AA50 1941 w/NO - Allied Allways Win

Even an unopposed Japan still takes 5, 6 turns to get to Mos.  That is a lot of time for the Allies.  Just because the Allies may initially ignore Japan does not mean they aren’t planning to confront them.  Remember the early Japanese push forces them to go three routes to pick up all the Asia IPC.  They have to go north, central, and south.  Well the Allies can have the option of picking off one or two of those stacks as they approach Mos if Japan doesn’t plan things right.  For example a Russian stack in Novo can threaten North and Central, while Cauc can threaten Per.  This alone could be a huge set back for Japan.  It is definitely not a gimmie that Japan can control the ME or even get to Afr in a KGF type game.

I haven’t played enough games to say one way or another which side might have the adv from the start, but from an attackers pov I don’t really like the number of Germany and Japan attacks that must be done in round 1.  Yes for the most part they are all very winnable (Egy aside), but still the odds are pretty decent 1 or more go south.  I’ve already had one game where Germany got smoked trying to take out the UK DD/CA in sz 12 and even lost another ftr in Sz 6, another game where Japan got hammered at Pearl and the US BB lived, and yet another where Japan took a beating trying to sink the UK DD at Ind and US DD in Sz 56 and they lost 4 ftrs in those two battles alone. 
The additon of Sud also really slows down the Axis expansion in Afr as well.

Yep, I agree that the Axis are very reliant on most if not all of their turn 1 attacks succeeding. If they pooch a few of them, they are going to have an uphill fight most of the game IMO. And yep, even if they are all 90%+ battles, odds are at least ONE of them is going to go poorly. I think in that sense, the Allies do have an advantage.

But if you play the odds and dont get totally zapped, I think it balances out very well on both sides. It is amusing that popular consensus around here back in December was that the Axis couldnt lose in 41….

@Uncle_Joe:

But if you play the odds and dont get totally zapped, I think it balances out very well on both sides. It is amusing that popular consensus around here back in December was that the Axis couldnt lose in 41….

Which is precisely why I, and many others, rejected all forms of bidding or other changes to help the allies out and why I (and I think many others) am rejecting all forms of bidding or other changes to help the axis out now.

As soon as you have 1000 games under your belt, THEN and only then, do I think you are qualified to say the game needs a balance adjustment.

Right now the allies have gone 100% KGF.  This results in a 90+ IPC Japan before Berlin falls.  That’s a bloody aweful lot of power to put in the hands of one nation, IMHO.  It’s almost better to have 90 IPC in one nation than 50 IPC in each of two nations.

90 ipc is probably enough money for japan to supress UK and russian income via strategic bombing, as well as sinking the atlantic fleets. As long as germany can turtle up and get a massive stack of infantry to hold off the current forces there may be no reinforcements.

Which is precisely why I, and many others, rejected all forms of bidding or other changes to help the allies out and why I (and I think many others) am rejecting all forms of bidding or other changes to help the axis out now.

As soon as you have 1000 games under your belt, THEN and only then, do I think you are qualified to say the game needs a balance adjustment.

Yep, I absolutely 100% agree. I just remember seeing those ‘How do we balance the 41 scenario since the Axis never lose’ threads and its amusing how the pendulum has swung. ;)

Its just going to be strategy and counter-strategy for a while. I cant imagine changing the game based on a few games worth of play. I’ve played prolly close to 20 game and I still see new things EVERY game (especially if you play with completely different people).

“Right now the allies have gone 100% KGF.  This results in a 90+ IPC Japan before Berlin falls.”

No way.  Even Uncle Joe (who thinks the Axis can win) says Japan at 70.
I think Japan peaks at about 65 (50 + all 3 National Objectives).

Uncle Joe-
  In both of your and our games, the situation appears to be about the same. I agree with your numbers in the broad sense (though I think Japan is slightly lower-65 rather than 70). Its what happens next that matters.

