So funny that just over two years ago in this forum, A&A.org members were crapping all over Larry for not giving the Axis a chance to win.
That was not me. I said axis op from the get go. I had to make my Japan playbook to prove the point.
Remember when round 3 both london and calcutta would get wrecked by the axis in OOB?
Then A2 came out and the axis still owned everything? A2 not that different from A3 / current
“Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.”
Yeah, and it really pissed off the Brits. When Roosevelt and Churchill met before the US was at war, they had agreed on stopping Hitler first before doing anything about Japan. Then Pearl Harbor happened and the Japanese spread throughout the Pacific and Asia like an angry yellow plague. The US leaders realized it would not be wise to just let Japan romp around the Pacific unchecked, so they allocated significant resources to the Pacific theater.
To the British, it seemed like the US was breaking it’s word and not following the all important plan. Unfortunately for the British, they weren’t really in any position to complain a lot, given the fact that Germany was more or less giving them what’s for. While it’s true that Montgomery turned things around in Africa, England would not have had near the offensive capability without the US help.
I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?
(…)I still wonder what would have happened if Hitler and Mussolini had not declared war on the US. Until Dec. 11, 1941, we were technically only at war with Japan. Do you think that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany and Italy to get us into the European theater? Or would the US have just waged war against Japan?
I think the safest assumption is that Roosevelt would have declared war against Germany yes. A bit later, but still. We can speculate about what would have happened but we do know that the US government already wanted to go to war with Germany but still needed an excuse to do so because of the public opinion. Knowing politics, they would probably have made one if Germany wouldn’t provide one like they did.
After all, pre-war Roosevelt promised Churhill to KGF and I don’t believe that was only just a fake promise because FDR wanted to keep him quiet. The Japanese actions forced Roosevelt’s deployment of existing troops but 2 years later at the end of 1943, the USA was equally strong in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
In game-terms I think that is 4 turns from ‘Pearl’ and 7 turns from game start. Having roughly equal forces in both theatres means spending 50IPCs per turn in the Atlantic from game start, OR spending 100% in the Pacific first two turns and then 100% in the Atlantic for the next 5 turns.
I wonder how that would work in A&A as the USA must be ready to sortie into either Gibraltar/Spain or the DEI US3 or else Moscow will fall without consequences for the axis and that’s game over.
IMHO, the fall of Moscow is not the end of the world for the allies, IF they can punish the axis for it somewhere else. Whether this means taking everything west of Berlin or denying Japan its expansion in the Pacific is up to the USA.
It is pretty hard to balance a game for all experience levels.
@Cow, why do you think Russia needs a Bomber. I just can’t see its worth in AA Global for Russia. Sure you can bomb Germany if you can get past the interceptors first. You could use it bomb Lenin and Ukraine but the worst that will do is set back Germany up to 6 IPCs. I don’t see the bomber making that much of a difference. I’d rather have another Mig than a Pe-8.
say germany has 1 infantry standing around. You want to send 1 infantry to attack. 1 inf + 1 bomber. You can do more attacks.
@Cow, ok but won’t a fighter or tact do the same? I can see it being a range issue if you wanted to attack Lenin, Karelia, Vyborg, Baltic, E. Poland, Bess or Caucasus from Moscow.
(…)I’d rather have another Mig than a Pe-8.
Just for fun: gimme a second iljoesjin “sturmovik” tankbuster instead ;-).
I think I’d rather have another Tac before a Ftr or Bomber.
Better for the eventual defense of Moscow, can still roll @4 when combined with a tank on a strafe.
To be honest, I think I’d rather have a few more Armor than anything else. If you can expose a hole in the German flanks or its soft underbelly (if Germany marches north), those 2 Armor and 2 Mech don’t get you very far. However, a stack of 5 Armor and 2 Mech can create some bigger problems for an exposed German flank.
Particularly when you consider the NO bonus for the Russians taking Axis or Pro-Axis territory.
I’d probably even give up some starting Income for Russia to get 3 more Armor on the board to start the game.
Has anyone considered the economic cost it takes to successfully take and hold a beachhead in Europe by the Allies?
