Soviets should not be able of reaching 30, maybe 27-28 at best, counting Finland. But I’m pretty sure Germany can at least trade soviet territories and reach 29-30. If Italy manages escape to Indian ocean, they could take and hold saf, mad or some other African territories (if not, the italian income would be 9 :-D).
Still, let’s say both sides gain equal income. Soviets must still face a Japan who almost doubles them. And there is the more powerful Alaska path: even supposing a economic parity for JTDTM, Alaska path gives me economic superiority as axis, that’s the bigger danger trying KGF, not the JTDTM.
With Soviets taking both Finland and Norway (which is quite normal in an KGF) they are at +5. And no Germany won’t be able to trade Russian countries in a KGF game, they simply don’t have enough infantry to do so. Russia will lose some to Japan but with +5 plus maybe even trading Poland/Bulgaria they are pretty damn strong.
As for Japanese - Alaska route I know you think it’s a very strong strategy but to be honest I havent heard anyone on this forum about that except you, let alone somebody really taking and holding Western Canada, let alone Western USA. And considering the long route the Japanse have to go I doubt one can really bog down the USA 100% to the West Coast and not going KGF.
The dilemma seems to be this one:
Japan can’t be ignored because it gets too strong…
… but since it gets too strong, it’s impossible to deal with… :roll:
bottom line: seems Japan to get too strong, no matter what
Now… there would be a way of making this game balanced and forget about the KGF strategy: i_ndividual winners for real_. I mean: each country should need certain victory cities to be declared the winner. Allied nations can’t fight each other, but their objectives in the war are not the same.
It would be a different Game – and you should still make Japan weaker for 1941, or Japan will win every game.
But you won’t have a KGF anymore…
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
By either pimping USSR a bit, so it’s not that much of a helpless prey, or by giving the Germans a bit bigger edge against UK, by pimping their initial fleet. (and give them the feared amount of U-boats they actually had).
Or V2 missiles from start. Or whatever.
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
yes, it would
I hate the fact that it’s always KRF for the Axis
but few people cares about that – maybe because there aren’t many Russians playing the game? :roll:
but I guess that KGF should be easier to fix than KRF
At least there should be a way to balance the game in a way where you have to fight in the entire world
If the Japanese have to fight the Americans, they can’t go after Moscow… real war was like that (although Japanese Army couldn’t have taken Moscow ever in real life).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…Wouldn’t it be interesting if you would at least have a chance to go for UK?
Some Sea Lion potential would be nice, for sure. The Axis can go for the UK, but not for it’s capitol. Rather the Axis can focus on crippling the British economy - take India, Australia, and Africa ASAP. This is a different approach from bee lining it to Moscow, though Russia will be the first to fall either way (should the Axis prevail).
Random thoguht: Why is everyone always worried that A&A is, and always will be, about KGF?
I mean…I have never seen any other objective for the Axis to go for a KRF. Talking about repetitive…
With the advent of victory cities and the variable victory conditions they allow, you COULD have a game that was not ALL about taking Russia or going all out after Germany. Thing is, Revised fell a little short utilizing this new game concept of victory cities.
There was (and continues to be) plenty of discussions about what territories SHOULD be VC’s and what should not. All I can add is that through plenty of personal experience, one particular variant rules set A&ARe (a.k.a. Enhanced) DID allow games to be won without focusing on KRF or KGF tatics. In fact, often times, those were sub-optimal strategies in Enhanced games.
I imagine that there will eventually be some variant rules that enable this same sort of decreased reliance on the KRF / KGF strategies for AA50.
IBut I really think that their main strenght is the fleet they can use to control the mediterranean.
Italy is weak, but you’re right. The problem really is once you lose that fleet Italy is a lost cause.
I don’t think Italy will necessarily win Africa as well, the odds are in England’s favor.
As for Japanese - Alaska route I know you think it’s a very strong strategy but to be honest I havent heard anyone on this forum about that except you, let alone somebody really taking and holding Western Canada, let alone Western USA. And considering the long route the Japanse have to go I doubt one can really bog down the USA 100% to the West Coast and not going KGF.
I had taken and hold Wcan (for 1 round) in Revised two times with this strat (and trade Cusa and Ecan). You have more money and more starting trannies now as Japan, and the route to Alaska and Wcan is, in fact, shorter than to Moscow with the new map, so now should be easier go to America than in Revised. And yes, It can force USA to defend West Coast at least to 90%, so forget going KGF with USA if axis try this.
And Japan can still send guys to Asia. Collecting more than 60 IPCs aids a lot
I’m not totally convinced that its a complete KGF game. I think what we are seeing is people not yet maximizing Japan’s potential in a KGF situation. Japan can be making as much money as the US (or more) in short order if left alone. And that means that Russia is going to be losing territory and being SBR’ed into the Stone Age from the East. IMO, Germany and Italy can certainly afford to play a little more defensively against Britain/US than Russia can against Japan. And a successful Japan will be taking money from all three Allied players.