At roughly the end of turn 5, your numbers are approximately right.  Japan has taken India, China, Australia, all of the Pacific (more or less-maybe not quite all of China, maybe all of China but not yet Australia, but generally right).  US/UK have landed in Morocco (or have landed, and perhaps been kicked out of, western Europe).  Germany is on the defensive in the East (probably holding Poland, perhaps holding one or two of the border regions in Russia).  Russia is getting the strength to continue pushing west.  italy/Germany hold the top part of Africa (minus Morocco) and perhaps part of the interior of Africa (from blitzing German tank).

But now, US/UK threaten to either permanently hold western europe or conquer Italy (and take their money), and will be pouring 6-10 ground forces into Europe per turn.  Thus, Germany/Italy have to defend western Europe.  Which allows Russia to continue to press from the East (into Poland, into Rumania/Balkans, wherever Germany is weakest).  Germany/Italy lose their national objectives (US/UK in western Europe as well as Morocco-sometimes Gibraltar just to ruin the NO).  ON TURN 6:  Italy probably falls.  Poland possibly falls (and Germany proper is now threatened by all 3 allies).

Japan: to achieve 65 income, at the end of turn 5, they have: a fleet down in Australia.  A fleet in India.  Some (not alot) ground forces in Western/central China.  some (not alot) ground forces in India.  Factories in Japan and a few coastal areas-perhaps Manchuria, Vietnam, maybe even the islands in the Pacific worth 4.  Thus, ON TURN 6: Japan build a whole bunch of ground forces-in Japan, in Manchuria, in Vietnam (which are 3 turns from the front lines!!-they won’t be in the fight until turn 9!).  The fleet near India can threaten Madagascar or the east coast of Africa (worth maybe 2-3 income).  The fleet in Australia spends turns 6,7 and maybe 8 just getting somewhere useful.  The ground forces in China and India plod one space forward-to the space west of India, to the space west of western China-for another 2 dollars.

In short, I think your and our games are pretty similar at the end of turn 5.  But turn 6, Italy falls, Japan builds a bunch of stuff in Japan, and captures 4 dollars worth of irrelevance in central asia and east africa.  Japan may be a monster, but its an irrelevant monster.

Steve

I disagree. Without the USA projecting any force into the Pacific, there is no threat on the Japanese Carrier fleet whatsoever. Ever seen what that fleet can do when it moves into the Atlantic? Three Carriers, a Battleship, a Cruiser and 6 fighters will be more than a match for anyhing the US/UK have built. If the US/UK build more because they can see the fleet coming, that will be another 40-60 IPC not being converted into units sent against Europe.

I played a game yesterday where the USA built a Pacific Fleet but took too long to take the fight to the Japanese (me). The Japanese ran away with the Pacific, taking everything in two turns. On turn three, Japan took India (with UK factory). On turn four, Heavy Bombers were bombing Moscow and Stalingrad, making sure that Russia had to spend money repairing the factories.

Whatever strategy you may come up with, there will be a counter-strategy. Ofcourse, finding it is step one and executing it well enough to make a difference is step two. However, imho it is a serious mistake to not put any pressure on Japan at all, other than that posed by the Chinese (Japan taking out the fighter on turn one will take care of that), Russian Infantry (if Russia creates a stack next to Manchuria, Japan needs to take it out ASAP to make room for a Factory) and two small fleets of British ships (who can take undefended islands from Japan). Without a India Factory and/or a USA presence in the Pacific, the Japanese Fleet will be able to do what it wants (project power) and move wherever it wants (support of Germany/Italy through the Mediteranian), taking all NO’s from the USA/UK that are based there.

Japan can take India on turn two and move into Stalingrad from India. Supported by fighters and bombers, Japan will take it from Russia and Russia cannot afford to loose the income and grant Germany 5 IPC as well as Japan a factory next to Moscow. Russia’s main weakness is that, while it has the capacity of producing 12 units, half of it is located outside moscow and can be taken away by a savvy Axis player. The new Tank Drive to Moscow goes not through Siberia, but through India!

Ofcourse, executing this strategy in such a way that it makes a difference early enough will be a challenge.

