Uhhuh, 2 indian TRS with bid money is not something to see often ;-).
Well, I guess the axis need to pay attention to where the bid went. Plus, when I’m writing I think all bidless. I can’t take bids into account since there are so many options…
I think I can safely assume that in general, India will have just 1 TRS. Bidding extra Indian TRS looks bad to me IMHO, because as allies at the start of the game you don’t know what the axis are going to do. If a J1 is launched, such a bid is hmmm, let’s say far from optimal.
The strength of a J4 is not so much about Japan, but it is about the Euro-Axis. They will become so strong that whatever (extra) strength India has, needs to go to Africa right away unless the UK doesn’t care to loose Egypt early in the game.
Since Japan will prevent India from gaining too much from a J4 by convoying all SZ where India can get money from, India best not DOW Japan UK3 to have maximum income of 17+21+24=62 (assuming ANZAC takes Java R1). Compared to a J1 (17+14+6=37) that’s 25 more income, worth 7INF+1ART, not something to have a sleepless night over as Japan.
I find the allied (Indian + ANZAC) economic advantage of a J4 over J1 not enough to make J1 a standard ‘do or die’ option. With a J4 all the same axiomas stil apply: Japan will get India (isolated and harmless at least), Japan will get the DEI and Japan will reduce the ANZAC to having ~10IPCs income. Last but not least: Japan will become an economic monster unless the USA goes 'K’JF perhaps. It is all up to the USA, as always.
And (on a sidenote) here lies much pain for me; Since J1 already requires much more investments from the USA than it can do in Europe, I don’t want to be restricted to do that as well with a J4.
I said it several times already: If the USA never actually has a choice between investing more in Europe or more in the Pacific (whatever the amount of ‘more’ may be), I’ll say goodbeye to A&A as a fun WW2-game. Grand strategy of the allies was ‘Germany first’ and if that’s not even possible in this game because Japan will then grab Hawaii for a game-over, I’m out…
Not to nitpick ItIsLeClerc, but the incomes that you used to support your J4 attack are a bit flawed.
In a J4, UK would be stupid not to DOW on turn 3, so their last turn will be 29 income, not 24 (and ANZAC will get plus 10 NO from a DOW on turn 3, although they get that for a J1 automatically so that’s mostly moot). Also, J1 is being done very wrong if Borneo isn’t taken on J1, which means that India will be reduced to only 9 income collected on round one. India could hypothetically take Sumatra, but in my experience India won’t sacrifice the transport to take an island for 4 IPCs and will instead send it west to Persia or Ethiopia (this just makes more economical sense, since it allows the transport to survive).
So with those adjustments, India is actually making an extra 9 more income on top of the 25 you mentioned. That makes the total 34 IPCs, which is 10INF+1ART. That’s very significant imo, especially since India is probably gonna make more on UK5 in the event of a J4 than it will on UK2 in the event of a J1. Yes India will still be neuter-able, but if Japan waits to J4 they are not ever taking India unless they sacrifice most of their air force, which spells doom for them anyways. A J1 should allow for a fairly easy India take (with only ~5 aircraft lost) sometime around J4-J7 if Japan choses to take it. Another big advantage of a J1 is the destruction of allied units, namely the US ones at the Philippines and the British Battleship at Malaya for very little comparative loss. Still while this makes the J1 look good, I agree that those units don’t matter that much against Japan come J4.
Other than India becoming virtually unassailable, I 100% agree with you. ANZAC doesn’t really make anymore income and US makes significantly less in a J4 vs a J1. That plus Japan being able to develop a solid income base in China and Russia could actually make J4 a much more favorable strategy than most give it credit for (myself included).
Well to be fair, as long as Japan parks at least 3 subs off UK Pac territory that they can’t kill, India will be trading a small amount of income for the ability to attack the Japs and support China. But I think another important factor between a J1 and a J4 is time. Not only does India have 8 more units on the board by the time of the DOW, but they have 18 extra IPCs from turn 3 income, probably some more than the 6 for India+Burma T4, and the IJN is now just getting busy in the south, and it will have to move further west out of position and/or sacrifice much more air for a timely capture of India. Meanwhile America now has a much easier time moving up (Carolines might be a decent option in this scenario as it threatens Japan, Philippines, and Chinese coast, and Japan will be in shorter supply of blockers needing more ground investment for a stronger India)
For a J4, if you move your fleet south to protect your transports and keep the DEI, America can advance sooner than normal, but if you don’t, the allies can begin contesting the DEIs right away.
Contrast that to a J1 where you grab the islands J1 and J2, clean up Malaya J3 and bring your navy back to the Philippines J4 just as the first “extra” Americans reach Hawaii.
