Japan's super economy -the end of the world?

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 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?

^ yes it is mentioned a few times. I do have an allies playbook which mentions this.

It is a fairly common strategy. However if Japan chooses to hold on to what it has instead of going after India. You lose Russia before it happens. Proper naval positioning and air thwarts it. As long as Japan plays tight he can make the big bucks for awhile.

Generally you throw everything at Japan, ANZAC, China, UK Pacific, Siberia. You hope to inflict enough loses on Japan’s part soon enough that he loses.  If Egypt is already gone… you lose when Russia falls. :(

So to throw some Allied IPC investment requirements in the European Theater:

What we know is that small invasions aren’t necessarily successful in the long term except in the cases of:
1. Landing some units on N.Africa via Morocco to help secure Egypt if Italy has a somewhat to very successful Northern Africa campaign
2. Seizing Norway and denying Germany the NO.

So to set some parameters:
1. London can churn out 10 units / round to shuck into Normandy.  This puts the critical mass of TT at 5, or a 35 IPC investment.  This initial investment can be mitigated depending on if the UK can save its two TT.  So UK investment in TT for critical mass is 21-35 IPC depending on Germany Round 1 results.

2. US needs at a minimum of 10 TT for an initial landing.  This will allow for the US to land with 20 ground units, reinforced by 10 UK ground units in the same round for a total of 30 ground units in Normandy.  This will cost the US 70 IPC for the initial landing.

3. In order to maintain the supply lines and hence reinforcements, both the US and UK will each need a fleet to protect their TT investments.  The recommendation has been suggested to defend the landings with CV + Ftr and DD as screens.  Bombardments don’t seem as valuable in Europe as they do in the Pacific where you’re likely using less ground units on an AA, so I agree with not investing in BB/CR to screen CV or add additional punching power to an AA landing.  With that said, I think the decision needs to come down to how many CV are sufficient to support two separate locations where TT will be massing (Off Gib and in the Channel).  I’m going to posit that you’d need 3 total for the Allies, where you position yourself based off of Axis Air/Naval Power.

This means 48 IPC of CV.  In order to secure the decks, you’re going to need 60 IPC of Ftr.  This can be partially offset by the UK and French if you elect to not scramble on G1 and save yourself the equivalent of an entire UK IPC purchase round in Ftr by doing so.  So CV + Loaded Ftr is going to cost you at most 108 IPC at at a minimum of 68 IPC if you elect to preserve the starting Ftr in and around London.

4. DD screens appear to be the flavor of choice.  I’d wager the safest way to screen yourself is to match the Axis Air / Naval Power with DD on a 1:1 ratio.  So for every German Ftr/Tac/Bomber in range, you’ll need 1 DD to absorb a hit while your Ftr slowly grind them out.  Same would go for Axis naval presence, particularly SS on a 1:1 ratio.  This number can vary greatly, and may not be significantly required for an initial landing if German aircraft are deep in Moscow and out of range.  Still, I’d suggest at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio of DD per every CV and Ftr in your Naval stacks.  So at a minimum you are looking at a total of 9 DD or 72 IPC worth of DD with no threat present, and in excess of 100 IPC if there are Axis warships or aircraft within striking distance.  As this can be split between the UK, and the UK has a “closer” complex right there in London you can merge up on, I’d suggest London do the bulk of the DD purchases.

5.  Now that the support is covered for the initial invasion force, you need to consider the actual ground units.  The US is going to have at a minimum of 20 units put on 10 TT to land.  I’ve found the best investment to be Inf/Art.  So for 10 TT that means 70 IPC worth of units for the US.  As the UK is in more of a reinforcing position, you have two choices early in Normandy:  10 Inf on 5 TT or 5 Inf, 5 Arm on 5 TT.  I do like the Arm option as it gives a bit more of a defensive “ooomph” to an Axis counter attack that may have a decent amount of German Armor in it.  Just realize it costs you 30 IPC (which is most of the UK income in 1 turn) to fill 5 TT with.  You set yourself back “half a turn” by adding Arm instead of simply doing 10 Inf.  Conveniently, the UK will probably be in a position to fill 5 TT with 10 Inf rather easily if the UK purchased 6 of them and 1 Ftr on UK1 to guard against a potential Sea Lion.  So you can be “efficient” and kill 2 birds with one purchase that pays dividends later.