When dealing with Japan in a KGF, you aren’t as much concerned with what Japan does in rds 1-5 (b/c Germany is the primary early threat), it is after that where it is key.  That’s why UK ICs on India are a mistake as are Russian stacks in Bury.  Tactical retreat is the way to go.  Russia has like 10+ inf that they can simply retreat from the East and the UK has a decent sized delaying army that can be retreated to Per and then Cauc.  By the time that happens the UK and US should be going from Lib to Egy.

Just because you don’t confront them early doesn’t mean you don’t plan on fighting them, you are just picking a more advantageous battle ground where you can potentially use all three Allies, not just one.

In a KGF you do not have to take Berlin/Rome you just have to neutralize their ability to actually take Moscow.

This thread alone displays the balance between the Axis and Allies perfectly.

Here we have half of the posters saying Axis rule, and the other half saying Allies rule.
Let’s all switch sides and try and prove how wrong the other half is!  :-D

I think you are giving the Japanese wayyyy too much space to do as he wishes. Retreating means that you are not putting any pressure on Japan at all. This means that Japan can do those battles easily and without commiting any fighters. I know Japan starts with 9 fighters, but playing as Japan there never seem to be enough of them. Ofcourse, if I only face resistance made up of 1 infantry then there will be enough of them.

If the UK/US retreat and let Japan have their way, those fighters will be in StalinGrad on turn 4/5, along with Japanese Infantry and/or Tanks. And moving those paltry four UK units from India to Ukraine is not going to change that.

When dealing with Japan in a KGF, you aren’t as much concerned with what Japan does in rds 1-5 (b/c Germany is the primary early threat), it is after that where it is key.

Yes, and in those 5 turns, Japan grew into a monster, receiving 55-60 PC a turn, moving the Japanese fleet into position near Italy, buyng bombers to start threatening Moscow (and with any luck on the Japanese side, those will be Heavy Bmbers), having a Factory in India turning out 3 tanks a turn to throw against Ukraine along with a smattering of infantry (another idea I’ve seen is to build a Factory on one/two islands, producing another 4 units).

That’s why UK ICs on India are a mistake as are Russian stacks in Bury.  Tactical retreat is the way to go.  Russia has like 10+ inf that they can simply retreat from the East and the UK has a decent sized delaying army that can be retreated to Per and then Cauc.

I might agree about the Russian stack in Asia, but the India Factory might be a good one, depending on wether the UK can hold India for another turn (Russian support possibly needed). But this has to be combined with a US pacific presence that threatens Japan from the west. This will cause insane amounts of logistical problems for Japan. If you leave Japan alone it will come back to haunt you.

By the time that happens the UK and US should be going from Lib to Egy.

You might get there when? About turn 4/5? Precisely in time to get kicked out by the Japanese, who will take Egypt with an insane amount of planes and several tanks.

IMHO a good Japanse player will know what to do with the room that he is given. Japan can do a lot, and if its allowed to run free through the pacific it will conquer the pacific in 2-3 turns at most. By that time, its fleet and airforce is positioned near India, its army has pacified large chucks of chineese territory. A turn later Japan might even think about conquering Hawai just to deny the US its National Objective.

That, and given that a good German/Italy player will start buying more defensively when it sees the US coming will make sure that the strategy in itself can be countered. Then it is only a matter of skill……

(another idea I’ve seen is to build a Factory on one/two islands, producing another 4 units).

Hey! That wa smy idea!  :-P

It’s a long shot though, but I like it. If you place an IC on East Indies, you can pop out two ground units, a transport, and a fighter every turn (and after two rounds, you dont need to buy any more transports, and just shuttle). A nice combat force that can hit Australia, 50% of Pacific Islands, India, Persia, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, and the rest of the African East coast.

It’s an expensive gimmick, but a fun one  :-)

@marcelvdpol:

I think you are giving the Japanese wayyyy too much space to do as he wishes. Retreating means that you are not putting any pressure on Japan at all.

