Help Needed For Allied Strategy - Updated thoughts on Bid?

First time here but long time lurker. Big fan of A&A since high school, had a small group of friends that played when we were in our teens which puts that about 1990 or so. Ugh.

Anyway, myself and one of the friends from those days are still playing A&A, coming back to it recently and enjoying AA 1942 2nd Edition. He is a very capable Axis Player and has perfected his Axis playstyle - in particular Germany - to the point where I’m unable to develop any strategy that can defeat the Axis without a bid. And even with a bid, if it’s not a Naval Bid, I’m not sure it’s balanced enough for Allies to win.

So before I explain what I’ve tried, in the multiple sessions we’ve played recently, I’d like to first ask some of the folks on here who seem to be the real pros, and who participated in the OLDER balance/bid threads - where are your thoughts now on the need for Allied bids? It seemed from some of those old threads there was resistance at first, and some interesting Allied theory, but as the threads matured and folks actually tried their strategies, the arguments AGAINST an Allied bid faded. My perception is that an Allied bid became de-facto.

I can elaborate if needed but let me just say that I have tried both KJF and KGF strategies and find KGF to me moderately more viable.  KJF went nowhere, whereas KGF prolongs the game.

When I did KJF, Japan picked up on it immediately and basically countered my Pacific naval buildup with the USA, purchasing cheap naval fodder and playing enough cat and mouse and while matching my naval purchases so as to stall any major battle until so deep into the game that Russia had fallen. They were still slowly overtaking Asia through shucking while the US scrambled to assemble a fleet that could win a decisive naval battle that never got around to happening. Germany of course was completely ignored with the exception of some British fighter support to Russia, because the UK was spending most income on India.

In our current games, where I’ve gone back to KGF, here’s what he does:

He consistently sinks the US Atlantic Fleet and the British Fleet Round 1, and typically has a German Cruiser/Transport in the the North left, subs in the Atlantic, and his entire Mediterranean fleet intact. He ignores the orphaned British Destroyer/Transport off Eastern Canada, which is immediately threatened Round 2 with subs still lurking about. He drops an infantry on Gibraltor straight away to negate any potential Allied Airbase. He will ignore Egypt (which I typically support with the Russian Fighter) in favor of consolidating for a stronger landing Round 2 since he still has his German transport. He will build a naval unit periodically (usually a Sub) in Mediterranean as a blocking maneuver to prevent British Destroyer near Egypt from hitting his Battleship near Gibraltor.

He is very effective with his Air Force and uses them primarily for defensive naval air patrol in the West, positioned to discourage any naval activity within range. His focus on Russia is with his tanks and infantry and occasional Bomber/fighter support but not much. He takes Karelia and pumps troops into there and keeps a steady flow of mostly infantry and some tanks heading East.

By destroying both Navies, I have modeled all scenarios calculated that it is now impossible for either the USA or UK to build (or position) a Navy capable of withstanding a heavy German air blitz backed with remnants of his naval fleet for 4 rounds. The UK even if it saves ALL (100%) income for 2 full rounds for a naval buy start of Round 3 cannot purchase a navy capable of surviving a heavy German attack. Statistically they will be sunk at massive economic loss of over 60 IPC. Therefore they must wait for US Navy to support. But US Navy takes multiple rounds to swing over from Pacific and position/congregate for the shuck. During those 4 rounds, Germany has poured over 165+ IPC of hardware into Europe and sustained NO financial pressure, nor major troop losses, save a few IPC’s swapped with Russia and some infantry. Russia meanwhile has begun losing most of it’s territory, has stopped swapping territories, and cannot possibly counter that wave of troops pounding or consolidating each round.

