That’s a very thoughtful analysis, taamvan, and I’m really glad we’re having this discussion. I want to start out by saying that I agree with many of your points – the board is tilted heavily toward the Axis, there are too many Allied fleets that get put on the board only to be destroyed on the first turn, and the Allied bid and opening is largely an exercise in putting out fires, which can be frustrating even when the Allies are mostly successful. I’ve made an alternate setup for the 1942.2 map that I hope addresses some of these issues, and posted it under the House Rules forum. That said, I think the 1942.2 original setup is viable and entertaining for expert play with a 12 to 18 IPC bid, so I’ll try to respond to some of your specific concerns.
I’ve used the opener moving everything to West Russia (13/3/4/2AAA). Each time I do this, my opponent destroys this stack. This would be a pretty even trade except after that stack is gone, Russia has about 10 men and not much else, and Karelia is cut off irretrievably.
As you note, moving literally everything to West Russia deprives you of offensive punch. It might be worthwhile to hold back 1 artillery and 1 tank to help ensure West Russia is really a deadzone for Germany – the strategy is not just to inflict hits as Germany invades West Russia, but also to inflict unacceptable casualties when you counter-attack West Russia on R2. You also want to make sure you’re building some offensive units – 4 inf, 3 art is a much stronger R1 buy than 8 inf. If you have a counter-attacking force ready with something like 6 inf, 5 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, then I don’t see how Germany can both wipe out your stack in West Russia and survive the counter-attack on R2.
Both Russian fighters have to be allocated; one to protect Egypt (even with a bid infantry, it can be taken), and the other to protect the American fighter/men, or they all die J1. After that fighter departed, and even with a british and us fighter on there, I still lost Egypt.
Unless you have some specific plan in mind, like attacking the Japanese capital ships in SZ37 on B1, I wouldn’t bother to put both an infantry and a fighter in Egypt. The G1 attack on Egypt diverts the only German bomber to a secondary front so that it’s not putting as much pressure on Moscow, and it’s not at great odds for Germany – even if they win (which is not guaranteed), they will take heavy casualties. You don’t need to hold the line at Egypt; you can trade Egypt, or set up a defensive line in Persia or Sudan or even Rhodesia if you need to.
The strongest counter to this is building 3 tanks/fighters with India, and attacking caucausus/reinforcing Moscow with UK planes and tanks. However, any capable Japanese player can put pressure on India such that even with the best units you can purchase, you’ll need everything to stop them from taking it over and nothing can leave to help Russia.
You have to put 2-3 units into India every turn, and some of them have to have some offensive punch. It’s mostly Japan’s choice what to do about that. If Japan aggressively comes after India, then it’s true that you won’t be able to reinforce the Caucasus from India, but you’re diverting a ton of Japanese spending power away from Moscow, which is good. If Japan only sends token forces toward India, then you can use (some of) your India builds to the Caucasus / Egypt front. I think building 3 tanks in India is a little extravagant…Britain rarely has enough income to do that and also build up a credible Atlantic force. I prefer to build something like 1 inf, 2 art on B1 in India and save the rest for an Atlantic British fleet.
As a result, playing the allies in this edition feels like a series of spinning plates none of which can be dropped (Egypt, India, Caucausus, several fleets) or the Axis gain a massive advantage. Losing even one strongpoint will lose you the game within just a few turns, and the Axis have little else to do but annihilate your middle (just as in 1985 first ed) and take all your income.
I’m not sure about that. Suppose you lose Egypt but keep India, the Caucasus, and the American Atlantic fleet. You can immediately deliver 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk to either Morocco or British West Africa on A1. Add to that your starting 1 inf in South Africa, your starting 1 inf in Trans-Jordan, and let’s say you manage to send in 1 inf, 1 art from India and/or the Caucasus. Now you’re playing with Allied forces in Africa of 5 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk. Let’s say Germany survives the Egypt battle with 2 tanks (which is pretty damn good!) and also has 3 inf in North Africa, and sends over a fighter and a bomber as air support. So now you’re opposing his 3 inf, 2 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 bmr with a force of 5 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk – pretty even odds! You’ll be fighting over Africa for a while, but that’s a normal part of the game; it doesn’t spell instant death for the Allies to fight over Africa. It’s just income; it’s not like you lose the game immediately if Germany hits 48 IPCs per turn.
the Japanese remain dramatically stronger than even a fully 100% KJF America because America’s income is so low in this version.
In a USA vs. Japan solo match, sure. But the Japanese should also be facing British pressure in India, plus at least some Russian pressure in Kazakh and/or Siberia. If the Japanese spend 100% of their energy on opposing the USA, then the Japanese may be able to force the USA back to the coast of San Francisco and maybe even take 1-IPC Hawaii, but meanwhile the British should be able to take 3 IPCs in Burma and Thailand while the Russians trade 3 IPCs in Manchuria. 40 IPCs/turn from the USA plus 10 IPCs/turn from British India plus 5 IPCs/turn from Russia is 55 IPCs/turn of Allied investment against Japan, and Japan shouldn’t ever get up to anywhere near 55 IPCs/turn if you’re making a serious attempt to Kill Japan First.
However, the KJFxUS game ended with Japan under pressure but very well turtled (21 infantry 4 fighters on J4) and the Axis owning the rest of the globe, even if I can shatter the Japanese income and empire, I’m not going to be taking the capitol and so Germany and Japan have 60 income each
So if the Japanese turtle in the capital, then you take the money islands (Philippines, East Indies, Borneo) and then maybe some of the juicier southeast Asian territories (Thailand, Kwangtung) so that the Allies gain the economic upper hand. If Japan is anywhere near 60 IPCs/turn of income, then it’s crazy to try to attack the Japanese capital.
that would require an even higher bid to remedy (because we move the cruiser, some other bid units would have to protect that fleet, leading to a bid of 25+).
That doesn’t sound right. If the US Atlantic fleet starts out as 1 CA, 1 DD, 2 transports, then it has better than 50% odds to survive an attack by 2 German subs, plus the USA wins ties, because the transports survive on a tie. If the Germans send 2 subs to attack the US Atlantic fleet, then the Canadian destroyer + transport are pretty much guaranteed to survive, which makes it much easier/cheaper to rebuild the British Atlantic fleet on B1, and also brings the East Canada tank into play to attack, e.g., Norway on B1.
In general I think you are trying to find ways to guarantee that every single Axis attack will fail on turn 1 and turn 2, which is contrary to the spirit of this map. If the Allies could guarantee that all Axis attacks would fail, then the Axis would have no chance to win, because the Allies start with more money. Instead, the idea is to either (Option A) reinforce some regions strongly enough that any Axis attacks there will fail, forcing the Axis attacks into other regions where you’re more willing to accept losses, or (Option B) to reinforce all the regions with moderate strength, so that any Axis attacks will be costly and uncertain. If you go with Option A, you get some control over where the Allies will start out stronger, and you can defend regions synergistically, i.e., if you defend the heck out of both Egypt and Szechuan, that gives you a strong starting position in the middle; if instead you defend the heck out of the US Atlantic fleet and the US British fleet, that gives you a strong starting position in the Atlantic. If you go with Option B, you kind of play a wait-and-see game – the Axis will either ignore a region or take heavy losses somewhere, and then you can try to capitalize on whatever areas the Axis leave weak.