It has got to be somewhere in the range of 350-400 IPC of total investment, no?
Spendo02 - Very good point. Now that I think of it 2 more tanks would be better than a bomber
And more historical. Starting with two is a little silly.
Okay, I agree losing Moscow is not necessarily the end of the war for the Allies. In fact, I have had a couple of games where Germany took Moscow but had so much invested in the effort that they left themselves too weak in Europe and ended up losing Berlin.
So, I can understand if Germany is successful in Russia but loses Rome and/or W Germany and/or Paris, it could still be a losing war for the Axis.
What I don’t understand is how punishing the Axis on the Pacific side would be worth losing Moscow for the Allies. If you were able to actually take Tokyo AND all or most of the Japanese transports were gone thus leaving them unable to retake their capital, then I could see it then. Even if Japan’s navy is still strong, without transports it does them no good and the Pacific would be a case of mopping up from then on. Then the Allies could focus their attention against Germany and possibly negate Germany’s capture of Moscow.
However, if Germany takes Moscow and is still in control of Europe, especially if Rome is still Axis so Italy is still in the game, and the Allies manage to do something like sink the Japanese fleet and/or take away the DEI but Japan is still in the game with control of their capital, I don’t think that is a good thing for the Allies and could be game over. As long as Japan is still in control of their capital, it will cost the Allies resources to keep them in check and thus they will have less to deal with Germany. Meanwhile, with Russia out of the picture, Germany will be able to further strengthen their positions in the west and start planning serious offensive action against the Allies. As long as Japan is holding out, losing Russia is bad news for the Allies.
I don’t see how You guys save Moscow without putting at least 70% of US’s money into the Atlantic…
I’m actually curious what US strategies everyone employs for KJF that does not condemn Moscow to falling. Which I think is the heart of what the OP was getting at.
I typically spend US1 and US2 purchases entirely on the Pacific and then invest 100% in the Atlantic for multiple rounds.
I’ve tried the 80/20 or 70/30 approach, but it seems to take longer to really get involved in any significant way in either theater. Time is something the Allies do not have if they wish to save Moscow and/or Calcutta.
I’ve also found it is almost a waste of time trying to shuck anything less than 30 Allied ground units into Europe if you think you’re going to hold what you took. If Italy is spending on Inf/Art from the get go, Italy has a solid stack of units by the time the US can make a landing - which will easily push small Allied landings out of Europe.
To me, it seems only when you dedicate yourself to landing and holding it - which generally requires the full US income to accomplish, are you able to take Normandy and deter or withstand an 1-2 Italian and German punch.
If you cannot hold the territory you took, the time it takes to get that large of a stack back to try again is enough time for the Axis to rebuild themselves - and leaves Moscow for the crows.
So, what are you all doing that you are able to save Moscow and keep a competent Japan player negated?
Has anyone considered the economic cost it takes to successfully take and hold a beachhead in Europe by the Allies?
It has got to be somewhere in the range of 350-400 IPC of total investment, no?
Depends on what Germany keeps sending to Moscow if the initial invasion threat is put in place. It also depends on what you consider part of the investment (particularly the inclusion of escort fleets) and if its the TUV or plain IPC-spending you’re talking about.
To make a begin: a 270IPC investment should allow you to ferry ~40 units to the landing site during US&UK3/4/5.
7 to 10 of which should be RAF spitfires. This is excluding an escort fleet and excluding the UV of units the allies have at startup that can make it to the beachhead. So, simple spending.
Adding an escort fleet (mainly Carriers&FTR + DD) will bring the total into the range you specified. Maybe a little more.
This should give you enough fleetstrength to carry out landing even if the Luftwaffe stays west. If they go east because Germany doesn’t want a fiasco in Russia, you’ll need less escorts but you don’t want nasty surprises…
Okay, I agree losing Moscow is not necessarily the end of the war for the Allies. In fact, I have had a couple of games where Germany took Moscow but had so much invested in the effort that they left themselves too weak in Europe and ended up losing Berlin.
So, I can understand if Germany is successful in Russia but loses Rome and/or W Germany and/or Paris, it could still be a losing war for the Axis.
