Best Allied strategy

[Wazzup]

Allied going after Japan requires a very knowledgeable Allied opponent.

This can happen:
1. by chance (Japan gets horrible dice)
2. by design, but it takes careful planning.

It is very effective though if you plan it right.

However, I’m not one to let Germany get big.

[triforce]

@Wazzup:

Allied going after Japan requires a very knowledgeable Allied opponent.

This can happen:
1. by chance (Japan gets horrible dice)
2. by design, but it takes careful planning.

It is very effective though if you plan it right.

However, I’m not one to let Germany get big.

Care to share how you plan it right?

[Jennifer]

KJF is so easy though.  Especially if Japan screws up at Pearl. (Think Taffy 3 taking out the Japanese Center Force at Leyte!)

Seriously, the trick with KJF is to have England take East Indies, New Guinea and Borneo with an IC in India, two rounds of pressure with Russia, and full engagement with America.  You will rapidly restrict Japan to SZ 60/61 and her main island in which case you’re shuttling troops from Alaska to Buryatia/SFE with America and putting 1-3 infantry into India a round to keep them bottled up while you walk from SFE to Europe and sail from England to Europe.

Guess technically it’s Slow Japan First cause I don’t really advocate invading Japan central unless you happen to find yourself in a position to do it.  But by restricting Japan to Japan and her headwaters you’ve killed her first, in essence, if not in fact.

[Wazzup]

Plan is bringing russia into bury
UK fleet in z30
IC india
USA investing in Navy

If Japan bids units in asia, this could be more difficult though.

[jsp4563]

KGF probably has the best overall chance of victory, but it is by no means certain.  KJF can be just as equally successful.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@jsp4563:

KGF probably has the best overall chance of victory, but it is by no means certain.  KJF can be just as equally successful.

Ok, everyone. Here’s a task: find a contradiction in the above sentence.

(Sorry, jsp. But since you’re currently the big man I gotta pick on you. And “just as equally” just nails your message to this board.)
:-P

[Jennifer]

KJF is more fun.  KGF is old.  Same thing, every time, every game.  Only changes are dice results.

KJF results, when done right, in a massively sized England, and it is recoverable if you lose Moscow.  You cannot recover from the loss of Moscow in a KGF game, even if you get Berlin.

[Guest]

Tell that to JSP who just loss a capital trade game to me  :evil:

[Jennifer]

smile

I’d rather sink his fleet then take his capitals.  I’m good at sinking his fleet.  I’m not so good at getting his capitals.  Maybe my admirals think taking his CAPITAL SHIPS are the goal, not his CAPITAL CITIES?

[Wazzup]

I’d take berlin over moscow any day.  But, then again, if Japan takes over Moscow with 20 units and US/UK take Germany with 3, that might change things.
Still, Moscow over Berlin… for sure.

The thing about KJF, is that a seasoned vet will make Germany a power both on the ground and the sea.  Makes coming after Germany quite a bit more difficult after Tokyo has been overtaken.

Versus a seasoned vet, I take KJF, unless the dice say otherwise on J1.

[Jennifer]

Usually, if Berlin falls, it falls to a very light Allied force.

Usually, when Moscow falls, it falls to a massive stack of Axis forces with both Germany and Japan massed around Moscow.

I’d rather have Moscow then Berlin.  I can retake Berlin easily.  It’s much harder to retake Moscow.

[newpaintbrush]

It’s true that Berlin is usually only taken with a few Allied units.  But if the Allies have done their work properly, they already control Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and various other European countries.  Japan doesn’t need a lot of stuff to retake Berlin, but Japan can’t match the 10 units a turn (soon 16 a turn with S. Eur) plus UK infantry from London.

UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@newpaintbrush:

UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

You’re dead wrong mister.  :-)

USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:

1. Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.

2. Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.

3. Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.

[axis_roll]

I think ALOT depends on what survives after Russia/Germany has fallen as well as who has what… Does US have Southern?  Does Japan have Caucasus …
Where is the Japanese fleet?

Too many variables to make any statement that is beyond mere conjecture…

[losttribe04]

Hey guys,

When playing as the allies I have found that you best bet is to (In order) use Russia to create a dead zone with germany brining there front to a halt.

As UK they have a two part goal:

1. build a IC in India to give Japan hell in Asia as a method to delay there foothold on the mainland.
2. Build a IC in S Africa this will be used to keep Germany from holding Africa by sending two tanks every turn to the front.

As the US build an Atlantic navy sending troop to Norway or to Africa to aid you Allies.

The key to win as the Axis is to expand rapidly. So as an Ally all you have to do is keep them contained until the US can send the death blow in Germany or Japan.

[ajgundam5]

UK with 3 IC’s ??! blasphemy

[Wazzup]

Personally? I hate building ICs.  Only exception is Japan because you have to.