6.  As you cannot settle for simply the landing itself, you are going to need to prepare the US to start a ferry of new units into Normandy in the successive rounds.  This is going to require 5 more TT in the next 3-4 rounds, which you will also have to fill with either Inf, Inf/Art or Inf/Arm to ferry first to Gib, then to Normandy.  In short you’re going to need a rotation of 4 sets of 5 TT:
5 TT off Washington DC to start your turn, that you fill with ground units and move to Gib.
5 TT that you move from Gib to Washington DC for next turn’s ground units.
5 TT returning from Normandy to Gib to move to Washington to stage for ground unit pickup Turn+1
5 TT moving from Gib to Normandy to drop off ground units.

Now, you DO have 10 TT from the initial landing, but I have a recommendation that you actually keep those 10 TT off Normandy as if the Germans make a mistake, the US and UK can leapfrog Denmark to Berlin at any given point and you’d rather have the ability to vacate Normandy with 20 US ground units, sack Denmark and open the door to go for the throat in Berlin than to wish you hadn’t sent those TT back to America for more units and lost the opportunity to bring the Germans to their knees.

So, that means once you’ve committed to the landing in Normandy, Turn+3 will require full IPC investment into the Atlantic to establish a system that grinds the Axis down.  You need to consider that when you start the invasion in regards to where Japan is positioned.  If you interrupt this influx of reinforcements, you may risk everything you built and gained up to this point if you give the Axis a reprieve from the pressure.

So to summarize the initial landing cost:
15 TT = 105 IPC
3 CV = 48 IPC
6 FTR = 20-60 IPC
9 DD = 72 IPC
15 INF = 45 IPC
10 ART = 40 IPC
5 ARM = 30 IPC

Which puts you between 360-400 IPC for an initial landing.
*There is one variable is UK Ftr landing on Normandy.  Which the cost is variable based on how soon the UK gets up to speed and can purchase additional Ftr to secure Normandy.  From my experience this could be supplemented directly from the FTR on the CV, but if under threat you may be required to safeguard the TT and require additional FTR flying in from London to support Normandy.  Anything less than 4 FTR appears insufficient, but much of that is highly dependent on the counter attack you will face from Italy / Germany.

You’ll need additional investment of another 20 TT for the US over the successive 3-4 turn, which runs 140 IPC.

You’ll also need to fill those TT each (Both UK and US) round going forward for the foreseeable future, which this cannot be completely interrupted.

You must deal with Japan early, or not at all.  Once you begin the invasion you cannot flip flop for at least 3-4 turns on heavy investments between the Atlantic and Pacific.  You’re better off delaying a landing in Normandy by a turn to ensure the US has the assets in the Pacific to stymie Japan for a few rounds.

This is also why I don’t aggressively pursue Japan out the gate as the US.  I’d rather have the resources in the mid game to keep Japan at bay until I can start splitting investments between the Pacific and Europe again.

Thoughts, feedback, critiques?

I’ll admit I haven’t read all that, sorry, but

I have had a lot of success with small American presence in Europe, and not just securing Gibraltar/Morocco/Norway but Normandy and Holland.
Apparently you have experience with Axis players who really prepare hard for the Normandy landings, but more often than not (and I play a lot of top players) Germany/Italy has minimal defenses prepared for Allied landings - they are focusing on Egypt/Middle East/Russia.
With the ability of the UK to immediately follow up American landings, not many Americans are needed.  Have a lot of fighters and infantry (4-5 UK transports?) ready to reinforce.  Trading with Germany is great too, you don’t necessarily need a permanent landing in Normandy to be successful.  Shucking more units to London from East Canada can resupply the transports quickly.  USA transports in 110 can be used by UK units too.

My main point is, I have never made anywhere near the massive investments in the Atlantic with USA you are talking about, but have still had great success.  In fact, it is not uncommon that I liberate France before round 10 (and I think most players are too hesitant to liberate Paris, another discussion).  I think the differences in our opinions/experiences is probably largely due to the fact that we are facing different players and strategies.