Crush Germany first strategy

[knp7765]

We also play by victory cities, but in most cases they are valid victories. In other words, once Germany/Italy has the 8 VCs necessary on the Europe board or Japan has the 6 VCs necessary on the Pacific board, we could see that there is simply no way the Allies could gain any of those cities back because the Axis are simply too strongly entrenched with too many resources at their disposal. Many times we will play it onward to total domination just for kicks and in just about every one, the Axis just keeps spreading while the Allies keep dwindling.

There was one game we played out past the “official” victory where the Allies ended up turning things around and beat the Axis. Also, I think there was a couple of games where we called it on the VC victory that if we had gone on perhaps 2 or 3 more rounds, the Allies would have been able to recapture one or more of the cities from the Axis, thus ruining their victory. However, like I said, the majority of games that end in Axis victories ended that way because the Axis was in a much stronger position than the Allies.

[Guest]

If you buy some bombers itno your full pacific buy its very fast to switch to atlantic when you got controll over the money islands. American bombers ALWAYS work to slow Germany, even if its just IC bombing.

That beeing said if UK has a fleet US should have the following units in atlantic: 1tranny w/units,1destroyer and 1-3 bombers. Taking Normandy, Norway or Denmark with US then landing UK units + planes is a very good strategy. Also US can bomb Germanys airbase and give them a nice suprice when they are unable to scramble vs UK. You also treathen Berlin with a 1-2 attack.

Point is:
Focus on Japan first BUT have a small tactical US force in atlantic as soon as possible.

[eddiem4145]

Yikes, I can’t believe what I am reading?

First off, though I only partially agree, many claim the axis now have the advantage with the 2nd edition so if that is the case, the axis will win most of the time.

2nd, if your city victories are being achieved by successes in Europe by the Axis, then it does not apply to my example. My point against the victory cities is that Japan can claim enough cities just in time before the beginning of the end occurs against Germany, where the real war is won and lost but yet lose the game. That is why I don’t like playing that way. It makes KGF strategy dangerous which is the logical thing to do and what played out in history as well.

3rd, if you are not playing with victory cities, going after Japan first, in a game played by two competent players is disastrous. There would be not reason why a German victory in Europe wouldn’t be a given.

But if you are playing with victory cities, then se la vie.

Eddie Moreno

[knp7765]

eddiem4145,
Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. You said that you don’t use the Victory Cities as conditions for winning the game. So do you go for total domination or simply until one or the other side gives up? Either way, I do agree with you that in a game where Victory Cities are irrelevant, it would be a better strategy to not totally ignore but simply delay Japan while focusing most of the Allied efforts against Germany. Germany is definitely the stronger enemy with more potential to expand and put the hurt to the Allies.

I think they made the Victory Cities condition to make it more possible for the Axis to win some games. Now, I’m talking about people with somewhat average playing skill, not like a lot of us here on the forum that play the game regularly and work out intricate strategies. I think that was designed more for perhaps getting more new players interested in the game. After all, if the Allies won ALL the time or the Axis won ALL the time, it wouldn’t be very interesting to most people. If you played this game out, between players of comparative skill level, and didn’t use the Victory City condition, then I would bet most games would follow history and end up in Allied victories. The Victory City condition is simply a way for somewhat newer players to be able to play the Axis and say “There, I won the war.”

[boldfresh]

guys don’t overthink it. Its very simple. The victory conditions exist to balance the game and go a very long way toward doing so.

[Omega1759]

Japan can become a huge economic and continental monster if left alone entirely. If the German player sees the KGF and focuses on defending with infantry, planes and a navy beefed up with cheap submarine fodder, the allies could still end up losing a total war. There is a big difference between just containing Germany and outright conquering it.

In this case, Germany is the anvil and Japan is the hammer.

[boldfresh]

Heres another way to look at it.  The victory conditions stimulate action in both theaters because the usa cannot focus all its might on just one.  This eliminates the full on kgf as a viable option againt the competent axis player.

[Omega1759]

@Boldfresh:

Heres another way to look at it.  The victory conditions stimulate action in both theaters because the usa cannot focus all its might on just one.  This eliminates the full on kgf as a viable option againt the competent axis player.

I agree with you here.

I also think the guys are missing a point about the effectiveness of KGF in a total war. At some point, there is a lower marginal return in conquering heavily defended territories as opposed to simply containing enemy expansion until economic and military superiority is secured and established. The defender has the shortest supply lines and can churn out large amounts of cheap units to defend.

The allies have some flexibility as the various powers can shift theaters:

Both with and without VCs US should always start by significantly reinforcing its Pacific fleet, at least to keep Hawaii and Anzac from falling easily. Then,  the US can focus more of its efforts on the Atlantic. In turn, the UK Europe can produce units to supply India. At some point, India will fall and the air units an go assist in the defense of Moscow. The Russians should also put pressure on the Japanese.

This is a viable strategy because it is very hard for the US to break a good Japanese player for the money invested (you can’t take it, maybe you can convoy it, but it’s not easy). In comparison, putting pressure on Germany and Italy has shorter supply lines. But, I would clearly avoid going 100% on Germany from the very beginning because things will very rapidly get out of balance in the Pacific.

[boldfresh]

Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

[Omega1759]

@Boldfresh:

Here is where we disagree omega.  A full on kgf or kjfWOULD be the way to go in a total war, which is why the vc conditions exist.

I prefer the KJF in a total war because Japan is much easier to contain and render irrelevant with a concerted action from all Powers.

The Germans slowly expand in Russia and they can only gain so much from doing that.

I think that the price for leaving Japan entirely alone with the US (Hawaii and Anzac falling) and the trouble that follows, outweighs the incremental benefit that you get from going all out against Germany from the beginning, as opposed to still spending some in the Pacific to render the starting US forces there a potent force that prevents unreasonable Japan expansion.