[way2slo]

@losttribe04:

As UK they have a two part goal:

1. build a IC in India to give Japan hell in Asia as a method to delay there foothold on the mainland.
2. Build a IC in S Africa this will be used to keep Germany from holding Africa by sending two tanks every turn to the front.

Is it just me?  Or does every Japan player think “Oh cool!, they built me an IC in India.” when the UK dropps an IC in India when the Allies are not going KJF?  :wink:

It is well documented here in the forums that India can easily fall to Japan within a round or two if Japan really wants it. (see the talk about how 8 Victory City Win Condition gives the advantage to the Axis)  Also, I would think (I don’t know for certain) that building another IC in Africa would detract from your ability to protect the India IC and London.  I find it hard to believe that India can defend herself from Japan with no support from the other Allies.

A question:  In the games where this worked very well, what was Japan doing?

[newpaintbrush]

Picture the board in your mind for a moment.  Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC.  The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40.  That’s 54 vs 112.

Japan will be up China/Ssinkiang for 4.  They will also be up, say, India, Persia, Transjordan, Australia, New Guinea, and Madagascar, for 10 more (I think).  That’s still 68 vs 98.  I anticipate that the Allies should control the Mediterranean very quickly.  Even if the Axis control most of the rest of Africa, it is very difficult for Japan/Russia to maintain that control, considering that the Allies can ship in a gigantic load of infantry every turn.  (The Allies should have at LEAST 8 transports, capable of shipping in 16 units a turn.  Although I think those 8 transports would be far more likely to be used long term to continue transporting units to the European front).

The start should see the Allies with a transport-heavy Atlantic fleet, and considerable forces in Germany/Southern Europe, while the Axis will have a considerable Pacific fleet with considerable forces in Moscow.  I agree entirely with your point about multinationality, but I think that it is the Allies that still have the advantage of fighting the defensive battle, with a very difficult to crack Germany, London, and Washington (or Los Angeles).

IF the Japan player has a gigantic load of tanks and air that can be sent west very rapidly, to seriously contest control of Eastern Europe/Ukraine, I can see that the Axis would have good chances of winning.  However, I think that if the Japan player cannot secure that quick advantage, that the Allies can fight off the Axis quite easily.

The fact of the matter is that Japan will have Russia and Caucasus for 12 units producable, with extended supply lines (3 more from India), while UK and US will have Germany and Southern Europe, which are capable of 16 units per turn.  But UK/US will ALSO have a transport chain that should let the Allies drop 24 units a turn into Europe.  Japan’s transport chains will be much longer, and Japan cannot successfully prosecute a fight in which there are short transport chains (even attacking Western US is probably impractical due to the ability of the Allied player to drop 10 infantry plus fighters there given only a single turn of notice).

Short version:  All IMHO:  The Allies can’t be beat down quickly.  They have shorter supply chains.  They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis.  The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack.  On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.

@Sankt:

@newpaintbrush:

UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

You’re dead wrong mister.  :-)

USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:

1. Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.

2. Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.

3. Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.

[Sankt Hallvard]

@newpaintbrush:

Picture the board in your mind for a moment.  Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC.  The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40.  That’s 54 vs 112.

Short version:  All IMHO:  The Allies can’t be beat down quickly.  They have shorter supply chains.  They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis.  The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack.  On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.

The assumption was that Moscow was taken with a relatively large stack of armor, while Berlin was only taken lightly. Allow for some variances here, but naturally if Japan takes with 4 arm and Berlin is taken with 20 arm we’re looking at an entirely different situation.

Japan is at 81 the way I see it, pacific islands, eastern coast of africa and trading karelia/belo/ukraine. The allies are at 92 trading the same 3 territories. That’s a conservative measure. Most likely Japan will be able to stack either karelia or ukraine, trading norway and possibly e.eur or balkans as well. I disagree with you with regards to the battle for Africa, as a minimum Japan will hold s.afr, kenya, iea, egypt. They’re directly adjacent to the strategically important sz34.

To repeat what I said about logistics: the axis have much easier access to africa, sure the allies can ship lots of units to africa where Japan in response takes more land in europe. At any point that stack of arm can turn around through caucasus and push into africa. Now, are the allies going to ship even more units? If they don’t start shipping preemptively they will fall behind in the arms race and the units there will be stuck and cornered. If they ship en masse they are still stuck in africa and the Jap tanks can turn around and gain more ground in europe. 2 rounds is all you need to shift 80 armor from ukraine to egypt. The allies will need a pretty hefty fleet to match that.

I also disprove of the allies controlling the med, any fleet there is doing no good. They are better off shipping units from uk/e.us to algeria than shipping from s.eur/w.eur to libya. Japan can sit tight in sz16 and get their support shots at balkans, adding subs/bbs as necessary. The allies are forced to stack w.eur and s.eur to deter landings. Many places to defend, few to attack.