How does Russia stay alive in KGF?

@Midwit-player Try ranked out. It exclusively uses the Larry Harries rules, which is 100% identical to OOB with the following differences:

Added UK-DD to Sea zone 7 Moved UK-Cruiser from Sea Zone 14 to Sea Zone 13 German Bomber in Germany moved to Ukraine Remove 1 German sub from Sea Zone 5 Added 2 UK Infantry to India (Total now 5).

What this does is:

Makes it slightly harder (although still very much possible) for Germany to wipe out most/all of the UK Fleet on G1. Allows UK to kill the DEI Japan fleet B1. Effectively leaves Germany without a Bomber, provided you don’t get terrible dice rolls R1.

All of these are positive changes that give the Allies much better options against Germany in particular. If you go for/pull off the aggressive opener against Japan’s navy you can effectively neuter their expansion options in the Pacific/guarantee to hold India for at least 4-5 Rounds, if not permanently (just don’t overextend into Burma).

That’s part of why I still play 1942.2! For all its many flaws, there are some very interesting tactical puzzles around how to optimize the shuck that I am still wrestling with and still enjoying.

Like, on turns 1 through 3, you can unload some troops in Morocco or Norway, to sort of chip away at Axis income. You can unload them in London, to help prepare for a larger ‘D-Day’ later in the game. Depending on how and when you make these runs, you might need to risk (or sacrifice) transports, or you could wind up with a transport that’s temporarily out of position, or with some troops that are isolated and unable to link up with the main body of your invasion force. You can try to run a ‘triangle’ for the first few turns, from the Eastern US to Morocco to Eastern Canada, so that you’re unloading troops in Africa on the first few turns, even as you’re setting up your main shuck from Canada to France. If you do run the triangle, you have to decide when and how to pull the plug on the triangle shuck and convert to a 100% Canada <-> France circuit. And of course you don’t have to go on any of these ‘side quests,’ but if you don’t do any of them, then you risk Germany getting too big to stop when the main force does show up. So there are all these case-by-case trade-offs that are really interesting (for me) to try to optimize each game.

@MarineIguana:

Sea Lion and Germany bombing UK are examples of strategies that can be hard countered by allied response. With Sea Lion, UK buys 6-8 infantry R1. With Germany bombing, russia buys land units and bullies Germany.

Sealion isn’t necessarily a bad move for Germany. The trick is to do it properly and leave yourself a way out (don’t commit 100% to it). If for example Russia doesn’t destroy a German fighter and Germany spends nothing G1, the threat of an all transport purchase G2 forces UK to buy land units for the capital UK1, otherwise with a maximum of 8 units purchased UK2, there won’t be enough to defend on G3. If UK responds properly by placing a few land units on their capital on UK1, Germany can call off Sealion and switch to purchasing nothing but land units and go after Russia strong. The only drawback for Germany is that a few land units will reach the front later, but the total IPC worth of land units at Russia’s doorstep on G4 remains the same. The cost for UK is to lose their capital if they didn’t respond with land purchases, or to have extra idle land units on their capital for many turns if they did. I’m not saying it’s always the best move to do this with Germany, but in the right circumstances, it can work even against a good opponent.

The board is not setup to do KJF well and to make matters worse USA and Japan income are relatively similar so unless you get some lucky dice early, it is pretty sad.

I tend to agree. In Revised the main reason to stack Bury was to take pressure off Borneo and Pearl, while simultaneously threatening Manchuria or the distracting the rest of the mainland. Here Pearl is a non-issue, there are less units to stack into Bury, the transit to East Indies takes longer even if USA goes south, and its easier for Japan to push the center or India out of sz 61. That said, if you were going to leave units behind in Bury, the only reason to do so is to hold the battleship and transport north in the first round, which you can probably accomplish just leaving 1 inf behind. Putting 5 into it, just seems like throwing the ipcs away. Stacking Yakut, or pushing down to hold the center, is likely more advantageous than stacking Buryatia on this board.

Yeah its a good point. The only advantage for a Trans play is if you want to give Germany a headache with the destroyer in 17 (they can still send the bomber after it, regardless), or if you want to move ships into the Med immediately. Otherwise you can nix the battleship with air. There aren’t any places other than 14 to park the German battleship and have it be safe. Even then if UK buys a bomber in the first round and holds Egypt to land, they can cover every zone in the Med. Unless G wants to build ships. I think sz16 open or closed might weigh on my decision.

Max Fighter buy on India is an interesting idea. I’ve had two more games since my posts the other day and will consolidate my experiences in the other thread I started. I did a KGF and a KJF both with slightly more success than my ‘traditional’ strategies.

I play with the same guy constantly so I think sometimes it puts me in a bubble in terms of seeing variations in Axis strategy. For instance, he’s never even tried Sea Lion.

The attack on SZ 37 typically succeeds with anywhere from a Cruiser + Fighter left, to Fighter only, to mutual destruction. A failure that leaves his Battleship, and I’d be tempted to surrender Round 1. Not something I’m proud of, but, Allied Round 1 is a precarious thing and adverse results with Russia or UK Naval efforts near India to me are unrecoverable. At least against this guy.

What he does Round 1 with Japan is he parks his transports in SZ 61, staging for a Round 3 or Round 4 take, out of range of Fighters on India. India has to follow the traditional retreat from Burma Round 1. So the 3 fighters, while providing defense power, will offer little in the way of threat to his Navy. I guess it’s nice that they can get to Russia next round, but, I can have Fighters in W. Russia in a single round from UK and that’s usually where I need them most anyway.

I should also add he is a very conservative player - he will never attack without overwhelming odds, whereas I’ll gamble routinely. So there’d never be a situation where he lands on India, my fighters survive, and hit his Navy. He simply wouldn’t attack if there were a chance of that. Similarly, his surviving transport in SZ 61 will be immediately reinforced and remain so, negating a Bomber zerg raid….

More thoughts about Allied fleets against this particular player in my other thread. Unless you’re talking about an Allied Fleet as in, INDIA building a naval fleet?

I will say, as to the rest, that there is a clear Russia Round 1 sequence of attacks that you mentioned in the other thread that absolutely must succeed, and also, Russia can’t lose West Russia for at least 4 rounds, offering plenty of time to convey Fighters over from UK, stop in W Russia , and continue on down to India. On balance, I’m not sure it changes things all that much to put the UK fighters there so early, since W. Russia shouldn’t seriously be threatened enough early on for it to matter. To compensate for 3 fighters round 1 India, you’d need a heavy ground force buy India round 2, especially if you’ve transported troops away to reinforce Africa etc…

Anyway let me lay out a few things in the other thread that may shed light on how I better managed India in both recent games…

@Cromwell_Dude:

@Hobbes:

So why would anyone want to attack Finland with Germany Russia on G1?

;)