Not to mention that Japan would challenge both the USSR and USA in terms of industrial power and available resources in the post WWII period. With Japan controlling everything from Indonesia, the Philipines, Borneo, Korea, the Chinese coastline, South-east asia as well as all the shipping lanes between the western USA, Australia, India and the eastcoast of Africa, Japan would possibly out-do the USA and USSR.

Add to that that Japan would not have stopped expanding, so you could add China and India to the list of Japanese controlled territory, swelling the population in their Empire to about half of the earth’s total.

Avalon Hill/Wizards/Hasbro can really learn something from Fantasy Flight Games in this respect. FFG does loads of previews, articles about design decisions, pictures, rulebooks etc on their website. Their customer support is also really top-notch; when I bought Descent from them and was missing one die (one of the two yellow ones) I emailed them and got a complete set of dice for free.

I can really see why FFG is so popular these days; they make top-notch games and their product support and information-on-website are absolutely world class. Learn AH, learn!

There are plenty of alternative methods to kill the Axis, but NONE are viable unless Japan is seriously threatened by more than a defensive force. USA has to build up a fleet in the Pacific (using the Carrier&Destroyer and any fleet elements that survived J1) to at least threaten to take Japanese islands (denying Japan the NO’s for Islands and Australia). This can be done in USA1 with good buys (I recommend at least 2 Trans, 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer).

UK can build an IC in India if Japan did not focus enough material against India on J1. An IC in India as well as a USA pacific fleet can stretch the Japanese supply line to breaking point. USA can focus on Atlantic buys in USA2, when UK has already made sure that Germany/Italy will not move their fleets onto the atlantic. USA alternating its buys between Atlantic and Pacific seems to work well for me.

The idea is to build up a force against both Japan from two sides (India and Pacific) and against Germany from two sides (Russia and Atlantic). Knocking Italy out of Africa is not that hard but requires 8-10 units landing in Africa.

All these can be countered ofcourse, but it will require the Axis to play well. No freebies.

The Interceptor rule is from World at War isn’t it? I think it goes something like this:

• Before you roll for the damage the bomber does, you first have to fight against defending fighters. Fighters can take off and defend their country on 2’s. Bombers hit fighters on 1’s. The country sending the bombers can send along a fighter escort, which also hit at 2’s. Only bombers making it through the defensive fighter screen get to drop their bombs.
• AA guns work normally, which means they shoot before the fighters/bombers engage defending fighters.

The rule favours defenders, as currently there are very few ways to defend against Strategic Bombing. I might have the numbers wrong, but i’m sure this is the general idea.

If the current discussion shows anything, its that the game is not a clear-cut “Axis must win all the time”/“The axis don’t stand a chance” kind-of-game.

No one strategy is invincible, no one strategy is uncounterable. I think that the game will reward the better strategist and ofcourse the “lucky” player.

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……

Yes, there is. Japan will take Africa, and can do so as early as J3. As far as my games usually go:

G1: Germany jumps on Egypt. If Germany wins, so much the better. If Germany doesn’t, Italy will take it (I1). Italy will enjoy several turns of about 20 IPC (2 minimum, as that is how long it will take the UK or US to bring down a strikeforce large enough to take it out). What to do with 20 IPC? As Italy, I usually try to build a Carrier, a fighter and a Destroyer, but I should also be spending some money on ground forces.

While the USA is building up a fleet in the Atlantic, Japan takes control of the Pacific and all the Islands there, costing the US and UK several National Objectives. Because there is no US threat here (and probably the UK did not build a factory in India because of this), I race my Carriers as fast as possible in the direction of the Mediteranian, capturing India en-route. The Carriers can be there as early as turn four, meaning that the Italian fleet might still be alive and if it is not, then the US/UK will have to be watchfull for a Japanese fleet in the Atlantic.

In any case, this game is about the projection of Threat. Not projecting any Threat on Japan is imho a big mistake, as Japan will run rampant through the pacific, cutting off a lot of money for the UK/US, opening up the possibilities of invading Africa and/or Stalingrad. The latter one is specifically a huge problem for Russia, because of the limitation of the Russian Factory of 6.

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.