Of course, this leaves the European theatre isolated and Germany will probably roll over Russia barring huge US & UK air buys in rounds 3-5 (UK earlier if possible), but assuming the US managed to stop Japan, they can now switch to heavy Europe spending to try and salvage that theatre. Against a J1 (bidless) the US could still be needing to spend a large chunk of their income even into round 7-9 before they can destroy the IJN.
I guess to summarize, while I am a firm believer that the Allied situation is not as dire as some paint it to be, the Axis have a good span of strategies that, when executed correctly, give the Allies virtually no chance at victory barring perfect play.
If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.
If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.
The victory conditions for the Axis used to be a total of 14 victory cities across the entire map. The problem was then the Allies would pretty much ignore Japan and send everything to smash Germany/Italy. By that time, Japan may have 10 victory cities and be spread out all over Asia and the Pacific, but even then they couldn’t hold out against all of the Allies throwing everything at them. So, basically the Axis had no way to really win.
With the 6 VC rule in the Pacific, if forces the Allies to devote some attention to Japan. This makes it quite a bit harder on the Allies, but I think that was done on purpose to reflect the historical choices the Allies had to make then. In some cases, it might be a little too tough on the Allies, which is why I think many players think you have to give the Allies bids of extra units upon startup.
I have seen the Allies win with the current setup but I will admit that the majority of our games end up in Axis wins. Perhaps the opening setup could use some tweaks so bids won’t be necessary, at least for most players. I think there are some out there that would not be satisfied playing the Allies unless they got extra stuff at startup, no matter how the setup might be changed.
Not to nitpick ItIsLeClerc, but the incomes that you used to support your J4 attack are a bit flawed.
In a J4, UK would be stupid not to DOW on turn 3, so their last turn will be 29 income, not 24 (and ANZAC will get plus 10 NO from a DOW on turn 3, although they get that for a J1 automatically so that’s mostly moot). Also, J1 is being done very wrong if Borneo isn’t taken on J1, which means that India will be reduced to only 9 income collected on round one. India could hypothetically take Sumatra, but in my experience India won’t sacrifice the transport to take an island for 4 IPCs and will instead send it west to Persia or Ethiopia (this just makes more economical sense, since it allows the transport to survive).
So with those adjustments, India is actually making an extra 9 more income on top of the 25 you mentioned. That makes the total 34 IPCs, which is 10INF+1ART. That’s very significant imo, especially since India is probably gonna make more on UK5 in the event of a J4 than it will on UK2 in the event of a J1. Yes India will still be neuter-able, but if Japan waits to J4 they are not ever taking India unless they sacrifice most of their air force, which spells doom for them anyways. A J1 should allow for a fairly easy India take (with only ~5 aircraft lost) sometime around J4-J7 if Japan choses to take it. Another big advantage of a J1 is the destruction of allied units, namely the US ones at the Philippines and the British Battleship at Malaya for very little comparative loss. Still while this makes the J1 look good, I agree that those units don’t matter that much against Japan come J4.
Other than India becoming virtually unassailable, I 100% agree with you. ANZAC doesn’t really make anymore income and US makes significantly less in a J4 vs a J1. That plus Japan being able to develop a solid income base in China and Russia could actually make J4 a much more favorable strategy than most give it credit for (myself included).
Welcome to contribute, Pokemaniac, we are always free to give each other insight in our thinking :-).
DOW UK3 is not optimal if you consider the income. So if that’s the only thing left for India to worry about, the UK should let ANZAC do the DOW at the end of the round (as this automatically also includes the UK).
I’ll explain below:
Income DOW UK3 (assuming ANZAC took Java): 29IPCS - 18IPCs max due to convoying because of being at war with Japan (provided Japan has set up for this, ofc.) = 11IPCs if max result from convoying.
Income NO DOW UK3 (again minus Java): 24IPCs
I would say the only valid reason for the UK to DOW, is if they can deal a too painful blow to Japan, attacking one of its spread out fleets (I think only possible with a 'K’JF). Reason why I don’t see that often is because the Uk is SO pressured in the MED/Africa, it has not much choice but to move the Indian air/fleet into this theatre. If the UK could leave those units in India, J4 would become economically even better for the UK (less convoying options for Japan), but they will then most certainly loose Egypt and the ME to the axis pressure over there….
And you are right, I assumed UK to take Sumatra anyway so that is a debatable 4 IPCs :D.
I have seen it enough to daresay that India will still fall with this J4 if the USA does NOT go 'K’JF. The magic trick is that India will have no income left UK4 (well…2 IPCs per turn, perhaps), so suddenly all production there stops. Japan will patiently reinforce the area with 3 to 6 units per turn and by ~J7 it will have a serious overkill of units to attack India with. Uk must retreat or stand and be destroyed. Japan doesn’t have to loose any airunits in that attack ever.
