Soviet Union first buy

@andrewaagamer

That’s the general idea, basically summarizing the prospect that the Soviet player can and should push Germany back. I think what a lot of people tend to forget is when stripping all the other outside factors away, you and Germany are both tit for tat in natural gaining IPC’s, with Germany gaining 31 and you as the USSR getting 30 so it’s not a drastically different match up in strength then what people make it out to be.

As for Japan and the Pacific theater, I definitely see where you’re coming from and I think to lay the baseline down for exactly how the Axis are meant to win, the way I play it is the Axis are required to take every city in the old world, except for London, since taking London is practically out of the question of the possibility for either setup of the game, meaning the Axis need to take 12 victory cities in total to win, I think this is a very marginalized and fair victory condition.

One thing that I honestly discovered that I hadn’t seen before when played as the United States and the UK in the Pacific was just how vastly different the style of combat is then what you see in the Atlantic side of the map. With each island holding special significance to it’s controller, especially if National Objectives are on, it means that Japan needs to be actively using their navy to screen the Pacific ocean and provide atleast one infantry for each island under their control. All in all, even on mainland China as well as the island fighting either side will primarily fight with infantry and fighters and maybe a tank or artillery. Now obviously the Americans won’t go full speed into the Pacific that would be a waste of valuable resources and the Americans dont need to put up that much offense anyway to the Japanese. My point being, all the Americans need to mount an offensive and island hop in the Pacific is a few infantry and an artillery/tank to start liberating islands, and, as I touched on the idea earlier, it emphasizes these islands all the more to be protected due to their value that they hold with National Objective money. Should the Japanese dedicate wave after wave of land forces to try to take Moscow and they neglect the big bad 3 in the Pacific. Though, as you said, this idea can vastly vary between whether or not you do play with National Objectives so it ultimately comes down to the circumstances for which the players have agreed upon.

Ups, my fault. Gibraltar is not considered a canal, so in theory u can pass with transport, but only to be stopped by the destroyer as mentioned earlier in this topic.
BTW: We play Gibraltar-Morocco as canal as a house-rule, perhaps that explains my post above.

The Axis do have an advantage. Japan 1941 is a beast.
I do reccomend using National objectives.

We let China be controlled by The Soviet 1941 and use money (starts with 7 ipc and same movement/build options). If hoj watt give China objektivet "No foreign ally in China except starten fighter inom +1.
It helps China a lot.

I suggest adding a Soviet AA in The far East too.

Pacific warfare is primarily about controlling space.  So imho acs and figs are the best choice…since they are versatile and give you spatial dominance.  For offense, bombers aren’t bad either.

Naturally you will need transports and destroyers too.

You do definitely want to take islands–especially those for the USA and UK NO.  And of course it’s worth it to take Philippines whenever possible.

@wodan46:

@Unknown:

So you’re hitting Philippines with 1 TP only??

You would use the Infantry/Artillery, and you’d support with either a Fighter or Cruiser (Battleship can handle Destroyer)

If you send the 2 fighters against the Indian Ocean fleet, then you don’t have the ability to send a different fighter against the Philippines.  In an amphibious assault, the cruiser must either join in wth the naval battle, or move in during the noncombat phase.  The rules don’t allow you to split your fleet and say that 1 part is conducting the naval battle, and the other part will shore bombard.  :-(  I wish that it did.

That means, that if you only send 1 loaded transport against the Philippines, that there is a very good chance (the battle becomes about a 33% chance that you capture, 67% chance that you don’t) that you won’t take it.  This means that you don’t elliminate the US’s NO for the Philippines, and unless you either take New Guinea or the Solomons (both of which leave you open to be attacked), then you don’t get your second NO (the 4 of 6 one)

So, you probably had better send 2 transports to capture the Philippines, because IMHO, sending the 2 fighters against the Indian Ocean fleet is pretty key.

hm i was talking about an italian complex in egypt, bought on IT2 ;)  here is what happend.

in a KIF game, G1 took egypt. so yes axis did get italy its 2nd NO and 20+ IPC for one or two rounds but it dindt help. IT was SBRed so heavily there was no point in repairing factory damage. he was basically down to purtchasing 2-3 inf a turn… and with italian navy sunk at round 4 or 5 only a defesive tool for germany ( africa retaken by allies at that point.)

so we have come to the conclusion that italy really needs an IC in egypt to be of any help to germany.  by the time allies have taken egypt and the IC , japan will be there to enter land war against US in africa. an IC really commits one of UK/US to really fight for africa or UK  goes under 20 IPC… this gains time for japan to reach the european theatre, this takes pressure of germany.

if G1 takes egypt, italy can only shuffle about 6 -10 units over to africa before his navy is sunk. plus he cant really produce in italy cuz he needs to repair factory damage.

Just had an 8 hour game with the 1941 setup. We played with NOs and techs enabled and I was Allies.
G starts by buying 7 inf and 2 researchers. It then attacks the CA and DD, the single DD and the 3 russian territories. G attacks Egypt with the BMR but it fails.
Russia counterattacks and retakes Baltic and Ukr. It moves 4 inf into China and masses all the inf on Bur.
J attacks EE, Borneo, Philippines, US BB and DD/TRN plus 3 chinese territories. It leaves the DD/TRN off India alone.
UK buys 1 IC for India and builds a carrier. The BB land units on Algeria.
Italy buys 1 DD and counterattacks on Algeria.
US starts building a fleet on the Pacific and gets 2 researchers.

From that moment on, the game went like this:

G and R were trading territories. G managed to conquer Karelia once but couldn’t keep it. Besides fighting G, R managed to sent some 9 tanks to help in China. J tried to attack India on J3 but failed due to the AA shooting 3 planes out of 5. Meanwhile it built some ships to counter the US buildup and had to deal with the Chinese and the Russians on China. After defending China, the UK moved to Burma and kept attack FIC. This, and conquering both Norway and Finland, securing Africa and liberating EE and Borneo (the Indian TRN went back to Australia and a US TRN moved from the Solomon) gave the UK a massive income (+50). Italy tried to attack the UK fleet off Algeria and lost big time. The US fleet eventually grew to 3 ACs, 1 CA, 2 DDs, 4 SUB. When we decided to end the game it had attacked and sunk the J fleet off Japan with the help of 8 jet fighters and 1 BMR (against 2 AC, 1 BB, 2 DD, 2 SUB and 4 FTR).

The game wasn’t really decided at the end, we stopped because of getting really tired but it was really interesting, although the Axis made some bad mistakes.

I hit SZ56 with 2 FGT and %3 with the DD and 2 FGT. In non combat I put the CVs and the surviving fighters in SZ51. I also withhold the CA from SZ50 using the BB only. I position the CA with the fleet in SZ51. I have had the US get cocky and attack this fleet. Yeah it cost me a CV I could replace and it cost the US a wad of units that were going to take several rounds to replace.