On the Japan side, Round 1 UK engages in the (mandatory?) naval battle near India and wins but loses all remaining navalrforces to immediate Japan counterattack Round 2. US fleet evacuates so Japan is immediately buying transports and heading towards India. By Round 3 (sometimes 4, but he can usually statistically win by 3 if he wants considering his air power and bombardments), India falls, evacuates, and Germany ground forces are already heading up through Egypt to link up with Japan. Since Germany still has a transport, he’s continued each round to shuck more support into Africa. Japan’s Navy begins to creep up through the Mediterranean, linking with the remaining German fleet (Battleship + the sub he built + whatever other subs survived and fled Atlantic) and threatening the Allied Atlantic fleets JUST about the time the USA is beginning their shuck, forcing the USA to build up an even bigger Navy just when they need to be buying transports/troops. And that Japan Navy is no joke by that time. Japan has also begun sending fighter/bomber support to Europe as well.

And let’s talk about the Atlantic Allied shuck. By Round 4, USA can maybe have up to 8 transports loading/heading to Western Europe. Once Germany sees this, he stacks 20+ infantry, 6-7 fighters, few tanks, and some AA guns on either Western Europe or Northwestern Europe (abandoning the other). He also keeps even a reserve force in Germany proper for counterattack. A 16-unit Allied landing gets crushed against this wall, inflicting very few Axis casualties, either when they attack the defended territory or land on the empty one and get crushed on counterattack with no air support. Germany can continue to invest 40+ IPC’s in defense, putting out another 14+ infantry each round to offset their limited casualties.

Russia meanwhile is fighting for her life, trading territories when possible and trying to stack infantry. UK has been flooding fighters to Russia when possible and building troops in India first few rounds, but the fighter positioning situation can be tricky since timing when they should abandon India, where they should land in Russia that can be properly defended, etc, can sometimes go wrong. UK India ground force is typically picked apart on the retreat to Caucasus since Japan has already pushed up central Asia and Germany is marching from Africa to cut off the India retreat. Whatever isn’t picked apart is fragmented out to throw up rudimentary firewalls to slow Japan. So there isn’t a lot left to really help out up in Russia. Japan has overrun Asia and at precisely the moment Germany needs to BEGIN worrying about the Atlantic, so Germany can afford to pull back or stall the Russian offensive and let Japan deliver the finishing blow now that Japan has overrun Asia and has the Indian factory. Germany usually has the Caucasus by now and can apply immediate pressure to Russia inexpensively, just in case Japan for some odd reason with tanks swarming can’t get the job done.

Cliff Notes Version: I see NO WAY to apply appropriate ANY meanigful economic pressure through either (a) winning major costly battles that hurt the Axis, or (b) depriving the Axis of IPC’s through territory conquest, until at best Round 4, and by Round 4, Germany/Japan running unchecked have effectively won the game and have such a defensive stack that the D-Day landing is smashed and costs the Allies way more than it cost the Axis.

Is the Allied side hopeless without a large bid or a poor Axis player? Is there a strategy I don’t know about, maybe going HEAVY on Bombers or something, to at least create SOME IPC pressure on Axis before Round 4+?

@innohub:

Air carrier becomes particularly important compared to previous version due to a larger map setting.  This helps to speed up the transfer of force from key landing (just like factory does).

In my games India usually can stand longer than 4 rounds if I want to.  Some initial support from Russia as well as additional British troops from other territories might be needed.

I haven’t figured out the best place to put a US factory… In 2E map lot of territories used to have 2 IPC now only has one, making a factory built unjustified.

Thanks for replying. Just wrapped up a long game last night that tested a few major variations to key strategies. In fact one of them was to preserve Allied Carriers at all costs….

I will try to make a more thorough post explaining what I did differently and how the game went but suffice it to say I salvaged the UK India fleet (avoiding what is considered a somewhat mandatory first round attack against Japan Navy in Pacific), swung it around Africa (eventually, after harassing Africa and sinking German Med Fleet, lurking around down south), Kept India alive deep into the game by reinforcing with Russian Tanks and Fighter, lost it after an orderly evacuation, recaptured it next round, held another 2 rounds and lost it again…but I think you’re right. Somehow, it must be held as long as possible and I tend to be very stingy with Russian tanks due to counterattack loss. I’m liking the idea of parking them on India as needed and evacuating when too risky. I had never found a way to spare Russian forces before, but this time it worked out.

