Was KJF really that bad?

@sire-fred Caroline is off limits til turn 4 and ql is useful for operations in the far south. That is convenient for the Japanese. They can threaten Calcutta and shield themselves at the same time.

Ok So first priority is to prevent any German Sealion Attacks. For this you would build Infantry and a few fighters.

You should have about 25-30 income so a Fighter and 6 inf isn’t out of the question.

Once you have secured you home island its time to consider offensive operations.

A good idea is to reinforce Africa ASAP. If you have managed to grab Persia or secure Egypt a factory here is a good way to boost India’s Defenses or annoy Italy.

Amphibious operations against France or Norway can also be considered but this will require many turns investment in fleet building or else the ships will be sunk as quickly as they are built. Typically a decent fleet will need carriers, destroyers and subs to protect the transports.

Typical build might be (

tank + Mech + Inf = 13 (for S-AFRICA)
Plane (str  ftr or tac) 10 - 12
1-2 inf to round out purchases

After about turn 5 you will see which way game is going (based on uS pacific v Atlantic focus) Then you can turn your attention to helping India or reinforcing US moves in Europe.

Well said on everything. The only thing I might disagree on are the Russian units in the east. In a KJF game you need those 20 units to defend Moscow, otherwise Moscow just rolls over and dies way too easily.

With a 22 bid have you seen anyone bid a carrier sub with UK? This would allow UK to stack 92 depending on what Germany buys.

Yes, Carriers and aircraft move independently, but the rulebook just states, that warships may not move …! It states nowhere, that aircraft can’t move to any seazone. They are not allowed to land on any allied terretorry or aircraftcarrier, but they can of course fly ther and if there is a legal landing spot, land there. The planes are not restricted to not move into the atlantic, they (in most cases) can’t land and therefore can’t stay there.

@techroll42:

Got both for $70 each.

Well some of us get to school late via the shortbus :P

@suprise:

So here’s the Question How many ALPHA+2 games have you played , and what is the win lose ratio of Axis to Allied , not whether you won or lost, and do you pick your countries  or randomly draw them.
   For us the Axis have taken the last few
   I like the sound of your counter to the Kill Japan First , anyway just wondering how the record looks for your ALPHA+2 win loss as Axis and Allied
   I should probably start a new topic with that question or two table top or lap top

My one on one games, Axis win a lot, but in our 6 player group games, the allies win a lot.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I think Larry should change the rules for tech to this: buying dice costs 10, and you have to roll a 6 still, but you can then choose the tech you want. And no tokens either.