@Cmdr:

I’m not overly worried about allied planes in China.  If they are in China, they are not attacking Germany or Italy.

However, I do think an amendment is in order, perhaps Japan should attack China on round 1 (to knock down the defenders, you can almost get every Chinese unit on Round 1 if you set it up right) then ignore them from that point on.

IC’s in Sumatra and India can handle the southern front while Japan feeds the northern front.  That’s 15 ground units a round (45-75 IPC a round) and remember, China is kinda stuck, they cannot leave China (except to reclaim Hong Kong, big whoop) and they’ll only have infantry to do it with.

Meanwhile, i am not seeing a huge contingent of red army in China because they are focusing on defending Caucasus/Kazakh and Novosibirsk/Urals from Japan while Germany threatens Belarus, East Ukriane, Ukraine and Karelia and Italy threatens Ukraine and Caucasus.

If you choose to wipe out all Chinese defenders on turn 1, then there’s not much resistance from continuing the offensive to control all of China outright.

A northern approach to Moscow is quite time consuming, especially if troops are debarking from Japan.  It might also be easier for the US to disrupt this approach, than a route through China or India.

I would only try an ignore China strategy if Germany employs an all out aggressive move toward Moscow.  The idea is to try to bring as many troops to bear against Russia as soon as possible.  The Axis would probably have one shot for a knock out blow.  If that fails, then it’s probably game over since they would be hard pressed to recover mid-game.

@Cmdr:

Hmm.  yea, that is an interesting opportunity cost.  I was thinking Russia would still be split because they have to defend against Japan in Persia, Urals/Novosibirsk and against Germany in Belarus, East Ukraine, Ukraine, Karelia with a potential threat from Italy in Caucasus.

But if Japan goes through China, it slogs them down making it harder to get to Russia and you lose a lot of equipment if the Allies fight you. (could get lucky round 1 and make it easier, but I wouldn’t really count on it.)

I’ve found that attacking Russia from the northern route is not that practical.  That route is useful for applying some pressure, but ultimately, the routes through China and India are much easier to sustain.

In games that I play, Russia is usually not hard pressed to defend against both Germany and Japan.  If the Allies attack Europe in force, then pressure on the eastern front is greatly reduced.  If USA concentrates on the Pacific, then Japan is not seriously threatening Russia until a few turns later than normal.

Finally, Japan can march through China with little effort.  It’s not uncommon to wipe out the entire Chinese army on turn 1 and leave them with only 3 territories and a single infantry after round 1 is complete.

Yes, I’ve tried this.  Overall, I wouldn’t recommend it.

Besides the loss in IPC over the course of several turns, the main reason I wouldn’t advocate this strategy is because it allows Russia to more easily defend against possible Japanese attacks.  Russia will have more flexibility to pile troops into territories like Persia since it never has to worry about an attack through China.

I’ve played several games that followed the scenario you described.  If the USA concentrates on KGF, this scenario has a reasonable chance of happening.  Japan races for Moscow while the Allies triple team Germany.

There were mixed results when the game became USA/UK vs Japan.  The Allies were usually victorious if Berlin was captured by USA.  If Berlin was was captured by UK, then Japan usually won.  When USA captures Berlin, it allows both USA/UK to reinforce Europe immediately in force.  If UK captures Berlin, then USA must continue to shuck troops across the Atlantic.

Play with out national objectives and several of the points you bring up are not as much of a factor.

In my gaming experience, KGF is popular because it often results in a swifter outcome.  The game is decided in fewer turns.  If the US decides to concentrate their efforts the Pacific, then the game usually takes longer to determine a victor.  However, I’ve found both strategies are generally balanced as Allies have not won an inordinate amount with any strategy.

But these are just my experiences.

I only play w/o NOs (no tech also) and I’ve found that format to be quite balanced for both teams.

I haven’t found a “best” strategy to consistently win with either side so far.  In this format, KGF is a viable strategy for the Allies, but so is USA going heavy Pacific.  The game is simply decided much earlier if the Allies choose the KGF strategy.

I usually beef up France and leave no men in NWE.  Troops in France can trade NWE and help retake Rome if necessary.

In one game I simply allowed the Allies to land in NWE and reinforce their beach head while Germany/Italy just turtled.  This worked in boxing in the Allied forces and prevented them from saving Russia as Japan moved into Moscow a few turns later.

@falconrider:

My friend and i have tried many rule variences and have come to the conclusion that with NO’s and/or fighter escort the axis are too strong and tech simply is too much of an unknown and can unbalance both ways.  We’ve found the most fun and balanced game is no NO’s, no tech, no fighter escorts and closing of the Dardanelles.

I play with the same rules except the closing of the Dardanelles.  I have found the game to be very balanced with that rule set so far.

If your scenario occurs on turn 3, then you must also account for any additional Japanese naval units that it would have been built in response to US Pacific builds.  It’s hard to say what the actual fleet would be composed of.  I was just commenting on the specific example you provided.  In that example, the battle cost the US more in IPC than Japan, and resulted in the US remnant fleet to be less capable of both offense and defense.  Sure if you brought additional reinforcements over after the battle then the fleet would be more difficult to defeat.  But that would still be the case even if you chose not to perform the air strike at all.  I would argue the US would have been in an even better position without the air strike.

IMO, the US does not need naval dominance in the Pacific.  It need only to build a fleet that Japan cannot sink (or sink with almost total loss).  Once built, the US can move to liberate some of the Pacific Islands.

Finally, much of the value of plane/sub attack depends on the opposing fleet to be ‘unprotected’.  Meaning that the opposing fleet will have an inadequate screen for their capital ships and carriers.  I just don’t think that relying on the opposing player to inadequately defend their fleet is reliable enough for me to invest in submarines.

I also wanted to comment on your assertion that a navy may be in a better position after performing an ‘air strike’.

In the scenario you outlined where the Japanese have 3 CV, 6 planes, BB, CA, DD against the US 2 CV, 4 planes, 2 DD, 4 SUB, you explain that defensively the US will be in a better position because they traded submarines for planes.

Yet, in that example, the US has greatly weakened both their defensive position as well as their offensive position after the air strike.  If the US elects to forgo the air strike and let the IJN attack it, the IJN will have about a 67% chance of winning when both navies are at full strength.  However, if the US chooses to perform a preemptive air strike, the remaining IJN force of 3 CV, 4 planes, BB, CA against the US 2 CV, 4 planes will have about a 96% chance of victory.

By performing such an air strike, you have squandered the fodder you desperately need to defend against the superior naval task force.