US had 2 Aircraft Carriers operating in Atlantic with 4 fighters, and British Carrier survived in India and the fighters were quite helpful in strategically defending Africa and/or hit and run attacks on German Med Fleet. That carrier and fighters eventually made their way up to Britain to support multiple landings late in the game.

So, I’m seeing the light here on both your points. I still lost, but it was the closest/longest game to date and I think he was scrambling a bit to counter new things at times, even making one uncharacteristically awful attack late-game that hurt Japan a lot.

@seawolf:

I am no pro player, but have played 4 games of 1942 SE the last months. Before that we have played maybe 6-7 games of the Europe only edition.

All our 4 games have ended with axis victory. The first 2 games without a bid. The last 2 games with a 12 and 15 bid for allies.
The 2 first games ended with a round 4 victory for axis, and the games with bid ended with a round 4 and 5 victory for axis.

Its the same victory cities taken each time, Russia + India.

We have been talking about giving the allies a bid like maybe 30 for the allies, so the game will feel a bit more balanced, then after we see the first allied victory and find a tactic that works we can start reducing the bid.

A destroyer in the US east coast for defending the transports, a British sub outiside India for the attack on Japans navy + 1 infantry in Egypt. Then for the russians, maybe 4-5 infantry spread across Buryata, Karelia, Moscow and Caucasus.

But with the overwhelming victories we see for the axis, Im not even sure if this will be enough:)

I hope it’s not true that so much is needed. I really, really hate having to do bids - I guess it’s a pride thing. In my most recent games I grudgingly had to ask for one at 9 IPC, in which I gave 6 to Russia (for a tank or 2 infantry) and 3 to UK to help out with infantry in India. But, I’m beginning to realize a NAVAL Bid is the only real solution. You simply cannot allow your entire Atlantic force to be sunk Round 1 and hope to apply meaningful pressure on Germany to avoid collapse in Russia.

Hoping some of the heavy hitters like Krieghund might weigh in here, I’m not looking to browbeat the playtesters or cry about the game…just want to know if I’m crazy or not. I know all too often folks on forums will take some bit of info like this (where something may be unbalanced and folks involved say as much) and use it to attack developers or make demands (this game is broken, we need free expansion, we need this, we need that, I want a refund, etc). I’m not that guy. If there is some Allied approach that I haven’t thought or tried I’d love to explore it. If there isn’t, I’d feel better knowing what a fair bid is so I can get back to competitive playing.

Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed response. I’d like to share some interesting approaches I took with my Axis opponent since I started this thread, in two different games.

But first let me say that your opening Russia moves are spot on and should NEVER vary regardless of whether a KGF or KJF strategy is used. The Ukraine strafe must eliminate all but a fighter, I actually don’t mind leaving the fighter since the alternative costs me equipment on counterattack, but in either case, it’s an art form to strafe/retreat or win with the absolute smallest possible force occupying. West Russia is an all-in and Karelia is abandonded. My buy is a bit different - I am very guarded with my Russian tanks and as such generally find that what is on the board is OK for me at the beginning…I may buy 1 randomly but that’s it. I gave up deploying them in attacks on Germany where they can suffer counterattack losses…after initial Round 1 deployment on the Germany front, they’re usually dispatched east or south to help India or spoil Japanese attacks. I’ve even had them make forays into Africa.