No, it means not putting pressure on Japan until you (the Allies) have the Advantage. 
Think of it this way, what can do more damage, the Russian inf scattered throughout Asia or one big stack of them on Novo on R5?  The stack is more valuable b/c now you have support from all the Russian armor you were buying in the rds 1-5 that get placed in Mos or Cauc.  Your early advance by Japan is meaningless b/c once you get through China you have to stop until you are certain you have enough force to move or merge your stacks.  Which is easier said than done considering Japan starts extremely weak in Asia and usually makes Phil/Aus a J1-2 priority.  You’re 50-60 income earned in J3-4, etc, doesn’t hit Russia until Round 7, 8, 9, etc.

@marcelvdpol:

If the UK/US retreat and let Japan have their way, those fighters will be in StalinGrad on turn 4/5, along with Japanese Infantry and/or Tanks. And moving those paltry four UK units from India to Ukraine is not going to change that.

No, those 4-5 UK units now get back up from 2-4 ftrs + bom stationed in Cauc.  Again, it is not that easy for Japan to simply march 1-2 inf stacks through Ind, Chi, and Northern Russia.  For Example if I stack Per and Japan moves 2-3 inf in Ind I can counter with 1-2 + 3-4 planes and wipe those guys out.  Or I further my retreat and strike when you try to go to Per.

@marcelvdpol:

Yes, and in those 5 turns, Japan grew into a monster, receiving 55-60 PC a turn, moving the Japanese fleet into position near Italy, buyng bombers to start threatening Moscow (and with any luck on the Japanese side, those will be Heavy Bmbers), having a Factory in India turning out 3 tanks a turn to throw against Ukraine along with a smattering of infantry (another idea I’ve seen is to build a Factory on one/two islands, producing another 4 units).

That income in terms of useable units doesn’t come into play for another 4-5 turns.
The Canal need to be open for Japan to help Ita, and the Canal is permantely closed by UK4 (units landed in Alg on UK2/US2). 
Japan needs to buy bombers first, which cost money.  Then invest in the Tech and then get it.  If we are playing that game I might as well say well, either the UK or US will have HB at this point too and Germany and Ita will have no income.

I do like a Japan factory on EI, the earlier the better, but factories cost IPC as well, which are not units marching on Mos.
Infact I like the EI + Ind combo for 7 units, but you still need Ger/Ita to hang in there for 6,7,8 rounds and remain a threat to Russia.

@marcelvdpol:

You might get there when? About turn 4/5? Precisely in time to get kicked out by the Japanese, who will take Egypt with an insane amount of planes and several tanks.

The flow of US troops through Afr is constant from round 2 on.  Japan cannot push the Allies out without pulling pressure off Moscow.  UK/US land in Alg in rd 2 and rd 3, the US continues while UK goes to Sz 6.  Ita must be protected with at least a token force from a sneaky US attack and by rd 5 Japan must make a serious commitment to even attempt to contest Afr.  I’ll gladly trade US inf for Japan inf b/c UK is reinforcing Russia by landing 8 units per turn in Kar.

@marcelvdpol:

IMHO a good Japanse player will know what to do with the room that he is given. Japan can do a lot, and if its allowed to run free through the pacific it will conquer the pacific in 2-3 turns at most. By that time, its fleet and airforce is positioned near India, its army has pacified large chucks of chineese territory. A turn later Japan might even think about conquering Hawai just to deny the US its National Objective.

Japan can defintiely do a lot, but can the crack the defense of all 3 Allies combined in The Cauc/Per/Kaz/Mos area?
You’ll need more than just a 10-20 ipc unit lead for several turns to do so, and I think that is easier said than done.

I certainly think it can be done, but it is no gimmie that it is automatically over if Japan hits 60-65.  You still have to make good moves.

I prefer FIC, Burma, India if you want to go that route.  Now you don’t tie up transports and ships protecting them.

Uncle Joe-
  In both of your and our games, the situation appears to be about the same. I agree with your numbers in the broad sense (though I think Japan is slightly lower-65 rather than 70). Its what happens next that matters.