India’s main problem is the IJN with its stack of TRS. UK sends too many troops forward, Calcutta is invaded and India will never have a lot mor than 30 units in Clacutta. Japan easily gets to 45, excluding their aircraft.
But as stated before, the real strength of it, is the Euro axis getting very strong so the pressure on the UK goes so heavy that the USA feels it too. ‘Damn USA must do something about this in Europe or else the allies are not quick enough with ‘killing’ Japan’. Frustrating…
I guess to summarize, while I am a firm believer that the Allied situation is not as dire as some paint it to be, the Axis have a good span of strategies that, when executed correctly, give the Allies virtually no chance at victory barring perfect play.
If we try to go to the root of the problem ('K’JF being virtually a necessity for victory), I think it’s that darned 8/6 VC rule. If this got compressed into a 12 or 13 VC across the map victory, or maybe just bumping Japan’s VCs up to 7, I think the game could support a wider variety of Allied play.
The victory conditions for the Axis used to be a total of 14 victory cities across the entire map. The problem was then the Allies would pretty much ignore Japan and send everything to smash Germany/Italy. By that time, Japan may have 10 victory cities and be spread out all over Asia and the Pacific, but even then they couldn’t hold out against all of the Allies throwing everything at them. So, basically the Axis had no way to really win.
With the 6 VC rule in the Pacific, if forces the Allies to devote some attention to Japan. This makes it quite a bit harder on the Allies, but I think that was done on purpose to reflect the historical choices the Allies had to make then. In some cases, it might be a little too tough on the Allies, which is why I think many players think you have to give the Allies bids of extra units upon startup.
I have seen the Allies win with the current setup but I will admit that the majority of our games end up in Axis wins. Perhaps the opening setup could use some tweaks so bids won’t be necessary, at least for most players. I think there are some out there that would not be satisfied playing the Allies unless they got extra stuff at startup, no matter how the setup might be changed.
Wholeheartedly agree with all this.
I am really starting to think the best Japan strategy is a T3 declaration. Set it up correctly with your buys and transport movements and this can be really hard for allies to beat.
The main problem with Japan that I don’t think a lot of you guys are getting as to why they are so powerful is that if they keep spending 80% of their money on fleet, or fighters, from T2 on, then US has to commit at least 80% of her money in the pacific to stop Japan from winning. What exactly is 20% of US’s money going to do in Europe?…
A big mistake as Japan, IMO, is to build more than one factory. In every case possible I only like to build one factory so that most of my money goes towards fleet. You easily have enough ground units to conquer India, and if you play it correctly you should be able to kill China first and then swing down to take out India. After you have conquered India you can then build all carriers for your ridiculous amount of planes that you should have at this point in the game. The fleet Japan should be building should consist of only destroyers and subs. Carriers only if you really need them for defense. If you can’t build fleet in SZ6, most of the time this is because you just declared war and US would cream any fleet you built there, then build all fighters and 1 sub. It isn’t worth it for America to try and kill that sub, so this grants you another piece that you can defend a sea zone with.
In short I am still a little annoyed that America makes such little money. I know 52, and then 72 when at war, seems like a lot, but it really isn’t enough.
P.S.
I like the idea’s about maybe putting your bid in the pacific. Seems Interesting.
I think the bottom line is that there are definately things the USA can do about Japan but to be short about it:
the USA has to spend a LOT of IPCs down the Pac to make it work. As long as you have a clear strategy in mind about what to do with your buys, Japan should be having a lot of problems. I have no good ideas (yet) about how (and when!) the allied mess in Europe can be stabilized, but I’m considering what Cow once said:
Send US-aid to the allies in Europe via the Pac.
Possibly by sending FTR to Russia from US Carriers (? using the ME/India as a stepping stone) and/or by sending the troops in your TRS that are no longer required in the Pac via the ME.
But if Germany, after taking Moscow, suddenly turns west and jumps onto the UK, this might not work either. Always the problem: Germany controls the center and has great flexibility in choosing its (next) targets.
I agree with you, ROC, about that 80%.
No exact numbers yet, but roughly that should be correct. USA should not spend >>100IPCs in Europe on a J1 or seriously risk loosing Hawaii, that sounds like ~80% of its income over ~8 turns or so.
I don’t think US can spend over a 100 in Europe with a J3 as well. Japan has more ability to build fleet in a Japan 3, and US has less money. Granted US does retain the sub, dd, and fighter worth 24 total, but looses out on 40 in NO money.
How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.
How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.
If this is a question for me, I can’t answer it. I have no experience with this strategy ;-). I was referring to what Cow once said.
I DO know however, that the USN does need only a little extra protection/attack power to become stronger than the IJN. Japan producing transports + an IC J1 is all it takes for the USN to overpower the IJN.