Regarding UK, my opponent ignores UK Destroyer in SZ 12, takes his Battleship and transport to sink the British Cruiser in SZ 14, and actually lands infantry on Gibraltor to negate allied air bases. He never goes for Egypt Round 1. He will also build a Destroyer off Southern Europe Round 1 to block any ideas I may have of sending the UK Destroyer after his Battleship. He’ll sink British Navy in SZ 7 and US Atlantic Fleet. He does all this usually with Zero casualties, although he may occasionally lose a Sub or two. He deploys his airforce to support these attacks exclusively, not deploying them in any other combat Round 1. I’ve yet to peel off a fighter.

I’ll be honest, my UK Round 1 has historically always involved a Max-Force attack in SZ 37, (or recently some newer approaches) and the transport survives to shuttle infantry west to help in Africa, typically lurking far south to avoid being hit by a Bomber). I have never really tried any other amphibious attacks and perhaps that’s a bad thing. I’ve never bothered sinking his fleet in SZ 61, because I worry about that Destroyer shooting down my fighter. I’m going to give that some thought.

Your bid advice is exactly what I would do, and we have been playing with a 9 Bid and I have done precisely what you suggest.

Alright so since I’ve gotten some input here, let me continue with some more detail on my opponent, and two new twists I took in recent games that approached KGF and KJF differently than what I’d done in the past.

First, let me describe his playstyle:

He is an excellent Axis player. He is extremely conservative with his airforce, and views the German airforce role as primarily a deterrent to any Allied Navy. Therefore, he will not deploy them in any Russian front attacks, he will sparingly deploy them in Africa, and of course in Round 1 he deploys them heavily in Naval attacks where there is zero chance he’ll lose them. After Round 1, and with the exception of quick forays into Africa, his entire Airforce will typically be parked in Northwestern Europe. He therefore only deploys Infantry/Tanks against Russia, although late game when he is ready for a final assault he will pull the airforce in if it’s safe to do so.

He is similarly conservative in all battles, only attacking with very strong / overwhelming odds. He won’t gamble, or be baited into crap- shoot attacks. Give him weak odds and you can generally count on not being attacked. I had to find ways to exploit this.

Round 1, he always does the following:
Germany: Sinks UK Battleship/Transport in UK SZ7, UK Cruiser SZ14, USA Destroyer/Transports in SZ 11. He does not attempt an Egypt landing, preferring to ignore the UK Destroyer in SZ17 and build his own Destroyer off Southern Europe to block. (SIDENOTE: I had been sending the Russian Fighter down to Egype for many games, before realizing he probably wouldn’t attack anyway, so I stopped doing that and begun deploying the Russian fighter in better ways Round 1). His Med Battleship joins the battle against UK Cruiser in SZ14, and the transport comes too, to drop an infantry on Gibraltor, eliminating it as an allied Airfield. He similarly ignores the orphaned British Destroyer/Transport off Eastern Canada, leaving it alive but immediately threatened by his surviving Subs on both sides. He will do all of this with virtually zero casualties - if he loses anything, it’s a Sub or two. He will not attempt to retake W. Russia, because he won’t have the right odds. He will retake Ukraine if I’ve taken it, but, usually bare minimum force - leaving it to be traded. He consolidates his force in Belorussia. He will walk into Karelia as it will be undefended. No counterattack against his German Battleship is feasible, because the UK Destroyer off Egypt is blocked by a German Destroyer. The UK Destroyer that survives off Eastern Canada has nowhere to run so all it can do is try to counterattack the German Subs off the US. I may send the Bomber to help if I’m going KGF, but if there’s only 1 sub left, I usually won’t and hope for good rolls. He’ll set up for a Round 2 Amphibious assault on Egypt, moving German ground forces in Africa east into Libya and prepping troops in Southern Europe for pickup/drop off next round.

Japan: Has typically lost her Navy off East Indies SZ 37. Will counterattack to take out remnants of UK fleet that survived. Will immediately begin building transports - never builds an Asian factory. Ever. Begins shucking immediately and moving fleet south in position for a Round 3 / Round 4 India landing. His ground forces and fighters begin sweeping USA out of Asia. He generally won’t bother with a Pearl Harbor attack.