Personally I think things are set up to allow for Britain and USSR to fighting Germany and Italy while the US primarily tackles Japan. The end results of that type of play seem to be fairly historical (although the actual mechanics of Japan having anywhere NEAR the production capability of the US is insane, I believe it necessary for gameplay purposes). If the US is pressuring Japan, that can save the Brits some money in India/Australia and sometimes the Indies and Borneo. It also can save Russia from being hit in the back. Japan can either keep up with the US fleet production or she can take on Russia. Even with 40+ IPCs a turn she really cant do both. And its harder to hold onto those 40+ IPCs if the US keeps filtering raids into the South Pacific (or any Brit survivors threaten the islands).
Our first few games were definately KGF. Japan seemed so unbeatable in the Pacific that the US players just gave up and went after Germany. The Japanese players were not fast enough to translate that into relief for Germany/Italy and the Allies won. After that, our Japanese play started to improve. The next time the US abandoned the Pacific the Japanese gobbled up India, Australia, the islands giving the US bonus money, and were driving hardcore into Russia. They took Alaska and were threatening the Continental US as well. They still didnt move as quickly as they could and the idea of SBRing Russia was late. But it was scary indeed to see the Japanese making almost 60 IPCs a turn and cranking out tanks on the mainland and bombers to smash the econ. Suffice it to say, the next games we played, the US and Brits were back fighting for the Pacific! Since then we’ve learned a bit about US Pacific strategy as well and we’ve started to see more diverse battles at sea.
I think KGF is probably a viable strat. But I do not believe it is the only viable one or even the optimal one. And I think once people become better at utilizing Japan it will become less and less of an appealing strat than people seem to think. I believe that this will actually result in a more balanced approach towards global strategy than in any of the previous A&A editions.
My opponent tried a global strategy with USA last weekend. He probably put 90% of builds in the Pacific. I was able to hold him off as Japan(shocker). But what I did on J1 is send my closest CV and 2 fighters to the Med to protect Italian navy. It worked like a charm and the navy survived until the last round(6). By then it was too late I had Africa most of the game and I was attacking Caucus the last 3-4 rounds. Japan never even missed that Carrier.
Japan still took Asia, India, and held all of eastern Russia with USA going 90% into Pacific.
Italy is a seperate power. We have a USA controlled China. I wonder if it would have been a good idea to have Austrailia as a UK controlled miner power with an IC and some income with English convoy income(THINK AAP). Forgive my history knowledge but Austrailia was it’s own nation and India still a colony???
Italy is weak, but you’re right. The problem really is once you lose that fleet Italy is a lost cause.
Italy is not weak. What are you guys doing to lose Italy’s fleet so easily?
I don’t think Italy will necessarily win Africa as well, the odds are in England’s favor.
I think it’s strongly in favor of the Italians. Especially without a UK S. African IC.
@Flying:
But what I did on J1 is send my closest CV and 2 fighters to the Med to protect Italian navy. It worked like a charm and the navy survived until the last round(6). By then it was too late I had Africa most of the game and I was attacking Caucus the last 3-4 rounds. Japan never even missed that Carrier.
Exactly! If you’re playing with NOs, You can have a stocked Italian CV in the Med. at the end of round 2 as well. At the end of round 3 you can have two fully stocked CVs (1 Jap 1 Italian) in the Med. I see nothing that the Allies can do to stop this, especially with the US doing the predictable KGF and allowing Japan to do whatever they want.
JTDTM wont work in AA50–'41 or '42. That strat is dead now,IMHO. Not enough time for Japan to build an army capable of threatening the Russian backdoor. Maybe five or six tanks will get close by J4, but by then you can have 6-7 Allied fighters and 3-4 bombers based in Moscow destroying not only these front line units but also the reserves as they try to cut through China and East Russia.
/heavy deed
Not sure if JTDTM is dead that easily, Japan can still build a lot of aircraft to support the tank push. I’m thinking letting Japan go all the way to 60-70 IPCs is just impossible. I think the only place you can really stop the Japs is India. Yes, it looks hard but this is how you COULD do it (not tested out yet!):
In order for this strategy to work you need the US to occupy those 2 Jap CVs off Midway and their fighters in some way, probably threatening Phillippines, and keep this offensive going so that Japan can’t throw all they got at India. Also, UK will be needed to really help Russia ASAP as a reward for saving India-> expect tough fighting for Karelia. You will probably have to build a BB or 2 CA along with 2-3 DDs instead of that CV when you send away those fighters, and USA will have to send some ships and bombers into the Med. to deal with the Italian fleet. From turn 2 and on, UK and USA will have to build fighters and store them up in UK in order to send to Moscow when the Germans come knocking! The crucial thing will of course be if the Russians can survive the sending of 6 inf to India but I suspect it can be done since in most games I’ve played it was the Japs and not the germans that ended up in Moscow…
PS. The only counter for this strategy for the Japs seems to be to send the Midway fighters directly towards India and forgo Pearl Harbor-> But then I would love to play USA! And those Russians can just march back to Caucasus and you build that IC in South Africa. DS.