At roughly the end of turn 5, your numbers are approximately right.  Japan has taken India, China, Australia, all of the Pacific (more or less-maybe not quite all of China, maybe all of China but not yet Australia, but generally right).  US/UK have landed in Morocco (or have landed, and perhaps been kicked out of, western Europe).  Germany is on the defensive in the East (probably holding Poland, perhaps holding one or two of the border regions in Russia).  Russia is getting the strength to continue pushing west.  italy/Germany hold the top part of Africa (minus Morocco) and perhaps part of the interior of Africa (from blitzing German tank).

But now, US/UK threaten to either permanently hold western europe or conquer Italy (and take their money), and will be pouring 6-10 ground forces into Europe per turn.  Thus, Germany/Italy have to defend western Europe.  Which allows Russia to continue to press from the East (into Poland, into Rumania/Balkans, wherever Germany is weakest).  Germany/Italy lose their national objectives (US/UK in western Europe as well as Morocco-sometimes Gibraltar just to ruin the NO).  ON TURN 6:  Italy probably falls.  Poland possibly falls (and Germany proper is now threatened by all 3 allies).

Japan: to achieve 65 income, at the end of turn 5, they have: a fleet down in Australia.  A fleet in India.  Some (not alot) ground forces in Western/central China.  some (not alot) ground forces in India.  Factories in Japan and a few coastal areas-perhaps Manchuria, Vietnam, maybe even the islands in the Pacific worth 4.  Thus, ON TURN 6: Japan build a whole bunch of ground forces-in Japan, in Manchuria, in Vietnam (which are 3 turns from the front lines!!-they won’t be in the fight until turn 9!).  The fleet near India can threaten Madagascar or the east coast of Africa (worth maybe 2-3 income).  The fleet in Australia spends turns 6,7 and maybe 8 just getting somewhere useful.  The ground forces in China and India plod one space forward-to the space west of India, to the space west of western China-for another 2 dollars.

In short, I think your and our games are pretty similar at the end of turn 5.  But turn 6, Italy falls, Japan builds a bunch of stuff in Japan, and captures 4 dollars worth of irrelevance in central asia and east africa.  Japan may be a monster, but its an irrelevant monster.

It sounds like the German/Italy players werent playing with an eye on survival (ie, they were actually trying to make headway into Russia) and the Japanese player has been building for the immediate advantage rather than the long-term advantage.

The only time I’ve seen a KGF succeed was when we had a lesser experienced Japanese player and they failed to coordinate with Germany/Italy. Sure, they had an income out the wazoo (the 65+), but as you say, they werent ‘relevant’ to the rest of the game. The trick is to MAKE Japan relevant. And as I’ve said before, the easiest way to do that is ICs in Asia churning out tanks (about 6-8/turn) and especially bombers to support the tanks and remove Russia’s econ. At the very worst, I’d be prepared to trade Italy for Russia, but I dont think that even has to happen if Italy has been playing with an eye towards simple survival.

IMO, once the Allies commit to KGF, THEY are ‘on the clock’. With a monster Japan, its only a matter of time to Russia is GONE (much faster if Russia cant build units due to Japanese SBR). So with that in mind, Italy and Germany’s SOLE goal is to survive. Trading your whole air force for the Brit fleet is worth it if it costs them 2 turns to rebuild (at LEAST, since her econ is going to suck). Beyond that, infantry and planes while the econ holds, then infantry/tanks and finally just infantry. With even EQUAL econ, I really dont see the US and UK getting ahead at that point. They just have too much overhead and too much to protect from air power to be able to land into 10-12 infantry and a few planes.

Finally, since its all about TIME for the Axis, the Japanese can cost the US time by invading Alaska (which forces a defensive commitment and/or a counter-attack) and threatening Mexico/Panama etc from the Pacific. As was noted, there is nothing that says that Japan’s fleet has to stay in the Pacific either. Since they are likely to be taking Africa, its not much of a stretch to get some CV’s into the Med or South Atlantic. Which again, greatly adds to the US/UK headaches of protecting their fleet. Germany can hit any fleet with air, followed up by Japanese air (including bombers which can easily stage to Poland).

Personally, I think the Allies have a very good chance of winning the game, but not with KGF. A good Axis TEAM should be hold out until the Cavalry arrives.