Now, my general approach has been what is probably considered the norm:

Russia: Attacks W. Russia with everything. Abandons Karelia. Strafes Ukraine, trying to wipe it down to only a German fighter or maybe take it (barely). Begins strategic withdrawals from Asia. Sends sub to help with doomed UK fleet. Buys heavily Infantry+Art or maybe Infantry+tank.

UK - Buys ground forces for India (sometimes all tanks, sometimes infantry/artillery), spends rest on Fighters to begin convoying over to West Russia. Mandatory all-in attack on Japanese navy off East Indies. Protect India Transport, sending to Africa to either evcuate or support, and staying low to avoid getting Bomber-strafed.

USA - Generally goes KGF, so begins retreating all Pacific Fleet towards Atlantic, and buying small Atlantic Navy and/or some bombers/fighters while waiting for the main fleet to arrive. Chase off German subs in Atlantic.

NEW KGF Strategy - Part 1:

None of this has been working, so I took a philosophical shift. Here was my thinking:

• UK cannot build a navy that cannot be insta-sunk by German airforce, for at least 4 rounds. I crunched the numbers, including, ZERO spending on anything first several rounds, saving for a massive naval build. Believe it or not, it can’t be done, when he has 6 fighters, 1 bomber, and subs/battleships surviving. Once I accepted that there is NO Naval Pressure possible from the UK against Germany for several rounds, I begun to think the UK should wait for the US Navy to arrive and piggyback, basically only buying transports. This turned out to be a bad strategy, since all Europe landings are easily telegraphed…and the UK has to wait for the USA to arrive in it’s seazone…and the USA can’t leave the UK fleet unguarded…and the UK fleet can’t head into SZ5 alone…and to boot, one time he brought a Japanese Bomber over to Europe and I didn’t notice it. So I figured the UK transports could attack SZ 5 and USA fleet could arrive before Germany’s next turn…and of course he sunk all the transports with a single Japanese bomber.

• So, then, I concluded, UK can’t afford her own strong navy anytime soon, UK can’t piggyback USA navy without restricting one or both of their attack options…so what then? I took a closer look at the board and it dawned on me that the UK HAS nearly a strong enough Navy to support landings on the board the very first round. It’s just that they’re down by India. And thus, KGF using INDIA Navy retreating around Africa began to develop.

• I busied myself with building Fighters/Bombers in UK and doing my best to hold India…the Indian fleet actually hung around a bit longer than I wanted, near SZ 34, just out of reach of Japan’s staging fleet, because I had some opportunities with fighters etc. to eliminate German navy, support attacks various, and to transport-shuck a bit from India to reinforce Africa. I dawdled a bit, sunk his Med fleet, and headed around Africa via the South.

• The starting UK Navy near Australia was evacuated East towards South America, destined to regroup with the UK India fleet somewhere off Brazil.

• Meanwhile I was much more aggressive with Russia in the East than normal, and begin experimenting with more aggression. I typically never use my Russia tanks on the German front, since I can’t afford their loss to counterattack and everything after Round 1 is either fortifying W. Russia or minimum-attacks in Ukraine (the kind where you take it with 1-2 infantry left max). Russia can ill-afford battles that cost it more than Germany, and tanks are not replaceable. In past games I kind of didn’t know what to do with them - they were basically being used for defense. This time, I began making forays into Asia and keeping the front lines as far out and as bogged down as possible. This was nominally successful although I felt inexperienced in doing it. It did help preserve IPC income longer than normal.

• I commenced standard USA fleet withdrawal from Pacific towards Atlantic, and begun building an 8-transport shuck. I realized quickly that this new approach gave me a lot more options. First, I could get some protection from UK fleet as it rounded Africa, thus making early Morocco landings more appealing than usual. Second, I could simultaneously shift the bulk of my offensive Navy that the USA was waiting on/building up on the Eastern Seaboard up to Canada. I therefore allocated 4 transports towards a Morocco shuck. I started simultaneously preparing 4 transports up north, going across from Eastern Canada to pressure Western Europe.