The problem lies in the Imperial Airforce. It’s the combination of IJN + ‘IJAF’ which is deadly and needs to be feared.
Hi ROC if you post a file then perhaps I could offer some suggestions on what the Allies (and Japan) can do better.
Not being able to gain naval predominance over Japan until J9 sounds about right. Ultimately the goal is to either force Japan to attack a combined Allied navy (at Leyte Gulf or thereabouts) or force the Japanese navy to run towards the Persian Gulf. Japan can control the coasts with sufficient fighters–however, these fighters cannot prevent subs from taking away Japan’s income once the Japanese fleet has been disposed of.
The Allied land component (what you do with China, India, and Siberian inf) is key because that has a huge impact on how much money Japan is able to make. Generally speaking, my best success with KJF has been in games where I’m able to link the Indian army with the Chinese army and then advance towards the money territories on the Chinese coast. But if Japan conquers India and keeps China at bay deep in the mainland, then KJF is much longer and more expensive.
Here is the game. I am on Turn 10 with US.
I will say ahead of time that I made some mistakes early on with Anzac that really cost me. Also I didn’t convoy Japan early enough. My China movement as well has gotten better since playing this game out.
The Key I’ve found with Japan is to make sure UK can’t stack Burma. If UK can stack Burma then Japan is in a lot of trouble.
How are you as US able to stop Japan so badly that you can send your fleet to the med? Have you killed Japans navy? Against a good Japan this shouldn’t be possible till at earliest turn 9. That is with 100% pacific buys only.
If this is a question for me, I can’t answer it. I have no experience with this strategy ;-). I was referring to what Cow once said.
I DO know however, that the USN does need only a little extra protection/attack power to become stronger than the IJN. Japan producing transports + an IC J1 is all it takes for the USN to overpower the IJN.
The problem lies in the Imperial Airforce. It’s the combination of IJN + ‘IJAF’ which is deadly and needs to be feared.
Sort of. So say America buys carrier 3 destroyers and 2 subs first turn, and all of it is going to pacific. The 3 destroyers placed in the Atlantic swing around to the pacific turn 2. That means US has a fleet of 4 subs, 6 destroyers, 3 cruisers, 2 carriers, and a battleship. This is vs Japans fleet of 2 subs, 4 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 3 carriers, and 2 battleships. Turn 2 my Japan buy is 2 destroyers, 1 sub, 1 transport, and 3 mech. Now Japans fleet is equal in numbers to US’s fleet.
The problem, as we’ve talked about on here for a while, is that US might have more fleet, but the fleet off West US doesn’t exactly count since it can’t hit anything. Also the fleet in Hawaii really isn’t doing that much either most of the time. The fleet that really counts is the fleet off of Carolines or Queensland.
Good stuff. A few comments before I go out and I may have a few more later.
-In a dedicated “KJF”, I’m not sure its wise to retreat the Siberians as you do here. Perhaps it’s a better move to move them to Amur right off the bat and hope Japan attacks. I realize you probably won’t be able to land in Korea until USA4 at the earliest and that’s a long time for the Siberians to be waiting. Still, getting Japan to attack that stack early or divert resources to contain it could reap rewards.
-I can see why you prefer a J3 declaration considering the way you have planes arrayed to prevent a stack on Szech and Burma. However perhaps Allies should consider taking a risk and stacking both anyway. Experiments where one devoted an entire bid (in ll should be like 22-25) to strenghening Burma and/or Szech would help alot in determining whether these are options or no.
In any case you can’t abandon Burma on UK1 without facing the risk of Japan building an air and naval base on J2 and taking India J3. Still–20 planes is quite alot. Will have to think this one over.
If Japan attacks Burma or Szech (bolstered by 7 Russian units plus hopefully other bid units), then even if they win the TUV exchange, they could lose tactical advantage if they lose alot of fighters.
If Japan doesn’t attack, Allies should consider a preemptive declaration on UK2 in order to combine in Yunnan.
Notice that if Japan takes any of these battles, they will lose some planes, and this will pay dividends later as USA and Anzac gear up for war.
These sorts of pressure plays work alot better in dice. It was the same for KJF in Revised–KJF worked better in dice because a conservative player is more likely to take a risk in ll than in dice, and KJF is all about spreading Japan thin and inviting Japan to take risks.
Finally, I think it’s possible that the winning strategy in a low luck game (for Allies) might be different from the winning strategy in a dice game. This is due to differences in game dynamics as well as bid.
Well said on everything. The only thing I might disagree on are the Russian units in the east. In a KJF game you need those 20 units to defend Moscow, otherwise Moscow just rolls over and dies way too easily.
With a 22 bid have you seen anyone bid a carrier sub with UK? This would allow UK to stack 92 depending on what Germany buys.
