The Japan problem – 41 scenario

In my second game I, as the Ally player, focused the USA on Japan, the UK on waaay to many objectives including Africa, Normandy and Eurasia, and had Russian keeping Germany busy and trying to apply pressure to Eurasia. The USA destroyed Japan early in the game, sinking it’s entire Navy by turn … 2 or 3. The USA made two attempts at invading Japan, one with overwhelming odds and another with desperate odds. Of course, USA rolled horribly when they had overwhelming odds and didn’t take Japan. The second battle had average rolls and the USA invasion force was destroyed.

We played with tech and without NOs. USA didn’t get any tech until turn ~9, Japan had some insignificant tech. Keep in mind, niether of the players (we played with two people, 1v1) are AA50 experts so I’m sure there were some mistakes made.

You would have to be a really horrible player to get beat down using Japan. If you get crushed by the USA then I’d guess you are playing AA50 for the very first time. God himself could not beat me if I am Japan. He’d have to make the dice roll funny to make that happen.

Now, obviously, we are going to see KGIF in 99% of games(1941). After USA leaves the pacific and Japan is gaining say somewhere in the range of 35 ipcs per turn what would happen you think if Japan just held their ground and bought 2-3 bombers a turn and just SBR Moscow and Caucus? Would a strategy like that work? Could Germany roll Moscow before they are defeated? I’d like to see how that would play out, but only like one time because KGF is so fuckinng boooorring.

yes their is no KJF in AA50-41 unless you like to laugh at futility.

How necessary is it to commit to one Axis or the other?  Does it have to be KJF or KGF, or could it be simply Kill Axis First ( :-D)?  Isn’t it possible to win as the Allies without focusing “all” attention to one nation or the other?

Isn’t it possible to win as the Allies without focusing “all” attention to one nation or the other?

The short answer:  Probably.

The slightly longer answer:  Yes, but it’s going to take time.  People hate thinking outside the box.  People like to use tried and true methods to solve problems.  Face it, every single person here, playing as the Allies, is at least decent at the KGF strategy.  It’s been around for ages, numerous primers exists for it, and that’s what the “experts” were using when I first joined A&A.org.  Whenever a new iteration of A&A pops up, among the first things veterans asks is, “What’s changed?  (and a bit later)…  Can I still go KGF?”  People are dead set resistant to change, so until you show them a method that’s superior, they’ll stick to their guns.  Generally speaking.

And by superior, I mean the Allies CAN’T win if they go KGF.  They HAVE to adopt a different strategy.  Winning by a mile and winning by inches is still winning.

Even in AAR it’s important to slow Japan down, as much as possible. This doesn’t mean that you should start building navy in WUS.
In AAR KGF is without doubt the most effective strat whatsoever, but o/c it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to win by KJF.
All depends on the players, one can never play good or bad regardless of the opponent and/or dice rolls.

As for the 41 scenario, I don’t think Japan can be challenged until I see it, meaning, this strat being used against top players all the time…

@AxisOfEvil:

Are you sure you are not referring to the '42 scenario??  I see no possible way that the usa sunk 3 AC, 6 fighters, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 5 trans with 1 ac, 1 sub, maybe 1 destoyer if japan does not kill it, 4 fighters, 2 bombers by round 2 or 3.

We played the 41 scenario. I remember, as USA, building all sea units for the first few turns, while Japan built a Industrial Complex and started invading Russia. USA caught their fleet by surprise, separated in two different sea zones, and crushed it. I can’t recall the details of Japan’s moves, but it sounds like they made a mistake separating their fleet early.

@AxisOfEvil:

mind you, i havent played 42 version yet. that ultimately might be the version to play with this game.

Agreed. 1942 seems much more balanced than 1941, at least at first sight

I think you are incorrect here. I think all the players were hoping for reasons to meddle in the pacific with this version. I for one was, and I am disspointed that it isnt there. mind you, i havent played 42 version yet. that ultimately might be the version to play with this game.

I think most people here would say they are in favored of a active Pacific Theater.  However saying and doing are two different things.  And so far the majority of strategies and game reports seemed fixated on the Allies using KGF yet again.  This will change over time I hope.

I definitely think we’ll see some KJF’s or US Pac strats in time.  There are actually quite few things I’d like to try as the US, but it’ll just take some more games.

Also, you don’t have to actually kill Japan, just sink its fleet or keep it stuck in the Sz around Tokyo.  Once the fleet can’t move (or is gone), you can pick the easiest capital (still usually Germany in Revised) and take it out several rds later.

For example, I’ve had great success with a US - AC/ftr strat in Revised.  I see no reason why this can’t be attempted and used in AA50 (with modifications of course).

The general premise is to buy an AC and 2 ftrs every turn.  The ftrs can threaten multiple sea zones and once you move to Sol it becomes almost impossible to sink the AC without a massive commitment.  From there the US picks off the islands etc.

You still go after Japan and can get a feel for the Game.  How does Russia and the UK look?

Then immediately buy 1 AC, 1 ftr, + (subs/dd for fodder).

Rd 2 you can go 1 ac + 2 ftrs + ~12 ipc (for other stuff).

Japan has a mightly fleet to start, but they do have to take quite a few islands early.

Now the main question is can Russia hold out for 5-6 turns with only UK’s help and how poweful will Italy be with the US only commiting 2 inf per turn to Alg?

Another option I’d like to try as the US is some type of US Sub strat (talked about in other threads).

US 1 - buy 5 subs, 1 ftr
US 2 - buy 1 ac (+ ftr if needed), + 3 subs + other filler ships (or inf)

Essentially by US 3 you can have:
8 subs
1 dd (start with)
2 ac (1 start with)
4 ftrs (3 start with - maybe lose 1 in Pearl counter)
2 boms (start with)

Here you spent 62 IPC (8 sub + 1 AC), and you should have ~26 more ipc to spend (rd 1 - 40, rd 2 - ~48) meaning maybe you buy 1 more sub, 1 ca, 1 dd.

That is a 14 ship navy with 4 ftrs and 2 boms.  If Japan commits to trying to sink it, it will take quite a bit of effort.  Again the downside is:  can Russia hold out for 5-6 turns with only UK’s help and how poweful will Italy be with the US only commiting 2 inf per turn to Alg?

Also can the UK help with any of this? 
And just how much early help does Russia need?

These last two questions will depend on what will eventually become the “standard” G1 open, so Russia and UK can coordinate the best counters.

I wouldn’t rule out an Aus IC or Safr IC combined with US Pac strat but I’m usually not a fan of the early extra IC.  An Ind IC just seems like it might be too tough to hold, but you never know.