• Finally, UK fleet came around and with some clever maneuvering basically was able to link up with some USA naval units inSZ8 and provide adequate protection for a 4-transport UK shuck fleet to be quickly deployed. I reinforced that fleet as best I could with extra destroyers shortly thereafter, so the USA fleet could return to duty covering US transports. UK transports begin breaking off and heading into SZ 5 to drop on Karelia, Finland, Baltic, etc. Just trying to stall and irritate and cut off pathways and create havoc.

• Relatively quickly, I had 12 transports total between UK/USA, split into groups of 4, hitting north, west, and south. After hitting Morocco once, I picked up those same US troops and popped them into Southern Europe. It put me a bit out of position but gave me a third front to open up for him.

• None of these European landings were particularly successful, I’d typically take/lose territory, but certainly diverted lots of his attention. Unfortunately I think I made some poor decisions choosing to attack new areas instead of reinforcing gains (when I once briefly held Western Europe with the USA, thwarting a German counterattack, and failing to reinforce it with UK), and meanwhile I ran out of time in India. Japan overran India, Caucasus fell to Germany, Asia collapsed entirely for Russia, tanks started pouring through all 3 sides, and Russia fell before I had made any European landings ‘stick’.

• About that time he also brought the Japanese Navy through Suez and was beginning to threaten the Atlantic, although, his fleet wasn’t significant enough to pose any serious threat to the Allied navies. But it was a little annoying in that it had to be monitored and the possibility of a Japan naval attack to soften the fleet, followed up by a German air force swarm, could have gotten ugly.

• I had been particularly successful Bombing Germany during this game, oddly enough mostly with the UK, which began to cement my thinking that in the future I need to do this more. He was taking mid-teens damage per Round to his complex. I feel I was close to victory, but ran out of time, and perhaps the bombing wasn’t as heavy as could have been. And probably USA is the one that I should spearhead this.

• All of this cemented my thinking around 3 Key Points:

(1) Any KGF strategy must involve Allied landings in multiple locations. In prior games when I consolidated USA and UK navies, he simply put 20+ infantry stacks on either Western Europe or Northwestern Europe, supported with 7 fighters or so, with tanks in reserve, and dared me to land on one of the two obvious choices, knowing he’d throw me back into the ocean immediately. So, to do it right, requires separate Navies, both able to fully defend themselves, and further, there is no hope of affording a reasonable UK Navy that can do so anytime within the first 4-5 rounds. To save up for such a Navy requires essentially a wholesale abandonment of India and virtually zero spending on anything for multiple rounds, which is not viable.

(2) Bombing Germany with 5+ bombers total a round, provided the dice hold up, takes a big toll. The economic value becomes obvious - 6 bombers against a die roll of 1 mean you’ll statistically lose 1 bomber per round. But the remaining 5 should hit for an average of 3 IPC each, which is 15 IPC damage. At a loss of 12 IPC to the Allies (the cost of the bomber). That’s +3 IPC impact to Allies, -3 to the Axis. Hmmm…

(3) Failure to apply any meaningful economic pressure to Germany prior to Round 4 or 5 will result almost certainly in Russia being overrun. There are only three ways to apply economic pressure - take German territory in big chunks (impossible for first 4+ rounds), win decisive battles that cost Germany more than the allies (impossible against a player like him that will never engage a battle that he does not have a large advantage in, and who cannot be attacked on your terms for quite some time), or deprive her of IPC’s through heavy bombing.

I believe I made great progress in cracking the KGF nut. I’ll make a second go of it soon…

Meanwhile, I then played the next game with a KJF - just to figure out if my past failures with KJF were reversible. More on that in the next post.

Didn’t expect a reply before bed!

