces to keep them there and sticking to defensive buys.
I am sure the detractors will be along shortly to shoot a million holes in this, so here is my challenge. Instead of thinking about what he Axis can do and bitching about what the Allies can not do; think about what the Allies may be capable of. That is the only way Allied strategies will be furthered.