What I don’t understand is how punishing the Axis on the Pacific side would be worth losing Moscow for the Allies. If you were able to actually take Tokyo AND all or most of the Japanese transports were gone thus leaving them unable to retake their capital, then I could see it then. Even if Japan’s navy is still strong, without transports it does them no good and the Pacific would be a case of mopping up from then on. Then the Allies could focus their attention against Germany and possibly negate Germany’s capture of Moscow.
However, if Germany takes Moscow and is still in control of Europe, especially if Rome is still Axis so Italy is still in the game, and the Allies manage to do something like sink the Japanese fleet and/or take away the DEI but Japan is still in the game with control of their capital, I don’t think that is a good thing for the Allies and could be game over. As long as Japan is still in control of their capital, it will cost the Allies resources to keep them in check and thus they will have less to deal with Germany. Meanwhile, with Russia out of the picture, Germany will be able to further strengthen their positions in the west and start planning serious offensive action against the Allies. As long as Japan is holding out, losing Russia is bad news for the Allies.
I’m no 'K’JF specialist but I can see the benefit of castrating Japan economically so that India + ANZAC can contain Japan from there without further investments from the USA. India + ANZAC can be looking at 46IPCs income total (assuming Hong Kong is still Japanese controlled), much more than Japan can have at this point. China may even have a large army too if they consolidated it and thus still have an income.
Meanwhile the USA+UK will have 85+40IPCs = 125IPCs total/turn to fight Germany + Italy, who should not have a much bigger combined income than ~100IPCs…
Anyway, the total allied income can be as much as 40IPCs/turn more than the axis (50-52 more with China included). Russia can stay in control of Moscow surprisingly long if they have spread communism into pro-Axis Africa and the UK is willing to send enough (RAF-)support. I once tested it (not a real game) and came as far as ~RU10 if I included the Siberians. From that point the Red Army + RAF has interesting options, like retreat towards Egypt and sending some fast units/RAF eastwards to take more territories from Japan or stand and fight to give Germany a pyrrhic victory over Moscow. That gigantic RAF force is so flexible that it can even go east, assist in further pushing Japan into the seas and rebase back to Egypt fast enough before Germany can reach it with its slow moving armies.
Like I said, I’m no KJF expert but this is what I could come up with after a little brainstorm. And I agree it sounds more like a CJF (contain) than an KJF ;-). Maybe it doesn’t work because of the consolidated military positions Germany and Italy will have but economically it looks promising.
I’m actually curious what US strategies everyone employs for KJF that does not condemn Moscow to falling. Â Which I think is the heart of what the OP was getting at.
I typically spend US1 and US2 purchases entirely on the Pacific and then invest 100% in the Atlantic for multiple rounds.
I’ve tried the 80/20 or 70/30 approach, but it seems to take longer to really get involved in any significant way in either theater. Â Time is something the Allies do not have if they wish to save Moscow and/or Calcutta.
I’ve also found it is almost a waste of time trying to shuck anything less than 30 Allied ground units into Europe if you think you’re going to hold what you took. Â If Italy is spending on Inf/Art from the get go, Italy has a solid stack of units by the time the US can make a landing - which will easily push small Allied landings out of Europe.
To me, it seems only when you dedicate yourself to landing and holding it - which generally requires the full US income to accomplish, are you able to take Normandy and deter or withstand an 1-2 Italian and German punch.
If you cannot hold the territory you took, the time it takes to get that large of a stack back to try again is enough time for the Axis to rebuild themselves - and leaves Moscow for the crows.
So, what are you all doing that you are able to save Moscow and keep a competent Japan player negated?
I’m really curious about this too, since I can only brainstorm about it (no real experience with KJF’s so far).
I think I read somewhere on this forum that USA going KJF can channel FTR into Moscow (thus saving it) via its large carrier fleet in the Pacific.
And I totally agree that the initial invaders being pushed back into the seas by Germany + Italy is a very bad deal for the allies. Unless they can take down as much or even more axis units with them each turn. That would be a war of attrition the axis should not be able to win but I think this is a rare possibility.
