@Cornwallis said in Allied Playbook - G40 Collection of Essays - Compiled by jacobgeo24 Nov 18-19 2023:
@AndrewAAGamer the problem with your 2nd option is that Germany can attack moscow by turn 6 so US forces will be too late to make a difference.
Actually, while the Germans can mount a G6 attack, especially if they build a major IC in Romania, the Russians can easily hold off against that attack with proper defensive play. The G7 attack is far more dangerous and that can be thwarted by the Russians with sufficient British help. Moscow’s real danger, without major US assistance in Europe, is G8, G9 and G10. What must be taken into consideration though is the Allies do not lose the game if Moscow falls. As long as Japan has been choked by the Allies so the US can turn whole hog towards Europe by the time that Moscow falls is all that matters.
Unless Germany can make it to Egypt the Allies will prevail against a strong Germany, a weak Italy and a weak Japan. A moderate Japan and a strong Germany means the Axis are going to win. I think that is why more people go heavy Europe first versus heavy Pacific first but both work as long as Japan is decimated by the time Moscow falls.
Ever tried the US carrier with ANZAC fighters combo? It takes a huge fleet to be able to grab and defend carolines.
Yes, putting ANZAC planes on US carriers should be a standard ploy for every Allied player. The only detriment is it weakens the US attack on the IJN and it is not necessary for the US to sink the IJN. It is just necessary for the Allied navy to not be able to be sunk by the IJN. ANZAC planes on US carriers help in that respect. They also threaten lone or weak Jap fleet units and they assist in taking the Money Islands by planting the US fleet near to same and using the ANZAC planes with ANZAC transports and ground troops to take the islands back from the Japanese.
@AndrewAAGamer with no opposition Ger can take moscow in G7. 10 UK fighters can block that but that gives a lot of room to italy.
Yes i´ve tried KJF numerous time and it works to contain Japan but at the cost of losing Afrika and or russia .
The idea of attzcking the IJN is nearly impossible. So when stacking Anzac fighters on US carriers makes your defense value increase big time (more than the 3 starting fighters off course) so you can position yourself in SZ6 and let him attack you. You might lose but at heavy cost for him so this battle of attrition is good for US when follow-up troops are coming.
Andrew is dropping bombs of Wisdom on us.
KJF is the secret sauce Here’s why: with a strong investment in the pac, Anzac s and China s and UKP s three little incomes add up to superior, overwhelming slow but sure nerfing of the Empire of the Sun. Add the Russians and the US and it is no contest.
If you do kgf, those incomes are inconsequential and ultimately inadequate even for home defense if the Empire puts its mind to it. It is economic suicide to do kgf.
Thanks for letting me know. I’ll do KJF in the future.
I couldn’t agree more.
KGF means that India and ANZAC are doing nothing but desperately defending, making no progress whatsoever.
KGF means a conquered China, India producing 1-2 inf per turn and anzac trading one of the islands per turn, back and forth.
This can’t go on forever, eventually Japan WILL get Calcutta and then has 3 options, all viable and big threats.
A) Go the land route to Cairo, securing the Middle east on the way and reinforcing with factories there.
B) Using transports from India to threaten the whole coast of Africa within 2 rounds, especially the poorly defended South Africa. Even if the Allies DO produce there to defend, these units are FAR away from everything important.
C) Shift the focus to Sydney. My least favourite option, since actually conquering Sydney can be very difficult and is also not helping Germany while building up transports and fleet.
Sure, with KGF Italy is probably very small or nonexistent (being convoyed to <5 PU income) and Germany might struggle to hold the west coast, Maybe Russia can even hold Moscow (although in that case probably not threatening an attack and only producing a handful of infantry each round).
But the Axis often can hold Rome and Berlin long enough for Japan to either help them substantially or getting Hawaii / Sydney.
If I may add one more thing: KJF looks more like history. A ballooning Japan looks absurd. A Germany threatening or even taking Russia was conceivable. And then what? That’s why we play.
Also US, UKP, China and Anzac money can skyrocket. This is unparalleled in a KGF where only America and England grow in skirmish actions.
Agreed.
@MrRoboto so you don´t send anything against the germans?
I´ve found Japan doing nothing seriously after they take India bc they seem to have problems reshifting towards the next step.
It depends on G1 and what the Germans do. If they don’t threaten UK and don’t convoy UK, I send nothing for 4 turns.
@Cornwallis A very effective strategy I have seen used to great effect (although possibly only a one trick pony) is for the US to buy nothing but bombers for the first 3/4 turns, and then a mix of bombers/subs after that.
With a 7 move and J1 the most effective G40 OOB axis strategy you can have 5 bombers in calcutta by US 3 and on to moscow for US 4 with a pipeline following up.
10 US bombers in moscow can wreak havoc on any small german force and provide a useful (expensive!) addition to the moscow garrison.
8 bombers in sydney/Carolines with sub backup keeps the IJN pinned to the mainland.
This is definetely not the be all and end all US strat, and if you know your opponent does this it is easy to counter by delaying the J DoW.
But the first time you face it as an axis player it can be devastating!
Yeah, American strategic bombers used en masse can be devastating. Combine it with the research for heavy bombers (and preferably long range aircraft), and you have an extremely cost efficient weapon of destruction.
I know research gets a bad rap (rightfully so), but if you use it and the US is lucky to get super submarines or improved shipyards (or preferably both), cheap, powerful submarines are a death knell for Japan if used right.
There are definitely counters to both, but they can be useful in the right circumstances.
Mass bombers are extremely valid for US and Germany alike.
That’s reason their cost got nerfed to 14 PU in Balanced Mod, rightfully so.
Though I am skeptical, this strategy (which I abandoned a while back) appeals to me for its historical accuracy.
@crockett36 I love dark skies for Germany. Bombers are overpowered as they can simultaneously threaten multiple theaters, making it impossible to defend as the Allies at the key defense areas (Moscow and Middle East), along with protecting the fleet and establishing a Western Europe foothold. Add in Strategic bombing, and it is almost impossible to stop. Also very forgiving for minor blunders as you just need a few cheap units to supplement the attacking power of the Air Force.
Trying out a dark skies for the United States in the Pacific. So far it has been a fun experiment as it forces Japan to simultaneously defend so many fronts. Also takes one less round to get from W USA to the frontlines. That time savings is critical in a close match.
I have seen many of these all bomber strategies especially for the US but I have never tried it myself. There are some disputes on whether it should be done or if we should stick to the traditional Amerian Strategies, but I digress as I’ve never tried it for myself.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris can you get a critical mass of bombers? 10 aren´t enough to take on the IJN?
Let me know how it ends.
@Cornwallis up to 16 bombers and it is supplemented by the American Navy so the IJN can’t come too close. The downside is that my Navy can’t stand toe to toe with their fleet.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris yes and once they have the money islands you can not threaten them. Also do you have landing spots after a raid?
It is hard for me to threaten the Money Islands, but it is also hard for Japan to defend the capitol and Eastern China.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris defend from what, you have a very limited landing fleet?