No, it means not putting pressure on Japan until you (the Allies) have the Advantage.
Think of it this way, what can do more damage, the Russian inf scattered throughout Asia or one big stack of them on Novo on R5?  The stack is more valuable b/c now you have support from all the Russian armor you were buying in the rds 1-5 that get placed in Mos or Cauc.  Your early advance by Japan is meaningless b/c once you get through China you have to stop until you are certain you have enough force to move or merge your stacks.  Which is easier said than done considering Japan starts extremely weak in Asia and usually makes Phil/Aus a J1-2 priority.  You’re 50-60 income earned in J3-4, etc, doesn’t hit Russia until Round 7, 8, 9, etc.

“Your early advance by Japan is meaningless”

It is? You describe it yourself, by J3-4 you are at 50-60 income.
And what is your threat as Japan? Just 1 stack of defense, of on opponent that also needs to fucos on Germany.
With…30?..income. Russia can afford only one battle, while Japan can easily afford 2, maybe 3. In a row.

If Japan is given that much space early on because Russia and the other Allied players are prepapring and retreating for 1 good blow by turn4 or 5, Japan will have a field day in getting all of the Allied income and territories.

Make sure Germany can withstand that first round 4 blow, and the Allies are broke, and without units.
And then Japan starts kicking.

Darth if you would like to test how deadly that KGF approach and ignoring or delaying attending to Japan let me know. I would be more than happy to play against it as the Axis.

@a44bigdog:

Darth if you would like to test how deadly that KGF approach and ignoring or delaying attending to Japan let me know. I would be more than happy to play against it as the Axis.

Sure, I’ll play you but I’ve got to finish up one of my other ones first, unless you don’t mind a slower pace.
Also I will not guarantee that I use the moves described word for word.  I’d rather just play a game and whatever happens happens.

I’ve found through numerous “test” games (trying to delibrate test something) the game breaks down because one side delibrate ignores something that they would never ever ignore in a “real” game knowing the other thing is being tested thus it becomes skewd. I just want to make this clear b/c I really think everyone has their own ideas on what a KGF may be so I want to make sure (I as the Allies) have the freedom to actually put up the best defense/offense possible.

EDIT:

I am also talking about a No Tech game.

Darth a slow pace is fine by me. I am only around on the weekends anyway so even the games that me and my opponents play hard in tend to go a while. I will even make an exception to my policy of not playing no tech games as this is a test game and techs can greatly change and influence strategies.

I also agree with your statement about test games, heck I have done things in the past in games just to show they are possible. I also find that many times the conditions of the game totally invalidate what was to be tested in the first place. I could be wrong but I think in a KGF scenario Italy would about have to be destroyed first. I also understand that you may pressure Japan, however I do not expect to see the US dumping nothing but ships off the California coast for the first few turns. I will get G1 up in a bit.

@Cmdr:

Germany needs to pound Russia EXTREMELY hard in round 1.  It’s your only chance.  So far, I’ve seen Germany win almost every game of KG/KIF if they take Karelia, Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine on Round 1 (that would include sinking SZ 2 and SZ 12).

uh… how in the world can you take Karelia, SZ12, AND SZ 2 in round 1??  not to mention, how do you sink sz2 & 12 if you are sending 4 fighters to karelia like you said??

@a44bigdog:

Darth a slow pace is fine by me. I am only around on the weekends anyway so even the games that me and my opponents play hard in tend to go a while. I will even make an exception to my policy of not playing no tech games as this is a test game and techs can greatly change and influence strategies.

I also agree with your statement about test games, heck I have done things in the past in games just to show they are possible. I also find that many times the conditions of the game totally invalidate what was to be tested in the first place. I could be wrong but I think in a KGF scenario Italy would about have to be destroyed first. I also understand that you may pressure Japan, however I do not expect to see the US dumping nothing but ships off the California coast for the first few turns. I will get G1 up in a bit.

Cool sounds like we are on the same page.  The reason I thought about the tech thing was if the US got shipyards, super subs, LRA, HB, or even paratroopers any one of these can really help in the Pac so at that point it might make more sense to do something in the Pac.