Lynxes, that’s a well thought out strategy and I think it could work. However, Russia’s western front may be too weakened by the loss of the infantry and 2 fighter build (on R1) to withstand an aggressive Germany and Italy. It would certainly be a precarious balancing act defending both Moscow and India.
Lynxes, that’s a well thought out strategy and I think it could work. However, Russia’s western front may be too weakened by the loss of the infantry and 2 fighter build (on R1) to withstand an aggressive Germany and Italy. It would certainly be a precarious balancing act defending both Moscow and India.
Perhaps some tanks instead of the ftrs.
4 tanks = 2 hits, just like the planes (or even more!)
If the Indian plan falls thru, the tanks can be used to take land against an agressive Germany/Italy.
I think if you do this as russia, throw the stack of 7 inf into Buryatia too. Keep Japan occupied
Yes, tanks are also a possibility. The only drawback is that if you strike back at Caucasus you will weaken India whereas fighters can land again in India. But yes, you can take 4 hits which is nice. You can also build 2 arm+1ftr. I assume you build 10 IPCs of extra defense units on R1.
When I think of it, Japan can’t even send their fighters from Midway west to strike at India on turn 2, they only reach Kiangsu! So the best Japan could do is to forgo the invasion of Phillippines and send those two transports normally used to invade there to prepare for India turn 2 invasion. Then Japan could have: 10 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 5 ftr+CA+BB shore bombard, for a total of 28 attack plus 7 shore bombard first round (assuming one ftr hit by AA), vs. that defence force of 28 for India (or 32 if you send in 4 Russian arm).
So, if you see a Japanese opening move of setting up all five transports to invade India, you should maybe not build that IC in India, but that seems to be the only counter to allow a J2 invasion! Maybe be could see some nice American strategy being developed to exploit such a scenario, such as aggressive naval builds which could really pay off if you have both the Jap cruiser and battleship off India!
When I think of it, Japan can’t even send their fighters from Midway west to strike at India on turn 2, they only reach Kiangsu! So the best Japan could do is to forgo the invasion of Phillippines and send those two transports normally used to invade there to prepare for India turn 2 invasion. Then Japan could have: 10 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 5 ftr+CA+BB shore bombard, for a total of 28 attack plus 7 shore bombard first round (assuming one ftr hit by AA), vs. that defence force of 28 for India (or 32 if you send in 4 Russian arm).
So, if you see a Japanese opening move of setting up all five transports to invade India, you should maybe not build that IC in India, but that seems to be the only counter to allow a J2 invasion! Maybe be could see some nice American strategy being developed to exploit such a scenario, such as aggressive naval builds which could really pay off if you have both the Jap cruiser and battleship off India!
Japan can forgo the invasion of the Philippines as you describe, but I think they must at least sink the Philippines DD and transport with their BB. If I’m Japan I can’t send that BB to India, no matter what’s happening there.
Japan can forgo the invasion of the Philippines as you describe, but I think they must at least sink the Philippines DD and transport with their BB. If I’m Japan I can’t send that BB to India, no matter what’s happening there.
Well, Japan can either attack that DD+trs with ftr from Formosa + DD from Carolines or divert 2 ftrs from the Midway force and forgo sinking the DD+trs off West Coast. But sending that BB to India is probably still very risky since it’s a big part of the Japanese naval dominance in the beginning-> USA will have a field day if only 2 CV+4ftr will be left vs. the entire USA Pacific fleet!
The more I play, the more convinced I am that the reason people are thinking the Axis have an advantage in the '41 scenario is because they are trying the same old KGF strategy. A US Pacific strategy is not only possible, but IMO, necessary. Japan makes entirely too much money, too quickly, for the Allies to allow her to translate that into pounding the Russians and the Brit holdings with impunity.
A US Pacific strategy basically forces the Japanese to respond in kind or else risk losing her high value islands and bonus money. Japan starts with an advantage in fleet strength (considerable after J1), but she has to split her attention (and income) between China, pressuring Russia, conquering the British holdings, and countering a US Pacific build. If you remove the threat of a US Pacific fleet, Japan can go hog wild on the other goals.
Conversely I do not believe that the US and Britain coordinate as well in the Atlantic as they did in AAR. Maybe it more perception than reality but it seems far easier for Germany/Italy to defend against US/Britain than it did in AAR. My guess is that that is intentional.
It will be interesting to see how this shapes up in the future, but my instinct is that the game is actually quite well balanced in '41… ;)