Couple points:

• Interestingly, he doesn’t stack Karelia. He uses it to crank out 2 infantry, and may at various times hold 4-5 infantry there, just enough to dissuade any attacks, knowing that I that won’t overly weaken W. Russia, but his primary stack location is Belorussia, and he doesn’t tend to veer north.

• I also don’t like using Russian tanks on any attacks that have a remote threat of counterattack. Like you. But then, one has to to ask, for the cost of 1 tank to be used on defense, I could have 2 infantry performing the same task providing better odds and more fodder…so why buy tanks? The final assault, in terms of Russia pushing west hard, I’m not sure that’s necessary, I’d rather he smash himself against me or have to turn his tanks back towards Europe. But to be fair, I’m struggling to win so I don’t get that far :) My thinking is that if the time comes for that then I can do a tank-heavy buy all at once the round before.

• He never pulls his fighters off Western Europe/Northwestern Europe, he prefers to just wait until the tank stack he has up against Russia is sufficient to take it, or for Japan to begin encirclement such that he will get multiple attack waves hitting Russia simultaneously

• His German surface fleet has retreated into the Med early on and so chasing them with Subs probably wouldn’t make sense. If he saw me limping a weak fleet over he’d probably poke his head out. The northern German fleet I will usually wipe out even if it risks British fighters, rather than have it join Med fleet. The eventual Med fleet that persists on his side is usually Battleship/Destroyer/Transport although he is prone to adding another transport if the mood strikes him.

• I agree wholeheartedly on the temptation to buy USA bombers along the way, and the relative waste of time inherent in buying USA fighters and trying to send them East - takes too long

• Funny you mention Bomber forces in West USA, I did this last game - bought a fleet of Bombers, put them on Western USA to cause panic, and was still able to get them the other way to UK in a single turn…this is a nifty and useful trick. Almost no reason NOT to always do this.

• I had success just today with KJF and I’ll explain separately, BUT, I had no clear path to how I would actually conquer JAPAN…just a way to cripple her and encircle her and overrun Asia. Your point on defenseless transports and Pacific logistics problems is quite valid

• At some point, the eventual fate of all transports near India is that they are sacrificed and sunk alone…it’s just a matter of when and how much cat and mouse you play with them before it happens. Your thoughts about using them for early takes on Borneo/New Guinea are growing on me - I always felt I needed them around a while longer to annoy/reinforce Africa

• in the KJF game I went back to a tank-heavy India buy and will share details on that separately - I’d say it worked well

Well, the general strategy for how he would be defeated is to force such a stalemate in W. Russia that he never breaks it and begins breaking off his buildup due to pressure in the West. Or is forced to prematurely attack and is smashed, at which point he would surrender. I’ve never considered there being a mass of Russian forces pouring into Europe…maybe a few stragglers, couple tanks fanning out, in which case I can buy those late and mobilize if needed, supported by whatever infantry may have survived the big battle.

More points:

• The armor expenses also negatively impact my infantry needs in the East. I’m busy trading Ukraine, feeding up 4 infantry from Caucasus per round and probably bleeding small territories Far East. So, I’d be purchasing 1 tank + maybe 5-6 infantry a round, diminishing. The extra infantry or two that doesn’t go to Caucasus must go to W. Russia to fortify the stack. There’s nothing going East to delay or support…and I’m losing 1-3 infantry per round just in territory swapping. I’m game to try it, but, I’m extremely skeptical. Building W. Russia by 1-2 infantry per turn (and a tank) against his typical 8 infantry / 3 tank buys (give or take) doesn’t seem viable.
• Agreed in that you don’t have forward advantage without tanks. But I don’t need it. My Russian objectives are to hold W. Russia, hold Caucasus, and trade Ukraine/Archangel as needed. If I see an opportunity to steal Karelia I will take it. If that holds, Germany will crumble, and even a slow infantry push offensive with couple of starting tanks would be sufficient to overrun.
• I’ll definitely post the full KJF experience later - let’s just say I WON, but, IMO I diced him late game. Still, it carried me deep and I’m opening up to it again. He was indeed thrown off a bit.
• Will continue to contemplate avoiding SZ37, can’t hurt to try
• Used Destroyers for blocking / protecting my island-hopping to the South, whenever there was a chance my Naval stack would in theory be crushed by his full attack
• Also built up massive Pacific Fleet with USA, which he attempted to match, and did indeed keep him up by SZ 61 for the entire game
• Your D-Day experience mirrors mine WHEN you have 1 Navy (USA) forced to protect both Transport fleets. This telegraphs your attacks and generally keeps everyone out of SZ5. Try my approach - salvage the UK navy near India AND near Australia, link up down by S. America, and use that Navy to protect British Transports. Suddenly you’re dropping 8+ land forces in SZ5 each round, wherever you want, and aren’t relying on Russia to create that pressure. This also gives you the Norway/Finland IPCS which he can never really reclaim, and you can take/hold Karelia for Russia unless he pulls his Belorussia stack back. He certainly can’t send his German forces over to Karelia b/c he’s busy looking at US Transport landings on Western Europe. And that’s precisely the point at which his front begins to crumble and you might get some odds to move Russia forward.
• It seems the fundamental difference we have is, I’d rather develop a Strat that makes UK harass Karelia and other Northern Europe territory, and let Russia hold the wall…I am not confident I can rely on Russia offensively.
• We do play TripleA, and I’d be happy to tinker around with you. It might be fun to have you go up against my friend, and just spectate. Let me know and I’ll see what I can set up…I feel like if you played him it would be interesting. I usually use Aliases on there but I’ll start using Outlaw_Unforgiven. If you have a day/time in mind post or message me, his schedule is pretty free so if nothing else I can get you two going
• His secondary stack is usually going through Poland. I do successfully keep Ukraine dead-zoned MOST games. sometimes he varies it up a little and splits his forces to decisively hold Ukraine. Agreed that loss of West Russia, unless it’s a strategic withdrawal, is disastrous for me. Because he won’t take it unless he crushes it and has superior remaining forces, and that immediately makes him a serious threat for Russia very next round.
• Mentioned this elsewhere but been running a 9 bid, 6 infantry for Russia/3 for India. He has offered and acknowledged need for a higher bid and has suggested 12 but I’m stubborn and hate taking a bid so I have tried to hold at 9 due to ego.
• I’ve thought briefly about the triple attack into Belo but feel that I’d have to surrender if that went horribly bad. And that to me seems cheap. You’re right, it’s razor thin, and if it fails, you’re screwed.
• To be honest, on Belo, I’d rather he keep stacking there. If he swings his entire stack to Ukraine for his stack, he’ll take Caucasus at will since I can’t defend both Caucasus/W Russia, then he can march from there straight into Russia or West Russia depending on how I retreat. I don’t know why he doesn’t stack Ukraine more often, but I don’t want to inadvertently encourage him figuring that out :)
• SZ 16 is open, which does present annoying problems when his Med fleet buildup gets to 2 Transports.
• He’ll buy a single fighter mid-game so yeah, he’s usually at 7 fighters at some point. But not Round 1. You’re suggesting a US fodder fleet - can you elaborate on that? Are you saying buy 2-3 destroyers and send them without transports on a suicide run, hoping to perhaps draw out his Med fleet and/or take out 1-2 fighters if you get lucky? Remember he’ll have subs around - 2-3 usually - pulled back to Med. So, he has plenty of his own fodder…my fear is I lose destroyers, he loses subs that he doesn’t need, and I don’t take out any fighters at all. My calculations tell me I can START a buildup with USA Round 1 Atlantic, but it isn’t going anywhere until it can be properly defended by the Pacific fleet and another 1-2 rounds of buildup (I like a 2nd Carrier a lot). We’re back to the Round 4 problem.
• Will read the link you provided, thanks